4117_A1SandrockCDLF_ MSEWall_PTC _Application_FID1389529_ 20200131

MSE BERM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
A-1 SANDROCK C&D LANDFILL
Solid Waste Permit 4117-CDLF-2008

Prepared for:

Greensboro, North Carolina

January 2020

Prepared by:

David Garrett & Associates
Engineering and Geology
December 16, 2019
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty III
A-1 Sandrock, Inc
2901 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
Subject: RESPONSE TO DRAFT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMENTS
“(DRAFT) Determination of Completeness for a Permit Application
A-1 Sandrock Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill (C&DLF)
Guilford County, North Carolina,
Permit No. 4117-CDLF-2008, Document ID No. (DIN) 28647”
Dear Mr. Petty:
The following is an item-by-item response to comments received from the NCDEQ Solid Waste
Section (SWS) concerning the subject application. These responses were prepared in conjunction
with a substantial update of the application completed in 2019 under the direction of the original
author (David Garrett, PE) by Summit Design and Engineering Services and peer-reviewed by a
third-party (SCS Engineers). SWS verbatim comments are captioned in quotations (below);
responses are highlighted.
Unless noted otherwise, references to sections, tables and drawings pertain to the enclosed Updated PTC Application (January 2020). The application was rewritten to focus specifically on the MSE
Berm, including a Facility Plan, Engineering Plan, Construction and CQA Plans, MSE Berm
Monitoring and Contingency Plan, and Financial Assurance calculation for Stages 1 and 2.
Amended Operations Plan, Closure Plan with CQA, Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan,
Groundwater and Landfill Gas Monitoring Plans are included in the Appendices.
“On September 29, 2017, the Solid Waste Section (SWS), Division of Waste Management (DWM) received a permit
application titled as “MSE Wall Permit to Construction and Facility Plan for A-1 Sandrock C&D Landfill (4117-CDLF-
2008) Phase 2B (the Application) dated September 14, 2017. The Application is on behalf of A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
prepared by AMEC Foster Wheeler Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC Foster Wheeler). Fitzpatrick
Engineering Associates (FEA), contracting A-1 Sandrock, Inc. designs the mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSE
wall). Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute (N.C.G.S.) 130A-295.8(e), the SWS conducted a review of the
Application and determines:
A.The Application is a new facility application, and the permit fee is required. It is evident that the increment
of the final gross capacity of the C&DLF, upon completing all four stage walls around the landfill unit as
described in the Facility Plan, will be ten percent (10%) more than the originally approved one (2,240,000
cubic yards). This results in a substantial amendment to the existing permit per N.C.G.S. 130A 294(b1),
and the landfill facility is considered a “New Facility” as defined in N.C.G.S. 130A-295.8(b)(1a). Therefore,
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. must pay the fee of $550 dollars, which is 10% of the annual permit fee according to
N.C.G.S. 150A 295.8(d2).
The fee of $550 dollars was received on October 16, 2017, and the SWS thanks A-1 Sandrock, Inc. for
promptly sending the fee.”
This comment appears to require no further action or response.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 2 of 22
B.“The Application states that the MSE wall design is according to the National Concrete Masonry
Association and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) methodology. But the field inspection and
performance monitoring, portions of the guidance documents published by above-mentioned agency or
trade organization are neither not referenced nor appending to the Application. Without adequately and
sufficiently conducting the field inspection and performance monitoring is conclusively determined as the
culprits of the wall failure either partially or totally in the past. Please provide a state-of-art the field
inspection and performance monitoring plan for the wall construction and post-construction performance
monitoring in the revised Application.”
A thorough testing program is presented in Section 4, Construction Quality Assurance Plan, based
largely on FHWA-NHI-10-025. Section 5, MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Plan, specifies inspection and monitoring criteria and thresholds for corrective action as might be required during
the life of the project. Portions of the monitoring program will be implemented during construction
and continue well into the post-closure care period. These aspects have been incorporated into the
Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (Appendix 8).
C.“The Application is incomplete. The Application requests an approval of new facility plan of the landfill
without changing the approved landfill gross capacity of 2,240, 000 cubic yards (CY); gross capacity is
defined in North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rule (Rule) 15A NCAC 13B .0537(e)(2)(B). However,
the Application only provides the first stage MSE wall to enhance landfill operations and fails providing the
comprehensive landfill development which comprises four-stage walls. The Application fails to define the
comprehensive development of the C&DLF unit in the Facility Plan and to provide completed plans
associated with landfill engineering design, construction, operations, and closure and post closure cares
for each of the proposed MSE Wall, which are provided in the comments below. Because the Application
doesn’t include all required components required by the Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0531et seq., the SWS
determines that the Application is incomplete. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A-295.8(e), the SWS notifies A-1
Sandrock, Inc. that the following components stated below are required to complete the application.
Please be advised that a determination of completeness means that the application includes all required
components but does not mean that the required components provide all the information that is required
for the DWM to make a permit decision on the application.
Facility Plan
1.The update Facility Plan must be prepared according to Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0537.
The submitted plan should be expanded to define the comprehensive development of the landfill unit after
each of the proposed stages of MSE walls are completed. If the content in the previously approved plan is
not changed, the minimum components of the updated plan include the operation capacity and the
estimate operating life at each stage of Stage 1 through 4, total gross capacity of the landfill, the active
life of the landfill unit, soil sources and quantity for covers (weekly cover and final cover system) and the
wall construction at each stage. The Facility Plan drawing(s) should pertain and present the update facility
plan information of the comprehensive landfill development for each of the proposed stages of MSE walls
are completely constructed.”
Section 1.3.3 presents a summary of interim and cumulative capacities of each progressive stage,
along with the expected operational life of each stage (Table 1A). Drawings ES1 through ES4 show
the development progression and associated volumes for each stage. Section 1.3.5 presents a
projected soil volume analysis for each stage and a cumulative soil volume including Phases 1-4 (as
permitted) and Stages 1-4 of the expansion (Table 1B). The projections include allowances for MSE
berm construction and operational/closure soils. Borrow sources are quantified as on-site and
contiguous offsite reserves (Table 1C). The facility is associated with earthwork material supply and
has the resources and means to more the soil.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 3 of 22
2.“Local government approval.
i.The increment of the proposed gross capacity of the C&DLF after four-stage walls are completely
constructed will be ten percent (10%) more than the originally approved one. This increment will
trigger the Substantial Amendment to the Permit as defined in N.C.G.S. 130A 294(b1)(1)a.2;
therefore, A-1 Sandrock, Inc. must complete a local governmental approval processes according
to 130A 294(b1)(4) and Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0536(c)(11).”
An explanation is warranted concerning a change of sequencing approach for this application.
Initially, the Owner sought to secure permitting for the Stage 1 MSE berm and expansion under the
original permitted volume, trading off Phase 4. This approach was intended to expedite moving stockpiled soils in the Phase 3 footprint without double handling, later applying for the Substantial
Amendment. Having acquired the PTO for Phase 3A (completed in early 2019), the Owner gained a
time reprieve for moving the soil and now has County approval of the updated facility plan and
franchise. As such, the Substantial Amendment application is now being pursued, reflected in this
Updated PTC Application for the MSE berm and expansion.
ii.“Additionally, the ten-year-term Franchise Agreement between A-1 Sandrock, Inc. and Guilford
County, North Carolina will expire on October 03, 2023, but the service life expectance of the
C&DLF will substantially last for decades after the franchise term expires if the MSE walls are
constructed. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 130A 294(a2) & (a3) [Session Law 2017-211 Senate Bill 16], A-
1Sandrock may want to request Guilford County an approval of a new or extension of the existing
Franchise Agreement to preserve the proposed long-term landfill capacity.”
The Franchise Agreement was amended June 6, 2019, in which the County approved the revised
facility plan (MSE berm, vertical expansion, minor change of the footprint, volume increase). The
term of the new Franchise Agreement is “Life of Site” as defined by NCGS 130A-294(a)(2). A copy
of the executed document is presented in Appendix 1 of the Updated PTC Application.
iii.“The landfill facility is in the Deep River Reservoir watershed (Section 5.1.2). The proposed MSE
wall is designed to permanently retain C&D wastes, and the proposed Stage 1 wall alignment will
be located approximately several hundred feet away from Hickory Creek, a tributary of the Deep
River Reservoir watershed. The waste volume will increase significantly than the originally
approved one due to the wall height of about 40 feet above the existing grade. Should the wall
fail, the wastes likely roll into the immediately adjacent Sediment Basin # 1 and Hickory Creek.
Therefore, A-1 Sandrock, Inc. shall officially contact Guilford County Department Planning and
Development, Watershed Protection and Stormwater Management or a government agency
(such as Land Quality Section, Dam Safety) which has the jurisdiction over the creek and
watershed to determine if an environmental impact study or remedial/response plan are required
due to the high wall retaining solid wastes. The approved document(s) must be a portion of the
Application.”
Section 5 of the Updated PTC Application discusses monitoring and contingency planning for
various potential failure scenarios. Safeguards built into this program (Section 5.5) make it unlikely
that waste materials would migrate more than a few 10’s of feet and enter the adjacent water bodies,
in the event of an abrupt, complete collapse of the berm (also unlikely). Appendix 1 presents the letter to Guilford County Planning and Development, the response to which indicated the County’s
desire for a briefing but not a request for additional environmental studies, nor was the briefing made
a condition of the updated facility plan approval. A presentation to the GCPD is being prepared,
which will address waterway protection, sediment and erosion control and general
construction/monitoring issues. A-1 will keep SWS apprised of these proceedings.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 4 of 22
3.“(Section 1.2) Please address the following concerns:
i.In comparison with the approved waste footprint on the Facility Plan drawings of the approved
permit application, the waste footprint of the C&DLF shown on Drawings E3 & E4 expands
southwestward and encroaches/includes the areas on the south side of the Sediment Basin # 1.
The new encompassed area is not approved waste footprint. If the change of waste footprint is
approved by the local government, A-1 Sandrock can submit the revised Facility Plan and new
waste disposal boundary for an approval; otherwise, revise the Drawings E-3 & E-4 accordingly.”
The footprint revision was shown on the drawings presented to Guilford County for Facility Plan
approval. It should be noted the footprint revision pushes the edge of waste outward by 15 feet or
less along 120 feet of the perimeter (approximately Sta 25+00 to 26+20). The perceived extension of
the landfill in the southwest direction is chiefly the MSE berm itself. Other portions of the
construction pull the waste perimeter inward, resulting in a net reduction of the footprint by 0.2 acres.
ii.“The construction of Stage 1 MSE wall may impact/disturb the area on the west side of the
existing haul road. The Erosion and Sediment Control Permit issued by the NC Land Quality
Section may be subjected to modification. If the permit modification deems required, the
modified Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should be appended to the Application.”
The subject area has been covered under a site-wide E&S control plan since the beginning of the
facility operation. At present, A-1 is in the process of rescinding its mining permit issued by
NCDEQ Land Quality Section, because mining activities are complete, and bringing the E&S plan
under Guilford County jurisdiction. Measures are in place but may require refurbishment (see
Drawings ME1, ME4 and ME10) prior to the Stage 1 MSE berm construction. The updated E&S
plan will be incorporated with the PTC application for the MSE berm when it becomes available.
4.“(Section 1.2.2) Please address the following concerns:
i.This subsection states that “It is NOT anticipated that each wall increment beyond the first lift
(assumed 12 feet according to the narrative in this subsection) will requires individual permitting
by the SWS.” This statement or proposal violates the Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0541 and .0201(d)(2).
The Permit Approval To Operate will be issued only if the rule-required CQA Report for that lift
wall section is reviewed and approved by the SWS. Please revise the statement according to the
rule requirements.”
The author misspoke. Each berm increment will comply with Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0541 and
.0201(d)(2) concerning regulatory approval of CQA reports.
ii.“A-1 Sandrock, Inc. intends to vegetative the exterior side the MSE wall (vegetative facing) as
described in this subsection.
a.What kind/type of vegetation is to be used for the wall facing unit? Should the Technical
Specification include the installation, establishment, replacement, and long-tern cares of the
vegetative facing unit of the wall?
b.Should the maintenance and care of the vegetation be a portion of the Operations Plan and
Post-Closure Care Plan?”
The North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning & Design Manual lists native species
that can survive the anticipated soil-moisture conditions on the steep slope faces. These guidelines
form the basis for temporary and permanent vegetation specifications in Section 2.1.3.7. Techniques
for establishing vegetation are discussed in Section 3.5.4, along with references to additional
guidance provided in FHWA-NHI-10-025. Vegetation is discussed in the CQA Plan (Section 4.2.2.4
and Table 4-1). Inspection and maintenance of vegetation is a key component in the Monitoring and
Contingency Plan (Section 5.1.5) and in the Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance Plan.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 5 of 22
5.“(Section 1.3.3 or Section 2) Please provide the following supplemental documents to the summary of
subgrade soil stratifications and related strengths.
i.The drawing(s) to show locations of soil borings (with identifications) relative the alignment of
Stage 1 wall. The data (boring logs) of these selected soil borings used for the MSE wall design
must be appended to the Application.
ii.The drawing(s)/profiles to summarize
a.Soil and rock stratification,
b.Engineering character and strength,
c.Groundwater levels based on the results of subsurface investigation of the selected soil
borings for wall design and historical groundwater well information.
iii.The reference(s)/document(s) used to generate the summary of subsurface investigation.”
Borings used to characterize the MSE berm foundation are shown on Drawings ME10 – ME12.
Subsurface profiles showing soil consistency, depths to weathered rock (100+ bpf material),
“refusal” rock, and groundwater depths, are shown on Drawings S1 – S3. Strength values for the
various materials were derived from SPT values referencing classic soil mechanics and laboratory
test results given in earlier permit documents:
2002 Site Suitability Report
2002 Phase 1 Design Hydrogeologic study
2016 Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic study
2018 Phase 3 Design Hydrogeologic study.
6.“(Section 1.3.4) For long-term and comprehensive landfill planning, the soil volume analysis should
estimate the quantity of soil to be used for landfill operations (rule-required covers) and for wall
construction at all four stages (must be met the requirements in Appendix 3 of the Engineering Plan).
Please address the concerns below:
i.The detail calculations of the soil volume for constructing each of the four-stage wall. The
required soil quantity should be consistent to the operational sequence stated in Section 1.2.2.”
Refer to Item 1 in this Comment/Response document, which refers to Table 1B.
ii.“The soil borrow location (on-site or off-site) and the AutoCAD calculations of borrow volumes. If
the Phase 3 (as described in Section 1.2.2) the landfill base grade of the proposed Phase 3 of the
C&DLF unit shall be submitted to the SWS for a review and approval.”
Refer to Item 1 in this Comment/Response document, which refers to Table 1C. The Phase 3 grading plan was submitted with the PTC application for Phase 3.
Engineering Plan
7.“To integrate the proposed MSE wall into the landfill as a unit, it is imperative to design leachate and
stormwater separation devise/structure and/or a leachate collection/removal system in the life cycle of
the landfill for the following condition as mentioned in Appendix 3 of the Application. The narratives of
the storm water and leachate separation and disposal approaches in accompany with detail drawings
must be provide in the Engineering Plan.
i.Stormwater separation devise/structure. This design and construction of this structure must
consider the approaches to prevent building up hydrostatic pressure behind the wall (the wall
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 6 of 22
area intimately contacts the waste) or “back drainage zone design” and to facilitate internally
drainage of any surface water and the percolation through the wall material (the long-term
permeability evaluation of earthen material in the soil-reinforce zone) as recommended by FEA in
Appendix 3. The design must conclude the following parameters which must be incorporated into
the CQA Plan and Technical Specification of the Application. The minimum parameters are factor
of safety, flow rate, thickness and hydraulic conductivity or transmissivity for the proposed
drainage material/medium, piping size and material (if applicable), the outlet/exit design
including energy dissipater(s).
a.While the Stage 1 wall is constructing and the landfill (Phase 1 is inactive and Phase 2
active) is operating.
b.After wall is completed but not reaching the final height and the first waste load is
placed to the landfill cell. The disposal sequence must also be illustrated in the
Engineering or Operation Plan drawings.
c.After the wall is reached final height and waste is placed above the height of the
perimeter drainage ditches.
ii.If the installed stormwater and surface water measures can’t properly separate from the waste
disposal activities which generates leachate as defined in NCGS 130A-290.a(16a), the leachate
collection and removal system and storage unit must be properly designed and operated. The
details of the design, construction, operations, and closure and post-closure cares of the leachate
collection and removal system must be adequately and sufficiently addressed in the Application.”
A leachate collection system is shown in plan-view on Drawings ME2 – ME5 and in cross-section on
Drawing S4. The system is a chimney drain that extends on a steep incline the full height of the
berm, behind the reinforced zone. The chimney drain is designed as 24 inches thick and made of freely draining crushed stone. The chimney drain ties to 4-inch and/or 6-inch diameter, perforated
HDPE pipes, which drain on a 2% slope beneath the berm via weep holes. The materials and
construction are covered in the CQA plan (Table 4-1and Table 4D). The Operations Plan (Section 8)
– in preparation – outlines a waste placement sequence that incorporates surface diversions and good
water management to direct runoff away from the back of the berm.
An ostensible procedure is to slope the waste surface away from the berm into a swale and applying
temporary cover (compacted soil or rain sheets). Some water will inevitably infiltrate the temporary
cover and make its way to the chimney drain and will be managed as leachate. The amount of water
to be managed was estimated with the HELP model, a standard method in the solid waste industry, and the pipe drains were sized accordingly. The calculations are discussed in detail in Section
2.5.7.2 and the HELP analysis is presented in Appendix 3. The HELP model indicates that under
design conditions, the volume of leachate generated is a few hundreds of gallons per design storm.
Outside the toe of the berm, the weep holes are connected to manifold pipes that follow the ground
grade to buried tanks at strategic locations. The manifold is tentatively an 8-inch diameter Schedule
40 HDPE pipe (double wall), shown in the drawings. The tanks will be a minimum of 500 gallons
and constructed of HDPE, made accessible to facilitate inspection and servicing. Monitoring the
system for leaks and liquid levels is included in the MSE Berm Monitoring Plan (Section 5).
The Operations Plan (Appendix 5) contains a schedule for monitoring liquid levels and pumping the
tanks for leachate removal. Automated pumps, force mains, and alarms have been considered, but no
specific designs have been completed. In terms of the construction and operations sequence, three
conditions where stormwater segregation is critical are described as follows:
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 7 of 22
a.While the Stage 1 wall is constructing and the landfill (Phase 1 is inactive and Phase 2 active) is
operating.
A trench/berm and sump will be placed a sufficient distance, presumably upslope, behind the wall to intercept runoff from the slopes. Provided there is sufficient cover over the waste, this water will be
diverted to the stormwater system. Only water which discharges from the weep holes will be
managed as leachate. During the early stages of berm construction of the drains, external piping
could be at risk of sustaining damage, thus any discharge from the weep holes will enter a dedicated
ditch, directed toward the future tank location and collected in a temporary lined basin.
b.After wall is completed but not reaching the final height and the first waste load is placed to the
landfill cell. The disposal sequence must also be illustrated in the Engineering or Operation Plan
drawings.
This stage corresponds to active waste placement operations, when leachate generation is expected to
be highest. A similar diversion for runoff above the active disposal “cell” will be employed as
described above, but at this stage the berm will be approximately 10 feet higher than the working
surface. Whereas the chimney drain will be constructed contemporaneously with (just before) the
waste placement, the Operator will need to be vigilant about the runoff diversion and coverage – it may be expedient to use rain sheets when working close behind the berm. The exterior piping and
tanks will be in place once the lowest 10-15 feet of the berm is completed.
c.After the wall is reached final height and waste is placed above the height of the perimeter
drainage ditches.
Once the waste is placed to a height above perimeter drainage ditches at interim of final stages of
waste placement), the stormwater/leachate separation will occur as per normal landfill operation.
The effectiveness of sealing the bottom of the perimeter ditch is paramount to minimizing leachate
generation. Leachate that is collected in the tanks will be pumped out to portable tanks (truck or
trailer mounted) and taken to a nearby POTW access. The amount of leachate for Stage 1 is expected
to be 17,868 gallons per year, <1,500 gallons per month (see Section 2.5.7.2). Once operational, the
need to upgrade the system with bigger tanks or automation can be properly assessed. Lessons from
Stage 1 will be applied to Stage 2 and beyond.
8.“Building Code Requirements. A-1 Sandrock must contact the City of Greensboro (the City) and/or Guilford
County (the County) to request if the proposed wall design and construction are required a local building
permit. The written request and responses from the local governments must be appended to the
Application. Any building permit requirements must be appended to the Application as well.”
According to the North Carolina Building Code, Item J103.2 (Case 4), a grading permit is not needed
for this project. The Building Code exempts projects covered by other permits. A copy of the cited
passage is included in Appendix 3. Guilford County Planning Department did not impose any
building permit requirements.
9.“The Engineering Plan must provide or establish the criteria of acceptable displacement or deformation of
the constructed MSE wall [the lateral movements (direction along the wall alignment – left to right and
direction perpendicular to the wall - front to back) and vertical movement – up (heave) or down
(settlement) directions]. The instrumentation(s) for the specified monitoring elements and triggering must
be specified. The criteria as the trigging of the emergency response plan shall be incorporated into the
routine inspection and monitoring activities (Comment Nos. B & 12, 34, 40, & 53) throughout the landfill
life (both active and post-closure periods).”
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 8 of 22
Section 5 presents a thorough description of an inspection and monitoring program for the MSE
berm, to be implemented in stages at the onset of construction. Section 5.4 discusses allowable
(expected) movements and outlines a program for enhanced monitoring and/or corrective action.
The monitoring program is comprehensive, including both external (visible) and internal (strain)
criteria. The program will be overseen by qualified engineers and will extend into the post-closure
stage of operation.
10.The Engineering Plan should include a cost estimate to construct the MSE wall; the breakdown cost, total
cost, and unit cost per wall facing unit ($ per square feet) should be available, which will be used as the
basis to establish Financial Responsibility (Comment No. 54) including both Financial Qualification and
Financial Assurance of the landfill (N.C.G.S. 130A-295.2).
The surface area of the Stage 1 and 2 berms is approximately 97,507 square feet. FEA provided
early cost estimates of $11 per square foot. This puts the initial build cost at approximately $1.1M.
A breakdown of construction costs is discussed in Section 6. More detailed cost estimates will be
furnished within a separate amendment to the Updated PTC Application when available.
11.“The MSE wall design (in Appendix 3) is based on the data in Appendix 2 generated by A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
However, the data in Appendix 2 is collected for the landfill design and not directly from the sub-surface
investigations along the proposed wall alignment. The geotechnical testing on soil samples (or
confirmation testing results) from borings along the proposed Stage 1 wall alignment should be conducted
prior to wall construction; the testing results must be used to compare the ones used in design in Appendix
3.Adjustment or redesign a portion of or the entire walls may be warranted by a professional engineer if
the design parameters based on the confirmation soil testing results vary significantly (as requested by
FEA – Sections 2.1, 3.0 & 6.0, Appendix 3 of the Engineering Plan). Therefore, A-1 Sandrock, Inc. should
prepare a subsurface investigation plan and soil testing program (the program), which should be
appended to the Engineering Plan.
i.The program must be prepared according to building codes or the FHWA guidance for subsurface
investigations for design/construction of a retaining wall or a MSE wall. The program must be
prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of North Carolina and reviewed and
approved by the SWS.
ii.The program must be executed with ample time prior to the wall construction.
iii.The collected info and produced results (including conclusions and/or design modification, as
needed) from the program must be submitted to the SWS for a review and approval and to the
consultants contracted to A-1 Sandrock, Inc. for modify the wall design as necessary.”
Subsurface Exploration work along the berm alignment was performed by Amec Foster Wheeler
(Wood) in February 2018. The program was planned and executed in accordance with FHWA
guidelines. Locations of borings are shown on Drawings ME-10 through ME-12. Data from the
borings and earlier borings that were pertinent to the study are shown in section view on Drawings S-
1 through S-3. A brief description of the foundation conditions for the MSE berm is presented in
Section 2.3.
12.“The Engineering Plan shall include the technical specifications pertaining to the design and performance
of the landfill containment and environmental control systems including the proposed MSE wall
components and drainage networks [Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0539]. Above mentioned tasks are excluded
from the FEA’s scope of work for the MSE wall design (Section 1.3, Appendix 3 of the Engineering Plan);
therefore, A-1 Sandrock must provide detail of surface water and seepage designs.”
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 9 of 22
Technical specifications are provided in Section 2.
13.“(Section 2.1) Per FHWA specification, the MSE wall backfill shall be compacted to a specified compaction
effort based on the distance from the wall facing. The second paragraph proposes the “…compacted soil
with a target maximum dry density of 90 percent…” shall be revised according to the FHWA specification.
Additionally, the specification of compaction effort in this Section is contradicting those in Sections 2.2 and
4.2.1.1.”
Section 2.1.3.2 states the density requirement is 94% MDD (per ASTM D-698), consistent with
Section 2.2. The specific reference in Section 4.2.1.1 has been edited out. The required compaction
is based on NCDOT guidelines, based in turn on FHWA criterion.
14.“(Section 2.1.1) The FHWA design and construction guidelines (Publication No. FHWA-NHI-00-043) is used
as one of the reference to design the MSE wall; The guidelines are based on allowable stress design (ASD)
procedures to conduct MSE wall design; however, the design approaches in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of
the Application are based on load and resistance factor design (LRFD) procedures. Please clarify.”
Berm design in the FEA report (Appendix 2) is based on LRFD methodology. Preliminary
calculations from the earlier Feasibility Study (Wood, 2017), included in the original application,
may have referenced ASD methods but have since been removed from this Updated PTC Application. Current design standards per FHWA and NCDOT guidelines are based on LRFD.
15.“Please provide a summary of the testing requirements of the MSE walls as described in the subsection
2.1.1. The referenced testing summary isn’t available in the Section 7 of the Application.”
Testing requirements for construction have been outlined in detail within Section 4, rather than
placing this information in a separate Appendix. The reference in Section 2.1.1 and Section 7 is no longer relevant.
16.“Throughout the entire application document please use the consistent engineering parameters for all
calculations and analyses (settlement, slope stability, bearing capacity, etc.) in Appendices 2 & 3. There is
no reason that same material has different engineering parameters. If A-1 Sandrock, Inc. insists this
approach, the SWS demands A-1 Sandrock, Inc. conduct a sensitive analysis by using lower and upper
bound data on each task conducted in Appendices 2 & 3.”
In the course of assembling a complex design with multiple engineers involved, there exists an
opportunity to shift parameter values. The lead engineer did not catch these discrepancies before the
preliminary report was issued. At present the data have been updated and all the engineering
parameters are believed to be consistent.
17.“(Section 2.1.1) The required minimum factor of safety for minimum reinforcement length/wall height is
0.8 as described in Section 2.1.1, but the factor of 0.7 is used in Appendix C1. Please clarify.”
Appendix C1 was removed from the Updated PTC Application. The correct value is 0.8.
18.“(Section 2.2) Please address the following concerns:
i.The on-site soil material classified as SM-ML and CL per Unified Soil Classifications are nor
suitable to use as fill material in the reinforcing zone of the MSW wall according to Section 1.4 in
Appendix 3. Please make clarification in this Section how to use the earthen material in Phases
2B & 3 for selected fill material for constructing the wall.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 10 of 22
ii.Should this section add more info/specification related to the MSE wall construction? For
example, geosynthetic material, weld metal mesh, vegetative supporting material, etc.”
It is likely that the material stockpiled in within the footprint will require screening to meet the grain-
size requirements. Since the original report was written, an estimated 50+ acres of contiguous land
have become available, which contains a better quality “sandrock.” Sections 2.1.3.2 and 3.2.2
discuss soil selection criteria for berm construction, and the criteria is expanded further in Section 3.5
and Section 4.2.2 to outline testing procedures and schedules. Refer to the Tables within Section 4,
which outlines testing requirements for the major components.
iii.“Please provide the procedures/ sequences of the wall construction (referring Drawing E5 & RW1
through RW-4).”
Drawings ES-1 through ES-4 depicts the staging sequence, with the berms just ahead of the
corresponding waste cells. Drawings RW-1 through RW-4 are integrated into the drawing set but are
presented as details. Drawing E-5 is an obsolete reference, which depicted interim grades of Phases
1-3 (shown in Phase 3 PTC set), upon which the Stage 1 vertical expansion is expected to be built – it
may not be necessary to complete Phase 4 in the original permit design.
iv.“Any off-site borrow is required? How much the selected backfill must be obtained from off-site
borrow. How the borrow material can be confirmed to be suitable for fill material inside the
reinforced zone?”
Off-site borrow requirements is a misnomer – there are ample soil resources available without the
need for over-the-road transport. Section 1 presents a discussion of soil requirements and resources,
including an estimate for the berms. Please note the final soil gradation has yet to be determined and
may vary throughout the construction. On-site testing is described in the CQA Plan (Section 5),
which will qualify materials frequently during construction.
v. “Will the 10% organic debris/material in the selected backfill material for the wall construction
meet the specification in Appendix 3? Why is the compaction effort stated in this section different
from that in Section 2.1?”
A typo occurred in section 2.1 and the value was updated. There will be no organic debris allowed in
the fill. The correct value for compaction effort is 95% and it is stated the same in Appendix 2.
19.“(Section 2.4) The wall construction drawings must be part of the Application. The Drawing E4 shows the
wall width is variable and station is different from that in Drawing E5. Please provide details of wall
widths along the station.”
Drawing E5 is now obsolete in the current drawing set. For clarification, the wall width is a function
of height. The stationing changed mid-design, to follow conventions used by FEA on other projects.
At present, the drawings should be consistent. Drawings S-1 and S-2 show cross-sections by station, depicting foundation grades (derived from the RW series of drawings) and subsurface conditions.
The cross-sections are shown each at the same scale and with no vertical exaggeration.
20.(Section 2.5.1 Settlement, Page 16) Please provide the source of the referenced waste density of 0.6 ton
per cubic yard. Is the waste density compatible with that in the facility annual report? Is the loading
based on the final, not interim, in-place waste (show the elevations of the bottom of the waste and of the
top of the final cover)?
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 11 of 22
The 0.6 ton/c.y. unit weight was measured in-situ (scale house records plus a precise survey) during
an earlier study. This value includes interim soil cover and elastic compression over time and
equates to 44 pcf. Section 2.5.1 uses a conservative design value of 55 pcf (0.74 ton/c.y.) was used
for the settlement calculations. Typical design values for estimating capacity are closer to 0.5
ton/c.y. (37 pcf), but 55 pcf is reasonable for foundation settlement calculations when factoring soil,
moisture and long-term compression.
Appendix 2
21.“(Appendix 2, Sections 3 & 4.2 & Appendix 2-A) The MSE wall will be seated on the top of in-placed waste
or embankment of the haul road, or haul road as shown on Drawing E4. The haul road and embankment
were not constructed by partial weather rock (PWR) but compacted on-site soil as described in Section 2.2
of the Engineering Plan. Throughout the entire application document, A-1 Sandrock must use the
consistent engineering parameters for all calculations and analyses (settlement, slope stability, bearing
capacity, sliding & overturning in Appendix 2 and MSE wall internal and compound stability analysis in
Appendix 3). It is not professional practice of using different engineering parameters for the same selected
materials or foundation strata to fit in the pre-determined outcome. If A-1 Sandrock, Inc. intends to use
this approach, the SWS demands that A-1 Sandrock, Inc. conducts a sensitivity analysis on each task in
Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 by using all available lower- and upper-bound engineering parameters –
density/unit weight, shear strength, internal friction angles.”
A pre-determined outcome is not the intent of this work. The data was updated, and the design
engineering parameters are believed to be consistent now.
22.“(Appendix 2, Section 4.2) Please provide the copy of the referenced AASHTO tables.”
Please note that Appendix 2 contained the feasibility study performed by Amec Foster Wheeler
(Wood). That document has been removed, whereas the calculations are covered in the FEA report
(now Appendix 2). The referenced section in former Appendix 2 concerned bearing capacity, sliding
and other stability calculations; Tables 3.4.1 and 10.6.3.2a concern load factors and are attached.
Table 11.5.6 concerns resistance factors but appears to be mis-referenced from an earlier version of
the NCDOT forms used in Wood’s calculations; the correct form is 11.5.7-1 which is attached.
23.“(Appendix 2, Section 5.1 & Facility Plan) According to the Facility Plan, the MSE wall will be constructed by
four (4) stages, but the information provided in Appendix 2-A shows three (3) wall alignments/stages (?)
(with three options of wall heights). Is there contradicting info described in Facility Plan & Engineering
Plan. Please explain.”
Appendix 2 referenced in the regulatory comments has been removed. The correct plan for berm
development is four stages as shown in the current drawing set. The different berm heights in the feasibility report was used for planning purposes.
24.“(Appendix 2-B, Global Slope Stability Analyses)
i.Please provide the input data sheet for each round of analysis. The layout drawing to show the
critical slope (cross-sections) locations must be provide in the Appendix 2-B.”
The input data (including the soil model and geotechnical properties for each layer) are shown in the
graphical result page for each analysis. Also, the surcharge load and its magnitude are shown in the
graph.
ii.“According the historical soil boring logs in Appendix 2-D, there are layers of sandy silt, silty clay
overlain the PWR as described in the Section 2.5.2.1 of the Engineering Plan.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 12 of 22
a.Why those layers inside the landfill waste footprint are eliminated from the slope stability
analysis?
b.Why groundwater table is not considered in the analysis?
c.The deep seated global stability analysis shall be conducted below the MSE wall; although for
the sake of simplicity, the wall unit is a block but the foundation soil that supporting the wall
is not PWR.”
Spotty occurrences of silty and clayey soils overlying the weathered rock have been identified in
borings conducted between approximately Sta 25+00 to 26+20 of the perimeter berm, where the new
berm alignment deviates from the perimeter road. The foundation CQA plan (Section 4.2.1.3) calls
for an evaluation of conditions and over-excavation to a suitable bearing material; in such case, the
base of the berm would be extended in lieu of backfilling the over-excavation; that is, the same
compacted material would be used. The borings indicate groundwater will not influence the stability
of the dense soils – but it was considered.
25.“(Appendix 2-B Settlement Calculations) Please address the following concerns:
i.The soil boring log B-10 is not included in Appendix D.
ii.The consolidation test results are not available in Appendix 2-B.
iii.Provide Hough’s method equations for sand and the selection processes of the SPT values used in
Hough’s method.”
The referenced boring is now included in the geotechnical data (Appendix 3). The soil borings did
not encounter soils soft enough to be sampled with Shelby tubes for consolidation testing. The reference for the elastic settlement calculation (based on Hough’s method) follows:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/bridge/15080/004.cfm
iv.“Section 2.5.1 & Appendix 2-B of the Engineering Plan concluded that estimated settlement of the
foundation soil underneath the MSE wall of 0.51 feet (5/100) is acceptable. But the Section 2.1 of
Appendix 3 specified the settlement of the soil underneath the wall shall not exceed 1/100.
Please explain the discrepancy and which one shall be used for the wall project.”
The foundation settlement beneath the berm discussed in Section 2.5.1 is a maximum elastic total settlement that could conceivably occur. Differential settlement over an arbitrary distance of 100 feet
is 0.51/100 = 0.0051, considering that 1/100 means 1 foot over 100 feet. An important point is the
concurrence of elastic settlement with the construction. Long-term settlement, typically a concern
for grade separation or liner stress, is not a concern. Another consideration is the focus of current
literature on segmental walls, i.e., rigid plates attached to the reinforcement within a flexible
embankment, which can suffer misalignment and/or failure of connections if settlement-induced
stress exceeds the published thresholds. In Section 2.5.4.4 reference is made to a statement in
Appendix D of the FEA report (Appendix 2), which points out that the welded wire basket slope
construction can tolerate larger differential settlements than rigid structures (concrete face plates).
26.“(Appendix C1, LRFD External Forces Analysis) The external loading arrangement used in Appendix C1 is
different from the loading arrangement as shown on Drawing E5 and Appendix 3, which shows that:
i.There is no surcharge on the MSE wall except the traffic load (uniform loading) of 250 pounds per
square feet as described in Section 2.0 of the Engineering Plan.
ii.The interim or final soil cover - back slope [3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical)] of the C&DLF is located on
the backside of the wall, not over the entire wall width of 25 feet.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 13 of 22
iii.The retained backfill shall include C&D waste (the solely purpose to build the wall), not backfill
material alone.
iv.The distance of water table, 5 feet, below the bottom of the wall is used, please provide the
reference. Is the data from a nearby monitoring water well? Will the water level be impacted by
the water levels in the Sediment Basin # 1, and nearby Hickory Creek?
v.Soil parameters for the foundation soil are those for PWR; but the MSE wall will be seated on the
top of in-placed waste or embankment of the haul road, or haul road as shown on Drawing E4.
The haul road and embankment were not constructed by PWR but compacted on-site soil as
described in Section 2.2 of the Engineering Plan. The input data are irrelevant and inconsistent to
the site conditions.
Based on the findings, the SWS does not think the results from the calculations for each design wall
heights -30, 50, and 60 feet in submitted Appendix C1 and Appendix 3 truly reflects the real field loading
conditions that the proposed wall will be encountered.”
Appendix C1 was removed because all the analyses for MSE embankment stability are addressed in
the FEA report (Appendix 2). The final results are those shown in the FEA report.
Appendix 3
27.“(Appendix 3 MSE Wall Design Report) According to Section 4.2 in Appendix 2, the retained backfill/C&D
waste is a non-cohesive material (e.g. c’ = 0 psf). Additionally, referring the Comment No. 20 that
foundation soil for the wall including sandy/silty soil, C&D wastes overlying the PWR. Therefore, the entire
wall design is based on the questionable geological and geotechnical information. The modification of the
wall design is possibly warranted.”
Refinements to the original design submittal have occurred and future refinements are possible. The
fundamental design may have been misunderstood by the reviewer. The berm will be supported on
weathered rock, dense saprolite (N>40 bpf sandy soil) or compacted fill material (leveling pad). The Stage 1 and 2 berm alignment has been investigated and will be evaluated throughout construction.
Adjustments to foundation elevations may be necessary, but it is important to note the foundation
incorporates “steps” to accommodate sloping topography. At no point will the back of the berm be
supported on C&D wastes. A wedge of compacted soil behind the reinforced zone will support the
reinforced zone and contain the drainage layer. The author has been directly involved with this site
for 20 years and oversaw construction of every phase and cell built thus far. The subsurface
conditions are well understood.
28.“(Section 2.2) Please provide a copy of the material data sheet/specification of the selected geogrid,
FortractTM made by Huesker.”
Manufacturer’s data has been included in Appendix 3.
29.“(Section 2.4) Please address the following concerns:
i.The seasonal high ground water table for both C&DLF - Phases 1 & 2 areas are previously
confirmed by the 2002 Site Suitability Study Report and the Design Hydrological Reports as stated
in Section 2.5 of the Engineering Plan. The semi-annual groundwater monitoring reports must be
used for the water tale degermation as well. A-1 Sandrock, Inc. must use the site-specific data to
determine if the groundwater level is greater than 0.66H. If not, the modification of the wall
design is warranted.”
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 14 of 22
The seasonal high-water table has been considered in the berm design. The groundwater level is less
than 0.66H in the deepest, and most highly reinforced, portion of the berm. Please note the presence
of groundwater does not preclude the proposed construction; rather, it stipulates that the influence of
groundwater on stability is taken into consideration and drainage is required.
ii.“The portion of the wall (Stage 1) is very closed to the existing Sediment Basin #1. The highest
water level in the basin must be considered for the wall design. Especially, when the nearby creek
is flooded, and water in the basin may not be able to drain into the creek for several days which
results in infiltration of surface water/flood water into MSE wall reinforced fill zone (Section 2.4,
Appendix 3 of the Engineering Plan & refer Drawing No. 5, wall is embedded unknown depth
below the existing grade). The wall must design the worst scenario.
iii.(Section 2.4) The wall design should be revised by considering the seepage generated from landfill
leachate that is retained by the wall.”
Drawing S5 presents two critical cross sections that show the berm foundation is at least 15 feet
above the 100-year flood and full pool of the sediment pond at Section 21+37.39 and approximately
5 feet higher than the 100-year flood stage at Section 26+48.61. The subsurface hydrology is not responsive to “flashy” conditions experienced at the surface. Drawing S1 shows the groundwater
near Section 21+37.39 is more than 20 feet (boring B-19) and Section 26+48.61is more than 10 feet
(boring B-37). Groundwater is above the foundation near Station 27+00 to 28+00 (boring B-39).
According to FHWA guidelines, the position of the groundwater table does not preclude the building
of the berm, nor does it materially change the design of the berm except the need for subsurface
drainage. The design incorporates drains that will prevent excess seepage pressure behind the berm.
All drainage from behind the berm will be managed as leachate in a dedicated collection system.
Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan
30.“In addition to the landfill construction, the CQA Plan and technical specifications that are the same
documents submitted previously should include construction quality assurance and control and
specifications associated with material and construction of the proposed MSE wall including
reinforcement, graduation & compaction requirements for the selected fill material, and drainage media,
etc.”
Section 4 of the Updated PTC Application presents an expanded CQA program that includes the
major components of soil-aggregate, tensile reinforcement, and ancillary materials.
31.“Referring Comment No. 8, if the construction of the MSE wall requires to satisfy local building codes, the
CQA Plan and Technical Specifications must incorporate the code requirements.”
Wood researched the building code requirements, including an inquiry of Guilford County Planning
and Development, and they concluded no building code requirements apply.
32.“(Section 4.1.2) What is the role and responsibilities of Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates, PC in the MSE
wall project?”
FEA has provided design input to the reinforcement aspects, specifically establishing strength
requirements and evaluating internal stability of the berm. Moving forward, FEA will continue in
this role as a technical advisor capacity; this continuity is critical as the design is flexible and will no
doubt require adjustment during construction.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 15 of 22
33.“(Section 4.2.1.3) The listed soil types which are generated from on-site borrows are not entirely
satisfactory use for the selected fill material (excluding fine-grained soils such as SC, ML, CL, MH, & CH)
inside the MSE wall reinforcing zone as described in Appendix E, Appendix 3 of the Engineering Plan. A-1
Sandrock must produce a CQA Plan for the material used in the MSE wall construction.”
The Updated PTC Application contains a revised CQA (Section 4) plan that specifies acceptance
criteria for the soil-aggregate used for constructing the berm. The plan includes site specific
gradation testing and pull-out tests to be conducted before construction and at regular intervals
throughout.
34.“(Section 4.1.2.4) The MSE wall has geosynthetic component (geogrid) specified as reinforcement;
therefore, CQA Testing Firm should be both certified soil laboratory and geosynthetic laboratory. And
some tests on geosynthetic material are abiding by the standardized method by other organization such as
GRI. The testing methods and frequencies are required in the CQA Plan and Technical Specifications.
Please make the necessary revision.”
Engineering firms for CQA services have not been selected at present. Future selection criteria will
include soils and geosynthetics qualifications. Some CQA services may be subcontracted. Section
4.1 discusses qualifications for various parties to the CQA program.
35.“(Section 4.2) The CQA Plan, in a minimum, should address the inspection and oversight of the MSE wall
construction (referring Sections 1.2 & 3.0, Appendix 3 of the Engineering Plan).
i.Who is responsible the inspection & oversight of the MSE wall construction?”
At present, David Garrett in conjunction with Summit Design and Engineering Services, PLLC, will provide general oversight and inspection. Some laboratory and testing services will be subcontracted
to provide “third-party” objectivity. The selection of contractors, suppliers, engineers and
laboratories is premature. A-1 Sandrock will notify the Solid Waste Section with contractual
arrangements prior to initiating construction. A two-step approval process might be appropriate: 1)
approval of concept, which would provide A-1 with reassurance that the permit to construct will be
issued once technical questions are answered, which ostensibly would involve the site specific
strength testing of soils and reinforcement, and 2) permit to construct, which will be issued once the
contracts have been established – though using the same nomenclature, this latter step is unusual in
that the Section is provided an opportunity to exert a high degree of influence on not only the design but the qualifications of participants in the CQA program.
ii.“The inspection item/checklist & frequency, inspector qualification & authority, inspection report
and submittal”
Please refer to the tables in Section 4 (CQA Plan).
36.“(Section 4.3) Please refer the pre-construction requirements stated in Section 3.0, Appendix 3 of the
Engineering Plan.”
Requirements presented in the FEA report as Appendix 3 (now Appendix 2) have been incorporated
into the updated CQA Plan (Section 4).
37.“(Section 4.3) This section, in a minimum, should include the requirements for wall foundation preparation
& proof-rolling final grade with specified precision and survey control, soil classification for fill material,
compaction test, wall foundation approval processes prior to proceeding next task of erecting a layer of
wall, and approaches to handle if a non-conformance foundation soil encounters.”
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 16 of 22
Please refer to the updated Section 4 (CQA Plan).
38.“Plesae provide the material and construction specification of the material to be used in the “back
drainage” design .”
Please refer to the updated Section 4.
Operations Plan
39.“(Section 5.2) The DWM Winston-Salem Regional office contact info has changed, the correct info is shown
below:
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]”
So noted. This reference is now in Appendix 5.
40.“(Section 5.3) The section may require some revisions to meet the current regulation change such as a life-
of-site permit and past ten years operation experiences.”
So noted.
41.“(Section 5.7) Please provide additional info of inspection & monitoring associated with MSE wall.
i.The constructed MSE wall including both structure components and stormwater draining system
shall be part of routine inspection and maintenance (I&M) tasks, which shall be conducted by
independent third-party according to the requested I&M Plan for the constructed wall (referring
Comment No. 9).”
Section 5.1 of the Updated PTC Application includes inspection and maintenance requirements for
various components of the MSE Berm. Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 deal with the surface water and
leachate management components, respectively.
ii.“The inspection, monitoring, and maintenance records/reports certified by a Professional
Engineer registered in the State of North Carolina shall be placed in the operating record in
Section 5.12.”
All records pertaining to the construction and maintenance of the MSE Berm shall be made part of
the permanent records for the facility and made available for SWS inspection at any time, as per
requirements for conventional construction.
42.“(Section 5.11) Please describe if the C&DLF is subject to EPA Green House Reporting requirements and
status in the future landfill operation after each stage of wall is completely constructed.”
Based a review of EPA online guidance, inert debris and C&D specifically appear to be excluded
from the GHGRP reporting requirements. Subpart HH of the EPA rules has at least four references to
C&D/inert waste accommodation in the reporting requirements for MSW landfills; the references
allow exclusion of tonnage for independent C&D units and/or sorted loads. Within this guidance,
there appears to be no current or pending future GHGRP reporting requirements for this facility.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-waste
43.“(Section 5.13) The Division Water Quality merged into the Division Water Resource. Please make
necessary correction.”
So noted.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 17 of 22
44.“(Section 5.14) The Contingency Plan should include the response action plan to handle the following
conditions if failure of the wall segment(s) occurs; in a minimum, the plan should include, but not limited
to the person(s) responsibility for cleanup and site restoration, verbal and written notifications and timing
to submit an incident report and follow-up action plan to regulatory agencies, and coordination (including
firm schedule of each activity) of restoration of the wall segment(s), removal waste rolled out of waste
footprint, impacted area investigation and remediation, and routine waste disposal activities if A-I
Sandrock is allowed to assume the waste disposal activities.”
Section 5.7 provides a detailed discussion of the required responses
45.“(Sections 6.3 & 7.2) Please provide the correct references in the Application.
i.The reference (in Sections 6.3 and 7.2) for the hazardous waste definition is incorrect.”
Section 6 in the old report is now Section 8. Section 7 in the old report is now Section 9. The
references have been updated.
ii.“The Tables 6.1 and 7.1 are not available in the Application.”
Tables 6.1 and 7.1 were labeled as 6A and 7A in the old report.
46.(Section 6.4.2) Please use the correct acronym of the NC DEQ instead of the NC DENR.
So noted.
47.“(Table 6A) The wastewater treatment sludge shall be prohibited for treating or processing at the
Processing Facility.”
So noted.
48.“(Section 7.3.2) There is no “on-site” waste transfer station in the landfill facility. Please correct the typo.”
So noted.
49.“(Table 7A) The exception for an industrial solid waste as referenced in Rule 15A NCAC 13B
.0503(2)(d)(ii)(A) is irrelevant. An industrial solid waste shall not be disposed in a C&DLF.”
So noted.
Closure and Post-Closure Plans
50.“(Section 8.1) The referenced drawings in this subsection are nor consistent to the ones in the Application.
Drawing E-3 is likely show the interim cover of the landfill while Stage 1 wall is constructed.”
Drawing references have been corrected.
51.“(Section 8.2.2) The permit (DIN 284550) dated October 02, 2017 allows A-1 Sandrock, Inc. to operate both
Phases 1 & 2 of the C&DLF. The Phases1 & 2 encompasses 16-acre waste boundary and have an approved
operating capacity of 1,078,524 cubic yards. Please update the data in this subsection.”
These references now including Phase 3 have been updated.
52.“(Section 8.3) Please provide additional information to the Post-Closure Plan:
i.The Plan should state how to routinely conduct the maintenance and care of the vegetation
established in the final cover system and facing unit of the wall.”
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 18 of 22
Section 5.1.6 provides guidelines for inspection and maintenance of slope face vegetation; these
guidelines will be incorporated into a forthcoming update of the closure-post closure plan for the
landfill, which will be Section 10.
ii.“The Plan should detail the monitoring, inspection, repair of the wall during the post-closure
period. The SWS strongly recommend that A-1 Sandrock adopt the guidance documents
published by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or State Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the White Paper #19 issued by Geosynthetic Institute (GRI) dated April 19, 2011.”
Sections 5.1 and 5.7 include criteria for inspection and maintenance for the MSE berm as part of the
contingency plan. Aspect of the contingency plan and guidelines from FHWA and WP #19 are
incorporated into the Post Closure Plan. The Operations Plan, Closure Plan and Post-Closure Plans
are presented in the Appendices. This document includes the Financial Assurance (Section 6),
inclusive of engineering estimates of construction, inspection and maintenance costs. The design
team expects another round of comment and response will take place, during which the Financial Assurance will be finalized. The last three elements of the application will be forwarded to SWS is
approximately two weeks from the writing of these responses.
iii.“The costs related to each above-mentioned care activities that shall be conducted by a
independent third party must be added to the post closure cost estimate.”
The Updated PTC Application was peer reviewed by an independent engineering firm. The cost estimates for Financial Assurance will be further reviewed by the third party.
53.“(Table 8A) Please explain why the unit cost for the following item is less than previously approved cost
estimate for site closure, the credible documents for supporting the cost reduction must be provide in the
Application:
i.VSL; ii. CSB, iii. Establish Vegetation.”
Unit costs for closure items have been reset to the latest approved version for Phase 3 (2019).
54.“(Section 8.3) Please address the following concerns:
i.The Post Closure Plan must address the routine inspection, repair, maintenance the constructed
MSE walls. The emergency response plan for management wastes and restoration the wall must
be appended to the Post Closure Plan.”
Acknowledged. The Closure Plan includes the appropriate aspects of the contingency plan.
ii.“(Section 8.3.1.3) The drawing MP-1 is likely a typo of Drawing M1/Sheet 11.”
Correction made.
iii.“The facing unit of the MSE wall is vegetation, please provide a care and maintenance plan for
the vegetative facing unit. The related cost must be added to the post-closure cost estimate
(Table 8C).”
This item will be addressed in the as described under Item 50.
iv.“(Table 8C) The number of ground water monitoring well is six (6), not five (5).”
So noted.
55.“Financial Responsibility [NCGS 130A-295.2] According to Section 2 – Engineering Plan, the design of MSE
wall is based on the FHWA methodology and guidance documents which state the service life for a long-
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 19 of 22
term permanent retaining wall is routinely about 75 years. Therefore, in addition to providing a financial
assurance mechanism(s) to cover costs of landfill unit closure, post-closure cares, groundwater corrective
action as needed, and potential assurance and corrective action for the C&DLF facility, A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
must provide:
i.Financial qualification to pay the costs of proper design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the MSE wall.”
This aspect is forthcoming.
ii.“Financially responsible for
a.Repairing or replacing the entire walls – Stage 1 through Stage 4 around the landfill. The
costs should include waste removal and replacement while repairing or replacing the
entire walls when the 70-year service life of the wall expires or the function of the wall is
questionable or unsafe to a human life or adversely damaging environment]), whichever
comes first. The latter is concluded and judged by a profession engineer registered in the
State of North Carolina throughout the routine inspection of the MSE wall [see Comment
No. 9]. The costs for this part should be the same costs for construction of the wall plus
additional costs for removing and replacing wastes and restore the final cover system.
b.Remediation and cleanup the wastes (including wall materials) and restoration of the
wall in the event of a wall failure. According to GRI Report No. 40, Dr. Robert Koerner
reports “the cost of the remediation varied from 1.05 times the original cost to 3.50
times. The rebuild case history was 4.66 times the original cost.” The average costs for
this part is about twice the initial cost of wall construction.
c.All above-mentioned costs shall be annually adjusted for inflation according to NCGS
130A-295.2.”
These aspects are forthcoming.
Drawings
56.“Drawing Sheet 12- MSW Wall Monitoring Locations is not included in the Application.”
Refer to Drawing M1. Please note the groundwater monitoring map is now M2.
57.“Provide a drawing or drawings of final/interim cover layout which has referenced the locations of the
typical details of erosion and sediment control measures on Drawing EC1 through EC-3.”
Please refer to Drawing EC4.
58.“(Drawing E-5, MSE Wall Details) The details of cross-section at Station 26+00 must include, but not
limited to the following items as described in Appendix 2, Section 2.1.1 (on page 12):
i.Drainage systems/networks for surface water, leachate, seepage flow behind the wall, toe drain
(surface water) including various size piping and drainage media. The hydraulic design of the
drainage system must be appended to the Engineering Plan. The material and construction
specifications must be added to the CQA Plan and the Technical Specification which must meet
the requirements stated in Section 4.0, Appendix 3 of the Engineering Plan.”
These aspects have been added to multiple drawings, namely ME1 through ME9 and ES1 through
ES4. Section 4 is the CQA Plan and includes construction of the internal draining.
ii.What is the toe slope of the foundation soil affront of the wall?
Drawing S5 shows a 7H:1V toe slope at Station 26+48.61 and a 2H:1V toe slope Station 21+37.39.
At most locations, however, the design places the foundation on a bench cut down to suitable bearing
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 20 of 22
and leaves room at the toe for a permanent access drive. In such cases the slope will be
approximately 2%.
iii.“The tensile strength of reinforcement is color-coded. For each color zone, please tabulate the
data of the reinforcement strength & length & vertical spacing, thickness of the layer (by
elevations amsl).”
A guide to the color coding is presented in the legends of RW1 through RW5. The relative strength
and other properties are tabulated and included in Appendix 3. This tabulation will be included on
Drawing S7 in a future issue of the drawings.
iv.“The facing of the wall should be constructed with a 6-inch set back/stagger per course (Section
1.2, Facility Plan). Please show the described setbacks on the drawing.”
Drawings S4 and RW5 show this detail.
v. “The back-side of the wall, an earthen material will be backfilled and compacted between C&D
waste and reinforced zone of the wall.
a.Will this non-reinforced zone of the wall be built vertically? Please described the construction
procedures for construction of a 60-feet-tall non-reinforced earthen wall in the Engineering
Plan (same comment applicable to Sheet No. RW-5 in Appendix 3).”
The berm and the non-reinforced soil zone behind the reinforced zone berm will be built in increments that are multiples of 18 inches in height. The chimney drain and separation geotextile
will be brought up concurrently, followed quickly by the waste. The intent is to stage the
construction of the various components such that stresses come to equilibrium in each “lift” before
the next vertical section is added. This process requires more oversight and attention to drainage and
separation of soil types (including wastes), but the berm construction is better integrated into the
overall operations and, thus, is not left to exposure by the elements upon completion.
b.“Provide the dimensions of the non-reinforced zone of the wall – slopes, base width, top
width, in any (same comment applicable to Sheet No. RW-5 in Appendix 3).”
The vertical to horizontal relationships are displayed graphically on Drawings S1 and S2. This
information will be tabulated and added to future Drawing S7.
c.“According to the Facility Plan, the wall will be built vertically by 10 to 12 feet life/layer per
time (1.5-feet per course). In addition to providing the detail of final cover system of the
C&DLF related to the full-height wall, please provide a typical detail/cross-section of each
interim wall height (30 feet and 50 feet) with landfill operating grades.”
Please refer to Drawing S5.
vi.“The details of wall connection details.”
Please refer to Drawing S6.
vii.“What is the embedment depth of the MSE wall (same comment applicable to Sheet No. RW-5 in
Appendix 3)?”
Please refer to Drawing S5.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 21 of 22
viii.“The Profile of Stage 1 MSE wall is confusion. What the color code area means?”
A guide to the color coding is presented in the legends of RW1 through RW5.
ix.“The profile should be simplified by providing elevations of the existing grade, the finish grade of
foundation layer, the first 10-feet layer, second 10-feet layer, and so on to the final layer of the
Stage 1 wall (approximately 800 feet amsl).”
Please refer to Drawing S4.
x.“A-1 Sandrock may want to verify and confirm if the guardrails installed on the edge of the top of
the wall are required to protect worker driving hauling trucks. Equipment and/or machinery from
fatal accident?”
Safety barriers will be installed.
xi.“The typical wall section adjacent to the Sediment Basin # 1 (including basin grade and water
level elevation) should be present on this drawing.”
Please refer to Drawing S5.
59.“(Drawing EC-2, Landfill Gas Vent Detail)
i.Should there a layer of geotextile (density of x oz./square yard) to separate the NC DOT # 57
washed stone from the compacted soil liner at the gas vent trench?”
This is not necessary since the permeability of gravel to gas is typically 10x that of water. The
movement of gas toward the stone does not dislodge fines causing in migration into the stone.
ii.“What is the side slope of the gas trench?”
The gas trenches are shallow and may be dug vertically. The trenches may be installed through the
compacted soil barrier, prior to placement of the topsoil, with appropriate compaction of the trench
backfill to preserve the permeability.
iii.“Gas pipe material specification is missing. PVC or HDPE, thickness, perforation size and spacing,
etc.”
Please refer to Section 2.1.3.5 including Table 2C.
60.“The layout, cross-sections, and detail drawings of the comprehensive landfill development are required;
the minimum info should include the landfill base grades (relative to the rock stratum or seasonal high
ground water table), the existing waste fill grades, component of a MSE wall unit, leachate and
stormwater separation devices, interim grades of different phased landfill development in coordination
with wall erection at four different stages, and final grades of the landfill.”
Please refer to the updated drawing set. The referenced aspects of the design have been included.
A-1 Sandrock MSE Berm PTC Application Response to Comments (DIN 28647) January 10, 2020, Page 22 of 22
Closing
“Please submit a revised Application including a hard copy with a set of full-size drawings and an electronic copy
(in pdf format) of the Application. The SWS will conduct the second-round review when the revised Application
which incorporates all proper responses to the above-mention comments. Thank you for your cooperation in this
matter. If you have any questions of the requested application components, please contact myself at 919-707-8251
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ming-Tai Chao, P.E.
Division of Waste Management, NCDEQ
cc:
David Garrett, P.G. P.E., AMEC Foster Wheeler
Ed Mussler, Permitting Branch Supervisor Christin Ritter, DWM
Susan Heim, DWM Deb Aja, DWM
Central Files”
On behalf of A-1 Sandrock and the Design Team, we appreciate your comments and tender the
Updated PTC Application for your review. We look forward to further comments and discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
G. David Garrett, PG, PE
Senior Engineer
Summit Design and Engineering Services, PLLC
cc: Ronnie Petty, A-1 Sandrock
Enclosures:
Updated PTC Application
Full-size Updated Drawing Set
Electronic Files in PDF Format
Acronyms and Abbreviations
2L 15A NCAC 02L Groundwater Rule
A-1 A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Officials
ACM Asbestos Containing Materials
ASD Allowable Stress Design
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BPF (sometimes bpf) Blows per foot
C&D Construction and Demolition
C/PC Closure/Post Closure
CABC Compacted Aggregate Base Course
CCA Copper Chromium Arsenate
CDLF Construction and Demolition (debris) Landfill
CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CF (sometimes c.f.) Cubic Feet
cm/sec Centimeters per second
CMT Construction Materials Testing
CPE Corrugated Polyethylene
CQA Construction Quality Assurance
CQC Construction Quality Control
CSB Compacted Soil Barrier
CY (sometimes c.y. or yd3) Cubic Yards
DGA David Garrett & Associates
DIN Document Identification Number
DMV Division of Motor Vehicles
DWM Division of Waste Management
E&SC (sometimes S&EC) Erosion and Sedimentation Control
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEA Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FS (sometimes Fs) Factor of Safety
FT (sometimes ft.) Feet (or Foot)
GCPD Guilford County Planning Department
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
GIS Graphic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
GRI Geosynthetic Research Institute
GW Groundwater
GWMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan
H Height
HDPE (sometimes HDP) High Density Polyethylene
HELP Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
In (sometimes in.) Inches (or inch)
KIP “Kilo” pound (1000 pounds force)
KSF (sometimes ksf) KIP per square foot (pressure)
L Length
LB Pound (force)
LCID Land Clearing Inert Debris
LF Landfill
LFG Landfill Gas
LFGMP Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan
LL Liquid Limit
LQS Land Quality Section (of NCDEMLR)
LRFD Load Reduction Factor Design
LTDS Long Term Design Strength
m3 Cubic meter (volume)
MDD Maximum Dry Density
mm Millimeter
mph Miles per hour
MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth
MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
N Normalized SPT value (in blows per foot)
NAD North American Datum
NC North Carolina
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCBC North Carolina Building Code
NCDEMLR NC Division of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources
NCDEQ NC Department of Environmental Quality
NCDOT NC Department of Transportation
NCMA National Concrete Masonry Association
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHI National Highway Institute
NOX Nitrous Oxide (pollutant)
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OSHA Occupational Health and safety Administration
PACA Potential Assessment and Corrective Action
PCAS Post-Consumer Asphalt Shingles
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PI Plasticity Index
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PP Polypropylene
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
PSF Pounds per Square Foot
PTC Permit to Construct
PTO Permit to Operate
PVC Ploy Vinyl Chloride
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
RSS Reinforced Soil Structure
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SCS SCS Engineers, Inc.
SF (sometimes s.f.) Square Foot
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO4 Sulfate (pollutant)
SPT Standard Penetration Test
SWS Solid Waste Section (of NCDWM)
T&P Treatment and Processing
TPD Tons per Day
TRM Turf Reinforcement Mat
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VSL Vegetated Surface Layer
Wood Wood Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc.
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
MSE BERM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
FACILITY, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN
A-1 SANDROCK C&D LANDFILL (4117-CDLF-2008)

Submitted to:

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

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

David Garrett & Associates
Engineering and Geology
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

January 10, 2020 (Rev. 1)
Project No.: G18-8008

David Garrett & Associates

5105 Harbour Towne Drive • Raleigh, North Carolina • [phone]
Engineering and Geology
January 10, 2020

Mr. Ed Mussler, PE
NCDEQ, Solid Waste Section
217 W Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603

Subject: Permit to Construct for Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm
A1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF
NC Solid Waste Permit 4717-CDLF-2008
Guilford County North Carolina

Dear Mr. Mussler:

A1 Sandrock, Inc. hereby submits a revised Permit to Construct (PTC) application for a vertical
expansion of the referenced facility, facilitated by a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE)
berm. The berm has been designed and this application has been prepared by an experienced
team of North Carolina-licensed professional engineers. This submittal incorporates responses
to review comments provided by the Solid Waste Section (DIN 28647_2017).

The MSE berm and associated vertical expansion will be built in four stages. This document
provides volume and construction information relative to a full build-out, i.e., a “life-of-site”
projection, although the intent of this PTC application is seeking approval to construct Stage 1
of four. The expansion will increase the volume by more than 10%, thus local government
approval of the revised facility plan and an amended franchise has been secured.

Guilford County officials have been contacted regarding local building permits or
environmental studies, with documentation, and the County indicated no additional
requirements. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments on this submittal.

G. David Garrett, PG, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer

cc: Mr. Ronnie Petty, III
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. 1-10-2020
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Table of Contents Page i
1 FACILITY PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0537) 9
1.1 Regulatory Requirements........................................................................................ 9
1.2 Facility Drawings .................................................................................................. 10
1.2.1 Facility Layout .......................................................................................... 10
1.2.2 Construction Sequence.............................................................................. 11
1.2.3 Operational Sequence ............................................................................... 12
1.3 Facility Report ...................................................................................................... 13
1.3.1 Waste Stream ............................................................................................ 13
1.3.2 Landfill Capacity ...................................................................................... 13
1.3.3 Substantial Amendment ............................................................................ 14
1.3.4 Special Engineering Features .................................................................... 14
1.3.5 Soil Volume Analysis ............................................................................... 15
2 ENGINEERING PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0539) 17
2.1 Engineering Report ............................................................................................... 17
2.1.1 Engineered Components ........................................................................... 17
2.1.2 General Layout.......................................................................................... 18
2.1.3 Material Specifications ............................................................................. 18
2.1.4 Analytical Methods ................................................................................... 27
2.1.5 Identified Critical Conditions ................................................................... 28
2.1.6 Technical References ................................................................................ 29
2.1.7 Location Restriction Demonstrations ....................................................... 29
2.2 Construction Materials and Practices.................................................................... 29
2.3 Design Hydrogeologic Report .............................................................................. 30
2.4 Engineering Drawings .......................................................................................... 30
2.4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 30
2.4.2 Foundation Plan ........................................................................................ 30
2.4.3 Stormwater Segregation ............................................................................ 31
2.4.4 Final Grades .............................................................................................. 31
2.4.5 Temporary and Permanent E&SC ............................................................ 31
2.4.6 Vertical Separation.................................................................................... 31
2.4.7 Other Features ........................................................................................... 31
2.5 Specific Engineering Calculations and Results .................................................... 32
2.5.1 Settlement ................................................................................................. 32
2.5.2 Slope Stability ........................................................................................... 33
2.5.3 Final Slope Ratios ..................................................................................... 36
2.5.4 MSE Berm Design .................................................................................... 36
2.5.5 Pullout Resistance ..................................................................................... 43
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Table of Contents Page ii
2.5.6 Final Design and Testing Requirements ................................................... 45
2.5.7 Leachate Collection System ...................................................................... 45
3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0540) 47
3.1 Horizontal Separation ........................................................................................... 47
3.1.1 Property Lines ........................................................................................... 47
3.1.2 Residences and Wells ............................................................................... 47
3.1.3 Surface Waters .......................................................................................... 47
3.1.4 Existing Landfill Units .............................................................................. 47
3.2 Landfill Subgrade.................................................................................................. 47
3.2.1 Vertical Separation.................................................................................... 47
3.2.2 Soil Consistency........................................................................................ 47
3.2.3 Inspection Requirement ............................................................................ 48
3.2.4 Division Notification ................................................................................ 48
3.3 Survey Control Benchmarks ................................................................................. 48
3.4 Site Location Coordinates ..................................................................................... 48
3.5 Special Engineering Structures ............................................................................. 49
3.5.1 Sedimentation and Erosion Control .......................................................... 49
3.5.2 MSE Berm construction ............................................................................ 49
3.5.3 Fill Placement ........................................................................................... 51
3.5.4 Vegetation on Facing of the MSE Berm ................................................... 51
4 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (15A NCAC 13B .0541) 53
4.1 General Provisions ................................................................................................ 53
4.1.1 Definitions................................................................................................. 53
4.1.2 Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 54
4.1.3 Control vs. Records Testing ...................................................................... 56
4.1.4 Stakeholder Responsibilities ..................................................................... 57
4.1.5 Modifications and Amendment................................................................. 58
4.1.6 Miscellaneous ........................................................................................... 58
4.2 Construction QC ................................................................................................... 58
4.2.1 Preconstruction Review ............................................................................ 58
4.2.2 Materials Approval (Testing) .................................................................... 60
4.3 Construction QA ................................................................................................... 63
4.3.1 Earthwork .................................................................................................. 64
4.3.2 Geosynthetic Reinforcing Materials ......................................................... 65
4.3.3 Protection of Finished Surfaces ................................................................ 66
4.4 CQA Meetings ...................................................................................................... 66
4.4.1 Project Initiation CQA Meeting ................................................................ 67
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Table of Contents Page iii
4.4.2 CQA Progress Meetings ........................................................................... 67
4.4.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meetings .................................................... 67
4.5 Documentation and Reporting .............................................................................. 67
4.5.1 Periodic CQA Reports .............................................................................. 68
4.5.2 CQA Progress Reports .............................................................................. 69
4.5.3 CQA Photographic Reporting ................................................................... 69
4.5.4 Documentation of Deficiencies................................................................. 70
4.5.5 Design or Specification Changes .............................................................. 70
4.5.6 Progress Drawings .................................................................................... 70
4.6 Final CQA Report ................................................................................................. 70
4.7 Storage of Records ................................................................................................ 70
5 MSE BERM MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN 83
5.1 Monitoring Requirements and Methods ............................................................... 83
5.1.1 Deformations and Movements .................................................................. 83
5.1.2 Monitoring devices ................................................................................... 85
5.1.3 Monitoring Locations................................................................................ 88
5.1.4 Stormwater Management Controls ........................................................... 89
5.1.5 Leachate Management Controls ............................................................... 90
5.1.6 Erosion and Vegetation Inspection ........................................................... 90
5.1.7 Tension Crack and Toe Heaving Inspection ............................................. 91
5.1.8 Monitoring the Geogrids ........................................................................... 91
5.1.9 Safety Barrier Assessment and Vandalism ............................................... 91
5.2 Monitoring Records .............................................................................................. 91
5.3 Duration of Monitoring Period ............................................................................. 92
5.4 Allowable Movements .......................................................................................... 92
5.5 Types of Failure .................................................................................................... 93
5.6 Mitigating Factors ................................................................................................. 94
5.7 Contingency Plan for MSE Berm ......................................................................... 95
5.7.1 Pre-Emergency Action Thresholds ........................................................... 95
5.7.2 Corrective Action for Slopes .................................................................... 97
5.7.3 Worst-Case Scenario ................................................................................. 98
5.7.4 Emergency Response ................................................................................ 98
5.7.5 Post-Emergency Corrective Action .......................................................... 99
5.8 Liquids Management .......................................................................................... 101
5.9 Basis for the Financial Assurance ....................................................................... 102
6 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE (15A NCAC 13B .0546) 103
7 CERTIFICATION 104
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Table of Contents Page iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1A Landfill Capacity by Stage ............................................................................... 14
Table 1B Soil Volume Requirements .............................................................................. 15
Table 1C Borrow Soil Resources ..................................................................................... 16
Table 2A Specifications For Geogrid Reinforcement ...................................................... 19
Table 2B Guidance for Soil-Aggregate Selection ............................................................ 20
Table 2C Tentative Specifications for Fill Gradation ...................................................... 21
Table 2C Specification for Drainpipe .............................................................................. 23
Table 2D Specification for Filter Geotextile .................................................................... 24
Table 2E Specification for Temporary Vegetation .......................................................... 25
Table 2F Specification for Permanent Vegetation .......................................................... 26
Table 2G Material Properties Used for Calculations ....................................................... 34
Table 2H Factors of Safety for Static Deep-Seated Stability ........................................... 35
Table 2I External Stability Results ................................................................................. 37
Table 2J Internal Stability Results .................................................................................. 38
Table 2K Global Stability Results .................................................................................... 39
Table 2L Maximum Internal Settlement Calculations ..................................................... 41
Table 2M Lateral Deformation of The MSE Berm........................................................... 43
Table 4-1 Materials Acceptance Documentation.............................................................. 62
Table 4-2 Final CQA Report General Outline .................................................................. 71
Table 4-3 Reference List of ASTM Test Methods ........................................................... 72
Table 4A Testing Schedule for Base Leveling Pad (Soil) ............................................... 74
Table 4B Testing Schedule for Compacted Structural Fill .............................................. 75
Table 4C Testing Schedule for Geogrid Reinforcement .................................................. 76
Table 4D Testing Schedule for Drainage Stone ............................................................... 77
Table 4E Testing Schedule for Filter Geotextile ............................................................. 78
Table 4F Testing Schedule for Drainpipe ........................................................................ 79
Table 4G Testing Schedule for Wire Baskets .................................................................. 80
Table 4H Testing Schedule for Geotextile Connections .................................................. 81
Table 4I Testing Schedule for Vegetative Support Soil ................................................. 82
Table 5-1 FHWA Recommended Monitoring for MSE Structures .................................. 85
Table 5-2 Monitoring Schedule for the MSE Berm ......................................................... 89
Table 5-3 Hypothetical Maximum Slope Displacements ................................................. 92
Table 5-4 Non-Emergency Action Items .......................................................................... 96
Table 5-5 Action Items and Responses ............................................................................ 96
Table 5-6 Emergency Response Actions .......................................................................... 99
Table 5-7 Corrective Action Methodologies .................................................................. 100
Table 6-1 Stages 1 and 2 Berm Costs (2019 dollars) ..................................................... 103

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Table of Contents Page v
DRAWINGS
Refer to the rolled drawing set that accompanies this report (also submitted electronically)

APPENDICES
1 Franchise Ordinance and other Local Government Correspondence (Guilford County)
2 MSE Berm Design Report (Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates)
3 Soil Data, Stability, Settlement, and Volume Analyses (Wood)
4 Special Provisions for MSE Berm Construction
5 Operations Plan – CDLF and Treatment/Processing Facility
6 Operations Supplement (Reporting Forms, Emergency Contacts)
7 Closure Plan (with CQA Plan)
8 Post-Closure Maintenance Plan
9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan
10 Landfill Gas Monitoring

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is a collaborative effort by the following individuals.
Grateful thanks to all involved:

Wood E&IS Geotechnical Department
Atefeh Asouda, PhD, PE
Bon Lien, PhD, PE
Al Tice, PE – Geotechnical Reviewer
Mike Raup, PE
Mike Lear, PG
James Howard, PG

SCS Engineers
Albert Glenn, PE – Geotechnical Reviewer

Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates
Blaise Fitzpatrick, PE - Designer

David Garrett & Associates
David Garrett, PG, PE – Lead Engineer, Editor

And Especially
Summit Design and Engineering
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Foreword Page 6
FOREWORD
This Permit to Construct application amendment was prepared in accordance with North
Carolina Solid Waste Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0531, et seq. Phase 3A, opened earlier in 2019,
is the active CDLF disposal area whereas Phase 3B will be the last phase within the original
25.5-acre permitted footprint. Phases 1 and 2 are open but have reached heights that limit
operations until Phase 3 operation is more progressed. The disposal capacity will be increased
via construction of a proposed Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) berm within the existing
footprint (the new area is 25.3 acres). Portions of the MSE berm will be constructed within the
permitted limits of waste, where waste has yet to be placed, and other portions will be just
outside the footprint so the permitted limits of waste will remain consistent with setback
requirements. At full build-out the crest will increase from Elev. 906 to Elev. 982 and the
volumetric capacity will approximately double to 4.3M cubic yards.

The MSE berm is a “structurally enhanced embankment” that incorporates granular soils and
high-strength geotextiles to provide internal tensile strength. This allows steepened slopes to
conserve ground-contact area. The proposed berm will be constructed continuously in four
stages with commensurate vertical expansion of the landfill, beginning with the southwest
corner of the CDLF footprint. This is the highest portion of the berm, which will be divided
into two 30-foot high sections with both sections founded on dense saprolite (weathered rock).
The lower berm (Stage 1) ties into the existing perimeter road – relict of the original excavation
– and extends to Elevation 770. The top of Stage 1 will support an access drive and the toe of
the upper berm (Stage 2), which will extend to Elevation 800. The Stage 2 berm will extend
along portions of the south, west, and north perimeter and will support a permanent stormwater
drainage corridor and a 3H:1V top slope.

The reinforced berm will be constructed in courses of approximately 1.5 feet in height, with a
front slope ratio of 1H:3V (~71.6° from horizontal) and each course stepped back 6 inches.
The exposed front of the berm will be vegetated using an appropriate growing medium
embedded into multiple wire basket and geotextile reinforced cells. Internal drainage will
prevent the buildup of pore pressure behind the berm. Liquids captured in this system will be
managed as leachate separately from the stormwater systems. The internal drains will daylight
via weep holes to a perimeter header pipe near the base of the berm. The header will gravity
drain to several truck-accessible sumps, where the liquids can be quantified and removed. By
completing the berm and internal drainage in short increments, approximately 10 to 15 feet
vertically and 200 to 300 hundred feet laterally, followed by near immediate waste placement,
the condition of leaving the back slope of a completed berm section exposed will be avoided –
this mitigates a concern put forth by NCDEQ in the review of the preliminary report.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Foreword Page 7
The project will be protective of human health and the environment: Numerous safeguards
are built into the design, construction and operation of the facility, including these features:
• State-of-the-art design and peer review by a team of qualified North Carolina
licensed professional engineers, representing:
 Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates, PC (FEA)
 David Garrett & Associates (DGA)
 Wood E&IS (Wood, fm. Amec Foster Wheeler)
 Summit Design and Engineering Services (SDE)
 SCS Engineers (SCS)
 NCDEQ Division of Waste Management (NCDEQ)
• Detailed understanding of risk factors, i.e., inherent strength of the restrained
waste materials, setbacks to sensitive water bodies, local groundwater usage;
• Thorough construction quality assurance (CQA) program that will ascertain the
performance of the materials and methods;
• Rigorous monitoring program that will alert engineers and regulators to any
performance inconsistencies;
• Contingency plan to assess and correct potential problems while small.

This document updates the September 2017 PTC application and supersedes all previous
versions, prepared in accordance with Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0535 et seq:
• Facility Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0537
• Engineering Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0539
• Operation Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0541
• Closure and Post-Closure Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0543
• Construction Quality Assurance Plan required by Rules .0543 and .0541
• Monitoring Plan Update prepared in accordance with Rule .0544.

OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – Owner/Operator
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Owner/Operator
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406 Tel. [phone]
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Foreword Page 8
SITE LOCATION DATA
LATTITUDE 35.98745 N
LONGITUDE -79.84639 E
PARCEL NUMBER 12-03-0185-0-0739-W -007
Deed Date 1/17/1996 Guilford County, NC
Deed Book 4378 Deed Page 0198
Plat Book 149 Plat Page 93

The surrounding area is light industrial/commercial with low density residential and/or
undeveloped to the south.

SANDROCK COMMERCIAL
MINE

MSW TRANSFER STA
RECYCLING CENTER

UNDEVELOPED

Figure 1 Surrounding Properties (Guilford County GIS)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 9
1 FACILITY PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0537)
1.1 Regulatory Requirements
This report was prepared in support of a Permit to Construct (PTC) modification for the subject
facility. The amendment features a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) berm that facilitates
a vertical expansion within the existing footprint. The proposed expansion will require a
Substantial Amendment. North Carolina Solid Waste Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0531 et seq.
require a comprehensive facility plan identifying future development in phases that correspond
approximately to 5-year operational capacities. The facility plan must identify and show all
relevant permitted Solid Waste units and activities (known or proposed) at the site.

The proposed expansion must meet or exceed the 4-foot minimum vertical separation to
groundwater and bedrock, taking post-expansion settlement into account. Post expansion
foundation settlement was evaluated and found adequate. Soil types within the upper 24 inches
beneath the finished subgrade must consist of fine-grain soil types, e.g., SM, SC, ML, SM-ML,
MH, CL and CH, to promote lower hydraulic conductivity. All completed phases of the facility
have been demonstrated to meet this requirement. Earlier reports have demonstrated sufficient
quantities of operational soils (i.e., periodic and final cover). The construction and operation
of the facility must be protective of public health and groundwater resources. To meet this
requirement, the subject facility must demonstrate adequate safeguards concerning slope
stability, liquids management, and monitoring, beyond the requirements typical of CDLFs.

To this end, a rigorous design based on sound engineering principles and state-of-the-art
technology was undertaken under both regulatory and peer review. The design includes
flexible high-strength tensile reinforcement that has been in use for over three decades in the
US and overseas. Soils to be used within the “reinforced zone” must develop a high friction
angle, e.g., SM, SW, GW and GM, akin to “sandrock” and/or manufactured aggregates. The
ability of the soils to interact with the geotextiles will result in stable embankments with an
indefinite service life. Internal drains consisting of natural aggregates and proven synthetic
piping will facilitate the collection and removal of liquids that might occur behind the berm,
and best management practices for stormwater segregation and diversion will reduce the
likelihood of surface water infiltration.

Finally, regulators have expressed concern over potential environmental impacts should a
section of the berm become compromised. These concerns have been countered with an
equally rigorous construction quality assurance program, a detailed slope monitoring plan and
contingency planning to identify and mitigate small problems before they can become big
problems. This document addresses the engineering, design, construction and operation
aspects of the MSE berm to meet the regulatory protection requirements.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 10
1.2 Facility Drawings
1.2.1 Facility Layout
A drawing set “PTC Application, A-1 Sandrock CDLF Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm,”
dated August 2019 shows the facility layout, including the MSE berm layout, interim grades
for the various stages, final cover and E&SC details, and relevant construction details. Each
of the four stages is expected to provide approximately 5 years of operational capacity, based
on current waste stream projections, totaling approximately 20 years. Drawing F1 depicts
currently permitted final contours at full buildout of Phases 1 through 4. Drawings ES1
through ES4 show the final grades for each of the four stages of vertical expansion.

The MSE berm forms the perimeter in place of the existing access road. Aerial limits of waste
remain mostly within the previously approved footprint, except within the southeast corner
(Stations 23+00 to 28+00). Regulatory buffers are observed, i.e., minimum 200 feet to the
facility boundary, 50 feet to jurisdictional water bodies, avoidance of the 100-year floodplain
and a small pocket of wetlands north of the Colonial Pipeline easement. The incremental
construction maintains positive drainage to existing (and future) E&SC measures.

Drawings ME1 through ME9 depict detail views of the MSE berm foundation, tied to base
grades per “as-built” drawings. Stations are depicted along a tentative construction baseline.
The MSE berm will be founded on natural ground characterized by test borings in Stages 1 and
2 and prior knowledge of site conditions (to be confirmed for Stages 3 and 4). Drawings
ME10 through ME12 provides the intended sequence of foundation construction with planned
excavations sufficiently deep to remove most if not all potentially unsuitable soils and waste
within the footprint of the MSE berm. Additional undercutting of soft soils may be required
between Stations 25+00 to 27+00 based on the test boring data.

Drawings S1 through S3 depict geotechnical data within Stages 1 and 2 of the MSE berm,
between Stations 13+60 to 34+00. The stationing is arbitrary and begins and ends at the highest
points along the MSE berm alignment. The subsurface investigations along the Stage 1
alignment were characterized with both new and previous geotechnical borings. The drawings
depict subsurface conditions at cross sections and a longitudinal section of the alignment.
Foundation elevations are based on the original construction plans (FEA, 2017) and may
require minor field adjustment. Color coding on Drawing S3 shows two 15-foot high “lifts”
(each comprised of 1.5-foot thick “courses”) in both Stage 1 and Stage 2, depicted this way to
enhance visualization of the construction sequence. Drawings S4 and S5 show “critical” cross
sections of the MSE berm as one 60-foot high section without an interstitial bench between
stages, and with an interstitial bench added at the Owner’s request in 2018, emphasizing the
configuration of internal drainage.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 11
Drawing S6 shows cross sections through the landfill, depicting color coded stages matching
the berm sequence. Drawings EC-1 through EC4 show details pertaining to final cover and
surface drainage construction. Drawings RW1 through RW6 show sections and details for
the construction of the MSE berm, prepared in 2017 by Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates
(FEA) in conjunction with the design team (Wood E&IS, David Garrett & Associates). The
FEA drawings represent different geotextile strengths with color coding (see Section 2.1).
1.2.2 Construction Sequence
Landfill permitting and construction to date has progressed in “phases;” whereas future MSE
berm construction and vertical expansion will reference “stages.” Stage 1 will be developed
adjacent to, and as a continuation of, Phase 2. The general construction sequence will be:
1) Install temporary E&SC measures and prepare foundation for Stage 1 from Stations
23+00 to 28+00, undercutting and replacing soft soils as needed
2) Build first course and install internal drains (pipes and stone) within these limit
3) Build Stage 1 of the MSE berm gradually to a height of 30 feet (El. 770)
4) Extend the vertical portion of the internal drain and bring up Phase 2B waste grades
to match the progress of the MSE berm construction
5) Perform continual monitoring of the berm for vertical and horizontal movements
6) If movements are within tolerance (Section 5) continue MSE berm construction
south along the existing perimeter road adjacent to Phases 2B and 2C
7) This sequence leaves a clear path for construction access between Stations 13+60
and 23+00; this also preloads the deepest portion of the MSE berm
8) Relocate waste encountered in the foundation excavation to an adjacent portion of
MSE berm construction (minimizing hauling distances)
9) Construct MSE berms, internal drains and relocate waste as a continuous process
to Station 34+00, doubling back across the completed sections to Station 13+60
10) Allow time (e.g., 30 days) for monitoring movements between each 15-foot “lift”
11) Install temporary diversions above the MSE berm to protect from erosion; install
permanent measures (channels, diversion berms, pipes, rip rap) below the berm
12) It may not be necessary to break construction between Stage 1 and Stage 2 between
Stations 13+60 to 23+00 since Stage 1 is only a few feet high to match Elev. 770
13) Bring Stage 2 up to design height in 200 to 300-foot-long increments, placing
drains and waste concurrently behind the MSE berm
14) Taper the beginning and end of Stage 2 to facilitate access and drainage control
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 12
15) Build Stage 3 overlapping Stage 2 and bring up Phase 1 fill grades to design; close
Stages 1 and 2 progressively
16) Build Stage 4 overlapping Phase 3; add permanent drainage and continue filling
and closing slopes incrementally.

Soils required for the MSE berm are anticipated to be sourced on-site or from nearby
excavations, subject to rigorous gradation testing. Each layer or “course” of the berm will be
1.5 feet in height. Berm construction will progress in continuous increments with
approximately 15-foot waste lifts and simultaneous waste placement. The activities will be
staged such that each increment of berm can be built and tested under professional supervision,
while waste placement occurs nearby. Construction of each berm increment will comply with
Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0541 and .0201(d)(2) concerning regulatory approval of CQA reports.
1.2.3 Operational Sequence
Operational procedures, described in Section 7, are unchanged except for waste placement
procedures behind the berm, where strength and surface water management is a concern. The
waste needs to be spread out in horizontal lifts not exceeding 4 feet in thickness and “tracked
in” with multiple passes of the compaction equipment. Internal waste fill slopes and exterior
slopes above the berm will be a maximum 3H:1V in accordance with SWS requirements, while
upper surfaces used for staging and unloading will be graded at 2% - 5%.

A drainage layer (built concurrently) behind the berm will avoid a buildup of hydrostatic
pressure within the MSE berm. Operational cover will be applied in accordance with SWS
rules to minimize rainwater contact. The staff shall be vigilant about maintaining positive
drainage away from the MSE berm with efficient waste placement techniques. No water shall
be directed toward, or allowed to collect, behind the MSE berm. Outlets for seepage drains
(initially weep holes) shall be inspected frequently. Observation wells located at intervals
behind the reinforced zone will demonstrate whether water is collecting in the drainage system.
Other planned slope monitoring activities are described in Section 5.

The exterior MSE berm face will be constructed at 1H:3V (~71.6 degrees from horizontal).
The berm exterior will be vegetated with low-maintenance grasses and herbaceous species.
Each 1.5-foot lift of the berm is set back 0.5 feet, which provides erosion control stops. Survey
markers will be located on the front face of the berm and measured frequently to detect small
movements. Between Stage 1 and Stage 2 an access bench will be constructed at a height of
30 feet (Elev. 770). Interim cover will be used in accordance with Solid Waste Section
requirements. Final cover will be placed in approximately 2-acre increments (or less) as
exterior slopes achieve design grade (refer to Section 8).
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 13
1.3 Facility Report
No changes to the approved waste stream or service area are proposed. The facility is permitted
to accept up to 300 tons per day of C&D debris as defined in the solid waste rules. The service
area is defined as all counties within and touching a 50-mile radius. The Franchise Agreement
with Guilford County requires recycling a minimum 10 percent of the waste stream. These
goals are being met via operation of the Treatment and Processing Facility under a permit
provision. The franchise was renewed in mid-2019 to accommodate “life-of-site” permitting
and the proposed MSE berm and expansion.
1.3.1 Waste Stream
The following data is updated from the original Facility Report with data furnished to Guilford
County in the 2019 renegotiation of the Franchise Agreement (see Appendix 1).
The geographic area to be served by the franchisee may include the following counties
within (and touching) a fifty-mile radius from the site: Guilford, Randolph,
Rockingham, Alamance, Forsyth, Davidson, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin, Caswell, Person,
Orange, Durham, Chatham, Moore, Montgomery, Stanley, Rowan, Cabarrus, Lee and
Davie. The bulk of the wastes are expected from an 8-county region bordering Guilford
County. The annual waste intake is anticipated to vary from 60,000 to 80,000 tons per
year – a daily intake up to 300 tons per day – and 10% of the waste stream will be
recycled. The facility will accept C&D and LCID waste (see Section 7.1).
1.3.2 Landfill Capacity
A volumetric analysis for the four stages of vertical expansion was performed using an
adaptation of the average end area, i.e., horizontal slices with areas based on 10-foot contour
intervals in AutoCAD. From the original studies:
Permitted capacity of Phases 1 – 4 2,240,000 cubic yards
Subtracting the final cover volume - 106,000
10% remainder lost to periodic cover - 213,400
Original net disposal capacity 1,920,600

The volume equates to 1,152,360 tons in place at 0.5 ton/cy, including an estimated 20%
compaction factor. The intake averages 225 ton/day (450 cubic yards/day) with 280 working
days per year, which yields 100,800 cubic yards, then allowing 10% for periodic cover, results
in a total annual airspace consumption of approximately 110,880 cubic yards.

The original planned operational life was approximately 20 years (see Table 1A).
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 14
1.3.3 Substantial Amendment
Moving to Stages 1-4 of the vertical expansion, an airspace consumption of approximately
110,880 cubic yards (see above) was used to project the operational life of each stage:
Table 1A Landfill Capacity by Stage E
Phase/ Area Maximum Interim Cumulative Operational
Stage (AC.) A Elevation B (C.Y.) C (C.Y.) D Life (Yrs.) F
Ph. 1 11.38 830 470,332 470,332
Ph. 2 17.9 830 608,192 1,078,524
Ph. 3 25.5 840 641,726 1,720,250
Ph. 4 25.5 906 519,750 2,240,000 20
Stg 1 25.5 930 323,914 2,563,914 2.9
Stg 2 25.5 952 823,540 3,387,454 7.4
Stg 3 25.5 952 344,775 3,732,229 3.1
Stg 4 25.3 G 958 575,035 4,307,264 5.2
A Areas based on Phase 3 PTC (2019) Σ = 38.6
B Includes final cover, may vary due to settlement
C Determined using Average End Area method
D Total volume shown all phases and stages
E Added airspace for Stages 1-4 is 2,267,064 C.Y.
F 110,880 cubic yards per year
G Net reduction in footprint area
1.3.4 Special Engineering Features
Test borings indicate the soil at planned foundation subgrades within the Stage 1 MSE berm is
“sandrock” which exhibits Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) resistance (N) values ranging
from 40 to 100 blows per foot (bpf). Less dense soil and groundwater may be encountered
within 5 feet below the ground surface within the lowest elevations of the Stage 1 footprint.
The foundation subgrade will be further evaluated during construction and, if needed,
appropriate foundation improvements will be made, such as placement of underdrains and
over-excavation and replacement with compacted soil to provide adequate bearing capacity.

An internal drainage system is detailed in Section 2 of this report, which will prevent the
buildup of excess pore pressure behind the berm. No seeps, springs, soft ground or other
deleterious conditions were identified in the site characterization studies. The berm design
incorporates advanced geosynthetic reinforcement discussed in Section 3. Site specific
strength testing is discussed in Section 4. Monitoring systems are discussed in Section 5.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 15
1.3.5 Soil Volume Analysis
The following calculation of soil requirements was developed from the airspace data and the
permitted grading plan. In addition, a separate calculation of the soil requirements for all four
stages of the MSE berm was performed. Regulatory buffer requirements have been observed.
Table 1B Soil Volume Requirements
Soil volume calculated for Phases 1-4 356,677 C.Y. A
Added airspace for Stages 1-2 1,147,454 C.Y.
Intermediate Cover (10% Working Volume) B 114,745 C.Y.
Structural Fill for Stage 1 MSE Berm 102,615 C.Y. D
Structural Fill for Stage 2 MSE Berm 95,284 C.Y. D
Total New Soil through Stages 1 and 2 312,644 C.Y.
Added airspace for Stages 3-4 919,810
Intermediate Cover (10% Working Volume) B 91,981 C.Y.
Structural Fill for Stage 3 MSE Berm 97,750 C.Y. D
Structural Fill for Stage 4 MSE Berm 97,750 C.Y. D
Projected New Soil through Stage 4 287,481 C.Y.
Reduction from Future Borrow C <233,151 C.Y.>
Total Required Future Soil Borrow 723,651 C.Y. E
A A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility, Phase 3 PTC Report, 4-5-2019 (Table 1D), includes
final cover and operational cover for Phases 1-4; these soils reserves have already been proven
B Working volume is total added airspace, final cover already factored into Phases 1-4
C Can subtract the following from future borrow needs:
Excavation for Stage 1+2 berm 61,126 c.y.
Phase 1 Intermediate cover 47,033 c.y.
Phase 2 Intermediate cover 60,819 c.y.
Phase 3 Intermediate cover 64,173 c.y.
Reduction from Future Borrow 233,151 c.y.
D Adjusted to include 15% shrinkage
E Between on-site stockpiles and adjacent land reserves, sufficient soil is available (Table 1C)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
1 – Facility Plan Page 16
Table 1C BORROW SOIL RESOURCES A
Area (acres) Borrow volume (c.y.)
Stockpile (onsite) --- 125,000
Adjacent Sites 13.9 313,955
Total Available Borrow 438,955

A The borrow site consists of lots contiguous to the facility, not within the facility boundary, but
directly accessible with off-road equipment. This estimate includes the following properties: 2103
Bishop Rd, 2097 Bishop Rd, 2095 Bishop Rd, 2093 Bishop Rd, 2085 Bishop Rd, 2087 Bishop Rd,
2111 Bishop Rd, Greensboro, NC 27406. These properties are wholly owned by A-1 Sandrock,
Inc. but are not planned to be added to the facility. The estimate of available borrow is based on
an assumed average cut depth of 27 feet. Since the original preparation of this report, an additional
65 acres of undeveloped land accessible by off-road equipment has been acquired.

For future reference, surface area of the Stage 1+2 berm is approximately 97,507 square feet.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 17
2 ENGINEERING PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0539)
2.1 Engineering Report
This section describes the physical aspects of the facility expansion, with emphasis on the MSE
berm. All waste containment and environmental controls are consistent with the requirements
of the North Carolina Solid Waste rules, 15A NCAC 13B .0531 - .0547. There is no liner or
leachate collection system because the site meets the rule requirements for soil types present
within two feet below planned base grades, and there is at least 4 feet of vertical separation
between the waste and seasonal high ground water and/or bedrock (see Rule .0540 (2)). The
base grades and outer slopes of the landfill will have maximum slope ratios of 3H:1V except
for the berm face.

In addition to demonstrating compliance with the NCDEQ regulations, this report provides an
explanation of the design and development of specifications for key components of the MSE
berm construction. The overarching design guidance is the methodology advanced by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, based on current AASHTO
LRFD specifications.1 These methods are the standard design principles for Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) structures, including Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), in between which
the subject MSE berm resides. These construction methods have been perfected over hundreds,
if not thousands, of years, and these structures are used extensively throughout the U.S. for
highway and landfill projects.
2.1.1 Engineered Components
The MSE berm is a flexible structure, such that anticipated settlement is not expected to
overstrain the embankment or the tensile reinforcement. Traditionally, it is believed that planar
structural members require some strain (~1-2%) to mobilize the strength of the materials.
While this tenet holds true, the advanced polymers comprising the geogrids selected for this
project (polyaramide and/or polyethylene terephthalate) exhibit high tensile strength at lower
elongation, in addition to exhibiting low creep characteristics and chemical stability. While
they do not require elongation strain to develop tensile strength, published test data show these
materials can withstand very high strain values (~10%) without losing their strength.2 The
manufacturer has tight quality control specifications and the materials will receive
confirmatory field and lab tested during the construction. A brief technical description of the
various components of the MSE berm with specifications follows.

1 Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-
024, FHWA GEC 011 – Volumes I and II, November 2009
2 https://www.huesker.us/products/geosynthetics/grids/fortrac.html
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 18
2.1.2 General Layout
The berm will be constructed in stacked horizontal layers of 18 inches in height, resembling
“courses” in masonry. Each course is offset rearward by 6 inches, resulting in an overall batter
of ~71.6 degrees (1H:3V). Each slope face will be vegetated. The maximum height (H) on
this project is 60 feet. Base width is typically 0.7H. A typical 3H:1V landfill side slope will
start above the top of the berm, allowing for a 25-foot wide corridor for access and drainage
(see Drawings S4 and RW5). The top of the berm will support a uniform surcharge load of
250 lb/ft2 over the 25-foot width. No portion of the berm will be supported on waste material.
Placement of the drainage layer and waste behind the berm will be contemporaneous, such that
the berm will always be fully supported. No heavy machinery should be operated directly
above the drainage stone or within 4 feet of the completed slope faces.
2.1.3 Material Specifications
2.1.3.1 Geotextile Reinforcement
The geogrid selected for this project are described as flexible “planar structures consisting of
a regular open network of integrally-connected tensile elements of yarn. The yarn is made from
high modulus polyester fibres of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The yarn is woven or
knitted into grids and coated with a protective layer of [polymer].”3 The geogrid selection is
Fortrac™ flexible geosynthetic reinforcement manufactured by Huesker, or equivalent, not
rigid so the interaction between geogrid and granular soil can fully develop. The required
properties of the geogrid reinforcement for the subject project are shown on Table 2A.
2.1.3.2 Reinforced Soil-Aggregate
The lower portion of Table 2A illustrates how increased frictional contact between the flexible
geogrids with the reinforced soil enhances the available strength of the geogrid. Unlike rigid
geogrids, the flexible geogrids conform to the shape of the soil-aggregates, which provides
higher surface contact and interaction with the relatively large apertures. Coarser materials,
e.g., SM, SW, GW, ABC stone or “crusher run,” increase these effects. Also known as
“structural fill” or “select fill” the granular soil for this project is to be placed in thin horizontal
lifts with a relative density of 95 percent MDD, per standard Proctor method (ASTM D-698).
Lift thickness may field adjusted by the engineer based on material type.

3 British Board of Agrément, Roads and Bridges Agrément Certificate No 01/R125 Product Sheet 3;
2009; https://www.bbacerts.co.uk/pac; see https://mediacache3.bgflux.com/6f/ad/4402-4fb7-43b6-
b41f-bd7e880473fc/bba-cert,%20fortrac-t-%20und%20r-t-.pdf

Product literature from HUESKER, Inc., 3701 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 525 P.O. Box 411529
Charlotte, NC 28273; https://www.huesker.us/fileadmin/Media/Brochures/US/PB_Fortrac_US.pdf

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 19
Table 2A Specifications For Geogrid Reinforcement
PROPERTY TEST
METHOD
FORTRAC 35 FORTRAC 55 FORTRAC 80 FORTRAC 110
English
unitsA
SI
unitsA
English
units
SI
units
Englis
h units SI units English
units SI units
Mass/Unit Area ASTM
D-5261
7
oz/yd2
235
g/m3
8
oz/yd2
275
g/m3
13
oz/yd2
440
g/m3
14
oz/yd2
475
g/m3
Aperture Size Measur
ed
0.8 x
0.8 in
20 x 20
mm
0.8 x
0.8 in
20 x 20
mm
0.8 x
0.8 in
20 x 20
mm
0.8 x
0.8 in
20 x 20
mm
Percent open area
CWO
22125 70% 70% 70% 70% 65% 65% 65% 65%
Ultimate wide-width tensile
strength (MD)B
ASTM
D-6637
2400
lb/ft
35
kN/m
3700
lb/ft
54.1
kN/m
5750
lb/ft
84
kN/m
7535
lb/ft
110
kN/m
Elongation at Break
ASTM
D-6637 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Long-Term Design Strength (MD) varies with soil type:
Sand, Silt and Clay
GRI
GG4 (b)
1322
lb/ft
19.3
kN/m
2027
lb/ft
29.6
kN/m
3150
lb/ft
46.0
kN/m
4129
lb/ft
60.3
kN/m
0.75-in Minus Well Graded
Gravel
GRI
GG4 (b)
1300
lb/ft
19.0
kN/m
1971
lb/ft
28.8
kN/m
3150
lb/ft
46.0
kN/m
4129
lb/ft
60.3
kN/m
2.5-in Crushed
Stone and Gravel
GRI
GG4 (b)
1243
lb/ft
18.1
kN/m
1867
lb/ft
27.2
kN/m
2927
lb/ft
42.7
kN/m
3940
lb/ft
57.5
kN/m
A MARV = Minimum average roll value based on 95% confidence level
B MD = Machine Direction

NCDOT uses MSE structures extensively for traffic-supporting embankments and bridge
approaches. The North Carolina Aggregates Association has published guidance on reinforced
fill gradation, shown on Table 2B.4 Note these gradations do not include particle sizes larger
than 1.5 inches, whereas the geogrid literature indicates that aggregate sizes including 2-inch
materials, or slightly larger, are acceptable. NCDOT limits the use of some of the finer
gradations with geosynthetic grid.5

4 TABLE 1005-1 AGGREGATE GRADATION - COARSE AGGREGATE, 2018 NCDOT Standard
Specifications, https://www.ncaggregates.org/ncdot/
5 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALL AGGREGATE SAMPLING AND TESTING
PROCEDURES, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Materials and Tests Unit,
February 15, 2019
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 20
Table 2B Guidance for Soil-Aggregate Selection
Std.
Size # 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #16 #40 #200
4 100% 90-
100%
20-
55%
0-
15% - 0-5% - - - - - 5% A
467M 100% 95-
100% - 35-
70% - 0-
30%
0-
5% - - - - 5% A
57 - 100% 95-
100% - 25-
60% - 0-
10%
0-
5% - - - 5% A
67 - - 100% 90-
100% - 20-
55%
0-
10%
0-
5% - - - 5% A
78M - - - 100% 98-
100%
75-
100%
20-
45%
0-
15% - - - 15%A
ABC - 100% 75-
97% - 55-
80% - 35-
55% - 25-
45% - 14-
30%
4-
12%B
A Application specific, highest possible value given
B For fraction passing No. 40 sieve, LL ≤ 30, PI ≤ 4

The aggregate gradations allowed by NCDOT for select fill correlate as follows:6
CLASS IV - coarse aggregate meeting the gradation requirements of
standard size ABC, ref. Section 1010.
CLASS V - coarse aggregate meeting the gradation requirements of
standard size 78M, ref. Table 1005-1.
CLASS VI - coarse aggregate meeting the gradation requirements of
standard size 57, ref. Table 1005-1.

The literature contains the section “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls,” which
provides additional material selection guidance: 7

Coarse Aggregate No. 57, 57M, 67, 78M Steel only:
Steel Reinforcement pH 5 - 10 Resistivity ≥ 5000 Ω-cm
PET reinforcement pH 5 - 8 Chlorides ≤ 100 ppm
HDP or PP reinforcement pH 4.5 - 9 Sulfates ≤ 200 ppm

6 SECTION 1016 – SELECT MATERIALS, 2018 NCDOT Standard Specifications
7 https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Geological/Documents/Standard%20MSE%20Wall
%20Provision.pdf
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 21
The foregoing criteria are presented for consideration on the subject project, but this is not
intended to exclude other potential material and gradations. The Owner intends to investigate
the use of on-site materials, i.e., stockpiled “sandrock” procured from prior excavations or new
borrow sites, or crushed recycled concrete. Actual materials properties may not match the
published literature, and it will be left to the Engineering Team’s judgement to determine the
required properties in an upcoming final design review. Within Appendix E of the FEA report
(Appendix 2), a finer aggregate is tentatively called out (see Table 2C). 8
Table 2C Tentative Specifications for Fill Gradation

Of note, local manufactured aggregates typically lack sufficient “fines” to provide apparent
cohesion for compactability, except CABC or crusher run. Another consideration is the
advantage of having coarser aggregate. FHWA NHI-10-024 (Chapter 3) gives this gradation
for “rock backfill” from AASHTO T-27as allowable with sturdy geotextile reinforcement:

Sieve Size, mm % Passing PI
4-in 102 100 <6
No. 40 0.425 sic 0-60
No. 200 0.075 0-15

NCDOT provides guidance on the use of recycled concrete in reinforced embankments.9
The coarse aggregate shall conform to the physical requirements in Table
1005-1 and Article 1014-2 of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for
standard size No. 57, 57M, 67 or 78M except No. 57 or 57M stone may not
be used in the reinforced zone . . . [with] geosynthetic reinforcement.

8 Final Design Report for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm for A-1 Sandrock, Greensboro, NC,
Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates, July 2017 (reproduced in Appendix 2 of this work)
9 SECTION 1043 AGGREGATE FROM CRUSHED CONCRETE, 2018 Standard Specifications
Sieve Size, mm Size, in. % Passing PI
¾ inch 19.0 0.750 75-100 <10
No. 4 4.76 0.187 20-100
No. 40 0.420 0.0165 0-60
No. 200 0.074 0.0029 0-15
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 22
Additional acceptance criteria for recycled concrete include restricting deleterious materials
and debris, as well as chemical compatibility with the reinforcement materials. For instance,
potential corrosivity with ferrous metals is a concern if chloride- and sulfide-bearing minerals
(typical of Coastal Plain aggregates) are used, but the aggregates produced near Greensboro
are not known to be corrosive. The geogrid composites proposed for this project are not
susceptible to chemical degradation. Contact between the metal baskets and organic
vegetation-support media will be further considered, as potential reactions may indicate the
need for a protective coating. A-1 Sandrock recycles concrete and has ample soil and aggregate
resources, i.e. “sandrock,” which will be evaluated during final material selection.
2.1.3.3 Front Face Baskets
Fabricated baskets have been called out for this project, comprising “hot-dipped galvanized”
steel, 4-gage welded wire mesh (WWF 4x4). A diagram of the basket construction (from FEA)
is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Slope Face Wire Basket Detail (after Fitzpatrick)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 23
2.1.3.4 Drainage Media
The back slope will be near vertical and constructed of compacted soil, separated from a
granular drainage layer with a filter geotextile. The granular drainage media selected for this
project is No. 57 stone, or equivalent. Refer to Table 2B.
2.1.3.5 Drain Piping
Internal 4-inch diameter piping will consist of slotted and non-slotted PVC or HDPE. The
header pipe will consist of 8-inch diameter non-slotted PVC or HDPE. The tentative selection
for both is Hancor Sure-Lok WT (or equivalent).10 This widely available product is double-
wall (corrugated outside, smooth inside) and made from HDPE with watertight joints. The
manufacturer’s data states the joints remain watertight when subjected to a 1.5-degree axial
misalignment. HDPE is a highly durable material which has superior abrasion and chemical
resistance characteristics. Slotted segments will be embedded in granular drainage media. All
pipework will be cradled in a prepared bedding material and covered with appropriate backfill
to protect the pipe. Specifications relative to the selected product follow:
Table 2C Specification for Drainpipe
Diameters: 4" - 10 " (100 - 250mm)
Length: 20' (6.1m)
Specifications: AASHTO M252; Type S
Joint Performance: 4" - 10 " (100 - 250mm) meet ASTM D3212
Joining System: Bell-and-Spigot
Gasket: Rubber, meeting ASTM F477
2.1.3.6 Filter Geotextile
A filter geotextile will be used to separate granular drainage media from adjacent soil behind
and beneath the MSE embankment. Product selection is often postponed until construction
begins and materials have been tested. Selection criteria include damage resistance and water
transmission. The latter is usually gaged by Apparent Opening Size (AOS) or “aperture,”
which is selected to balance drainage characteristic with clogging resistance. One suitable
product is GEOTEX® 111F (specified below), but several equivalents may be considered:

10 ADS/HANCOR Water Management Product Catalog,
http://www.hancor.com/product/slf477specs.html
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 24
Table 2D Specification for Filter Geotextile
Property Test method B Unit 111F
GRAB TENSILE STRENGTH
(MD/XD) A ASTM D-4632 LB. 370 X
220
GRAB ELONGATION (MD/XD) A ASTM D-4632 % 25 x 15
PUNCTURE STRENGTH ASTM D-4833 LB. 115
MULLEN BURST ASTM D-3786 PSI 470
TRAPEZOIDAL TEAR (MD/XD)
A ASTM D-4533 LB. 115 x
75
PERCENT OPEN AREA (POA)
OPENING AREA /
TOTAL AREA X
100
%

11
APPARENT OPENING SIZE
(AOS) ASTM D-4751 US Sieve
mm
30
0.6
PERMITTIVITY ASTM D-4491 sec-1 1.10
WATER FLOW RATE ASTM D-4491 gpm/ft² 110
UV RESISTANCE ASTM D-4355
% Retained
@ 500
hours

90

A Values reported in Machine Direction (MD) and Cross Direction (XD), respectively.
B All values listed are Minimum Average Roll Values (MARV) except for AOS,
calculated as the typical minus two standard deviations.
2.1.3.7 Vegetation
The vegetation support layer typically consists of a mix of soil, humus, organic matter,
beneficial microbes, and slow release organic nutrients, contained within a geotextile wrap
(some proprietary systems used fabricated bags) that permit the passage of air, water, and roots.
The geotextile is secured along the embankment face behind a geogrid or wire cage. The media
are affixed to the slope face as courses are added and becomes an integral part of the
embankment. Methods of establishing vegetation include injecting seeds into the growing
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 25
media and/or planting live plants, bulbs or dormant rootstocks through the geotextile, working
incrementally as courses are added. Another approach is hydroseeding the slopes after larger
sections are completed. Likely a combination of these methods will be optimal. A vegetation
maintenance plan will be developed that may require periodic overseeding.

Vegetation choices may include native grasses, vines and groundcover, wildflowers perennials
and woody vegetation. Selection should consider climate, prevailing weather, temperature, sun
exposure, available moisture, soil pH, nutrient requirements, drought tolerance, and
maintenance requirements (Fifield, 2001). Quick establishing annual grasses, legumes and
non-reproductive wheat grass/oat grass hybrids are normally specified for temporary and nurse
crop applications. Perennial grasses are typically specified for permanent applications; native
grasses should be utilized as these will be better adapted to local climate, native soil, and
hydrology (Fifield, 2001; USDA NRCS, 2004). Generally, tall and sturdy grasses are better at
reducing runoff and flow velocity and increasing sediment removal (Grismer et al., 2006;
USDA-NRCS, 2004), as taller vegetation increases surface roughness values. Additionally,
deep rooted grasses will be more stable under high storm runoff and flow velocity.11
Table 2E Specification for Temporary Vegetation
Seeding Dates A Jan. 1 - May 1 May 1 - Aug. 15 Aug. 15 - Dec. 30
Rye (grain) 120 lb/acre 120 lb/acre
Kobe Lespedeza 50 lb/acre
German Millet 40 lb/acre
Small-stemmed
Sudangrass (alt.) 50 lb/acre
Agricultural
Limestone 2,000 Lb/Acre
10-10-10 Fertilizer 1,000 lb/acre
Straw Mulch 4,000 lb/acre

A North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, June 2006 revision,
Chapter 6 Practice Standards and Specifications, Table 6.11.a.

11 Filtrexx® Low Impact Design Manual, Version 10.0, Section 3: Living Walls, pp. 338-351,
https://www.filtrexx.com/application/files/5215/0186/9124/3.2_Filtrexx_GreenLoxx_MSE_Vegetat
ed_Retaining_Wall.pdf
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 26
Table 2F Specification for Permanent Vegetation
Seeding Dates A Dec. 1 -
Apr. 15
Feb.15 –
May 1
Jul. 15 -
Aug. 15
Aug. 15 -
Oct. 15
Sep. 1 –
Nov. 1
Switchgrass 3.5
Indiangrass 7.0
Deertongue 6.0
Big Bluestem 7.0
Little Bluestem 7.0
Rice Cutgrass 6.0
Virginia Wild Rye 6.0 6.0
Indian Woodoats 2.5 2.5
Eastern Bottlebrush Grass 2.5 2.5 2.5
Soft Rush 2.5 2.5
Fox Sedge 2.5 2.5 2.5

A Plant each with at least four other species with matching drainage characteristics
Reference Table 6.11.c and Table 6.11.d

Plant with nurse crop, Reference Table 6.11.a (see Table 2E)

Avoid invasive non-native species, i.e., turf fescue is not recommended

This is not a complete list of the available species that may perform well

Varieties of native vines, shrubs and wildflowers can be considered

A local agronomist will be consulted at the onset of construction

https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/Land%20Resource
s/Land%20Quality/Erosion%20and%20Sediment%20Control%20Planning%20and%20Design%2
0Manual/Chapter%206/II.Surface%20Stabilization_rev%20May%202013.pdf
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 27
2.1.4 Analytical Methods
The MSE berm design incorporates appropriate factors of safety for typical failure
mechanisms, i.e., external and internal stability forces, localized failure of components, and
global stability. These analyses were performed in accordance with the National Concrete
Masonry Association (NCMA) Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Berms (1997), and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NHI-00-043 methodology. Calculations were
aided by the computer programs MSEW (v3.0) and ReSSA (v3.0).

Geosynthetic reinforcement specifications are based on Long-Term Design Strength (LTDS)
parameters. Various strength reduction factors are included in the design. Stability analyses
are based on traditional limit-equilibrium methods. MSEW (v3.0) is an interactive program for
the design and analysis of mechanically stabilized earth structures that follows the design
guidelines of AASHTO98 / FHWA-NHI-00-043, based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
methods. ReSSA (3.0) is an interactive program used to assess the rotational and translational
stability of slopes, which accepts the output of MSEW. REssa (3.0) allows an option to run the
program in the Load Reduction Factor Design (LRFD) mode, whereas reduction factors were
used to modify ultimate strength to account for long-term conditional changes.

These programs were developed to facilitate the inclusion of horizontally placed
reinforcement, thus enabling the design and analysis of mechanically stabilized earth slopes.
12 Regarding the use of LRFD versus ASD, the FHWA-NHI-1-024 (Section 4.4.7.j) states,

“The evaluation of lateral wall movements in LRFD is the same as in ASD, as
the deformations are evaluated at the Service I limit state. This refers to
empirical data showing that most internal lateral deformations of an MSE . . .
face usually occur during construction. Post construction movements, however,
may take place due to post construction surcharge loads, settlement of . . . fill,
or long-term settlement of foundation soils.” 13

While ASD methods were used to perform the initial evaluation of required strength parameters
to meet stability requirements, the final design was “fine-tuned” using LRFD methodologies.
The Design Report prepared by FEA is presented in Appendix 2. Recommendations for site
preparation, settlement prevention, drainage behind the berm, surface drainage, compaction of
earthen materials, spacing of reinforcement, connection details, and construction material
testing, are summarized in Section 3 of the FEA report. Relevant test results, data and
recommendations have been summarized for this larger application.

12 Copyright of © ADAMA Engineering, Inc. 2015. https://www.geoprograms.com/mse-3-0/
13 See Footnote 1
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 28
Evaluations of soil and groundwater characteristics required for the MSE berm design,
including soil quantities and laboratory soil classification, shear strength, consolidation, and
compaction characteristics, are taken from Solid Waste Section-reviewed documents:
Site Suitability Study, 2002 (David Garrett & Associates)
Design Hydro Report for Phase 2, 2015 (Garrett, with SCS Engineers)
Design Hydro Report for Phase 3, 2018 (Garrett, with Wood E&IS).
Stability and settlement of foundation soils considered in setting original base grades were
revisited for the vertical expansion (Section 2.5), as was outer slope stability for the final cover
system. Other analyses include a detailed evaluation of Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S)
control, originally permitted by now NCDEMLR. These calculations and relevant data are
presented in Appendix 3.
2.1.5 Identified Critical Conditions
Based on the foundation investigations for the MSE berm and the entire CDLF footprint, no
inherent foundation instability or long-term settlement problems are anticipated. Some
considerations that are both generic to landfills and specific to the on-site soils, learned through
practical experience, are discussed below.
• Stability is the biggest area of concern for the design and construction of the MSE
berm. The project has undergone a rigorous design exercise by qualified engineers.
• Analysis of settlement, sliding, overturning, global stability, tensile reinforcement
failure and excess internal pore pressure have performed.
• The stability of the front face of the berm is dependent on construction technique,
proper sequencing, soil selection and containment, erosion control and vegetation.
• Outer slope stability (relative to final cover) will rely on design and material section,
adequate compaction for strength and adherence to design slope ratios.
• The facility makes or has access to various grades of coarse soil, aggregates and topsoil
made utilizing on-site manufactured compost; the facility also recycles concrete which
might prove suitable for soil-aggregate in the MSE berm.
• Lower permeability soils suitable for final cover construction, i.e., those which exhibit
a field hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec, are available on-site in
sufficient quantities for final cover construction, but these soils are not appropriate for
MSE berm construction.
• Soils required for building the MSE berm need to be highly granular and will not be
suitable for final cover construction except possibly as drainage media, though the
tolerable quantity of “fines” required for compaction is more than typically used in
subsurface drainage applications.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 29
• Close attention to soil types and compaction during construction will be critical to
assure compliance with regulations and sound engineering practice; these issues are
addressed with an equally rigorous CQA program.
• Long-term vegetation maintenance and slope monitoring are operational safeguards to
assure the proper performance of the embankment.
2.1.6 Technical References
Calculations found in Appendix 2 and 3 are referenced within the various analyses. The
calculations were performed according to accepted engineering standards of practice.
2.1.7 Location Restriction Demonstrations
The site was granted a Site Suitability determination that was prepared in accordance with 15A
NCAC 13B .0531 et seq. based on work completed in 2002-04, i.e., the site characteristics
were determined suitable for a C&D landfill. Relative to Rule .0536 pertaining to C&D
landfills, the site has no disqualifying conditions with respect to zoning, setbacks from
residences or potable wells, historic or cultural sites, state or nature preserves, 100-year
floodplains, wetlands, water supply critical areas, or endangered species. Documentation of
this work was presented in the 2002 Site Suitability Report.
2.2 Construction Materials and Practices
Based on the 2002 Design Hydrogeologic study, from the original Permit to Construct
application, updated in the 2015 and 2018 Design Hydrogeologic studies, on-site soils
available for berm and subgrade construction consist chiefly of variably silty sand exhibiting
Unified Soil Classification System classifications of SM and SM-ML, with silty clay (CL) and
clayey silt (ML). These soils meet the requirements for the upper two feet beneath the landfill
subgrade referenced in 15A NCAC 13B .0540 (2). The soils exhibit satisfactory density and
shear strength (when compacted as recommended) to build stable berms. Field evaluations
will be performed to verify the subgrade soils will provide sufficient support. Some undercut
and soil replacement may be required.

Good construction practices for berms and subgrade include compaction using steel-wheel
rollers, sheep foot rollers, and/or smooth-drum rollers of sufficient weight – not dozers –
making a minimum number of four passes in two perpendicular directions, in order to achieve
the desired strength properties for stability. Soils that are excessively wet or exhibit more than
0.5 percent organic debris content should be avoided. If less desirable soils must be used, they
may be blended with better soils to reduce the deleterious properties. The targeted compaction
criterion is 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Critical berm and
subgrade areas should be tested to ensure proper compaction in accordance with the criteria
outlined in the CQA Plan (Section 4.0).
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 30
2.3 Design Hydrogeologic Report
The 2018 Design Hydrogeologic Report for Phase 3 was augmented with site specific data for
the Stage 1 MSE berm. These data are presented graphically in Drawings S1 – S3. Relevant
boring logs and lab test data are presented in Appendix 3.

Between Sta 14+00 and 22+00 weathered rock (100+ bpf material) and/or bedrock defined by
"auger refusal" exists at or slightly above the proposed foundation line (see Drawing S-3). The
alignment in this area follows the original perimeter road, which was purposely not excavated
to serve as sidewalls for the landfill. This remnant of the original ground reflects the geology
of the site prior to mine/landfill development.

Between approximately Sta 22+00 and 30+00 the alignment deviates downslope (to the west)
along natural ground. The weathered rock is overlain by a mantle of more highly weathered
soil typically exhibiting SPT values over 30 bpf extending to depths of 0 to 30 feet. These
soils are relatively sandy. There are some near surface pockets of sandy clay 3 to 12 bpf
extending to depths of 3 to 5 feet beneath the surface. The data should be qualified in that the
reported SPT values are uncorrected for overburden, which is a standard practice for LRFD
bearing capacity design. Bearing capacity is addressed in the FEA report (Appendix 2); the
data and calculations indicate sufficient bearing capacity is available. A settlement calculation
discussed in Section 2.5.1 indicates settlements are within tolerable limits for the structure.
Groundwater is typically 15 to 30 feet beneath the surface and will not be a negative influence.

Between approximately Sta 30+00 and 34+00 the alignment returns to the original perimeter
road and conditions resemble those between Sta 14+00 and 22+00. An exception occurs
between approximately Sta 30+50 and 31+50, where embankment fill was placed along the
roadway. In all areas on Drawing S-3 the tentative grade line is shown above the ground
surface. The foundation will be evaluated as part of the CQA program and grades will be
adjusted to ensure proper foundation conditions.
2.4 Engineering Drawings
Refer to the rolled plan set that accompanies this report. All relevant criteria required by the
rules (except as noted) are depicted on the plans.
2.4.1 Existing Conditions
See Drawing F1 in the Construction Drawings.
2.4.2 Foundation Plan
Foundation plans are depicted in Drawings ME1 and ME10 – ME12.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 31
2.4.3 Stormwater Segregation
Drawing S4 shows a cross section of the berm and the position of the internal drain. Water
collected in the internal drain will be managed as leachate in a dedicated pipe system.
Stormwater segregation prior to final cover construction will conform to best management
practices for landfill operations, facilitated by orderly waste placement. After final
construction, surface water will be managed using approved S&EC measures.
2.4.4 Final Grades
Drawing ME2 – ME9 show the MSE berm at full height in multiple sections, scaled for
visibility of key details, e.g. internal drain locations and leachate collection appurtenances.
2.4.5 Temporary and Permanent E&SC
Drawings ME2 – ME9 show temporary sedimentation and erosion control (E&SC) measures
for the various section of MSE berm construction. and Drawing EC1 for permanent measures
pertaining to the final cover. Drawings ES1 – ES4 depict the surface drainage channels and
downpipes for the progressive development of Stages 1 – 4, respectively, with ES4
representing permanent measures. Construction details are shown in Drawings EC1 – EC3.
Calculations for the E&SC plan are presented in Appendix 3.
2.4.6 Vertical Separation
Vertical base grade separation was established in the 2002 Design Hydrogeologic study and
redefined in the 2015 Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic and 2018 Phase 3 Design Hydrogeologic
studies. The landfill is founded on very hard saprolite and/or weathered rock. These materials
are both sandy and gravelly, exhibiting rock-like texture, and the foundation is not expected to
yield beneath the anticipated final loads. The studies and settlement calculations presented in
Appendix 3 show that foundation settlement, hence vertical separation, is not an issue.
2.4.7 Other Features
The significant feature of this application is the MSE berm itself. Construction details and
calculations required to demonstrate stability are highlighted elsewhere in this document. The
calculations address foundation support, global stability, internal stability and reinforcement,
settlement, internal drainage, surface drainage, leachate collection systems, earthwork
quantities, total capacity (airspace), construction costs and financial assurance. A clear
distinction must be made between the proposed MSE berm and a common reinforced earth
highway well. The MSE berm is a permanent, somewhat flexible gravity retainage structure,
vegetated to blend with the surroundings and expected to last indefinitely, while the highway
structures typically include brittle or slowly degradable elements for aesthetic purposes
(concrete face panels), resulting in higher maintenance concerns and shorter service life.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 32
2.5 Specific Engineering Calculations and Results
Calculations for settlement and slope stability were performed using site-specific data. The
calculations can be found in Appendices 2 and 3, along with key supporting geotechnical lab
data. More complete lab data are found in the 2002 Site Suitability Report and/or the Design
Hydrogeologic Reports. The following is brief description of the analyses.
2.5.1 Settlement
Settlement is a concern at landfills for maintaining vertical separation between the waste and
the maximum long-term seasonal high-water table. Beneath the MSE berm, excess settlement
could be detrimental to stability. Settlements of the foundation soils may result from time-
dependent strain, i.e., a change in thickness within the various soil layers due to the vertical
stress (weight of the landfill) applied at the surface, accompanied by drainage of the various
soil layers. Vertical stresses beneath landfills gradually increase as the waste becomes thicker
over time; strain-induced settlements within sands and/or well-drained silts are relatively short-
term. Long-term settlements are not typically a concern unless thick uniform clay deposits
(which tend to drain slowly) are present. This landfill site is excavated into dense residual
saprolite, characterized as “incompressible.” No soft clay layers were identified.

Beneath the waste – settlements were calculated using elastic methods adapted from the
US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for highway berms. Ostensibly, a landfill is a
large flexible berm with the highest stresses impinging on the foundation soils near the center.
The FHWA settlement calculation is based on the work of Hough (1959) and others, which
considers both the material type and overburden depth for determining a “correction factor”
for SPT values, from which the compressibility and load-induced strain of each soil layer can
be evaluated. For sandy soils conventional sampling via Shelby tubes and laboratory
consolidation testing is infeasible. No Shelby tube samples were acquired for laboratory
consolidation tests.

A spreadsheet facilitates the settlement calculation (see Appendix 3). The maximum vertical
stress increase was calculated for the maximum waste thickness of 200 feet (for the Stage 4
vertical expansion), and an average saturated unit weight of 55 pcf, then applying a depth-
related “influence factor” based on elastic stress distribution theory. The unit weight is
deliberately high to be on the conservative side, whereas the measured in-situ unit weight has
been approximately 0.6 tons (1200) pounds per cubic yard, or 44 pcf. Next a subsurface stress
distribution was developed for original and post-construction (final height) conditions, based
on the depth and average unit weight of the soil layers, plus the added vertical stresses. The
SPT correction factor was applied to determine the compressibility factor and strain within
each layer, differentiating between sand and clay layers based on empirical data. Strain in the
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 33
individual layers was summed up to estimate the total settlement. Time-dependent settlement
was not considered due to the well-drained conditions indicated by the subsurface data.

Assuming relatively uniform subsurface conditions within the footprint – as confirmed by the
test borings – a representative subsurface profile was used to estimate the maximum
settlements beneath the center of the landfill. Settlements along the edges of the landfill are
negligible, and settlements beneath the slopes would fall in between the maximum and
minimum values. The calculations confirm that the foundation soils and base grade design,
which typically provides more than the minimum required 4 feet of separation, are sufficient
to accommodate the anticipated settlement. Differential settlement within the footprint is not
a concern. The maximum estimated foundation settlement beneath the waste is 0.59 feet.
This does not include compression settlement of the waste itself.

Beneath the MSE berm – settlements were calculated in the same manner as for the waste
pile, but in this case the maximum height of the berm is 60 feet and the unit weight of the soil
is 135 pcf. The foundation conditions are anticipated to be uniform, whereas soil improvement
required for bearing capacity will be constructed of the same material. For the anticipated
conditions at the berm site, the maximum foundation settlements are estimated to be 0.51
feet. The settlement will occur quickly as the load is applied, whereas the loads are within the
elastic behavior range of the soils. Whereas the berm is to be built to full height incrementally
over several years, the settlement will occur gradually over time, but for each loading the
associated settlement will occur quickly as the berm is built. See Section 2.5.4.4.
2.5.2 Slope Stability
Three primary mechanisms are a concern for landfills in general with respect to slope stability:
1. Deep-seated stability involving a movement within the waste or the base of
the landfill; damage ranges from maintenance to potentially catastrophic.
2. Global stability involving movement within the foundation, e.g., a deep-seated
weak layer beneath the landfill; damage typically considered as catastrophic.
3. Veneer stability (sliding of the cover), which can expose the waste, but the
damage is typically not catastrophic, i.e., more of a maintenance issue.
Stability evaluations for the MSE berm involves analyses of external forces acting on the
structure and the soils surrounding the berm, i.e., base sliding, overturning, deep-seated
rotational or wedge failure in the foundation, which treat the structure as a rigid body, as well
as analyses of internal forces acting on the compacted soil-aggregate and the reinforcement.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 34
2.5.2.1 Deep-Seated Stability
A limit-equilibrium analysis, i.e., the Slope/W model, is used for this project for deep-seated
(and global) slope stability evaluations. A circular failure surface was analyzed based on
Spencer’s method of slices for a 3H:1V side slope ratio.

Shear strength inputs to the Slope/W model were developed from the drilling and laboratory
data, presented in the 2018 Phase 3 Design Hydrogeologic study. A representative soil profile
was developed from the drilling data, shown in Drawings S1 – S2, from which strength
parameters were derived empirically from the standard penetration resistance values, tempered
with laboratory data (Appendix 3). The following summarizes the soil strength input values.
Table 2G Material Properties Used for Calculations
Soil Layer Friction Angle
(Degree)
Cohesion
(psf)
Moist Unit
Weight (pcf)
C & D Material 25 50 100
Residual Sand (SC-SM) 32 300 115
Silty Clay (CL) 22 200 110
Reinforced Soil (MSE Berm) 50 2000 A 120
PWR (Sandrock) 36 1000 125
A Cohesion was set artificially high in global stability analyses to force trial failure surfaces
generated by Slope/W beneath the embankment (stressing the foundation). Failure through
the embankment (stressing the reinforcing components) is addressed in Section 2.5.4.

Some of the cross-sections (see Drawings S1 – S3) indicate a thin layer of clayey-silty SAND
beneath the MSE berm and landfill, and materials in front of the Stage 1 berm consist of silty
CLAY. Estimation of the cohesion and friction angle for the above mentioned two layers was
based on the average N-SPT values observed in the close by borings. A conservatively high
unit weight was estimated for the C&D waste. The water table was modeled at a depth of 5
feet below the base of the berm, which reflects seasonal high conditions, but a phreatic surface
was modeled acting behind the MSE berm.

Based on location, the site is within a Seismic Impact Zone. The data do not indicate soft
layers that would pose liquefaction concerns. Nonetheless, seismic criteria were considered in
the analyses of internal forces, discussed in the FEA report. Based on the soil consistency
beneath the site, the potential for liquefaction of the foundation soils is low. Based on the
analyses presented in Appendix 3, summarized below, the calculated factors of safety for slope
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 35
stability at the landfill, including the MSE berms, meet or exceed the minimum required factors
of safety under different conditions.
Table 2H Factors of Safety for Static Deep-Seated Stability A
Station 21+37 H=10’ H=30’ H=40’
Stage 1 1.54 - -
Stage 2 - 1.55 1.55
Station 26+48 H=30’ H=50’ H=60’
Stage 1 - 1.55 - - -
Stage 2 - - - 1.56 1.55
Stage 2 B 1.51
A Based on Slope/W limit-equilibrium analyses (see Appendix 3)
B Global condition with failure surface beneath the berm, others are above
2.5.2.2 Veneer Stability
Sliding of the final cover (or veneer failure) is dependent on slope angle, interface friction and
cohesion within the cover, and the degree of saturation. Veneer failure occurs when the pore
pressures build up along a critical interface in excess of available shear strength. A worst-case
scenario involves low cohesion, as in a geotextile-geomembrane interface, and complete
saturation of the soils overlying that interface. Good engineering practice requires a drainage
layer wherever a membrane barrier (even a soil barrier) is used, to avoid pore pressure buildup
in the final cover that could lead to veneer failure.

A veneer stability analysis (Appendix 2) adapted from Matasovic (1991)14 was performed to
evaluate a “worst case” of full saturation of the vegetation support layer (soil at field capacity)
with a 1-year, 60-minute design storm impinging (without drainage), producing a head of 12
inches acting on the base of the upper soil layer. A minimum friction angle of 31 degrees is
required within the upper and lower soil layers. Soils available in the region can provide this
minimum friction angle. In the final planning stage, material-specific interface friction testing
will be completed to verify the design assumptions.

14 Geotechnical and Stability Analyses for Ohio Waste Containment Facilities, Geotechnical
Resource Group, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH, Sept. 2004, pp 9-12.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 36
2.5.3 Final Slope Ratios
Both the deep-seated stability analysis (Section 2.5.2.1) and the veneer stability analysis
(Section 2.5.2.2) assumed a 3H:1V slope ratio above the MSE berm. The front slope ratio of
the MSE berm is immaterial in these analyses since the berm itself was not involved. These
analyses demonstrate that factors of safety meet the minimum acceptable requirement of 1.5
for static (non-seismic) conditions. The use of 3H:1V slope ratios will result in stable slopes,
providing drainage and vegetation maintenance requirements are met. Seismic conditions were
evaluated as a structural concern, rather than a foundation issue, discussed below.
2.5.4 MSE Berm Design
The design of the MSE reinforcement is based on analyses of external, internal and global
forces using similar analytical procedures as the stability analyses. The FEA report presents
calculations based on key input parameters (geometry, soil properties) furnished by the design
team (see Appendix 2). MSE Berm design is a two-prong iterative approach: 1) start with
known material properties and calculate factors of safety, 2) start with a desired factor of safety
and perform trial runs with different material strengths. The design was performed with the
aid of computer programs MSEW (v3.0) and ReSSA (v3.0), which employ Bishop and/or
Spencer’s method of slices. These programs were developed specifically for analyzing
reinforced earthen structures. The following overview ties the Wood and FEA reports together.

The two firms approached the project from slightly different perspectives. Wood looked at
critical sections in the proposed structure, focusing on Stage 1 (Sta 13+60 to Station 30+00).
The critical sections were selected based upon the “worst case” geometry, i.e., highest berm
section at approximately 60 feet (Sta 23+00 to Sta 25+00) and nearest distance to a protected
waterway at slightly over 200 feet (Sta 20+00 to Sta 23+00). Stability of the berm was
evaluated at varying heights, representing different stages of incremental completion, with the
berm itself considered as a rigid block, i.e., assuming the berm would not fail in order to
evaluate the foundation (external stability). The results of these analyses shown on Table 2I.

Then, FEA looked at the perimeter berm in its entirety, considering variable heights that might
be encountered as completed construction, considering the foundation soils as uniform dense
silty sand and/or weathered rock, i.e., the assumption is the failure would occur not in the
foundation but within the berm itself. This allows the reinforcement within the berm and its
interactions with the compacted structural fill (internal stability) to be evaluated.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 37
Table 2I External Stability Results
Berm Height /
Analysis Condition
Direct
Sliding
Fs
Eccentricity
e/L B
Overturning
Fs
Max Contact
Pressure
ksf
Bearing
Capacity
Fs
Req’d
Min Fs
Non-seismic
Seismic 1.5
1.13
2.0
1.5 2.0
1.5
10’ Non-seismic A 2.99 -0.0314 5.93 1.2 56.25 C
Seismic 1.74 0.0813 2.91 2.9 47.06
22.5’ Non-seismic 2.89 -0.0241 5.49 2.6 29.49
Seismic 1.67 0.1023 2.63 3.3 22.50
31.5’ Non-seismic 2.99 -0.0269 5.78 3.8 22.39
Seismic 1.73 0.0907 2.79 4.6 17.66
40.5’ Non-seismic 2.97 -0.0256 5.69 4.8 18.73
Seismic 1.72 0.0947 2.74 5.9 14.42
52.5’ Non-seismic 2.93 -0.0237 5.55 6.2 15.81
Seismic 1.69 0.01009 2.66 7.8 11.75
61.5’ Non-seismic 2.97 -0.0253 5.69 7.3 14.29
Seismic 1.72 0.0951 2.74 9.1 10.81
67.5’ Non-seismic 2.93 -0.0237 5.56 8.0 13.57
Seismic 1.69 0.1007 2.66 10.0 9.98
A Seismicity accounted for with a Maximum Horizontal Acceleration of 0.1g and reduction of
soil-geogrid friction to 80% of static values
B Used to determine which equation appropriate for calculating max. contact pressure at the toe
C Bearing capacity calculated with Terzaghi’s equation using Nc = 61.73 and Nγ = 24.98
Water assumed to be at berm base elevation
Refer to Appendices A and B of the FEA report, in Appendix 2 of this report
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 38
2.5.4.1 External Stability
Analyses of external forces acting on the MSE structure are used to determine Factors of
Safety, Fs, for sliding, overturning and bearing capacity. These include stress increases caused
by rotation of a rigid block due to active earth pressure (influenced by seismicity) acting behind
the block as driving forces, and the weight of the block and foundation reaction as the forces
resisting the overturning. The analysis is, in fact, a limit-equilibrium slope stability routine.
2.5.4.2 Internal Stability
Analyses of internal forces acting on the reinforcement components within the MSE structure
are used to determine Factors of Safety, Fs, for Sliding, Pullout and Strength (in tension). First
it should be recognized that reinforcement components for this project have Ultimate Tensile
Strength requirements that vary from 1,287 lb/ft to 4,045 lb/ft, depending on position within
the berm, whereas the available Long-Term Design Strength (LTDS) parameters for the
selected geogrids vary from 2,398 lb/ft to 7,537 lb/ft.
Table 2J Internal Stability Results
Berm Height /
Analysis Condition
Geogrid Sliding
Fs MIN A
Pullout
Fs MIN A
Geogrid Strength
Fs MIN A
Required
Min Fs
Non-seismic
Seismic
1.5
1.13
1.5
1.13
1.5
1.13
10’ Non-seismic 2.39 16.36 4.18
Seismic 1.4 8.60 3.42
22.5’ Non-seismic 2.31 28.59 2.06
Seismic 1.34 14.21 1.66
31.5’ Non-seismic 2.39 44.06 1.96
Seismic 1.39 21.04 1.55
40.5’ Non-seismic 2.37 54.65 1.64
Seismic 1.37 25.81 1.33
52.5’ Non-seismic 2.34 66.96 1.59
Seismic 1.35 31.47 1.26
61.5’ Non-seismic 2.38 82.85 1.59
Seismic 1.38 38.33 1.26
67.5’ Non-seismic 2.35 86.38 1.52
Seismic 1.36 40.14 1.22

A Minimum Factors of Safety presented here are the smallest values obtained in the MSSE analysis
and occur at different depths, depending on load and geotextile strengths at various depths
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 39
2.5.4.3 Global Stability Factors
Global stability is deep-seated condition, passing either through or just below the structure, in
this case involving strength properties of the waste and the foundation soil, but not the structure
itself. Table 2K in (see Section 2.5.4.1) presents results for a global stability passing beneath
a generic 60-foot high structure founded on dense silty sand and/or weathered rock. The result
shows this condition meets or exceeds minimum factor of safety requirements. Below are the
results of analyses performed with the ReSSA program for various heights and reinforcement
strengths (depending on the position within the structure). This is the basis for the design
recommendations for reinforcement and structural fill, presented elsewhere in this report.

The following are results from limit-equilibrium analyses based on the method of slices.
Reductions factors (including installation damage and creep) are applied to the ultimate
strength for each designated geotextile. Coefficients for direct sliding and pullout resistance
(i.e., interaction parameters between reinforcement and compacted structural fill) are assumed
to be 0.8 soil strength. Structural fill and foundation soils are assumed to be uniform.
Seismicity is not included whereas the strength of the materials is not affected.
Table 2K Global Stability Results
Berm Height /
Analysis Condition
Rotational
circular arc
Fs MIN A
Translational
2-part wedge
Fs MIN B
Translational
3-part wedge
Fs MIN C
Required Min Fs 1.5 1.5 1.5
10’ 1.63 1.83 1.92
22.5’ 1.61 1.59 1.72
31.5’ 1.60 1.46 1.66
40.5’ 1.53 1.44 1.61
52.5’ 1.49 1.38 1.59
61.5’ 1.47 1.36 1.59
67.5’ 1.45 1.34 1.65

A Bishop method, Fs MIN reported as lowest value in a series of trial circles
B Spencer Method, a.k.a. “sliding block” analysis
C Spencer method including passive earth resistance at the toe
2.5.4.4 Settlement Induced Stress
FHWA NHI-10-024 (2007) states that performance criteria for MSE structures are
governed by design practice or codes found is Article 11.10 of 2007 AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for Highway Bridges. This generally pertains to reinforced segmented
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 40
retaining walls. No specific AASHTO guidance is available for RSS structures. 15 Thus,
estimates of settlement-induced displacements based on published guidance for MSE walls
will be conservative for the MSE berm. Appendix D of the FEA report (Appendix 2)
points out that the welded wire basket slope construction can tolerate larger differential
settlements than rigid structures. 16

Two kinds of settlement are of concern, “external” settlement within the foundation soils,
and “internal” settlement within the reinforced soils. Appendix D of the FEA report
(Appendix 2) also points out that settlement estimates for the loads applied to the
foundation soils would be based on one-dimensional consolidation theory for normally
consolidated soils. However, the foundations soils for this project are expected to be highly
over-consolidated hard sands and weathered rock, which are not expected to undergo
consolidation settlement beneath the anticipated loads. Elastic settlement may occur but
based on site specific settlement calculations using SPT-derived elasticity moduli
(Appendix 3), the foundation settlements are negligible. The FEA recommendations for
foundation evaluation, undercut and repair (as needed) will be observed.

For internal settlement, the FEA report refers to NCMA guidance for a “standard unit” of
facing, i.e., 2 square feet, a maximum settlement of 3 to 6 inches and a differential
settlement of 1% is acceptable.17 FHWA NHI-10-024 (Section 4.4.7.k) points out “Internal
settlement within the reinforced fill is practically immediate with some minor movement
occurring after construction due to elastic compression in granular materials.”

Following the FEA analysis, assuming a 1-foot high by 2-foot wide concrete wall face
panel, this implies that across the width of a panel the allowable differential settlement is
0.02 feet, or approximately one-quarter inch. Applying the same 1/100 differential
settlement criteria on a larger scale, this translates to one foot of allowable settlement
within a 100-foot longitudinal section of the berm, 2 feet for 200 feet, etc., which will be
useful for monitoring purposes. Across the berm, front to back, the 1/100 differential will
vary with berm height and base width (B=0.8H); this is of interest for evaluating the strain
in the reinforcement near the base of the embankment, but difficult to measure.

15 See Footnote 1
16 See Footnote 7
17 Collin, J.G., Design Manual for Segmented Retaining Walls – Second Edition, Second Printing,
National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA, 1997 (after Fitzpatrick)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 41
Considering a 60-foot high embankment and a 3 to 6-inch maximum settlement per 2-foot
tall facing unit, a conservative estimate of theoretical maximum settlement is 90 inches,
using 3 inches per unit. This is compression of the soil-aggregate fill during construction.
To provide guidance to the magnitude of compression settlement that might be experienced
between monitoring points on the slope face (Section 5), one might assume a 200-foot
lateral spacings and a 10-foot vertical spacings for the scanning targets.

Total settlement, STOTAL, is 3 inches times the number of 2-foot units oriented vertically,
while differential settlement, SDIFF is 1/100 times the spacing times the total settlement at
that embankment height. Note that 3 inches per 24-inch section is a 0.125 compression
ratio, or 12.5%, well within the expectations of “shrinkage” for well graded gravel used as
compacted fill. 18 The foregoing calculation did not include a “front-to-back” differential,
whereas direct measurement of displacements cannot be made. The monitoring plan
(Section 5) will address displacements at the back of the berm in another manner. The
following displacements result:
Table 2L Maximum Internal Settlement Calculations
H B = 0.8H STOTAL = 3*H/2
inches
SDIFF = 0.01*2 STOTAL
inches
10 8 15 0.3
20 16 30 0.6
30 24 45 0.9
40 32 60 1.2
50 40 75 1.5
60 48 90 1.8

The foregoing approach is conservative. Settlements of these magnitudes are not really
expected, certainly after completion of the berm. However, the berm might settle
continually as the height rises, whereupon the stresses on the reinforcement in the deeper
sections come into consideration. To reduce the post-placement settlement in the soil-
aggregate fill, careful placement of the structural fill and reinforcement must be performed.
The Specifications (Section 3.5) and the Construction Quality program (Section 4) are
proffered to meet these requirements, along with geogrid strain monitoring (Section 5).

18 Exhibit 4.6–F SHRINK/SWELL FACTORS FOR COMMON MATERIALS (U.S. Customary)
FHWA Draft Technical Guidance Manual - Geotechnical, May 2007
https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/design/pddm/Geotechnical_TGM.pdf
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 42
2.5.4.5 Lateral Displacements
Lateral displacements are horizontal movements acting transverse to the baseline, i.e.,
spreading of the base, which is expected during and after the construction. Factors that
influence the magnitude of the lateral displacement along the berm face include fill placement
techniques, compaction, reinforcement length and extensibility, connection details between
reinforcement and facing materials, and the type of the berm facing. Figure 3 can be used to
estimate the lateral displacement that may occur during construction. The graph shows the
anticipated maximum lateral movement of the berm face during construction is approximately
H/75 times a relative displacement factor for flexible reinforcement.19 For this project, L/H is
1.25 (inverse of H/L = 0.8), thus the relative displacement factor is 0.7.

Figure 3 Empirical curve for estimating lateral displacement during MSE berm construction
In addition, tilting due to differential lateral movement from the bottom to the top of the berm
would be anticipated to be less than one half inch per 10 feet of berm height for either a flexible
or rigid reinforcement system.20 Note, these movements result in strain values that are just at
the 1/100 criterion for strain (Section 2.5.4.4). The Design Engineer will confirm whether this
strain is likely to affect the performance of the reinforcement, but it is suspected the geotextile
reinforcement can tolerate this amount of strain.

19 FHWA NHI-10-024 2 – Systems and Project Evaluation, MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I, p. 2 – 40,
November 2009
20 Section 8.2 of FHWA-RD-89-043
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 43
Table 2M Lateral Deformation of The MSE Berm
Berm Height
(ft.) H / 75 (ft.) Expected lateral
displacement (in.)
Expected tilt
(in.)
10 0.13 1.1 0.5
20 0.26 2.2 1.0
30 0.39 3.3 1.5
40 0.52 4.4 2.0
50 0.66 5.5 2.5
60 0.80 6.7 3.8

High precision monitoring of the slope face will allow the Engineer(s) to evaluate whether an
issue is developing during construction. If the lateral displacement or tilting observed during
the construction are more than the above-mentioned amounts, some type of remedial actions
(see Section 5) may be required. Continued monitoring of the slope face after completion will
be conducted and gaged against other devices monitoring the internal regions of the berm.
2.5.5 Pullout Resistance
All the foregoing stability analyses are predicated on the tensile strength of the geotextiles, the
friction properties of the compacted structural soil-aggregate, and the fiction-interaction
between these components, referred to as “pullout resistance.” The pullout resistance equation
is written as Pr = F*α σv’Le C
where F* = friction-bearing-interaction factor
= frictional resistance (FR) plus passive resistance (PR)
= tan ρ + Fq*αβ
Le C = total surface area per unit width of the reinforcement
in the resistive zone behind the failure surface
Le = embedment or adherence length in the resistive zone
behind the failure surface
C = reinforcement effective unit perimeter, taken to be 2 for grids
α = scale effect correction factor to account for non-linear stress
reduction over the embedded length, can vary from 0.6 to 1.0
σv’ = effective vertical stress at the soil-reinforcement interfaces
And ρ = soil-reinforcement interface friction angle
tan ρ = apparent friction coefficient for the specific reinforcement
Fq = embedment (surcharge) bearing capacity factor
αβ = structural geometric factor for passive resistance
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 44
The correction factor α depends upon strain softening behavior of the compacted granular fill,
and the extensibility and length of the reinforcement. This value can be obtained from pullout
tests or derived from numerical simulations. Without test data, α = 0.6 for geogrids. FHWA
NHI 10024 and other references give this theory adequate discussion. These soil-geogrid
relationships are generally well defined based on empirical data, assuming carefully controlled
soil properties; however, the sandrock and/or pulverized concrete debris resources found on-
site have not been subjected to this testing, thus it may prove economical to test the materials
to verify their value as borrow resources, in lieu of using manufactured soil-aggregate. 21

Pullout tests will be performed prior to construction in accordance with ASTM D-6706.
Specimen deformation will be measured at several locations along the length of the geogrid
specimen, following the rationale the measurable strain deformation within extensible
reinforcement occurs within the first few feet behind the pulling force due to the interaction
between the soil and the reinforcement, i.e., the forces dissipate that than transferring the entire
length of the specimen. 22 The data derived from site- and material-specific pullout tests will
be confirmation of the design assumptions and, perhaps, a determination that a wider range of
allowable soil-aggregate gradations is permissible.

Due to concerns expressed by regulatory authorities about the performance of this project,
specific testing of pullout resistance will be conducted during a pre-construction stage and at
intervals during the construction. This testing is a means of providing Quality Control (QC)
on the materials supplied to the construction and Quality Assurance (QA) on the installation
(see Section 4). The testing shall be conducted in the field or in a laboratory, using a
standardized apparatus known as a pullout box, which can be described loosely as an oversize
direct shear test frame. The test box consists of a horizontal open frame with cleats or clamps
to secure the geotextile sample between layers of the sample soil-aggregate above and below.

A typical test frame measures at 1.5 m x 0.6 m rectangular and 0.3 m high. Confining pressure
can be applied by weights or using air pressure above the upper soil layer. 23

21 See Footnote 1
22 Mohiuddun, Ather, Analysis of laboratory and field pullout tests of geosynthetics in clayey soils,
2003. LSU Master’s Theses, 3621.
23 SS-EN 13738-2004, Geotextiles and geotextile-related products – Determination of pullout
resistance in soil, Swedish Institute of Standards, Stockholm, published January 2005, as
adopted from European Standard EN 13738, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, 2004, copyrighted worldwide, https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/37952/
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 45
The specimen is pulled out of the soil and the applied force is measured with a load cell. One
commercial testing lab and fabricator of the testing equipment uses a test specimen size of 3
feet x 4 feet, where a 6-foot wide x roll width sample is obtained from a roll. 24 The size of the
test apparatus and the corresponding weight of soil-aggregate samples suggests field testing
(temporary lab) is appropriate. Consideration is being given to establishing a mobile laboratory
that would be capable of basic soil gradation testing and pullout tests. This level of attention
allows more frequent testing and the ability to accommodate changes in the soil aggregate. All
testing will be performed in accordance with ASTM D6706 testing standards. 25
2.5.6 Final Design and Testing Requirements
Prior to construction, the Design Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer will need to assess the
available soil-aggregate materials and finalize the testing requirements as a first step in the
CQA program (see Section 4). The frequency of testing and instrumentation (Section 5) for
monitoring the Stage 1 MSE berm will provide comprehensive verification of design criteria.
2.5.7 Leachate Collection System
2.5.7.1 Pipe Crushing
The drainage system will consist of 4-inch or 6-inch Sch 80 PVC or HDPE pipe, buried up to
60 feet with No. 57 crushed stone. FEA has recommended that the pipe connections be
watertight, thus it is necessary for the pipes not to deform under the anticipated stresses.
Bending and buckling calculations were performed for the 6-inch pipe in accordance with
methods of the commercial pipeline industry. 26 The calculations indicate this pipe selection
will withstand the anticipated soil pressure. This is not to exclude other pipe selections, but if
a substitution is made the calculations should be performed for the actual materials.
2.5.7.2 Leachate Quantities
A HELP model analysis was performed to estimate the leachate quantities that may require
management. The program was developed for estimating infiltration through landfill caps
based on soil, slope and vegetation inputs and synthesized climate data based on local weather
records. The program is based on water-balance principles and provides in the output an
estimate of runoff, soil storage, infiltration (leachate quantity) and head on a given layer, i.e.,
a low permeability barrier in a cap or at the base of the landfill. Based on the HELP model

24 https://www.geocomp.com/GeoTesting/Laboratory/Geosynthetics, 2019-Geocomp Corporation
25 ASTM D6706-01(2013), Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout Resistance
in Soil, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org
26 Bending Stresses From External Loading On Buried Pipe, Pipeline and Gas Journal, Vol. 238
No. 6, June 2011
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
2 – Engineering Plan Page 46
presented in Appendix 3, the estimated average annual volume of water infiltrating the cap
over a unit area (acres) is 0.011 feet, which translates to 399.5 cubic feet or 2,288 gal/ac/year.
This volume equates to approximately 2.5% of the total precipitation. Obviously, the water
accumulation in the drainage system will be distributed with the precipitation. Using an even
month-to-month distribution works out to 200 gallons/acre/month.

This represents the volume of water that might be expected to migrate through the final cover;
while in operation the volume can fluctuate but the drainage area along the cover is limited to
a short distance above the crest of the berm. Taking these variables into account, using the
HELP results as a design parameter is a starting point, but the performance will need to be
monitored and the schedule for water removal adjusted accordingly. Consider if the drainage
through the cap over an upslope width of an acre (210 feet) can make it to the perimeter internal
drainage system, then for a 1050-foot length of berm the volume would be 2,288 x 5 = 11,440
gallons/year. Stage 1 extends from Sta 13+60 to Sta 30+00, or 1,640 linear feet; following the
foregoing logic this translates to 17,868 gallons per year (<1,500 gallons per month).

Drawings ME2 – ME5 show three sumps attached to the collection header along the toe of
the Stage 1 MSE berm. Based on the analysis, three 500-gallon tanks will be sufficient for
initial operations. The amount of liquids collected will be closely monitored (Section 5) and
appropriate adjustments will be made.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
3 – Construction Plan Page 47
3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0540)
This section demonstrates compliance of the facility design for CDLF Phase 2 with the
requirements of the C&D Rules, 15A NCAC 13B .0537 - .0540. Reference is made to the
construction plan set and various appendices. Refer to the Construction Sequence discussed
in Section 1.2.2.
3.1 Horizontal Separation
The following regulatory criteria are addressed in project drawings specified below. Refer to
the rolled plan set that accompanies this report.
3.1.1 Property Lines
The minimum setback to property lines is 200 feet (Drawings E1 – E5).
3.1.2 Residences and Wells
The minimum setback to residences and wells is 500 feet (Drawings E1 – E5).
3.1.3 Surface Waters
The minimum setback to surface waters is 50 feet (Drawings E1 – E5).
3.1.4 Existing Landfill Units
There are no other landfill units present on the site.
3.2 Landfill Subgrade
3.2.1 Vertical Separation
The waste thickness at the end of Stage 4 expansion is 182 feet; the waste density is
approximately 0.6 tons/cubic yard. Foundation soils are very dense residual silty sand and
gravelly sand and silt (all saprolite). Settlement calculations (see Appendix 3) indicate
maximum post-construction foundation settlements of 0.59 feet (7 inches), or less. Based on
hydrogeological data, this magnitude of settlement will not decrease the vertical separation to
less than 4 feet, nor will strains adversely affect the engineered subgrade. Discussion of the
assumptions and procedures behind the calculations is presented in Section 2.5.
3.2.2 Soil Consistency
Based on the laboratory data summary table (see Appendix 2), most of the on-site soils
generally classify as silty sands (SM), silt (ML) or dual classify as sand-silt (SM-ML). A small
quantity of low plasticity silty clay (CL) exists in small pockets near the surface. Based on the
data, these soil types – either in-situ or within compacted subgrade – to meet the requirements
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
3 – Construction Plan Page 48
of Rule .0540 (2) (b) for the upper two feet beneath the subgrade. No modification of the soils,
i.e., admixtures, will be required to meet this rule requirement. Reworking to blend the soils
to a uniform consistency, or padding with finer soil types, may be required to mitigate pockets
of granular soils. The soil types within the upper 24 inches beneath the subgrade shall be
documented in the CQA program.

Relative to the MSE berm, the facility has a stockpile of “sandrock” that was excavated from
earlier phases. This material has been relocated and may have been mixed with other soils.
The Owner has indicated these soils can be screened to produce granular soil-aggregate needed
for the berm. The facility crushes and recycles concrete, which might be considered as a
borrow source. Also, there are known boulders left over from the excavations, which have the
possibility to be crushed and screened. The facility sells a manufactured “topsoil” made from
onsite soil and compost, which might be considered for the organic vegetation support.
3.2.3 Inspection Requirement
The Owner/Operator shall have the subgrade inspected by a qualified engineer or geologist
upon completion of the excavation, in accordance with Rule .0534 (b) and Rule .0539. Said
inspection is required by the Division to verify that subgrade conditions are consistent with
expected conditions based on the Design Hydrogeologic Report.
3.2.4 Division Notification
The Owner/Operator shall notify the Division at least 24 hours in advance of the subgrade
inspection. The Division Engineer shall be given an opportunity to observe MSE Berm
foundation conditions, including any required dewatering or undercutting.
3.3 Survey Control Benchmarks
A permanent benchmark is located long Bishop Road (see facility drawings), with the
following information:
NAD 83 Coordinates N 817,233.63456
E 1,749,238.54876
NGVD 29 El. 783.30
3.4 Site Location Coordinates
The latitude and longitude coordinates of the center of the site are approximately:
LATTITUDE 35.98745 N
LONGITUDE -79.84639 E
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
3 – Construction Plan Page 49
3.5 Special Engineering Structures
This section of the rules generally pertains to liners and leachate collection systems, if any are
present. The proposed construction of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) berm, itself, is
a special structure described throughout this report, including the materials and construction
techniques required. Wood contacted the Guilford County Planning Department for guidance
on whether a local building permit or inspections is required. The response was negative, a
copy of which is presented in Appendix 1. Adherence to the Engineering Plan and CQA Plan
within this document will provide oversight required for the Engineering team to certify the
construction compliance. The Guilford County Planning Department also informed the
Engineer that no additional environmental studies would be required as a condition of
approving the franchise, but a briefing has been requested concerning the E&S plan.
3.5.1 Sedimentation and Erosion Control
The sedimentation and erosion control measures were originally permitted by the NCDEMLR
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section and have been designed to accommodate
the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, per the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Law
(15A NCAC 04). Required measures are depicted in the construction plan set (see Drawings
E1 – E5 and EC1 – EC3). Existing sediment traps shall be cleaned out and upgraded; other
measures shall be maintained throughout the life of the facility. Basin function will be
evaluated, and modifications made as needed. It is likely that either Guilford County or
NCDEMNR Land Quality Section officials (maybe both) will inspect the S&EC measures.
The Owner will coordinate construction activities with the agencies.
3.5.2 MSE Berm construction
3.5.2.1 Berm Performance Criteria and Deformation during the Construction
The contractor shall be responsible for and have control over all construction means, methods,
techniques, sequences, and procedures for coordinating all the portions of its work for this
project. Site visits by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (to be determined) is planned
periodically during the construction of the reinforced berm to observe that the slopes and
reinforcement meshes are constructed as per FEA’s design plans with respect to:
• Acceptable geosynthetic installation (review of geosynthetic installation for
type, location, length, and tautness with respect to design drawings);
• Proper block and connector installation;
• Proper collector drain installation.
One of the key features of the reinforced soil slopes and berms is their flexibility and capability
to tolerate deformations. In fact, development of limited displacements within the reinforced
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
3 – Construction Plan Page 50
soil zone is required to mobilize tensile force in the reinforcement that soil-reinforcement
interface frictional resistance to stabilize the slopes and berms.
Special construction considerations recommended by Engineer of Record for MSE berm (FEA)
are summarized in Section 4.1 and Appendix E of the FEA report included in Appendix 4.
3.5.2.2 Vertical or Lateral Movements
Minor movement of the embankment is to be expected, as described in Section 2.5. Flexibility
of the front-face wire mesh baskets, covered with vegetation, will allow this reinforced system
to handle strain associated with vertical settlements (Section 2.5.4) of several inches without
damaging the reinforcement. Likewise, minor vertical settlement will tolerable, but outside
the calculated ranges, the detailed monitoring portion of the contingency plan discussed in
Section 5 must be implemented.
3.5.2.3 Geosynthetics Placement
According to the construction specifications suggested in section 10.10.1 of FHWA-NHI-10-
025, the geosynthetic reinforcement shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations, unless otherwise modified by these specifications. The geosynthetic
reinforcement shall be placed within the layers of the compacted soil as shown on the plans or
as directed.
• The geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed in continuous longitudinal strips in the
direction of main reinforcement. Joints in the design strength direction (perpendicular
to the slope) shall not be permitted with geotextile or geogrid, except as indicated on
the drawings.
• Adjacent rolls of geosynthetic reinforcement shall be overlapped or mechanically
connected where exposed in a wrap-around face system, as applicable.
• Place only that amount of geosynthetic reinforcement required for immediately
pending work to prevent undue damage. After a layer of geosynthetic reinforcement
has been placed, the next succeeding layer of soil shall be placed and compacted as
appropriate. After the specified soil layer has been placed, the next geosynthetic
reinforcement layer shall be installed. The process shall be repeated for each
subsequent layer of geosynthetic reinforcement and soil.
• Geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed to lay flat and pulled tight prior to
backfilling. Restraining tension shall be kept on the geotextile until it is covered. Fill
shall be placed in one direction to maintain the tension.
• After a layer of geosynthetic reinforcement has been placed, suitable means, such as
pins or small piles of soil, shall be used to hold the geosynthetic reinforcement in
position until the subsequent soil layer can be placed. Under no circumstances shall a
track-type vehicle be allowed on the geosynthetic reinforcement before at least 6 in.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
3 – Construction Plan Page 51
(150 mm) of soil has been placed. Sudden braking and sharp turning – which could
displace fill – shall be avoided.
• During construction, the surface of the fill should be kept approximately horizontal.
Geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed directly on the compacted horizontal fill
surface. Geosynthetic reinforcements are to be placed within 3 in. (75 mm) of the
design elevations and extend the length as shown on the elevation view unless
otherwise directed by the Owner's Engineer. Correct orientation of the geosynthetic
reinforcement shall be verified by the Contractor.
3.5.3 Fill Placement
According to the construction specifications suggested in section 10.10.1 of FHWA-NHI-10-
025, fill shall be compacted as specified by project specifications or to at least 95 percent of
the maximum density determined in accordance with AASHTO T-99, whichever is greater.
• Backfill shall be placed, spread, and compacted in such a manner to minimize the
development of wrinkles and/or displacement of the geosynthetic reinforcement.
• The direction of fill placement should be from the back of the berm toward the front.
• Fill shall be placed in 12-inch (300 mm) maximum loose lift thickness where heavy
compaction equipment is to be used, and 6-inch (150 mm) maximum loose lift
thickness where hand operated equipment is used.
• The finished “lifts” should be 9 inches in thickness.
• Backfill shall be graded away from the slope crest and rolled at the end of each workday
to prevent ponding of water on surface of the reinforced soil mass.
• Tracked construction equipment shall not be operated directly upon the geosynthetic
reinforcement. A minimum fill thickness of 6-in. (150 mm) over the geosynthetic
reinforcement is required prior to operation of tracked vehicles.
• Turning of tracked vehicles should be kept to a minimum to prevent displacing the fill
and the geosynthetic reinforcement.
• If approved by the Engineer, rubber-tired equipment may pass over the geosynthetic
reinforcement at speeds of less than 5 mph, with a least 18 inches of soil-aggregate
cover. Sudden braking and sharp turning shall be avoided.
• Density testing shall be made every 500yd3 (420m3) of soil placement or as otherwise
specified by the Owner's Engineer or contract documents.
3.5.4 Vegetation on Facing of the MSE Berm
Erosion control and revegetation measures must, therefore, be an integral part of all reinforced
slope system designs and specifications. If not otherwise protected, reinforced slopes should
be vegetated after construction to prevent or minimize erosion due to rainfall and runoff on the
face. Vegetation requirements will vary by geographic and climatic conditions and are,
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
3 – Construction Plan Page 52
therefore, project specific. For the unwrapped face (the soil surface exposed), erosion control
measures are necessary to prevent raveling and sloughing off the face. A wrapped face helps
reduce erosion problems; however, treatments are still required on the face to shade
geosynthetic soil reinforcement and prevent ultraviolet light exposure that will degrade the
geosynthetic over time. In either case, conventional vegetated facing treatments generally rely
on low growth, grass type vegetation with more costly flexible armor occasionally used where
vegetation cannot be established.

Due to the steep grades that can be achieved with reinforced soil slopes, it can be difficult to
establish and maintain grass type vegetative cover. The steepness of the grade limits the amount
of water absorbed by the soil before runoff occurs. Although root penetration should not affect
the reinforcement, the reinforcement may restrict root growth, depending on the reinforcement
type. This can have an adverse influence on the growth of some plants. Grass is also frequently
ineffective where slopes are impacted by waterways.

A synthetic (permanent) erosion control mat is normally used to improve the performance of
grass cover. This mat must also be stabilized against ultra-violet light and should be inert to
naturally occurring soil-born chemicals and bacteria. The erosion control mat serves to: 1)
protect the bare soil face against erosion until the vegetation is established; 2) assist in reducing
runoff velocity for increased water absorption by the soil, thus promoting long-term survival
of the vegetative cover; and 3) reinforce the surficial root system of the vegetative cover.

Once vegetation is established on the face, it must be protected to ensure long-term survival.
Maintenance issues, such as mowing (if applicable), must also be carefully considered. The
shorter, weaker root structure of most grasses may not provide adequate reinforcement and
erosion protection. Grass is highly susceptible to fire, which can also destroy the synthetic
erosion control mat. Down-drag from snow loads or upland slides may also strip matting and
vegetation off the slope face.

The low erosion tolerance combined with other factors previously mentioned creates a need to
evaluate revegetation measures as an integral part of the design. Slope face protection should
not be left to the construction contractor or vendor's discretion. Guidance should be obtained
from maintenance and regional landscaping groups in the selection of the most appropriate low
maintenance vegetation (Section 8.5.1 of the FHWA-NHI-10-025).
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 53
4 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (15A NCAC 13B .0541)
4.1 General Provisions
This Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan has been prepared to provide the Owner,
Engineer, Contractor and CQA Testing Firm – operating as a coordinated team – the means to
govern the construction quality and to satisfy landfill certification requirements. The CQA
program includes both a quantitative testing program and qualitative evaluations to assure that
the construction meets the desired criteria for long-term performance. Variations in material
properties and working conditions may require changes to handling and placement techniques
throughout the project. With that in mind, this CQA plan is considered a “living” document
that may require adjustment with all parties in agreement. Communication between the various
parties is paramount. The early stages of the construction will require more attention by the
stakeholders; this document will help get the work off to a good start.

The requirements of the CQA program (a.k.a. Construction Material Testing, CMT) apply to
the preparation of engineered subgrade, soil borrow selection, placement and compaction
within the berms, correctness of geotextiles and other materials, as well as documentation of
issues and changes, e.g., groundwater or hard rock encountered in foundations excavations.
All lines, grades, limits of material placement and soil layer thicknesses shall be confirmed by
frequent topographic surveys performed by a Licensed Surveyor under the supervision of the
Engineer of Record. The surveys shall include as-built drawings with the locations of
permanent monitoring devices. The drawings shall be made part of the construction records.
As sections of the construction is completed, the Engineer shall verify that all surfaces are
vegetated within 20 days following completion of final grades. The Engineer shall also verify
that interior slopes and exposed surface awaiting adjacent construction are protected.

Slope monitoring shall commence with the completion of the first course of the MSE berm and
continue according to schedule indefinitely (see Section 5).
4.1.1 Definitions
4.1.1.1 Construction Quality Assurance (CQA)
In the context of this CQA Plan, Construction Quality Assurance is defined as a planned and
systematic program employed by the Owner to assure conformity of base grade and berm
construction and the final cover system installation with the project drawings and
specifications. CQA is provided by a CQA Testing Firm as a representative of the Owner and
is independent from the Contractor and all manufacturers. The CQA program is designed to
provide confidence that the items or services brought to the job meet contractual and regulatory
requirements and that the final cover will perform satisfactorily in service.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 54
4.1.1.2 Construction Quality Control (CQC)
Construction Quality Control refers to actions taken by manufacturers, fabricators, installers,
and/or the Contractor to ensure that the materials and the workmanship meet the requirements
of the project drawings and the project specifications. The manufacturer's specifications and
quality control (QC) requirements are included in this CQA Manual by reference only. A
complete updated version of each manufacturer's QC Plan for any Contractor-supplied
components shall be incorporated as part of the Contractor's CQC submittal. The Owner and/or
the Engineer shall approve the Contractor’s QC submittal prior to initial construction.
Contractor submittals will be incorporated into the final CQA certification document at the
Owner’s discretion.
4.1.1.3 CQA Certification Document
The Owner and/or the Engineer will prepare a certification document upon completion of
construction, or phases of construction. The Owner will submit these documents to the
NCDEQ Division of Waste Management Solid Waste Section. The CQA certification report
will include relevant testing performed by the CQA Testing Firm, including material
verifications, field and laboratory testing, records of field observations, drawings and
documentation of unanticipated conditions or any modifications to the design and/or testing
program. The CQA certification report may be completed in increments, i.e., as several
documents, as the construction is completed. Section 2 discusses the documentation
requirements. The CQA document(s) will be prepared by the Engineer of Record or by the
CQA Testing firm, if not the same.
4.1.1.4 Discrepancies Between Documents
The Contractor shall be instructed to bring discrepancies to the attention of the CQA Testing
Firm who shall then notify the Engineer or Owner for resolution. The Owner or his designee
has sole authority to determine resolution of discrepancies existing within the Contract
Documents (some issues may also require the approval of State Solid Waste Regulators).
Unless otherwise determined by the Owner, the more stringent requirement shall be the
controlling resolution.
4.1.2 Stakeholders
The parties to Construction Quality Assurance and Quality Control program include the
Owner, Engineer, Contractor, CQA Testing Firm (Soils Laboratory), Manufacturer/Suppliers
and the Regulatory Agency (Solid Waste Section). It is in the interests of all parties for this
project to succeed, and each party is responsible for doing their tasks and, to a certain extent,
watching over all the tasks. The following sections define the roles of each party as currently
envisioned.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 55
4.1.2.1 Owner
The Owner is A-1 Sandrock, Inc., who operates and is responsible for the facility, including
the management of construction and the facility Health and Safety Program. The Owner, or
his designee, is responsible for the project and serves as liaison between the various parties.
Barring other arrangements, the Owner will be primarily responsible for the CQA program.
4.1.2.2 Engineer
The Engineer (a.k.a. the “Engineer of Record”) is responsible for seeing that the construction
progresses in accordance with the engineering design, drawings, and project specifications,
material testing, applicable regulations. The Engineer represents the Owner and coordinates
meetings and record communications as outlined in Section 4.4.

The Engineer is also responsible for corresponding with NCDEQ staff during the work and
documenting changes from the approved plans and specifications. The responsibilities may be
divided between the “Design Engineer” and the “Geotechnical Engineer,” who will work
closely together to resolve design and construction issues. Heretofore reference may be made
to the “Engineering Team,” considered interchangeable with “Engineer” in this text.

The Engineer shall work with the Owner to properly resolution of all quality or regulatory
issues that arise during construction. The Engineer shall prepare the CQA certification
documents, with input from the Owner, the CQA Testing Firm and the Owner’s Surveyor. The
Engineer shall be registered in the State of North Carolina.
4.1.2.3 Contractor
The Contractor is responsible for the construction of the subgrade, earthwork, and final cover
system. The Contractor is responsible for the overall CQC on the project and coordination of
submittals to the Engineer. Additional responsibilities of the Contractor include compliance
with 15A NCAC 4, i.e., the North Carolina Sedimentation and Erosion Control rules.

Qualifications - The Contractor qualifications are specific to the construction contract
documents and are independent of this CQA Manual. The Owner may serve as the general
contractor, providing the specifications are met.
4.1.2.4 CQA Testing Firm
The CQA Testing Firm (a.k.a. Soils Laboratory) is a representative of the Owner, independent
from the Contractor, and is responsible for conducting geotechnical tests on conformance
samples of soils and aggregates used in structural fills and the final cover system. Periodic site
visits shall be coordinated with the Engineer of Record and the Contractor.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 56
Qualifications - The CQA Testing Firm shall have experience in the CQA aspects of landfill
construction and be familiar with ASTM and other related industry standards. The Soils CQA
Laboratory should be capable of providing test results within 24 hours or a reasonable time
after receipt of samples, depending on the test(s) to be conducted, as agreed to at the outset of
the project by affected parties, and will maintain that standard throughout the construction.
4.1.2.5 Regulatory Agency
This will be representatives of NCDEQ Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section,
referenced as the “Division” or the “Section” at various places within this document. The
agency is considered an integral part of the Construction Quality Assurance program.
4.1.3 Control vs. Records Testing
4.1.3.1 Quality Control Testing
In the context of this CQA plan, Quality Control (QC) includes tests performed on a material
prior to its actual use in construction, to demonstrate that it can meet the requirements of the
project plans and specifications. QC test data may be used by the Engineer as the basis for
approving alternative material sources.
4.1.3.2 Quality Assurance Testing
In the context of this CQA plan, Quality Assurance (QA) includes tests performed on a material
during or after installation and provides documentation that the construction technique and
materials performance as installed meet project specifications.
4.1.3.3 Testing Criteria
Periodic compaction (moisture-density) testing requirements are imposed on the structural fill,
although compaction and testing requirements may not be as stringent as that required for the
final cover construction. Initial compaction testing shall be in accordance with the project
specifications. The Engineer may recommend alternative compaction testing requirements
based on field performance. Additional qualitative evaluations shall be made by the Contractor
and the Engineer to satisfy the performance criteria for placement of these materials.

CQA monitoring and testing will be “on-call” on this project, whereas the CQA Testing Firm
will test completed portions of the work at the Contractor or Owner’s request. The CQA
Testing Firm may be called upon to test final cover and/or compacted structural fill at any time,
ideally scheduling site visits to optimize his efforts. The Engineer will inspect the site at least
weekly, anticipating more frequency will be required in the initial stages of new construction.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 57
4.1.3.4 Record Tests
Record Tests include all QC and QA test results, which will be performed by the CQA Testing
Firm. Following review and approval of the test results by the Engineering team, the records
will be filed with the permanent construction documentation for the project.
4.1.3.5 Record Test Failure
Failed tests shall be noted in the construction report, followed by documentation of mitigation.
Soils with failing tests shall be evaluated by the Engineer (or his designee), and the soils shall
either be recompacted or replaced, based on the Engineer’s judgment. Recompaction of the
failed area shall be performed and retested until the area meets or exceeds requirements
outlined in the specifications.
4.1.3.6 Judgment Testing
During construction, the frequency of control and/or record testing may be increased at the
discretion of the CQA Testing Firm when visual observations of construction performance
indicate a potential problem. Additional testing for suspected areas will be considered when:
• Rollers slip during rolling operation;
• Lift thickness is greater than specified;
• Fill material is at an improper moisture content;
• Fewer than the specified number of roller passes is made;
• Dirt-clogged rollers are used to compact the material;
• Rollers may not have used optimum ballast;
• Fill materials differ substantially from those specified; or
• Degree of compaction is doubtful.
4.1.3.7 Deficiencies
The CQA Testing Firm will immediately determine the extent and nature of all defects and
deficiencies and report them to the Owner and Engineer. The CQA Testing Firm shall properly
document all defects and deficiencies – this shall be more critical on the final cover
construction, although this applies to structural fill, as well. The Contractor will correct defects
and deficiencies to the satisfaction of the Owner and Engineer. The CQA Testing Firm shall
perform retests on repaired defects.
4.1.4 Stakeholder Responsibilities
At any stage of the construction, all parties will be observant for potentially unsuitable or non-
compliant conditions which might affect the performance of the final product, e.g., foundation
soils that are too soft or wet to provide adequate support; unanticipated rock or water in
excavations; non-compliant fill soils (excess fines or presence of large rocks, debris or other
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 58
deleterious material); damaged structural components (geotextiles or wire cages); failing
QC/QA tests; other conditions which might be outside the specifications; unsafe working
conditions. Such conditions will be brought to the attention of the Engineering team and the
Owner for resolution. If conditions warrant a design modification or change to the testing
protocols, the Engineering team will notify the regulatory agency.
4.1.5 Modifications and Amendment
This document was prepared by the Engineer to communicate the basic intentions and
expectations regarding the quality of materials and workmanship. Certain articles in this
document may be revised with input from all parties, if warranted based on project specific
conditions. No design modifications or changes to the testing plan, once approved, will be
made without the Division’s approval.
4.1.6 Miscellaneous
4.1.6.1 Units
In this CQA Plan, and throughout the plans and specifications for this project, all properties
and dimensions are expressed in U.S. units.
4.1.6.2 References
This CQA Plan includes references to the most recent version of the test procedures of the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Table 4-3 at the end of this text contains
a list of these procedures. This list may not be inclusive of all required tests.
4.2 Construction QC
Construction Quality Control begins prior to the actual construction work and can be
considered as a “readiness review.” This step includes making sure the plans and site
conditions are thoroughly understood, as well as making sure the materials brought onto the
job site are correct and provisions for storing and using the materials without damage are sound.
4.2.1 Preconstruction Review
Prior to construction, personnel responsible for observing the field construction of the retaining
structure must become thoroughly familiar with the following items:
• Plans and specifications.
• Site conditions relevant to construction requirements.
• Material requirements.
• Construction sequences for the specific reinforcement system.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 59
4.2.1.1 Plans and Specifications
The Contractor's documents should be reviewed with the Engineering team to make sure that
the latest issue of the approved plans, specifications, and contract documents are being used.
The owner's field representatives should carefully read the specification requirements for the
type of system to be constructed, with special attention given to material requirements,
construction procedures, soil compaction, alignment tolerances, and acceptance/rejection
criteria.
4.2.1.2 Materials Handling and Storage
Special attention shall be given to material handling and storage, the construction sequence,
corrosion protection requirements for metallic reinforcement (if any) and UV protection for
geosynthetics. Special lifting and stacking requirements shall be understood and observed.
Issues related to deployment include (but are not limited to) layout direction, tensioning,
protection from construction damage, soil spreading and compaction, drainage requirements,
utility construction, and construction of the outward slope.
4.2.1.3 Review of Site Conditions and Foundation Requirements
The site conditions should be reviewed by the Stakeholders to assure complete understanding
of special construction procedures required for preparation of the foundations, site
accessibility, and excavation for obtaining the required reinforcement length, and construction
dewatering and other drainage features. The structure is intended to be founded on very dense
sandy soil and/or weathered rock. The base of the structure is generally “socketed” into the
foundation soils, and planned excavations are anticipated to remove most if not all deleterious
material prior to reaching design subgrades.

The construction team should be aware of areas where, although unlikely, unsuitable soils
might be encountered, or wet soils might prevail. Proper foundation preparation involves the
removal of unsuitable materials from the area to be occupied by the retaining structure (i.e.,
undercutting), including organic matter, vegetation, and slide debris. This is most important in
the facing area to reduce facing system movements and, therefore, to aid in maintaining facing
alignment along the length of the structure. The field personnel should review the borings to
determine the anticipated extent of the undercut.

Where construction of reinforced fill will require a side slope cut, a temporary earth support
system may be required to maintain stability. The contractor's method and design should be
reviewed with respect to safety and the influence of its performance on adjacent structures.
Caution is also advised for excavation of utilities or removal of temporary bracing or sheeting
in front of the completed MSE structures. Loss of ground from these activities could result in
settlement and lateral displacement of the retaining structure.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 60
The groundwater level found in the site investigation should be reviewed along with levels of
any nearby bodies of water that might affect drainage requirements. Slopes into which a cut is
to be made should be carefully observed, especially following periods of precipitation, for any
signs of seeping water (often missed in borings). Construction dewatering operations should
be required for any excavations performed below the water table to prevent a reduction in shear
strength due to hydrostatic water pressure.
4.2.2 Materials Approval (Testing)
This section refers to the specifications presented in Section 2 of this report and details pre-
construction testing requirements for various components. Tables referenced within these
paragraphs indicate the appropriate frequency of testing. These sections provide guidance for
documentation test results and resolution problems with material acceptance.
4.2.2.1 Soil-Aggregate
The exact specification for the gradation of the structural fill has yet to be determined. This
task is left until the onset of construction for the simple reason that the material has yet to be
identified. Early in the preconstruction stage, the Engineering team and Owner will select the
most likely materials and the CQA team will test them for compliance. The material(s) shall
be demonstrated to comply with the design engineer’s specifications. Table 4A outlines the
type and frequency of tests to be performed on each candidate material. If the soil-aggregate
is made onsite from materials on hand, the preconstruction testing becomes especially
important. Once the structural fill materials have been identified and tested for gradation
compliance and/or other criteria, the Engineering team will finalize the specifications and a
memo will be prepared for the construction records. All Stakeholders will be involved with
the decision process.
4.2.2.2 Geogrid properties
The design engineer has recommended the minimum requirements of the geotextiles, including
the geogrid reinforcement. Those recommendations or specifications will be confirmed during
the preconstruction stage and entered into the construction record. In the event the Design
Engineer should alter the recommendations, a memo will be prepared and entered into the
construction records. A situation where a change in reinforcement requirements might be made
is dependent on the available material properties. For instance, soil-aggregate properties might
vary for the current specification, and it might prove in the Owner’s interest to amend the
reinforcement material requirements, rather than find another source of structural fill.
4.2.2.3 Pullout testing
The quality of the structural fill and its interaction with the reinforcement is the key element in
satisfactory performance of MSE structures. To that end, specific testing of the reinforcement
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 61
and the selected structural fill is a critical step in assuring the success of the project. In addition
to the normally specified gradation, plasticity, soundness, and electrochemical requirements,
additional testing of the frictional strength within the structure will be verified with a series of
pullout tests (see Section 2.5.5).

Preconstruction pullout tests will form at least a part of the basis for material approval. It is
anticipated that pullout tests will be performed for each type of reinforcement (at present, four
grades of geogrid have been recommended) and each soil-aggregate material. This testing will
provide QC confirmation of the performance of the structural elements, regardless of the soil-
aggregate source. Additional pullout tests performed periodically during construction will
augment the CQA confirmation testing. A tentative testing schedule is presented on Table 4C.
4.2.2.4 Other components
Miscellaneous testing of the less critical (but non-the-less important) components may be
remanded to confirmation of manufacturer’s or supplier’s certifications. Such components
may include drainage pipe and stone, filter geotextiles, erosion control materials, and
perhaps the geogrids. Typically, such components are manufactured with a high degree of
precision and seldom do such components fail to perform as expected. Many high-profile
projects make use of the manufacturer’s certifications on these components.

Components that might warrant close scrutiny concern the front-face cages and vegetation
support materials, i.e., the wire cages (material type and quality of welds), compatibility of
nutrient laden vegetation support soils and the metal cages, agricultural properties of the
vegetation support soils, types and quantities of seed for vegetation. A plan for sustaining
the vegetation during the construction process will be developed.

Whereas survey controls are a key component of the construction and monitoring, a survey
team will be brought into the final planning process to verify that methodologies and
equipment are appropriate. The correct placement and protection of the planned
monitoring targets to be mounted on the slope face will be reviewed with the contractor.
Other monitoring system components will be reviewed by the Engineering Team, including
(but not limited to) internal strain monitoring devices, slope inclinometers and piezometers.
The correct installation and protection of these components is a critical concern.
4.2.2.5 Material Acceptance Checklist
Testing shown on Tables 4A – 4I will be performed by the CQA Testing Firm prior to
shipment or placement as a material acceptance requirement. Table 4-1 presents the general
categories of QC testing; further discussion of testing criteria is given in Section 4.3.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 62
Table 4-1 Materials Acceptance Documentation
A. Soil-Aggregates (Structural Fill)
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on aggregates.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(3) Verify aggregates in stockpiles or borrow sources conform to project
specifications. Certifications from a quarry will be acceptable.
(4) Perform control tests in accordance with Table 4A and 4B.
B. Reinforcement Geogrids
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Conduct material control tests in accordance with Table 4C.
C. Drainage Stone
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Conduct material control tests in accordance with Table 4D.
D. Filter Geotextiles
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Conduct material control tests in accordance with Table 4E.
E. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) or Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on HDPE pipe.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(3) Perform material evaluations in accordance with Table 4F.
F. Corrugated Polyethylene (CPE) Pipe
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on CPE pipe.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(3) Perform material evaluations in accordance with Table 4F.
G. Wire Baskets
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Conduct material control tests in accordance with Table 4G.
H. Geogrid or Geotextile Connections
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Conduct material control tests in accordance with Table 4H.
I. Vegetation and Vegetative Support Soil
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Review contractor’s submittals on seed specifications.
(3) Perform material evaluations in accordance with Table 4I.
J. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 63
(1) Review Contractor's submittals on erosion and sedimentation control items
(including rolled erosion control products and wire-backed silt fence).
(2) Review of submittals for erosion and sedimentation control items for
conformity to the project specifications and drawings.
(3) Perform visual examination of materials for signs of damage or deterioration.
K. Surveying Methods and Controls
4.3 Construction QA
QA testing shown on Tables 4A – 4I, will be performed by the CQA Testing Firm at the
specified frequency and each step will be approved by the CQA team prior to additional work.
The CQA Testing Firm may propose an alternative testing frequency based on consistency and
satisfactory performance. The Engineer may amend the testing frequency, after seeking
regulatory approval. The following criteria apply:

A. Earthwork shall be performed as described in the project specifications. The
Construction Superintendent has the responsibility of assuring that only select
materials are used in the construction, discussed above.
B. Only materials previously approved by the Engineer shall be used in construction
of the compacted berm. Unsuitable material will be removed and replaced followed
by re-evaluation to the satisfaction of the Engineer and retesting, as may be
required.
C. All required field density and moisture content tests shall be completed before the
overlying lift of soil is placed – as applicable. The surface preparation (e.g. wetting,
drying, scarification, compaction etc.) shall be completed before the Engineer (or
his designate) will allow placement of subsequent lifts.
D. The CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer shall monitor protection of the
earthwork, i.e., from erosion or desiccation during and after construction.
E. All parties shall remain vigilant to protection of geotextiles from incidental damage.
F. Surveying and slope monitoring described in Section xx will commence from the
onset of material placement.

Please note, at the present time the Engineering Team is not specifying third-party
confirmation strength testing of the geogrids. There are no seams on the project, and the
manufacturer’s internal testing can be adjusted to provide a high data density.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 64
4.3.1 Earthwork
Although the construction of a MSE berm is not complicated and special equipment is not
required in general, a thorough monitoring plan shall be set up prior to the start of the
construction to make sure that all the stages of the construction are completed correctly
and according the referenced standards. The following subsections summarizes some
special construction considerations that needs to be followed by designer, contractor,
construction personnel, and inspector (based on Chapter 11 of the FHWA-NHI-10-25).
4.3.1.1 Subgrade Approval
Designated QC/QA personnel shall verify that the compacted soil-aggregates and/or subgrade
are constructed in accordance with the project specifications, prior to placing subsequent or
overlying materials. These activities include an inspection of the subgrade by a qualified
engineer, geologist, or soil technician working under the supervision of an engineer, who will
examine and classify the soils within the upper two feet beneath the finished subgrade. This
may consist of continual observation during placement with confirmatory sampling and
laboratory gradation testing at specified intervals, or there may be an exploratory sampling
program at some time near the completion of the subgrade with confirmatory testing at
specified intervals. The frequency of visual inspection and testing shall conform to Table 4A.
4.3.1.2 Compaction Criteria
Structural fill in MSE structures (including the levelling course) is a key element in satisfactory
performance. Both use of the specified material and its correct placement are important.
Reinforced backfill is normally specified to meet certain gradation, plasticity, soundness, and
electrochemical requirements. Tests conducted prior to construction form the basis for material
approval during the preconstruction, final planning stage of the project. Periodic testing of
these properties during construction is required (Tables 4A and 4B).
A. All berm, foundation course or leveling course material shall be compacted to conform
to the requirements of the specific materials, or as approved in writing by the Engineer.
Field density and moisture testing shall be performed at the specified frequencies listed
in Tables 4A and 4B. Test methods shall be approved by the Engineer.
B. Field observation of the response of soils beneath equipment and the use of a probe rod
and/or a penetrometer may be acceptable means of verifying compaction. This
deviation from the testing requirements must be approved in advance by the Solid
Waste Section.
C. Borrow soil type shall be evaluated by the Engineer and QC/QA personnel prior to
placement on the work site. All materials approvals shall be based on field or
laboratory tests performed at frequencies indicated on Tables 4A and 4B.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 65
D. Approval of soil type may be based on visual evaluation at the discretion of the
Engineer, provided there is sufficient test data on representative samples.
All visual inspection and testing shall be documented for the CQA Report. Where
strength is the key parameter of interest, reference field and/or lab tests must be used
to correlate visual observations.
4.3.2 Geosynthetic Reinforcing Materials
At the time of installation, the reinforcement shall be rejected if it exhibits obvious defects,
flaws, deterioration, or damage incurred during manufacture, transportation, or storage.
Metal reinforcements should not contain bent, cut or repaired (e.g., welded or straightened)
without approval of the Engineering team. Geosynthetics should not contain tears, cuts or
punctures and should be replaced or repaired at the direction of the engineer.
The correct orientation of the geogrid is critical. The inspector shall very (and document)
the placement of each panel of geogrid – this might be supplemented with periodic surveys
at intervals that correspond to construction activities, e.g., upon completion of a lift or
course of structural fill. Testing of properties (such as pullout tests) shall be performed at
the frequency given in Table 4C.

Geogrids shall be examined throughout the construction process. When geogrid is
delivered to the project site, the inspector should inspect all material. On site, all system
components should be satisfactorily stored and handled to avoid damage. The material
supplier's construction manual should contain additional information on this matter.

Reinforcing elements (strips, mesh, and sheets) should arrive at the project site securely
bundled or packaged to avoid damage. These materials are available in a variety of types,
configurations, and sizes (gauge, length, product styles), and even a simple structure may
have different reinforcement elements at different locations. The inspector should verify
that the material is properly identified and check the specified designation (AASHTO,
ASTM, etc.) against project specifications. Grid reinforcement should be checked for wire
diameter, length, width, and spacing of longitudinal and transverse members. For strip
reinforcements, the length and thickness should be checked.

Material verification is especially important for geotextiles and geogrids where many
product styles look similar but have different properties. The geogrids or geotextile
samples should be weighed in the field to compare the mass per unit area with the
manufacturer’s identification value. Samples should also be sent to the laboratory for
verification testing of index properties. Color coding of roll ends can be helpful, especially
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 66
in complex configurations to prevent improper installations. Where more than one style
will be used, the roll ends could be painted and when reinforcements are cut to length, the
lengths could be painted on the material.

Storage areas should meet both specifications and manufacturer’s storage requirements.
Materials should be stored off the ground to protect reinforcement from mud, dirt, and
debris. Care shall be taken not to crease rolled materials during handling and all materials
shall be protected from equipment impacts. Geosynthetic reinforcements should not be
exposed to temperatures greater than 140⁰F (60⁰C) and manufacturer's recommendations
should be followed regarding UV protection from direct sunlight.
4.3.3 Protection of Finished Surfaces
The only relevant systems exposed after construction will be the finished slopes, including both
interior and exterior slopes, various drainage systems, and the subgrade. Ground cover shall
be established on all finished surfaces shall to prevent erosion, i.e., seeding of the finished
surfaces within 20 days, per NCDEQ Division of Land Quality rules, or other measures for
preventing erosion (e.g., mulch, rain sheets). Maintenance of finished slopes and subgrade
until waste is placed is required. Exterior slopes shall be vegetated in accordance with
application sediment and erosion control regulations. The Engineer shall document that the
finished surfaces are adequately protected upon completion and said documentation shall be
recorded in the CQA report.

The Owner/Operator shall be responsible for maintaining the finished surfaces, including
exterior slope vegetation and drainage conveyances, along with the interior slopes and
subgrade. If finished surfaces within the waste disposal area will be required to sit completed
for more than 30 days following completion, the Engineer shall examine the finished surfaces
prior to waste disposal and the Owner shall be responsible for any necessary repairs, e.g.,
erosion that might affect berm integrity or vertical separation with a subgrade. The Engineer
shall document any required maintenance or repairs prior to commencing disposal activities,
placing said documentation into the Operating Record.
4.4 CQA Meetings
Effective communication is critical toward all parties’ understanding of the objectives of the
CQA program and in resolving problems that may arise that could compromise the ability to
meet those objectives. To that end, meetings are essential to establish clear, open channels of
communication. The frequency of meetings will be dictated by site conditions and the
effectiveness of communication between the parties.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 67
4.4.1 Project Initiation CQA Meeting
A CQA Meeting will be held at the site prior to placement of the compacted barrier layer. At
a minimum, the Engineer, the Contractor, representatives of the CQA Testing Firm and Owner
will attend the meeting, and perhaps the regulatory agency. The purpose of this meeting is to
begin planning for coordination of tasks, anticipate any problems that might cause difficulties
and delays in construction, and, above all, review the CQA Manual to all the parties involved.

During this meeting, the results of a prior compaction test pad will be reviewed, and the project
specific moisture-density relationships and it is very important that the rules regarding testing,
repair, etc., be known and accepted by all. This meeting should include all of the activities
referenced in the project specifications. The Engineer shall document the meeting and minutes
will be transmitted to all parties.
4.4.2 CQA Progress Meetings
Progress meetings will be held between the Engineer, the Contractor, a representative of the
CQA Testing Firm, and representatives from any other involved parties. Meeting frequency
will be, at a minimum, once per month during active construction or more often if necessary,
during critical stages of construction (i.e., initial stages of final cover). These meetings will
discuss current progress, planned activities for the next week, and any new business or
revisions to the work. The Engineer will log any problems, decisions, or questions arising at
this meeting in his periodic reports. Any matter requiring action, which is raised in this
meeting, will be reported to the appropriate parties. The Engineer will document these
meetings and minutes will be transmitted to interested parties and to a record file.
4.4.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meetings
A special meeting will be held when and if a problem or deficiency is present or likely to occur.
At a minimum, the Engineer, the Contractor, the CQA Testing Firm, and representatives will
attend the meeting from any other involved parties. The purpose of the meeting is to define
and resolve the problem or work deficiency as follows:
• Define and discuss the problem or deficiency;
• Review alternative solutions; and
• Implement an action plan to resolve the problem or deficiency.
The Engineer will document these meetings and minutes will be transmitted to interested
parties and to a record file.
4.5 Documentation and Reporting
An effective CQA plan depends largely on recognition of which construction activities should
be monitored and on assigning responsibilities for the monitoring of each required activity.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 68
This is most effectively accomplished and verified by the documentation of quality assurance
activities. The CQA Testing Firm will provide documentation to address quality assurance
requirements. Monitoring will not be continuous and full-time, although the CQA Testing
Firm representative (typically this is a Soil Technician) and the Engineer will make frequent
and periodic visits to inspect and/or test the work. Both parties shall keep records of their visits
and observations.

The Soils Technician will visit the site periodically (e.g., once per week) to document activities
during placement of the structural fill and during final cover construction. Site visits by the
CQA Testing Firm shall be coordinated between the Contractor and the CQA Testing Firm.
The Engineer will make monthly site visits during these critical stages to review the work. The
Construction Superintendent or his representative shall be present on-site daily and shall keep
a record of the general construction progress, noting specifically any problems or
inconsistencies that need to be brought to the Owner’s attention. The specifics of the
Contractor’s records will not be spelled out, but at a minimum, daily or weekly progress records
shall be kept and made available to the Owner upon request.

The CQA Testing Firm will provide the Owner (or his designee) with periodic progress reports
including signed descriptive remarks, data sheets, and logs to verify that required CQA
activities have been carried out. These reports shall also identify potential quality assurance
problems. The CQA Testing Firm will also maintain at the job site a complete file of project
drawings, reports, project specifications, the CQA Plan, periodic reports, test results and other
documents. The Owner shall furnish a location to keep the records.
4.5.1 Periodic CQA Reports
The CQA Testing Firm representative's reporting procedures will include preparation of a
periodic report (daily, weekly, etc.) that will include the following information, where
applicable:
• A unique sheet number for cross referencing and document control;
• Date, project name, location, and other identification;
• Data on weather conditions;
• A Site Plan showing all proposed work areas and test locations;
• Descriptions and locations of ongoing construction;
• Descriptions and specific locations of areas, or units, of work being tested and/or
observed and documented;
• Locations where tests and samples were taken;
• A summary of test results (as they become available, e.g., laboratory tests);
• Calibration/recalibration of equipment; actions taken as a result of recalibration;
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 69
• Off-site materials received, including quality verification documentation;
• Decisions made regarding acceptance of units of work, and/or corrective actions to
be taken in instances of substandard quality;
• Summaries of pertinent discussions with the Contractor and/or Engineer;
• The Technician's signature.

The periodic report must be completed by the end of each Technician's visit, prior to leaving
the site. This information will keep at the Contractor’s office and reviewed periodically by the
Owner and Engineer. The CQA Testing Firm on a weekly basis should forward copies of the
Periodic CQA Reports electronically to the Engineer. Periodic CQA Reports shall be due to
the Engineer no later than Noon on the next working day (typically Monday) following the end
of a workweek (typically Friday). If a periodic visit is postponed or cancelled, that fact should
be documented by the CQA Testing Firm and noted in the next periodic report.
4.5.2 CQA Progress Reports
The Engineer will prepare a summary progress report each month, or at time intervals
established at the pre-construction meeting. As a minimum, this report will include the
following information, where applicable:
• Date, project name, location, and other information;
• A summary of work activities during the progress reporting period;
• A summary of construction situations, deficiencies, and/or defects occurring
during the progress reporting period;
• A summary of all test results, failures and retests, and
• The signature of the Engineer.
The Engineer's progress reports must summarize the major events that occurred during that
week. This report shall include input from the Contractor and the CQA Testing Firm. Critical
problems that occur shall be communicated verbally to the Engineer immediately (or as
appropriate, depending on the nature of the concern) as well as being included in the Periodic
CQA Reports.
4.5.3 CQA Photographic Reporting
Photographs shall be taken by the CQA Testing Firm at regular intervals during the
construction process and in all areas deemed critical by the CQA Testing Firm. These
photographs will serve as a pictorial record of work progress, problems, and mitigation
activities. These records will be presented to the Engineer upon completion of the project.
Electronic photographs are preferred; in which case the electronic photos should be forwarded
to the Engineer, (the CQA Testing Firm shall keep copies, as well). In lieu of photographic
documentation, videotaping may be used to record the activities.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 70
4.5.4 Documentation of Deficiencies
The Owner and Engineer will be made aware of any significant or recurring nonconformance
issues. The Engineer determine the cause of the non-conformance and recommend appropriate
changes in procedures or specifications. After such evaluation, the results will be documented,
and the Owner and Engineer will approve any revision to procedures or specifications.
4.5.5 Design or Specification Changes
Design and/or project specification changes may be required during construction. In such
cases, the Contractor will notify the Engineer and/or the Owner. The Owner will then notify
the appropriate agency, if necessary. Design and/or project specification changes will be made
only with the written agreement of the Engineer and the Owner, and such changes will be
memorialized by addendum to the project specifications. All design changes shall include a
detail (if necessary) and state which detail it replaces in the plans.
4.5.6 Progress Drawings
Drawings shall be prepared weekly, bi-weekly, or as directed by the Engineer during the
construction, depending on the rate of progress. Hand sketches on a site plan may suffice.
4.6 Final CQA Report
At the completion of each major construction activity at the landfill unit, or at periodic
intervals, the CQA Testing Firm will provide final copies of all required forms, observation
logs, field and laboratory testing data sheets, sample location plans, etc., in a certified report.
The Engineer will provide one or more reports, pertinent to each portion of completed work,
which will certify that the work has been performed in compliance with the plans and project
technical specifications, and that the supporting documents provide the necessary information.

The Engineer will provide Record Drawings, prepared with input from the Owner’s Surveyor,
which will include scale drawings depicting the location of the construction and details
pertaining to the extent of construction (e.g., depths, plan dimensions, elevations, soil
component thicknesses, etc.). All final surveying required for the Record Drawings will be
performed by the Owner’s Surveyor. Items to be included in the Final CQA Report are shown
on Table 4-2. Note that some items may not be applicable to all stages of the project.
4.7 Storage of Records
All handwritten data sheet originals, especially those containing signatures, will be stored in a
secure location on site. Other reports may be stored by any standard method, which will allow
for easy access. All written documents will become property of the Owner.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 71
Table 4-2 Final CQA Report General Outline
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Project Description
3.0 CQA Program
3.1 Scope of Services
3.2 Personnel
4.0 Earthwork CQA
5.0 Geosynthetic Reinforcement CQA
6.0 Summary and Conclusions
7.0 Project Certification
Appendices
A Design Clarifications/Modifications
B Engineer’s and/or Technicians Field Reports
C Materials Representations
D CQA Reporting
C1. CQA Reports
C2. CQA Meeting Minutes
E Earthwork CQA Data
D1. CQA Test Results - Control Tests
D2. CQA Test Results - Record Tests
F Geosynthetic Reinforcement CQA Data
E1. Manufacturer’s Product Data and QC Certificates
E2. Test Results - Drainage Aggregate
E3. Test Results - Vegetative Soil Layer
E4. Test Results - Pressure Testing of HDPE Piping (Manufacturer data)
E5. Test results on compacted soil barrier/low permeability layer
G Record Drawings
F1. Subgrade As-Built
F2. Compacted soil barrier/low permeability layer as-built drawing
F3. Vegetative Soil Layer As-Built
H Photographic Documentation
I Receipts for Materials and Labor (of interest for Financial Assurance)
A CQA report shall be prepared upon completion of each stage, at the end of each quarter or at
an alternate frequency deemed appropriate by the Stakeholders. Each CQA report shall bear the
signature and seal of the Engineer (or multiple Engineers as applicable), attesting that the
construction was completed in accordance with the CQA plan, the conditions of the permit to
construct, the requirements of the North Carolina Solid Waste Rules, and acceptable engineering
practice. All test results will become part of the permanent record for the project.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 72
Table 4-3 Reference List of ASTM Test Methods
ASTM C-136 Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.

ASTM D-422 Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils.

ASTM D-698 Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3).

ASTM D-4254 Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils
-16 and Calculation of Relative Density

ASTM D-1556 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place
by the Sand-Cone Method.

ASTM D-2167 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place
by the Rubber Balloon Method.

ASTM D-2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.

ASTM D-2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils
(Visual-Manual Procedure).

ASTM D-2922 Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by
Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).

ASTM D-2937 Standard Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive Cylinder Method.

ASTM D-3017 Standard Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock in Place by Nuclear
Methods (Shallow Depth).

ASTM D-4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.

ASTM D-4643 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by
the Microwave Oven Method.

ASTM D-4959 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by
Direct Heating Method.

ASTM D-5084 Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity
of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Berm Permeameter

ASTM D-5993 Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit of Geosynthetic
Clay Liners.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 73
ASTM D-6391 Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity Limits of
Porous Materials Using Two Stages of Infiltration from a Borehole

ASTM D-6768 Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength of Geosynthetic Clay Liners.

ASTM D-5321 Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and Geosynthetic
or Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear Method

ASTM D-6706 Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout
-01(2013) Resistance in Soil

ASTM D-3034 Standard Specification for Type PSM Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Sewer
-16 Pipe and Fittings

ASTM D-1248 Standard Specification for Polyethylene Plastics Extrusion Materials
-16 for Wire and Cable

ASTM G-51 Standard Test Method for Measuring pH of Soil for Use in Corrosion Testing

The foregoing list is provided for the convenience of users of this document and is not intended to
represent a complete list of all testing that might be used on this project.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 74
Table 4A Testing Schedule for Base Leveling Pad (Soil) 6
PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Classification ASTM D-2487 1 1 per 2000 cubic yards 3
Gradation ASTM D-422 1 per 2000 cubic yards
Plasticity Index ASTM D-4318 1 per 2000 cubic yards
Lab Moisture-Density ASTM D-4254
AASHTO T-99 1 per 2000 cubic yards
RECORD TESTS:
Lift Thickness Direct Measure Each compacted lift
In-Place Density ASTM D-6938 2 1 per 100-150 L.F. per lift 4
Classification ASTM D-2487 1 1 per 2000 cubic yards
Gradation ASTM D-422 1 per 2000 cubic yards
Plasticity Index ASTM D-4318 1 per 2000 cubic yards
NOTES
1 Perform Continuous Visual Classification ASTM D-2488
2 Note: ASTM D-2922 has been superseded by ASTM D-6938-17(a)
3 Recommended by FHWA NHI-10-025 (Section 11.2.4)
4 Recommended by FEA Design Report (Section 3)
5 Per FHWA and NCMA recommendations (see Table 1 Section 2.1 in FEA report)
MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS DENSITY METHOD
GW, GP, SP, SM with PI<10 80% MDD ASTM D-4254
GP GW SW SP 98% MDD ASTM D-698
SM 95% ± 2% ASTM D-698
6 Place and compact soil-aggregate in 9" uncompacted lifts (6” for hand tamped sections)
7 USE THIS GUIDANCE FOR BACKFILLING LOW AREAS THAT MIGHT BE LEFT AFTER
FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS AND FOR UNDERCUT AND REPLACEMENT
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 75
Table 4B Testing Schedule for Compacted Structural Fill
PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Classification ASTM D-2487 1 1 per 2000 cubic yards 3
Gradation ASTM D-422 1 per 2000 cubic yards
Plasticity Index ASTM D-4318 1 per 2000 cubic yards
Moisture-Density ASTM D-4254
AASHTO T-99 1 each material type
RECORD TESTS:
Lift Thickness Direct Measure Each compacted lift
In-Place Density ASTM D-6938 2, 5 1 per 500 S.F. per lift 4
NOTES
1 Perform Continuous Visual Classification ASTM D-2488
2 ASTM D-2922 has been superseded by ASTM D-6938-17(a)
3 Recommended by FHWA NHI-10-025 (Section 11.2.4)
4 Recommended by FEA Design Report (Section 3)
5 Moisture should be ±2% optimum if SM soils are being used, ±3% optimum for <5% fines
6 Per FHWA and NCMA recommendations (see Table 1 Section 2.1 in FEA report)
MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS DENSITY METHOD
GW, GP, SP, SM with PI<10 80% MDD ASTM D-4254
GP GW SW SP 98% MDD ASTM D-698 or D-1556
SM 95% ± 2% ASTM D-698
5 Place and compact soil-aggregate in 9" uncompacted lifts (6” for hand tamped sections)
6 No operation of tracked equipment above geogrid without 6 inches minimum cover soil
7 Slope backfill 2% away from the slope face
8 Within 3 feet behind slope face, only single- or double-drum walk-behind vibratory rollers
or vibrating plate compactors shall be used; minimum 4 passes; fill soil shall not be “flooded”
9 Outside 3 feet of the slope face, large smooth-drum vibratory rollers are to be used
(no sheepsfoot); if fine sand backfill is used, use a walk-behind compactor for the last pass
10 Blade the fill working away from the front slope (front of berm toward the back)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 76
Table 4C Testing Schedule for Geogrid Reinforcement
COMPONENT TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Material Type 1 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Pullout Tests ASTM D-6706 1 each geogrid with corresp. soil
RECORD TESTS:
Storage, Handling 2 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Placement 3 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Tension 4 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Alignment 5 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Fill Placement 6 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Pullout Tests 10 ASTM D-6706 1 per 1000 s.f. per 18” course

NOTES:
1 Manufacturer’s certification data will be accepted in lieu of conducting material-specific tests;
inspection should verify that lot and roll numbers shipped to site corresponds to manufacturer’s
certification sheets
2 Verify geogrids are the correct type and have been stored/handled to prevent damage
3 Verify correct geogrids are being used in the portion of berm being constructed; examine geogrids
for defects, deterioration, damage, e.g., bends, cuts, punctures, abrasions
4 Check tautness of the geogrid before placing soil-aggregate
5 Make sure geogrid is lying flat or sloping slightly away from outer slope face
6 Verify correct orientation of geogrid, i.e., typically machine direction (MD) is perpendicular to
slope face and no splices are allowed within the embedment length
7 Record the location of “cutouts” for later installation of piezometers or inclinometers, if any
8 Verify cross-direction (XD) overlaps or connections are properly aligned and tied per design
9 If overlaps are required to accommodate direction changes in the front face, verify a minimum
of 3 inches separation exists between the reinforcement layers
10 Three 6” thick compacted lifts equal one 18” thick course (the height of a slope-face wire cage)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 77
Table 4D Testing Schedule for Drainage Stone
COMPONENT PROPERTY MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Classification ASTM D-2487 1 1 per 500 cubic yards 3
Gradation ASTM D-422 1 per 500 cubic yards
Plasticity Index ASTM D-4318 1 per 500 cubic yards
RECORD TESTS:
Placement 2 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Compaction 3 Visual inspection Continual as needed

NOTES:
1 A quarry certification is acceptable for aggregate from a commercial quarry. If a byproduct is
used, i.e., crushed concrete aggregate, the gradation test frequency may be adjusted based on
project specific conditions. The Engineer shall approve all materials and alternative test
frequencies. Manufactured materials that do not meet relevant ASTM or AASHTO standard
gradation specifications, e.g., “off-spec” NCDOT materials may be used at the discretion of the
Engineer
2 Verify correct materials are used and observe lines and grades per construction plans
3 Density testing of these coarse grain materials in confined areas will be impractical; inspector
should verify placement, use of filter geotextile, protect stone from siltation or “fall-in”
contaminants

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 78
Table 4E Testing Schedule for Filter Geotextile
COMPONENT TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Type 1 Visual inspection Continual as needed
RECORD TESTS:
Storage, Handling 2 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Placement 3 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Tension 4 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Alignment 5 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Fill Placement 6 Visual inspection Continual as needed

NOTES
1 Manufacturer’s certification data will be accepted in lieu of conducting material-specific tests;
inspection should verify that lot and roll numbers shipped to site corresponds to manufacturer’s
certification sheets
2 Verify geotextiles are the correct type and have been stored/handled to prevent damage
3 Verify correct geotextiles are being used in the portion of berm being constructed; inspector shall
examine geotextiles for defects, deterioration, damage, e.g., bends, cuts, punctures, abrasions;
verify geotextiles are placed to correct lines and grades
4 Check tautness of the geotextiles before placing soil-aggregate backfill; verify connections to
other components, i.e., reinforcement, are made
5 Verify backfill does not contain particles exceeding 3 inches in diameter and no sharp particles
or debris are present that could damage the geotextiles
6 Verify no components are dislodged during fill placement

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 79
Table 4F Testing Schedule for Drainpipe
COMPONENT TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Type 1 Visual inspection Continual as needed
RECORD TESTS:
Storage, Handling 2 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Placement 3 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Alignment 4 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Fill Placement 5, 6 Visual inspection Continual as needed

NOTES
1 Manufacturer’s certification data will be accepted in lieu of conducting material-specific tests;
inspection should verify that product labels and lot numbers shipped to site correspond to
manufacturer’s certification sheets
2 Verify drainpipe are stored/handled to prevent damage
3 Verify correct pipe size and type, e.g., perforated vs. non-perforated, are being used in the portion
of berm being constructed; inspector shall examine pipe for defects, deterioration, damage, e.g.,
bends, cuts, punctures, abrasions; verify pipe is placed to correct lines and grades
4 Check to make sure geotextile filter fabric is in place, pipes placement is correct, all connections
are completed, no sags or misalignment is present before drainage stone placed
5 Verify backfill does not contain particles exceeding 3 inches in diameter and no sharp particles
or debris are present that could damage the pipework
6 Verify no components are dislodged during fill placement

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 80
Table 4G Testing Schedule for Wire Baskets
COMPONENT TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Type 1 Visual inspection Continual as needed
RECORD TESTS:
Storage, Handling 2 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Placement 3 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Alignment 4 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Fill Placement 5, 6, 7 Visual inspection Continual as needed

NOTES
1 Fabricator’s certification data will be accepted in lieu of conducting material-specific tests;
inspection should verify that product labels and lot numbers shipped to site correspond to
certification sheets; if the wire baskets are to be epoxy costed, verify it is present
2 Verify wire baskets are stored/handled to prevent damage
3 Inspector shall examine wire baskets for defects, deterioration, damage, e.g., bends, cuts,
punctures, abrasions (if coated); verify pipe is placed to correct lines and grades
4 Check to make sure wire basket placement is correct, all connections are completed, no bends,
sags, excessive tension or misalignment is present before soil-aggregate backfill is placed
5 Verify backfill does not contain particles exceeding 3 inches in diameter and no sharp particles
or debris are present that could damage the geotextiles
6 Make sure ancillary systems, e.g., filter geotextile and vegetative support materials, are in place
7 Verify no components are dislodged during fill placement

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 81
Table 4H Testing Schedule for Geotextile Connections
COMPONENT TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Type 1 Visual inspection Continual as needed
RECORD TESTS:
Placement 2 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Alignment 3 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Fill Placement 4 Visual inspection Continual as needed

NOTES
1 Verify prefabricated connections are of the correct type and placement shown on the plans
2 Verify all connections are completed and elements are at proper tension prior to placing fill; if field
ties are being used, make sure they are taunt
3 Observe connections during placement of fill to ensure correct alignment is maintained
and that no damage occurs
4 Verify fill placement is the correct type and all connections to reinforcement and/or face wrapping
systems and devices are installed

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
4 – Construction Quality Assurance Page 82
Table 4I Testing Schedule for Vegetative Support Soil
COMPONENT TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Type 1 Visual inspection Continual as needed
RECORD TESTS:
Storage 2 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Placement 3 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Alignment 4 Visual inspection Continual as needed
Slope protection 5 Visual inspection Continual as needed

NOTES
1 Inspect suppliers certification data with respect to seed type and packing date (should valid for
current year); inspect soils and admixtures to verify correct type; pay particular attention to data
concerning corrosivity of ferrous metals (check with Engineering team, as this may not be an
issue)
2 Verify storage of materials in a manner they cannot be damaged or contaminated by water, wind,
foreign debris or undesirable plant types
3 Inspector shall verify soils are of property composition with respect to admixtures and placed in
the proper locations near the slope face and properly restrained by geotextiles and/or wire
baskets; equally important is making sure the organic soils are not placed in an area where
structural fill is required; verify placement is according to lines and grades shown on plans
. examine wire baskets for defects, deterioration, damage, e.g., bends, cuts, punctures, abrasions
(if coated); verify pipe is placed to correct lines and grades
4 Check to make sure no restraint components are overstressed, cut, torn, split, or otherwise
damaged during the installation AND during placement of materials above the completed course
5 Verify completed surfaces are protected from erosion due to excess wind or water until the crop
germinates and assumes this function

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 83
5 MSE BERM MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Section 11.4 of FHWA-NHI-10-025 27 states that MSE berms are well established geotechnical
structures and therefore, monitoring programs for this type of structure can be limited to cases
with new features or materials, or when the post-construction settlements are expected to occur.
Although the materials and features used for this project are within the typical pre-defined
cases and have been used previously in numerous successful projects in the United States and
around the world, the proposed soil-aggregates have not been proven, and due to the sensitivity
of this project the following monitoring program has been developed. The monitoring details
and checklist are based on the construction controls covered in Section 4 of this document.

It should be noted that monitoring and inspection activities are a requirement of operations and
post closure of the landfill. Thus, the activities described herein apply beyond the construction,
but here the focus is the MSE berm.
5.1 Monitoring Requirements and Methods
This section discusses monitoring methods specific to the MSE Berm to be conducted under
direction of a qualified, North Carolina licensed Professional Engineer. Several individuals
will be involved; during the construction period many of this Inspection Team will comprise
many of the Stakeholders. Please note that references to proprietary products in the following
sections are not an endorsement for those products, only a reference for product-type.
5.1.1 Deformations and Movements
As with all engineered structures, some minor movement is expected. The goal is not to
prevent movement, rather detecting small, progressive movements prior to exceeding tolerable
amounts is key to maintaining stability of the system. Section 2.5.4.4 discusses tolerable
vertical and/or horizontal displacement (i.e., strain) considered acceptable over the life of the
MSE berm by the Design Engineer. Movements outside this range of tolerance (or occurring
within a time span shorter than expected) can be early signs of pending failure.

However, any movements whether inside or outside the range of tolerance should be carefully
evaluated by qualified engineers to determine when, and if, corrective action is required. In
this case, failure would be defined as movement of a magnitude that cannot be corrected with
normal maintenance and which might compromise the containment of the waste if left
unmitigated. Relative to structural performance, it is of interest to know the location and
direction of any movement (e.g., upper or lower half of the berm, upward or down, lateral or
lengthwise) with enough data to pinpoint a problem.

27 see Footnote 1
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 84
Parameters introduced in Section 11.4.1 of the FHWA-NHI-10-025 include the following:
• Horizontal movement of the face
• Vertical movement of the surface of the overall structure
• Local movements or deterioration of the facing elements
• Drainage behavior of the backfill
• Horizontal movement within the overall structure
• Stress relaxation in the reinforcement with time.
5.1.1.1 Slope Face Monitoring
Horizontal and vertical movements of the slope face will be monitored by state-of-the-art
surveying methods, e.g., periodic laser scans using fixed measuring points on the face or
pavement surfaces. These high precision surveys will detect movements of a few millimeters,
well within the tolerances required for this project. Early measurement forms a baseline, to
which later measurements can be compared to determine strain along the external surfaces.
Such measurements are easily obtained but are of limited value to understanding what is
happening with the tensile reinforcement than is measurement of internal strain, i.e.,
displacement of specific components or within zones of interest. On the other hand, the slope
face is the most likely location to show distress, certainly among the first indications of a
problem. Although the slope face of this structure is relatively flexible, in comparison with
rigid walls or block facing, it is important to limit movement behind the slope face, as
misalignment of the wire cages could lead to overstressed geotextile and loss of backfill.
5.1.1.2 Internal Monitoring
Internal strain on selected geotextile reinforcing members can be measured directly with
embedded strain gauges, allowing a comparison of actual strain to the manufacturer’s tolerance
values. Strain gauges are recommended in a few critical zones or locations within the berms
to provide data for comparison with indirect measurements, such as slope inclinometers and/or
extensometers. Inter-device measurements can be correlated, i.e., comparing data from an area
suspected to be moving with data from an area that is not moving, for an overall understanding
of movements. Movement that results a small amount of strain (fractions of an inch) can
manifest as many inches of surface displacement. However, movement at the surface, does
not necessarily imply strain in the reinforcement that exceeds the capacity of the geogrid.

In order to completely evaluate whether any detected movements indicate a real problem, a
combination of tracking movements and pore pressure measurements behind the berm,
beginning as early as possible in the construction period, will form the basis of a thorough
monitoring program for the MSE berm. Monitoring methods and instruments for reinforced
soil structures suggested in Table 11-6 of FHWA-NHI-10-025 are summarized below:

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 85
Table 5-1 FHWA Recommended Monitoring for MSE Structures
Parameters to be monitored Possible Methods/Instruments
Horizontal/vertical movements of face
Visual observation
Surveying methods Horizontal control stations
Tiltmeters
Local movements or deterioration of facing
elements
Visual observation
Crack gauges
Drainage behavior of backfill Visual observation at outflow points Open standpipe piezometers
Horizontal and Vertical movements within
overall structure
Surveying methods Horizontal control stations Fixed berm or Probe extensometers Inclinometers Tiltmeters
Notes:
FHWA-NHI-10-025 recommends that monitoring location should be selected based on these criteria:
1) Locations along the berm with unique design features, high surcharges or highest stress
2) Primary instrumented sections are selected as representative of systems behavior
3) Secondary instrumented sections that will confirm the primary sections are representative
of the behavior of the berm
Another important consideration is accessibility of these monitoring locations. From the list
a few monitoring methods have been selected and will be discussed in the following sections.
5.1.2 Monitoring devices
5.1.2.1 High Precision Surveys
External slope-face monitoring will be accomplished with periodic laser scans that allow detection
of movement in three dimensions. The surveys will follow a rigorous QA/QC program to be
developed by the Engineering Team with one or more Registered Land Surveyors. 28 Survey
equipment will consist of stationary terrestrial laser scanners (STLS) that exhibit a practical range
of 90-120 m with an accuracy of 7 mm. The surveys will be of the Type A hard target genre, with
target monuments established on the slope faces as the berm is constructed. The initial surveys
will be performed during construction to establish baseline data for each monument. 29

28 Guidelines Vertical Accuracy Reporting for Lidar Data, ASPRS Lidar Committee, American
Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), Martin Flood, ed., May 24, 2004
29 Hiremagalur, Yen, Lasky, and Ravani, Testing and Performance Evaluation of Fixed Terrestrial
3D Laser Scanning Systems for Highway Applications, Paper 19-1995, Transportation Research
Board 88th Annual Meeting, 2009
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 86
Tentative locations of the targets are shown in Drawing MP1. The surveys shall be georeferenced
to control points on the ground to serve as references. There shall be a minimum 20% overlap of
the effective range of the instrument. Positional accuracy based on the control points shall not
exceed 0.03 feet in the horizontal dimension and 0.02 feet in the vertical dimension. Point cloud
registration precision shall not exceed 0.03 feet in the horizontal dimension and 0.02 feet in the
vertical dimension. 30 All work shall be referenced to the latest High Accuracy Reference Network,
such as NAD83 revision 2013-06-12, accessible through the North Carolina Geodetic Survey real-
time network, i.e., continuously operating reference system (CORS) or the global navigation
satellite system (GPSS). 31 The tentative frequency of surveys is shown on Table 5-2.
5.1.2.2 Slope Indicators
Slope indicators, a.k.a. inclinometers, are a simple and effective tool for detecting and quantifying
movement within a slope or embankment. Drawing MP1 shows tentative locations for the
placement of inclinometers. These devices require a longitudinally grooved ABS pipe with sealed,
smooth connections to be installed in a vertical borehole to the depth of interest. For this project,
the inclinometer pipe shall be installed well into the foundation soils beneath the MSE
embankment, such that movement in the foundation or the embankment itself can be detected. The
tool that measures inclination is a multi-sensor accelerometer probe that measures any positional
difference in the grooves (whether torsional or lateral displacement) between successive soundings.
A cable mounted to the accelerometer probe is graduated to track depths, and the positional readings
are recorded and displayed graphically using proprietary software. The system has a data resolution
of 0.0012 inches per 24 inches (a convenient measurement interval that is the length of the
accelerometer probe) and to 0.01 inch per reading and 0.3 inches per 30 readings. 32

The use of these devices is well documented. One concern is the timing of the installation –
typically the inclinometer is installed in a full-depth boring and grouted into place. Incremental
construction will require postponement of the inclinometer completion within a given portion of
the berm until that section reaches full height. Another concern is the position of the inclinometer
in the embankment – placement is tentatively envisioned behind the reinforcement and chimney
drain, to avoid drilling into the reinforcement. Since the surface of the berm will be monitored by
high precision surveys (Section 5.1.2.1) it makes sense to use the inclinometers to monitor a deeper
zone. Provisions can be made for leaving “cutouts” in the reinforced zone to allow installation
within the reinforced zone. This is a matter of advance planning and can be postponed until reviews
are completed. The tentative frequency for data collection is shown on Table 5-2.

30 Terrestrial Laser Scanning Specifications, California Department of Transportation, CALTRANS
Survey Manual, June 2018
31 NCGS http://www.ncgs.state.nc.us/Pages/home.aspx
32 Copyrighted information from Durham Geo Slope Indicator® product literature, 2009
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 87
5.1.2.3 Pressure Transducers
The measurement of pressure near the base, along the toe of the embankment is needed to better
understand the strain on the reinforcement (Section 5.1.2.4). Pressure cells allow for monitoring
two parameters, total pressure plus water pressure. Typical pressure transducers are either solid
state or vibrating wire electronic devices that respond directly to pressures “felt” by the sensor, or
parallel plate devices (measuring pressures on an interstitial non-compressible fluid). Either type
can be wired or remotely monitored. There are hydraulic and pneumatic devices that function as a
manometer without electronic circuitry. Specifications for such devices is best left to the final
planning stages, but a tentative layout for pressure cells is presented in Drawing MP1.
5.1.2.4 Strain Gauges
Monitoring strain (displacement) in the vicinity of the reinforcement elements will provide vital
information concerning the stability of the MSE berm. Vibrating wire strain gauges are typically
used for detecting small scale movement such as might be experienced in the strands of the geogrid,
transverse to the slope face. One such device can be mounted directly onto the strands of the
geogrid and called a “strand anchor strain gauge.” 33 The operating principle is straightforward: a
taunt wire placed between two fixed ends will vibrate when excited (“plucked”) at a frequency
proportional to the tension in the wire (like a guitar string).

A magnetic coil is pulsed to excite the wire, and the resonant frequency is measured in a resistance
circuit, often a “Wheatstone bridge.” Even a microscopic change in the length of the wire produces
a change in the vibration rate. A datalogger handles the excitation and frequency measurements.
When embedded or mounted to the strands of the geonet, miniscule movements within the geogrid,
i.e., strain, can be detected. These devices are in common usage and can be set up for manual or
remote measurements. These systems are designed to survive lengthy periods in changing
conditions (i.e., temperature). A tentative layout for strain gauges is presented in Drawing MP1.
The tentative frequency for data collection is shown on Table 5-2.
5.1.2.5 Standpipe Piezometers
Conventional standpipe piezometers with manual readings are favored in lieu of electronic devices
because of simplicity of installation and operation. A tentative layout for pressure cells is presented
in Drawing MP1. The tentative frequency for data collection is shown on Table 5-2.
5.1.2.6 Visual Inspections
A thorough walk-around inspections will be performed at intervals shown in Table 5-2. A checklist
is under development, which will cover, at a minimum, looking for evidence of cracking, bulging,
rotation, sloughing, seepage and/or vegetative distress. The checklist is proposed to be added as
Table 5-3 during the advance design stages of the project.

33 Copyrighted information from Geosense® product literature, 2019
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 88
5.1.2.7 Drainage Volume Tally
Volumes of accumulated fluids from the chimney/blanket drain system is of interest to long-range
planning for leachate collection and removal. The drainage from behind the berm is likely to have
contacted the C&D waste, thus the fluids will be treated as leachate. Temporary drop inlet sumps
will be connected to the headers, connected to the weep holes at the base of the berm, which must
be inspected and pumped on a regular basis. A tentative schedule for the inspection is presented in
Table 5-2. This schedule will be adjusted as needed.
5.1.3 Monitoring Locations
Drawing MP1 shows a tentative layout for survey monuments along the front face of the berm.
The monuments are spaced 200 feet laterally on every third course (approximately 10 feet), to
be surveyed using laser scanning techniques on a regular schedule throughout the construction,
operation and post-closure periods. Data will be acquired remotely from fixed locations on the
ground, so it will not be necessary for surveyors to physically access the berm. A tentative
schedule for surveying the berm is presented in Table 5-2. Refer to Section 5.1.2.1 for minimum
accuracy requirements. All surveys will be professionally overviewed and made part of the
permanent Facility Record.

The rationale for locations and schedules for the monitoring systems (Section 5.1.2) is to track
vertical and horizontal movements at key locations with comparable data sets. For instance,
Stage 1 of the MSE berm from Station 24+00 to 28+00 contains the highest berm section with
potentially the worst foundation conditions. Movement along the surface without movement
detected within the interior of the berm is probably not indicative of instability. Movement
within the detected embankment without an indication of excess pore pressure buildup is
something to watch, but not necessarily something to act upon. Comparing the data collected
here to that collected in less critical sections of the berm will provide a reality check if some
data are outside of expectations. The next few sections will discuss thresholds of expected
movement and what actions might be considered depending on what the data show.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 89
Table 5-2 Monitoring Schedule for the MSE Berm
Monitoring location During MSE
Construction
During CDLF
Operation/Closure1 Post Closure1
Laser-Scan Monuments Weekly Monthly
Semi-annual Review Annual review
Strain Gauges Weekly Bi-Weekly Download
Semi-annual Review Annual review
Pressure Transducers Weekly Bi-Weekly Download
Semi-annual Review Annual review
Slope Inclinometers Monthly Monthly/Quarterly
Semi-annual Review Annual review
Piezometers Monthly Monthly
Semi-annual Review Annual review
Visual Inspection2 Weekly Weekly
Monthly Review Annual review
Quantify Drainage Weekly Weekly/Monthly
Semi-annual Review Annual review

Notes:
1 All schedules may be adjusted subject to data findings and equipment limits
2 Walk-around by a qualified engineer, focusing on front-face and roadway integrity; this may be
facilitated by periodic drone surveys
5.1.4 Stormwater Management Controls
Keeping stormwater from accumulating behind the berm is key to successful performance.
Stormwater penetration into the back fill (reinforced or unreinforced zone) of the MSE Berm
shall be avoided during construction, operations, and post-closure. The keepers of the
monitoring program shall be vigilant to the following:
1) Any linear or area damage within or near the channels flowing on top of the MSE berm,
e.g., scouring, erosion, displacement of lining, evidence of transported soil, shall be
noted and traced back to its source
2) Overtopping of the MSE Berm by stormwater
3) Clogged or dysfunctional inlets and drains in charge of collecting the stormwater
4) Any gap or opening at surface utilities, e.g., inlets, guiderail posts, fence posts, catch
basin, litter fence poles
5) Cracks, open joints, pavement deterioration, and erosion on the roadway or shoulders
which could lead the stormwater into the backfill of the MSE Berm.
Evidence of these conditions (not excluding others) should be reported to Engineer of Record,
who will evaluate the need for corrective action.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 90
5.1.5 Leachate Management Controls
During berm construction, care shall be taken to avoid damaging the pipework and tanks
or the chimney drains during early stages of waste placement behind the berm. Visual
inspections shall be performed weekly to verify no obvious leaks or breaks are observed.
Damage should be repaired immediately. Should a breakage require repairs, a notation
shall be made in the Operating Record that accurately describes the location, extent, and
nature of the repairs. Tanks should be checked weekly for fluid level and pumped
whenever the tanks are half full. Pumped volumes shall be recorded and compared to
onsite rainfall. During prolonged rainy spells, more frequent pumping may be required,
thus the tank levels may need to be checked more often, perhaps daily for a while. The
Operations Plan will detail methods to promote stormwater-leachate separation, along with
a detailed operation, inspection and maintenance program (see Operations Section 3.3.3).
5.1.6 Erosion and Vegetation Inspection
The inspection program applies to the construction, operations and post-closure periods of this
project. The inspection team shall identify signs of erosion along the MSE Berm facing, around
pipes and utilities, in ditches and at the toe of the MSE Berm. Scouring or the accumulation of
transported soils would be a clear sign of erosion. Ongoing monitoring of the slope face should
be performed to ensure the vegetation is healthy and functioning to curtail erosion. Should the
geotextiles or wired mesh become exposed at the slope face, action should be taken to stabilize
the affected area. Likewise, if geotextiles exhibit damage (tears or splits), this is cause for
immediate concern and such conditions should be reported to the Engineer of Record.

The slope face is a difficult place to vegetate, mainly due to lack of moisture. These growing
conditions do not favor conventional turf-type vegetation (grass). For this reason, various
mixes of drought-tolerant herbaceous species (including shrubs, but not trees) and native
grasses have been identified that have the best chance of long-term survivability. Nonetheless,
the slope face will require more attention than a traditional landfill cover to maintain effective
vegetative cover. Probably two growing seasons required, with reseeding, mulch, and
fertilizer. The selected seed and admixture can he applied with hydroseeding techniques, both
initial and touch up applications.

Areas that do not eventually grow may need to be treated with shotcrete or some other surface
stabilization. The inspector should note if trees are becoming established, including location
and types of trees, and the Engineer will make appropriate recommendations. Of note, tree
development on a steep embankment of similar height at another project site was successfully
mowed off with long-reach equipment. This activity might be considered as a 10-year
maintenance issue.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 91
5.1.7 Tension Crack and Toe Heaving Inspection
The inspection team should regularly check for signs of tension cracks along the tops of the
berms, access roads, shoulders, and ditch lines. Sudden opening or progressive cracks may be
identifiable by a surface depression, which could indicate a lateral displacement, settlement, or
rotation event in progress, and surface depressions and cracking can exacerbate the infiltration
of water into the backfill. Toe heaving is a possible sign of sliding or rotational movement,
which may be accompanied by seepage and sloughing. Such conditions might indicate a
potentially serious problem and should be carefully monitored along the length of the MSE
berm. If these conditions are noted, the Engineer of Record should be notified. Corrective
action may be warranted, such as supplemental drainage, construction of buttresses, tiebacks,
or in an extreme situation the affected portion of the berm may need to be excavated. The
“boots-on-the-ground” inspections are indispensable to effective monitoring of the MSE berm.
5.1.8 Monitoring the Geogrids
Measuring tensile forces in the geogrid strands is a sure way to monitor the performance
of the reinforcement on a short-term basis (evaluating stresses during construction) and in
the long-term (tracking “creep” within the reinforced soils or the geogrid). The design of
the berm has incorporated creep factors, reductions in strength over time which are based
on conservative, empirical data sources. Strain gauge monitoring of the geogrid in the
early portion of the construction, i.e., Stage 1 of the MSE berm, will help the development
of on-site data that may be used in designing later stages. In addition, the monitoring of
geogrid tension will provide an extra measure of confidence about the performance of the
critical section of the berm. The type of strain monitoring device and the logistics of data
collection are tentatively identified in in this report, subject to further refinement.
5.1.9 Safety Barrier Assessment and Vandalism
The guiderails and safety fences should be inspected regularly to make sure that there is no
breach or gap and they are intact, undamaged and fully functional through the entire length of
the berm. Also, the horizontal components of the fences and guiderails should be maintained
with respect to corrosion and alignment. If vehicle impact damage occurs, the Engineer should
evaluate whether the slope face or other components have been compromised. The inspection
team should check the berm for any vandalism (though unlikely) and animal burrows. Any
such damage should be evaluated and corrected without delay.
5.2 Monitoring Records
All monitoring of the MSE berm will be performed under the supervision of a qualified
Engineer. The monitoring will require professional surveying and manual measurements for
certain systems that require a high level of accuracy. All work will be performed by trained
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 92
individuals. A data base will be established beginning with the baseline measurements for
each monitoring system. The Engineer will perform periodic data review, to identify possible
entry errors and oversights. The Engineer may order additional verification testing and/or more
frequent monitoring to make sure the data is accurate and repeatable. The Engineer’s review
will be made part of the Facility Record and maintained for the life of the project.
5.3 Duration of Monitoring Period
Monitoring of surface movements begins at the onset of construction. Installation of pressure
cells and strain gauges near the base of the embankment will facilitate early monitoring of
stress and strain. As sections of the berm come to final grade over an estimated 5 years for
Stages 1 and 2, installation of other monitoring systems, i.e., piezometers and inclinometers,
will augment the monitoring program that will continue beyond the construction period. As
now defined, the monitoring program will include period visual inspections.
Based on an assumed 20 years of operation and a minimum 30 years of post-closure, the
monitoring program is anticipated to last approximately 50 years, or more. If a post-closure
repurposing of the site be developed, the presence of the MSE berm should be factored into
performance monitoring for that project. Table 5-2 shows the tentative monitoring schedule.
Supplemental or emergency inspections shall be performed immediately following the severe
events (e.g. tornado, hurricane, seismic activity) that could damage the berm.
5.4 Allowable Movements
Based on the Engineering Plan (Section 2.5), some movement of the embankment is expected.
These movements would be detectable at the slope face (point to point on individual markers)
in a high precision survey. The following is a summary of calculated displacements that might
occur during or soon after construction, i.e., these are the thresholds of tolerable movement:
Table 5-3 Hypothetical Maximum Slope Displacements
Height Vertical A Differential B Lateral C Tilt D
H=10’ 15 in. 0.3 in. 1.1 in. 0.5 in.
H=20’ 30 0.6 2.2 1.0
H=30’ 45 0.9 3.3 1.5
H=40’ 60 1.2 4.4 2.0
H=50’ 75 1.5 5.5 2.5
H=60’ 90 1.8 6.7 3.8
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 93
Notes:
A Settlement of soil-aggregate fill from uncompacted state to compacted state, roughly equates to
shrinkage for entire berm (as if built all at once); movements will occur gradually and concurrently
with fill placement, most movement should work out as courses are completed
B Estimated difference between two monitoring points on the same level with a spacing of 200 feet,
tied into the estimated maximum total settlement
C Bulging over time, typically should work out as courses are completed but may continue along
with construction activity
D This applies to a vertical wall and will be difficult to notice, or measure
The estimates of vertical settlements are based on empirical data in the literature and are
represented conservative, theoretical values occurring from the time of initial placement of the
fill layers to an undefined time after compaction. Post-construction settlement of the
embankment, if built according to this construction plan, is expected to be negligible.
5.5 Types of Failure
A failure (“instability incident”) that would trigger the Contingency Plan could range in
severity from the hypothetical “worst-case” scenario - complete sudden breech of the MSE
berm with solid waste migrating into the waterway, to a localized slide or washout that be
easily repaired but still requires urgent attention. Washouts or sloughs occur are common
occurrences on landfill slopes and could occur on the MSE berm, under the right circumstances.
Equally concerning (though still unlikely) would be a progressive failure with the eventual
exposure of solid waste and deposition of solid waste onto the 100-year floodplain or within
the sediment basin, thereby jeopardizing water quality.

Mechanisms of failure (which were considered for the design of the project) include:
1) Horizontal sliding within the foundation of due to failure of the reinforcement
2) Rotational (global) failure caused by a loss of strength in the foundation, identifiable
by tension cracks and/or vertical displacement at or within the top width of the berm,
or bulging, heaving, sloughing or possible seepage at the toe of the berm
3) Wedge failure, much like rotational failure with a different failure surface geometry
4) Severe erosion of the slope resulting from unmitigated deterioration of the facing.

The foregoing mechanisms are realistic concerns that also can cause less critical circumstances
that may require increased maintenance or corrective action. Appropriate emergency
responses are listed, per item, in the Contingency Plan. All the foregoing failure scenarios
would be preceded by conditions that are included in the monitoring plan, but a major
assumption concerning potential water quality impacts is that the waste will readily mobilize
if the berm were suddenly not there. Some on-site experience assuages that concern. The
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 94
Engineers and Owner know from past operations the angle of response, ϕ > 45 degrees, whereas
the waste can hold vertical slopes over 40 feet in height for short periods. The waste does not
degrade and become mushy, as MSW tends toward over time.

Wood analyzed stability at two critical locations, Sections A and B, discussed elsewhere in this
report. Section A is the highest section of the berm at 60 feet, where the distance to the Facility
Boundary (Hickory Creek) is approximately 250 feet and the interstitial ground is a wooded
100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is designated green space, with no likelihood of
future development. Section B represents the closest distance between the proposed berm and
the Facility Boundary (also Hickory Creek), where the planned berm height is 30 feet, and the
separation is 200 feet. Within that distance is the main sediment basin, which is partly
excavated into original ground and partly contained in a berm constructed of mined soil, i.e.,
sandrock. Beyond the sediment basin, the wooded floodplain is 100 feet wide.

Wood examined this condition and concluded the farthest the waste would travel from the site
of a breech is equal to the height of the breech if ϕ = 45 degrees, 60 feet and 30 feet, respectively
for the two critical sections. At the design strength value ϕ = 25 degrees, analogous to a
2.1H:1V slope, the waste could hypothetically travel 128 feet and 64 feet, respectively. Thus,
the waste will not reach Hickory Creek in the event of a full breech on its own volition. Again,
the CQA and monitoring programs are intended to limit this event from happening.
5.6 Mitigating Factors
Consequences of a complete failure of the MSE berm are mitigated chiefly by the nature of the
wastes and the strength of the materials comprising the berm and foundation. The Engineering
Team believes these additional factors will contribute to the safety of the project:
1. The engineered berm will provide better protection than the existing side slopes
2. The C&D waste is dry and not prone to liquefaction or loss of strength under any
conceivable disturbance, seismic or otherwise.
3. The waste has been demonstrated to exhibit relatively high frictional strength
4. The seismic activity of the region is not low and not intensive
5. The permit application is based on a rigorous design using sound engineering principles
6. The engineering team is well qualified, competent and experienced with similar projects
7. The design has built-in safety mechanisms to promote/maintain stability, e.g., high-strength
geogrid reinforcement, internal drainage
8. Materials properties for the foundation, structural fill and geogrid reinforcement are well
known, thus performance is predictable with high confidence
9. The proposed CQA program is comprehensive and site specific
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 95
10. Similar structures have been in service for decades (or longer)
11. Staged construction will allow time for equilibrium, monitoring, performance evaluation
12. The project has an intensive monitoring program for internal as well as external criteria
13. In the event of a catastrophic failure of the berm, however unlikely, the waste is not
expected to migrate to the stream
14. The project design has been formulated to protect the surroundings of the facility by
anticipating and preparing for “worst case” scenarios
15. A contingency plan has been developed for every conceivable situation
16. The facility will be in operation with staff onsite for several decades to come
17. The Owner is in the commercial mining, material reclamation and earthwork business, in
addition to operating the landfill
18. The Facility has a good safety record and operational compliance record
5.7 Contingency Plan for MSE Berm
Action items for anticipated conditions that will occur, or will likely occur, during and after
the MSE berm construction are outlined on Tables 5-4 and 5-5. During construction, these
lists provide the Engineers and Inspectors guidance on appropriate responses for correcting,
mitigating, or otherwise addressing these conditions in a responsible manner. These are
conditions that are reasonably expected to occur, perhaps more than once, and for which the
Stakeholders will be prepared. After construction, many of these issues will be turned into
long-term monitoring and maintenance items.

A smaller scale, more likely failure scenario involves a localized slough or “washout” with
downgradient soil transport and sedimentation during prolonged period of heavy rains. The
source of the soil might be structural fill, interim cover or final cover, which might have
contacted or be mixed with waste. The availability of flowing water might move the sediment
toward the creek and possibly begin to mobilize the waste. If followed by a 100-year flood
event, a seemingly innocuous event might lead to an urgent situation in a short while.
5.7.1 Pre-Emergency Action Thresholds
The berm design offers a degree of flexibility – it is not a rigid structure – thus some movement
is tolerable (see Table 5-3). Conditions that might trigger a need for corrective measures is
outlined on Table 5-4, depending on the Engineer’s assessment.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 96
Table 5-4 Non-Emergency Action Items
Observed Condition Possible Cause Required Action A
Erosion on slope face Insufficient vegetation Replant or use slope
protection
Cracks, sags or heaving Slope failure in progress Increase monitoring, begin
evaluation, corrective
action
Distressed vegetation Landfill gas, drought Investigate gas system
Seepage from slope face Internal drains clogged Perform pipe cleanout,
capture and contain water
Wet spots below toe Exterior pipe leakage Trace to source and make
repairs
Geotextile/wire baskets or
waste is exposed Severe erosion Protect and implement
slope face repairs

Notes:
A All these conditions require notifying the Engineer, perhaps the Regulators, in addition to
prescribed action; based on the Engineer’s assessment, corrective action may be required

The conditions and responses outlined on Table 5-5 represent possible early warnings or
repairable precedents to a larger failure if left unmitigated. While these items specifically
pertain to the MSE berm for this discussion, they could be extended to the entire facility. These
items will be incorporated into a long-term maintenance program discussed in future
documents, Operations Plan (Appendix 5), Closure Plan (Appendix 7) and Post-Closure Plan
(Appendix 8). These future sections of this application will be forthcoming once the project
has received conditional approval from NCDEQ. Whereas there is much advanced planning
and final design to be performed prior to construction, there will be ample opportunity to amend
these documents to accommodate working with the MSE berm.
Table 5-5 Action Items and Responses
Condition Action or Remedy
Onsite aggregates fail to pass gradation Determine cause of noncompliance, correct mfg. process (if possible); evaluate tolerances on
specifications; evaluate other materials
Soil-aggregate fails to pass compaction Rework and compact
Water encountered in the excavation Install underdrains
Foundation not suitable at design grade Over-excavate and replace soils
Excavation encounters rock above grade Evaluate is resetting base grades feasible
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 97
Excavation sloughs in or collapses Stabilize slopes; look for water
Geogrid does not meet specifications Contact manufacturer, might reject
Geogrid is damaged prior to use Reject material if not salvageable
Pullout test fails strength requirement Verify aggregate compliance; verify test set up; confirm repeatability of test results; evaluate tolerances on specifications; eval. other material
Movement exceeds expectations (Table 5-3) Slow or stop construction; evaluate tolerances
No embankment settlement occurs Verify compaction, material gradations
Equipment problems hinder production Repair or replace
Equipment jeopardizes water quality Repair or replace, redouble protective measures
Inclement weather hinders production Suspend work
E&S controls missing or not adequate Suspend work in affected area; make repairs
Delays in materials shipment (vegetation) Slow construction; provide alt. slope protection
Slopes eroding before vegetation takes Provide alternate slope protection
Cracks, sags, heaving noticed (Table 5-4) Suspend work; evaluate whether repairs needed
Visible slope failure occurs of any sort Suspend work; make needed repairs
No water comes from weep holes Suspect drains clogged; perform washout
Monitoring targets or devices damaged Repair or replace immediately
Electronic monitoring not giving readout Check for damage, disconnection; replace unit
Electronic readings indicate too much strain
Suspend work in affected area; allow time to establish equilibrium and remeasure; check function of strain gauges; evaluate tolerances on specifications;
CQ documentation not complete No work to occur without proper documentation

This list is not considered representative of all possible scenarios and is subject to revision
5.7.2 Corrective Action for Slopes
Repairing large areas of erosion or sloughing may necessitate excavations into the slope face,
though not an easy task, which would require engineering oversight and specialized equipment
for access. An extreme condition would exhibit significant soil loss, visible cracks, sloughing,
possibly heavy seepage and/or obvious settlement or bulging, perhaps exposing reinforcement
elements and/or the waste. Such observations would likely indicate the presence of a weak soil
layer or damaged tensile elements. Depending on the severity of movement and the driving
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 98
cause, the slopes might come back into equilibrium and experience no further movement. On
the other hand, such an event might be the beginning or a bigger instability issue.

Correcting this condition would require partially dismantling the berm via excavation and
removal of at least some of the waste from behind the berm to relieve stress. The evaluation
and reconstruction should be performed under the supervision of a qualified engineer, after a
thorough investigation to identify and eliminate the cause of the failure. Without doubt this
would be a “reportable event” in a regulatory context. Even though the conditions might
approach the hypothetical “worst-case” scenario, the Owner will address these conditions with
urgency, as the situation could worsen quickly. Whereas such action would likely be required
after some type of event or series of events, e.g., major storm event and/or prolonged rain the
corrective actions should be treated as an emergency (discussed below).
5.7.3 Worst-Case Scenario
The hypothetical “worst-case” scenario includes a complete breech of the MSE berm with solid
waste could mobilizing and being transported by gravity or water action across the 100-year
floodplain and entering the waterway. This scenario is predicated on an assumption that the
failure occurs with no warning and no response. Sudden failure (during or after construction)
could have significant consequences, but an actual failure is expected to be a slow progression
over time, not happening all at once, and there would be adequate warnings identifiable through
the prescribed monitoring program. With proper oversight of the data, the Engineering Team
will have adequate for implementing corrective action, thus avoiding disaster.

The hypothetical failure or partial failure would likely involve one of the severe failure
mechanisms, sliding, rotation, combination wedge displacement or severe erosion of a slope
face. Recapping earlier discussion, the tell-tale signs of such conditions will be detectable by
the trained professional who will be dedicated to this project for the foreseeable future. Barring
an absolute catastrophe, these conditions are repairable and will not progress to the point of
jeopardizing the environment. Also barring the unlikely case of humans being at direct risk,
the cost of the corrective action will become a major issue for the Owner and the regulators.
For Financial Assurance purposes (Section 6) it should be considered highly unlikely that more
than a short section of the berm would fail at once.
5.7.4 Emergency Response
Table 5-6 is a partial listing or potential Emergency Actions the Owner will implement to
protect both humans and environmentally sensitive areas (not necessarily in this order):

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 99
Table 5-6 Emergency Response Actions
1 Priority 1 – Owner/operator shall make sure all staff are accounted for and no-one not
associated with the facility has been physically harmed
2 Priority 2 – Owner/operator shall observe the floodplain and creek to determine if waste
reached the creek
3 Priority 3 – Owner/operator shall determine if hazardous materials have become exposed
and contacting appropriate emergency responders (listed in the Operations Plan)
4 Priority 4 – Owner/operator shall obtain measurements and photos of the breech and
contact the Engineer and notify SWS
5 Engineer and Owner shall handle further communications with the regulatory agencies – the Operator will focus on the emergency
6 Engineer shall carefully document what type and how much material escaped the landfill footprint so it can be accounted for later
7 Engineer shall evaluate slopes near the breech for signs of impending worsening of
conditions
8 Operator shall erect soil berms or digging temporary channels and traps for containment
9 Operator shall remove escaped waste with a tendency to float as soon as practical
10 Engineer and Owner shall assess the breech and determine if it is safe to work around
11 If there is flowing water involved, Owner shall construct diversion berms/channels as
needed to prevent water from entering or mobilizing the waste
12 Owner shall direct flowing water toward existing sedimentation control measures, if possible, or construct new temporary measures if required
13 Owner shall determine if leachate has escaped the containment systems; make provisions
to stop further leachate escape; there may be further regulatory requirements
14 Owner shall remove solid waste and, to the extent possible, migrated sediment from the
floodplain
15 Owner shall shore up the breech and cover the waste, so further migration of waste will not
occur
16 Engineer shall prepare temporary and permanent repairs to review with regulators
17 Owner shall perform slope repairs under the Engineer’s supervision
18 Owner shall restore grades and vegetate all surfaces
5.7.5 Post-Emergency Corrective Action
The basis for determining a course of action in response to an indicant will depend on the
circumstances at the time. The Engineer will assess damages, causes, risks, and perform an
analysis of corrective action depending on if any components are salvageable. The following
discusses an approach to preparing and executing the engineering and repair plan.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 100
Table 5-7 Corrective Action Methodologies
1 A qualified engineer should review the monitoring data for all systems
2 The Engineer will direct the Operator in stabilizing the waste or failure zone; such methods
might include placing geotextiles and soils (perhaps even “super sack” sandbags) to
restrain movement; measures to redirect surface drainage may be required
3 The Engineer will evaluate E&S measures and make recommendations for temporary
improvements as required
4 The incident has already occurred; thus, the historic data should be evaluated to determine
if any trends are apparent, i.e., were tell-tale signs missed that could possibly be used to avoid further incidents?
5
A limit-equilibrium retrogression analysis (reanalyze slope stability) should be performed to
determine what relative strength characteristics and water levels prevailed at the time of
the incident; this may help pinpoint the cause or chief mechanisms associated with the
incident
6
If progressive movement is detected, the logical next step might be to install other
monitoring devices within the affected area, and beyond the failure zone; comparison of
data sets will help the Engineer determine whether the conditions preceding the incident
are isolated or systemic
7 If an incident occurs during active operations, further berm construction should be suspended, and waste placement activities should be relocated
8 Restrict access and allow no equipment to be operated within 100 feet of the affected
location, or whatever distance the Engineer deems appropriate
9 The Engineer shall evaluate the conditions to determine whether additional monitoring or
remedial measures (discussed below) are necessary and whether it is safe to resume waste
operations near the affected portion of the berm
10
If the data indicate sudden movement or suggest a systemic problem, which might be
accompanied by severe settlement, cracks forming near the top of the berm, visible seepage and/or bulging at the base of the berm, or in the Engineer’s opinion a larger failure is pending, all activities at the site may need to be curtailed to avoid transmitting vibrations
to the berm, while a more thorough engineering evaluation is made
11 Once the Engineer has identified the limits and causation of the incident, and the failure
zone is stabilized, a repair plan may be formulated; several optional remedies for this
hypothetical condition are discussed below
12 Remedy 1 – completely excavated the affected zone and rebuild the slope to original
specifications; assuming the causation is a correctable condition, e.g., excess pore
pressure behind the berm, drainage systems may be enhanced
13 Remedy 2 – rebuild the slope with stronger reinforcement or different structural fill
14 Remedy 3 – construct a stone or compacted soil buttress in front of the failed berm section,
assuming there is adequate room to preserve regulatory buffers; typically accompanied by
enhanced drainage
15 Remedy 4 – improve stability of berm via ground improvement activities (see below)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 101
16 Remedy 5 – provide additional containment via sheet piles, cast-in-place concrete retaining
walls, secant piles (akin to cutoff walls or stone columns), micro-piles, tiebacks
17 Remedy 6 – improve stability of the waste via densification, vibro-compaction, dynamic compaction, pressure grouting, deep-soil mixing
18 The Engineer will review repair plans with NCDEQ; a permit modification of additional
Financial Assurance may be required
5.8 Liquids Management
Drainage behind the berm is necessary to prevent excess pore pressure buildup, thereby
promoting stability. Water might be expected from two sources: direct percolation behind the
berm, where erosion benches or roads might be located, and through the waste, having
infiltrated through the surface at higher elevations. Mitigation of these conditions will be
accomplished (in advance) via surface drainage to maximize runoff along the benches and
roadways, and the application of interim/final cover or the use of alternative interim cover,
such as rain sheets, to curtail infiltration. Internal drainage will be provided to prevent pore
pressure buildup. The Engineering Team recognizes that any water that makes it to a drainpipe
will require handling (and possibly treatment) as leachate.

The drainage system beneath the berm will consists of underdrains with perforated pipes in
stone. Drainage behind the berm consist of a chimney drain with perforated pipes in stone.
These features will function as permanent “French drains” to collect and convey seepage via
gravity. Piping will be sturdy enough to resist crushing and chemically inert to avoid
deterioration. The granular drainage media will be separated from the surrounding soils with
a filter geotextile. Drainpipes may be embedded at different levels that correspond to
construction stages. The drains will be tied to a network of collection headers, which will
convey flow via gravity to strategically located sumps. Cleanout ports will be provided. The
seepage quantities will be monitored to determine future drainage management requirements.

Good water management techniques during construction and operations will segregate leachate
and stormwater. A leachate treatability study may be required, to determine appropriate
disposal methods. Although it is premature to select a disposal method, consideration might
be given to on-site retention and treatment (followed by release under an NPDES permit),
treatment followed by evaporation, or directing the leachate to the nearby sanitary sewer
(POTW). This topic is included in the Contingency Plan since water management is critical to
protecting the environment, and it is possible that future adjustments to the water management
program may be needed.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
5 – MSE Berm Monitoring and Contingency Page 102
5.9 Basis for the Financial Assurance
MSE berms, i.e., “reinforced earth” structures, have performed successfully for decades in
many applications throughout the U.S., including solid waste landfills in nearby states. Based
on this history, the design team believes the likelihood of extreme berm failure is negligible.
Nonetheless, the Financial Assurance calculation for the project will need a unit cost for berm
replacement (prorated based on realistic expectations of performance), and estimated costs for
monitoring, maintenance and repairs. These costs are outside those already determined for the
CDLF Phases 1–4, which have already been determined with the 2019 permitting of Phase 3,
i.e., the last of the ground disturbing activities for the facility as permitted.

An assignment of costs for various activities is discussed in Section 6. The cost breakdown is
like that used for the normal landfill, without the MSE berm or vertical expansion, but the
monitoring and maintenance components have been augmented to reflect the level of detailed
attention described in this document. To address contingencies, i.e., emergency response and
substantial repairs, a lump sum based on a hypothetical condition, like the Potential Assessment
and Corrective Action (PACA) requirement, has been considered. Stakeholders should be
given an opportunity to weigh in on this aspect. Inasmuch as this will be the first known project
of its kind permitted in North Carolina, it is logical that an abundance of precaution will lead
to conservative Financial Assurance requirements, initially, which the Owner will likely want
to adjust in the future based on the performance of the project.

With the foregoing taken into consideration, the values for maintenance, monitoring and repair
of the MSE berm are presented in Section 6 as a basis for beginning a negotiation of financial
assurance requirements for the structure with NCDEQ. The derived value is considered for an
additional bond, including the maintenance of the cap as permitted (essentially the same) and
normal environmental monitoring. Those values calculated for the Phase 3 PTC in 2019 were
labeled as 2018 dollars. Considering the anticipated timeframe for regulatory review and in
the spirit of SWS policy, the 2018 dollars have been adjusted for the 2019 and 2020 (estimated)
inflation indices.

Stages 1 and 2 Berm Costs (2020 dollars)

Estimated MSE Build Cost, 97,507 s.f. * $11/s.f. A $1,072,577.00

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
6 – Financial Assurance Page 103
6 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE (15A NCAC 13B .0546)
15A NCAC 13B .0546 requires that Owners/Operators demonstrate financial assurance for
closure and post-closure activities. Typically, for local government-owned facilities, said
demonstration is based on a local government test. For private facilities, the posting of a
performance bond or insurance policy is typically acceptable to the Division. Other
mechanisms such as a Corporate Reserve Fund might be considered.

Table 6-1 Stages 1 and 2 Berm Costs (2019 dollars)
Estimated Closure Costs, see Table 2.1
in Closure Plan (Appendix 7) $ 1,621,145.00
Estimated Post-Closure Costs, see Table 1.2
in Post-Closure Plan (Appendix 8) $1,963,970.35
Potential Assessment and Corrective Action (PACA) B $ 1,171,952.60
ESTIMATED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE C $4,757,067.95
Notes:
A Build cost is based on preliminary estimate from FEA, subject to adjustment in final design
B This amount includes Post Closure Costs for Phases 1 – 4 and a 25% replacement cost for
Stages 1 and 2 of the MSE Berm and associated expansions.
C Refer to Phase 3 PTC Facility Plan Update, Section 10, which listed PACA as $1,128,666.00
Multipliers were applied as follows: 1.022 (2019), 1.016 (2020)
Total Required Financial Assurance for Phase 3 (and Phase 4) was $3,364,519.00
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
7 – Certification Page 104
7 CERTIFICATION
This engineering plan for the A-1 Sandrock, Inc., Vertical Expansion with a Mechanically
Stabilized Berm has been prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, the undersigned
North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 13B
.0539. The individual signature and seal below attest to compliance with this rule requirement.
No other warranties are stated or implied.

Signed ______________________
Printed G. David Garrett
Date January 21, 2020

Not valid without the seal of the above-named licensed professional.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1
GUILFORD COUNTY FRANCHISE AMENDMENT
And Official Correspondence

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 2
MSE BERM DESIGN REPORT
(Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 3
SOIL DATA, SUPPLEMENTAL CALCULATIONS
Volume Analyses, and S&EC Plan

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 4
SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Material Data Sheets, Testing Procedures
Construction Cost Estimates

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 5
OPERATIONS PLANS FOR
CDLF AND T&P FACILITY

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDICES

1 GUILFORD COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE
1A Franchise Ordinance
1B Local Government Correspondence
2 MSE Berm Design Report (Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates)
3 SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
3A Geotechnical Laboratory Data
3B Settlement Analyses
3C North Carolina Building Code Information
3D Stages 1 and 2 Berm and Foundation Excavation Volume Analyses
3E HELP Analyses
3F Stages 1 – 4 Airspace Analyses
3G Test Boring Logs
3H Runoff Calculation Check
3I Underdrain Pipe Crushing Calculations
3J Veneer Stability and Global Stability
4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION
4A Huesker Fortrac™ Cost and Properties
4B ASTM D6706-01 (2013) Standard for Pullout Test
4C Bolt and Duszynska, 2000
4D Juran And Chen, 1988
4E Geotesting Express, Inc.
4F Stulgis, 2005
5 OPERATIONS PLAN
5A General Facility
5B Treatment/Processing Facility
5C CDLF Facility
6 OPERATIONS PLAN ATTACHMENTS
6A Fire Notification Form
6B Haz-Waste Responders
6C Useful Agency Contacts
6D Waste Screening Form
6E Asphalt Shingles Plan
7 CLOSURE PLAN (with CQA PLAN and Cost Estimate)
8 POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN (with Cost Estimate)
9 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN
10 LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PLAN
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 1
GUILFORD COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE
Franchise Ordinance
Local Government Correspondence

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 1A
GUILFORD COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE
Franchise Ordinance

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 1B
GUILFORD COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE
Local Government Correspondence

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 2
MSE Berm Design Report
(Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates)

SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
SCANNED
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3A
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
Geotechnical Laboratory Data

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

DCN: Data Transmittal Letter Date: 1/28/05 Rev.: 1

March 30, 2018

Project No. R-2018-064

Mr. David Garrett
AMEC Foster Wheeler
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, NC 27703
[e-mail]

Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
A1Sandrock 6468-18-8009

Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined
on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was
performed in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results
are believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of
the specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and
imply no position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the
suitability of the material for its intended use.

The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and
disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is
considered integral with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the
authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be
retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics’ Quality Program.

We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of
further assistance, please contact our office.

Respectively submitted,
Geotechnics, Inc.

Michael P. Smith
Regional Manager

We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services
and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics.

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

MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTM D 2216-10
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009
Project No.: R-2018-064-001
Lab ID:-001 -002
Boring No.:B-30 B-32
Depth (ft):1.0-7.9 1.0-8.5
Sample No.:1 2
Tare Number 210 201
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 746.94 638.23
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 676.59 573.09
Weight of Tare (g)172.61 170.32
Weight of Water (g)70.35 65.14
Weight of Dry Sample (g)503.98 402.77
Water Content (%)14.0 16.2
Notes :
Tested By APG Date 3/14/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/15/18
page 1 of 1 DCN: CT-S1 DATE: 3/18/13 REVISION: 4

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

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS cobbles gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA cobbles gravel sand silt clay
USCS Summary
Sieve Sizes (mm) Percentage
Greater Than #4 Gravel 18.12
#4 To #200 Sand 46.77
Finer Than #200 Silt & Clay 35.12
USCS Symbol SC, TESTED
USCS Classification CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
page 1 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000Percent Finer By WeightParticle Diameter (mm)
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
Particle Percent USDA SUMMARY Actual Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
Size (mm)Finer Percentage material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 29.20 0.00
2 70.80 Sand 42.65 60.24
0.05 28.15 Silt 18.23 25.74
0.002 9.92 Clay 9.92 14.02
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1
0102030405060708090100
PERCENT SAND
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 90
8
7
6
5
4
3
20
10
CLAY
SANDY
CLAY
SANDY CLAY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SAND
LOAM
SILT LOAM
SILT
CLAY LOAM
SILTY CLAY LOAM
SILTY CLAY
LOAMY
SAND
PERCENT SILT
PERCENT CLAY

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content Hydrometer Specimen Data
Tare No.U-1 Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g)62.81
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)34.68 Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g)58.83
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)33.87
Weight of Tare (g)21.90 Weight of - #200 Material (g)29.18
Weight of Water (g)0.81 Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g)29.65
Weight of Dry Soil (g)11.97
Moisture Content (%)6.8 J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #10)0.7080
Soil Specimen Data
Tare No.TR-2
Wgt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)4791.50
Weight of Tare (g)867.74
Air Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 3923.76 Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g)1093.25
Total Dry Sample Weight (g) 3744.36 Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g)2651.11
Sieve Sieve Wgt.of Soil Percent Accumulated Percent Accumulated
Size Opening Retained Retained Percent Finer Percent
(mm)Retained Finer
(gm)(%) (%)(%)(%)
12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
2" 50 178.18 4.8 4.8 95.2 95.2
1 1/2" 37.5 0.00 0.0 4.8 95.2 95.2
1" 25.0 41.63 1.1 5.9 94.1 94.1
3/4" 19.0 47.78 1.3 7.1 92.9 92.9
1/2" 12.5 91.87 2.5 9.6 90.4 90.4
3/8" 9.50 88.30 2.4 12.0 88.0 88.0
#4 4.75 230.57 6.2 18.1 81.9 81.9
#10 2.00 414.92 11.1 29.2 70.8 70.8
#20 0.85 4.45 7.6 7.6 92.4 65.4
#40 0.425 7.31 12.4 20.0 80.0 56.6
#60 0.250 5.90 10.0 30.0 70.0 49.5
#140 0.106 8.87 15.1 45.1 54.9 38.9
#200 0.075 3.12 5.3 50.4 49.6 35.1
Pan -29.18 49.6 100.0 --
Notes :
Tested By BW Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/19/18
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
Elapsed R Temp.Composite RNKDiameterN'
Time Measured ( o C )Correction Corrected ( % ) Factor ( mm ) ( % )
(min)
0NANANANANANANANA
2 22.0 21 4.17 17.8 30.0 0.01328 0.0335 21.2
5 22.0 21 4.17 17.8 30.0 0.01328 0.0212 21.2
15 21.0 21 4.17 16.8 28.3 0.01328 0.0123 20.1
30 18.0 21.1 4.15 13.8 23.3 0.01327 0.0088 16.5
60 17.0 21.3 4.12 12.9 21.7 0.01324 0.0063 15.3
250 14.0 22 4.00 10.0 16.8 0.01313 0.0031 11.9
1440 11.0 20.8 4.20 6.8 11.4 0.01332 0.0013 8.1
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 58.83 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.937
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 70.80
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By BW Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/19/18
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.1
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)53.5 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 3.5 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)96 Final Burette Reading (ml)19.6
Final Change (ml)4.4
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)26
P =8.27 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 25
Q =5.54 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)38
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
10.0 0.000 50.014.5 0.001 50.020.0 0.002 50.232.7 0.009 50.839.0 0.014 51.143.3 0.020 51.248.9 0.029 51.354.1 0.038 51.360.6 0.049 51.370.8 0.069 51.182.2 0.098 50.791.2 0.132 50.296.7 0.167 49.7101.4 0.209 49.3104.5 0.239 49.1107.9 0.279 48.9112.9 0.347 48.5118.7 0.427 48.2121.8 0.484 48.1125.8 0.560 47.9129.8 0.620 47.7132.2 0.677 47.6134.6 0.734 47.5137.4 0.774 47.4139.6 0.813 47.3141.2 0.853 47.2143.1 0.892 47.1144.9 0.947 47.0
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
page 3 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 Sigmatriax.xls

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)3.5 Stage No.1
Test No 1
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.37
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.98
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.413
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.02 0.70 0.05 4.14 3.4 1.203 0.08 3.79 0.350.04 1.56 0.24 4.82 3.3 1.477 0.16 4.04 0.780.14 3.53 0.79 6.24 2.7 2.303 0.23 4.47 1.760.24 4.51 1.07 6.94 2.4 2.858 0.25 4.68 2.260.34 5.18 1.21 7.47 2.3 3.262 0.24 4.88 2.590.49 6.04 1.30 8.24 2.2 3.743 0.22 5.22 3.020.63 6.84 1.32 9.02 2.2 4.135 0.20 5.60 3.420.82 7.82 1.27 10.05 2.2 4.506 0.17 6.14 3.911.16 9.37 1.07 11.79 2.4 4.866 0.12 7.11 4.681.64 11.07 0.76 13.81 2.7 5.041 0.07 8.27 5.542.21 12.39 0.19 15.70 3.3 4.747 0.02 9.50 6.192.79 13.13 -0.27 16.90 3.8 4.485 -0.02 10.34 6.573.50 13.75 -0.68 17.92 4.2 4.294 -0.05 11.05 6.873.99 14.14 -0.89 18.53 4.4 4.224 -0.07 11.46 7.074.66 14.55 -1.13 19.18 4.6 4.146 -0.08 11.90 7.285.80 15.12 -1.48 20.10 5.0 4.036 -0.10 12.54 7.567.13 15.74 -1.75 20.99 5.2 3.999 -0.12 13.12 7.878.09 16.03 -1.92 21.45 5.4 3.957 -0.13 13.44 8.029.36 16.37 -2.13 22.00 5.6 3.912 -0.14 13.81 8.1910.37 16.75 -2.26 22.50 5.8 3.910 -0.14 14.13 8.3711.32 16.90 -2.40 22.80 5.9 3.868 -0.15 14.35 8.4512.28 17.04 -2.52 23.05 6.0 3.832 -0.15 14.54 8.5212.93 17.30 -2.60 23.39 6.1 3.836 -0.16 14.75 8.6513.59 17.47 -2.68 23.64 6.2 3.828 -0.16 14.91 8.7314.26 17.55 -2.77 23.81 6.3 3.800 -0.16 15.04 8.7714.90 17.67 -2.84 24.00 6.3 3.788 -0.17 15.17 8.8315.82 17.71 -2.95 24.16 6.5 3.745 -0.17 15.31 8.86
page 4 of 11

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.2
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)56.9 Avg. Length 5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 6.9 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)95 Final Burette Reading (ml)14.2
Final Change (ml)9.8
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)84
P =13.52 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 80
Q =8.22 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)94
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
7.1 0.000 50.010.2 0.002 50.118.4 0.004 50.035.0 0.010 50.848.7 0.016 51.556.0 0.022 51.867.3 0.030 52.177.9 0.039 52.184.3 0.052 52.297.3 0.072 52.0106.3 0.102 51.9114.3 0.137 51.6117.8 0.173 51.3120.6 0.216 50.9122.9 0.245 50.7127.4 0.288 50.5130.6 0.345 50.3132.7 0.405 50.1140.6 0.450 49.8142.2 0.510 49.7143.3 0.555 49.5148.1 0.600 49.5147.4 0.646 49.3150.6 0.675 49.3152.7 0.705 49.2154.7 0.735 49.1154.5 0.765 49.1156.5 0.811 48.9160.4 0.857 48.9160.4 0.886 48.8163.4 0.916 48.8
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
page 5 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)6.9 Stage No.1
Test No 2
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.10
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.99
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.366
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.04 0.49 0.01 7.34 6.8 1.072 0.02 7.09 0.250.06 1.77 -0.03 8.66 6.9 1.257 -0.02 7.77 0.890.16 4.38 0.75 10.49 6.1 1.717 0.18 8.30 2.190.26 6.51 1.42 11.94 5.4 2.199 0.23 8.69 3.260.36 7.65 1.77 12.74 5.1 2.503 0.24 8.91 3.830.51 9.41 2.04 14.23 4.8 2.953 0.23 9.52 4.710.66 11.04 2.09 15.81 4.8 3.316 0.20 10.29 5.520.86 12.02 2.11 16.76 4.7 3.531 0.18 10.76 6.011.21 14.00 1.94 18.91 4.9 3.850 0.15 11.91 7.001.70 15.32 1.85 20.32 5.0 4.062 0.13 12.66 7.662.29 16.45 1.56 21.75 5.3 4.106 0.10 13.52 8.222.89 16.88 1.23 22.51 5.6 3.999 0.08 14.07 8.443.60 17.18 0.90 23.14 6.0 3.883 0.05 14.55 8.594.10 17.44 0.64 23.66 6.2 3.804 0.04 14.94 8.724.81 17.99 0.46 24.39 6.4 3.812 0.03 15.39 9.005.76 18.28 0.20 24.93 6.7 3.748 0.01 15.79 9.146.77 18.39 0.01 25.24 6.8 3.687 0.00 16.04 9.207.51 19.39 -0.21 26.46 7.1 3.745 -0.01 16.76 9.708.51 19.41 -0.37 26.63 7.2 3.687 -0.02 16.93 9.709.28 19.41 -0.50 26.76 7.4 3.637 -0.03 17.06 9.7010.03 19.93 -0.59 27.38 7.4 3.678 -0.03 17.41 9.9710.79 19.65 -0.70 27.21 7.6 3.601 -0.04 17.38 9.8311.28 19.99 -0.78 27.62 7.6 3.620 -0.04 17.63 10.0011.77 20.18 -0.86 27.89 7.7 3.616 -0.04 17.80 10.0912.28 20.33 -0.94 28.13 7.8 3.608 -0.05 17.96 10.1712.79 20.19 -1.00 28.04 7.9 3.571 -0.05 17.95 10.0913.55 20.28 -1.12 28.26 8.0 3.544 -0.06 18.12 10.1414.31 20.64 -1.18 28.67 8.0 3.569 -0.06 18.35 10.3214.81 20.51 -1.22 28.59 8.1 3.538 -0.06 18.33 10.2515.31 20.80 -1.27 28.92 8.1 3.561 -0.06 18.52 10.40
page 6 of 11

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.3
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)63.9 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 13.9 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)97 Final Burette Reading (ml)6.7
Final Change (ml)17.3
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)24
P =17.51 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 23
Q =10.27 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)28
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
11.7 0.000 50.022.7 0.002 50.536.6 0.003 50.966.0 0.009 52.680.2 0.013 53.790.7 0.020 54.5102.2 0.029 55.3110.8 0.038 55.8118.5 0.050 56.3127.0 0.071 56.6133.3 0.101 56.9136.1 0.137 56.9139.8 0.173 56.9143.5 0.215 56.7146.1 0.245 56.6148.5 0.287 56.5152.3 0.344 56.4157.2 0.404 56.2159.3 0.449 56.2162.6 0.509 56.0165.5 0.554 56.0168.2 0.599 55.9170.7 0.644 55.8172.7 0.674 55.7174.9 0.704 55.7176.6 0.734 55.6178.5 0.764 55.6180.8 0.810 55.5182.7 0.854 55.4184.0 0.885 55.3186.1 0.914 55.3
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
page 7 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)13.9 Stage No.1
Test No 3
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)37.58
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.99
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.274
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.03 1.74 0.46 15.17 13.4 1.130 0.27 14.30 0.870.05 3.96 0.92 16.92 13.0 1.305 0.24 14.94 1.980.15 8.64 2.61 19.91 11.3 1.766 0.31 15.59 4.320.22 10.89 3.73 21.04 10.1 2.073 0.35 15.59 5.440.34 12.55 4.52 21.91 9.4 2.341 0.37 15.64 6.280.49 14.35 5.30 22.93 8.6 2.673 0.38 15.75 7.180.63 15.69 5.81 23.76 8.1 2.943 0.38 15.91 7.840.84 16.88 6.25 24.51 7.6 3.212 0.38 16.07 8.441.18 18.15 6.62 25.41 7.3 3.501 0.38 16.33 9.081.68 19.05 6.95 25.98 6.9 3.748 0.38 16.46 9.522.29 19.37 6.94 26.31 6.9 3.791 0.37 16.62 9.692.88 19.82 6.87 26.83 7.0 3.825 0.36 16.92 9.913.59 20.25 6.75 27.38 7.1 3.838 0.34 17.26 10.124.08 20.54 6.65 27.78 7.2 3.840 0.33 17.51 10.274.79 20.75 6.53 28.10 7.3 3.824 0.32 17.72 10.385.73 21.13 6.38 28.63 7.5 3.816 0.31 18.06 10.566.74 21.63 6.24 29.27 7.6 3.832 0.30 18.45 10.817.50 21.76 6.15 29.49 7.7 3.816 0.29 18.61 10.888.50 22.01 6.04 29.85 7.8 3.807 0.28 18.85 11.019.24 22.24 5.96 30.16 7.9 3.808 0.28 19.04 11.1210.00 22.45 5.88 30.46 8.0 3.805 0.27 19.23 11.2310.75 22.61 5.81 30.68 8.1 3.802 0.26 19.38 11.3111.25 22.77 5.75 30.91 8.1 3.800 0.26 19.52 11.3911.76 22.95 5.70 31.13 8.2 3.806 0.26 19.65 11.4712.25 23.07 5.63 31.31 8.2 3.797 0.25 19.78 11.5312.76 23.19 5.59 31.49 8.3 3.796 0.25 19.89 11.6013.51 23.31 5.50 31.69 8.4 3.781 0.24 20.03 11.6514.26 23.37 5.41 31.84 8.5 3.759 0.24 20.15 11.6814.77 23.40 5.35 31.93 8.5 3.742 0.24 20.23 11.7015.26 23.55 5.30 32.13 8.6 3.743 0.23 20.36 11.77
page 8 of 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.1
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)53.5 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 3.5 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)96 Final Burette Reading (ml)16.5
Final Change (ml)7.5
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)102
P =7.34 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 102
Q =4.66 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)104
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
10.5 0.000 50.016.0 0.001 50.222.9 0.002 50.438.5 0.008 51.046.5 0.015 51.252.7 0.020 51.259.4 0.029 51.164.9 0.038 51.070.3 0.049 50.876.2 0.069 50.480.9 0.098 50.184.8 0.134 49.787.8 0.170 49.590.7 0.211 49.392.9 0.241 49.195.4 0.283 48.998.9 0.338 48.7102.2 0.397 48.6104.9 0.443 48.4108.2 0.501 48.3110.5 0.545 48.2113.0 0.589 48.1115.4 0.634 48.0117.0 0.664 47.9118.6 0.693 47.7120.0 0.723 47.7121.5 0.752 47.6123.6 0.796 47.5125.9 0.841 47.4127.5 0.872 47.4128.9 0.901 47.3
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Input Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
page 3 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 Sigmatriax.xls

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)3.5 Stage No.1
Test No 1
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.16
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.99
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.368
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.01 0.86 0.19 4.13 3.3 1.264 0.23 3.70 0.430.04 1.96 0.44 4.97 3.0 1.649 0.24 3.99 0.980.14 4.40 1.01 6.85 2.5 2.793 0.24 4.65 2.200.24 5.64 1.18 7.92 2.3 3.472 0.22 5.10 2.820.34 6.61 1.21 8.85 2.2 3.937 0.19 5.55 3.300.49 7.64 1.14 9.96 2.3 4.293 0.16 6.14 3.820.63 8.49 1.01 10.94 2.5 4.462 0.12 6.70 4.250.82 9.32 0.78 11.99 2.7 4.482 0.09 7.34 4.661.16 10.20 0.43 13.23 3.0 4.368 0.04 8.13 5.101.64 10.88 0.06 14.28 3.4 4.206 0.01 8.84 5.442.23 11.41 -0.26 15.12 3.7 4.070 -0.02 9.42 5.702.83 11.81 -0.48 15.75 3.9 3.994 -0.04 9.85 5.903.53 12.16 -0.72 16.34 4.2 3.907 -0.06 10.26 6.084.02 12.43 -0.95 16.83 4.4 3.820 -0.08 10.62 6.214.72 12.70 -1.11 17.27 4.6 3.782 -0.09 10.92 6.355.64 13.10 -1.28 17.84 4.7 3.764 -0.10 11.29 6.556.62 13.46 -1.45 18.37 4.9 3.740 -0.11 11.64 6.737.39 13.73 -1.56 18.75 5.0 3.733 -0.12 11.89 6.868.36 14.06 -1.70 19.22 5.2 3.724 -0.13 12.19 7.039.09 14.29 -1.82 19.57 5.3 3.705 -0.13 12.42 7.149.83 14.52 -1.92 19.89 5.4 3.701 -0.14 12.64 7.2610.59 14.73 -2.02 20.20 5.5 3.690 -0.14 12.84 7.3611.07 14.87 -2.08 20.41 5.5 3.686 -0.15 12.97 7.4411.56 15.01 -2.26 20.73 5.7 3.626 -0.16 13.22 7.5112.06 15.12 -2.32 20.91 5.8 3.614 -0.16 13.34 7.5612.55 15.25 -2.38 21.09 5.8 3.612 -0.16 13.47 7.6313.28 15.41 -2.48 21.35 5.9 3.595 -0.17 13.64 7.7014.04 15.59 -2.56 21.60 6.0 3.590 -0.17 13.81 7.7914.54 15.70 -2.61 21.77 6.1 3.587 -0.17 13.92 7.8515.03 15.80 -2.67 21.93 6.1 3.579 -0.18 14.03 7.90
page 4 of 11

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.2
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)57.0 Avg. Length 5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 7.0 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)97 Final Burette Reading (ml)14.9
Final Change (ml)9.1
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)226
P =8.59 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 226
Q =5.37 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)240
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
8.8 0.000 50.09.9 0.002 50.011.3 0.003 50.145.1 0.009 51.456.4 0.015 52.164.4 0.021 52.664.5 0.029 53.064.8 0.039 53.367.1 0.051 53.671.7 0.072 53.874.9 0.102 53.878.7 0.138 53.883.5 0.174 53.687.6 0.216 53.391.5 0.246 53.098.4 0.288 52.7105.5 0.345 52.3111.4 0.406 51.9114.0 0.451 51.7117.3 0.511 51.4123.6 0.556 51.2126.4 0.601 51.0130.8 0.647 50.8131.2 0.677 50.7135.1 0.707 50.5136.1 0.736 50.4139.6 0.766 50.3141.8 0.812 50.2148.3 0.857 50.0150.3 0.887 49.9150.5 0.917 49.8
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Input Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
page 5 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)7.0 Stage No.1
Test No 2
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.07
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.98
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.364
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.03 0.17 0.03 7.15 7.0 1.024 0.19 7.07 0.080.06 0.40 0.06 7.35 7.0 1.057 0.15 7.15 0.200.15 5.69 1.37 11.33 5.6 2.008 0.25 8.48 2.840.25 7.45 2.13 12.34 4.9 2.525 0.29 8.61 3.730.35 8.71 2.55 13.17 4.5 2.952 0.30 8.82 4.350.49 8.71 3.01 12.71 4.0 3.174 0.36 8.36 4.350.65 8.74 3.33 12.42 3.7 3.374 0.39 8.05 4.370.85 9.08 3.59 12.51 3.4 3.651 0.41 7.97 4.541.20 9.76 3.79 12.98 3.2 4.034 0.40 8.10 4.881.70 10.21 3.83 13.39 3.2 4.210 0.39 8.28 5.102.31 10.73 3.79 13.95 3.2 4.330 0.36 8.59 5.372.91 11.39 3.59 14.81 3.4 4.326 0.32 9.12 5.693.61 11.93 3.27 15.67 3.7 4.185 0.28 9.71 5.964.11 12.46 3.03 16.44 4.0 4.128 0.25 10.21 6.234.81 13.40 2.70 17.72 4.3 4.105 0.21 11.02 6.705.77 14.32 2.32 19.01 4.7 4.050 0.17 11.85 7.166.78 15.03 1.90 20.15 5.1 3.938 0.13 12.63 7.517.54 15.28 1.69 20.60 5.3 3.870 0.11 12.96 7.648.55 15.58 1.41 21.18 5.6 3.783 0.09 13.39 7.799.29 16.36 1.18 22.19 5.8 3.804 0.07 14.01 8.1810.05 16.62 0.99 22.64 6.0 3.759 0.06 14.33 8.3110.82 17.09 0.77 23.33 6.2 3.739 0.05 14.78 8.5411.31 17.05 0.67 23.39 6.3 3.688 0.04 14.87 8.5211.82 17.49 0.53 23.97 6.5 3.699 0.03 15.23 8.7512.31 17.54 0.44 24.12 6.6 3.669 0.03 15.34 8.7712.81 17.91 0.30 24.62 6.7 3.670 0.02 15.66 8.9613.57 18.06 0.18 24.90 6.8 3.642 0.01 15.87 9.0314.32 18.78 0.01 25.78 7.0 3.683 0.00 16.39 9.3914.83 18.93 -0.06 26.00 7.1 3.678 0.00 16.53 9.4615.34 18.84 -0.16 26.02 7.2 3.625 -0.01 16.60 9.42
page 6 of 11

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.3
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)64.0 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 13.9 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)100 Final Burette Reading (ml)9.2
Final Change (ml)14.8
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)125
P =20.62 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 125
Q =12.34 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)157
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
10.7 0.000 50.015.3 0.002 50.234.1 0.002 51.076.6 0.009 53.595.1 0.014 55.0106.9 0.020 55.7120.0 0.029 56.3129.1 0.038 56.5138.1 0.049 56.6148.2 0.070 56.5161.0 0.100 56.1170.4 0.136 55.7177.6 0.171 55.3186.1 0.213 54.9191.0 0.243 54.6196.8 0.285 54.3206.9 0.342 53.8215.1 0.402 53.4222.1 0.447 53.1228.3 0.507 52.8233.6 0.553 52.5239.2 0.598 52.3244.4 0.643 52.0247.5 0.673 51.9251.2 0.703 51.7254.2 0.733 51.6257.2 0.763 51.5258.9 0.808 51.3261.7 0.853 51.1264.9 0.884 50.9267.5 0.914 50.8
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Input Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
page 7 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)13.9 Stage No.1
Test No 3
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)37.72
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.96
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.325
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.03 0.74 0.13 14.54 13.8 1.053 0.18 14.17 0.370.04 3.71 0.95 16.69 13.0 1.286 0.26 14.83 1.850.15 10.40 3.49 20.84 10.4 1.996 0.34 15.64 5.200.24 13.32 4.92 22.33 9.0 2.478 0.37 15.67 6.660.34 15.17 5.68 23.42 8.2 2.839 0.37 15.83 7.580.49 17.20 6.27 24.86 7.7 3.244 0.36 16.26 8.600.64 18.60 6.50 26.04 7.4 3.503 0.35 16.74 9.300.83 19.97 6.57 27.33 7.4 3.714 0.33 17.35 9.991.17 21.48 6.42 29.00 7.5 3.859 0.30 18.26 10.741.68 23.37 6.08 31.23 7.9 3.976 0.26 19.54 11.692.27 24.67 5.65 32.96 8.3 3.978 0.23 20.62 12.342.87 25.63 5.25 34.31 8.7 3.952 0.20 21.49 12.813.58 26.75 4.85 35.82 9.1 3.947 0.18 22.45 13.374.08 27.34 4.59 36.68 9.3 3.927 0.17 23.01 13.674.77 28.03 4.25 37.71 9.7 3.894 0.15 23.70 14.015.74 29.24 3.80 39.37 10.1 3.887 0.13 24.75 14.626.74 30.14 3.38 40.69 10.5 3.857 0.11 25.62 15.077.50 30.92 3.08 41.77 10.8 3.850 0.10 26.31 15.468.51 31.48 2.72 42.69 11.2 3.807 0.09 26.95 15.749.27 31.97 2.46 43.44 11.5 3.788 0.08 27.45 15.9910.03 32.50 2.22 44.21 11.7 3.774 0.07 27.96 16.2510.78 32.96 1.99 44.91 11.9 3.760 0.06 28.42 16.4811.28 33.22 1.84 45.31 12.1 3.748 0.06 28.70 16.6111.79 33.55 1.69 45.78 12.2 3.741 0.05 29.01 16.7712.30 33.77 1.56 46.14 12.4 3.728 0.05 29.26 16.8812.80 33.98 1.42 46.49 12.5 3.716 0.04 29.50 16.9913.55 33.92 1.22 46.63 12.7 3.668 0.04 29.67 16.9614.31 34.01 1.02 46.92 12.9 3.635 0.03 29.91 17.0114.82 34.24 0.90 47.28 13.0 3.627 0.03 30.16 17.1215.32 34.39 0.76 47.55 13.2 3.611 0.02 30.36 17.19
page 8 of 11

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

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

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

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

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.: B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID: R-2018-064-001-002
TEST 1 INITIAL TEST 1 FINAL
TEST 2 INITIAL TEST 2 FINAL
TEST 3 INITIAL TEST 3 FINAL
Tested By MY Date 3/22/18 Approved By MPS Date 3/30/18
page 11 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 C:\Users\GEOLAPTOP-3\Desktop\work\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 SIGMATRIAX.xlsm]THIRD
N/A
N/A
N/A
AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-36
Depth:8.5-10.0'Sample Number:SS-3
Material Description: Yellow Clayey Silty SAND
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 20 LL: 24 PI: 4
USCS Classification: SC-SM AASHTO Classification: A-2-4(0)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 6913
Testing Remarks: Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/10/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
633.16 0.00 0.00 #4 0.00 100.0
#10 4.63 99.3
54.32 0.00 0.00 #20 9.59 81.7
#40 19.63 63.4
#60 25.97 51.8
#100 31.18 42.3
#140 34.02 37.1
#200 36.57 32.4
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 99.3
Weight of hydrometer sample =54.32
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 24.67
Dry weight and tare =24.59
Tare weight =11.17
Hygroscopic moisture =0.6%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.0 20.0 14.3 0.0130 21.0 12.9 0.0328 26.0
5.00 23.0 17.0 11.3 0.0130 18.0 13.3 0.0212 20.5
15.00 23.0 14.0 8.3 0.0130 15.0 13.8 0.0124 15.1
30.00 23.0 13.0 7.3 0.0130 14.0 14.0 0.0089 13.3
60.00 23.0 12.0 6.3 0.0130 13.0 14.2 0.0063 11.4
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
250.00 22.7 11.0 5.2 0.0130 12.0 14.3 0.0031 9.5
1440.00 22.4 10.0 4.1 0.0131 11.0 14.5 0.0013 7.5
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.1
Granules
0.6
Sand
V. Crs.
13.3
Crs.
18.5
Med.
15.7
Fine
12.3
V. Fine
8.8
Total
68.6
Silt
Crs.
5.3
Med.
8.4
Fine
4.4
V. Fine
2.7
Total
20.8
Clay
9.9
D5 D10
0.0040
D15
0.0123
D20
0.0203
D30
0.0568
D40
0.1294
D50
0.2284
D60
0.3677
D80
0.7965
D85
0.9622
D90
1.1790
D95
1.4952
Fineness
Modulus
1.40
Cu
91.18
Cc
2.17
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Yellow Clayey Silty SAND
#4
#10
#20#40
#60
#100
#140
#2000.0328 mm.
0.0212 mm.
0.0124 mm.
0.0089 mm.
0.0063 mm.0.0031 mm.
0.0013 mm.
100.0
99.3
81.763.4
51.8
42.3
37.1
32.426.0
20.5
15.1
13.3
11.49.5
7.5
20 24 4
SC-SM A-2-4(0)
1.1790 0.9622 0.36770.2284 0.0568 0.01230.0040 91.18 2.17
Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/10/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468-18-8009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-36 Depth: 8.5-10.0'Sample Number: SS-3
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 6913)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 13.3 18.5 15.7 12.3 8.8 5.3 8.4 4.4 2.7 9.96 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-36
Depth:8.5-10.0'Sample Number:SS-3
Material Description: Yellow Clayey Silty SAND
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 63.4
USCS: SC-SM AASHTO: A-2-4(0)
Testing Remarks: ND = Not Determined
Natural Moisture Content = 9.9%
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
34.13
30.48
15.50
21
24.4
2
28.69
26.18
15.62
22
23.8
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture23.6
23.7
23.8
23.9
24
24.1
24.2
24.3
24.4
24.5
24.6
Blows
5678910 2025 30 40
1
2
Liquid Limit=24
Plastic Limit=20
Plasticity Index=4
Natural Moisture=9.9
Liquidity Index=-2.5
Plastic Limit Data
1
26.54
24.65
15.49
20.6
2
23.97
22.58
15.49
19.6
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare
104.74
Dry+Tare
97.94
Tare
29.34
Moisture
9.9
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Yellow Clayey Silty SAND ND 3/10/18 CS 24 20 4 63.4 SC-SM
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-36 Depth: 8.5-10.0'Sample Number: SS-3
ND = Not Determined
Natural Moisture Content = 9.9%Phase 3 PTC
AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-37
Depth:1.0-2.5'Sample Number:SS-1
Material Description: Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 24 LL: 41 PI: 17
USCS Classification: CL AASHTO Classification: A-7-6(7)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 422
Testing Remarks: Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/2/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
533.64 0.00 0.00 #4 0.00 100.0
#10 4.89 99.1
50.62 0.00 0.00 #20 2.13 94.9
#40 7.76 83.9
#60 12.65 74.3
#100 16.83 66.1
#140 19.25 61.4
#200 21.45 57.1
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 99.1
Weight of hydrometer sample =50.62
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 28.07
Dry weight and tare =27.88
Tare weight =15.49
Hygroscopic moisture =1.5%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.0 32.0 26.3 0.0130 33.0 10.9 0.0302 51.7
5.00 23.0 31.0 25.3 0.0130 32.0 11.0 0.0193 49.7
15.00 23.0 28.0 22.3 0.0130 29.0 11.5 0.0114 43.8
30.00 23.0 26.0 20.3 0.0130 27.0 11.9 0.0082 39.9
60.00 23.0 24.0 18.3 0.0130 25.0 12.2 0.0058 36.0
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
250.00 22.8 22.0 16.2 0.0130 23.0 12.5 0.0029 31.9
1440.00 22.7 19.0 13.2 0.0130 20.0 13.0 0.0012 26.0
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.1
Granules
0.8
Sand
V. Crs.
2.7
Crs.
9.5
Med.
12.6
Fine
10.7
V. Fine
8.2
Total
43.7
Silt
Crs.
3.6
Med.
4.1
Fine
8.4
V. Fine
6.1
Total
22.2
Clay
33.2
D5 D10 D15 D20 D30
0.0021
D40
0.0082
D50
0.0200
D60
0.0953
D80
0.3436
D85
0.4514
D90
0.5996
D95
0.8567
Fineness
Modulus
0.69
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY
#4
#10
#20#40
#60
#100
#140
#2000.0302 mm.
0.0193 mm.
0.0114 mm.
0.0082 mm.
0.0058 mm.0.0029 mm.
0.0012 mm.
100.0
99.1
94.983.9
74.3
66.1
61.4
57.151.7
49.7
43.8
39.9
36.031.9
26.0
24 41 17
CL A-7-6(7)
0.5996 0.4514 0.09530.0200 0.0021
Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/2/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468-18-8009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 1.0-2.5'Sample Number: SS-1
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 422)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2.7 9.5 12.6 10.7 8.2 3.6 4.1 8.4 6.1 33.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-37
Depth:1.0-2.5'Sample Number:SS-1
Material Description: Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 83.9
USCS: CL AASHTO: A-7-6(7)
Testing Remarks: Natural Moisture Content = 22.9%
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
25.37
22.50
15.48
24
40.9
2
26.21
23.10
15.51
23
41.0
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture40.88
40.89
40.9
40.91
40.92
40.93
40.94
40.95
40.96
40.97
40.98
Blows
5678910 2025 30 40
1
2 Liquid Limit=41
Plastic Limit=24
Plasticity Index=17
Natural Moisture=22.9
Liquidity Index=-0.1
Plastic Limit Data
1
25.11
23.25
15.45
23.8
2
24.05
22.44
15.79
24.2
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare
113.13
Dry+Tare
97.69
Tare
30.15
Moisture
22.9
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY ND 3/10/18 CS 41 24 17 83.9 CL
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 1.0-2.5'Sample Number: SS-1
Natural Moisture Content = 22.9%
Phase 3 PTC
AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-37
Depth:28.5-30.0'Sample Number:SS-8
Material Description: Olive Brown Clayey SAND
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 24 LL: 34 PI: 10
USCS Classification: SC AASHTO Classification: A-4(2)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 422-63(07)e2
Testing Remarks: Specicic Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/10/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
650.51 0.00 0.00 .375 0.00 100.0
#4 1.03 99.8
#10 37.88 94.2
48.88 0.00 0.00 #20 3.72 87.0
#40 8.40 78.0
#60 12.90 69.3
#100 17.81 59.9
#140 21.03 53.7
#200 24.19 47.6
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 94.2
Weight of hydrometer sample =48.88
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 24.21
Dry weight and tare =23.82
Tare weight =11.11
Hygroscopic moisture =3.1%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.0 23.0 17.3 0.0130 24.0 12.4 0.0322 34.0
5.00 23.0 19.0 13.3 0.0130 20.0 13.0 0.0209 26.1
15.00 23.0 15.5 9.8 0.0130 16.5 13.6 0.0123 19.2
30.00 23.0 14.0 8.3 0.0130 15.0 13.8 0.0088 16.3
60.00 23.0 12.0 6.3 0.0130 13.0 14.2 0.0063 12.4
250.00 22.8 11.0 5.2 0.0130 12.0 14.3 0.0031 10.3
1440.00 22.4 10.0 4.1 0.0131 11.0 14.5 0.0013 8.1
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.9
Granules
4.9
Sand
V. Crs.
5.6
Crs.
8.2
Med.
11.1
Fine
12.7
V. Fine
12.0
Total
49.6
Silt
Crs.
11.3
Med.
11.5
Fine
6.9
V. Fine
4.5
Total
34.2
Clay
10.4
D5 D10
0.0025
D15
0.0079
D20
0.0133
D30
0.0260
D40
0.0465
D50
0.0863
D60
0.1511
D80
0.4872
D85
0.7110
D90
1.1699
D95
2.2212
Fineness
Modulus
0.99
Cu
60.27
Cc
1.78
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Olive Brown Clayey SAND
.375
#4
#10#20
#40
#60
#100
#140#200
0.0322 mm.
0.0209 mm.
0.0123 mm.
0.0088 mm.0.0063 mm.
0.0031 mm.
0.0013 mm.
100.0
99.8
94.287.0
78.0
69.3
59.9
53.747.6
34.0
26.1
19.2
16.312.4
10.3
8.1
24 34 10
SC A-4(2)
1.1699 0.7110 0.15110.0863 0.0260 0.00790.0025 60.27 1.78
Specicic Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/10/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468-18-8009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 28.5-30.0'Sample Number: SS-8
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 422-63(07)e2)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.9 4.9 5.6 8.2 11.1 12.7 12.0 11.3 11.5 6.9 4.5 10.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468188009
Location:B-37
Depth:28.5-30.0'Sample Number:SS-8
Material Description: Olive Brown Clayey SAND
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 78.0
USCS: SC AASHTO: A-4(2)
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
24.71
21.35
11.19
28
33.1
2
26.89
24.06
15.52
29
33.1
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture33.06
33.07
33.08
33.09
33.1
33.11
33.12
33.13
33.14
33.15
33.16
Blows5678910 2025 30 40
1
2
Liquid Limit=34
Plastic Limit=24
Plasticity Index=10
Plastic Limit Data
1
19.74
18.12
11.18
23.3
2
21.35
20.22
15.53
24.1
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare Dry+Tare
133.97
Tare
27.79
Moisture
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Olive Brown Clayey SAND ND 3/10/18 CS 34 24 10 78.0 SC
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 28.5-30.0'Sample Number: SS-8
Phase 3 PTC
AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468188009
Location:B-38
Depth:3.5-5.0'Sample Number:SS-2
Material Description: Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 24 LL: 45 PI: 21
USCS Classification: CL AASHTO Classification: A-7-6(11)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 422-63(07)e2
Testing Remarks: Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/2/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
526.80 0.00 0.00 #4 0.00 100.0
#10 3.00 99.4
51.89 0.00 0.00 #20 2.15 95.3
#40 7.22 85.6
#60 11.89 76.6
#100 15.81 69.1
#140 17.89 65.2
#200 19.69 61.7
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 99.4
Weight of hydrometer sample =51.89
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 27.31
Dry weight and tare =27.13
Tare weight =13.63
Hygroscopic moisture =1.3%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.2 37.0 31.4 0.0129 38.0 10.1 0.0290 60.2
5.00 23.2 35.0 29.4 0.0129 36.0 10.4 0.0186 56.4
15.00 23.2 31.0 25.4 0.0129 32.0 11.0 0.0111 48.7
30.00 23.0 28.0 22.3 0.0130 29.0 11.5 0.0080 42.8
60.00 23.0 26.0 20.3 0.0130 27.0 11.9 0.0058 39.0
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
250.00 22.7 24.0 18.2 0.0130 25.0 12.2 0.0029 35.0
1440.00 22.8 21.0 15.2 0.0130 22.0 12.7 0.0012 29.3
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.0
Granules
0.6
Sand
V. Crs.
2.7
Crs.
8.5
Med.
11.6
Fine
9.6
V. Fine
5.6
Total
38.0
Silt
Crs.
1.1
Med.
6.2
Fine
11.7
V. Fine
5.9
Total
24.9
Clay
36.5
D5 D10 D15 D20 D30
0.0013
D40
0.0064
D50
0.0120
D60
0.0278
D80
0.3055
D85
0.4101
D90
0.5600
D95
0.8243
Fineness
Modulus
0.63
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY
#4
#10
#20#40
#60
#100
#140
#2000.0290 mm.
0.0186 mm.
0.0111 mm.
0.0080 mm.
0.0058 mm.0.0029 mm.
0.0012 mm.
100.0
99.4
95.385.6
76.6
69.1
65.2
61.760.2
56.4
48.7
42.8
39.035.0
29.3
24 45 21
CL A-7-6(11)
0.5600 0.4101 0.02780.0120 0.0013
Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/2/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468188009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-38 Depth: 3.5-5.0'Sample Number: SS-2
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 422-63(07)e2)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.7 8.5 11.6 9.6 5.6 1.1 6.2 11.7 5.9 36.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468188009
Location:B-38
Depth:3.5-5.0'Sample Number:SS-2
Material Description: Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 85.6
USCS: CL AASHTO: A-7-6(11)
Testing Remarks: Natural Moisture Content = 21.1%
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
29.63
25.28
15.52
26
44.6
2
29.97
25.13
14.26
27
44.5
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture44.52
44.525
44.53
44.535
44.54
44.545
44.55
44.555
44.56
44.565
44.57
Blows
5678910 2025 30 40
1
2
Liquid Limit=45
Plastic Limit=24
Plasticity Index=21
Natural Moisture=21.1
Liquidity Index=-0.1
Plastic Limit Data
1
22.07
20.75
15.27
24.1
2
24.76
22.75
14.37
24.0
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare
175.91
Dry+Tare
150.24
Tare
28.6
Moisture
21.1
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY ND 3/10/18 CS 45 24 21 85.6 CL
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-38 Depth: 3.5-5.0'Sample Number: SS-2
Natural Moisture Content = 21.1%
Phase 3 PTC
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3B
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
Settlement Analyses

SETTLEMENT CALCULATION A-1 Sandrock CDLF 4/18/2018Page 2RR = Recompression ratio (staged loading/unloading)CR = Consolidation ratio (virgin compression curve)Use consolidation data, considering maximum past pressure for peat & clay layers: Use corrected spf, without past pressure, for sands:for log Pc/Po < Pc: for log Pf/Pc > Pc: add the two:del-H = Ho * RR * log(Pc/Po) del-H = Ho * CR * log(Pf/Pc) del-H = Ho * 1/C' * log(pf/Po)Ref. Consol Data RR CR log Pp/Po del-H log Pf/Pp del-H del-H clay N'/N N' C' log Po/Pf del-H sand TOTALCr/1+eo Cc/1+eo (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) SETTLEMENT1.3 13 30 1.55 0.10 0.101.3 45 40 0.60 0.27 0.271.3 78 115 0.72 0.06 0.061.3 100 170 0.62 0.04 0.041.3 100 170 0.54 0.03 0.03Consolidation Settlement - Clay Layers 0.00 Elastic Settlement - Sand Layers 0.50 0.50Case 4, Max. Wall Height = 60 feet
SETTLEMENT CALCULATION A-1 Sandrock CDLF 9/6/2017Page 1Calculations based on Hough's method for sand (corrected SPT values) and consolidation theory for clays (using lab data)* Original conditions (Case 1):These preliminary calculations assume no soil surcharge (preloading) to establish baseline settlement for planning purposesWaste height = 110 feetAssume soil surcharge height = 0 feet x soil unit weight = 100 pcf = 0 psf Unit weight = 37 pcf Soil surcharge pressure increase = 0 psfOriginal settlement = 0.36 feet at maximum heightCase 2: Max. final waste height = 170 feet x unit weight = 55 pcf = 9350 psfEst'd base soil thickness = 0 feet x soil unit weight = 100 pcf = 0 psf Final vertical pressure increase = 9350 psf ALL STRESSES USED IN THE CALCULATIONS ARE EFFECTIVE STRESSHypothetical "worst case" soil profileGrd. Elev.750Water table depth (ft)** =15initial vertical stress conditionsurcharge preload, if anyfinal vertical stressLayerDepthBaseUnit Wt.PouPo'ThicknessSoilNZaveIAveragePastSurchargePp=Pi+Psdel-PPf(ft)Elev.(pcf) - wet(psf)(psf)(psf)(ft)Type(bpf)(ft)Po'Pc***PiPs00 001 10 740 120 1200.00 -312.00 1512.00 10 SM 35 5 1 756 376 756 0 7569350 101062 20 730 135 2550.00 312.00 2238.00 10 SM 100 15 0.97 1875 1700 1875 0 1875 9070 109453 30 720 140 3950.00 936.00 3014.00 10 SM 100 25 0.9 2626 1700 2626 0 2626 8415 110414 40 710 135 5300.00 1560.00 3740.00 10 SM 100 35 0.78 3377 17003377 0 3377 7293 106705 50 700 135 6650.00 2184.00 4466.00 10 SM 100 45 0.63 4103 17004103 0 4103 5891 9994*Reference: Cheney, R.S., and R.G. Hassie, Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual, US Federal Highway Administration, November 1982**Water table at B-10 used here is more representative of Phase 2 footprint*** Past consolidation pressure (Pc) in psf -- see laboratory consolidation curves
SETTLEMENT CALCULATION A-1 Sandrock CDLF 9/6/2017Page 2RR = Recompression ratio (staged loading/unloading)CR = Consolidation ratio (virgin compression curve)Use consolidation data, considering maximum past pressure for peat & clay layers:Use corrected spf, without past pressure, for sands:for log Pc/Po < Pc: for log Pf/Pc > Pc: add the two:del-H = Ho * RR * log(Pc/Po) del-H = Ho * CR * log(Pf/Pc) del-H = Ho * 1/C' * log(pf/Po)Ref. Consol Data RR CR log Pp/Po del-H log Pf/Pp del-H del-H clay N'/N N' C' log Po/Pf del-H sand TOTALCr/1+eo Cc/1+eo (ft) (ft) (ft)(ft) SETTLEMENT2 70 85 1.13 0.13 0.131.8 100 85 0.60 0.07 0.071.7 100 85 0.62 0.07 0.071.4 100 25 0.50 0.20 0.201.3 100 55 0.39 0.07 0.07Consolidation Settlement - Clay Layers 0.00 Elastic Settlement - Sand Layers 0.55 0.55Case 2, Max. Waste Thickness = 170 feet
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3C
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
North Carolina Building Code Information

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3D
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
Stages 1 and 2 Berm and Foundation Excavation Volume Analyses

CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 5 10
STAGE 1+2 MSE BERM Don’t modify this block
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum. Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac. Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
00
735 22,079.6 0.51 133,518.3 133,518.3 4,945.1
740 31,327.7 0.72 176,951.8 310,470.1 11,498.9
745 39,453.0 0.91 218,342.5 528,812.6 19,585.7
750 47,884.0 1.10 285,525.5 814,338.1 30,160.7
755 66,326.2 1.52 343,200.0 1,157,538.1 42,871.8
760 70,953.9 1.63 381,214.1 1,538,752.2 56,990.8
765 81,531.8 1.87 381219.1 1,919,971.3 71,110.0
770 74,164.3 1.70 381224.1 2,301,195.4 85,229.5 Required structural fill Stg 1
775 62,318.0 1.43 381229.1 2,682,424.5 99,349.1
780 62,310.5 1.43 381234.1 3,063,658.6 113,468.8
785 63,562.2 1.46 381239.1 3,444,897.7 127,588.8
790 56,199.2 1.29 271,967.3 3,716,865.0 137,661.7
795 52,587.7 1.21 253,800.3 3,970,665.2 147,061.7
800 48,932.4 1.12 171,722.3 4,142,387.5 153,421.8
805 19,756.5 0.45 92,081.2 4,234,468.7 156,832.2
810 17,076.0 0.39 79,024.4 4,313,493.1 159,759.0
815 14,533.8 0.33 68,109.0 4,381,602.1 162,281.6
820 12,709.8 0.29 59,215.5 4,440,817.6 164,474.7
825 10,976.4 0.25 50,240.5 4,491,058.1 166,335.5
830 9,119.8 0.21 34,247.2 4,525,305.3 167,603.9
835 4,579.1 0.11 12,230.4 4,537,535.7 168,056.9
840 313.1 0.01 782.7 4,538,318.5 168,085.9 Required structural fill Stg 1+2
845 0.0 0.00 0.0 4,538,318.5 168,085.9
850 0.0 0.00 0.0 4,538,318.5 168,085.9
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 5 10
FOUNDATION CUT STAGE 1+2 MSE BERM Don’t modify this block
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum. Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac. Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
00
735 23,135.8 0.53 139,146.4 139,146.4 5,153.6
740 32,522.8 0.75 177,986.9 317,133.3 11,745.7
745 38,672.0 0.89 214,314.6 531,447.8 19,683.3
750 47,053.8 1.08 212,871.9 744,319.7 27,567.4
755 38,094.9 0.87 183,197.5 927,517.2 34,352.5
760 35,184.1 0.81 120,466.4 1,047,983.6 38,814.2
765 13,002.4 0.30 120471.35 1,168,454.9 43,276.1
770 13,513.1 0.31 120476.35 1,288,931.3 47,738.2
775 3,291.0 0.08 120481.35 1,409,412.6 52,200.5
780 5,258.8 0.12 120486.35 1,529,899.0 56,662.9
785 10,083.7 0.23 120491.35 1,650,390.3 61,125.6 Estimated soil excavation
790 0.0 0.00 0.0 1,650,390.3 61,125.6
795 0.0 0.00 0.0 1,650,390.3 61,125.6
800 0.0 0.00 0.0 1,650,390.3 61,125.6
805 0.0 0.00 0.0 1,650,390.3 61,125.6
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3E
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
HELP Analyses

A1SR.OUT

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
** **
** **
** HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE **
** HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) **
** DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY **
** USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION **
** FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY **
** **
** **
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: C:\DATA4.D4
TEMPERATURE DATA FILE: C:\DATA7.D7
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: C:\DATA13.D13
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA: C:\DATA11.D11
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE: C:\DATA10.D10
OUTPUT DATA FILE: C:\A1SR.OUT
TIME: 9:53 DATE: 3/21/2018

******************************************************************************
TITLE: A1SANDROCK
******************************************************************************
NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE
COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.

LAYER 1
--------
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 7
THICKNESS = 5.00 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.4730 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2220 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.1040 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3842 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.520000001000E-03 CM/SEC
NOTE: SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IS MULTIPLIED BY 1.80
FOR ROOT CHANNELS IN TOP HALF OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE.

LAYER 2
--------
Page 1
A1SR.OUT
TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 24
THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.3650 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.3050 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.2020 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3650 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.270000010000E-05 CM/SEC

LAYER 3
--------
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 19
THICKNESS = 1920.00 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.1680 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0730 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0190 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0733 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC

LAYER 4
--------
TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 19
THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.1680 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0730 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.0190 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.0764 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC
SLOPE = 5.00 PERCENT
DRAINAGE LENGTH = 1500.0 FEET

LAYER 5
--------
TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 24
THICKNESS = 12.00 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.3650 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.3050 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT = 0.2020 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.3650 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.270000010000E-05 CM/SEC

GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
----------------------------------------
Page 2
A1SR.OUT
NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 7 WITH BARE
GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 33.% AND
A SLOPE LENGTH OF 1500. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 88.10
FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0 PERCENT
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 10.000 ACRES
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 5.0 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 1.921 INCHES
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 2.365 INCHES
LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 0.520 INCHES
INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 152.375 INCHES
TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 152.375 INCHES
TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA
-----------------------------------
NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM
GREENSBORO NORTH CAROLINA
STATION LATITUDE = 35.13 DEGREES
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 1.00
START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 90
END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 305
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 5.0 INCHES
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 7.60 MPH
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 66.00 %
AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 68.00 %
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 74.00 %
AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 70.00 %
NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR GREENSBORO NORTH CAROLINA
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
3.51 3.37 3.88 3.16 3.37 3.93
4.27 4.19 3.64 3.18 2.59 3.38
NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR GREENSBORO NORTH CAROLINA
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
37.50 39.90 48.00 58.30 66.50 73.50
77.20 76.30 69.90 58.40 48.50 40.20
Page 3
A1SR.OUT
NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR GREENSBORO NORTH CAROLINA
AND STATION LATITUDE = 35.13 DEGREES
HEAD #1: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2
DRAIN #1: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 1 (RECIRCULATION AND COLLECTION)
LEAK #1: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
HEAD #2: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5
DRAIN #2: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 4 (RECIRCULATION AND COLLECTION)
LEAK #2: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5

************************************************************************************
****************
DAILY OUTPUT FOR YEAR 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
S
DAY A O RAIN RUNOFF ET E. ZONE HEAD DRAIN LEAK HEAD
DRAIN LEAK
I I WATER #1 #1 #1 #2
#2 #2
R L IN. IN. IN. IN./IN. IN. IN. IN. IN.
IN. IN.
--- - - ----- ------ ------ ------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- ---------
1 0.00 0.000 0.047 0.3517 3.0928 .0000E+00 .1155 0.4270
.8048E-04 .9511E-01
2 0.00 0.000 0.044 0.3207 2.5616 .0000E+00 .1114 0.4622
.8712E-04 .9538E-01
3 0.00 0.000 0.046 0.2899 2.0963 .0000E+00 .1079 0.5330
.1005E-03 .9592E-01
4 * 0.00 0.000 0.035 0.2622 1.5867 .0000E+00 .1040 0.6311
.1190E-03 .9667E-01
5 0.00 0.000 0.043 0.2334 1.1913 .0000E+00 .1010 0.7617
.1436E-03 .9767E-01
6 0.00 0.000 0.046 0.2048 0.7035 .0000E+00 .9723E-01 0.9184
.1731E-03 .9887E-01
7 0.00 0.000 0.048 0.1764 0.3713 .0000E+00 .9468E-01 1.0971
.2068E-03 .1002
8 0.00 0.000 0.048 0.1597 0.0487 .0000E+00 .3549E-01 1.2663
.2387E-03 .1015
9 0.00 0.000 0.052 0.1492 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 1.8616
.3509E-03 .1061
10 * 0.00 0.000 0.040 0.1412 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 2.8406
.5355E-03 .1136
11 0.00 0.000 0.046 0.1319 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 3.6319
.6846E-03 .1196
12 * 0.00 0.000 0.040 0.1238 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 2.7173
.5122E-03 .1126
13 * 0.00 0.000 0.037 0.1165 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 1.5626
.2946E-03 .1038
14 * 0.16 0.000 0.034 0.1204 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.5003
Page 4
A1SR.OUT
.9144E-04 .8398E-01
15 * 0.02 0.000 0.029 0.1244 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .1735E-16
16 * 0.00 0.000 0.038 0.1283 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
17 0.00 0.000 0.050 0.1222 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
18 0.00 0.000 0.046 0.1130 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
19 0.00 0.000 0.040 0.1050 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
20 0.02 0.000 0.016 0.1058 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
21 0.00 0.000 0.005 0.1048 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
22 0.00 0.000 0.003 0.1042 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
23 0.00 0.000 0.001 0.1041 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
24 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
25 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
26 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
27 0.47 0.000 0.047 0.1886 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
28 0.21 0.000 0.056 0.2194 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
29 0.56 0.001 0.059 0.3099 0.1391 .0000E+00 .4698E-01 0.0317
.5902E-05 .4698E-01
30 0.00 0.000 0.071 0.2756 1.1278 .0000E+00 .1005 0.2112
.3980E-04 .7050E-01
31 0.00 0.000 0.061 0.2436 0.9096 .0000E+00 .9880E-01 0.3326
.6270E-04 .9439E-01
32 0.00 0.000 0.057 0.2131 0.5397 .0000E+00 .9597E-01 0.3660
.6899E-04 .9464E-01
33 0.00 0.000 0.056 0.1837 0.2134 .0000E+00 .9101E-01 0.3595
.6778E-04 .9459E-01
34 0.08 0.000 0.057 0.1883 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1057
.1729E-04 .3188E-01
35 0.00 0.000 0.048 0.1786 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
36 0.00 0.000 0.050 0.1686 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
37 0.05 0.000 0.057 0.1673 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
38 0.00 0.000 0.089 0.1495 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
39 0.00 0.000 0.077 0.1340 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
40 0.20 0.000 0.062 0.1617 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
41 0.00 0.000 0.091 0.1435 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
42 0.00 0.000 0.101 0.1233 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
43 0.00 0.000 0.092 0.1049 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
44 0.00 0.000 0.004 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
45 0.08 0.000 0.021 0.1159 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
Page 5
A1SR.OUT
46 0.35 0.000 0.045 0.1770 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
47 0.18 0.000 0.055 0.2019 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
48 0.24 0.000 0.063 0.2372 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
49 0.38 0.000 0.069 0.2899 0.1919 .0000E+00 .4739E-01 0.0325
.6008E-05 .3554E-01
50 0.00 0.000 0.080 0.2544 0.7118 .0000E+00 .9729E-01 0.1421
.2679E-04 .9293E-01
51 0.01 0.000 0.066 0.2242 0.4103 .0000E+00 .9498E-01 0.1773
.3343E-04 .9320E-01
52 0.00 0.000 0.084 0.1954 0.0900 .0000E+00 .6036E-01 0.0769
.1428E-04 .6318E-01
53 0.16 0.000 0.057 0.2138 0.0063 .0000E+00 .1123E-01 0.0471
.6096E-05 .2351E-01
54 0.10 0.000 0.055 0.2227 0.0017 .0000E+00 .1285E-02 0.0082
.1938E-06 .3771E-02
55 1.02 0.075 0.059 0.3898 0.4620 .0000E+00 .4946E-01 0.0374
.6674E-05 .4977E-01
56 0.04 0.000 0.054 0.3641 3.0319 .0000E+00 .1150 0.0212
.4000E-05 .9200E-01
57 0.45 0.000 0.058 0.4193 3.0584 .0000E+00 .1152 0.0240
.4518E-05 .9202E-01
58 0.00 0.000 0.089 0.3776 3.5663 .0000E+00 .1191 0.0129
.2433E-05 .9096E-01
59 0.54 0.009 0.067 0.4468 3.4326 .0000E+00 .1181 0.1655
.3120E-04 .7015E-01
60 0.00 0.000 0.085 0.4050 4.1814 .0000E+00 .1238 0.1803
.3398E-04 .9322E-01
61 0.02 0.000 0.058 0.3737 3.4861 .0000E+00 .1185 0.1017
.1917E-04 .9262E-01
62 * 0.00 0.000 0.068 0.3373 2.9327 .0000E+00 .1143 0.0693
.1306E-04 .9237E-01
63 0.00 0.000 0.069 0.3015 2.3863 .0000E+00 .1101 0.0945
.1781E-04 .9256E-01
64 0.55 0.000 0.089 0.3723 1.9980 .0000E+00 .1071 0.1597
.3009E-04 .9306E-01
65 0.06 0.000 0.058 0.3502 2.6532 .0000E+00 .1121 0.2360
.4449E-04 .9365E-01
66 0.00 0.000 0.069 0.3146 2.2705 .0000E+00 .1092 0.2769
.5219E-04 .9396E-01
67 0.00 0.000 0.121 0.2693 1.7481 .0000E+00 .1052 0.3418
.6444E-04 .9446E-01
68 0.00 0.000 0.087 0.2315 1.2930 .0000E+00 .1017 0.4386
.8268E-04 .9520E-01
69 0.00 0.000 0.092 0.1934 0.8018 .0000E+00 .9798E-01 0.5648
.1065E-03 .9616E-01
70 0.00 0.000 0.079 0.1587 0.4357 .0000E+00 .9518E-01 0.7186
.1355E-03 .9734E-01
71 0.01 0.000 0.053 0.1401 0.0811 .0000E+00 .4967E-01 0.8834
.1665E-03 .9860E-01
72 0.00 0.000 0.051 0.1299 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 1.3697
.2582E-03 .1023
73 0.00 0.000 0.096 0.1106 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.9778
.1843E-03 .9932E-01
74 0.00 0.000 0.033 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1028
.1683E-04 .3133E-01
75 0.22 0.000 0.039 0.1402 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
76 0.00 0.000 0.045 0.1313 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
77 0.00 0.000 0.064 0.1185 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 6
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
78 1.00 0.025 0.091 0.2954 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
79 0.00 0.000 0.126 0.2556 0.5969 .0000E+00 .7345E-01 0.1059
.1997E-04 .6969E-01
80 0.00 0.000 0.088 0.2187 0.5629 .0000E+00 .9615E-01 0.0549
.1035E-04 .9226E-01
81 0.00 0.000 0.126 0.1747 0.2764 .0000E+00 .9396E-01 0.0860
.1620E-04 .9250E-01
82 0.02 0.000 0.127 0.1502 0.0166 .0000E+00 .1569E-01 0.0342
.3181E-05 .2082E-01
83 0.00 0.000 0.128 0.1246 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0103
.3311E-06 .3921E-02
84 0.00 0.000 0.102 0.1041 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
85 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
86 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
87 0.40 0.000 0.047 0.1747 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
88 0.62 0.002 0.107 0.2768 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
89 0.04 0.000 0.124 0.2412 0.3225 .0000E+00 .9431E-01 0.1872
.3528E-04 .7031E-01
90 0.00 0.000 0.145 0.1944 0.1586 .0000E+00 .8913E-01 0.2340
.4410E-04 .9363E-01
91 0.00 0.000 0.117 0.1699 0.0030 .0000E+00 .5424E-02 0.0547
.8643E-05 .2347E-01
92 0.00 0.000 0.147 0.1406 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0036
.3968E-07 .1356E-02
93 0.00 0.000 0.152 0.1102 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
94 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
95 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
96 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
97 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
98 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
99 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
100 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
101 0.27 0.000 0.028 0.1524 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
102 0.00 0.000 0.032 0.1460 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
103 0.00 0.000 0.035 0.1389 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
104 0.11 0.000 0.038 0.1533 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
105 0.00 0.000 0.030 0.1472 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
106 0.01 0.000 0.036 0.1420 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
107 0.00 0.000 0.030 0.1359 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
108 0.00 0.000 0.030 0.1300 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
Page 7
A1SR.OUT
109 0.01 0.000 0.032 0.1255 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
110 0.00 0.000 0.025 0.1206 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
111 0.00 0.000 0.023 0.1160 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
112 0.00 0.000 0.024 0.1111 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
113 0.00 0.000 0.024 0.1063 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
114 0.32 0.000 0.026 0.1650 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
115 0.10 0.000 0.024 0.1803 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
116 0.00 0.000 0.152 0.1499 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
117 0.00 0.000 0.023 0.1453 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
118 0.27 0.000 0.028 0.1937 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
119 0.02 0.000 0.153 0.1672 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
120 0.09 0.000 0.028 0.1796 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
121 0.41 0.000 0.028 0.2560 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
122 0.00 0.000 0.151 0.2214 0.0141 .0000E+00 .2241E-01 0.0295
.2698E-05 .2240E-01
123 0.00 0.000 0.157 0.1863 0.0082 .0000E+00 .1859E-01 0.0245
.1860E-05 .1859E-01
124 0.00 0.000 0.185 0.1479 0.0031 .0000E+00 .6399E-02 0.0084
.2209E-06 .6399E-02
125 0.00 0.000 0.164 0.1151 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
126 0.00 0.000 0.055 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
127 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
128 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
129 0.21 0.000 0.027 0.1407 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
130 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.1345 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
131 0.00 0.000 0.034 0.1277 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
132 0.00 0.000 0.033 0.1211 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
133 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.1148 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
134 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.1087 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
135 0.00 0.000 0.021 0.1045 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
136 0.00 0.000 0.002 0.1041 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
137 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
138 0.72 0.000 0.026 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
139 0.08 0.000 0.199 0.2151 0.0143 .0000E+00 .1983E-01 0.0261
.2115E-05 .1983E-01
140 0.00 0.000 0.030 0.2078 0.0034 .0000E+00 .6105E-02 0.0080
Page 8
A1SR.OUT
.2010E-06 .6104E-02
141 0.00 0.000 0.029 0.2008 0.0014 .0000E+00 .5472E-02 0.0072
.1616E-06 .5472E-02
142 0.00 0.000 0.030 0.1933 0.0043 .0000E+00 .7902E-02 0.0104
.3367E-06 .7901E-02
143 0.00 0.000 0.028 0.1877 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
144 0.00 0.000 0.028 0.1821 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
145 0.00 0.000 0.028 0.1765 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
146 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.1711 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
147 0.05 0.000 0.033 0.1745 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
148 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.1691 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
149 0.27 0.000 0.032 0.2166 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
150 0.17 0.000 0.036 0.2435 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
151 0.00 0.000 0.220 0.1994 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
152 0.00 0.000 0.029 0.1936 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
153 0.69 0.000 0.035 0.3188 0.0344 .0000E+00 .2833E-01 0.0373
.4306E-05 .2832E-01
154 0.06 0.000 0.189 0.2729 1.1636 .0000E+00 .1007 0.2122
.4000E-04 .7051E-01
155 0.03 0.000 0.148 0.2296 0.9458 .0000E+00 .9908E-01 0.3364
.6341E-04 .9442E-01
156 0.46 0.000 0.132 0.2760 0.5591 .0000E+00 .9612E-01 0.3718
.7009E-04 .9469E-01
157 0.00 0.000 0.225 0.2122 0.3311 .0000E+00 .9438E-01 0.3789
.7143E-04 .9474E-01
158 0.00 0.000 0.184 0.1627 0.1246 .0000E+00 .6358E-01 0.2546
.4799E-04 .9379E-01
159 0.00 0.000 0.234 0.1159 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0144
.6432E-06 .5469E-02
160 0.00 0.000 0.059 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
161 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
162 0.19 0.000 0.044 0.1333 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
163 1.07 0.062 0.067 0.3216 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
164 0.00 0.000 0.258 0.2499 1.1448 .0000E+00 .1006 0.2117
.3990E-04 .7050E-01
165 0.00 0.000 0.221 0.1857 1.0567 .0000E+00 .9993E-01 0.3383
.6376E-04 .9443E-01
166 0.00 0.000 0.216 0.1237 0.4866 .0000E+00 .9390E-01 0.3703
.6979E-04 .9467E-01
167 0.00 0.000 0.098 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1201
.1977E-04 .3463E-01
168 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
169 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
170 0.57 0.000 0.056 0.2067 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
171 0.00 0.000 0.195 0.1677 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
Page 9
A1SR.OUT
172 0.00 0.000 0.069 0.1539 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
173 0.25 0.000 0.072 0.1894 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
174 0.44 0.000 0.063 0.2648 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
175 0.22 0.000 0.289 0.2408 0.0587 .0000E+00 .5062E-01 0.0388
.6941E-05 .3796E-01
176 0.26 0.000 0.242 0.2415 0.0077 .0000E+00 .1526E-01 0.0433
.5079E-05 .2409E-01
177 0.45 0.000 0.248 0.2770 0.0971 .0000E+00 .2370E-01 0.0256
.2309E-05 .2159E-01
178 0.00 0.000 0.277 0.2028 0.2306 .0000E+00 .9361E-01 0.0673
.1269E-04 .9236E-01
179 0.00 0.000 0.293 0.1396 0.0061 .0000E+00 .2285E-01 0.0339
.3382E-05 .3001E-01
180 0.00 0.000 0.157 0.1082 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
181 0.47 0.000 0.181 0.1660 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
182 0.00 0.000 0.183 0.1293 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
183 0.00 0.000 0.094 0.1106 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
184 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.1052 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
185 0.00 0.000 0.005 0.1043 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
186 0.02 0.000 0.014 0.1054 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
187 0.09 0.000 0.038 0.1159 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
188 0.00 0.000 0.029 0.1100 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
189 0.17 0.000 0.042 0.1356 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
190 0.00 0.000 0.032 0.1293 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
191 0.11 0.000 0.050 0.1414 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
192 0.20 0.000 0.060 0.1693 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
193 0.21 0.000 0.066 0.1981 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
194 0.08 0.000 0.221 0.1699 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
195 0.19 0.000 0.072 0.1934 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
196 0.05 0.000 0.222 0.1591 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
197 0.55 0.000 0.081 0.2528 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
198 0.00 0.000 0.263 0.2001 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
199 0.17 0.000 0.122 0.2098 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
200 0.00 0.000 0.235 0.1628 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
201 0.02 0.000 0.203 0.1263 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
202 0.23 0.000 0.127 0.1469 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
203 0.00 0.000 0.133 0.1203 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 10
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
204 0.07 0.000 0.091 0.1161 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
205 0.00 0.000 0.041 0.1080 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
206 0.04 0.000 0.033 0.1094 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
207 2.01 0.372 0.090 0.4190 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
208 0.00 0.000 0.180 0.3595 3.3960 .0000E+00 .1178 0.1933
.3644E-04 .7036E-01
209 0.00 0.000 0.201 0.2966 2.8028 .0000E+00 .1133 0.2220
.4185E-04 .9354E-01
210 0.09 0.000 0.196 0.2539 2.0553 .0000E+00 .1076 0.2311
.4356E-04 .9361E-01
211 0.06 0.000 0.153 0.2146 1.4369 .0000E+00 .1028 0.2958
.5576E-04 .9410E-01
212 0.02 0.000 0.207 0.1575 0.8547 .0000E+00 .9838E-01 0.4036
.7607E-04 .9493E-01
213 0.04 0.000 0.210 0.1140 0.2551 .0000E+00 .4773E-01 0.5477
.1032E-03 .9603E-01
214 0.00 0.000 0.042 0.1056 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1725
.3138E-04 .4468E-01
215 0.13 0.000 0.083 0.1150 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
216 0.43 0.000 0.114 0.1782 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
217 1.09 0.095 0.131 0.3464 0.0467 .0000E+00 .2332E-01 0.0307
.2921E-05 .2331E-01
218 0.28 0.000 0.116 0.3577 2.0447 .0000E+00 .1075 0.2135
.4025E-04 .7051E-01
219 0.00 0.000 0.210 0.2941 2.1009 .0000E+00 .1079 0.3285
.6193E-04 .9436E-01
220 0.00 0.000 0.218 0.2299 1.5629 .0000E+00 .1038 0.3808
.7178E-04 .9476E-01
221 0.13 0.000 0.127 0.2106 1.0575 .0000E+00 .9993E-01 0.4677
.8817E-04 .9542E-01
222 0.22 0.000 0.122 0.2109 0.6102 .0000E+00 .9651E-01 0.5857
.1104E-03 .9632E-01
223 0.09 0.000 0.117 0.1869 0.2470 .0000E+00 .9373E-01 0.6594
.1243E-03 .9689E-01
224 0.00 0.000 0.204 0.1461 0.0016 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.2889
.5160E-04 .6058E-01
225 0.00 0.000 0.163 0.1135 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
226 0.09 0.000 0.078 0.1159 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
227 0.48 0.000 0.123 0.1873 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
228 0.00 0.000 0.154 0.1565 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
229 0.00 0.000 0.207 0.1151 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
230 0.00 0.000 0.048 0.1056 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
231 0.00 0.000 0.008 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
232 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
233 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
234 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
Page 11
A1SR.OUT
235 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
236 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
237 1.02 0.028 0.084 0.2857 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
238 0.00 0.000 0.220 0.2273 0.4295 .0000E+00 .7217E-01 0.1010
.1903E-04 .6965E-01
239 0.00 0.000 0.212 0.1659 0.3446 .0000E+00 .9448E-01 0.0357
.6736E-05 .9211E-01
240 0.00 0.000 0.152 0.1288 0.0523 .0000E+00 .3386E-01 0.0350
.4463E-05 .3871E-01
241 0.00 0.000 0.124 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
242 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
243 1.28 0.084 0.112 0.3208 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
244 0.00 0.000 0.165 0.2725 1.0352 .0000E+00 .7680E-01 0.1190
.2243E-04 .6979E-01
245 0.00 0.000 0.186 0.2152 1.1523 .0000E+00 .1007 0.1057
.1992E-04 .9265E-01
246 0.00 0.000 0.182 0.1595 0.6639 .0000E+00 .9692E-01 0.1727
.3255E-04 .9316E-01
247 0.00 0.000 0.185 0.1130 0.1845 .0000E+00 .4724E-01 0.0992
.1806E-04 .6551E-01
248 0.00 0.000 0.045 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0011
.3769E-08 .4178E-03
249 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
250 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
251 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
252 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
253 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
254 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
255 0.14 0.000 0.042 0.1236 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
256 0.12 0.000 0.040 0.1397 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
257 0.00 0.000 0.036 0.1325 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
258 0.00 0.000 0.039 0.1247 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
259 0.00 0.000 0.042 0.1163 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
260 0.00 0.000 0.038 0.1088 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
261 0.00 0.000 0.021 0.1045 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
262 0.00 0.000 0.002 0.1041 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
263 0.00 0.000 0.001 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
264 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
265 0.50 0.000 0.042 0.1956 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
266 0.05 0.000 0.044 0.1967 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 12
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
267 0.00 0.000 0.034 0.1898 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
268 0.00 0.000 0.035 0.1829 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
269 3.08 1.524 0.050 0.4730 1.2610 .0000E+00 .5557E-01 0.0485
.8692E-05 .4167E-01
270 0.00 0.000 0.160 0.4156 4.5788 .0000E+00 .1269 0.1521
.2866E-04 .9300E-01
271 0.00 0.000 0.130 0.3658 3.6423 .0000E+00 .1197 0.0545
.1028E-04 .9217E-01
272 0.00 0.000 0.149 0.3131 2.9278 .0000E+00 .1142 0.1707
.3217E-04 .7019E-01
273 0.00 0.000 0.109 0.2694 2.3119 .0000E+00 .1095 0.2338
.4406E-04 .9363E-01
274 0.16 0.000 0.076 0.2651 1.7772 .0000E+00 .1054 0.2845
.5364E-04 .9402E-01
275 1.02 0.065 0.081 0.4189 1.7124 .0000E+00 .1049 0.3671
.6920E-04 .9465E-01
276 0.00 0.000 0.083 0.3785 3.5494 .0000E+00 .1190 0.4222
.7959E-04 .9507E-01
277 0.00 0.000 0.116 0.3325 2.9611 .0000E+00 .1145 0.3769
.7105E-04 .9473E-01
278 0.00 0.000 0.095 0.2915 2.3666 .0000E+00 .1100 0.3726
.7024E-04 .9469E-01
279 0.00 0.000 0.123 0.2458 1.8061 .0000E+00 .1057 0.4162
.7846E-04 .9503E-01
280 0.00 0.000 0.125 0.2004 1.3787 .0000E+00 .1024 0.4964
.9357E-04 .9564E-01
281 0.63 0.000 0.115 0.2837 0.9012 .0000E+00 .9874E-01 0.6045
.1139E-03 .9647E-01
282 0.68 0.021 0.103 0.3747 1.0982 .0000E+00 .1002 0.7329
.1382E-03 .9745E-01
283 0.00 0.000 0.087 0.3350 2.4881 .0000E+00 .1109 0.8225
.1550E-03 .9814E-01
284 0.65 0.009 0.080 0.4248 2.6276 .0000E+00 .1120 0.8212
.1548E-03 .9813E-01
285 0.05 0.000 0.081 0.3945 3.7442 .0000E+00 .1205 0.7883
.1486E-03 .9787E-01
286 0.00 0.000 0.090 0.3533 3.1722 .0000E+00 .1161 0.7031
.1325E-03 .9722E-01
287 0.00 0.000 0.090 0.3130 2.5645 .0000E+00 .1115 0.6648
.1253E-03 .9693E-01
288 0.00 0.000 0.096 0.2723 2.0509 .0000E+00 .1075 0.6778
.1278E-03 .9703E-01
289 0.00 0.000 0.075 0.2366 1.4971 .0000E+00 .1033 0.7280
.1372E-03 .9741E-01
290 0.17 0.000 0.064 0.2378 1.0814 .0000E+00 .1001 0.8152
.1537E-03 .9808E-01
291 0.00 0.000 0.083 0.2019 0.6419 .0000E+00 .9675E-01 0.9319
.1757E-03 .9897E-01
292 0.00 0.000 0.068 0.1694 0.2927 .0000E+00 .9408E-01 1.0708
.2018E-03 .1000
293 0.02 0.000 0.070 0.1566 0.0140 .0000E+00 .1398E-01 1.2135
.2287E-03 .1011
294 0.00 0.000 0.075 0.1416 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 1.7921
.3378E-03 .1056
295 0.00 0.000 0.073 0.1270 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 1.0269
.1936E-03 .9970E-01
296 0.00 0.000 0.063 0.1144 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1259
.2086E-04 .3575E-01
297 0.00 0.000 0.052 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
Page 13
A1SR.OUT
298 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
299 0.95 0.017 0.058 0.2790 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
300 0.00 0.000 0.063 0.2520 0.3700 .0000E+00 .7171E-01 0.0992
.1870E-04 .6964E-01
301 0.00 0.000 0.069 0.2192 0.4794 .0000E+00 .9551E-01 0.0352
.6644E-05 .9211E-01
302 0.00 0.000 0.058 0.1910 0.1669 .0000E+00 .8308E-01 0.0249
.4675E-05 .8852E-01
303 0.00 0.000 0.067 0.1774 0.0000 .0000E+00 .6130E-03 0.0008
.2029E-08 .6130E-03
304 0.00 0.000 0.066 0.1643 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
305 0.00 0.000 0.069 0.1506 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
306 0.00 0.000 0.067 0.1372 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
307 0.00 0.000 0.074 0.1224 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
308 0.00 0.000 0.072 0.1079 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
309 0.00 0.000 0.020 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
310 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
311 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
312 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
313 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
314 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
315 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
316 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
317 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
318 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
319 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
320 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
321 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
322 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
323 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
324 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
325 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
326 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
327 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
328 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
329 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 14
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
330 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
331 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
332 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
333 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
334 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
335 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
336 0.83 0.005 0.029 0.2631 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
337 0.00 0.000 0.021 0.2448 0.2215 .0000E+00 .7058E-01 0.0948
.1786E-04 .6961E-01
338 0.00 0.000 0.021 0.2247 0.1398 .0000E+00 .7917E-01 0.0546
.1024E-04 .6389E-01
339 0.00 0.000 0.021 0.2179 0.0045 .0000E+00 .1360E-01 0.0516
.7271E-05 .2980E-01
340 0.00 0.000 0.020 0.2111 0.0074 .0000E+00 .1384E-01 0.0182
.1031E-05 .1384E-01
341 0.00 0.000 0.020 0.2055 0.0043 .0000E+00 .7975E-02 0.0105
.3429E-06 .7974E-02
342 0.92 0.025 0.030 0.3734 0.1625 .0000E+00 .2514E-01 0.0331
.3395E-05 .2514E-01
343 0.55 0.020 0.057 0.4449 3.1719 .0000E+00 .1161 0.1967
.3707E-04 .7039E-01
344 0.00 0.000 0.043 0.4114 4.1892 .0000E+00 .1239 0.2239
.4221E-04 .9355E-01
345 * 0.12 0.000 0.032 0.3915 3.6280 .0000E+00 .1196 0.1339
.2524E-04 .9287E-01
346 * 0.00 0.000 0.034 0.3723 3.1161 .0000E+00 .1157 0.0770
.1451E-04 .9243E-01
347 * 0.01 0.000 0.025 0.3498 2.6871 .0000E+00 .1124 0.0771
.1453E-04 .9243E-01
348 * 0.38 0.000 0.018 0.3319 2.2559 .0000E+00 .1091 0.1133
.2136E-04 .9271E-01
349 0.00 0.000 0.029 0.3146 1.8596 .0000E+00 .1061 0.1812
.3416E-04 .9323E-01
350 0.36 0.010 0.000 0.4216 2.1830 .0000E+00 .1085 0.2648
.4991E-04 .9387E-01
351 0.44 0.017 0.056 0.4702 4.2433 .0000E+00 .1243 0.3021
.5695E-04 .9415E-01
352 0.71 0.521 0.044 0.4730 4.9859 .0000E+00 .1300 0.2289
.4314E-04 .9359E-01
353 * 0.67 0.000 0.028 0.4512 4.8441 .0000E+00 .1289 0.1031
.1943E-04 .9263E-01
354 * 0.48 0.000 0.019 0.4300 4.4060 .0000E+00 .1256 0.1056
.1986E-04 .6850E-01
355 * 0.00 0.000 0.021 0.4095 3.9219 .0000E+00 .1219 0.1250
.2357E-04 .9280E-01
356 0.00 0.000 0.010 0.4230 3.6923 .0000E+00 .1201 0.0658
.1240E-04 .9234E-01
357 0.00 0.400 0.000 0.4730 4.5954 .0000E+00 .1270 0.0452
.8524E-05 .9219E-01
358 0.00 0.000 0.073 0.4424 4.7716 .0000E+00 .1284 0.0050
.9438E-06 .6545E-01
359 0.00 0.000 0.062 0.4054 4.1312 .0000E+00 .1235 0.1803
.3399E-04 .9322E-01
360 0.00 0.000 0.060 0.3696 3.4831 .0000E+00 .1185 0.1142
.2152E-04 .9271E-01
Page 15
A1SR.OUT
361 0.00 0.000 0.058 0.3353 2.9091 .0000E+00 .1141 0.1233
.2325E-04 .9278E-01
362 0.00 0.000 0.074 0.2985 2.3500 .0000E+00 .1098 0.1895
.3571E-04 .9329E-01
363 0.56 0.000 0.063 0.3764 1.9796 .0000E+00 .1070 0.2887
.5442E-04 .9405E-01
364 0.39 0.000 0.063 0.4185 3.1242 .0000E+00 .1158 0.3914
.7377E-04 .9484E-01
365 0.00 0.000 0.052 0.3842 3.6522 .0000E+00 .1198 0.4176
.7872E-04 .9504E-01

************************************************************************************
****************

*******************************************************************************

MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

PRECIPITATION 1.44 3.88 2.94 1.20 1.91 5.16
4.38 5.28 3.89 4.33 0.00 6.42

RUNOFF 0.001 0.085 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.062
0.372 0.207 1.524 0.113 0.000 0.999

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 1.128 1.763 2.467 1.269 1.724 4.282
3.510 3.375 1.776 2.444 0.301 1.084

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 1.0134 1.0165 1.7077 0.0054 0.0867 0.9827
LAYER 2 0.5399 0.8809 0.8476 2.2985 0.0000 2.9363

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0037 0.0003 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005
FROM LAYER 4 0.0003 0.0007 0.0002 0.0031 0.0000 0.0008

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 1.6330 0.9281 1.8093 0.0248 0.0867 0.9822
LAYER 5 0.4465 0.9733 0.7122 2.4306 0.0000 2.2793

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.446 0.561 0.845 0.000 0.002 0.208
TOP OF LAYER 2 0.340 0.282 0.592 1.250 0.000 2.604

STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.838 1.147 1.217 0.001 0.004 0.377
HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 0.872 0.591 1.205 1.212 0.000 1.730

AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.638 0.056 0.233 0.002 0.004 0.095
TOP OF LAYER 5 0.043 0.124 0.039 0.530 0.000 0.136

STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.960 0.101 0.337 0.010 0.008 0.138
HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 0.105 0.204 0.068 0.434 0.000 0.111

*******************************************************************************
Page 16
A1SR.OUT

*******************************************************************************

ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
-------- ---------- -------
PRECIPITATION 40.83 1482128.750 100.00

RUNOFF 3.390 123053.687 8.30

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 25.124 912019.062 61.53

PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 12.315763 447062.187 30.16

AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 0.5942

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 0.0110 398.313 0.03

PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 12.306138 446712.812 30.14

AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 0.1583

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.002 -54.836 0.00

SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 152.375 5531201.500

SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 152.373 5531146.500

SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00

SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00

ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.277 0.00

*******************************************************************************
HEAD #1: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2
DRAIN #1: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 1 (RECIRCULATION AND COLLECTION)
LEAK #1: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
HEAD #2: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5
DRAIN #2: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 4 (RECIRCULATION AND COLLECTION)
LEAK #2: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5

************************************************************************************
****************
DAILY OUTPUT FOR YEAR 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
S
DAY A O RAIN RUNOFF ET E. ZONE HEAD DRAIN LEAK HEAD
DRAIN LEAK
I I WATER #1 #1 #1 #2
Page 17
A1SR.OUT

STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.390 0.119 0.721 0.145 0.488 0.091
HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 0.085 0.180 0.154 0.005 0.123 0.214

*******************************************************************************

*******************************************************************************

ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
-------- ---------- -------
PRECIPITATION 41.13 1493019.370 100.00

RUNOFF 7.082 257061.484 17.22

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 23.335 847061.000 56.73

PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 11.360364 412381.219 27.62

AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 0.6373

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 0.0086 312.976 0.02

PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 11.274283 409256.500 27.41

AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 0.1252

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.570 -20673.676 -1.38

SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 152.234 5526080.500

SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 151.980 5516880.500

SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.316 11473.495 0.77

SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00

ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 1.039 0.00

*******************************************************************************
HEAD #1: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2
DRAIN #1: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 1 (RECIRCULATION AND COLLECTION)
LEAK #1: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
HEAD #2: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5
DRAIN #2: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 4 (RECIRCULATION AND COLLECTION)
LEAK #2: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5

************************************************************************************
****************
DAILY OUTPUT FOR YEAR 100

Page 1343
A1SR.OUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
S
DAY A O RAIN RUNOFF ET E. ZONE HEAD DRAIN LEAK HEAD
DRAIN LEAK
I I WATER #1 #1 #1 #2
#2 #2
R L IN. IN. IN. IN./IN. IN. IN. IN. IN.
IN. IN.
--- - - ----- ------ ------ ------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- ---------
1 0.46 0.013 0.050 0.4618 3.9732 .0000E+00 .1223 0.0402
.7570E-05 .9177E-01
2 0.01 0.000 0.047 0.4289 4.5494 .0000E+00 .1267 0.1579
.2976E-04 .7009E-01
3 * 0.01 0.000 0.043 0.3980 3.9010 .0000E+00 .1217 0.1178
.2220E-04 .9274E-01
4 * 0.00 0.000 0.036 0.3673 3.3376 .0000E+00 .1174 0.0485
.9142E-05 .9221E-01
5 * 0.07 0.000 0.031 0.3485 2.8364 .0000E+00 .1135 0.0493
.9293E-05 .9222E-01
6 * 0.00 0.000 0.047 0.3211 2.3338 .0000E+00 .1097 0.0962
.1813E-04 .9258E-01
7 * 0.00 0.000 0.039 0.2919 1.8808 .0000E+00 .1062 0.1784
.3364E-04 .9321E-01
8 * 1.08 0.000 0.024 0.2753 1.4122 .0000E+00 .1026 0.2865
.5401E-04 .9403E-01
9 * 0.00 0.000 0.028 0.2593 1.0161 .0000E+00 .9962E-01 0.4223
.7960E-04 .9507E-01
10 * 0.00 0.000 0.029 0.2440 0.5938 .0000E+00 .9639E-01 0.5817
.1096E-03 .9629E-01
11 * 0.00 0.000 0.023 0.2292 0.2648 .0000E+00 .9387E-01 0.7581
.1429E-03 .9764E-01
12 * 0.00 0.000 0.026 0.2298 0.0136 .0000E+00 .1649E-01 0.9319
.1757E-03 .9897E-01
13 * 0.00 0.000 0.020 0.2333 0.0010 .0000E+00 .2431E-02 1.6774
.3162E-03 .1047
14 * 0.00 0.000 0.024 0.2368 0.0006 .0000E+00 .2079E-02 1.3501
.2545E-03 .1022
15 * 0.00 0.000 0.023 0.2401 0.0032 .0000E+00 .3224E-02 0.3381
.6252E-04 .6855E-01
16 * 0.12 0.000 0.024 0.2428 0.0043 .0000E+00 .6061E-02 0.0061
.1395E-06 .5352E-02
17 * * 0.17 0.000 0.019 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0040
.4954E-07 .1515E-02
18 * * 0.00 0.000 0.023 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
19 * * 0.00 0.000 0.028 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
20 * * 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
21 * * 0.53 0.000 0.021 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
22 * * 0.00 0.000 0.025 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
23 * * 0.00 0.000 0.022 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
24 * * 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.2428 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
25 * 0.00 0.102 0.000 0.2874 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
26 * 0.00 0.186 0.000 0.3214 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 1344
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
27 * * 0.08 0.000 0.029 0.3214 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
28 * 0.00 0.087 0.012 0.3368 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
29 * * 0.05 0.000 0.028 0.3368 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
30 * * 0.00 0.000 0.025 0.3368 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
31 * * 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.3368 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
32 * 0.28 0.649 0.000 0.3572 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
33 * 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.3572 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
34 * 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.3572 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
35 * * 0.03 0.000 0.030 0.3572 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
36 * 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.3572 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
37 0.00 0.000 0.084 0.3239 1.7000 .0000E+00 .8189E-01 0.1388
.2617E-04 .6994E-01
38 0.00 0.000 0.058 0.2904 2.2431 .0000E+00 .1090 0.1547
.2915E-04 .9302E-01
39 0.94 0.040 0.053 0.4382 2.1782 .0000E+00 .1085 0.2051
.3866E-04 .9341E-01
40 0.00 0.000 0.062 0.4012 4.0037 .0000E+00 .1225 0.2298
.4332E-04 .9360E-01
41 * 0.00 0.000 0.060 0.3655 3.4130 .0000E+00 .1180 0.1543
.2908E-04 .9302E-01
42 0.00 0.000 0.060 0.3307 2.8565 .0000E+00 .1137 0.1180
.2225E-04 .9274E-01
43 0.00 0.000 0.061 0.2966 2.3042 .0000E+00 .1095 0.1353
.2551E-04 .9288E-01
44 0.00 0.000 0.058 0.2639 1.7941 .0000E+00 .1056 0.1954
.3684E-04 .9334E-01
45 0.00 0.000 0.068 0.2299 1.3602 .0000E+00 .1023 0.2889
.5446E-04 .9405E-01
46 0.00 0.000 0.071 0.1960 0.9046 .0000E+00 .9876E-01 0.4084
.7698E-04 .9497E-01
47 0.11 0.000 0.079 0.1831 0.5080 .0000E+00 .9573E-01 0.5544
.1045E-03 .9608E-01
48 0.00 0.000 0.082 0.1528 0.1428 .0000E+00 .6993E-01 0.7261
.1369E-03 .9740E-01
49 0.00 0.000 0.066 0.1395 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.8511
.1604E-03 .9835E-01
50 0.00 0.000 0.065 0.1262 0.0021 .0000E+00 .1556E-02 0.1067
.1733E-04 .3323E-01
51 0.00 0.000 0.066 0.1130 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
52 0.00 0.000 0.045 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
53 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
54 0.78 0.002 0.061 0.2474 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
55 0.39 0.000 0.071 0.3016 0.3445 .0000E+00 .4856E-01 0.0348
.6326E-05 .3641E-01
56 0.18 0.000 0.076 0.3024 1.1364 .0000E+00 .1005 0.1577
.2973E-04 .9305E-01
57 0.00 0.000 0.097 0.2633 0.9009 .0000E+00 .9874E-01 0.2269
.4276E-04 .9358E-01
Page 1345
A1SR.OUT
58 0.00 0.000 0.081 0.2277 0.6999 .0000E+00 .9720E-01 0.2731
.5148E-04 .9393E-01
59 0.00 0.000 0.107 0.1874 0.3834 .0000E+00 .9478E-01 0.2965
.5588E-04 .9411E-01
60 0.86 0.011 0.095 0.3300 0.0583 .0000E+00 .3982E-01 0.1187
.2198E-04 .5839E-01
61 0.00 0.000 0.097 0.2902 1.3656 .0000E+00 .1023 0.1423
.2682E-04 .9293E-01
62 0.00 0.000 0.109 0.2480 1.3135 .0000E+00 .1019 0.2360
.4449E-04 .9365E-01
63 0.13 0.000 0.106 0.2332 0.8760 .0000E+00 .9855E-01 0.3067
.5781E-04 .9419E-01
64 0.00 0.000 0.094 0.1953 0.4738 .0000E+00 .9547E-01 0.3386
.6382E-04 .9443E-01
65 0.00 0.000 0.099 0.1634 0.1138 .0000E+00 .6006E-01 0.2106
.3960E-04 .9279E-01
66 0.00 0.000 0.138 0.1357 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
67 0.00 0.000 0.121 0.1116 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
68 0.00 0.000 0.038 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
69 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
70 0.59 0.000 0.071 0.2079 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
71 0.00 0.000 0.144 0.1791 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
72 0.00 0.000 0.105 0.1582 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
73 0.00 0.000 0.096 0.1391 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
74 0.00 0.000 0.104 0.1183 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
75 0.00 0.000 0.061 0.1061 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
76 0.00 0.000 0.011 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
77 0.66 0.000 0.060 0.2240 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
78 0.00 0.000 0.110 0.2020 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
79 0.00 0.000 0.126 0.1767 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
80 0.00 0.000 0.126 0.1516 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
81 0.00 0.000 0.148 0.1220 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
82 0.06 0.000 0.103 0.1134 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
83 0.12 0.000 0.042 0.1290 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
84 0.00 0.000 0.062 0.1167 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
85 0.70 0.000 0.075 0.2416 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
86 1.22 0.202 0.128 0.4095 0.7192 .0000E+00 .5142E-01 0.0404
.7200E-05 .5142E-01
87 0.15 0.000 0.126 0.3908 3.3550 .0000E+00 .1175 0.1939
.3656E-04 .7037E-01
88 0.02 0.000 0.087 0.3546 2.9393 .0000E+00 .1143 0.2229
.4202E-04 .9355E-01
89 0.00 0.000 0.117 0.3091 2.4391 .0000E+00 .1105 0.2185
Page 1346
A1SR.OUT
.4118E-04 .9351E-01
90 0.00 0.000 0.127 0.2624 1.9059 .0000E+00 .1064 0.2555
.4816E-04 .9380E-01
91 0.77 0.009 0.089 0.3765 1.4179 .0000E+00 .1027 0.3305
.6229E-04 .9437E-01
92 0.00 0.000 0.093 0.3353 2.6645 .0000E+00 .1122 0.4126
.7778E-04 .9500E-01
93 0.33 0.000 0.099 0.3598 2.2651 .0000E+00 .1092 0.4262
.8033E-04 .9510E-01
94 0.07 0.000 0.090 0.3338 2.3683 .0000E+00 .1100 0.4549
.8575E-04 .9532E-01
95 0.00 0.000 0.138 0.2850 1.8883 .0000E+00 .1063 0.4857
.9155E-04 .9556E-01
96 0.11 0.000 0.132 0.2602 1.3848 .0000E+00 .1024 0.5486
.1034E-03 .9604E-01
97 0.00 0.000 0.160 0.2084 0.9142 .0000E+00 .9884E-01 0.6444
.1215E-03 .9677E-01
98 0.00 0.000 0.117 0.1657 0.5123 .0000E+00 .9576E-01 0.7698
.1451E-03 .9773E-01
99 0.00 0.000 0.168 0.1222 0.1225 .0000E+00 .4942E-01 0.9159
.1727E-03 .9885E-01
100 0.00 0.000 0.091 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.8521
.1606E-03 .9836E-01
101 0.01 0.000 0.010 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0527
.8501E-05 .2001E-01
102 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
103 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
104 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
105 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
106 0.31 0.000 0.031 0.1599 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
107 0.00 0.000 0.036 0.1526 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
108 0.13 0.000 0.043 0.1700 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
109 0.00 0.000 0.119 0.1461 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
110 0.00 0.000 0.041 0.1380 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
111 0.00 0.000 0.037 0.1305 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
112 0.00 0.000 0.034 0.1237 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
113 0.00 0.000 0.032 0.1172 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
114 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.1110 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
115 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.1055 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
116 0.00 0.000 0.006 0.1043 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
117 0.00 0.000 0.002 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
118 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
119 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
120 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
Page 1347
A1SR.OUT
121 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
122 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
123 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
124 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
125 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
126 0.01 0.000 0.006 0.1049 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
127 0.00 0.000 0.002 0.1045 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
128 0.00 0.000 0.002 0.1041 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
129 0.00 0.000 0.001 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
130 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
131 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
132 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
133 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
134 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
135 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
136 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
137 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
138 0.51 0.000 0.017 0.2027 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
139 0.18 0.000 0.021 0.2345 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
140 0.00 0.000 0.018 0.2309 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
141 0.00 0.000 0.019 0.2272 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
142 0.00 0.000 0.018 0.2224 0.0000 .0000E+00 .5517E-02 0.0073
.1642E-06 .5517E-02
143 0.00 0.000 0.018 0.2163 0.0041 .0000E+00 .1251E-01 0.0165
.8429E-06 .1251E-01
144 1.15 0.085 0.022 0.4135 0.5012 .0000E+00 .5700E-01 0.0513
.9270E-05 .5700E-01
145 1.61 0.998 0.190 0.4730 4.4003 .0000E+00 .1255 0.1880
.3544E-04 .7032E-01
146 0.02 0.016 0.218 0.4051 4.5027 .0000E+00 .1263 0.1562
.2945E-04 .9304E-01
147 0.17 0.000 0.202 0.3751 3.4642 .0000E+00 .1184 0.0342
.6445E-05 .6899E-01
148 0.00 0.000 0.236 0.3053 2.7077 .0000E+00 .1126 0.2300
.4336E-04 .9360E-01
149 0.00 0.000 0.173 0.2492 2.0504 .0000E+00 .1075 0.2539
.4786E-04 .9378E-01
150 0.00 0.000 0.161 0.1965 1.4003 .0000E+00 .1026 0.3269
.6162E-04 .9434E-01
151 0.00 0.000 0.174 0.1422 0.7404 .0000E+00 .9751E-01 0.4445
.8378E-04 .9524E-01
152 0.00 0.000 0.167 0.1040 0.1133 .0000E+00 .2367E-01 0.6015
Page 1348
A1SR.OUT
.1134E-03 .9644E-01
153 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.7400
.1395E-03 .9750E-01
154 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0268
.2220E-05 .1018E-01
155 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
156 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
157 0.12 0.000 0.029 0.1223 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
158 0.02 0.000 0.026 0.1212 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
159 0.00 0.000 0.032 0.1148 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
160 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.1086 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
161 0.00 0.000 0.017 0.1051 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
162 0.13 0.000 0.024 0.1262 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
163 0.00 0.000 0.017 0.1229 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
164 2.02 0.398 0.038 0.4351 0.0404 .0000E+00 .2327E-01 0.0306
.2909E-05 .2327E-01
165 0.23 0.000 0.257 0.4055 3.8395 .0000E+00 .1212 0.1884
.3552E-04 .7032E-01
166 0.00 0.000 0.279 0.3266 3.1574 .0000E+00 .1160 0.1862
.3510E-04 .9327E-01
167 0.00 0.000 0.283 0.2482 2.2283 .0000E+00 .1089 0.1727
.3256E-04 .9316E-01
168 0.00 0.000 0.266 0.1747 1.2630 .0000E+00 .1015 0.2351
.4431E-04 .9364E-01
169 0.00 0.000 0.258 0.1134 0.3569 .0000E+00 .4827E-01 0.3934
.7416E-04 .9485E-01
170 0.00 0.000 0.047 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.2100
.3831E-04 .5040E-01
171 0.09 0.000 0.032 0.1157 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
172 0.76 0.002 0.063 0.2547 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
173 0.00 0.000 0.265 0.1925 0.1038 .0000E+00 .4672E-01 0.0311
.5833E-05 .3503E-01
174 0.00 0.000 0.245 0.1404 0.0171 .0000E+00 .1518E-01 0.0407
.4483E-05 .2306E-01
175 0.00 0.000 0.182 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0100
.3099E-06 .3794E-02
176 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
177 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
178 3.38 1.441 0.070 0.4730 0.1594 .0000E+00 .2418E-01 0.0318
.3141E-05 .2418E-01
179 0.00 0.000 0.240 0.3997 4.4645 .0000E+00 .1260 0.1879
.3543E-04 .7032E-01
180 0.00 0.000 0.269 0.3226 3.2728 .0000E+00 .1169 0.1504
.2835E-04 .9299E-01
181 0.00 0.000 0.199 0.2608 2.3733 .0000E+00 .1100 0.1176
.2217E-04 .9274E-01
182 0.00 0.000 0.184 0.2031 1.6174 .0000E+00 .1042 0.1716
.3235E-04 .9315E-01
183 0.00 0.000 0.191 0.1453 0.8291 .0000E+00 .9819E-01 0.2807
.5292E-04 .9399E-01
Page 1349
A1SR.OUT
184 0.10 0.000 0.219 0.1166 0.1499 .0000E+00 .2476E-01 0.4485
.8455E-04 .9527E-01
185 0.01 0.000 0.061 0.1064 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1549
.2704E-04 .4131E-01
186 0.16 0.000 0.104 0.1177 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
187 0.00 0.000 0.044 0.1089 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
188 0.00 0.000 0.018 0.1053 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
189 0.68 0.000 0.053 0.2308 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
190 0.70 0.025 0.114 0.3335 0.2328 .0000E+00 .4770E-01 0.0331
.6091E-05 .4770E-01
191 0.00 0.000 0.216 0.2698 1.3555 .0000E+00 .1022 0.2179
.4108E-04 .7055E-01
192 0.00 0.000 0.267 0.1965 1.0395 .0000E+00 .9980E-01 0.3537
.6668E-04 .9455E-01
193 0.03 0.000 0.199 0.1435 0.5699 .0000E+00 .9620E-01 0.3926
.7401E-04 .9485E-01
194 0.00 0.000 0.171 0.1046 0.1000 .0000E+00 .2361E-01 0.1608
.2946E-04 .6167E-01
195 0.12 0.000 0.073 0.1139 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
196 0.00 0.000 0.034 0.1072 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
197 0.28 0.000 0.053 0.1527 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
198 0.19 0.000 0.052 0.1802 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
199 0.09 0.000 0.118 0.1746 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
200 0.32 0.000 0.137 0.2112 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
201 0.02 0.000 0.141 0.1871 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
202 0.00 0.000 0.222 0.1426 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
203 1.36 0.114 0.194 0.3531 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
204 1.06 0.206 0.197 0.4618 2.7709 .0000E+00 .1130 0.2027
.3820E-04 .7043E-01
205 0.23 0.013 0.238 0.4324 4.5195 .0000E+00 .1264 0.2521
.4753E-04 .9377E-01
206 0.04 0.000 0.220 0.3722 3.7458 .0000E+00 .1205 0.1460
.2753E-04 .9296E-01
207 0.00 0.000 0.196 0.3102 2.9575 .0000E+00 .1145 0.0728
.1373E-04 .9240E-01
208 0.00 0.000 0.178 0.2528 2.2103 .0000E+00 .1088 0.0876
.1651E-04 .9251E-01
209 0.00 0.000 0.234 0.1856 1.3841 .0000E+00 .1024 0.1623
.3059E-04 .9308E-01
210 0.00 0.000 0.234 0.1237 0.4894 .0000E+00 .7489E-01 0.3129
.5899E-04 .9424E-01
211 0.00 0.000 0.098 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.6074
.1145E-03 .9649E-01
212 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1183
.1945E-04 .3430E-01
213 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
214 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
215 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 1350
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
216 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
217 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
218 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
219 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
220 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
221 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
222 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
223 1.20 0.064 0.052 0.3207 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
224 0.38 0.000 0.247 0.3317 1.2162 .0000E+00 .7819E-01 0.1244
.2345E-04 .6983E-01
225 0.41 0.000 0.169 0.3586 1.9844 .0000E+00 .1070 0.1219
.2298E-04 .9277E-01
226 0.00 0.000 0.215 0.2940 2.1253 .0000E+00 .1081 0.1906
.3592E-04 .9330E-01
227 0.00 0.000 0.242 0.2247 1.6069 .0000E+00 .1041 0.2520
.4750E-04 .9377E-01
228 0.00 0.000 0.177 0.1695 1.0036 .0000E+00 .9952E-01 0.3475
.6551E-04 .9450E-01
229 1.46 0.150 0.101 0.3920 0.4786 .0000E+00 .9550E-01 0.4798
.9044E-04 .9551E-01
230 1.13 0.496 0.107 0.4730 3.9647 .0000E+00 .1222 0.5466
.1030E-03 .9602E-01
231 0.34 0.332 0.185 0.4123 4.5540 .0000E+00 .1267 0.4502
.8486E-04 .9529E-01
232 0.05 0.000 0.162 0.3661 3.5712 .0000E+00 .1192 0.3131
.5902E-04 .9424E-01
233 0.01 0.000 0.174 0.3106 2.9027 .0000E+00 .1141 0.2390
.4506E-04 .9367E-01
234 0.00 0.000 0.216 0.2457 2.1700 .0000E+00 .1084 0.2482
.4679E-04 .9374E-01
235 0.00 0.000 0.178 0.1897 1.3742 .0000E+00 .1024 0.3143
.5925E-04 .9425E-01
236 0.00 0.000 0.241 0.1237 0.5302 .0000E+00 .8873E-01 0.4509
.8499E-04 .9529E-01
237 0.75 0.001 0.199 0.2337 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.7088
.1336E-03 .9727E-01
238 0.98 0.098 0.195 0.3613 0.3957 .0000E+00 .4895E-01 0.5860
.1105E-03 .9633E-01
239 0.02 0.000 0.106 0.3222 2.2787 .0000E+00 .1093 0.3008
.5671E-04 .9414E-01
240 0.17 0.000 0.157 0.3035 1.9000 .0000E+00 .1064 0.3417
.6441E-04 .9446E-01
241 0.76 0.027 0.135 0.4019 1.8376 .0000E+00 .1059 0.3996
.7532E-04 .9490E-01
242 0.00 0.000 0.152 0.3483 3.1175 .0000E+00 .1157 0.4398
.8291E-04 .9521E-01
243 0.00 0.000 0.182 0.2897 2.5218 .0000E+00 .1111 0.4132
.7789E-04 .9500E-01
244 0.00 0.000 0.187 0.2311 1.8400 .0000E+00 .1059 0.4298
.8101E-04 .9513E-01
245 0.00 0.000 0.178 0.1754 1.1306 .0000E+00 .1005 0.4992
.9411E-04 .9566E-01
246 0.00 0.000 0.191 0.1227 0.4126 .0000E+00 .7185E-01 0.6333
.1194E-03 .9669E-01
Page 1351
A1SR.OUT
247 0.00 0.000 0.094 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.5406
.9997E-04 .9104E-01
248 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .2602E-16
249 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
250 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
251 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
252 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
253 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
254 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
255 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
256 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
257 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
258 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
259 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
260 0.01 0.000 0.010 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
261 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
262 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
263 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
264 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
265 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
266 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
267 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
268 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
269 0.72 0.000 0.031 0.2418 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
270 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.2335 0.0122 .0000E+00 .1439E-01 0.0189
.1114E-05 .1438E-01
271 0.00 0.000 0.027 0.2250 0.0047 .0000E+00 .1526E-01 0.0201
.1254E-05 .1526E-01
272 0.00 0.000 0.025 0.2160 0.0107 .0000E+00 .2003E-01 0.0264
.2158E-05 .2003E-01
273 0.00 0.000 0.025 0.2083 0.0067 .0000E+00 .1372E-01 0.0180
.1013E-05 .1372E-01
274 0.01 0.000 0.029 0.2030 0.0038 .0000E+00 .7073E-02 0.0093
.2698E-06 .7073E-02
275 0.00 0.000 0.022 0.1986 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
276 0.00 0.000 0.022 0.1942 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
277 0.00 0.000 0.022 0.1898 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
278 0.00 0.000 0.021 0.1856 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 1352
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
279 0.00 0.000 0.020 0.1815 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
280 0.00 0.000 0.020 0.1775 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
281 0.05 0.000 0.030 0.1815 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
282 0.00 0.000 0.019 0.1776 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
283 0.01 0.000 0.025 0.1746 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
284 0.00 0.000 0.018 0.1710 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
285 0.00 0.000 0.016 0.1679 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
286 0.00 0.000 0.018 0.1643 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
287 0.00 0.000 0.017 0.1608 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
288 0.00 0.000 0.017 0.1574 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
289 0.00 0.000 0.017 0.1540 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
290 0.00 0.000 0.016 0.1508 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
291 0.00 0.000 0.016 0.1475 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
292 0.00 0.000 0.016 0.1444 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
293 0.00 0.000 0.016 0.1413 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
294 0.00 0.000 0.015 0.1382 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
295 0.00 0.000 0.015 0.1352 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
296 0.00 0.000 0.015 0.1322 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
297 0.00 0.000 0.015 0.1293 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
298 0.00 0.000 0.014 0.1264 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
299 0.00 0.000 0.014 0.1235 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
300 0.00 0.000 0.014 0.1207 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
301 2.65 0.839 0.025 0.4730 0.1593 .0000E+00 .2418E-01 0.0318
.3141E-05 .2418E-01
302 0.00 0.000 0.086 0.4302 4.6837 .0000E+00 .1277 0.1877
.3539E-04 .7032E-01
303 0.00 0.000 0.117 0.3825 3.8513 .0000E+00 .1213 0.1400
.2639E-04 .9291E-01
304 0.00 0.000 0.082 0.3429 3.1324 .0000E+00 .1158 0.0514
.9692E-05 .9223E-01
305 0.00 0.000 0.093 0.3020 2.5532 .0000E+00 .1114 0.0489
.9215E-05 .9222E-01
306 0.00 0.000 0.091 0.2624 2.0362 .0000E+00 .1074 0.0967
.1822E-04 .9258E-01
307 0.00 0.000 0.086 0.2245 1.4906 .0000E+00 .1032 0.1809
.3410E-04 .9323E-01
308 0.00 0.000 0.071 0.1902 1.0498 .0000E+00 .9988E-01 0.2995
.5646E-04 .9413E-01
309 0.00 0.000 0.086 0.1537 0.6061 .0000E+00 .9648E-01 0.4448
.8385E-04 .9525E-01
Page 1353
A1SR.OUT
310 0.00 0.000 0.091 0.1220 0.1805 .0000E+00 .6714E-01 0.6191
.1167E-03 .9658E-01
311 0.00 0.000 0.070 0.1080 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.8019
.1512E-03 .9798E-01
312 0.02 0.000 0.030 0.1060 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.1084
.1773E-04 .3239E-01
313 0.00 0.000 0.005 0.1051 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
314 0.00 0.000 0.004 0.1043 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
315 0.00 0.000 0.001 0.1041 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
316 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
317 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
318 0.13 0.000 0.027 0.1246 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
319 0.00 0.000 0.018 0.1210 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
320 0.00 0.000 0.030 0.1149 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
321 0.00 0.000 0.032 0.1085 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
322 0.00 0.000 0.014 0.1057 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
323 0.00 0.000 0.007 0.1044 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
324 0.00 0.000 0.002 0.1041 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
325 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.1040 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
326 0.94 0.016 0.041 0.2806 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
327 0.00 0.000 0.051 0.2558 0.5735 .0000E+00 .7327E-01 0.1052
.1984E-04 .6969E-01
328 0.00 0.000 0.056 0.2253 0.6211 .0000E+00 .9659E-01 0.0549
.1035E-04 .9226E-01
329 0.00 0.000 0.044 0.1977 0.3141 .0000E+00 .9425E-01 0.0899
.1694E-04 .9253E-01
330 0.00 0.000 0.044 0.1831 0.0321 .0000E+00 .2930E-01 0.0445
.5777E-05 .3156E-01
331 * 0.00 0.000 0.038 0.1756 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0193
.1152E-05 .7324E-02
332 * 0.00 0.000 0.034 0.1687 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
333 0.22 0.000 0.041 0.2045 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
334 0.00 0.000 0.042 0.1961 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
335 0.00 0.000 0.045 0.1870 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
336 0.00 0.000 0.045 0.1781 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
337 0.00 0.000 0.047 0.1686 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
338 0.00 0.000 0.044 0.1597 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
339 0.00 0.000 0.047 0.1503 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
340 * 0.00 0.000 0.037 0.1429 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
341 0.00 0.000 0.045 0.1339 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
Page 1354
A1SR.OUT
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
342 * 0.00 0.000 0.031 0.1277 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
343 0.00 0.000 0.038 0.1201 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
344 0.66 0.000 0.052 0.2417 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
345 0.00 0.000 0.059 0.2299 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
346 0.00 0.000 0.044 0.2183 0.0060 .0000E+00 .1420E-01 0.0187
.1086E-05 .1420E-01
347 0.00 0.000 0.039 0.2063 0.0110 .0000E+00 .2035E-01 0.0268
.2226E-05 .2035E-01
348 0.00 0.000 0.038 0.1960 0.0073 .0000E+00 .1302E-01 0.0171
.9136E-06 .1302E-01
349 0.00 0.000 0.051 0.1851 0.0019 .0000E+00 .3549E-02 0.0047
.6796E-07 .3549E-02
350 0.00 0.000 0.038 0.1774 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
351 0.01 0.000 0.047 0.1700 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
352 0.00 0.000 0.044 0.1611 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
353 0.00 0.000 0.046 0.1520 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
354 0.00 0.000 0.062 0.1397 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
355 0.00 0.000 0.051 0.1294 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
356 0.00 0.000 0.054 0.1186 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
357 0.14 0.000 0.055 0.1355 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
358 0.33 0.000 0.057 0.1901 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
359 0.00 0.000 0.046 0.1809 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
360 0.00 0.000 0.046 0.1717 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
361 0.00 0.000 0.052 0.1612 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
362 0.00 0.000 0.053 0.1507 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
363 0.00 0.000 0.051 0.1405 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
364 0.00 0.000 0.060 0.1285 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
365 0.00 0.000 0.059 0.1167 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00
366 0.00 0.000 0.041 0.1086 0.0000 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 0.0000
.0000E+00 .0000E+00

************************************************************************************
****************

*******************************************************************************

MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 1355
A1SR.OUT
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

PRECIPITATION 2.58 3.57 4.42 0.96 3.65 6.75
5.39 7.66 0.74 2.71 1.31 1.14

RUNOFF 0.388 0.702 0.210 0.000 1.098 1.841
0.358 1.169 0.000 0.839 0.016 0.000

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 0.832 1.656 2.916 1.538 1.663 3.351
4.275 3.778 0.638 0.875 1.101 1.481

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 1.2403 1.7165 1.0612 0.7841 0.8890 1.0624
LAYER 2 1.2530 2.0774 0.2428 0.5004 0.7676 0.0511

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.0013 0.0010 0.0005 0.0010 0.0004 0.0005
FROM LAYER 4 0.0007 0.0015 0.0003 0.0001 0.0005 0.0000

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 1.3891 1.7055 0.9650 0.8887 0.7808 1.0619
LAYER 5 1.3601 1.9646 0.3539 0.3719 0.8955 0.0511

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.843 0.929 0.546 0.404 0.641 0.763
TOP OF LAYER 2 0.721 1.335 0.053 0.464 0.230 0.001

STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 1.430 1.162 0.955 0.821 1.332 1.350
HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 1.236 1.352 0.217 1.244 0.495 0.003

AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON 0.227 0.185 0.081 0.185 0.075 0.097
TOP OF LAYER 5 0.129 0.248 0.059 0.015 0.096 0.002

STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY 0.419 0.216 0.121 0.302 0.150 0.158
HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 0.162 0.212 0.170 0.042 0.196 0.006

*******************************************************************************

*******************************************************************************

ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
-------- ---------- -------
PRECIPITATION 40.88 1483943.750 100.00

RUNOFF 6.621 240348.000 16.20

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 24.104 874983.375 58.96

PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 11.645817 422743.156 28.49

AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 0.5774

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 0.0080 288.937 0.02

PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 11.787998 427904.344 28.84

Page 1356
A1SR.OUT
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 0.1166

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -1.641 -59580.168 -4.01

SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 151.980 5516880.500

SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 150.339 5457300.500

SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00

SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000 0.00

ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.727 0.00

*******************************************************************************

*******************************************************************************

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
PRECIPITATION
-------------
TOTALS 3.46 3.46 4.14 3.02 3.20 3.83
4.43 4.33 3.83 3.11 2.68 3.18

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.75 1.75 1.93 1.43 1.66 2.04
2.01 2.19 2.50 2.02 1.61 1.98

RUNOFF
------
TOTALS 0.498 0.605 0.507 0.140 0.288 0.360
0.346 0.480 0.758 0.554 0.291 0.503

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.786 1.112 0.848 0.269 0.607 0.659
0.584 0.752 1.148 0.839 0.635 0.947

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
------------------
TOTALS 1.277 1.575 2.404 2.284 2.310 2.722
3.272 2.961 2.043 1.480 1.297 1.202

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.313 0.379 0.599 0.836 0.922 1.173
1.116 1.010 0.989 0.699 0.432 0.273

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
------------------------------------
TOTALS 1.5043 1.5230 1.3939 0.6912 0.6872 0.7064
0.8282 0.8431 0.9368 1.0458 0.9812 1.3842

STD. DEVIATIONS 1.0239 0.8813 0.8448 0.5729 0.4765 0.4955
0.5684 0.6085 0.6709 0.7361 0.8075 0.9095

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4
----------------------------------------
TOTALS 0.0017 0.0018 0.0015 0.0006 0.0004 0.0004
Page 1357
A1SR.OUT
0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0009 0.0008 0.0013

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0018 0.0021 0.0014 0.0008 0.0004 0.0004
0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0010 0.0010 0.0014

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5
------------------------------------
TOTALS 1.5084 1.5236 1.4156 0.7444 0.6944 0.7021
0.8219 0.8352 0.9157 1.0432 0.9661 1.3503

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.9719 0.8397 0.7896 0.5888 0.4705 0.4934
0.5485 0.5889 0.6229 0.7239 0.7603 0.8356

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2
-------------------------------------
AVERAGES 0.9111 0.9360 0.7931 0.3257 0.3395 0.3580
0.4103 0.4553 0.5745 0.6221 0.5535 0.7891

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.8469 0.7491 0.6505 0.4087 0.3482 0.3394
0.4250 0.4678 0.5420 0.5493 0.6506 0.7331

DAILY AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5
-------------------------------------
AVERAGES 0.2887 0.3320 0.2522 0.1152 0.0753 0.0755
0.0861 0.0930 0.1053 0.1487 0.1414 0.2234

STD. DEVIATIONS 0.3158 0.3843 0.2358 0.1403 0.0688 0.0678
0.0740 0.0927 0.0865 0.1770 0.1823 0.2381

*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
------------------- ------------- ---------
PRECIPITATION 42.67 ( 6.674) 1548913.9 100.00

RUNOFF 5.330 ( 2.6690) 193479.33 12.491

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 24.828 ( 2.7284) 901264.81 58.187

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 12.52534 ( 2.76046) 454669.906 29.35411
LAYER 2

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0.589 ( 0.185)
OF LAYER 2

LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED 0.01100 ( 0.00451) 399.471 0.02579
FROM LAYER 4

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 12.52092 ( 2.74339) 454509.250 29.34374
LAYER 5

Page 1358
A1SR.OUT
AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP 0.161 ( 0.066)
OF LAYER 5

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.020 ( 0.9042) -739.01 -0.048

*******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(INCHES) (CU. FT.)
---------- -------------
PRECIPITATION 5.93 215259.000

RUNOFF 3.981 144498.7190

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 0.130109 4722.94922

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 2 5.000

DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 4 0.00101 36.78700

PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 5 0.132987 4827.42773

AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 5.376

MAXIMUM HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 5 10.306
LOCATION OF MAXIMUM HEAD IN LAYER 4
(DISTANCE FROM DRAIN) 58.7 FEET

SNOW WATER 4.65 168785.3750

MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.4730

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.1040

*** Maximum heads are computed using McEnroe's equations. ***
Reference: Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Liner
by Bruce M. McEnroe, University of Kansas
ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering
Vol. 119, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 262-270.

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)
----- -------- ---------
Page 1359
A1SR.OUT
1 0.5429 0.1086
2 4.3800 0.3650
3 140.1600 0.0730
4 0.8760 0.0730
5 4.3800 0.3650
SNOW WATER 0.000

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Page 1360
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3F
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
Stages 1 – 4 Airspace Analyses

CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD Page 1/4
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 10
STAGE 1 - Phase 4 Fill to Stage 1 Fill REVISED 5-15-2018
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum.Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac. Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
760 12,132.1 0.279 344,330.5 344,330.5 12,753.0
770 56,734.0 1.302 607,788.5 952,119.0 35,263.7780 64,823.7 1.488 679,924.5 1,632,043.5 60,446.1790 71,161.2 1.634 671,893.5 2,303,937.0 85,331.0
800 63,217.5 1.451 615,323.5 2,919,260.5 108,120.8
810 59,847.2 1.374 617,473.5 3,536,734.0 130,990.1
820 63,647.5 1.461 606,242.5 4,142,976.5 153,443.6
830 57,601.0 1.322 547,950.0 4,690,926.5 173,738.0
840 51,989.0 1.194 565,526.5 5,256,453.0 194,683.4
850 61,116.3 1.403 579,022.0 5,835,475.0 216,128.7
860 54,688.1 1.255 546,697.0 6,382,172.0 236,376.7
870 54,651.3 1.255 589,183.0 6,971,355.0 258,198.3
880 63,185.3 1.451 583,345.0 7,554,700.0 279,803.7
890 53,483.7 1.228 488,271.5 8,042,971.5 297,887.8900 44,170.6 1.014 391,386.5 8,434,358.0 312,383.6902 10,533.4 0.242 24,611.9 8,458,969.9 313,295.2904 15,575.1 0.358 15,575.1 8,474,545.0 313,872.0
906 10,500.1 0.241 10,500.1 8,485,045.1 314,260.9
910 61,872.0 1.420 123,744.0 8,608,789.1 318,844.0
920 34,106.7 0.783 240,926.0 8,675,284.0 321,306.8
930 14,078.5 0.323 70,392.5 8,745,676.5 323,913.9
940 0.0 0.000 0.0 8,745,676.5 323,913.9
8,745,676.5 323,913.9 TOTAL VOLUME
Wood E&IS/David Garrett 5-16-2018 A-1 Sandrock CDLF Stages 1-4
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD Page 1/4
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 10
STAGE 2 - Stage 1 Fill to Stage 2 Fill REVISED 5-16-2018
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum.Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac. Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
770 9,562.0 0.220 355,318.5 355,318.5 13,159.9
780 61,501.7 1.412 995,870.0 1,351,188.5 50,044.0790 137,672.3 3.161 1,691,457.0 3,042,645.5 112,690.6800 200,619.1 4.606 2,039,676.5 5,082,322.0 188,234.1
810 207,316.2 4.759 2,059,881.0 7,142,203.0 264,526.0
820 204,660.0 4.698 1,992,393.5 9,134,596.5 338,318.4
830 193,818.7 4.449 1,884,564.5 11,019,161.0 408,117.1
840 183,094.2 4.203 1,776,172.0 12,795,333.0 473,901.2
850 172,140.2 3.952 1,661,945.0 14,457,278.0 535,454.7
860 160,248.8 3.679 1,547,731.0 16,005,009.0 592,778.1
870 149,297.4 3.427 1,402,359.0 17,407,368.0 644,717.3
880 131,174.4 3.011 1,222,133.5 18,629,501.5 689,981.5
890 113,252.3 2.600 1,044,618.0 19,674,119.5 728,671.1
900 95,671.3 2.196 867,540.5 20,541,660.0 760,802.2910 77,836.8 1.787 683,562.0 21,225,222.0 786,119.3920 58,875.6 1.352 495,823.5 21,721,045.5 804,483.2930 40,289.1 0.925 325,249.0 22,046,294.5 816,529.4
940 24,760.7 0.568 156,546.0 22,202,840.5 822,327.4
950 6,548.5 0.150 32,742.5 22,235,583.0 823,540.1
952 0.0 0.000 0.0 22,235,583.0 823,540.1 TOTAL VOLUME
Wood E&IS/David Garrett 5-16-2018 A-1 Sandrock CDLF Stages 1-4
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD Page 1/4
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 10 2
STAGE 3 - Stage 2 Fill to Stage 3 Fill REVISED 5-16-2018
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum.Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac. Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
820 86,844.4 1.994 1,032,425.0 1,032,425.0 38,238.0
830 119,640.6 2.747 1,193,669.0 2,226,094.0 82,447.9840 119,093.2 2.734 1,139,957.5 3,366,051.5 124,668.6850 108,898.3 2.500 1,033,904.0 4,399,955.5 162,961.3
860 97,882.5 2.247 915,687.5 5,315,643.0 196,875.7
870 85,255.0 1.957 814,781.5 6,130,424.5 227,052.8
880 77,701.3 1.784 731,531.0 6,861,955.5 254,146.5
890 68,604.9 1.575 637,358.5 7,499,314.0 277,752.4
900 58,866.8 1.351 530,773.0 8,030,087.0 297,410.6
910 47,287.8 1.086 425,411.0 8,455,498.0 313,166.6
920 37,794.4 0.868 343,316.0 8,798,814.0 325,882.0
930 30,868.8 0.709 263,751.5 9,062,565.5 335,650.6
940 21,881.5 0.502 177,884.0 9,240,449.5 342,238.9
950 13,695.3 0.314 68,476.5 9,308,926.0 344,775.0950 0.0 0.000 0.0 9,308,926.0 344,775.0
0.000 0.0 9,308,926.0 344,775.0 TOTAL VOLUME
Wood E&IS/David Garrett 5-16-2018 A-1 Sandrock CDLF Stages 1-4
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD Page 1/4
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 10 2
STAGE 4 - Stage 3 Fill to Stage 4 Fill REVISED 5-16-2018
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum.Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac. Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
830 87,787.9 2.015 1,005,439.0 1,005,439.0 37,238.5
840 113,299.9 2.601 1,289,351.5 2,294,790.5 84,992.2850 144,570.4 3.319 1,546,907.0 3,841,697.5 142,285.1860 164,811.0 3.784 1,607,310.5 5,449,008.0 201,815.1
870 156,651.1 3.596 1,527,681.5 6,976,689.5 258,395.9
880 148,885.2 3.418 1,453,613.0 8,430,302.5 312,233.4
890 141,837.4 3.256 1,383,428.0 9,813,730.5 363,471.5
900 134,848.2 3.096 1,311,975.0 11,125,705.5 412,063.2
910 127,546.8 2.928 1,227,967.5 12,353,673.0 457,543.4
920 118,046.7 2.710 1,113,390.0 13,467,063.0 498,780.1
930 104,631.3 2.402 971,951.0 14,439,014.0 534,778.3
940 89,758.9 2.061 817,885.0 15,256,899.0 565,070.3
950 73,818.1 1.695 662,256.0 15,919,155.0 589,598.3
952 58,633.1 1.346 90,160.4 16,009,315.4 592,937.6954 31,527.3 0.724 44,081.2 16,053,396.6 594,570.2956 12,553.9 0.288 12,553.9 16,065,950.5 595,035.2958 0.0 0.000 0.0 16,065,950.5 595,035.2
0 0.0 0.000 0.0 16,065,950.5 595,035.2
0 0.0 0.000 0.0 16,065,950.5 595,035.2
0 0.0 0.000 0.0 16,065,950.5 595,035.2
0 0.0 0.000 0.0 16,065,950.5 595,035.2
0 0.0 0.000 0.0 16,065,950.5 595,035.2
0.000 0.0 16,065,950.5 595,035.2 TOTAL VOLUME
Wood E&IS/David Garrett 5-16-2018 A-1 Sandrock CDLF Stages 1-4
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3G
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
Test Boring Logs

FILL: Tan gray, moist to dry, clayey SAND (SC)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, silty, fine to medium SAND(SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Orange-tan GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 43.4 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
753.0
748.0
743.0
738.0
733.0
728.0
723.0
718.0
713.0
708.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
17+00
816089.0 US ft
1748864.0 US ft
February 28, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan gray, moist to dry, clayey SAND (SC)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, silty, fine to medium SAND(SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Orange-tan GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 15.5 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
754.0
749.0
744.0
739.0
734.0
729.0
724.0
719.0
714.0
709.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
18+00
816184.0 US ft
1748885.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan gray, moist to dry, clayey SAND (SC)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, silty, fine to medium SAND(SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Orange-tan GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 18.2 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
756.0
751.0
746.0
741.0
736.0
731.0
726.0
721.0
716.0
711.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
19+00
816283.0 US ft
1748909.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan gray, moist to dry, clayey SAND (SC)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, silty, fine to medium SAND(SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Orange-tan GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 11.1 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
759.0
754.0
749.0
744.0
739.0
734.0
729.0
724.0
719.0
714.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
20+00
816378.0 US ft
1748935.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan-brown, moist, clayey SAND with Gravel (SC), withcobbles
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 3.0 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
761.0
756.0
751.0
746.0
741.0
736.0
731.0
726.0
721.0
716.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
21+00
816458.0 US ft
1748994.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan-brown, moist, clayey SAND with Gravel (SC), withcobbles
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 3.0 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
762.0
757.0
752.0
747.0
742.0
737.0
732.0
727.0
722.0
717.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
22+00
816509.0 US ft
1749081.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan-brown, moist, clayey SAND with Gravel (SC), withcobbles
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 3.0 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
763.0
758.0
753.0
748.0
743.0
738.0
733.0
728.0
723.0
718.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
23+00
816545.0 US ft
1749174.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan-brown, moist, clayey SAND with Gravel (SC), withcobbles
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 3.0 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
764.0
759.0
754.0
749.0
744.0
739.0
734.0
729.0
724.0
719.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
24+00
816579.0 US ft
1749265.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
FILL: Tan-brown, moist, clayey SAND with Gravel (SC), withcobbles
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 3.0 feet onCrystalline Rock: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
765.0
760.0
755.0
750.0
745.0
740.0
735.0
730.0
725.0
720.0
REMARKS:Auger Probe
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
25+00
816616.0 US ft
1749359.0 US ft
March 1, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
SS-1
BKSS-2
FILL: Brown-gray, moist, very stiff, sandy SILT (ML), withcobbles
FILL: Tan-brown, dry, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND(SM) with boulders
Boring terminated at 7.9ft on Fill: Boulder
7-18-8(N = 26)
_5-4-5(N = 9)5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%
TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
843.1
838.1
833.1
828.1
823.1
818.1
813.1
808.1
803.1
798.1
REMARKS:Bulk sample taken from 1.0 - 7.9ft
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-30
815683.0 US ft
1749272.0 US ft
February 23, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
FILL: Gray, brown, moist, stiff, fine to coarse SAND (CL)
RESIDUAL: Gray-orange, very stiff, dry, sandy SILT (ML)
WEATHERED ROCK: Brown-gray, GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 16.0 feet onCRYSTALLINE ROCK: GRANITE
4-6-8(N = 14)
5-10-19(N = 29)
50-50/0.4(N = 100+)
100/0.3(N = 100+)1st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6" WELL: Stickup 4.4' Size 2"
Piezometer set to 15.6ft
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%
TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
789.8
784.8
779.8
774.8
769.8
764.8
759.8
754.8
749.8
744.8
REMARKS:Piezometer screened from 15.6' to 5.6' below surface
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-31
815429.0 US ft
1749434.0 US ft
February 23, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
SS-1
SS-2BK
SS-3
SS-4
RESIDUAL: Gray, orange, orange-red, dry, hard, sandy SILT(ML)
WEATHERED ROCK: Light tan, GRANITE
CRYSTALLINE ROCK: Gray, GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 14.6 feet inCRYSTALLINE ROCK: GRANITE
8-13-18(N = 31)
_7-10-25(N = 35)
60-40/0.2(N = 100+)
60/0.1(N = 100+)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%
TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
802.1
797.1
792.1
787.1
782.1
777.1
772.1
767.1
762.1
757.1
REMARKS:Piezometer dropped in for 24hr water, Bulk sample taken
from 1.0 to 8.5ft
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-32
815822.0 US ft
1749472.0 US ft
February 22, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
RESIDUAL: Tan-gray, dry, dense, silty, fine SAND (SM),saprolitic
RESIDUAL: Dark gray, green-gray, dry, hard, sandy SILT(ML)
WEATHERED ROCK: Gray DIORITE
Boring terminated with Auger/SPT Refusal at 21.7 feet onCRYSTALLINE ROCK: DIORITE
11-17-18(N = 35)
30-70/0.4(N = 100+)
25-38-51(N = 89)
100/0.4(N = 100+)
100/0.3(N = 100+)
100/0.0(N = 100+)1st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6" WELL: Stickup 3.9' Size 2"
Piezometer set to 23.3ft
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%
TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
807.8
802.8
797.8
792.8
787.8
782.8
777.8
772.8
767.8
762.8
REMARKS:Piezometer screened from 21.3 to 11.3' below surface
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-33
815974.0 US ft
1749833.0 US ft
February 22, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
FILL: Gray, dry, sandy SILT (ML) to tan-orange, mediumdense, dry, silty, fine SAND (SM)
FILL: Dark gray, moist, medium stiff, sandy CLAY (CL)
RESIDUAL: Gray, brown, orange, dry, hard to very stiff,sandy SILT (ML)
11.0ft: Auger grinding
WEATHERED ROCK: Gray DIORITE
Boring terminated with Auger/SPT Refusal at 25.3 feet onCRYSTALLINE ROCK: DIORITE
6-7-12(N = 19)
9-9-14(N = 23)
10-21-28(N = 49)
8-14-12(N = 26)
3-12-15(N = 27)
100/0.1(N = 100+)
100/0.0(N = 100+)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%
TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
803.8
798.8
793.8
788.8
783.8
778.8
773.8
768.8
763.8
758.8
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-34
815827.0 US ft
1749779.0 US ft
February 22, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
SS-8
SS-9
8-9-14(N = 23)
9-10-21(N = 31)
5-4-5(N = 9)
3-2-2(N = 4)
12-11-17(N = 28)
20-27-34(N = 61)
22-36-46(N = 82)
88-12/0.1
100/0.4
FILL: Brown-gray, moist, medium dense, silty SAND (SM)
FILL: Gray, orange-brown, moist, hard to stiff, sandy, siltyCLAY (CL), with boulders
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, soft, sandy SILT (ML)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, medium dense to very dense,silty, fine to medium SAND (SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Tan-brown, GRANITE
Boring terminated at 32.9 feet in WEATHERED ROCK:GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
752.0
747.0
742.0
737.0
732.0
727.0
722.0
717.0
712.0
707.0
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-35
815981.0 US ft
1748819.0 US ft
February 23, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
3-3-3(N = 6)
3-7-9(N = 16)
12-16-18(N = 34)
24-67-33/0.2
12-88/0.4
100/0.4
FILL: Orange-brown, moist, medium stiff, sandy CLAY (CL)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, very stiff, sandy SILT (ML)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, dense, clayey, silty, fine tomedium SAND (SC-SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Tan-orange to tan-brown, GRANITE
Boring Terminated at 23.9 feet in WEATHERED ROCK:GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
739.9
734.9
729.9
724.9
719.9
714.9
709.9
704.9
699.9
694.9
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-36
815805.0 US ft
1748763.0 US ft
February 28, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
SS-8
SS-9
SS-10
3-3-4(N = 7)
10-15-16(N = 31)
20-17-18(N = 35)
15-16-17(N = 33)
18-31-23(N = 54)
28-46-25(N = 71)
13-22-30(N = 52)
17-26-20(N = 46)
17-56-44/0.3
19-20-80/0.4
FILL: Orange, moist, medium stiff, sandy CLAY (CL)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fineto coarse SAND (SM)
RESIDUAL: Dark gray to red-brown, dry, dense, clayey, fineto coarse SAND (SC)
WEATHERED ROCK: Orange-tan, GRANITE
Boring terminated at 39.9 feet in WEATHERED ROCK:GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
740.1
735.1
730.1
725.1
720.1
715.1
710.1
705.1
700.1
695.1
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-37
815653.0 US ft
1748756.0 US ft
February 27, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
SS-8
5-3-2(N = 5)
1-1-2(N = 3)
4-5-7(N = 12)
6-7-10(N = 17)
6-4-5(N = 9)
17-50-50/0.2
100/0.2
100/0.2
FILL: Brown, moist, very loose, silty, fine SAND (SM), withgravel
RESIDUAL: Gray-brown to red-orange, tan, moist, soft tostiff, sandy, lean CLAY (CL)
RESIDUAL: Orange-tan, dry, medium dense, silty, fine tomedium SAND (SM)
RESIDUAL: Dark green-gray, moist, stiff to hard, sandy SILT(ML)
Water table intersected approximately 18.0 feet bgs
WEATHERED ROCK: Gray, tan-orange GRANITE
Boring terminated at 28.7 feet in WEATHERED ROCK:GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
732.0
727.0
722.0
717.0
712.0
707.0
702.0
697.0
692.0
687.0
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-38
815556.0 US ft
1748742.0 US ft
February 27, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
5-6-5(N = 11)
4-4-4(N = 8)
8-13-16(N = 29)
20-60-40/0.3
25-20-18(N = 38)
100/0.4
100/0.4
FILL: Brown, gray, tan, dry to moist, medium dense to loose,clayey, silty, fine to coarse SAND (SM), with gravel
RESIDUAL: Tan-brown, dry, medium dense, silty, fine tomedium SAND (SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Tan-brown, GRANITE
RESIDUAL: Tan-orange, dry, dense, silty SAND (SM)
WEATHERED ROCK: Dark gray to tan-brown, GRANITE
Boring terminated at 28.9 feet in WEATHERED ROCK:GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
764.0
759.0
754.0
749.0
744.0
739.0
734.0
729.0
724.0
719.0
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-39
815573.0 US ft
1748878.0 US ft
February 28, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
SS-1 6-10
FILL: Red-brown, moist, very stiff, sandy CLAY (CL) withboulders
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 2.0 feet on FILL:BOULDERS
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
766.5
761.5
756.5
751.5
746.5
741.5
736.5
731.5
726.5
721.5
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-40
815533.0 US ft
1748968.0 US ft
February 28, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
5-6-6(N = 12)
3-8-8(N = 16)
9-15-23(N = 38)
60/0.0
FILL: Sandy GRAVEL (GP), with cobbles and boulders
FILL: Gray, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY (CL), with gravel
FILL: Tan-orange, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND (SC)
RESIDUAL: Tan-orange, dry, dense, silty, fine to mediumSAND (SM)
Boring terminated with Auger/SPT Refusal at 17.5 feet onCRYSTALLINE ROCK: GRANITE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)
J. Howard
CME-550 ATV
HS Augers
6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLES
N-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
770.0
765.0
760.0
755.0
750.0
745.0
740.0
735.0
730.0
725.0
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER.INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONSBETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand Rock
B-41
815490.0 US ft
1749083.0 US ft
February 28, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6468-18-8009PROJECT NO.:STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/23/18
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3H
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
Runoff Calculation Check

4 0.52 324
5 0.21 225
31 0.62 328
Total (Pipe1a) 1.35 877
2 0.80 479
3 0.80 414
29 1.22 688
30 0.85 510
Total (Pipe1b) 3.67 2091
1 0.66 520
27 1.16 490
28 1.66 525
35 0.70 560
6a 0.35 182
1104
467
34 0.52 176
10.08
8 0.78 500
9 0.46 325
16 0.69 445
17 0.52 300
Total (Pipe2a) 2.44 1570
7 1.12 500
11 0.32 237
13 1.38 675
14 1.13 604
15 1.07 544
Total (Pipe2b) 5.02 2560
6 0.60 332
10 0.36 324
12 0.72 720
32 1.13 512
10.27 2164
20 0.40 235
21 0.27 153
24 0.62 332
25 0.55 292
26 0.50 243
total (Pipe3a) 2.34 1255
18 0.70 412
19 0.58 320
22 0.78 400
23 0.72 375
Total (Pipe3b) 2.78 1507
33 0.61 256
16.00
Total (O2+O1) 26.08 0
3b
PD3
TOTAL (Drained to O2)
TOTAL (Drained to O1)
O2
PD2
2a
2b
TOTAL (Drained to PD2)
3a
O1
PD1
1a
1b
TOTAL (Drained to PD1) 9.57
PD4
Drainage 
Length (ft)
Drainage Area, A 
(Acres)
Outlet 
No.
Perimeter 
Drain No. Pipe No. Channel No.
TTb
0.031 1.5 0.27 1.5 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.044 0.6 0.14 1.3 0.40 0.40 Grass Straw with net
0.030 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
3.9 Grass Straw with net
0.021 2.3 0.68 1.5 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.024 2.3 0.36 1.6 0.50 0.60 Grass Straw with net
0.015 3.5 0.52 1.5 0.5 0.5 Grass Straw with net
0.020 2.5 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 Grass Straw with net
10.6 Grass Straw with net
0.019 1.9 0.35 1.3 0.40 0.40 Grass Straw with net
0.020 3.4 0.48 1.6 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
0.019 4.8 0.58 1.7 0.7 0.7 Grass Straw with net
0.018 2.0 0.36 1.4 0.4 0.4 Grass Straw with net
0.055 1.0 0.18 1.6 0.60 0.60 Grass Straw with net
0.063 0.62 6.5 2.4 2.6 Grass Straw with net
0.021 0.83 4.4 1.1 1.1
0.010 1.5 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.1 Grass Straw with net
29.1
0.020 2.3 0.38 1.5 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.031 1.3 0.24 1.5 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.022 2.0 0.35 1.4 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.033 1.5 0.26 1.5 0.5 0.6 Grass Straw with net
7.1 Grass Straw with net
0.020 3.3 0.47 1.6 0.60 0.60 Grass Straw with net
0.042 0.9 0.18 1.4 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.015 4.0 0.56 1.5 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.017 3.3 0.49 1.5 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
0.018 3.1 0.46 1.5 0.50 0.50 Grass Straw with net
14.6 Grass Straw with net
0.030 3.0 0.40 1.8 0.70 0.80 Grass Straw with net
0.031 1.0 0.21 1.3 0.40 0.40 Grass Straw with net
0.014 2.1 0.40 1.3 0.30 0.40 Grass Straw with net
0.020 3.3 0.47 1.6 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
0.032 31.1 0.8 5.3 1.5 1.6 Grass Straw with net
0.043 1.2 0.24 1.3 0.6 0.7 Grass Straw with net
0.065 0.8 0.15 1.5 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
0.030 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
0.034 1.6 0.27 1.6 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
0.041 1.5 0.24 1.7 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
6.9 Grass Straw with net
0.024 2.0 0.34 1.5 0.5 0.5 Grass Straw with net
0.031 1.7 0.29 1.5 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
0.025 2.3 0.36 1.6 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
0.027 2.1 0.34 1.5 0.6 0.6 Grass Straw with net
8.1 Grass Straw with net
0.010 1.8 0.22 1.4 0.1 0.1 Grass Straw with net
47.9
77.0
27.6
Discharge, 
Q (ft3/s)
Normal 
Depth (ft)
Velocity, 
V (ft/s)
Shear Stress (psf)
Type of Lining
Slope
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3I
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
Underdrain Pipe Crushing Calculations

PVC‐1
Height of wall 60 ft
Width of the wall 25 ft
Bottom width of the wall 48 ft
Surcharge 250 psf
Unit weight of soil (γ)120 pcf
Modulus of soil reaction (E') 2777.778 psi
Pipe Outside Diameter (D) 6.625 in
Deflection Lag Factor (Dl) 1 ‐‐‐*Ranges from 1 to 1.5
Equivalent Pipe Wall Stiffness (EI)eq 2923.292 lb‐in
Pipe thickness (t) 0.432 in
Moment of Inertia (I) 0.006718 in^3
Bedding constant (K) 0.1 ‐‐‐*appromimated 
Radius of Pipe (R) 5.761 in from text
Modulus of elasticity of Pipe (E) 435113 psi
d0in
Impact Factor 1 ‐‐‐**
Factor of Safety (ring buckling) 2.5 ‐‐‐**
Water buoyancy factor (Rw) 1 ‐‐‐
Height of water surface above top of pipe (hw) 0 ft
B' 0.310536 ‐‐‐
https://www.pvcfittingsonline.com/8008‐060ab‐6‐schedule‐80‐pvc‐pipe‐5‐ft‐section.html
schedule 80 pvc 6 in 
Dimensions .com/pvc‐cpvc‐pipes‐dimensions‐d_795.html
Youngs Mod Approx pvc olbox.com/young‐modulus‐d_417.html
Youngs Mod Approx Fill ordpress.com/2017/01/fhwa‐nhi‐06‐088.pdf
**Only provided for Highways, Railways and Runways but assumed to be 1 as it is so deep.
Ranges between 2.5 and 3.5
Pipe
Misc.
A‐1 Sandrock Calculations ‐ Crushing Pressure
Inputs
Wall
Soil
PVC‐2
Soil pressure on pipe (Pv)50 psi
Applied pressure transmitted to the pipe (Pp)0.0 psi (per foot into wall)
Total Applied pressure (P)50.0 psi (per foot into wall)
Ovality (Δy/D)0.155136 ‐‐‐
Through Wall Bending  (σbw)17606.52 psi
Ring Buckling (Pc)210.7157 psi

See folder for reference document or: 
https://www.americanlifelinesalliance.com/pdf/Update061305.pdf
* Even though targeted for steel, the equations were designed for pipes with a flexibility 
of more than 2% so it is reasonable
https://pgjonline.com/magazine/2011/june‐2011‐vol‐238‐no‐6/features/bending‐stresses‐
from‐external‐loading‐on‐buried‐pipe
Calculations
PVC‐3
PVC‐4
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 3J
SOIL DATA and CALCULATIONS (WOOD)
VENEER STABILITY and GLOBAL STABILITY

Calculation of Veneer Stability for Static and Seismic Conditions
Saturated and Unsaturated Cases
Project: A1 Sandrock CDLF, Phase 2B 3H:1V slope ratio
Reference:Geotechnical and Stability Analyses for Ohio Waste Containment Facilitie
Ohio EPA Geotechnical Resource Group, Guidance Document 660, September 2004
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/document/guidance/gd_660.pdf
The described method calculates the factor of safety against final cover sliding with varying depths of water (head) above barrier layer,
e.g., an upper vegetation-support layer above a synthetic membrane or compacted soil; precipitation depth can be specified (design storm),
or for a given desired factor of safety, the minimum required friction angle can be determined (after Matasovic, 1991)
For saturated conditions, assume a minimum 10-year, 60-min design storm impinges on surface soils at field capacity
The following assumes a 3H:1V slope ratio, with 18 inches of vegetative cover soil above a compacted soil barrier (10^-5 cm/sec)
A mimimal amount of cohesion may be assumed for a soil-to-soil interface - if a flexible membrane barrier is to be used, no cohesion is
assumed and a synthetic drain layer or free draining sand must be used!
The assumed design condition places a bench or diversion berm every 25 to 30 vertical feet, thus the slope length of interest 75 feet
The basic equation for the safety factor is:
FS = {c/Gam-c*Zc*Cos^2Beta + tanPhi[1 - Gam-w(Zc - Dw)/(Gam-c*Zc)] - Ng*tanBeta*tanPhi } / Ng+tanBeta Eq. 9.1
where: Fs = 1.5 = Factor of Safety (for static case use 1.5, for seismic use 1.1)
Ng = 0 = peak horizontal acceleration, %g (specific to region)
Gam-c = 120 = unit weight of cover material, pcf (assume saturated)
Gam-w = 62.4 = unit weight of water, pcf
c = 0 = cohesion along failure surface, psf
Phi = = internal angle of friction, degrees
Beta = 18.43 = angle of slope (degrees), for 3H:1V slopes = 18.43
Zc = 1.5 = depth of cover soil, ft.
Dw = = depth of water (assume parallel to slope), see Eq. 9.2 below
Turned around, the equation becomes:
Phi = tan^-1 {Fs*(Ng + tanBeta) - (c/Gam-c*Zc*Cos^2Beta) / [1 - (Gam-w*(Zc-Dw)/(Gam-c*Zc)] - Ng*tanBeta]} = 30.50 degrees
See Summary
The calculation of head follows:
Havg = P(1-RC)*(L*cosBeta) / Kd*sinBeta = 13.3 cm = 0.44 feet Eq. 9.2
where: Havg = average head on failure surface
P = precipitation, in/hr = 2.75 = 1.94E-03 (cm/sec)
L = slope length, ft = 75 = 2286 (cm)
RC = runoff coefficient = 0
Kd = permeability of drainage layer = 1 (cm/sec)
thus, Dw = Zc - Havg = 1.06 feet Eq. 9.4
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED DESIGN PARAMETERS
THE FOLLOWING ANALYSES ASSUME NO INTERFACE COHESION
For unsaturated, static conditions, required minimum friction angle for a safety factor of 1.5 is 26.56 degrees
For unsaturated, seismic conditions, required min. friction angle for a safety factor of 1.1 is 21.23 degrees
For saturated, static conditions, required minimum friction angle for a safety factor of 1.5 is 30.50 degrees CRITICAL
For saturated, seismic conditions, required minimum friction angle for a safety factor of 1.1 is 24.60 degrees
INTERFACE TESING SHALL BE PERFORMED AS A CQA REQUIREMENT FOR ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS
David Garrett, PG, PE 4/26/18
SC-SM
PWR(Sandrock)
MSE Wall
MSE Wall
C&D Material
Silty CLAY SC-SM
1.51
A1 Sandrock MSE Wall - Section X-2- Option 3- 60ft Wall
Steady-State (Normal Operating) Conditions - Circular Failure (3)
SLOPE/W Analysis
Project Name: A1 Sandrock MSE Wall - Section X-2
Location: Greensboro, NC
Client: A-1 SANDROCK INC.
Date: 04/13/2018 Rev: AProject No.: 6468-17-7032
Distance (feet)Elevation (feet)Name: PWR(Sandrock) Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion': 1,000 psf Phi': 36 °
Name: MSE Wall Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 2,000 psf Phi': 50 °
Name: C&D Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 100 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 25 °
Name: Silty CLAY Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 110 pcf Cohesion': 200 psf Phi': 22 °
Name: SC-SM Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion': 300 psf Phi': 32 °
-310 -260 -210 -160 -110 -60 -10 40 90 140 190 240 290 340 390 440 490 540 590 640 690 740 790
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1,000
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 4
SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 4A
SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION
Huesker Fortrac™ Cost and Properties

1
Garrett, David
From:Blaise Fitzpatrick <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:30 PM
To:Ronnie Petty
Cc:Garrett, David
Subject:Material Costs
Attachments:Fortrac 35T excl.pdf; Fortrac 55T.pdf; Fortrac 80T excl.pdf; Fortrac 110T excl.pdf;
MC17-061_FEA Wire Basket Project_170711[1].pdf; TERMSALE_2017[5].pdf; ULTIMAT 40-
PP - STANDARD SPEC - 3-6-17.pdf; Wire Basket Galv.pdf
Ronnie,
Here is the information received from Huesker. Feel free to contact the three suppliers at your convenience if you have
specific questions regarding pricing. I have to run to the plane now….have a nice day ☺.

Kind regards, Blaise

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Clements
To: Blaise Fitzpatrick
Cc: Mike Morgan Lilma Schimmel; Erika Cadengo
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:41 PM
Subject: Geogrid Cost for Engineering Estimate - Fortrac SE Wire Basket Wall

Blaise,
Attached is quote for materials as you requested to Lilma.

PLEASE NOTE: This pricing is provided to you as an Engineering Estimate which we think is material cost
the owner would see bid from a contractor. If we need to price this differently (i.e. price to wall contractor)
at this point, let me know.

Thanks,
Mike

PLEASE NOTE THAT MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS IS: [e-mail]

Contact:
HUESKER Inc.
Mike Clements
Region Sales Manager
333 Eastside Drive Unit 40
Fortson, GA 31808

Tel: [phone]
Cell: 704-877-2714
Email: [e-mail]
Internet: www.HUESKER.com

2
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any attachments are confidential property of the sender. The information is
intended only for the use of the person to whom it was addressed. Any other interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure of this message is
prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for any unauthorized reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and purge the message you received. Do not forward this message without permission.
----- Original Message -----
From: Blaise Fitzpatrick
To: Ronnie Petty
Cc: David Garrett
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:34 AM
Subject: Material Costs

Ronnie,
I have heard back from two of the geogrid vendors this morning and have summarized their costs below. Fell free top
contact Janice Reid with Strata System or Randal Jones <[e-mail]> to get more information about pricing for
their products. I am also waiting to hear back from Lilma Schimmel <[e-mail]> with Huesker to get their
price.

Sincerely,
Blaise J. Fitzpatrick, P.E. | Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates, P.C. | 1237 Highfield Drive | Lawrenceville GA 30043 | Cell:
678.618.7612 | [e-mail]

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original
message to the sender and then delete the message. Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: Janice Reid
To: Blaise Fitzpatrick
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:41 AM
Subject: Geogrid Cost - Stratagrid

Blaise,
See below for some budgetary estimated prices for equivalent Strata products for your project owner FOB
Burlington NC:

• Fortrac 35……..Strata SG 200 (6'x300') @ $1.25/yd2
• Fortrac 55……..Strata SG 350 (6'x300') @ $1.35/yd2
• Fortrac 80……..Strata SG 500 (6'x300') @ $1.75/yd2
• Fortrac 110…....Strata SG 550 (6'x300') @ $2.00/yd2
• What is the cost for hot dipped galvanized baskets? $33.00/basket
• What is the cost for hot dipped galvanized struts? $0.70/strut
• What is the cost for face wrap? assumed vegetated microgrid (8'x225')@ $1.25/yd2

In regards to the basket costs…..

• There would be at least 6-struts per basket so the total basket/strut cost would be $33 + 6($0.70)
= $37.20.
• Baskets dimensions should be 1.5' High x 10 Long, i.e. a face area of 15-ft2.
• The basket cost per square foot would be ($37.20)/(15-ft2) = $2.48/ft2.

The above prices can be refined upon receipt of further info.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service!

Regards,
JANICE

Janice Reid
Strata Systems, Inc.
Southeastern Regional Manager
3

Cell Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email [e-mail]
----- Original Message -----
From: Randal Jones <[e-mail]>
To: Blaise Fitzpatrick
Cc: Nick Young <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:18 AM
Subject: Geogrid Cost - GridMaxx

Blaise,
Pricing on grid - shipped in bulk (truckloads) is as follows:

GMX 270 (equiv to Fortrac 35) @ $1.05 per sy
GMX 390 (equiv to Fortrac 55) @ $1.12 per sy
GMX 570 (equiv to Fortrac 80) @ $1.33 per sy
GMX 880 ((equiv to Fortrac 110) @ $1.60 per sy

In regards to the basket costs…..

• There would be at least 6-struts per basket so the total basket/strut cost would be $39.90 + 6($0.81)
= $44.76.
• Baskets dimensions should be 1.5' High x 10 Long, i.e. a face area of 15-ft2.
• The basket cost per square foot would be ($44.76)/(15-ft2) = $2.98/ft2.

Thanks
Randal

Nick Young
President
GRIDMAXX Solutions, LLC
Cell: 980-505-1214
GRIDMAXX.com
Earthworks and Foundations
Physical Properties of Fortrac® 35T
Standard Roll Size: 16.41 ft (5.0 m) wide x 328.1 ft (100 m) long = 598 yd2 (500 m2)
Weight(includes core) = 251 lbs. (114 kg)
www.HUESKER.com | E-mail: [e-mail] | Phone: [phone]
Each roll of Fortrac ® geogrid delivered to the project site is labeled by HUESKER with a roll label that indicates manufacturer’s name, product identification, lot
number, roll number and roll dimensions. All rolls of Fortrac ® are encased in a sturdy polyethylene wrap to shield the product from rain, dirt, dust and UV exposure.
Contact HUESKER for information on our material warranty.
ASTM D-5261
Measured
CWO 22125
ASTM D-6637
185 g/m2
25 x 25 mm
70%
35 kN/m
≤ 10%
18.8 kN/m
Mass/ Unit Area
Ultimate Wide Width
HUESKER’s Fortrac® 35T geogrid is comprised of high tenacity polyester yarns crafted into a stable interlocked pattern then coated
for protection from installation damage and short term ultraviolet exposure. Fortrac® geogrids are easy to install, unaffected by
freeze-thaw conditions and naturally occurring chemical/biological environments. Fortrac® is utilized as a tensile element in
retaining wall, steepened slope and void bridging applications, to name a few. Fortrac® geogrids are produced at HUESKER’s
manufacturing facility which has achieved ISO 9001 approval for its systematic approach to quality in development, manufacture,
inspection, sales and application support for geosynthetic materials. HUESKER’s ISO 9001 certificate is available upon request.
Fortrac® 35T
Data Sheet
GRI GG4 (b)
PROPERTY
ASTM D-6637
5.4 oz/yd2
1 x 1 inch
70%
2,400 lb/ft
≤ 10%
1,288 lb/ft
SI units1
Aperture Size
Percent Open Area
Strength* (MD)
Sand, Silt and Clay
1Minimum average roll values are based on a 95% confidence level. MD-Machine Direction CMD-Cross Machine
ENGLISH units1
Tensile Strength
Machine Direction (MD)
Elongation at Ultimate
Tensile Strength (MD)
Long Term Design
TEST

Earthworks and Foundations
HUESKER’s Fortrac® 55T geogrid is comprised of high tenacity polyester yarns crafted into a stable
interlocked pattern then coated for protection from installation damage and short term ultraviolet
exposure. Fortrac® geogrids are easy to install, unaffected by freeze-thaw conditions and naturally
occurring chemical/biological environments. Fortrac® is utilized as a tensile element in retaining wall,
steepened slope and void bridging applications, to name a few. Fortrac® geogrids are produced at
HUESKER’s manufacturing facility which has achieved ISO 9001 approval for its systematic approach to
quality in development, manufacture, inspection, sales and application support for geosynthetic
materials. HUESKER’s ISO 9001 certificate is available upon request.

Physical Properties of Fortrac® 55T

PROPERTY TEST ENGLISH units1

SI units1

Mass/Unit Area ASTM D-5261 7 oz/yd2 240g/m2
Aperture Size Measured 1x1 inch 25 x 25 mm
Percent Open Area CWO 22125 70% 70%
Ultimate Wide Width
Tensile Strength
Machine Direction (MD)

ASTM D-6637

3,767 lb/ft

55 kN/m
Elongation at Ultimate
Tensile Strength (MD)

ASTM D-6637

≤10%

≤10%
Long Term Design
Strength* (MD)
Sand, Silt and Clay

GRI GG4 (b)

2,022 lb/ft

29.5 kN/m
1Minimum average roll values are based on a 95% confidence level. MD-Machine Direction CMD-Cross Machine

Standard Roll Size: 16.41 ft (5.0 m) wide x 328.1 ft (100 m) long = 598 yd2 (500 m2)
Weight(includes core) = 311 lbs. (141 kg)

Each roll of Fortrac® geogrid delivered to the project site is labeled by HUESKER with a roll label that
indicates manufacturer’s name, product identification, lot number, roll number and roll dimensions. All
rolls of Fortrac® are encased in a sturdy polyethylene wrap to shield the product from rain, dirt, dust and
UV exposure. Contact HUESKER for information on our material warranty.

www.HUESKER.com | E-mail: [e-mail] | Phone: [phone]
Fortrac® 55T
Data Sheet
Earthworks and Foundations
Physical Properties of Fortrac® 80T
Standard Roll Size: 16.41 ft (5.0 m) wide x 328.1 ft (100 m) long = 598 yd2 (500 m2)
Weight(includes core) = 401 lbs. (182 kg)
www.HUESKER.com | E-mail: [e-mail] | Phone: [phone]
Long Term Design
TEST ENGLISH units1
Tensile Strength
Machine Direction (MD)
Elongation at Ultimate
Tensile Strength (MD)
HUESKER’s Fortrac® 80T geogrid is comprised of high tenacity polyester yarns crafted into a stable interlocked pattern then coated
for protection from installation damage and short term ultraviolet exposure. Fortrac® geogrids are easy to install, unaffected by
freeze-thaw conditions and naturally occurring chemical/biological environments. Fortrac® is utilized as a tensile element in
retaining wall, steepened slope and void bridging applications, to name a few. Fortrac® geogrids are produced at HUESKER’s
manufacturing facility which has achieved ISO 9001 approval for its systematic approach to quality in development, manufacture,
inspection, sales and application support for geosynthetic materials. HUESKER’s ISO 9001 certificate is available upon request.
Fortrac® 80T
Data Sheet
GRI GG4 (b)
PROPERTY
ASTM D-6637
9.4 oz/yd2
1 x 1 inch
65%
5,480 lb/ft
≤ 10%
2,941 lb/ft
SI units1
Aperture Size
Percent Open Area
Each roll of Fortrac ® geogrid delivered to the project site is labeled by HUESKER with a roll label that indicates manufacturer’s name, product identification, lot
number, roll number and roll dimensions. All rolls of Fortrac ® are encased in a sturdy polyethylene wrap to shield the product from rain, dirt, dust and UV exposure.
Contact HUESKER for information on our material warranty.
ASTM D-5261
Measured
CWO 22125
ASTM D-6637
320 g/m2
25 x 25 mm
65%
80 kN/m
≤ 10%
42.9 kN/m
Mass/ Unit Area
Ultimate Wide Width
Strength* (MD)
Sand, Silt and Clay
1Minimum average roll values are based on a 95% confidence level. MD-Machine Direction CMD-Cross Machine
Earthworks and Foundations
Physical Properties of Fortrac® 110T
Standard Roll Size: 16.41 ft (5.0 m) wide x 328.1 ft (100 m) long = 598 yd2 (500 m2)
Weight(includes core) = 423 lbs. (192 kg)
www.HUESKER.com | E-mail: [e-mail] | Phone: [phone]
Each roll of Fortrac ® geogrid delivered to the project site is labeled by HUESKER with a roll label that indicates manufacturer’s name, product identification, lot
number, roll number and roll dimensions. All rolls of Fortrac ® are encased in a sturdy polyethylene wrap to shield the product from rain, dirt, dust and UV exposure.
Contact HUESKER for information on our material warranty.
ASTM D-5261
Measured
CWO 22125
ASTM D-6637
350 g/m2
25 x 25 mm
65%
110 kN/m
≤ 10%
59 kN/m
Mass/ Unit Area
Ultimate Wide Width
Strength* (MD)
Sand, Silt and Clay
1Minimum average roll values are based on a 95% confidence level. MD-Machine Direction CMD-Cross Machine
HUESKER’s Fortrac® 110T geogrid is comprised of high tenacity polyester yarns crafted into a stable interlocked pattern then
coated for protection from installation damage and short term ultraviolet exposure. Fortrac® geogrids are easy to install,
unaffected by freeze-thaw conditions and naturally occurring chemical/biological environments. Fortrac® is utilized as a tensile
element in retaining wall, steepened slope and void bridging applications, to name a few. Fortrac® geogrids are produced at
HUESKER’s manufacturing facility which has achieved ISO 9001 approval for its systematic approach to quality in development,
manufacture, inspection, sales and application support for geosynthetic materials. HUESKER’s ISO 9001 certificate is available upon
request.
Fortrac® 110T
Data Sheet
GRI GG4 (b)
PROPERTY
ASTM D-6637
10 oz/yd2
1 x 1 inch
65%
7,535 lb/ft
≤ 10%
4,043 lb/ft
SI units1
Aperture Size
Percent Open Area
Long Term Design
TEST ENGLISH units1
Tensile Strength
Machine Direction (MD)
Elongation at Ultimate
Tensile Strength (MD)
Quote No. MC17-061
Date
HUESKER Inc Expires
3701 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 525
Charlotte, NC 28273
704 588 5500 1-800-942-9418
Quote to Ship To
Fitzpatrick Engineering Associates
Lawrenceville GA
Attn: Blaise Fitzpatrick
Project Reference:FEA Wire Basket Project
1 Fortrac® 35 T 598.00 yd²16.41' x 328.1'yd²1.27$ 759.81$
2 Fortrac® 55 T 598.00 yd²16.41' x 328.1'yd²1.55$ 928.66$
3 Fortrac® 80 T 598.00 yd²16.41' x 328.1'yd²1.96$ 1,174.89$
4 Fortrac® 110 T 598.00 yd²16.41' x 328.1'yd²2.34$ 1,400.02$
5 Ultimat® PP 40 600.00 yd²15' x 360'yd²0.66$ 395.29$
6 Hot dipped galvanized wire basket 9,800.00 pcs 10' x18"x18"Pc 36.47$ 357,362.07$
7 Galvanized struts 49,000.00 pcs Pc 0.84$ 41,396.55$
Price quoted FCA Huesker as per Incoterms 2010 on Items 1-5. FCA Marietta, GA for item 5 & 6.
Any required slitting services will incur additional costs above and beyond the enclosed quoted pricing.
Total USD $
Terms and conditions
Delivery and Price: Prices are in US dollars. Prices are valid for 30 days from date of quotation. Taxes and Duties are not included.
Any Shipping costs listed above are estimates. Freight will be charged based on actual shipping cost at time of delivery
ALL STATE AND LOCAL TAXES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PURCHASER
Material Quote: Prices quoted are FCA HUESKER Inc, Charlotte, NC as per Incoterms 2010
Any required slitting services will incur additional costs above and beyond the enclosed quoted pricing
For any questions, please contact your Regional Manager Form #S_FQ_2014_002
Mike Clements
Phone: [phone] 704-877-2714
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Roll Sizes: All roll sizes are approximate. Invoicing will be based on actual square yardage of material shipped. HUESKER reserves the right to ship up to 10 (10) % odd length
rolls on any order. Odd length rolls are defined as rolls with lengths that differ from the standard roll lengths.
Quantities: Any change in quantities, products, or specifications by the Customer require a revised quotation. If Customer elects to purchase a portion of quoted products,
HUESKER reserves the right to change product prices.
Material Specifications: Unless otherwise agreed in writing by HUESKER, HUESKER's standard properties, testing procedures, and documentation apply to all products quoted.
1 roll @ 598 yd2 per roll
1 roll @ 598 yd2 per roll
1 roll @ 600 yd2 per roll
Unit Price Extended Price
1 roll @ 598 yd2 per roll
1 roll @ 598 yd2 per roll
10' x 18"x18"
SALES QUOTATION
11-Jul-17
10-Aug-17
PLEASE REFERENCE QUOTATION NO. ON ALL
PAPERWORK
Item Product Description Quantity Size (feet)U/M
Earthworks and Foundations
Physical Properties of Ultimat® 40-PP
Mass Per Unit Area
Grab Tensile Strength
Machine Direction (MD)
Grab Elongation
Machine Direction (MD)
Trapezoid Tear Strength (MD)
CBR Puncture Strength
Permittivity
Water Flow Rate
Apparent Opening Size (AOS)
UV Resistance (500 hrs)
Standard Roll Sizes: 15 ft (4.57 m) wide x 360 ft (110 m) long = 600 yd2 (502.70 m2)
Weight (includes core) = 185 lbs. (84 kg)
www.HUESKER.com | E-mail: [e-mail] | Phone: [phone]
3/17
ASTM D-4491 140 gpm/ft2
Each roll of Ultimat®delivered to the project site is labeled by HUESKER with a roll label that indicates manufacturer’s name, product identification, lot number, roll number
and roll dimensions. All rolls of Ultimat ®are encased in a sturdy polyethylene wrap to shield the product from rain, dirt, dust and UV exposure. Contact HUESKER for
information on our material warranty. Made in America!
1Minimum average roll values are based on a 95% confidence level. MD = Machine Direction
70% Retained Strength
ASTM D-4751
ASTM D-4355
70 U.S. Sieve
70% Retained Strength
5,704 l/min/m2
0.21 mm
ASTM D-6241 310 lbs
ASTM D-4491 2.0 sec-1 2.0 sec-1
1,379 N
ASTM D-4632 >50%
ASTM D-4533 50 lbs 222 N
>50%
ASTM D-5261 4 oz/yd2
ASTM D-4632 100 lbs 445 N
136 g/m2
Ultimat® 40-PP
Data Sheet
HUESKER’s Ultimat 40-PP is a polypropylene needle punched nonwoven. The Ultimat 40-PP is inert to biological
degradation and naturally encountered chemicals, alkalies, and acids. Ultimat 40-PP conforms to the minimum average
roll values (MARV) listed in the following table.
PROPERTY TEST ENGLISH units1 SI units1
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 4B
SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION
ASTM D6706-01 (2013) Standard for Pullout Test

This is a web site capture noting the fact that the pullout test does have an ASTM
standard. Brief published works following this citing will explain the mechanics
of the test and interpretation of results, as well as identifying a service provider.
ASTM D6706 -01(2013) o
Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic
Pullout Resistance in Soil
Active Standard ASTM D6706 I Developed by Subcommittee: D35.01
Book of Standards Volume: 04.13
Format Pages Price
PDF 8 $50.00
Hardcopy
(shipping and 8 $50.00
handling)
Reprints and Permissions
Permissions to reprint documents can be acquired through
Copyright Clearance Center O
VISIT COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE CENTER �
Historical Version(s) -view previous versions of standard
Work ltem(s) -proposed revisions of this standard
ASTM License Agreement
Shipping & Handling
1a ADD TO CART
1a ADD TO CART
)C
MORE D35.01 STANDARDS
RELATED PRODUCTS
STANDARD REFERENCES
Significance and Use
5.1 The pullout test method is intended as a performance test to provide the user with a
set of design values for the test conditions examined.
5.1.1 The test method is applicable to all geosynthetics and all soils.
5.1.2 This test method produces test data, which can be used in the design of
geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls, slopes, and embankments, or in other
applications where resistance of a geosynthetic to pullout under simulated field
conditions is important.
5.1.3 The test results may also provide information related to the in-soil stress-strain
response of a geosynthetic under confined loading conditions.
5.2 The pullout resistance versus normal stress plot obtained from this test is a function
of soil gradation, plasticity, as-placed dry unit weight, moisture content, length and
surface characteristics of the geosynthetic and other test parameters. Therefore,
results are expressed in terms of the actual test conditions. The test measures the
net effect of a combination of pullout mechanisms, which may vary depending on
type of geosynthetic specimen, embedment length, relative opening size, soil type,
displacement rate, normal stress, and other factors.
5.3 Information between laboratories on precision is incomplete. In cases of dispute,
comparative tests to determine if there is a statistical bias between laboratories may
be advisable.
1.Scope
1.1 Resistance of a geosynthetic to pullout from soil is determined using a laboratory
pullout box.
1.2 The test method is intended to be a performance test conducted as closely as
possible to replicate design or as-built conditions. It can also be used to compare
different geosynthetics, soil types, etc., and thereby be used as a research and
development test procedure.
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values stated in
parentheses are provided for information only.
1.4 This standard may involve hazardous materials, and equipment. This standard does
not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is
the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and
health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
2.Referenced Documents (purchase separately} 0
ASTM Standards
D123 Terminology Relating to Textiles
D653 Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock, and Contained Fluids
D3080 Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained
Conditions
D4354 Practice for Sampling of Geosynthetics and Rolled Erosion Control
Products(RECPs) for Testing
D4439 Terminology for Geosynthetics
Keywords
Geosynthetics -Laboratory Apparatus -Performance Test -Pull-Out Boxes -Pull-Out
Resistance -Soils -Strength
ICS Code
ICS Number Code 13.080.05 (Examination of soil in general); 59.080.70 (Geotextiles)
UNSPSCCode
UNSPSC Code 30121702(Geotextile)
Link Here
http:/ /www.astm.org/cg i-bi n/resoh
Link to Active (This link will always route to the current Active version of the standard.)
http://www.astm.org/cg i-bin/resoh
DOI: 10.1520/D6706-01R13
Citation Format
ASTM D6706-01(2013), Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout
Resistance in Soil, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org
BACK TO TOP
All
Home Contact
AboutASTM Policies
Site Map Privacy Policy
Support Copyright/Permissions
Reading Room
Copyright© 1996 -2019 ASTM. All Rights Reserved. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 USA
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 4C
SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION
Bolt and Duszynska, 2000

1 INTRODUCTION
Good properties of various geogrids and geonets as well as the
possibility of connecting them with other geotextiles cause that
the geomaterials are widely used in road construction and civil
engineering.
The increasing application of geotextile materials induces a
action mechanisms. Technical and economical effects of geotex-
tiles (e.g. simplicity of use and lower transportation costs, re-
spectively) are strongly related to the proper exploitation of
physical and mechanical properties of the materials itself as well
as the soil-reinforcement system.
The appropriate determination of the value of force required
for pulling out the geogrid from the soil is of the significant im-
portance for reinforced soil structures. The effects expected are
dependent on the sufficient anchoring of the reinforcing material
in the soil. A source of essential information regarding the be-haviour of the soil-reinforcement system can be pull-out tests.
A standard testing procedure for determination of the geotex-
tile-soil interaction properties has not been established till now.
Large number of factors affecting the properties is a source of
major difficulties in providing comparable test results, which dif-fer significantly from each other. The differences are mostly due
to the use of different types of pull-out devices, associated
boundary effects, testing procedures, soil placement and com-
paction scheme, etc. (Juran et al. 1988).
The increasing application of geosynthetics as the soil rein-
forcement prompts the need to standardise the testing equipment
and establish a reliable testing procedure to evaluate the in-soil
mechanical characteristics of geosynthetics and their interaction
with the soil. It is important to obtain comparable results and to
develop appropriate methodologies in modelling the load-
transfer mechanism.

2 THE APPARATUS
The analysis of existing constructions of the pull-out testing de-
vices and the experimental methodologies together with the rec-
ommendations included in the draft of European Standard prEN
minations of pull-out resistance in
the construction of the large scale device for pull-out testing (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. General view of the pull-out device constructed in Geotechni-
cal Department of Gda sk Technical University.

The interaction between a geogrid and soil was studied in the
pull-out apparatus schematically presented in Figure 2, which
consist of the following main parts:
the soil container built of a steel box with inner dimensions
1.60 m in length, 0.60 m in width and 0.36 m in height the rubber air bag capable of providing an uniform normal
pressure up to 200 kPa

PULL-OUT TESTING OF GEOGRID REINFORCEMENTS
ADAM F. BOLT, ANGELIKA DUSZY SKA
Faculty of Hydro and Environmental Engineering, Gda sk Technical University, Poland
ABSTRACT: In the paper basic aspects of pull-out testing concerning the equipment used and procedures applied are presented. The
experiments aimed at the analysis of the conditions included in draft European Standard prEN 00189016 entitled: Geotextiles and
e testing device was designed and constructed in Geo-
technical Laboratory of Gda sk Technical University. In thirty experiments carried out for a biaxial polypropylene geogrid embedded
in coarse sand, the influence of such factors as dimensions of geogrid specimen, confinement pressure, soil density, displacement rate and sleeve distance are analysed and discussed. The work presented is a part of the discussion within the frame of CEN/TC 189/WG.
Keywords: Pull-out, Geogrids, Laboratory research, Testing, Reinforcement

Figure 2. Schematic cross-section view of the testing device.

the specially designed clamping device preventing the failure
of the specimen in the clamp and providing the pull-out force
to be distributed evenly over the width of the sample
steel sleeves 0.20 m long reducing the influence of the front wall
the mechanical pull-out force loading device consisting of a
frequency inverter, a worm gear unit electric engine and a
load cell of 20 kN capacity
electronic displacement transducers to measure the displace-ment of the geogrid at selected points located along its em-
bedded length using titanium wires attached to the rib junc-
tions
the data acquisition system.
3 MATERIALS USED IN THE EXPERIMENTS
In the experiments the non-cohesive soil Rybaki 2 was used. It is
the uniform coarse quartz sand with some admixtures of other minerals, containing 13% of CaCO3, typically used for the tests
in the Geotechnical Laboratory of Gda sk Technical University.
The main parameters of the soil are collected in Table 1.

Table 1. Soil parameters __________________________________________________________
Parameter Symbol Unit Rybaki 2 Sand __________________________________________________________
Mean particle size d50 [mm] 1.19 Effective particle size d10 [mm] 0.61
Uniformity coefficient Cu [-] 2.19
Maximum density of solid particles smax [g/cm3] 1.823
Minimum density of solid particles smin [g/cm3] 1.585 Mean moisture content w [%] 0.11
Angle of internal friction [º] 33 37 __________________________________________________________

The experiments have been carried out for two relative densi-
ties:
analysis of its influence on the geogrid pull-out resistance.
Basic properties of the geogrid used in the pull-out tests are
shown in Table 2.
The pull-out tests were made for two anchoring lengths and
two widths of the geogrid specimen, namely: r majority of tests
r majority of tests
The goal of the tests for various L and B was to determine the influence of the anchoring and the dimensions of the reinforce-
ment on the value of pull-out resistance.

Table 2. Geogrid properties __________________________________________________________
Property Unit Tensar SS40 __________________________________________________________
Aperture size [mm] 33 x 33
Mass / Unit area [kg/m2] 0.3
Tensile strength
In the machine direction [kN/m] 40.0
Cross machine direction [kN/m] 40.0
Loading at 2% strain
In the machine direction [kN/m] 14.0
Cross machine direction [kN/m] 14.0
Loading at 5% strain
In the machine direction [kN/m] 28.0
Cross machine direction [kN/m] 28.0 __________________________________________________________
4 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Every experiment started with the pluviation of sand backfill into
the lower part of the experimental box and its compacting to the
desired relative density. Next, on the surface of the compacted
soil the specimen of geogrid has been placed and inextensible wires installed at chosen measuring points (Fig. 3). The wires
were connected with displacement transducers located outside
the experimental box. The free specimen end running throughout
the gap between sleeves was mounted into the clamp connected
to the pulling system. Next, upper sand backfill was formed and compacted. Finally, the rubber air bag was placed on the top of
the model and the soil container was closed by the upper plate,
which was screwed to the frame of the experimental box.

Figure 3. Distribution of displacement measuring points.

In order to harmonise the density of the soil during all tests
the preload up to 200 kPa was applied before every experiment.
The load was next reduced to the value desired for a given test.
A horizontal force was applied to a specimen embedded be-
tween two layers of soil and the force required to pull the speci-
men out of the soil is recorded.
The experiments at the constant normal stress applied to the
top soil layer and the constant displacement rate were carried out
up to pulling the geogrid from the experimental box or its failure due to the break of the material. During the tests the displace-
ments of measuring points and the pulling force were automati-cally measured in the intervals of 1 s.
After the experiment and dismantling of the device, the geog-
rid-soil contact zone, the uniformity of a material deformation
iculties in pulling the specimen
t had the influence on the earlier failure of a specimen, were carefully examined.
Totally over thirty tests have been carried out. The parame-
ters of the tests can be summarised as follows:
the specimen length L=1.50 m and 1.20 m
the specimen width B=0.30 m and 0.40 m
the confinement pressure = 10 kPa, 15 kPa, 25 kPa, 50 kPa
and 100 kPa
the relative soil density Dr=0.381 and 0.816
the displacement rate v=2.0 mm/min and 5.0 mm/min
the sleeves distance n=1.0 cm, 2.5 cm and 4.0 cm.
5 TEST RESULTS
Based on the analyse of the pull-out tests results the influence of: length and width of a specimen, confinement pressure, soil den-
sity displacement rate and sleeve distance on the pull-out resis-
tance of geogrid was determined.
5.1 The influence of confinement pressure
Analysing the test results the essential influence of the normal
pressure on the values of displacements and the soil-
reinforcement contact processes were observed.
An increase of the normal pressure causes significant increase
of the force required to the pulling of the specimen from the soil
(Fig. 4)
For high values of the confinement pressure (100 kPa) there
exists large zone of the anchoring at the opposite end of the
specimen (Fig. 5).
For lower values of confinement pressures (<25 kPa) essen-
tial increments of pull-out force were observed whereas for pres-sures higher than 50 kPa maximum pull-out resistance was mo-
bilised (Fig. 6).
For higher values of confinement pressure the factor deter-
mining soil-geogrid strength was related to the strength of geog-
rid itself.

Figure 4. The influence of the confinement pressure on the pull-out resis-
tance.

Figure 5. The influence of confinement pressure on the distribution of
the displacements for the embedded portion of the geogrid (for Fmax).

Figure 6. The distribution of maximum pull-out resistance versus normal
stress.

Figure 7. Photo of the geogrid in analogous medium (Bolt, Duszy ska
1998).

Similar conclusions have been drawn from the experiments beli analogous medium (Bolt,
Duszy ska 1988), (Fig. 7). In the experiments the strain fields,
the zone of soil-analogous medium interaction and the resistance
of the reinforcement for various anchoring lengths and surcharge
loads were determined. For the surcharge pressure = 25 kPa the values of dis-
placements are most pronounceable and the reaction of the
analogous medium most visible. The large displacements were
observed within the zone located up to 1/3 of the layer height.
For high values of surcharge pressure = 100 kPa the displace-
ments of the medium were practically zero and no significant de-
formation zones were developed.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
clamp displacement [mm]pull-out resitance [kN/m]Q=10 kPa
Q=15 kPa
Q=25 kPa
Q=50 kPaQ=100 kPa
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
normal stress [kPa]maximum pull-out resistance [kN/m]0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
2 3 4 5 6
number of displacement measuring pointdisplacement [mm]Q=10 kPa
Q=15 kPaQ=25 kPa
Q=50 kPa
Q=100kPa
5.2 The influence of the soil density
The considerable influence of the soil density on the strength of
was pointed out by many re-
searchers (e.g. Lopes et al. 1996). The experiments performed have shown that for displacements of the clamp lower than 16
cm there is almost no influence of the soil density. For higher
values the reinforcement embedded in the medium dense sand
was pulled out whereas in the case of well compacted sand after
the geogrid had obtained the maximum tensile strength the fail-ure was caused by the break of the reinforcement material (Fig.
8).
In general, the increase in the soil density leads to greater soil
and soil-geogrid shear resistance. The displacement of the geog-
rid reduces, increasing the interface stiffness modulus and the
pull-out resistance.

Figure 8. The influence of soil compaction on the pull-out resistance.
5.3 The influence of the displacement rate
In the tests performed the influence of the displacement rate was
found to be almost negligible. However, for higher displacement
rates small increase of the pull-out resistance was observed to-
gether with mobilisation of maximum resistance at smaller dis-placements of the clamp (Fig. 9).

Figure 9. The influence of displacement rate on the pull-out resistance.
5.4 The influence of the sleeves distance
The influence of the sleeves distance on the geogrid pull-out re-sistance is shown in Figure 10.
During experiments it was found that for 1 cm gap the geog-
rids were wedged by the sleeves causing the increase of stresses
within the reinforcement up to the maximum tensile strength
what finally led to its break.

Figure 10. The influence of sleeves distance on the pull-out resistance.

However, for larger gaps (n=4.0 cm) the sand poured out to-gether with movement of the geogrid out of the experimental
box what induced the decrease of the compaction of the soil near
the front wall and finally the reduction of the pull-out resistance.
In the case of geomaterial used in these tests n=2.0 m was
recognised as the optimum sleeves distance.
5.5 The influence of a specimen width
It has been observed that the decrease of the specimen width
causes the small increase of the pull-out resistance. The decrease of the specimen width also caused that the maximum resistance
was being achieved at relatively larger values of displacements
(Figs 11, 12). However, character of force-displacement curve
was similar for all cases.

Figure 11. The influence of specimen width on the pull-out resistance.

Figure 12. The distribution of displacements of the geogrid portion em-bedded in the soil for different lengths of the specimen (for Fmax).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
clamp displacement [mm]pull-out resistance [kN/m]Dr=0,381
Dr=0,816
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
clamp displacement [mm]pull-out resistance [kN/m]n=1,0 cm
n=4,0 m
n=2,0 m
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2 3 4 5 6
number of dispalcement measuring pointdisplacement [mm]B=40 cm
B=30 cm
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
clamp displacement [mm]pull-out resistance [kN/m]B=40 cm
B=30 cm
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
clamp displacement [mm]pull-out resistance [kN/m]v=2.0 mm/min
v=5.0 mm/min
5.6 The influence of a specimen length
It has been found that the deformations of the geogrid vanish
within the anchoring zone. The larger anchoring length the better
soil-reinforcement interaction. The values of specimen dis-placements within the anchoring zone are from several to several
tens times smaller comparing to the opposite part of the geogrid
depending on its length and the confinement pressure. Addition-
ally, the increase of pull-out force for longer specimens is more
regular than for shorter anchoring of specimens, but the shear re-sistance is not proportional to the reinforcement length.
For the deformeable reinforcement (such as was used in the
tests) the shear stress is a function of relative displacements be-
tween the reinforcement and the soil which are mobilised along
the reinforcement element. The distribution of the shear stress
has non-linear character with the maximum value at the pulled-
out end and zero value for the fixed end.

Figure 13. The influence of the specimen length on the pull-out resis-
tance.
5.7 Other observations
Important factor influencing the soil-reinforcement interaction is
the deformability of the geogrid, which subsequently influences
the friction between the soil and the reinforcement. The value of the friction depends on both mechanical properties of surround-
ing soil as well as on deformability of the reinforcement.
For more careful analysis the displacements of the anchored
portion of the geogrid should be also monitored.
The most crucial element of the experiment performed is the sharp transition of the geogrid from its loading part within the
soil medium to zero vertical stress acting on the geogrid within
the clamp.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Pull-out resistance of geosynthetics which are anchored in the
soil is a function of many factors such as the soil and the rein-
forcement properties, the stress in the soil as well as the model test conditions related to the parameters of the experimental ap-
paratus.
The experimental device constructed according to the rec-
ommendations of European Standard prEN 00189016 allows for
the reliable assessment of the active reinforcement length, values of confinement pressure applied and the distribution of strains
along the anchored part of the reinforcement. Additionally there
is a possibility of the analysis of other factors such as displace-
ment rate, the range of soil-reinforcement interaction zones, etc.

REFERENCES
Bolt, A. F., Duszy ska, A. 1998. Wspó praca ukbadaniu na wyci ganie w warunkach p askiego stanu odkszta ce
(Soil-geonet interaction in plane st I Problemowa Konferencja Geotechniki „Wspó praca budowli z pod-
o em gruntowym” Bia ystok - Wigry, Juran, I., Knochenmus, G., Acar, Y. B., Arman, A. 1988. Pull-out re-
sponse of geotextile and geogrids (synthesis of available experimen-tal data). Proc. of Symp. On Geotextiles for Soil Improvement,
ASCE, Geotech. Special Publication, Vol. 18,
Lopes, M. L., Ladeira, M. 1996. Influence of Confinement, Soil Density
and displacement Rate on Soil-Geogrid Interaction. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 14 No. 10;
prEN 00189016. Geotextiles and related products. Determination of
pullout resistance in soil.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
clamp dispalcement [mm]pull-out resistance [kN/m]L=120 cm
L=150 cm
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 4D
SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION
Juran And Chen, 1988

TRANSPORTA TJON RESEARCH RECORD 1188 37
Soil-Geotextile Pull-Out Interaction
Properties: Testing and Interpretation
lLAN JURAN AND CHAO L. CHEN
In this paper are presented a soil-reinforcement load transfer
model and a procedure for interpreting pull-out tests on exten-
sible reinforcements. The model combines the constitutive
equation of the reinforcement with interaction laws relating
the shear stress mobilized at any point of the interface to the
soil-reinforcement shear displacement. The main conclusions
are (a) extensibility has a major effect on soil-reinforcement
interaction; (b) for extensible reinforcement, extrapolation of
pull-out test results to reinforcement of different dimensions
requires a careful evaluation of the scale effect; and (c) a mean-
ingful interpretation of pull-out test results on geotextiles and
geogrids requires an adequate estimation of the in-.soil co?flned
properties of the reinforcement and an appropriate soil-geo-
textile interaction law.
Pull-out interaction properties are fundamental design
parameters for reinforced soil systems. The friction inter-
action between granular soils and quasi-inextensible metal-
lic reinforcing strips has already been extensively investi-
gated by Alimi et al. (1), Schlosser and Elias (2), Elias
(3), Guilloux et al. ( 4), Schlosser and Guilloux (5), and
others. Interpretation of pull-out tests on quasi-inexten-
sible reinforcements provides an apparent friction coeffi-
cient that is conventionally defined by the ratio of the
interface limit lateral shear stress to the nominal overbur-
den pressure (i.e., the weight of the soil mass above the
reinforcement). Compilation of available data from both
laboratory and in situ pull-out tests has provided an empir-
ical basis for the development of guidelines for the design
of Reinforced Earth structures ( 6).
More recently, the rapid development of a large variety
of reinforcing materials and elements has stimulated research
on the interaction mechanisms that develop between soil
and different types of inclusions such as metallic or plastic
geogrids and geotextiles. Pull-out tests have been con-
ducted by McGown (7), Gourc et al. (8), Ingold (9), Jewell
(10), Rowe et al. (11), Johnston (12), Shen (13), B. Koerner
(unpublished internal report No. 1 on Direct Shear/P~ll­
Out Tests on Geogrids, Drexel University, Philadelphia,
Pa., 1986), and others to obtain relevant interaction design
parameters (apparent friction coefficient or interface limit
lateral shear stress) for different types of geotextiles and
geogrids.
Depending on the constitutive material (metal, plastic,
woven or nonwoven geotextiles), the geometry and struc-
Department of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, La. 70803.
tural aspect of the inclusion (linear strip, ribbed strip, plane
reinforcement, geogrid with in-plane or out-of-plane trans-
verse elements, woven or nonwoven geotextiles), the inter-
nal grid (or geotextile fiber) spacings, the type of soil and
more specifically its grain size and dilatancy properties,
different types of load transfer mechanisms can be gen-
erated. These mechanisms fundamentally involve four
interaction phenomena: (a) lateral friction, plane (mem-
branes) or three dimensional (linear strips, longitudinal
elements of geogrids); (b) interlocking (geogrids, geotex-
tiles); ( c) passive soil pressure on transverse elements (geo-
grids, ribbed strips); and (d) the effect of restrained dila-
tancy on normal stress at the interface (linear inclusions
in dilatant granular soils). The relative movement of soil
and reinforcement required to bring these phenomena into
play can be substantially different. With metallic strip rein-
forcements, the soil displacement necessary to generate
lateral friction at the interfaces is small [ millimetric (J, 2)].
However, with more extensible reinforcements, or with
systems that rely on passive soil pressure on transverse
elements, the soil displacement required to generate pull-
out resistance can be substantially greater. Therefore, in
order to rationally design these systems, it becomes essen-
tial to develop a load transfer model that is capable of
predicting the pull-out response of the inclusion and spe-
cifically its displacements under the applied tension force.
The extensibility of the reinforcement significantly affects
the load transfer mechanism. Pull-out tests on geotextiles
(7) have demonstrated that the interaction between soil
and extensible inclusions results in a nonuniform shear
displacement distribution that is associated with a shear
stress concentration at the front part of the inclusion. Con-
sequently, the concept of a uniformly mobilized interface
limit lateral shear stress (or apparent friction coefficient),
which is generally used in the design of Reinforced Earth
structures with metallic reinforcements, is not adequate
for the interpretation of pull-out tests on geogrids and
geotextiles. Moreover, as indicated by McGown (7), Gourc
(8), Jewell et al. (14), and Koerner, the limit lateral shear
stress obtained from the pull-out tests can be significantly
different from that determined by direct shear tests with
a soil-inclusion interface.
Modeling the load transfer mechanism generated in a
pull-out test on extensible inclusions requires appropriate
constitutive equations for the soil and the inclusions as
well as a rational interaction law to relate the shear stress
mobilized at any point of the interface to the soil-rein-
38
forcement shear displacement. This interaction law can be
obtained from direct shear tests with soil-geotextile inter-
face (11, 15-17, and Koerner). The load transfer model
should allow for an estimate of the shear stress distribution
along the reinforcement and of the front edge displacement
caused by the applied pull-out force.
In this paper the authors present an interpretation pro-
cedure for pull-out tests on extensible inclusions. This pro-
cedure is derived from the "t-z" method, which is com-
monly used in design of friction piles (18). Two interface
models are considered in which it is assumed that the inter-
face layer is (a) elastic-perfectly plastic and (b) elasto-
plastic with strain hardening and softening during shearing.
This interface soil model can be obtained from the results
of direct shear tests with a soil-geotextile interface and
integrated numerically in the analysis.
To evaluate the proposed test interpretation procedure
and the two interface soil models, the results of pull-out
tests performed by Juran (19) on extensible inclusions
(woven polyester and nonwoven geotextile strips) and by
Jewell (JO) on metallic grids were analyzed and compared
with numerical test simulations. A parametric study was
conducted to assess the effect of the extensibility of the
inclusion on its displacement response to the applied pull-
out load.
FORMULATION OF SOIL-INCLUSION LOAD
TRANSFER MODEL AND PULL-OUT TEST
INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE
The principles of discretizing and modeling the load trans-
fer along the reinforcement are illustrated in Figure 1. As
indicated previously, the interaction law, which relates the
interface shear stress to the soil-reinforcement shear dis-
placement, can be obtained from direct shear tests on a
soil sample in which the reinforcement is placed at the
level of the failure surface. However, to simplify this anal-
,...--Dense Sond
T'mox
...
(/)
(/) w a::
I-(/)
a::
ct w :J:
(/)
0 Ye
DISPLACEMENT y
Tmax
TRA NSPORT A T/ON RESEARCH RECORD l/88
ysis, two interface models are considered. These models
and their usc in test interpretation to obtain the relevant
interaction design parameters are presented.
Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Interface Soil Model
The following assumptions are made:
1. The reinforcement is elastic, that is,
E(X) oy
ox
T(x)
ES (1)
where
E(x)
T(x)
y(x)
S=
E=
the elongation of the inclusion at point (x);
the tension force at this point;
the displacement of the inclusion at point (x);
the section area; and
the elastic modulus; nonlinear behavior can be
considered by introducing an elastic modulus
that is a function of the actual strain.
2. The interface layer is elastic-perfectly plastic. The
soil-inclusion interaction law can be written as
k · y(x)
Tmax
where
'Tmax = tan ljJ · -yh,
T(x) = the shear stress mobilized at point (x),
k = the shear modulus of the interface,
ljJ = the soil-inclusion friction angle,
-yh = the overburden pressure, and
(2a)
(2b)
'T max = the ultimate lateral shear stress at the interface.
0
d• n
"dx l
~
T=O
y y + dy
T(X) -~ T, y T; --T;+t >---------< Yo dx
T'mo1
Ye
Tmox
L0 (effl
FIGURE 1 Modeling load transfer between soil and extensible inclusion.
Juran and Chen
The local equilibrium of each segment of the inclusion
(Figure 1) implies that
1 ST T(X) p ox (3)
where p is the perimeter (p = 2b; b is the width of the
inclusion).
By combining Equations 1 and 3, the following differ-
ential equation is obtained:
(4)
where T(x) is given by the interaction law (Equation 2).
The solution of this differential equation for infinitely
long inclusion provides the distribution of displacement
and tensile forces along the inclusion:
• For y <Ye = Tma.fk, the interface is in an elastic range:
y
T(x)
'A.To
ES (Sa)
(Sb)
where 'A. = (ESIKP)112 is a reference "transfer length."
• For y ~ TmaJk, the interface is in a plastic range:
y (Sc)
T(x) (Sd)
For this case, the front edge displacement of the inclu-
sion (y0) is calculated by using the compatibility condition
at the limit of the elastic and plastic zones, which yields
y = Ye = -Tmax/k and y~ = TmaAk'A.)
Hence, for y0 > Yn
1 ("'-)2 (T0)2 Yo = -Ye [1 + -· - ] 2 Ye ES (6)
Although the solution is developed for infinitely long
inclu ions for the reinforcements commonly used (length
l greater than 3'!1.), the error is negligible.
Figure 2 shows a graphic procedure that can be used for
the interpretation of pull-out tests on extensible inclusions
to obtain the interaction parameters k and tan ljJ. In the
plane of (T/ES)2 versus y0 , a linear regression will provide
an experimental straight line with
• An initial coordinate at the origin equal to y)2 and
• A slope equal to 'A.2/(2yc)·
The soil-reinforcement interface friction angle can then
39
-•icn .. I-' UJ --PULL OUT CURVE
Cl) UJ Cl) u UJ a: a: 0 I-i... Cl)
a: I-:::> ~ 0 UJ
:i: ..J
Cl) _J
:::>
t'max at Y "'Ye
(1.
Ye I y I e 2 FRONT DISPLACEMENT Yo
FRONT DISPLACEMENT y0
I
I
I
I
I
Ye [ X Z To ~ -I+(-)·(--·-) 2 Ye ES
X • [E·S/(K·P)]11Z
FRONT DISPLACEMENT Yo
FIGURE 2 Interpretation procedure for pull-out tests on
extensible inclusions.
be calculated from
tan ljJ = ( _E£) . (Ye) \P . -yh 'A_2 (7)
Elastoplastic Strain Hardening Interface Soil Model
To develop a more realistic load transfer model, an elas-
toplastic constitutive equation is used to simulate the
behavior of the interface layer during shearing. This model
(20), which is implemented by using the finite difference
method, allows for the integration of both strain hardening
and strain softening in the shear stress-displacement rela-
tionship of the soil-inclusion interface. This relation can
be written as
T(y) y -a
a Y = cy (y + b )2 (8)
The constants a, b, and care determined from the follow-
ing conditions:
1. The initial shear modulus of the interface layer is
equal to
[
iJ(TfCJ')] _ ~
ay y-o (J'y. d
where d is the thickness of the interface layer.
Results of direct shear tests performed by Jewell (JO)
using an x-ray radiographic technique to measure the dis-
40
placement field in the soil suggest that. in dense unrein-
forced sand, the thickness of the sheared layer (d) is ab ut
10 to 20 mm.
2. At the peak of the shear displacement-shear stress
curve,
T - = tan ljJP
CYy
where l)Jµ is the peak soil-inclusion friction angle.
3. At the residual critical state,
T - = tan ljJ,.
CYy
where ljJ,. is the residual critical state soil-inclusion friction
angle. Hence,
CY d a = -4 b [tan2 ljJP · P]/tan ljJ,. (9a)
(9b)
c = tan ljJ,. (9c)
and
J = 1 + [1 -tan ljJ,Jtan ljJP]2 (9d)
Coupling the equilibrium equation with the con titutive
equations of the inclusi n and the int rface layer (Equa·
tions 4 and 8) the numerical olution I' r the given
boundary conditi n. or T0 = T,, (nppli d pull-out fore )
and T,, = 0 provides the distributions of the displace-
ments and tensile forces along the inclusion. The inter-
action parameters [ G/( CY yd), tan ljJP, tan ljJ,.] are determined
using a curve-fitting procedure.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND NUMERICAL TEST
SIMULATIONS
Pull-out tests have been performed on both woven poly-
ester and nonwoven geotextile strips. Figure 3 shows the
SLEEVE
w
v2 v1 Rm0,0 10 K !l. ~
f..--55cm~
GEOTEXTILE
REINFORCEMENT
FIGURE 3 Pull-out box and instrumentation.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1188
t<Nlcm) •
25
20
15
10
5
0"'-~~~-5'--~~~-1~0~~~~'--~~~-20'--•
STRAIN-E (%)
FIGURE 4 Confined and unconfined stress-strain
relationship of woven polyester.
pull-out box and the instrumentation of the reinforce-
ments. The front edge displacement of the inclusion was
measured using both an externally placed graduated scale
and potentiometers (change of electrical voltage was cal-
ibrated in terms of point displacement). Potentiometers
were also placed at different points along the inclusion to
provide the displacement distribution under each pull-out
load.
Before the pull-out tests, "confined" and "unconfined"
extension tests were performed on the reinforcements to
determine their in-air and in-soil constitutive equations.
The confined extension tests were performed in the pull-
out box under a confining pressure of CY.v = 2 kPa. The
testing procedure consists of applying successive load
increments at the front edge of the reinforcemeni while
the rear edge is fixed or simultaneously subjected to the
same load increments. A similar load-controlled testing
procedure was also used in the pull-out tests with the rear
edge of the reinforcement unattached. To avoid any
unconfined extension of the front part of the reinforcement
during the test, this part was placed between two metal
plates. A sleeve was used to minimize the boundary effect,
and during the test the inclusion was entirely confined by
the surrounding sand.
12
10
8
6
4
2
Figures 4 and 5 show the confined and unconfined stress-
T b(N/cm)
ES/b: 813 N/cm
)
o ...... =>-~-2'----'-3~-4'---'5~-s.___..1~-e..____..9~-1~0~~1-1 ~1~2~
STRAIN-E (%)
FIGURE 5 Confined and unconfined stress-strain
relationship of nonwoven geotextile.
Juran and Chen
TABLE 1 CONFINED AND UNCONFINED MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF THE
REINFORCEMENTS
Confined
Unconfined (cry = 2 kPa)
Reinforcing ES/b Tc,Jb ES/b Tc,Jb
Material (N/cm) (N/cm) (N/cm) (N/cm)
Woven polyester 130 24 280 28
Nonwoven geotextiles 28.6 2.5 500 10
NOTE: Ta is the ultimate tensile force at breakage of the sample during a tensile test.
strain relationships of the woven polyester and nonwoven
geotextile reinforcements. The related material properties
are given in Table 1. These results demonstrate that, for
the nonwoven geotextile reinforcement, the confined elas-
tic modulus is about 20 times the unconfined one, and the
confined· tensile strength is about 4 times the unconfined
one.
<j'
I
10
9
8
7
~ 6
Specimen Length
(cm)
55
30
Figure 6 shows the results of pull-out tests on a woven
polyester strip. The distance lag between the front edge
displacements measured with the graduated scale and with
the potentiometer is most probably due to a local defor-
mation of the metallic wire connecting the measurement
point with the potentiometer (such displacement could occur
during placement in the soil). It should also be noted that
the available instrumentation does not provide accurate
displacement readings under relatively low loading levels.
However, as shown in Figure 7, the displacement incre-
ments measured with the potentiometer correspond fairly
well with those measured with the graduated scale. The
experimental straight line y0 = f([T! ES]2) yields the fol-
lowing interaction parameters:
't'mo• Yh Ye , -k-, ton ljl-k-
X.2/(2yc) = 3302.88 mm,
Ye= 0.7 mm,
X. = 58 mm,
klay = 1.5, and
tan ljJ = 1.1.
Figure 8 shows the variations of the displacements along
the inclusion measured under different pull-out loading
7
6
C\J 'o 5
(/) w
5
o Potentiometer
• E•t•rnol Displacemen1
10 15 20 25
y0 (mm)
20
e
E 10
5
0
3
1/2 >., [E·S/(K·P)]
o"-'---'--'-2~3.__~4~~5--'6~~~__.
y0 (mm)
FIGURE 7 Pull-out test on woven
polyester: interpretation.
30 D(cm)
FIGURE 6 Pull-out test on woven polyester: force
displacement curve.
FIGURE 8 Variation of displacements along a woven
polyester strip during pull-out test.
41
42
levels. Figures 9 and 10 show the results of two pull-out
tests on nonwoven geotextile reinforcements. Using the
interpretation procedure outlined previously, the follow-
ing interaction properties are obtained:
A21(2yr) = 1.5 X 105 mm,
Ye = 1 mm, and
A= 550 mm.
The calculated transfer length is greater than the specimen
length and therefore the solution derived for infinitely long
reinforcement is not applicable.
To evaluate the proposed elastoplastic interface soil
model, the experimental results of the pull-out tests per-
formed on the woven polyester and nonwoven geotextile
strips as well as those performed by Jewell (JO) on metallic
geogrids were compared with numerical test simulations.
Figures 11 and 12 show the experimental and theoretical
pull-out curves obtained from tests performed on woven
polyester and nonwoven geotextile strips.
For the woven polyester strips, the curve-fitting proce-
dure yields Gl(ay · d) = 6 (1/mm) (or Glay = 60), t\ip =
42 degrees, and tlir = 32 degrees. Confined elastic modulus
is considered in this analysis. These interaction parameters
correspond fairly well with the material properties of the
Fountainebleau sand used in this study: Gla0 = 60, (a0 is
the isotropic consolidation pressure), <f>P = 38 to 42 degrees,
and <l>cv = 32 degrees. It is also of interest to note that
the peak soil-reinforcement friction angle obtained using
this curve-fitting procedure corresponds to that obtained
using the "t-z" method with an elastic-perfectly plastic
N 'o
(/) w ;:::
N I 0
(/) w ..... .....
TEST NO. I
o Potentiometer
•External Displacement
TEST NO. 2
15 20
y0 {mm)
y0 {mm)
FIGURE 9 Pull-out tests on nonwoven geotextile strips:
force-displacement curves.
"' I 2
"'-(/) w ..... t;
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1188
"
•
TEST NO.I
• External Displacements
o Potentiometers
TEST N0.2
a External Displacements
<> Potentiometers
•
o'lll'....__~~~5'--~~~J__~~~....L~~~-L~~
10 15 20
y0 {mm)
FIGURE 10 Pull-out tests on nonwoven geotextile strips:
interpretation.
interface soil model. However, the elastic-perfectly plastic
model provides a secant shear modulus (k), which is sig-
nificantly smaller than the initial shear modulus obtained
using the proposed elastoplastic load transfer model.
For the nonwoven geotextile strip, comparison of the
theoretical and experimental pull-out curves indicates that
using the confined elastic model for test interpretation leads
to significantly underestimated displacements. If the
unconfined elastic modulus of the reinforcement is used,
and assuming that the interface soil properties correspond
to the mechanical properties of the Fountainebleau sand,
the calculated pull-out curve agrees fairly well with the
experimental one.
Figure 13 shows the results of a pull-out test performed
-0.07
(/)
w 0.06 ..... .....
~ 0 05 w
rJ
~ 0.04
LL
..... 0.03 ::>
0
~ 0.02
~
::>
Cl. 0.01
ES • 58 kg
Length " 55 cm
O'---'~-'-~-'-~-'-~'----'~-'-~-'-~-'-~L---1~-L~
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
FRONT DISPLACEMENT, y0 {mm)
FIGURE 11 Numerical simulation of pull-out test on
woven polyester strips.
Juran and Chen
0.016
~ 0.0 14
u LLJ
..... 0.0 12 I-
LLJ 0010 u
Ir ~ 0.008
1-
::J 0.006 0
j 0.004 //
:J ' • a. 0.002 I
1.
EcS • 200 kg
Lengtn = 30 cm
Ect • 50 kg/ cm
Confined
,....,.. .... ;'----
.... __.. .
,,.~,,.,,.·\_
_,,"' Experimental (Juran 1985)
/ .
Et•3pkg/cm
Unconfined
0 ~~2~~4~~6 ~~8~-1~0~~12~-1~4~1~6~~18~-2~0~~22~
FRONT DISPLACEMENT, y0 Cmm)
FIGURE 12 Numerical simulation of pull-out test on
nonwoven geotextile strips.
by Jewell (10) on metallic grids in Leighton Buzzard sand.
The mechanical characteristics of this sand are Gl(o-.d) =
4 (1/mm), <PP = 46.4 degrees, and <Pc•· = 31.8 degrees; the
applied normal stress is ay = 75 kPa. The curve-fitting
procedure yields, for interaction parameters, G/(rryd) =
3 (1/mm), \(IP = 55.2 degrees, and \(I, = 31.8 degrees. It
can be observed that the peak interface friction angle
obtained under the relatively low confining pressure of this
test is greater than the peak friction angle of the soil. These
results are consistent with those reported by several authors
(9, 12, 14-15, and Koerner), which indicates that, under
low normal stresses, the apparent soil-inclusion interface
friction angle obtained from pull-out tests on grids can be
significantly greater than the friction angle of the unrein-
forced soil. The results also indicate that, for this quasi-
inextensible reinforcement, the calculated transfer length
is significantly greater than the specimen length and there-
fore the elastic-perfectly plastic solution for an infinitely
long reinforcement is not applicable.
Table 2 gives a summary of the interface properties cal-
culated according to the two interaction models and how
they compare with soil properties.
2000
z
;: 1500
(.!) z
...J ...J ~ 500
Experimental (Jewell 1980)
Analytical
43
OL--1.~~2~--1..3~J4~-5...___._6~~7'---'-8~~9~-1~0~
FRONT DISPLACEMENT, y0 (mm)
FIGURE 13 Numerical simulation of pull-out test on
metallic grid (10).
EFFECT OF EXTENSIBILITY OF REINFORCEMENT
ON PULL-OUT INTERACTION MECHANISM
The proposed soil-inclusion load transfer model can be
used to evaluate the effect of the extensibility (or the elastic
modulus) of the inclusion on the pull-out curve. Figure 14
shows that pull-out resistance increases with the elastic
modulus and that post-peak-strain softening has a signif-
icant effect on the soil-inclusion interaction. Figure 15 shows
the effect of extensibility on the distribution of displace-
ments along the inclusion, calculated for a loading level
approaching the limit pull-out load. Figure 16 shows the
effect of extensibility on both the front and the rear edge
displacements of the inclusions. The quasi-inextensible
inclusion undergoes a quasi-rigid movement, and the shear
stress mobilized at the interface is rather uniform. With
extensible inclusions (E = 100 MPa); the front edge dis-
placement integrates both the shear displacement of the
inclusion and its elongation. The shear stress mobilized at
the interface is a function of the soil-inclusion shear dis-
placement and therefore varies along the inclusion. For a
loading level approaching the limit pull-out load , the shear
TABLE 2 SOIL AND SOIL-REINFORCEMENT INTERACTION PROPERTIES
Interface Model
Elastic-Perfectly Elastoplastic
Soil Plastic Strain Hardening
Gla,.d GI
Gla0 Direct Shear cPp cJ>, Kia, y, \)! (a,d) \)!p \)!,
Reinforcement Triaxial (1/mm) (degrees) (degrees) (1/mm) (mm) (degrees) (limm) (degrees) (degrees)
Woven polyester 60 6.0 40-4S 32 l.S 0.7 47 6.0 42 32
geotextile (confined
(Juran (19)) £5)
Nonwoven 60 6.0 40-4S 32 NA NA NA 6.0 42 32
geotextile (unconfined
(Juran (19)) £5)
Metallic grids 4.0 46.4 32 NA NA NA 3.0 SS 32
(Jewell (JO))
NoTE: NA = Not applicable because transfer length exceeds a third of the specimen length (3A > /).
44
2000 / E = 210000MPa
-"r.· /E• IOOOOMPo
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1188
z I . '-..'<..
I-1500 /I '~'::::--... -·· r E,IOOOMPo
I' ........ ~ _,,,,..-·· """ ~ :l '.~· .............. __
~ 1000 I I /' / ··-
(!) I . .. j '/ /
~ 500 '/
~ E=IOOMPo
----
a~~~~s~~~~,o~~~-,~5~~~2~0~~~-2~s ~~~3~0~
FRONT DISPLACEMENT, Yo (mm)
FIGURE 14 Effect of extensibility on pull-out curves.
stress at the front point of the inclusion has attained the
residual shear resistance, whereas, at the rear part of the
inclusion, the mobilized shear stress is still negligible . At
a certain point along the reinforcement, the interface shear
stress attains the peak shear resistance.
This nonuniform shear stress distribution demonstrates
th at the concept of a limit interface shear stress uniformly
mobilized along the inclusion (or the apparent friction angle
concept), which is currently used in designing with metallic
reinforcements, is not adequate for the interpretation of
pull-out tests on extensible inclusions to provide relevant
interaction design parameters. It also indicates that, in a
e e
60
50
"" 40
1-z w
2 w 30
(..)
<[
...J a..
(/)
0 20
10
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ 11'
\ " \o \0 '~ \o
\
\ ..... \ \'~
\.i> '"' ,-i.
\
\ ~ •10 ' • Oo~ \
-.......::.: .00 \ "· \ -.........:_~.,8.3 ~\ ~ \
dense dilating sand, particularly under relatively low nor-
mal stresses, the limit interface shear stress obtained from
direct shear tests should be superior to that obtained from
the pull-out tests. Figure 17 shows the effect of soil density
and hence of post-peak-strain softening on the pull-out
curve.
EFFECT OF LENGTH OF INCLUSION ON PULL-
OUT INTERACTION DESIGN PARAMETERS
The major concern in the engineering interpretation of a
pull-out test is scale effect on the relevance of the pull-out
·""~--' ·--E• 2/000MPo T' 1761 N ', ---
2 3 4 5 6
..... _
7 8 9 10 II 12
NODE
FIGURE 15 Effect of extensibility on distribution of
displacements along inclusion.
Juran and Chen 45
--T (y0 )(Frant End Oispl.)
--T (y0 )(Rear End Displ ,)
~
LIJ u a:
0 i..
(!) z 1000
..J ..J :::> Cl.
I-500
I 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISPLACEMENT OF REINFORCEMENT(mml
FIGURE 16 Effect of extensibility on front edge and rear
edge displacements.
interaction design parameters. Parameters to be used in
the design of soil structures with reinforcements of differ-
ent lengths have to be independent of the dimensions of
the sample subjected to a pull-out test.
Figure 18 shows the effect of the length of the reinforce-
ment on the average limit shear stress mobilized at the
interfaces at the peak of the pull-out curve. Figure 19
shows the effect of length on peak pull-out displacement.
The results of these numerical simulations illustrate that,
with quasi-inextensible inclusions, the concept of an appar-
ent friction coefficient, or a uniformly mobilized limit lat-
eral interface shear stress, can be adequately used. The
design limit shear stress (or apparent friction coefficient)
is independent of the sample dimension, and the results
of pull-out tests can therefore be used in the design of
actual structures.
With more extensible inclusions, because of nonuniform
shear stress distribution, the average limit shear stress
mobilized at the peak of the pull-out curve is a function
I.LI u
2000
a: 1500
0 '"-
I-::> 0
of the sample dimension. Therefore extrapolation of pull-
out test results to reinforcements of different lengths requires
a careful evaluation of the scale effect.
The numeri al simulations also show that as the length
of an extensibl inclusion increases, the average limit shear
tress decrea es and appr a hes a limit value correspond-
ing 10 th e re idual interface fr iction angle. Peak pull-out
displacement increH e: i nifica ntJy with sampl e dimen-
sion, and consequently a design criterion for allowable
pull-out displacement should be considered.
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions that can be drawn from this study
follow.
1. Soil-inclusion friction interaction depends signifi-
cantly on the extensibility of the inclusion and the mechan-
ical properties of the interface soil layer.
If,= 31 .8. (Loo.e Sand)
~ 10 Io 20 2 S :;;::,
Yo DISPLACEMENT AT PULLING POINT (mm)
FIGURE 17 Effect of soil density on pull-out curve.
46
2.0
0
/uY tan I/Ip= 1.80 kpa
-E..:2i0000Mpo c. I-::;
::< ....J -E= 1000 Mpa
-a. 1.5 ....1, -E=IOO Mpa u.J u.-
<.:)(/) E=IOMpa
<l (/) uy tan 1/1, • I 25 kpa o::w
u.Jo:: 1,0 >I-<l (/) REINFORCEMENT' SOIL' FOUNTAINBLEAU SANO
:.::0:: P=4cm {2x2cm} "' = 42°
<l <l S = 0.4 cm2 I/I~= ~z·
u.Ju.J GIC1yd= 6(1/mm)
O..I ay=2kpa
(/) 0.5
1.0 2.0 3.0 4 0
REINFORCEMENT LENGTH, L(m)
FIGURE 18 Effect of reinforcement length on average
limit shear stress.
2. With quasi-inextensible metallic inclusions, the con-
cept of a limit shear stress uniformly mobilized at the inter-
faces can be adequately used to determine the pull-out
resistance of the inclusion. Because the three-dimensional
friction interaction between the soil and the inclusion is
rather complex, in situ pull-out tests should be performed
to provide relevant design parameters.
3. With more extensible inclusions, the elongation of
the inclusion during pull-out loading results in a nonuni-
form shear stress distribution along the reinforcement. The
effect of extensibility on the shear stress distribution and
the front edge displacements raises major difficulties with
regard to the current use of pull-out tests on extensible
reinforcements to obtain relevant interaction design
parameters. Specifically, because the pull-out resistance is
not proportional to the length of the reinforcement, a care-
ful evaluation of the scaie effect is required in an extrap-
olation of pull-out test results to reinforcements of differ-
ent lengths.
4. A meaningful interpretation of the results of pull-out
tests on geotextiles and geogrids requires an appropriate
load transfer model. A reliable procedure for the deter-
-20
E 0
1-z ~ 15
u.J u « ....J Cl.
(/)
0 10
1-
::i
0
....J ....J 5 ::> Cl.
:.:: « u.J 0..
/ E = IOOO Mpa
l..::~;;;:;;;:;::i::::.....,::::;;;;c:;;;;::=::::i::::::::..:::::E~=~2~1~0000Mpa
I 0 2 0 3.0 4 0
REINFORCEMENT LENGTH, L (m)
FIGURE 19 Effect of reinforcement length on peak pull-
out displacement.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1188
mination of interaction design parameters and the esti-
mation of the pull-out resistance of inclusions therefore
necessitates (a) an adequate constitutive equation for the
in-soil confined inclusion that is capable of integrating the
effect of soil confinement on the mechanical properties of
the geofabric and (b) an appropriate interaction law relat-
ing the mobilized interface shear stress to the actual soil-
reinforcement shear displacement. For geotextiles, this
interaction law can be obtained from direct shear tests on
a soil-inclusion interface. The pull-out tests, however, allow
for an experimental evaluation of the proposed interaction
law. They can be efficiently used in situ to determine through
a curve-fitting procedure the model-related interaction
design parameters.
REFERENCES
1. I. Alimi, J. Bacot, P. Lareal. N. T. Long, and F. Schtos er.
Etude de !'adherence ol·armatures. Proc., 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, Japan 1977, Vol. 1, pp. 11-14.
2. F. Schlos ·er and V. Elias. Friction in Reinforced Earth. Proc.,
Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE Annual Con-
vention, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1978.
3. V. Elias. Friction in Reinforced Earth Utilizing Fine Grained
Backfills. Proc., International Conference on Soil Reinforce-
ment, Pari. France, 1979, pp. 435-438.
4. A. Guilloux, . Sehl s er, and . T. Long. Etude du frotte-
ment sable-armature en hiboraroire. Jmemational Co11ferf'l1ce
on Soil Reinforcement, Paris, France, 1979 , Vol. 1, pp. 35-
40.
5. F. Schlosser and A. Guilloux. Le frottement dans le ren-
forcement des sols. Revue Franfaise de Geotechnique, No.
16. 1981, pp. 65-77.
6. F .• chlosser and P. egrestin. Oimensionnement d~ ouv-
rng1' en rerr · armee par lH methode de l'~qilibrc local. lnter-
natio.nal onference on Soil Reinforcement Pari France,
1979.
7. A. McGown. The Properties of Nonwoven Fabrics Presently
Identified a Being Important in Public Work Applicati n .
Proc .. INDEX 78 oagres uropeon Di posablcs and N n-
wovens Association, 1978, pp. 1.1.1-1.3.1.
8. J.P. Gourc, P. Delmas, and J.P. Giroud. Experiments on
Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles. Presented at ASCE
National Convention, Portland, Oreg., 1980.
9. T. S. Ingold. Laboratory Pull-Out Testing of Grid Reinforce-
ments in Sand. Geotec/111ical Testing Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3,
1983. pp. 101-ll l.
10. R. A. Jewell. Some Effects of Reinforcement on the Mechan-
ical Behavior of "oil. Ph.D. di s r1n1ion Cambridge Uni-
versity, Cambridge, England, 1980.
11. R. K. Rowe, S. K. Ho, and D. G. Fisher. Determination of
Soil-Geotextile Interface Strength Properties. Proc., 2nd
Canadian Symp ium on Geotextiles, 1984 , pp. 25-34.
12. R. S. Johnston. Pull-Out Te.wing of Tensar Geogrids. M.S.
thesis. University of California, Davis, 1985.
13. C. K. Shen. Final Report on Pull-Out Testing of Tensar SR-
2 Geogrids. Tensar Corporation, Morrow, Ga., 1985 .
14. R. A. Jewell, G. W. F. Milligan, R. W. Sarsby, and D.
Dubois. Interaction Between Soil and Geogrids. Symposium
on Polymer Grid Reinforcement, London, England, 1984, pp.
18-30.
15. A. McGown. Reinforced Earth, Discussion to Session 8. Proc.,
7th uropean onC·rence on ii Mechanic. and f'oundation
Engineering, Ilrighron , ngland, 1979 . Vol. 4, pp. 284-287.
16. 13. Myles. A. e ·sment of oil 17abri 17riction by Mc1111s of
Juran and Chen
Shear. Proc., 2nd International Conference on Geotextiles,
Las Vegas, Nev., 1982, pp. 787-791.
17. S. K. Saxena and J. S. IJudiman. Interface Response of
Geotextilcs. Proc., 11th lnrcrnational Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1985, pp. 1801-1804.
18. H. M. oyle and L. C. Reese. Load Transfer for Axially
Loaded Piles in Clay. Journal of the Soil Mec/11111ic a11d Fo1111-
dation Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. 2, 1966, pp. 1-26.
19. I. Juran. Internal Rew1rch Report 011 Behwior of Rei11forced
Soils. FHWA Project No. DTFH-61-84-C-00073. FHWA,
U .S. Department of Transportation, 1985.
47
20. I. Juran, M. H. Ider, C. L. Chen, and A. Guermazi. Numer-
ical Analysis of the Response of Reinforced Soils to Direct
hearing, Part 2. lllfenwtional Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Method · in Geomecha11ics, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1988,
pp. 157-171.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Soil and
Rock Properties.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 4E
SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION
Geotesting Express, Inc.

Lab Services: Geosynthetic Testing
Test Method Title
Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout Resistance in Soil
Reference Number
ASTM D6706
Material
Geogrid
Test Property
pullout resistance
Description of Test
A geosynthetic material is placed between two layers of soil. A normal load is applied to the
setup. The geosynthetic is clamped on one end and pulled out of the soil. The force required to
pull the geosynthetic is recorded. Pullout resistance is calculated by dividing the maximum load
by the specimen width. A plot of maximum pullout resistance versus applied normal stress is
produced when multiple tests are performed at multiple normal loads.
Preferred Test Sample Size
6' x roll width
Number of Test Specimens
3
Test Specimen Size
3' x 4'
Keywords
pullout resistance; soil-geosynthetic interface
For more information, contact GeoTesting Express:
Atlanta
770.645.6575
Boston
978.635.0424
Chicago
224.676.1371
New York
212.566.6630
[e-mail]
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 4F
SPECIAL PROVISIONS for MSE BERM CONSTRUCTION
Stulgis, 2005

FULL-SCALE MSE TEST WALLS
R.P. Stulgis
GeoTesting Express, Inc., Boxborough, MA USA
ABSTRACT
This paper describes research being performed under National Cooperative Highway
Research Project (NCHRP) HR 24-22. The objective of the project is to develop selection
guidelines, soil parameters, testing methods, and construction specifications that will allow the
use of a wider range of reinforced fill materials within the reinforced zone of mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Phase I consisted of a literature search on the use and performance
of different soil types for reinforced fill in MSE walls. State transportation agency and private
industry responses to a “survey of the current practice” for MSE backfill were compiled. A full-
scale field test is currently being conducted in Phase II to establish properties for “high fines”
reinforced fill and associated design controls that give acceptable performance, and details are
described. New guidelines for MSE backfill will be recommended, and will provide economic
incentive to relax current MSE wall reinforced fill specifications.
FULL-SCALE FIELD TEST
The results of the Phase I literature search and survey indicate that MSE walls on
transportation projects are generally conservatively designed, with “low fines” reinforced soils.
Private MSE walls are less conservatively designed, and use a variety of reinforced soils (NCMA
allows for 35% < 0.075mm). It is also clear from the literature that reinforced soil consisting of
fine-grained soils (either “high” fines or “high” plasticity) and pore pressure resulting from lack
of drainage in the reinforced zone were the principle reasons for serviceability problems
(excessive deformation) or failure (collapse).
However, on further review, it appears that a higher quantity of fines could be safely
allowed in the reinforced fill, provided the properties of the materials are well defined and
controls are established to address the design issues. The potential savings from replacing
AASHTO reinforced fill materials with marginal reinforced fill materials could be in the range of
20 to 30% of current MSE wall costs.
A full-scale field test is currently being conducted, in order to establish properties for
“high fines” reinforced soils and associated design controls that give acceptable MSE wall
performance. The field test includes provisions to demonstrate the role of pore water pressure in
the reinforced fill and the importance of including a positive drainage system to obtaining good
wall performance. Based on the survey of the literature, to date, full-scale test or experimental
MSE walls have not rigorously evaluated this important aspect.
The field test consists of four sections: One section with an A-1-a reinforced fill to
provide a baseline of performance for current AASHTO standards. A second section with an A-
2-4 reinforced fill to demonstrate that non-plastic, silty sand materials with up to 35% fines (of
no plasticity) can provide suitable reinforced fill for MSE walls. The third and fourth sections
with an A-4 material to demonstrate that silty soils (50% fines) of low to moderate plasticity can
provide suitable reinforced fill for MSE walls. The test sections have been designed so that they
demonstrate acceptable performance for the normal design conditions, but show distress when
subjected to extreme conditions of high pore water pressures in the reinforced fill and a surface
surcharge load.

Details of Field Test

Figure 1 presents the field test layout that fits within the site constraints and design elements of
the test sections, respectively:

Figure 1. Plan and elevation of full-scale test walls.

• The layout permits the simultaneous testing of three reinforced fill materials.
• Each test section is 20 feet high and 60 feet long.
• The width of fill behind the reinforced fill zone has been established by analysis to
minimize boundary condition effects on the test section.
• The reinforcing length has been established at 14 feet, in accordance with FHWA guidelines
(i.e. 0.7H, where H = the height of the wall).
• Test Section A employs an A-1-a reinforced fill, to provide a baseline of performance for
current AASHTO standards. Polyester geogrid was used for the reinforcement.
• Test Section B employs an A-2-4 reinforced fill, to demonstrate that non-plastic to
slightly plastic, silty sand materials with up to 35% fines (PI < 6) can provide suitable
reinforced fill for MSE walls. Polyester geogrid was used for the reinforcement.
• Test Section C includes an A-4 material, to evaluate silty soils (50% fines) of low
plasticity (PI < 6) and their behavior as reinforced fill for MSE walls. Polyester geogrid
was used for the reinforcement.
• Test Section D employs the same A-4 material as Test Section C, but geotextile
reinforcement was used in lieu of polyester geogrid.
• The reinforcement spacing was established at 18 inches.
• The test sections have been hydraulically separated from each other. A vertical PVC
geomembrane was installed at the back of and along the sides of each test section. In
addition, a PVC geomembrane was installed beneath the footprint of the test sections.
The vertical PVC geomembrane was field welded to the base geomembrane.
• The fill material behind the reinforced fill zone consists of a sand with a permeability
greater than 10-3 cm/sec.
• Welded wire was used for the wall face system. A geotextile wrap is provided at the
face to retain the reinforced fill

Groundwater/Rainfall Simulation and Monitoring Porewater Pressure Effects

An essential component of an MSE retaining wall that uses reinforced fill with “high fines”
soil is aggressive drainage, to prevent the buildup of pore water pressure in the reinforced zone.
This pore pressure produces an additional outward force that the wall must resist, and it reduces the
strength of the soil that holds the wall in place. Review of case studies from Phase I indicated that
pore water pressures behind the reinforced soil zone invariably played a major role for the
serviceability problems, and, in some cases, complete collapse of walls with unacceptable behavior.

Therefore, the field test includes provisions to demonstrate the role of pore water pressure
in the reinforced fill, and the importance of including a positive drainage system to obtaining
good wall performance. Figure 2 shows how this will be accomplished. A geocomposite
drainage material has been placed at the back of the reinforcement in each test section. It was
wrapped around a slotted drain pipe at the bottom of the reinforced fill that will remove water
from the drain.

To simulate groundwater, water will be pumped to a feed line at the top of the test
sections. A system of valves will control the introduction of water from the feed line into the
individual drainage soil zones of each test section via slotted, vertical fill pipes. This will initiate
horizontal flow towards the wall and into the geocomposite drain for the wall. By controlling the
head in the drainage soil (with the drain pipe open), the effect of rising groundwater level on the
performance of the wall can be simulated. We would expect little if any effect on the test
sections, as long as the geocomposite drains function as designed.

Figure 2. Typical test wall cross-section.

This phase of the test is intended to demonstrate that various reinforced fill materials will
provide suitable performance, even in areas with high groundwater conditions, as long as they
are properly drained.

By closing a valve on the drain pipe and spraying water on top of the reinforced fill, the
effects of poor drainage and heavy rainfall on the performance of MSE walls with various
reinforced fills can be simulated. The pore pressure in the reinforced fill can be increased until
the wall experiences noticeable distress. This phase will provide valuable information to
evaluate the ability of the numerical models to consider the effects of pore pressure.

Finally, the test areas can be drained, a surcharge added and the test sequence repeated to
measure the effects of groundwater and rainfall. The walls have been designed so that they
should experience considerable distress when subjected to a surcharge and high pore pressures.
This allows a factor of safety of essentially 1 to be produced, so that the ability of the numerical
models can be checked to predict factor of safety at the only place it can be measured, i.e. at a
value of 1.0 (also called incipient failure).

Figure 3 illustrates the proposed test sequence, and consists of the following steps:

Figure 3. Test sequence.

• Construct the MSE walls to 20 ft height with a geocomposite drain located at the back of
the reinforcing elements (Spring/Summer 2005).
• Monitor the walls through the winter season with soil at its natural (aka, low) in-situ
moisture content, to measure effects of freeze-thaw on wall performance and reinforcing
elements.
• In Spring 2006, raise water level in fill behind the walls to within 1 ft of ground surface
with the geocomposite drain open and functioning. This demonstrates that the design will
work for high groundwater conditions, if proper drainage is in place and working.
• Close off the geocomposite drain and let pore pressure rise in the reinforced fill until
some distress is observed in the walls or reinforcing elements.
• Drain reinforced fill and monitor response of walls under capillary heads.
• Monitor the walls through the winter season (2006/2007) with soil at a high in-situ
moisture content.
• Add surcharge.
• In Spring 2007, raise water level in fill behind the walls to within 1 ft of ground surface
with the geocomposite drain open and functioning. The Walls have been designed to
support a 5 ft surcharge under this groundwater condition without unacceptable distress.
• Close off the geocomposite drain and let pore pressure rise in reinforced fill until failure
of walls occurs. This will provide an important calibration of the ability of the numerical
models to predict factor of safety for the only condition where we know the factor of
safety, i.e. a value of 1.0.

Instrumentation Plan

Table I summarizes the questions or concerns that have been addressed in the full-scale
field test. For each question, the technical reasoning for the validity of the question and a
proposed monitoring solution as part of the full-scale field test are described.

Table I - Instrumentation Program – Full-Scale Field Test

Technical Question Discussion Monitoring Approach
What is the distribution of
pore pressures in the
reinforced fill mass?
Excess pore pressures can
produce an additional outward
force that the wall must resist

Water also reduces the
strength of the reinforced fill
that holds the wall in place.
Install multiple piezometers (e.g.
vibrating wire) at selected positions
throughout the reinforced fill to
evaluate seepage pressures.

Monitor sensors often, using
automated system to capture short-
term and long-term changes/trends.
What loads are being
carried by the reinforcing
elements, and where is the
location of the failure
surface?
Measuring the loads in the
reinforcement will help in the
assessment of the numerical
models used during design,
and to predict and develop the
means to induce wall failure.

It is important to measure
loads locally and over larger
reinforcement elements.

Local loads may give
misleading results, due to
imperfections in reinforcing
material or hard/soft spots in
the reinforced fill.

Measuring average loads over
longer elements will miss
peak strains along failure
surfaces.
Since load cannot be easily measured
in the reinforcement elements, strains
are measured and equivalent loads
calculated based on the reinforcement
material’s physical properties.

Use strain gages to measure localized
strain on the reinforcing material.

Use horizontal rod extensometers to
measure strain over a larger gage
distance.

These two independent measurements
of strain provide cross-checks of the
measurements and redundancy in the
strain measuring system.

Monitor sensors often, using
automated logging system to capture
short-term and long-term
changes/trends.
Technical Question Discussion Monitoring Approach
What are the lateral
deflections at/near the face
of the wall during
construction, loading and
failure?

What role does drainage
play on the wall stability
and response?
Excess pore pressures,
surcharges and combination
of the two will cause outward
forces that lead to bulging in
the wall face and possibly
failure.

Studies have shown that most
wall problems (serviceability
issues and collapse) are
caused by poor drainage
behind the reinforced zone.
This problem is particularly
persistent when using
materials with significant
fines.
Install inclinometers along the inside
face of the test walls, into the
foundation soil.

Perform regular manual readings.

Correlate with AMTS readings of wall
face.

Measure flow from drainage system at
outlet, using flow meter or by manual
means to correlate water in-flow and
out-flow. Use pore pressures from
piezometers to demonstrate connection
of poor drainage to poor performance.
What are the 3-
dimensional wall
deflections during
construction, loading and
testing?
Deflections during
construction may affect the
verticality and stability of the
wall and wall face.

Loading may result in
differential settlement
between the wall elements -
may lead to cracking,
separation, seepage.
Install reflective surveying
prisms/targets at various elevations
along the wall face. Targets will also
be affixed near the top of the
inclinometer casings, where visible.

Targets will be surveyed relative to
independent benchmarks during
construction and testing. Targets will
be automatically read, using
Automated Monitoring Total Station
technology.
Is there any slip between
the reinforcement and the
retained soil?
Pull-out failure may occur, if
the resistive shear strength of
the soil-reinforcement
interface is exceeded.

This may occur during wall
construction (most-likely in
the upper layers of
reinforcements where
confining stresses are low) or
as a result of soil-softening
during wetting of the material
after construction.
Horizontal rod extensometers will
extend beyond the limits of the
reinforcement, to record any
differential movements at the tail of
the reinforcing element.

Technical Question Discussion Monitoring Approach
Are there adverse
seasonal affects on the
reinforced fill near the
wall face and at the top of
the wall?
Reinforced fill containing fines
may be susceptible to damage
from freezing conditions.

Soils with fines swell due to
frost lenses and other
freeze/thaw features. This may
increase the forces in the
reinforcing elements and can
cause the wall facing to move
outwards.
Install thermistors at selected locations
and offsets back from the wall face, to
monitor temperatures in the reinforced
fill.

Install weather station to monitor and
record ambient conditions, including
temperature, rainfall, relative
humidity, and wind speed/direction.

Monitor sensors often, using
automated system to capture short-
term and long-term changes/trends.
What are the vertical
deformations at/near the
face of the wall?
“High fines” soils tend to
deform more than clean,
granular soils, and the
deformation may be time
dependent. Increased vertical
deformation can produce
downdrag on the back of
facing units and facing
connections.
Install settlement plates and/or soil
extensometers at various depths within
the reinforced fill to measure vertical
deformations.

Most instruments are electronic and connected to automatic data logging equipment using
the iSiteTM system. This system has been programmed for each instrument to have a warning
level at which an electronic notice is sent to key personnel indicating that some activity is
occurring at that instrument. Instruments are being read as often as desired and stored in the on-
site data loggers. These data loggers are connected by cell phone-modem to our web server,
which periodically contacts the site and updates its database with the latest readings on all
instruments. The database is accessible with a WEB browser and provides any of our team with
up-to-date process readings plotted in engineering units at any time from any location with WEB
access. With iSiteTM very little effort is being spent collecting and processing data from the
instrumentation. Instead, computers are performing this task and performing it frequently. This
allows the field tests to be carried out with far more extensive monitoring than typically possible.
The benefit of this more extensive monitoring is to identify the effects of environmental changes,
such as temperature and rainfall on the performance of the wall to a degree of detail not
previously possible. During the conduct of Phase I of the project, most state transportation
agencies expressed an interest in following the test results in real-time over an internet
connection, and, access is being provided to authorized state transportation agency users.

Optical survey readings are being obtained using Automated Robotic Total Station
technology. The Automated Robotic Total Station (AMTS) consists of a computer controlled
total station, high precision prisms, and radios for communication of data. High precision prisms
have been mounted in an array on the face of the test walls and certain other instrumentation.
Reference prisms outside the zone of influence of the test walls are being used to aid in the
reduction of data. Once all of the equipment was mounted in a fixed, protected position, the total
station was “trained” to survey the array of prisms. The system is capable of surveying about
100 prisms in one hour. Once the AMTS system has finished performing a survey, the data is
transferred via radio to the project database powered by iSiteCentral, where it is automatically
reduced and presented in real time. Again, authorized users will be able to access the survey
data in real time through the Internet from any location with web access.

CONSTRUCTION OF FULL-SCALE TEST WALLS

Construction of the full-scale test walls began in summer 2005 and was completed in September
2005. Figures 4 through 15 depict pertinent aspects of the full-scale test wall construction, and
are included at the end of the paper.

REAL-TIME INSTRUMENTATION MONITORING

As previously indicated, most instrumentation is being monitored on a real-time basis via
automated data loggers transmitting instrumentation readings via cell phone modem to our web
server. The automatically, continuously updated instrumentation database on the server is
accessible via a web browser to our team and authorized users. By way of example, Figure 16
presents a “sample screen capture” from real-time processed strain gage data for Test Section A,
for a one-week period in October 2005.

Figure 4. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Site preparation.
Figure 5. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Placing base PVC GM and seaming vertical GM.
Figure 6. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Internal drainage. Inclinometer CasingWelded WireFace FormInclinometer CasingWelded WireFace FormDrainage composite
Figure 7. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Placing/compacting reinforced fill.
Figure 8. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. First level of rod extensometers.
Figure 9. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. First level of strain gages. Polyester Geogrid(Section C)Non-woven GT(Section D)
Figure 10. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Seaming PVC GM. Section DDrainage FillDrainage Composite
RampData Loggers(Section B)Section BSection A Figure 11. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Construction photo.
Permeability:
k at 20o C =
6.1 x 10-5 cm/sec
ASTM D 5084
Multi-point
Extensometers
Strain Gages
Inclinometer
NW GT Reinforcement
Welded Wire face Form
Settlement
Platform

Figure 12. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Full-scale field test (Sect. D).

Figure 13. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Full scale field test. Section ASection B
Figure 14. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Instrumentation cluster. Completed Test Wall – Section A
Figure 15. Full-scale field test NCHRP Project 24-22. Completed walls. Section ASection B
Figure 16 - Sample of Real-Time Web-Based Monitoring Strain Gages Test Section A.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDIX 5
OPERATIONS PLAN
CDLF and Treatment/Processing Facility
MSE BERM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
OPERATIONS PLAN
A-1 SANDROCK C&D LANDFILL (4117-CDLF-2008)

Submitted to:

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

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

David Garrett & Associates
Engineering and Geology
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

January 10, 2020 (Rev. 1)
Project No.: G18-8008
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Operations Plan Page i
CONTENTS
FORWORD ........................................................................................................... 1
OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION......................................................................... 1
SITE LOCATION DATA .................................................................................................. 1
REGULATORY CONTACTS .......................................................................................... 1
1 FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0542) ................................. 2
1.1 General Conditions ................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Special Considerations Concerning MSE Berm ..................................................... 2
1.3 Facility Description ................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Location and Surroundings ..................................................................................... 3
1.5 Geographic Service Area ........................................................................................ 3
1.6 Waste Stream and Intake ........................................................................................ 3
1.7 Hours of Operation ................................................................................................. 3
1.8 Emergency Contact ................................................................................................. 4
1.9 Permitted Activities ................................................................................................ 4
1.10 Description of Facilities .......................................................................................... 5
1.10.1 Processing Facility ...................................................................................... 5
1.10.2 CDLF (Phases 1 – 4) ................................................................................... 6
1.11 Facility Drawings .................................................................................................... 6
1.12 Staff Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 6
1.13 Inspections and Maintenance .................................................................................. 7
1.13.1 Daily ............................................................................................................ 7
1.13.2 Weekly ........................................................................................................ 8
1.13.3 Monthly ....................................................................................................... 8
1.13.4 Semi-Annual ............................................................................................... 8
1.13.5 Annual ......................................................................................................... 8
1.14 Access Control ........................................................................................................ 8
1.14.1 Physical Restraints ...................................................................................... 8
1.14.2 Security ....................................................................................................... 8
1.14.3 All-Weather Access .................................................................................... 9
1.14.4 Traffic ......................................................................................................... 9
1.14.5 Anti-Scavenging Policy .............................................................................. 9
1.14.6 Signage ........................................................................................................ 9
1.14.7 Communications ......................................................................................... 9
1.15 Fire and Safety ........................................................................................................ 9
1.15.1 Fire Prevention ............................................................................................ 9
1.15.2 Fire Control ............................................................................................... 10
1.15.3 Personal Safety.......................................................................................... 10
1.15.4 Working near the MSE Berm ................................................................... 11

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Operations Plan Page ii
1.16 Other Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................... 11
1.16.1 Sedimentation and Erosion Control .......................................................... 11
1.16.2 Water Quality (Storm Water) Protection .................................................. 12
1.17 Miscellaneous Requirements ................................................................................ 12
1.17.1 Minimizing Surface Water Contact .......................................................... 12
1.17.2 Recycling Operation over the CDLF ........................................................ 12
1.17.3 Equipment Maintenance ........................................................................... 13
1.17.4 Utilities ...................................................................................................... 13
1.17.5 Vector Control .......................................................................................... 13
1.17.6 Air Quality Criteria ................................................................................... 13
1.18 Litter Control ........................................................................................................ 14
1.19 Operating Record .................................................................................................. 14
1.20 Annual Report ....................................................................................................... 16
1.21 Contingency Plan .................................................................................................. 16
1.21.1 Hot Loads Contingency ............................................................................ 16
1.21.2 Hazardous Waste Contingency ................................................................. 17
1.21.3 Severe Weather Contingency .................................................................... 17
2 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0542) ..... 19
2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Acceptable Wastes ................................................................................................ 19
2.3 Prohibited Wastes ................................................................................................. 19
2.4 Waste Processing .................................................................................................. 20
2.4.1 Waste Receiving and Screening................................................................ 20
2.4.2 LCID Processing ....................................................................................... 21
2.4.3 C&D Processing........................................................................................ 21
2.4.4 Stockpile Guidance ................................................................................... 22
2.4.5 Processing to Finishing Goods.................................................................. 22
2.4.6 Non-Processed Material Storage ............................................................... 23
2.4.7 Processed Material Storage ....................................................................... 23
2.4.8 Asphalt Shingle Storage for Recycling ..................................................... 23
3 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0542) .................... 25
3.1 Waste Acceptance Criteria .................................................................................... 25
3.1.1 Permitted Wastes ...................................................................................... 25
3.1.2 Asbestos .................................................................................................... 25
3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment Sludge .................................................................. 25
3.1.4 Waste Exclusions ...................................................................................... 25
3.1.5 Waste Handling Procedures ...................................................................... 26
3.2 C&D Disposal Procedures .................................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Spreading and Compaction ....................................................................... 28
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Operations Plan Page iii
3.2.2 Special Wastes: Asbestos Management ................................................... 28
4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MSE BERM ............................................ 31
4.1 Waste Placement near MSE Berm ........................................................................ 31
4.2 Water Management near the MSE Berm .............................................................. 32
4.3 Leachate Management .......................................................................................... 32
4.3.1 Leachate System Operation ...................................................................... 33
4.3.2 Leachate System Inspection ...................................................................... 34
4.3.3 Leachate System Inspection ...................................................................... 34
4.4 Slope Monitoring .................................................................................................. 35
4.4.1 Laser-Scan Survey Monuments ................................................................ 35
4.4.2 Strain Gauges and Pressure Transducers .................................................. 35
4.4.3 Slope Inclinometers .................................................................................. 35
4.4.4 Piezometers ............................................................................................... 36
4.5 Slope Maintenance ................................................................................................ 36
4.6 Contingency Operations........................................................................................ 37
5 Cover Material ...................................................................................................... 38
5.1 Periodic Cover ...................................................................................................... 38
5.2 Interim Soil Cover................................................................................................. 38
5.3 Final Cover............................................................................................................ 38
6 Survey for Compliance ......................................................................................... 39
6.1.1 Height Monitoring .................................................................................... 39
6.1.2 Annual Survey .......................................................................................... 40

TABLES
2.1 Prohibited Wastes at the Processing Facility .........................................................24
3.1 Prohibited Wastes in the CDLF Unit .....................................................................30
4.1 Monitoring Schedule for the MSE Berm during Operations .................................37

DRAWINGS
Refer to the rolled drawing set that accompanies this report

APPENDIX 6
Operations Plan Forms Fire Notification
Haz-Waste Responders
Emergency Contacts
Waste Screening
Asphalt Shingles Plan

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 5A
OPERATIONS PLAN
General Facility

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Operations Plan Page 1
FORWORD
This Operations Plan was prepared in accordance with North Carolina Solid Waste Rules 15A
NCAC 13B .0531, et seq. in support of a Permit to Construct application for a planned vertical
expansion of A-1 Sandrock CDLF (NC Solid Waste Permit 4717-CDLF-2008). The facility
was permitted and constructed in three phases on the ground, one overlapping phase, denoted
as Phases 1 – 4. The vertical expansion will be pursued as Stages 1 – 4 overlapping the four
phases and each other, essentially within the same footprint. The vertical expansion will be
facilitated by a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) berm, the subject of this PTC
application. The MSE berm is a gravity retaining structure that contains a “reinforced zone”
in addition to surface drains, internal drains and non-reinforced structural embankment. The
following Operations Plan Update prepared in accordance with Rule .0542 includes aspects
typical of North Carolina-regulated landfills with special accommodations concerning the
MSE berm. Those accommodations are be highlighted in the following text. This document
updates the 2019 PTC application for Phase 3 and supersedes all previous versions.

OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – President
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Vice President
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406 Tel. [phone]

SITE LOCATION DATA
Latitude 35.98745 N
Longitude -79.84639 E
Parcel Number 12-03-0185-0-0739-W -007
Guilford County, NC Deed Date 1/17/1996
Deed Book 4378 Deed Page 0198
Plat Book 149 Plat Page 93

REGULATORY CONTACTS
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Section
Division of Land Resources - Land Quality Section
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Tel. [phone] Fax: [phone]
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 2
1 FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0542)
1.1 General Conditions
This Operation Plan was prepared for the A-1 Sandrock Recycling (Processing) facility and
C&D landfill (CDLF) to provide the facility staff with an understanding of relevant rules and
how the Engineer assumed that the facility would be operated. While deviations from the
operation plan may be acceptable, significant changes should be reviewed and approved by the
Engineer and/or regulatory personnel.
1.2 Special Considerations Concerning MSE Berm
The berm will vary in height from 40 to 60 feet and will exhibit with a front slope ratio of
1H:3V (~71.6° from horizontal), constructed in 1.5-foot courses with each course stepped back
6 inches. The exposed front of the berm will be vegetated using an appropriate growing
medium embedded into multiple wire basket and geotextile reinforced cells. Internal drainage
will prevent the buildup of pore pressure behind the berm. Liquids captured in this system will
be managed as leachate separately from the stormwater systems. Major concerns regarding
the influence of the MSE berm on landfill operation include the following:
• Potential safety hazards to workers on, above and below the front slope,
i.e., falls, dropped items, falling debris or soil (See Section 1.15.4)
• Contemporaneous waste placement during berm construction (see Section 3.3.1)
o Waste placement within 20 feet behind the back of the berm
o Operation of machinery within 5 feet behind the front face
• Surface water management (see Section 3.3.2 and Facility Plan Section 5.1.4)
o Minimizing infiltration Sloping surfaces, soil cover/temp cover
o Protecting internal drainage system Use of correct soil types
• Leachate management (see Section 3.3.3)
• Monitoring slope deformation (see Section 3.3.4)
• Maintenance of vegetation (see Section 3.3.5)
• Contingency Operations Section (see Section 3.3.6)

Each topic will be addressed in highlighted text in the appropriate following sections.
Reference is made above to sections of the Facility Engineering Plan, which discusses these
concerns in the context of construction of the MSE berm.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 3
1.3 Facility Description
The facility is an inert debris recycling facility and a construction and demolition debris landfill
located on a 75-acre tract that is isolated by natural barriers, i.e., creeks and wooded tracts.
Recycling activities take place north of an unnamed stream separating non-disposal activities
from the CDLF located south of the stream. Historically, recycling occurred at the working
face; this activity is currently not performed but may be reinstituted in the future. The recycling
yard consists of three separate areas for processing wood wastes and concrete. A scale house
and offices are located at the facility entrance, just off Bishop Road. An offsite stockpile area
for soil and finished goods is accessible from the scales area. Another stockpile area permitted
with Phase 3 is in the southeast corner of the facility.
1.4 Location and Surroundings
The facility entrance is located at 2091 Bishop Road, accessible from I-85 Business via Holden
Road or Groomtown Road. Bishop Road is paved and has a 45-mph posted speed limit. The
entrance to the facility was enhanced to improve visibility for traffic with turn lanes and a
widening of Bishop Road. Nearby facilities include an asphalt plant, other mines and landfills,
a trucking terminal, a MSW transfer station, and other businesses, all of which put heavy truck
traffic on the road. The scales and office are located near the front gate, which is the only
means of accessing the site by the public. A few residences exist within a mile of the facility
on Bishop Road, which rely on ground water wells. The site is in the Deep River Reservoir
watershed – protection of water quality is an important issue in the permitting and operation of
the facility. A regional fire department is located one mile to the west on Bishop Road.
1.5 Geographic Service Area
The service area authorized by the Guilford County Commissioners includes the entire political
boundaries of all counties within or touching a 50-mile radius from the facility. The operator
is responsible for making sure the approved service area is observed.
1.6 Waste Stream and Intake
The facility receives C&D and LCID debris from commercial haulers, contractors, and private
individuals. All materials are inert and meet the NCDEQ Division of Waste Management
definitions. The facility expects to receive approximately 150 tons per day (4000 tpm) of
combined C&D wastes and LCID. The franchise allows up to 500 tons per day (average).
Much of the C&D intake will come from an affiliated waste hauling service. The intake will
be source-sorted with putrescible MSW excluded to the extent possible.
1.7 Hours of Operation
The facility is open to the public from 7 AM to 5 PM on Monday – Friday and 7 AM to 12 PM
on Saturday. All current operations for the facility are within those hours.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 4
1.8 Emergency Contact
The scale house attendant and/or site manager are always accessible during business hours and
should the first contact for non-life-threatening issues. For fire, police, or medical/accident
emergencies dial 911, then contact the site manager, who will in turn contact the Owner and/or
regulatory agencies if necessary.
1.9 Permitted Activities
This document was prepared in pursuit of a Permit to Operate from the NCDEQ Division of
Waste Management, Solid Waste Section, for continued operation of the facility over a 5-year
operating cycle. The facility operation includes both State and County requirements (or the
more stringent of the two) and incorporates lessons learned during the first 5-year cycle, some
of which were described in the December 2009 Six-month Demonstration Report. The
following is a comprehensive summary of the permitted solid waste activities within the 75-
acre facility, shown on Drawings F1 and ES1 – ES4:
Activities conducted under Permit #41-17 (Processing Facility):
• Receipt of wood wastes and inert debris (C&D and LCID)
• Sorting recyclables, shredding or grinding the wastes1
• Removal of incidental non-compliant wastes2
• Production of mulch, boiler fuel, aggregates3
• Temporary storage of products in roll off boxes4
Activities conducted under Permit #41-17 (CDLF disposal unit):
• Disposal of construction and demolition debris
• Disposal of asbestos wastes in a designated area
1 Primary recyclables include aggregates, wood wastes, and metals; aggregates derived from the
two sources may be combined, wood wastes derived from the two sources may be blended for
fuel; typically, the C&D wastes are better suited for boiler fuel, LCID wastes are better suited for
mulching, thus the two waste streams are typically not blended; no other blending shall occur
2 Includes MSW and other non-C&D wastes that inadvertently enter the C&D waste stream at
construction sites – these materials will be placed in roll-off boxes and taken to the nearby MSW
transfer station on a weekly basis; no MSW disposal shall occur at this facility
3 Materials typically will be distributed off-site, but some on-site use of mulch outside of the active
C&D unit will occur (with limitations on application rates), and aggregates may be used on-site; all
non-fuel wood wastes processed at the facility will be considered as mulch – not compost – with
no recognized nutrient value
4 Products typically include metals, cardboard, and plastic containers.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 5
All sorting and grinding activities will take place within the approved CDLF footprint.
Finished goods may be stored outside the CDLF footprint within designated areas (approved
for mining disturbance) that have drainage control. No mining, processing or disposal
activities shall occur within designated stream buffers, wetlands, or the 100-year floodplain.
All activities and areas are accessible only via a single gate and are secure after hours. Each
permitted activity is described in brief detail in Section 1.10.
1.10 Description of Facilities
1.10.1 Processing Facility
The Owners of the facility intend to accept appropriate C&D and LCID wastes for recycling.
All incoming materials shall be accurately weighed, classified and recorded to account for
material flow. Intake materials shall be processed within the approved T&P areas. Recycling
activities may continue within the CDLF footprint at the Owner’s discretion, including
materials culled from the working face by the Operator. The relocation of the T&P areas away
from the CDLF is for public safety.

Tipping and processing areas – both inside and outside the CDLF – have runoff control
measures that can be isolated in the event of a spill of fuel, oil, or hazardous materials.
Operations shall be scheduled around the weather to minimize contact between the waste and
water – no grinding of C&D wastes shall take place in the rain. The Operator shall manage
stockpiles or storage containers in accordance with applicable fire protection and runoff control
measures. Section 2.4.4 provides further guidance on stockpiles.

The CDLF working face and processing area is restricted to trained personnel, i.e., staff and
commercial drivers. C&D unloading, processing and disposal areas must be separated by a
minimum of 50 feet. Non-processed materials scheduled for recycling shall be sorted and
placed in temporary stockpiles or containers. Recyclables may be processed and stored within
the CDLF footprint the Phase 1 footprint, subject to periodic cover requirements.

Areas A – E are designated for T&P activities and/or temporary soil storage described below.
All activities are subject to statutory timeframes for processing and relocation of materials, as
well as access requirements for firefighting:
• Area A is for crushing concrete; storage up to 12,000 c.y. of unprocessed material
• Area B is for grinding LCID; storage of up to 6,000 c.y. of unprocessed material
• Area C is for curing/screening of up to 6,000 c.y. of mulch in windrows
• Areas D - E are for storage of soil and aggregates, with maximum quantities of 35,426
c.y. and 54,572 c.y., respectively.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 6
Recyclable C&D materials shall be shipped to established markets or used on the premises in
a beneficial manner within the statutory timeframes. Non-recyclable C&D wastes shall be
disposed within the on-site C&D disposal facility. One or more roll-off boxes shall be kept
on-hand for inadvertent MSW that might come into the T&P facility, which shall be removed
on a weekly basis. Finished materials shall be removed (or turned) semi-annually to prevent
composting, except for aggregates and soil.
1.10.2 CDLF (Phases 1 – 4)
The CDLF is an unlined landfill encompassing 25.5 acres, approved circa February 2004,
became operational in 2009. Phases 1 – 4 are sized to last approximately 5 years, coinciding
with the 5-year Permit to Operate cycle. All phases drain toward large perimeter channels,
which in turn lead to the main sedimentation basin.
• All E&S measures were designed in accordance with 15A NCAC 4 and were approved
by the (now) NCDEQ Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources.
• The edge of waste is clearly staked with permanent markers – the markers will be
located to separate the MSE berm from the waste disposal activities.
• Closure of various phases will be incremental, conducted in accordance with the
approved Closure/Post-Closure Plan.
• Financial Assurance requirements will be adjusted on a yearly basis to account for new
areas opening and those being closed.
• Operation of the C&D Landfill will be in strict accordance with Solid Waste rules,
including groundwater and landfill gas monitoring programs.
• Other applicable permits include the E&S program and a storm water certificate.
1.11 Facility Drawings
A copy of the approved Facility Plan and construction drawings must be kept on-site always.
Several sets of drawings submitted to various agencies exist, e.g., local government site plan
approval, the original mine permit application and solid waste applications; revisions have
occurred over time. The Engineer should be consulted to resolve conflicts between drawings.
The Owner/Operator shall note the location of the active working face on the facility plan,
noting areas that have come to final grade and areas that are closed – the map shall be updated
continuously and filed with the Operating Record (Section 1.19). The drawings show the
locations of special waste disposal areas (i.e., asbestos), soil borrow and stockpile areas.
1.12 Staff Responsibilities
It is essential that every staff member understand the requirements of not only their assigned
tasks but of the regulatory and safety requirements for the entire facility. Employees should
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 7
understand that the overall compliance of the facility affects not only his/her position at the
facility but the ability to continue operations. All staff should be vigilant about enforcing the
waste acceptance policy and to make sure that all aspects of the operation, from mowing the
grass to the daily handling of wastes, are conducted in an environmentally sound manner.

Every employee shall receive instruction on “preventative maintenance” pertaining to ground
water and surface water quality and how to protect these features, in addition to waste
acceptance criteria and operational requirements. The critical importance of preserving
environmental quality and maintaining operational compliance should be a topic for discussion
at regular staff meetings, along with issues concerning safety and efficient operation of the
facility. In accordance with Rule .0542(j)(2), a certified operator must be present when the
facility when operations are being conducted. All training shall be documented, and Operator’s
certifications shall be kept current.
1.13 Inspections and Maintenance
The following O&M schedule highlights some, but not all, of the major the requirements for
routine facility inspection and maintenance at both the recycling facility and the CDLF. This
schedule is intended to serve as a guide for the Owner/Operator for addressing short-term and
long-term issues, but the O&M schedule does not alleviate the Owner/Operator of key rule
requirements, whether they are covered here. Attention shall be paid to the following:
• Collect trash and windblown debris around the scale, buildings, and areas outside the
working face daily in compliance with Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0542(g)(3).
• Note the date and time of cover placement (periodic and interim covers) in the
operating record in compliance with Rule .0542(f)(2).
The following tabulated summary for normal operations (see Sections 2.0 and 3.0) hereby
replaces the O&M Checklist presented in the 2009 permit application:
1.13.1 Daily
• Remove any Trash or Debris at Facility Entrance, Scales, Driveways, Ditches
• Remove any Trash or Debris around CDLF and Processing Areas, including Trees
• Check for Windblown Debris Escaping CDLF Working Face
• Verify All Waste Intake Processed and/or Disposed within 48 hours
• Verify Working Face under One-Half Acre (200 x 200 feet)
• Check Finished Goods Stockpiles for Foreign Materials or Trash
• File Waste Inspection Forms (Minimum 3 per Week)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 8
1.13.2 Weekly
• Verify Working Face is Covered Weekly
• Verify Access Roads are Passable
• Check for Spills or Leaks on Roads, Processing and Storage Areas, Working Face
• Verify that Inactive Disposal Areas are Covered per Solid Waste Rules
• Check for Proper Drainage Conditions, Erosion, Sediment Buildup
• Inspect Gates, Locks, Fences, Signs
• Check Communication and Surveillance Equipment
• Check Mulch Stockpile Size (should be under 6000 c.y.)
1.13.3 Monthly
• Check for Excess Erosion on Slopes or Benches and Ditches
• Verify Vegetation is Healthy on Slopes, Ditches and Shoulders
• Verify that Sediment Basin Primary Outlet is Draining within 5 Days
1.13.4 Semi-Annual
• CDLF Slope Vegetation Mowed (Minimum Twice per Year)
• Inspect for CDLF Slopes Cracking, Sloughing, Bulging, Excess Erosion
• Turn or Remove Finished Mulch Stockpiles (Minimum Twice per Year)
• Mow Clear Access Paths to Monitoring Wells
1.13.5 Annual
• Staff Training Certifications Up to Date
• Annual Topographic Survey of CDLF
1.14 Access Control
1.14.1 Physical Restraints
The site is accessible by the single entrance gate. All customers and visitors shall check upon
arrival; all incoming waste-hauling vehicles shall cross the scales. The entrance gates will be
securely locked during non-operating hours.
1.14.2 Security
Frequent inspections of gates and fences will be performed by landfill personnel. Evidence of
trespassing, vandalism, or illegal operation will be reported to the Owner.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 9
1.14.3 All-Weather Access
The on-site roads will be paved or otherwise hardened and maintained for all-weather access.
1.14.4 Traffic
The Operator shall direct traffic to a waiting area, if needed, and onto the working face with
safe access to an unloading site is available. Once a load is emptied, the delivery vehicle will
leave the working face immediately. All incoming traffic shall be notified to stay on marked
routes and to avoid the side slopes.
1.14.5 Anti-Scavenging Policy
The removal of previously deposited waste by members of the public (or the landfill staff) is
strictly prohibited by the Division for safety reasons. The Operator shall enforce this mandate
and discourage loitering after a vehicle is unloaded. No unaffiliated persons having business
at the facility (i.e., staff, customers) shall be allowed onto or near the working face.
1.14.6 Signage
A prominent sign containing the information required by the Division shall be placed just inside
the main gate. This sign will provide information on operating hours, operating procedures,
and acceptable wastes. Additional signage will be provided within the landfill complex to
identify public access routes. Restricted access areas will be clearly marked and barriers (e.g.,
traffic cones, barrels, etc.) will be used.
1.14.7 Communications
Visual and radio communications will be maintained between the field operators, supervisors
and the scale house. Telephones shall be maintained in the scale house in case of an emergency
and for the conduct of day-to-day business. Emergency telephone numbers (Fire and Rescue)
are displayed in the scale house.
1.15 Fire and Safety
1.15.1 Fire Prevention
Measures shall be taken to prevent fires in the raw materials and finished goods stockpiles in
the processing facility. Stockpiles shall be inspected daily for signs of smoke or combustion.
The piles shall be separated by a minimum distance of 25 feet. Temporary stockpiles of
combustible materials shall be limited to 6,000 c.y. in size and turned on a quarterly basis or
when dictated by temperature. The piles shall be monitored for dryness and temperature.
Maximum allowable temperatures shall be 120 degrees Fahrenheit.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 10
1.15.2 Fire Control
Fires in landfills and stockpiles (especially LCID facilities) have been a regulatory concern in
recent times. The possibility of fire within the landfill or a piece of equipment must be
anticipated. A combination of factory installed fire suppression systems and/or portable fire
extinguishers shall be kept operational on all heavy pieces of equipment. Brush fires of within
the waste may be smothered with soil, if combating the fire poses no danger to the staff. The
use of water to combat the fire is allowable, but soil is preferable. For larger or more serious
fire outbreaks, the local fire department will respond. In the event of any size fire at the facility,
the Owner shall contact the SWS within 24 hours and complete a Fire Notification Form
(Appendix 6) within 15 days, which will be placed in the Operating Record.
1.15.3 Personal Safety
Safety is a key concern with the operation of this facility. All aspects of operation were planned
with the health and safety of the landfill's operating staff, customers, and neighbors in mind.
Prior to commencing operations, a member of the management staff will be designated as Site
Safety Officer. This individual, together with the Facility's management will modify the site
safety and emergency response program as needed to comply with National Solid Waste
Management Association and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
guidance. Staff safety meetings (minimum one per month) shall be conducted. Safety
equipment to be provided includes (at a minimum) equipment rollover protective cabs, seat
belts, audible reverse warning devices, hard hats, safety shoes, high-visibility clothing and first
aid kits. Personnel should complete the American Red Cross Basic First Aid Course with CPR.

The working face of a landfill is an inherently dangerous place due to the movement of heavy
equipment, steep slopes, obstacles to pedestrian movement and poor visibility (such as
equipment backing up). These considerations are also a concern for the sorting and grinding
operations, as well as the concern for flying debris that can be ejected from a tub grinder.
Safety for customers will be promoted by the Operator and his staff knowing where the
equipment and customer vehicles are moving at all times. Radio communications between the
scale house and the field staff will help keep track of the location and movement of customers.

The processing areas (C&D and LCID) shall be located no closer than 50 feet to the working
face of the CDLF disposal unit. Signs, fences and/or physical barriers will be used to separate
public access areas from the working face of the CDLF and the waste processing areas (sorting,
grinding, etc.) – activities that could endanger the public shall not be conducted when non-
employees are present. Vehicles transporting waste to the facility and the public shall not have
access to the working face. Children under the age of 16 shall not be allowed in the facility.
No waste unloading, grinding or disposal activities shall be conducted after dark.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 11
1.15.4 Working near the MSE Berm
Slips, trips and falls are especially hazardous when walking or operating equipment near the
steep outer slopes, i.e., the top of the MSE berm. These areas should be avoided, or if workers
must be near the slope, they should be tied off with ropes, OSHA-approved harnesses and
suitable ground anchors. This includes routine inspection and maintenance activities. Rigging
equipment shall be dedicated to this purpose, kept in good order and inspected before each
use. The Site Manger shall be alerted to any work taking place near the slopes. All work near
the slopes shall be performed by tandem work crews. Each worker shall have a two-way
communication device and remain in close contact with the Site Manager. No personnel are
to be allowed near the slopes in wet, icy or windy conditions, or after dark.

Equipment movement near the crests of the reinforced slopes poses many potential safety
concerns, i.e., collapsing the edge of the slope, dislodging soil or debris, skidding or
overturning. Barricades consisting of guardrails (shown in the project drawings), concrete
“bin blocks” or jersey barriers shall be deployed at the tops of MSE berms. Below active
disposal areas – and active berm construction – the slopes shall be marked with high visibility
warnings and sturdy, movable barricades set at least six feet behind the slope face to prevent
equipment from venturing to close. Along the interstitial bench on the southwest side of the
CDLF and along completed sections elsewhere, permanent barriers shall be installed.
Vehicular traffic shall be restricted at all times to necessary access by trained staff.

Workers below the slopes are potentially exposed to falling or tumbling soil and debris.
Precautions should include wearing appropriate PPE and being alert to upslope activities.
Radio communications with the site manager should be maintained. Any incidents should be
reported to the site manager, and if a direct cause cannot be determined, the slopes should be
reconnoitered to detect erosion or signs of instability.
1.16 Other Regulatory Requirements
1.16.1 Sedimentation and Erosion Control
All aspects of the facility operation are subject to the requirements of 15A NCAC 4, the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control rules. Approved S&EC measures shall be installed and
maintained throughout the operational life of the facility and into the post-closure period.
Measures to curtail erosion include vegetative cover and woody mulch as ground cover.
Measures to control sedimentation include stone check dams in surface ditches, sediment traps
and basins. All exposed soils, regardless of whether they are inside or outside the disposal
area, shall be vegetated or otherwise stabilized within 15 days after any given area is brought
to final grade.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 12
1.16.2 Water Quality (Storm Water) Protection
This facility is covered by NCDEQ Division of Water Quality Storm Water General Permit,
NCG020000 – Certification No. NCG020633. Compliance with the provisions of the permit
– and the monitoring requirements – is required. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
was prepared for the facility, in accordance with the General Permit, which shall be observed
and incorporated into the daily operation of the facility. Steps to protect water quality include
diverting surface water (“run-on”) away from the disposal area, preventing impounded water
inside the disposal area, and avoiding the placement of solid waste into standing water. The
facility is obligated by law not to discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (i.e.
surface streams and wetlands). Any conditions the Operator suspects might constitute a
discharge should be mitigated immediately and appropriate entities should be contacted.
1.17 Miscellaneous Requirements
1.17.1 Minimizing Surface Water Contact
Protection of water quality is a key interest in the operation of this facility. Although C&D
wastes are typically inert, there can be chemical residues present in the C&D (e.g., solvents),
which can mobilize upon contact with water – thus generating leachate – and which can enter
the environment via storm water runoff. This tends to be more prevalent when the wastes are
processed (sorted and ground) due to increased surface area available to contact the water
source and increased exposure to ambient conditions.

Whereas the tipping and processing areas will be uncovered, the C&D processing facility shall
not be operated during rain events in order to minimize contact between the waste and surface
water, thus minimizing leachate generation. Activities pertaining to the processing facility
should be scheduled to accommodate the weather forecast. During periods of light rain,
unloading may occur and sorting operations may occur if no runoff is visible, but no grinding
shall occur. During heavy rain (with visible runoff) or periods of high wind the incoming
(unprocessed) materials shall be stockpiled and covered with tarps (secured against wind) or
incorporated into the working face to minimize contact with water. Processed materials
(including source-sorted loads) shall be placed in appropriate (covered) containers, i.e.,
transport trailers or roll-off boxes.
1.17.2 Recycling Operation over the CDLF
The Processing Facility (tipping, sorting, loading) activities may be conducted within the C&D
footprint with a minimum of 50 feet to the working face. The Processing Facility may be
located atop an inactive portion of the CDLF unit. A soil pad with a minimum thickness of 2
feet shall be placed beneath the processing facility and the wastes, including the tipping and
grinding areas, to absorb equipment leaks and spills.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 13
1.17.3 Equipment Maintenance
Facility equipment consists of a variety of excavators, loaders, dozers, dump trucks, and
specialized equipment, e.g., a tub grinder for LCID and a separate grinder with power screens
for aggregates. Most of the equipment is used in the normal course of mining operations. The
Owner represents that he has sufficient resources to provide and maintain the needed
equipment to operate the facility. A maintenance schedule for the facility equipment is beyond
the scope of this Operations Plan. The Operator (or his designee) should develop a routine
equipment maintenance program to lessen the likelihood of fluid spills or leaks.

Fuel and lubricants shall be stored under covers and/or with secondary containment systems
that are separate from the stormwater drainage systems at all times. Care shall be taken when
servicing or fueling equipment to prevent spills. Driveways, shop areas and all operations
areas where heavy equipment is working shall be inspected daily for signs of spills and leaks.
Equipment should be parked overnight and serviced in areas that will not contaminate the
stormwater management systems. Care shall be taken not to allow any hazardous substance to
enter the surface water or ground water, including (but not limited to) fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid,
pesticides, and herbicides. The requirements and monitoring criteria of the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan and the NCDEQ Storm Water General Permit shall be observed.
1.17.4 Utilities
Electrical power, water, telephone, and restrooms will be provided at the scale house. Other
sanitary facilities shall be provided for the field staff, as needed. Two-way radios or cell phones
shall be provided to the field staff for communication with the scale house. Portable light
plants may be required to promote safe operation of the processing facility.
1.17.5 Vector Control
Steps shall be employed to minimize the risk of disease carrying vectors associated with the
landfill (e.g., birds, rodents, dogs, mosquitoes). The C&D wastes should be mostly inert and
not attractive to animals. Pools of standing water should be avoided.
1.17.6 Air Quality Criteria
1.17.6.1 Dust Control
Measures shall be taken to control dust from the operations. Dusty wastes shall be covered
immediately with soil, and water shall be sprinkled on roads and other exposed surfaces
(including operational cover and/or the working face, as needed) to control dust.
1.17.6.2 Open Burning
No open burning of any waste shall be allowed.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 14
1.17.6.3 State Implementation Plan
Compliance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality under Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act, as required by 15A NCAC 13B .0531 et seq., is demonstrated with the following
discussion. Typically, the SIP focuses on industries that require air permits and activities that
have regulated emissions that contribute to unhealthy levels of ozone (NOx, SO4, VOC’s),
particularly coal combustion (electric power plants) and other “smokestack” industries.
Compliance with the spirit of the SIP is demonstrated by the prohibition of combustion of solid
waste, the fact that the wastes are generally inert and do not emit sufficient quantities of landfill
gas to require active controls (such as flaring), and the current status of the regional attainment.

The facility is not currently located in a designated area of non-attainment for ozone and/or
fine particle emissions. Nonetheless, proactive steps that be taken at the facility to promote air
quality, including dust control measures (see below) to minimize airborne particle emissions,
minimizing the idling time on trucks and equipment, keeping mechanized equipment in good
operating condition, and the use of low-sulfur fuels, subject to availability. Adherence to the
waste acceptance criteria will minimize VOC emissions. Regular application of periodic cover
will reduce the risk of fires and curtail wind-blown debris; the proper use of vegetative cover
will further minimize fugitive emissions of dust and particulates.
1.17.6.4 Green House Gas Emissions
Based a review of EPA online guidance, inert debris and C&D specifically appear to be
excluded from the GHGRP reporting requirements. Subpart HH of the EPA rules has at least
four references to C&D/inert waste accommodation in the reporting requirements for MSW
landfills; the references allow exclusion of tonnage for independent C&D units and/or sorted
loads. Within this guidance, there appears to be no current or pending future GHGRP reporting
requirements for this facility. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-waste
1.18 Litter Control
Appropriate measures will be taken to control trash and windblown debris within and around
the facility, including litter on Bishop Road. The site and entrance will be policed for litter on
a weekly basis and such materials will be collected and disposed of properly.
1.19 Operating Record
The Operating Record shall consist of one or more files, notebooks, or computerized records
and associated maps that document the day-to-day facility operations, including the waste
intake and sources, transfer records, routine waste placement, cover, and closure activities, and
records or reports of routine or special inspection and maintenance requirements and follow up
activities. These records shall be permanent and kept secure indefinitely. At a minimum, the
following records shall be maintained:
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 15
A Daily intake tonnage records - including source of generation
B Tonnage and type of recycled materials shipped offsite
C The locations and date of waste placement, interim cover placement, and
final cover placement shall be recorded on the facility map as these
activities are performed.
D Waste inspection records (on designated forms); fire notification forms;
E Quantity, location of disposal, generator, and special handling procedures
employed for all special wastes disposed of at the site
F Generators or haulers that have attempted to dispose of restricted wastes
G Employee training procedures and records of training completed
H Financial Assurance Documentation
I Ground water quality monitoring information including:
1. Copy of the current Groundwater Monitoring Plan
2. Monitoring well construction records
3. Sampling reports
4. Records of inspections, repairs, etc.
J Notation of the date and time of the cover placement (both periodic and
interim covers) must be recorded in the operating recorded in compliance
with Rule .0542(f)(2).
K Closure and post-closure information, where applicable, including:
1. Testing
2. Certification
3. Completion records
L Cost estimates for financial assurance documentation
M Annual topographic survey of the active disposal phase
N Records of operational problems or repairs needed at the facility, e.g., slope
maintenance, upkeep of SE&C measures, other structures
O Equipment maintenance records
P Daily rainfall records (via on-site rain gauge)
Q Landfill gas monitoring information:
1. Quarterly methane monitoring records
2. Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control Plan
R Updated Financial Assurance Documentation
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 16
S Compliance Audit Records (by the Solid Waste Section) and
documentation of follow up measures to ensure compliance
T Copies of the Operation Plan, Closure and Post Closure Plan,
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, Construction Drawings,
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Storm Water General Permit
Certificate of Coverage, and
U Solid Waste Permit
The Owner or their designee will keep the Operating Record up to date. Records shall be
presented upon request to DWM for inspection. A copy of this Operations Plan, along
with the Closure/Post-Closure Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Monitoring Records
shall be on-premises and always available.
1.20 Annual Report
The facility shall file an annual report with the Solid Waste Section by August 1 of each year,
detailing the activities for the preceding July 1 through June 30. Records shall be kept
pertaining to the types and amounts of wastes received, as well as the types and amounts of
materials reused, recycled, and distributed; material quantities shall be reported annually in
tons. As a requirement of the Franchise, this report also shall be furnished to the Guilford
County Planning Department.

The C&D landfill rules require an annual survey to determine slope, height, and volume. The
reporting requirements include an annual topographic map prepared by a licensed surveyor
(see Section 5). The Storm Water General Permit, issued by NCDEQ Division of Water
Quality, also has an annual sampling and reporting requirement.
1.21 Contingency Plan
1.21.1 Hot Loads Contingency
In the event of a "hot" load attempting to enter the landfill, the scale house staff will turn away
all trucks containing waste that is suspected to be hot, unless there is imminent danger to the
driver. The vehicle will be isolated away from structures and other traffic and the fire
department will be called. The vehicle will not be allowed to unload until the fire is out. If a
hot load is detected on the working face, then the load will be treated as a fire condition (see
Section 1.15), whereas the load will be spread as thin as possible and cover soil will be
immediately placed on the waste to extinguish the fire. Other traffic will be redirected to
another tipping area (away from the fire), or other waste deliveries may be suspended until the
fire is out. The fire will be monitored to ensure it does not spread. If the fire cannot be
controlled, the fire department will be notified, and the area cleared of non-essential personnel.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 17
1.21.2 Hazardous Waste Contingency
In the event identifiable hazardous waste or waste of questionable character is detected at the
scales or in the landfill, appropriate protective equipment, personnel, and materials will be
employed as necessary to protect the staff and public. Hazardous waste identification may be
based on (but not limited to) strong odors, fumes or vapors, unusual colors or appearance (e.g.,
liquids), smoke, flame, or excess dust. The fire department will be called immediately in the
event a hazardous material is detected. An attempt will be made to isolate the wastes in a
designated area where runoff is controlled, preferably prior to unloading, and the vicinity will
be cleared of personnel until trained emergency personnel (fire or haz-mat) take control of the
scene. Staff will act prudently to protect personnel, but no attempt will be made to remove the
material until trained personnel arrive. A partial listing of regional Hazardous Waste
Responders and disposal firms is found in Appendix 6.

The Operator will notify the Division (see Regulatory Contacts) that an attempt was made to
dispose of hazardous waste at the landfill. The driver of the vehicle that has unloaded, or
attempted to unload, such waste should be prevented from leaving the site until the vehicle can
be identified (license tag, truck number driver and/or company information). If the vehicle
leaves the site, the authorities will be notified. Notice may be served on the owner of the
vehicle that hazardous waste, for which they have responsibility, has been or attempted to be
disposed at the landfill.

The landfill staff will assist the Division as necessary and appropriate in the removal and
disposition of the hazardous waste (acting under qualified supervision) and in the prosecution
of responsible parties. If needed, the hazardous waste will be covered with on-site soils, tarps,
or other covering until such time when an appropriate method can be implemented to handle
the waste properly. The cost of the removal and disposing of the hazardous waste will be
charged to the owner of the vehicle involved. Any vehicle owner or operator who knowingly
dumps hazardous waste in the landfill may be barred from using the landfill or reported to law
enforcement authorities.

Any hazardous waste found at the scales or in the landfill that requires mitigation under this
plan shall be documented by staff using the Waste Screening Form provided in Appendix 6.
Records of information gathered as part of the waste screening programs will be placed in the
Operating Record and maintained throughout the facility operation.
1.21.3 Severe Weather Contingency
Inclement weather can affect the operation of the landfill. Some anticipated conditions and
recommended responses are as follows.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
General Facility Operations Page 18
1.21.3.1 Ice Storms
An ice storm can hinder access to the landfill, prevent movement or placement of periodic
cover, and, thus, may require closure of the landfill until the ice is removed or has melted and
the access roads are passable without risk to personnel of the side slopes cover.
1.21.3.2 Heavy Rains
Rain slickened soils may impede access and pose safety hazards. Activities on the working
face and processing area should be suspended until the site manager determines operations may
safely resume in each area. Inbound traffic should be held at the scale house if possible. No
unloading of waste should be performed, and no sorting and grinding should be performed
during periods of rain. If unloading in the rain cannot be avoided, the debris piles should be
kept small as possible and not incorporated into stockpiles or the working face until drier
conditions prevail.
1.21.3.3 Electrical Storms
The open area of a landfill is susceptible to the hazards of an electrical storm. If necessary,
landfill activities will be temporarily suspended during such an event. To promote the safety
of field personnel, refuge will be taken in buildings or in rubber-tire vehicles.
1.21.3.4 Windy Conditions
High winds can create windblown wastes, typically paper and plastic, but larger objects have
been known to blow in extreme circumstances. Operations should be suspended if blowing
debris becomes a danger to staff, after the working face is secured. The proposed operational
sequence minimizes the occurrence of unsheltered operations relative to prevailing winds. If
this is not adequate during a particularly windy period, work will be temporarily shifted to a
more sheltered area and the previously exposed face will be immediately covered with periodic
cover. Soil cover shall be applied whenever windblown wastes become a problem. Staff shall
patrol the perimeter of the landfill periodically, especially on windy days, to remove
windblown litter from tress and adjacent areas. Windscreens of various sorts have been used
with mixed success at other facilities in the region. Proper planning is essential.
1.21.3.5 Violent Storms
In the event of a hurricane, tornado, or severe winter storm warning issued by the National
Weather Service, landfill operations shall be suspended temporarily until the warning is lifted.
Periodic cover will be placed on exposed waste and buildings and equipment will be properly
secured. In the event of eminent danger to staff or the public, personal safety shall take
precedence over other concerns.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 5B
OPERATIONS PLAN
Treatment/Processing Facility

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Processing Facility Operations Page 19
2 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0542)
2.1 Overview
This section describes the general waste intake and handling operations for the Processing
(Recycling) Facility. These protocols shall be followed, regardless of whether the material is
source-sorted and delivered by affiliated waste transport vehicles or brought to the facility by
private contractors or the public.
2.2 Acceptable Wastes
The Facility shall only accept these waste types generated within approved service area:

• Construction Debris: Unpainted and untreated wood, plywood, particle board,
hardboard, gypsum board, siding, flooring, asphalt shingles, etc., from new
residential or commercial construction; acceptable only within the CDLF footprint.

• Demolition Debris: Concrete, brick, block and asphalt will be accepted; unpainted
and untreated wood, roofing, insulation, piping, bermboard, siding, etc., from
residential and commercial remodeling, repair, or demolition operations, will be
accepted after the Facility produces certificates of training for the staff pertaining
to the identification and safe handling of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, lead
paint); acceptable only within the CDLF footprint.

• Land Clearing and Inert Debris: Stumps, trees, limbs, brush, other vegetation,
concrete, brick, concrete block, clean soils and rock, untreated/unpainted wood,
etc.; acceptable within T&P Areas A – E.
2.3 Prohibited Wastes
No municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste as defined by 15A NCAC 13A .0102,
including hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG
waste), or liquid waste will be accepted at this facility. In addition, no tires, batteries,
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste, electronic devices (computer monitors), or mercury
switches and fluorescent lamps will be accepted. Animal carcasses will not be accepted. No
oils, grease, solvents, or fluids of any kind will be accepted, nor will bagged wastes or any
putrescible or household wastes. A partial listing of prohibited wastes is presented on Table
2.1 following this section.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Processing Facility Operations Page 20
2.4 Waste Processing
To assure that no prohibited waste enters the Facility, a waste screening program will be
implemented (see Section 2.4.3). Waste received at the scale house will be inspected by trained
personnel. These individuals will be trained to spot indications of suspicious wastes, including
hazardous material placards or markings, liquids, powders or dusts, sludges, bright or unusual
colors, drums or commercial size containers, and "chemical" odors. Screening by visual and
olfactory characteristics of prohibited wastes will be an ongoing part of the Facility operation.
2.4.1 Waste Receiving and Screening
All incoming vehicles must stop at the scale house located near the entrance of the facility and
visitors are required to sign-in. All waste transportation vehicles shall be uncovered prior to
entering the scales to facilitate inspection. All incoming loads shall be weighed, and the content
of the load assessed. The attendant shall request from the driver of the vehicle a description of
the waste it is carrying to ensure that unacceptable waste is not allowed into the Facility. Signs
informing users of acceptable and unacceptable types of waste shall be posted near the facility
entrance. The attendant shall visually check the vehicle as it crosses the scale. Suspicious
loads will be pulled aside for inspection prior to leaving the scale area. Loads with
unacceptable materials or wastes generated from outside of the service area will be directed to
the nearby Transfer Station. Once passing the scales, incoming transport vehicles will be
routed to the tipping area for unloading, inspection, sorting and appropriate processing – C&D
and LCID materials will go to separate areas (Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3).

Incoming vehicles shall be selected at random for screening a minimum of three times per
week. The selection of vehicles for screening might be based on unfamiliarity with the
vehicle/driver or based on the driver’s responses to interrogation about the load content.
Vehicles selected for inspection shall be directed to an isolated area away from the stockpile
of materials, where the vehicle will be unloaded, and the waste shall be carefully spread using
suitable equipment. An attendant trained to identify unacceptable wastes shall inspect the load,
using the Waste Screening Form (Appendix 6) to document the waste screening activity.

After the waste screening inspection of a load, one of the following activities will occur:
• If no unacceptable waste is found, the load will be pushed to the active recycling area
and processed with the remainder of the day’s intake;
• If unacceptable materials are found, the entire load will be isolated and secured via
barricades, then loaded into roll-off boxes for disposal at a permitted facility;
• Non-hazardous materials will be reloaded onto the delivery vehicle for removal from
the facility, the hauler will be escorted to the nearby MSW Transfer Station;
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Processing Facility Operations Page 21
• If hazardous materials are detected, the Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan outlined
in Section 1.21 will be followed.

The hauler will be responsible for removing unacceptable waste from the Facility. The
rejection of the load shall be noted on the Waste Screening Form, along with the identification
of the driver and vehicle. A responsible party to the load generator or hauler shall be notified
that the load was rejected. The generator or hauler may be targeted for more frequent waste
screening and/or banished from delivering to the facility. State and County authorities may be
notified of severe or repeat offenders.

Facility staff at the tipping area and on the working face may detect unacceptable waste after
it is unloaded, and the delivery vehicle has departed. One or more roll-off boxes will be kept
on-site for keeping materials that require disposal in a MSWLF. Such “rejects” will be placed
into the roll-off boxes and removed from the site for disposal at an approved facility, e.g. the
nearby Transfer Station on Bishop Road or another approved MSW facility. The roll-off boxes
will be removed on a weekly basis.
2.4.2 LCID Processing
The Facility may recycle LCID to make mulch, boiler fuel, and aggregates. LCID wastes
generally consist of brush, limbs, tree trunks, stumps, leaves, dirt, inert debris, and other
materials defined by the NC DENR Solid Waste rules. LCID materials may be stockpiled and
shredded or ground within a designated area (in a future CDLF phase) but separated from the
CDLF working face. Some LCID materials may be combined with similar C&D materials
post-processing – e.g., wood wastes that can be ground into boiler fuel or mulch and inert
debris that can be processed into aggregates. LCID materials shall not be commingled with
other materials prior to processing, except for concrete debris.
2.4.3 C&D Processing
The Facility may recycle C&D wastes aggregates, boiler fuel, mulch, and beneficial fill. C&D
materials may arrive source-sorted, having been transported by an affiliated hauler; other
recyclable material may be culled from the working face. Sorting will take place at least 50
feet from the active CDLF tipping area and/or working face, with appropriate runoff controls
and S&EC measures in place. The sorted materials will be redirected to appropriate stockpiles
and/or roll-off boxes and temporarily stored for further processing (see below). Non-recyclable
C&D materials will be pushed into the CDLF working face (see Section 3.1). Co-mingling of
pre-processed materials from the C&D and LCID waste streams will NOT be allowed, except
for concrete debris. Separate stockpiles or containers shall be maintained.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Processing Facility Operations Page 22
2.4.4 Stockpile Guidance
Temporary storage areas A – E provide considerable space for managing bulky materials,
intended to enhance the recycling capabilities and safety of the Facility. The volume of non-
processed and finished recyclable materials which the Facility may have on premises will be
limited by the availability of space needed to conduct compliant operations. NCGS 130A
309.05(c)(1) requires seventy-five percent (75%), by weight or volume, of the recovered
material stored at a facility at the beginning of a calendar year commencing January 1, shall be
removed from the facility through sale, use, or reuse by December 31 of the same year.
Placement and sizing of stockpiles need to incorporate factors of safe operation, required
storage time, and fire prevention. Stockpiles must be separated by at least 25 feet of clear space
to allow access by fire-fighting equipment. Stockpiles should be easily reached with
equipment and exhibit maximum 2H:1V side slope ratios for stability. The following table
provides height and base dimensions for certain stockpile volumes at various heights.
Height of
Pile, ft
Top of Pile
Diameter, ft
Bottom of Pile
Diameter, ft
Average Cross
Section Area, sf
Volume,
cy
20 20 100 60 2,093
20 40 80 80 3,721
25 20 120 70 3,562
25 40 140 90 5,887
30 20 140 80 5,582
2.4.5 Processing to Finishing Goods
Processing activities shall be limited to grinding, shredding, or chipping land clearing debris,
unpainted/untreated wood waste (including pallets and new construction waste), and certain
engineered wood products (plywood, particle board), to make boiler fuel or mulch (but not
compost). Inert materials will be processed and recycled into aggregates. The operation of the
Processing Facility will include the following:
• Pre-processed sorted C&D (raw materials) will be stockpiled temporarily in the
designated processing areas, either adjacent to the working face or in Areas A – C.
• Woody materials suitable for making mulch and/or boiler fuel (including pallets) will
be ground or shredded on a monthly schedule and stockpiled in designated areas (on
the ground) and/or shipping containers.
• Earthen inert materials (dirt, rocks, concrete debris) suitable for “beneficial fill”
(defined by Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0562) and/or processing into aggregates will be
ground or shredded and stockpiled in designated areas.
• Metals will be placed in roll-off boxes and kept clean and ready to haul to off-site
recycling operations until a full load is reached.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Processing Facility Operations Page 23
• NC DEQ guidelines apply for storing and processing asphalt shingles intended for
recycling (see Section 2.4.8). Source-sorted, new (non-asbestos), tear-off asphalt
shingles may be stored for recycling.
• Shingles accepted for disposal only should be sent to the working face. No grinding
of shingles shall be conducted onsite.
2.4.6 Non-Processed Material Storage
Individual stockpiles of non-unprocessed materials (not stored in roll-off boxes) shall be kept
to 6,000 c.y. per stockpile. Wood wastes should not be stored more than 3 months unless
temperatures are monitored. If the intake of wood waste exceeds the ability for timely
processing and sales, the intake of wood waste may be curtailed or diverted to the CDLF. Inert
materials (concrete, soil) must be stabilized to minimize runoff and erosion.
2.4.7 Processed Material Storage
Finished combustible materials, e.g., boiler fuel and mulch (see Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3) may
be stored for no more than 6 months in stockpiles not exceeding 6,000 c.y. per pile. If
stockpiles of finished products must remain on site longer, the stockpiles shall be wetted as
needed and turned semi-annually to prevent composting and/or fires (see Section 2.4.5). Non-
combustible materials do not pose a fire hazard and may be stockpiled for no more than one
year, providing fire prevention and erosion control requirements are observed.
2.4.8 Asphalt Shingle Storage for Recycling
The Owner/Operator shall only accept new tear-off asphalt shingles for storage, typically from
contractors they know. No grinding of shingles shall be conducted at the facility. Source-
sorted shingles shall be placed into roll off boxes or temporary stockpiles as separate loads.
Documentation for the source for each load shall be retained. A detailed plan for documenting
the intake and distribution (i.e., to a licensed recycler) of asphalt shingles is found in Appendix
6. Post-consumer asphalt shingles (PCAS), i.e. old shingles, may contain asbestos and shall
not be stored or processed at this facility.

Asphalt shingles arriving without documentation or in mixed loads may be accepted for
disposal, but these materials shall not go through the processing line and should be sent to the
working face. Acceptance and storage of documented asphalt shingles for off-site recycling
may take place within the current T&P area on top of the CDLF, at least 50 feet away from the
working face alongside other recycling activities. The facility must adhere to NCDEQ’s
documentation requirements outlined in Appendix 6 to maintain operational compliance.
Should the facility opt to grind shingles into a recycled byproduct in the future, an additional
Solid Waste Processor permit application and an asbestos screening plan will be prepared to
supplement this operational.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Processing Facility Operations Page 24
Table 2.1 Prohibited Wastes at the Processing Facility
• Putrescible wastes (garbage and/or food wastes)
• Demolition Wastes
• Hazardous wastes: Pesticides
Herbicides
Used motor oil
Antifreeze
Solvents
Paint thinners
• Hazardous materials as defined by 15A NCAC 13A
• Radioactive materials
• Lead acid batteries
• Regulated medical wastes
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes
• All sludges except sludge from water treatment plants
• White Goods
• Liquid wastes
• Animal carcasses
• Asbestos wastes
• Yard Wastes
• Tires
• Electronic equipment
• Mercury switches or lamps

References: 15A NCAC 13B .0103
15A NCAC 13B .1626
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 5C
OPERATIONS PLAN
CDLF Facility

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 25
3 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN (15A NCAC 13B .0542)
3.1 Waste Acceptance Criteria
3.1.1 Permitted Wastes
The C&D Landfill shall only accept (for disposal), the following wastes generated within approved
areas of service:
• Construction and Demolition Debris Waste: (Waste or debris derived from
construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on pavement or other
structures);
• Land Clearing and Inert Debris Waste: (yard waste, stumps, trees, limbs, brush,
grass, concrete, brick, concrete block, uncontaminated soils and rock, untreated and
unpainted wood, etc.);
• Other Wastes as approved by the Solid Waste Section.
3.1.2 Asbestos
A-1 Sandrock may dispose of asbestos within the C&D landfill, or within a special designated area,
only if the asbestos has been processed and packaged in accordance with State and Federal (40 CFR
61) regulations. Handling asbestos requires advance arrangements between the hauler and the landfill
and special placement techniques (see (Section 3.2.2).
3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment Sludge
Sludge of any kind shall not be disposed in the C&D Landfill, per Division rules. Composted Waste
Water Treatment Plant sludge may be used as a soil conditioner to enhance the final cover, upon receipt
of permission from the Division, to be applied at agronomic rates.
3.1.4 Waste Exclusions
No municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste as defined by 15A NCAC 13A .0102, or hazardous
waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG waste), sludge or liquid wastes
will be accepted. No drums or industrial wastes shall be accepted. No tires, batteries, polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB), electronic devices (computer monitors), medical wastes, radioactive wastes, septage,
white goods, yard trash, fluorescent lamps, mercury switches, lead roofing materials, transformers, or
CCA treated wood shall be accepted. No pulverized or shredded C&D wastes may be accepted –
except those materials received and inspected in a whole condition and shredded on-site. The Facility
will implement a waste-screening program, described in Section 7.3 below, to control these types of
waste. Solid Waste Rule .0542 (e) contains further exclusions (see Table 3.1).
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 26
3.1.5 Waste Handling Procedures
To assure that prohibited wastes are not entering the landfill facility, screening programs have been
implemented at the landfill. Waste received at both the scale house entrance and waste taken to the
working face is inspected by trained personnel. These individuals have been trained to spot indications
of suspicious wastes, including hazardous placards or markings, liquids, powders or dusts, sludge,
bright or unusual colors, drums or commercial size containers, and "chemical" odors. Screening
programs for visual and olfactory characteristics are an ongoing part of the landfill operation.
3.1.5.1 Waste Receiving and Inspection
All incoming vehicles must stop at the scale house located near the entrance of the facility, and visitors
are required to sign-in. All waste transportation vehicles shall be uncovered prior to entering the scales
to facilitate inspection; all incoming loads shall be weighed, and the content of the load assessed. The
scale attendant shall request from the driver of the vehicle a description of the waste it is carrying to
prevent the entry of unacceptable waste.

Signs informing users of the acceptable and unacceptable types of waste shall be posted at the entrance
near the scale house. The scales attendant shall visually check the vehicle as it crosses the scale. Any
suspicious loads will be pulled aside for a more detailed inspection prior to leaving the scale house
area. Loads with unacceptable materials will be covered (with a tarp) and turned away from the facility.
Wastes from outside of the service area will be rejected.

Once passing the scales, the vehicles containing C&D wastes are routed to the working face. Vehicles
shall be selected for random screening a minimum of three times per week. The selection of vehicles
for screening might be based on unfamiliarity with the vehicle/driver or based on the driver’s responses
to interrogation about the load content. The Operator shall use the Waste Screening Form (see
Appendix 6) to document the waste screening activities. Documentation of three random waste
screenings shall be placed in the Operational Record.

Selected vehicles shall be directed to an area of intermediate cover adjacent to the working face where
the vehicle will be unloaded, and the waste shall be carefully spread using suitable equipment. An
attendant trained to identify wastes that are unacceptable at the landfill shall inspect the waste
discharged at the screening site. If unacceptable waste is not found, the load will be pushed to the
working face and incorporated into the daily waste.
• If unacceptable wastes that are non-hazardous are found, the load will be reloaded onto the
delivery vehicle and directed to the Transfer Station.
• For unacceptable wastes that are hazardous, the Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan
outlined in Section 1.21 will be followed.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 27
The hauler is responsible for removing unacceptable waste from the landfill property. The rejection
of the load shall be noted on the Waste Screening Form, along with the identification of the driver
and vehicle. A responsible party to the load generator or hauler shall be notified that the load was
rejected. The generator or hauler may be targeted for more frequent waste screening and/or banished
from delivering to the facility, depending on the nature of the violation of the waste acceptance policy.
If the violation is repetitive or severe enough, State and/or County authorities may be notified.
3.1.5.2 Disposal of Rejected Wastes
Attempts will be made to inspect waste as soon as it arrives in order to identify the waste hauler;
ideally, the hauler can be stopped from leaving the site and the rejected materials reloaded onto the
delivery vehicle. Non-allowed materials that are found in the waste during sorting or placement, i.e.,
after the delivery vehicle has left the site, shall be taken to at an approved facility, e.g. the nearby
Transfer Station on Bishop Road or another approved MSW facility. Small quantities of garbage (e.g.,
food containers) will inevitably wind up in the C&D waste stream from job sites. These may be
disposed with the C&D wastes as long as the materials are non-liquid and non-hazardous. If large
quantities of garbage, “black bags” or any prohibited wastes are detected, the Operator shall be
responsible for removing these materials and placing them into the Transfer Station at the earliest
practical time.
3.2 C&D Disposal Procedures
Waste transportation vehicles will arrive at the working face at random intervals. There may be several
vehicles unloading waste at the same time, while other vehicles are waiting. In order to maintain
control over the unloading of waste, only a certain number of vehicles will be allowed on the working
face at a time. The superintendent and/or equipment operator(s) who will serve as ‘spotters’ and will
direct this traffic. This procedure will be used to minimize the potential of unloading unacceptable
waste and to control disposal activity.

Operations at the working face will be conducted in a manner to promote the safe movement of vehicles
and to expedite the unloading of waste. Waste unloading at the landfill will be controlled to prevent
disposal in locations other than those specified by site management. At no time during normal business
hours will the working face be left unattended. Scale house and field staff shall be in constant
communication regarding incoming loads and the movement of all vehicles on the site. The working
face superintendent is responsible for always knowing where each vehicle is in the facility and what
they are doing. Such control will also be used to confine the working face to a minimum width yet
allow safe and efficient operations. The width and length of the working face will be maintained as
small as practical to control windblown waste, preserve aesthetics, and minimize the amount of
required periodic cover.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 28
Normally, only one working face will be active on any given day, with all deposited waste in other
areas covered by either periodic or final cover, as appropriate. Portable signs with directional arrows
and barricades will be used to direct traffic to the correct unloading area. The approaches to the
working face will be maintained such that two or more vehicles may safely unload side by side. A
vehicle turn-around area large enough to enable vehicles to arrive and turn around safely will be
provided adjacent to the unloading area. The vehicles will back to a vacant area near the working face
to unload. Upon completion of the unloading operation, the transportation vehicles will immediately
leave the working face. Personnel will direct traffic as necessary to expedite safe movement of
vehicles.

The procedures for placement and compaction of solid waste include:
• Unloading vehicles at a safe distance from operating equipment,
• Pushing the waste into the working face and spreading it in 2-foot lifts,
• Compaction on relatively flat slopes (i.e., 5H:1V max.) using three full passes.

Depending on the nature of the wastes and long-term volume analysis of in-situ density, the waste
placement geometry and compaction procedures may require adjustment to maximize density and
optimize airspace.
3.2.1 Spreading and Compaction
The working face shall be restricted to the smallest possible area; ideally, the maximum working face
area with exposed waste shall be one-quarter to one-half acre. Wastes shall be compacted as densely
as practical. Appropriate methods shall be employed to reduced wind-blown debris including (but not
limited to) the use of wind fences, screens, temporary soil berms, and periodic cover. Any wind-blown
debris shall be recovered and placed back in the landfill and covered at the end of each working day.
3.2.2 Special Wastes: Asbestos Management
Any asbestos handling and disposal will follow specific NCDEQ regulations with proper shipping
manifests and documentation of disposal. Asbestos shall arrive at the site in vehicles that contain only
the asbestos waste and only after advance notification by the generator and if accompanied by a proper
NC DMV transport manifest. Once the hauler brings the asbestos to the landfill, operations personnel
will direct the hauler to the designated asbestos disposal area. Operations personnel will prepare the
designated disposal area by leveling a small area using a dozer or loader. Prior to disposal, the landfill
operators will stockpile cover soil near the designated asbestos disposal area. The volume stockpiled
soil will be sufficient to cover the waste and to maintain temporary separation from other landfill
traffic.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 29
The asbestos waste will be covered with a minimum of 18 inches of daily cover soil placed in a single
lift. The surface of the cover soil will be compacted and fine graded using a tracked dozer or loader.
The landfill compactor will be prohibited from operating over asbestos disposal areas until at least 18
inches of cover are in-place. The landfill staff shall record the location and elevation of the asbestos
waste once cover is in-place. Records of the disposal activity shall be entered into the Operating
Record. Once disposal and recording for asbestos waste is completed, the disposal area may be
covered with C&D waste. No further excavation into asbestos disposal areas will be permitted.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 30
Table 3.1 Prohibited Wastes in the CDLF Unit
• Containers such as tubes, drums, barrels, tanks, cans, and bottles unless they are empty and
perforated to ensure that no liquid, hazardous or municipal solid waste is contained therein,
• Garbage as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (7),
• Hazardous waste as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (8), also includes hazardous waste from
conditionally exempt small quantity generators,
• (4) Industrial solid waste unless a demonstration has been made and approved by the Division
that the landfill meets the requirements of Rule .0503(2) (d) (ii) (A),
• Liquid wastes,
• Medical waste as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (18),
• Municipal solid waste as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (18a),
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes as defined in 40 CFR 761,
• Radioactive waste as defined in G.S. 104E-5(14),
• Septage as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (32),
• Sludge as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (34),
• Special wastes as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (40),
• White goods as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (44), and
• Yard trash as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (45),
• The following wastes cannot be received if separate from C&DLF waste:
• lamps or bulbs, e.g., halogen, incandescent, neon or fluorescent;
• lighting ballast or fixtures;
• thermostats and light switches;
• batteries, e.g., those from exit and emergency lights and smoke detectors;
• lead pipes;
• lead roof flashing;
• transformers;
• capacitors; and
• copper chrome arsenate (CCA) and creosote treated woods.
• Waste accepted for disposal in a C&DLF unit must be readily identifiable as C&D waste and must
not have been shredded, pulverized, or processed to such an extent that the composition of the
original waste cannot be readily ascertained except as specified in Subparagraph (17) of this
Paragraph.
• C&D waste that has been shredded, pulverized or otherwise processed may be accepted for
disposal from a facility that has received a permit from an authorized regulatory authority, which
specifies such activities are inspected by the authority, and whose primary purpose is recycling and
reuse of the C&D material. A waste screening plan and waste acceptance plan must be made
available to the Division upon request.
• Waste that is generated outside the boundaries of a unit of local government ordinance (i.e., areas
not approved by County Commissioners).

Reference: 15A NCAC 13B .0542
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 31
4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MSE BERM
4.1 Waste Placement near MSE Berm
Contemporaneous waste placement will occur during berm construction by design. This is necessary
to provide support for the berm backslope and for water management. The berm consists of a
reinforced zone nearest the outer slope extending ~30-40 feet toward the interior and an unreinforced
zone extending another ~20 feet. The back of the berm contains compacted but unreinforced soil that
includes a granular vertical drain, known as a “chimney” placed no more than 10 feet behind the
reinforced zone. Section 3.5.2 of the Facility Engineering Plan discusses construction of the berm,
which will be performed by a specialty contractor and overseen by professional engineers.
Operating heavy equipment on the unreinforced zone, too close to vital components, could overstress
the berm or disrupt the drainage media. The berm will be constructed in 1.5-foot thick “courses.”
Two or three courses will comprise a “lift” of either 3 or 4.5 feet in height. Once a lift is completed
over a distance of ~100 feet, the waste may be placed behind the lift approximately even with the top
of the lift. There will be a nonstructural geotextile separation layer (i.e., filter fabric) at the very back
of the non-reinforced zone, which will provide partial containment of the unreinforced soil while the
waste is being placed.
Ideally the waste should be sloped ~5% away from the berm and an interim cover placed immediately
to divert surface water away from the berm. The interim cover may consist of soil (not removed), rain
sheets (can be removed prior to placing the next lift of waste) or sacrificial plastic sheet. No waste
shall be placed above the unreinforced zone of the berm. Normal compaction equipment may be
operated to within a distance no closure than 10 feet behind the back of the reinforced zone – the berm
contractor will place visual markers at the back of the 10-foot exclusion and at the back of the
unreinforced zone.
Allowing the waste compactor on the back of the unreinforced zone, outside of the 10-foot exclusion
zone, provides an opportunity to compact the waste to a sufficient density for strength, as well as
restoring compaction relative to any minor disturbance of the unreinforced zone, although precautions
must be observed:
• Wastes placed within 20 feet behind the berm should consist of compactible small particles
(<2 feet)
• The waste should be spread into maximum 2-foot thick lifts (uncompacted)
• The direction of the compactor movement should be parallel to the slope contours
• The vibrator should not be run within 20 feet behind the berm
• Care should be taken not to disturb the berm or any berm monitoring devices
• No voids should be left adjacent to the berm
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 32
• Depending on the rate of berm construction, the interim cover may be omitted if the
sequential placement of waste can be completed before next rainfall
• Operation of machinery within 5 feet behind the front face should be performed by the
specialty contractor
4.2 Water Management near the MSE Berm
Surface water management shall be conducted to minimize infiltration behind the berm, thus
alleviating the buildup of excess pore pressure and reducing leachate generation. Measures to
accomplish this goal include:
• Maintaining positive drainage to avoid puddling behind the berm
• Interim surfaces should be sloped to direct drainage away from the berm
• Use of soil cover/temp cover and proper compaction
• Use of correct soil types, ideally finer grain soils
• Protecting internal drainage system from damage
• Adhering to the MSE Berm Monitoring Plan (see Facility Plan Section 5.1.4)
• Refer to Table 4.1 at the end of this section.
4.3 Leachate Management
Unlike most unlined C&D landfill, the fluids collected behind the MSE berm will be drained to the
exterior of the footprint and, thus, must be managed as leachate. The leachate is not expected to be
hazardous, but NCDEQ rules are explicit regarding the prohibition of discharging the leachate to the
environment. The collection system is designed to minimize the likelihood of excess pore pressure
buildup behind the berm. The operation of the landfill is prescribed to minimize the volume of leachate
that must be managed (Section 3.3.2). A brief description of the leachate collection system and
leachate removal procedures follows.
Fluids collected behind the MSE berm are conveyed to a system of pipes that drain beneath (and in
some cases through) the berm to a header pipe buried just outside the toe, following contours to drain
via gravity to a number of tanks spaced at intervals along the berm. All weather roadways will provide
access to the tanks. Each tank will hold 1500 gallons. An upstream ball valve will be provided to
control or shut off the flow, as needed, to allow the tanks to be pumped on a schedule that prevents an
overflow. The piping and tanks are made of HDPE, a durable and somewhat flexible material that is
not reactive with landfill leachate or environmental conditions. The system is generally isolated from
mechanical damage under normal activities. Excess settlement within the berm could potentially
compromise joints and fittings, theoretically, but design calculations indicate this is not likely. Fluids
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 33
will be removed to portable tankage whenever the tanks become half-full. Workers will receive
training on operation of the leachate system and proper response to emergency situations.
4.3.1 Leachate System Operation
The following describes a procedure for normal monitoring and servicing the leachate collection
system as a manual operation. The procedure is subject to change if the system is converted to
automated operation. As the MSE berm expands and more leachate collection system is required, it is
likely that automated operations will be advantageous.
• For every observation, record date, time, tank level and position of the ball valve.
• Observe every tank level at least once per week. For Stage 1 there are two tanks.
• Observe tank levels after rain events of one-half inch or greater.
• To service (empty) the tanks, bring a portable tank (truck or trailer-mounted) alongside
and pump the contents from the stationary tank into the portable tank.
• Move the portable tank to a POTW access point and allow the contents to drain via gravity
to the access; the nearest POTW access is within the Facility.
• During prolonged rainy periods observe and service (empty) the tanks as often as needed
to prevent an overflow.
• If fluids are entering the tanks at a rate that cannot be kept pumped using conventional
techniques, this constitutes an emergency operations mode.
• The response under emergency operations is to first shut off or throttle back the upstream
ball valve and increase the pumping frequency, i.e., more portable tanks.
• Should an overflow occur, a sample of the effluent shall be taken using laboratory supplied
sampling vessels and prescribed sampling techniques.
• The Operator shall notify regulatory authorities in accordance with the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan.
• Records will be kept quantifying all volumes of leachate, i.e. routine tank service and/or
emergency mode; records will be filed with the Operating Record.
• The Engineer and Owner will review the records quarterly; should the leachate generation
rate warrant, plans to automate the system will be drawn up.
• Except in emergency operations mode, the ball valve shall always be open.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 34
4.3.2 Leachate System Inspection
The integrity of the leachate collection system should be inspected weekly. The objective is to prevent
leaks and spills due to casual damage to piping, valves, fittings and tanks. The inspections shall be
conducted by trained facility staff. Inspections may be combined with the routine Operations activities
described in Section 4.3.1. Key to the success of the program is documentation. Records of inspections
shall be kept and incorporated into the Facility Operation Record. The Engineering Team will review
these records periodically.
• Operate the ball valves to ensure smooth operation; set position appropriate for
anticipated weather conditions (normally the valves should be wide open).
• Look for signs of leaks on ground near valves and header pipe connections.
• Look for signs or leaks on the ground near the tank inlets and outlets (access ports).
• Verify on the tank service/inspection records that the inspection was performed and note
whether any maintenance or repair is required.
• Report maintenance or repair requirement to site manager.
• Site manager will document what/when repairs are completed.
4.3.3 Leachate System Inspection
• Anticipated normal maintenance includes clearing vegetation from valve and tank access,
cleaning/lubrication of ball valves, cleaning tank measurement devices (e.g., graduated
dipstick) or tank exterior (for built-in graduations), improvement to all-weather access
roads, inspecting/cleaning biological buildup from piping.
• Anticipated repairs that may be required (staff should pay attention to) includes correcting
erosion along the collection header or near the tanks, replacing leaking or stuck valves,
fixing open pipe connections or breaks (indicative of possible settlement related damage if
no impact damage is apparent).
• All repairs should be brought to the Engineer’s attention and, if needed, the Engineer may
investigate.
• In the case of severe pipe breakage, signs of leakage on the ground may not be immediately
apparent; if there is an abrupt change in the leachate generation rate that cannot be
correlated to weather conditions, the Engineer should be notified and an investigation
should be undertaken.
• Refer to Table 4.1 following this section.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 35
4.4 Slope Monitoring
Monitoring slope deformation as described in the Facility Engineering Plan (see Section 5) is key to
assuring the integrity of the berm. The program implemented during berm construction will be
continued throughout the operation of the facility. While Section 5 presents the tenets of what is being
monitored and why, the following discussion is more descriptive of how the various data need to be
collected and recorded. Some of the data may be recorded by the Facility staff for later interpretation
by the Engineering Team; other data will be collected by surveyors, engineers and trained technicians.
Monitoring the MSE berm is a long-term commitment, probably longer than the normal post-closure
care period, currently 30 years. Thus, it may be of interest to the Owner to perform in-house some of
the data collection used for the monitoring program. The Engineering Team will be heavily involved
during the construction of the berm, but in time the landfill staff may be able to assume some of the
labor-intensive activities or automate certain systems, allowing remote monitoring.
4.4.1 Laser-Scan Survey Monuments
This activity is described in Section 5.1.3 of the Facility Engineering Plan. Monuments will be
established during construction and surveyed throughout the operation and post closure care periods.
A laser scan from fixed locations on the ground likely the most expedient way to track potential
movements on any direction along the front slope of the berm. This activity will be the purview of a
licensed surveyor. It is not likely that this activity can be performed remotely, although there is a
possibility of utilizing aerial photographic monitoring and surveying, which would require periodic
visits by licensed aerial surveying personnel, reducing the frequency of some visual inspections and
reducing engineering time. This aspect is likely to be advantageous during the post-closure care
period.
4.4.2 Strain Gauges and Pressure Transducers
These are electronic devices placed at strategic locations inside the berm to detect small scale
movements within and pore pressure behind the berm. Said movements could have an adverse effect
on the integrity of the geotextile reinforcement within the berm. The data are collected via a recording
device that is normally downloaded and entered in a spread sheet on a set schedule. This is a task that
can be performed by landfill staff, if the Operator desires. There will be an initial training period
under the Engineer’s supervision. These activities could be automated and monitored using remote
telemetry.
4.4.3 Slope Inclinometers
This is a probe used to detect deflections over time by tracking changes of shape in an originally
straight, vertical tube installed in a borehole. The data collection is normally performed by trained
specialty technicians or engineers.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 36
4.4.4 Piezometers
These are vertical tubes installed in a borehole used to measure water levels (hence pressures), similar
to those used to quantify the shape of the water table when the site was first characterized. Data can
be collected easily using an appropriate instrument and recorded by landfill staff, with relatively little
training, if the Operator desires.
4.5 Slope Maintenance
This section presents guidelines prepared to augment, or even preclude the need for, Contingency
activities discussed in Section 5.7 of the Facility Engineering Plan. These guidelines focus on
maintaining vegetation and surface drainage on the front slope of the berm and final cover systems
(Section 5.1.6). A brief description of these systems follows:

The front face of the MSE berm is steep and relatively dry, thus native vegetation acclimated to this
environment and requiring low maintenance has been specified. Behind the slope face are geotextiles,
wire mesh and organic-rich soil that support the vegetation. Keeping these aspects in place and
functioning together is critical to the success of the slope. Distressed vegetation is potentially a sign
of insufficient moisture, incorrect nutrient balance, disease, or simply poor acclimation. Establishing
and maintaining healthy vegetation on landfills is challenging, but the steep front face of the wall
presents additional challenges, which requires additional vigilance in detecting problems while they
are small.

During the early stages of this project, much attention will be given to the vegetation with input from
agronomists as needed. Some of the vegetation will be imbedded in the vegetation support payer
described above, other vegetation such as shrubbery will be planted during construction, and some
will be planted on completed slopes via hydroseeding. The role of the landfill staff during this period
is two-fold: 1) observing slopes and reporting problems to the Engineering Team and 2) taking
extreme care during waste placement activities to avoid disrupting planted slopes. These activities are
described as “normal” protocol elsewhere in this section.

Detecting and promptly correcting drainage issues is another routine activity that requires extra effort
to ensure the success of the MSE berm project. This includes cleaning out sediment captures (in-
stream traps, basins), correcting washouts along ditches and pipe inlets/outlets, maintaining
vegetation and flow-control devices along berms and swales/ditches, in particular those measures that
divert water from the MSE berms.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 37
Table 4.1 Monitoring Schedule for the MSE Berm during Operations
Monitoring location Required Personnel Schedule
Laser-Scan Monuments
Manually Operated Instruments Licensed Surveyor Monthly

Engineer Semi-annual review
Strain Gauges
Electronic Data Collection with Periodic Download Facility Staff Weekly/Bi-weekly3
Engineer Semi-annual review
Pressure Transducers
Electronic Data Collection with Periodic Download Facility Staff Weekly/Bi-weekly
Engineer Semi-annual review
Slope Inclinometers
Manually Operated Instrument Trained Technician Monthly/Quarterly
Engineer Semi-annual review
Piezometers
Manual or Electronic Facility Staff Monthly
Engineer Semi-annually
Visual Inspection2
Erosion on slopes and behind berm Facility Staff Weekly
Deposits of soil below slopes “ “
Vegetation health and coverage “ “
Sags or depressions holding water “ “
Leachate system (check for leaks) “ “
Engineer Monthly
Quantify Drainage
Direct Measure Facility Staff Weekly
Engineer Semi-annually
1 Schedule may be adjusted subject to data findings, subject the NCDEQ approval
2 Weekly wall-through by designated staff; may be facilitated by periodic drone surveys
3 Schedule depends on limits of equipment
4.6 Contingency Operations
The reader is directed to Section 5.7 of the Facility Engineering Plan, which provides a thorough
discussion of response to mishaps with the MSE berm. Users of this plan are expected to be familiar
with the provisions and requirements of the Contingency Plan.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 38
5 COVER MATERIAL
5.1 Periodic Cover
The working face of the CDLF shall be covered on a weekly basis, or sooner if the area of exposed
waste exceeds one-half acre in size. Periodic cover shall consist of a 6-inch layer of earthen material
that completely covers the waste to control vectors, fire, odors, and blowing debris. Alternative
periodic cover may be considered, subject to approval from the Division. Placement of periodic cover
shall be documented in the Operating Record (see Section 5.12) and on a copy of the facility map.
5.2 Interim Soil Cover
An interim soil cover (at least 24 inches in thickness) shall be placed on inactive slopes, subject to the
following conditions:
• Interior slopes adjacent to future expansion (such as a cell or phase boundary) no later than
30 days following the last waste receipt, providing that further waste disposal will occur
within one year of the last waste receipt1
• Exterior slopes that have attained final grade but are to be left for no more than 15 working
days without temporary vegetation, until an area of no more than 10 acres is ready to be
closed simultaneously.2
1 North Carolina Solid Waste Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0543 requires final cover to be placed if the slope shall
remain inactive for more than one year

2 Typically, it is advantageous to close the final slopes in 2 to 3-acre increments, observing the placement
of erosion control benches; 10 acres is the regulatory maximum
Interim cover soils shall be vegetated in accordance with the Seeding Schedule presented in the Facility
Drawings. Either temporary or permanent vegetation may be required – and alternate ground cover
may be considered – depending on the time duration of inactivity. Placement of interim cover shall be
documented in the Operating Record and on a copy of the facility map.
5.3 Final Cover
Exterior slopes shall be closed upon reaching final grades in increments throughout the operation of
the facility. Placement of final cover shall conform to the design and CQA requirements presented in
the Closure Plan (Appendix 7) and Post-Closure Plan (Appendix 8) and shall be documented in the
Operating Record and on a copy of the facility map.

The permitted final cover consists of a minimum of 18 inches of compacted soil cover (max.10-5 cm/sec
permeability requirement), overlain by 18 inches of vegetation support soil. In general, the final soil
cover shall be spread in three uniform lifts (maximum of 9 inches before compaction, 6 inches after
compaction), and soils shall be compacted by “tracking” with dozers or other equipment. North
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 39
Carolina Solid Waste regulations require a maximum permeability, achieved through proper material
selection and compaction criteria, confirmed by the testing program outlined in the CQA section of
the Closure and Post-Closure Plan.

Sedimentation and Erosion Control Rule 15A NCAC 04B .0107, Mandatory Standards For Land-
Disturbing Activity, states as follows: “Pursuant to G.S. 113A-57(3), provisions for a ground cover
sufficient to restrain erosion must be accomplished within 15 working days or 90 calendar days
following completion of construction or development, whichever period is shorter.” The author’s
interpretation is that all slopes must be vegetated with a seed mix that is suitable to climatic conditions
within 15 days. Soil amendments, straw mulch and emulsified tack should be provided. Other short-
term stabilization treatments, e.g., curled wood matting, coir blankets, or synthetic slope stabilization
matting, may be employed.

At the operator’s discretion, wood mulch may be spread evenly over the final surfaces – at a maximum
thickness of 2 inches – to help retain moisture and retard erosion while the vegetation develops. By
SWS definition this material is not recognized to provide nutrient value but the partial decomposition
of the wood mulch over time does introduce organic content to the soils, which were typically derived
from deep within the borrow pit. Typically, the mulch takes about a year to break down and does
benefit the effort of establishing vegetation, as long as the mulch is not applied too thick. This allows
the operator some flexibility is establishing vegetation at optimum times. A nurse crop of seasonal
vegetation can be sown at the time the slopes are finished and a permanent crop can be sown later,
typically requiring manual sowing to prevent damaging the existing vegetation. All protective
measures must be maintained until permanent ground cover is established and is sufficient to restrain
erosion on the site.

If settlement occurs after the cover is placed, the cover shall be fortified with additional soil. In the
case of extreme settlement (unlikely), the old cover can be stripped, and the affected area built up with
waste prior to replacing the cover. The sedimentation and erosion control criteria governing the final
closure of this facility are performance-based; some trial and error may be required, but the goal is to
protect the adjacent water bodies and buffers throughout the operational and post-closure periods.

6 SURVEY FOR COMPLIANCE
6.1.1 Height Monitoring
The landfill staff will monitor landfill top and side slope elevations on a weekly basis or as needed to
ensure proper slope ratios and to ensure the facility is not over-filled. This shall be accomplished by
use of a surveyor’s level and a grade rod. When such elevations approach the grades shown on the
Final Cover Grading Plan, the final top-of-waste grades will be staked by a licensed surveyor to limit
over-placement.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
C&D Landfill Operations Page 40
6.1.2 Annual Survey
The working face shall be surveyed on an annual basis to verify slope grades and to track the fill
progression. In the event of problems (slope stability, suspected over-filling), more frequent surveys
may be required at the request of the Division.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDIX 6
OPERATIONS PLAN ATTACHMENTS
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDIX 6A
OPERATIONS PLAN ATTACHMENTS
Waste Screening Form
WASTE SCREENING FORM Facility I.D. __________________
Permit No. __________________
Day / Date: ______________________ Time Weighed in: ______________________
Truck Owner: ______________________ Driver Name: ______________________
Truck Type: ______________________ Vehicle ID/Tag No: ______________________
Weight: ______________________ Tare: ______________________
Waste Generator / Source: _________________________________________________________________
Inspection Location: _________________________________________________________________
Reason Load Inspected: Random Inspection _______ Staff Initials ________
Detained at Scales _______ Staff Initials ________
Detained by Field Staff _______ Staff Initials ________
Description of Load: _________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Approved Waste Determination Form Present? (Check one) Yes______ No ______ N/A____
Load Accepted (signature) _______________________________ Date _______________
Load Not Accepted (signature) _______________________________ Date _______________
Reason Load Not Accepted (complete below only if load not accepted) _____________________________
Description of Suspicious Contents: Color ________ Haz. Waste Markings ___________
Texture ________ Odor/Fumes___________________
Drums Present ________ Other ________________________
(describe)_____________________
Est. Cu. Yds. Present in Load ________
Est. Tons Present in Load ________
Identified Hazardous Materials Present:______________________________________________________
County Emergency Management Authority Contacted? Yes______ No ______
Generator Authority Contacted? _________________________________________________________
Hauler Notified (check if waste not accepted)? ____ Phone ______________ Time Contacted ________
Final Disposition of Load _________________________________________________________________
Signed ___________________________________________Date ________________________
Solid Waste Director
Attach related correspondence to this form. File completed form in Operating Record.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDIX 6B
OPERATIONS PLAN ATTACHMENTS
Fire Notification Form
FIRE OCCURRENCE NOTIFICATION

NC DENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
The Solid Waste Rules [15A NCAC 13B, Section 1626(5)(d) and Section .0505(10)(c)] require verbal notification within 24
hours and submission of a written notification within 15 days of the occurrence. The completion of this form shall satisfy
that requirement. (If additional space is needed, use back of this form)
NAME OF FACILITY: ______________________ PERMIT #_______________
DATE AND TIME OF FIRE ________/_____/_____ @ _____: ____ AM / PM (circle one)
HOW WAS THE FIRE REPORTED AND BY WHOM ______________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
LIST ACTIONS TAKEN_______________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE_________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
DESCRIBE AREA, TYPE, AND AMOUNT OF WASTE INVOLVED__________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO PREVENT THIS FIRE______________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT STATUS OF FIRE __________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
DESCRIBE PLAN OF ACTIONS TO PREVENT FUTURE INCIDENTS: _______________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

NAME_______________________TITLE__________________________DATE_______________
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY SOLID WASTE SECTION REGIONAL STAFF

DATE RECEIVED____________________________
List any factors not listed that might have contributed to the fire or that might prevent occurrence of future fires:
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED: † NO † PHONE CALL † SUBMITTAL † MEETING † RETURN VISIT BY:____________________ (DATE)
ACTIONS TAKEN OR REQUIRED:

Revised 6/29/01
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDIX 6C
OPERATIONS PLAN ATTACHMENTS
Haz-Waste Responders
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTACTS
The following contacts were originally found on NC DENR Division of Waste Management’s web
site in early 2007; since then, local phone numbers have been updated based on internet research.
Facility management should verify the availability of these contacts before an emergency. The
reference listing of these organizations here is not an endorsement by either the Division or the
preparer of this document, nor are any affiliations in existence or implied. For more information
refer to the respective URL’s.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Clean Harbours Reidsville, NC 336-342-6107
www.cleanharbors.com
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
www.egarco.com
Safety-Kleen Reidsville, NC 336-669-5562
(a.k.a. Clean Harbours)
Zebra Environmental Services High Point, NC 336-841-5276
www.zebraenviro.com
TRANSPORTERS
ECOFLO Greensboro, NC 336-855-7925
www.ecoflo.com
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
Zebra Environmental Services High Point, NC 336-841-5276
USED OIL AND ANTIFREEZE
3RC Resource Recovery Winston-Salem, NC 336-784-4300
Carolina Environmental Associates Burlington, NC 336-299-0058
Environmental Recycling Alternatives High Point, NC 336-905-7231
FLUORESCENT HANDLERS
3RC Resource Recovery Winston-Salem, NC 336-784-4300
Carolina Environmental Associates Burlington, NC 336-299-0058
ECOFLO Greensboro, NC 336-855-7925
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
Safety-Kleen Reidsville, NC 800-334-5953
PCB DISPOSAL
ECOFLO Greensboro, NC 336-855-7925
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
Zebra Environmental Services High Point, NC 336-841-5276
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
APPENDIX 6D
OPERATIONS PLAN ATTACHMENTS
Useful Agency Contacts
Useful Agencies and Contacts http://www.wastenotnc.org/HWHOME/USEFUL.htm
1 of 2 12/28/2007 12:30 AM
U S E F U L A G E N C I E S a n d C O N T A C T S
Air Permits
NC Div. of Air Quality
919-733-3340
Indoor Air Quality, US
EPA
Info Hotline
1-800-438-4318
Asbestos
Environmental
Epidemiology
Mary Giguere
919-707-5950
Customer Call Center
DENR
1-877-623-6748
Drinking Water
Environmental Health
Jessica Miles
919-715-3232
Safe Drinking Water
US EPA
1-800-426-4791

Emergencies 24 hours
Emergency Management
919-733-3300
919-733-9070
1-800-858-0368
Energy Division
Hotline
NC Commerce Dept.
1-800-662-7131
Environmental
Education
Office of Env. Education
1-800-482-8724
Environmental
Education
NC Cooperative Ext.
Service
NCSU
919-515-2770
Federal Register
RCRA/Superfund/UST
1-800-424-9346
Fluorescent Lights
Green lights Hotline
202-775-6650
EPA Energy Star
1-888-782-7937
Freon
US EPA Region 4
Pam McIlvane
404-562-9197
Groundwater
Division of Water Quality
None Dedicated Soil
Disposal
Ted Bush
919-733-3221
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste Section
919-508-8400
Household Hazardous
Waste
Solid Waste Section
Bill Patrakis
336-771-5091
Lab Certification
Water Quality
Jim Meyer
919-733-3908
ext. 207
Land Farm
Division of Water Quality
David Goodrich
919-715-6162
Landfills
Solid Waste Section
Division of Waste
Management
919-508-8400
Lead Abatement
Division of Public Health
Jeff Dellinger
919-733-0668
Childhood Lead
Poisoning
Environmental Health
Ed Norman
919-715-3293
National Lead Info.
Center
1-800-LEAD-FYI
1-800-532-3394
Medical Waste
Solid Waste Section
Bill Patrakis
919-508-8512
Oil Pollution
Aquifer Protection
Section
Debra Watts
919-715-6699
OSHA-Health
Consultations
NC Dept of Labor
Roedreick Wilce
919-852-4379
OSHA Training &
Outreach
NC Dept. of Labor
Joe Bailey
919-807-2891
Stratosphere Ozone
US EPA
Information Hot Line
1-800-296-1996
PCBs
TSCA, EPA Region 4
Craig Brown
404-562-8980
TSCA Assistance Info.
202-554-1404
Pesticides Disposal
Assistance Program
NC Dept. of Agriculture
Hazardous Waste
Royce Batts
919-715-9023
Pesticide Info. Hotline
1-800-858-7378
Petroleum Product
Soil Disposal, UST
Scott Ryals
919-733-8486
Pollution Prevention
& Environmental
Assistance
919-715-6500
1-800-763-0136
Useful Agencies and Contacts http://www.wastenotnc.org/HWHOME/USEFUL.htm
2 of 2 12/28/2007 12:30 AM
Public Affairs, DENR
Diana Kees
Acting Director
919-715-4112
Public Right to Know
Employee Right to Know
OSHA, Dept. of Labor
Anthony Bonapart
919-807-2846
Radiation Materials
Radiation Protection
Beverley Hall
919-571-4141
Recycling Markets
Directory
What Can I do with it?
919-715-6500
Toxic Release
Reporting
Emergency Planning
SARA Title III
Richard Berman
919-733-1361
1-800-451-1403 (24
hours)
Run Off
Water Quality
919-733-5083
Safety Hotline
NC Dept. Of Labor
1-800-LABOR-NC
919-807-2796
Septic Tanks,
On-site Treatment
System
Environmental Health
Steven Berkowitz
919-733-2895
Sewer Discharges
Pre-Treatment
Public Owned
Treatment
(POTW)
919-733-5083
Small Business
Ombudsman
US EPA
1-800-368-5888
Spill Reporting
1-800-858-0368
State Operator
919-733-1110
Stormwater, Permits
Unit
Water Quality
919-733-5083
1-800-858-0368
Superfund
Federal Sites
Dave Lown
919-508-8464
State Inactive Sites
Charlotte Jesneck
919-508-8460
Toxicology
Env. Epidemiology
Occupational Surveillance
919-707-5900
Transport Hazardous
Waste
Division of Motor Vehicle
(NC DOT)
Sgt. T.R. Askew
919-715-8683
US DOT Regulations
Office of Motor Carriers
Chris Hartley
919-856-4378
Underground Storage
Tanks
Grover Nicholson
919-733-1300
Waste Minimization
Pollution Prevention &
Environmental Assistance
919-715-6500
1-800-763-0136
Wetlands Info Hotline
US EPA
1-800-832-7828
North Carolina Division of Waste Management - 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646 - (919)
508-8400

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 6E
OPERATIONS PLAN ATTACHMENTS
Asphalt Shingles Plan

General Operation Plan
For Tear-off Asphalt Shingle Sorting
At a Solid Waste Permitted Facility

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF
and Recycling Facility

Permit #41-17

Prepared for

Ronnie E. Petty, III
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406

Prepared by

G. David Garrett, PG, PE
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604

November 6, 2013

Site specific information
a. The maximum amount of shingles to be stockpiled at any
time is 40 cubic yards, or the equivalent of one roll-off box.
b. The service area for shingle receipt must be consistent with
the landfill service area.
c. The Owner/Operator must keep contact information for the
contracting shingle recycling company with the records of
incoming and outgoing shingles. Any changes must be
reflected in the records.
d. No grinding of asphalt shingles shall be conducted at
the T&P unit.

The Owner/operator shall refer to the following generic plan,
provided by the Solid Waste Section, which includes acceptance
criteria for recycling and documentation for the sources of
incoming loads (example form).

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 7
CLOSURE PLAN (and CQA PLAN)
With Cost Estimate

MSE BERM PTC CLOSURE PLAN
A-1 SANDROCK C&D LANDFILL (4117-CDLF-2008)

Submitted to:

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

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

David Garrett & Associates
Engineering and Geology
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

January 10, 2020 (Rev. 1)
Project No.: G18-8008
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Closure Plan Page i
CONTENTS
FORWORD......................................................................................................................... 1
OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION ........................................................................... 1
SITE LOCATION DATA................................................................................................... 1
REGULATORY CONTACTS ........................................................................................... 1
1 CLOSURE PLAN REQUIREMENTS (15A NCAC 13B .0543) ........................... 2
1.1 General Conditions ................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Special Considerations Concerning MSE Berm ..................................................... 2
1.3 Summary of Regulatory Requirements ................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Final Cap ..................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Construction Requirements ......................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Alternative Cap Design ............................................................................... 3
1.3.4 Division Notifications ................................................................................. 3
1.3.5 Required Closure Schedule ......................................................................... 3
1.3.6 Recordation ................................................................................................. 4
2 FINAL CLOSURE PLAN ...................................................................................... 4
2.1 Final Cap Installation .............................................................................................. 4
2.1.1 Final Elevations .......................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Final Slope Ratios ....................................................................................... 4
2.1.3 Final Cover Section..................................................................................... 4
2.1.4 Final Cover Installation............................................................................... 5
2.1.5 Final Cover Vegetation ............................................................................... 6
2.1.6 Documentation ............................................................................................ 7
2.1.7 Maximum Area/Volume Subject to Closure ............................................... 7
2.1.8 Closure Schedule ........................................................................................ 7
3 FINAL COVER CQA PLAN ................................................................................. 8
3.1 General Provisions .................................................................................................. 8
3.2 Definitions............................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) ..................................................... 8
3.2.2 Construction Quality Control (CQC) .......................................................... 9
3.2.3 CQA Certification Document ..................................................................... 9
3.2.4 Discrepancies Between Documents ............................................................ 9
3.2.5 Responsibilities and Authorities ................................................................. 9
3.2.6 Control vs. Records Testing ...................................................................... 10
3.2.7 Modifications and Amendment ................................................................. 11
3.2.8 Miscellaneous ........................................................................................... 11
3.3 Inspection, Sampling and Testing ......................................................................... 11
3.3.1 General Earthwork .................................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Construction Monitoring ........................................................................... 13
3.3.3 Final Cover Systems ................................................................................. 14
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Closure Plan Page ii
3.4 CQA Meetings ...................................................................................................... 16
3.4.1 Project Initiation CQA Meeting ................................................................ 16
3.4.2 CQA Progress Meetings ........................................................................... 17
3.4.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meetings .................................................... 17
3.5 Documentation and Reporting .............................................................................. 17
3.5.1 Periodic CQA Reports .............................................................................. 18
3.5.2 CQA Progress Reports .............................................................................. 19
3.5.3 CQA Photographic Reporting ................................................................... 19
3.5.4 Documentation of Deficiencies ................................................................. 20
3.5.5 Design or Specification Changes .............................................................. 20
3.6 Final CQA Report ................................................................................................. 20
3.7 Storage of Records ................................................................................................ 21
3.8 Protection of Finished Surfaces ............................................................................ 22
4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE MSE BERM ............................................... 27
4.1 Safety Concerns .................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Final Cover Placement near MSE Berm ............................................................... 28
4.3 Leachate System ................................................................................................... 28
4.3.1 Routine Operation ..................................................................................... 28
4.3.2 Leachate System Inspection ...................................................................... 29
4.3.3 Leachate System Maintenance .................................................................. 29
4.4 Slope Monitoring .................................................................................................. 29
4.5 Slope Maintenance ................................................................................................ 29
5 Closure Cost Estimate ........................................................................................... 31

TABLES
3.1 Final Cover System Cqa Report General Outline ................................................. 21
3A CQA Testing Schedule for General Earthwork .................................................... 23
3B CQA Testing Schedule for Drainage and Final Cover Materials ......................... 24
3C CQA Testing Schedule for Final Cover Compacted Soil Barrier ......................... 25
3D Reference List of ASTM Test Methods ................................................................ 26
4.1 MSE Berm Monitoring Schedule...........................................................................30
5.1 Estimated Final Closure Costs For Stages 1 – 2 ................................................... 31
5.2 Annual Inflation Multipliers ................................................................................. 32
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 1
FORWORD
This Closure Plan was prepared in accordance with North Carolina Solid Waste Rules 15A
NCAC 13B .0531, et seq. in support of a Permit to Construct application for a planned vertical
expansion of A-1 Sandrock CDLF (NC Solid Waste Permit 4717-CDLF-2008). The facility
was permitted and constructed in three phases on the ground, one overlapping phase, denoted
as Phases 1 – 4. The vertical expansion will be pursued in four Stages overlapping the four
stages and each other, essentially within the same footprint. The vertical expansion will be
facilitated by a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) berm, the subject of this PTC
application. The MSE berm is a gravity retaining structure that contains a “reinforced zone”
in addition to surface drains, internal drains and non-reinforced structural embankment. The
following Closure Plan Update prepared in accordance with Rule .0543 includes aspects typical
of North Carolina-regulated landfills with special accommodations concerning the MSE berm.
Those accommodations are be highlighted in the following text. This document updates the
2019 PTC application for Phase 3 and supersedes all previous versions.
OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – President
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Vice President
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406 Tel. [phone]
SITE LOCATION DATA
Latitude 35.98745 N
Longitude -79.84639 E
Parcel Number 12-03-0185-0-0739-W -007
Guilford County, NC Deed Date 1/17/1996
Deed Book 4378 Deed Page 0198
Plat Book 149 Plat Page 93
REGULATORY CONTACTS
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Section
Division of Land Resources - Land Quality Section
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Tel. [phone] Fax: [phone]
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 2
1 CLOSURE PLAN REQUIREMENTS (15A NCAC 13B .0543)
1.1 General Conditions
This Closure Plan was prepared for the A-1 Sandrock Recycling (Processing) facility and C&D
landfill (CDLF) to provide the facility staff with an understanding of relevant rules and how
the Engineer assumed that the facility would be operated. While deviations from the operation
plan may be acceptable, significant changes should be reviewed and approved by the Engineer
and/or regulatory personnel.
1.2 Special Considerations Concerning MSE Berm
The berm will vary in height from 40 to 60 feet and will exhibit with a front slope ratio of
1H:3V (~71.6° from horizontal), constructed in 1.5-foot courses with each course stepped
back 6 inches. The exposed front of the berm will be vegetated using an appropriate
growing medium embedded into multiple wire basket and geotextile reinforced cells.
Internal drainage will prevent the buildup of pore pressure behind the berm. Liquids
captured in this system will be managed as leachate separately from the stormwater
systems. Major concerns regarding the final closure of the landfill are discussed below.

The Operations Plan (Appendix 5) describes how the MSE berm replaces the side slopes
of the facility and these structures are essentially closed as they are constructed. That is,
at the completion of each berm section, vegetation will be in place and the monitoring and
maintenance falls into the purview of the Operations Plan. That said, above the MSE berms
will be conventional 3H:1V slopes transitioning toa 5% final cap. These slopes will be
closed in a traditional manner addressed in the Closure Plan for Phases 3 and 4 in the PTC
for Phase 3, completed in 2019. Accommodations for the front slopes of the MSE berm
are discussed in this document, whereas certain precautions for protecting these slopes
while installing final cover uphill merit discussion, and the impact on final closure costs
for the Financial Assurance is broken out as a lump sum based on area and estimated rates.
The following discussion pertains to the conventional slopes and cover.
1.3 Summary of Regulatory Requirements
1.3.1 Final Cap
The final cap design for all phases of the CDLF shall conform to the minimum
requirements of the Solid Waste Rules, i.e., the compacted soil barrier layer shall exhibit a
thickness of 18 inches and a field permeability of not more than 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec. The
overlying vegetative support layer shall be 18 inches thick. Drawings EC1 – EC3 show
final cover cross-section and details and Drawing EC4 shows final contours.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 3
1.3.2 Construction Requirements
Final cap installation shall conform to the approved plans (see accompanying plan set),
inclusive of the approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan. The CQA plan must
be followed (see Section 3.0) and all CQA documentation must be submitted to the
Division. Post-settlement surface slopes must not be flatter than 5% on the upper cap and
not steeper than 33% (3H:1V) on the side slopes. Per Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0543, a gas
venting system is required for the cap. A passive venting system will be specified, which
will consist of a perforated pipe in crushed stone-filled trench – installed just below the
final cap soil barrier layer – with a tentative minimum vent spacing of three vents per
acre. Drawing EC2 shows the gas venting system details.
1.3.3 Alternative Cap Design
Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0543 make a provision for an alternative cap design, to be used in
the event that the permeability requirements for the compacted soil barrier layer cannot be
met. Prior experience indicates that on-site soils may not meet the required field
permeability of not more than 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec, as supported by the laboratory data for the
soils discussed in Section 3.0. Tentative final closure plans have assumed that on-site soils
will be used for the compacted barrier layer – alternative cap designs may be researched
and submitted for Division approval at a future time. Plans and specifications shall be
provided to the Solid Waste Section for an alternative final cover design, if used, at least
60 days before any closure or partial closure activities.
1.3.4 Division Notifications
The Operator shall notify the Division prior to beginning closure of any final closure
activities. The Operator shall place documentation in the Operating Record pertaining to
the closure, including the CQA requirements and location and date of cover placement.
1.3.5 Required Closure Schedule
The Operator shall close the landfill in increments as various areas are brought to final
grade. The final cap shall be placed on such areas subject to the following:

• No later than 30 days following last receipt of waste;
• No later than 30 days following the date that an area of 10 acres or greater is within
15 feet of final grades;
• No later than one year following the most recent receipt of waste if there is
remaining capacity.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 4
Final closure activities shall be completed within 180 days following commencement of
the closure, unless the Division grants extensions. Upon completion of final closure
activities for each area (or unit) the Owner shall notify the Division in writing with a
certification by the Engineer that the closure has been completed in accordance with the
approved closure plan and that said documentation has been placed in the operating record.
1.3.6 Recordation
The Owner shall record on the title deed to the subject property that a CDLF has been
operated on the property and file said documentation with the Register of Deeds. Said
recordation shall include a notation that the future use of the property is restricted under
the provision of the approved closure plan.

2 FINAL CLOSURE PLAN
The following is a tentative closure plan for areas represented by Stages 1 – 4 of the CDLF,
based on the prescribed operational sequence and anticipated conditions at the time of
closure.
2.1 Final Cap Installation
2.1.1 Final Elevations
Final elevation of the landfill shall not exceed those depicted on Drawing EC4 when it is
closed, subject to approval of this closure plan. The elevations shown include the final
cover. A periodic topographic survey shall be performed to verify elevations.
2.1.2 Final Slope Ratios
All upper surfaces shall have at least a 5 percent slope, but not greater than a 10 percent
slope. The cover shall be graded to promote positive drainage. Side slope ratios shall not
exceed 3H:1V. A periodic topographic survey shall be performed to verify slope ratios.
2.1.3 Final Cover Section
The terms “final cap” and “final cover” both apply. The final cover will subscribe to the
minimum regulatory requirement for C&D landfills:
• An 18-inch thick compacted soil barrier layer (CSB), i.e., the “infiltration layer,”
with a hydraulic conductivity not exceeding 1 x 10-5 cm/sec,
overlain by
• An 18-inch thick “topsoil” or vegetated surface layer (VSL),
i.e., the “erosion layer.”
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 5
2.1.4 Final Cover Installation
All soils shall be graded to provide positive drainage away from the landfill area and
compacted to meet applicable permeability requirements (see Section 3.0). Suitable
materials for final cover soil shall meet the requirements defined above. Care shall be
taken to exclude rocks and debris that would hinder compaction efforts. The surface will
then be seeded in order to establish vegetation.
2.1.4.1 Test Pad
Whereas the lab data indicate that the required permeability is attainable, the ability to
compact the materials in the field to achieve the required strength and permeability values
shall be verified with a field trial involving a test pad, to be sampled with drive tubes and
laboratory density and/or permeability testing, prior to full-scale construction. The
materials, equipment, and testing procedures should be representative of the anticipated
actual final cover construction. The test pad may be strategically located such that the test
pad may be incorporated into the final cover.
2.1.4.2 Compacted Barrier
Materials shall be blended to a uniform consistency and placed in three loose lifts no
thicker than 9 inches and compacted by tamping, rolling, or other suitable method to a
thickness of 6 inches – the targeted final thickness of the barrier layer is 18 inches
minimum. A thicker compacted barrier is acceptable. The cover shall be constructed in
sufficiently small areas that can be completed in a single day (to avoid desiccation, erosion,
or other damage), but large enough to allow ample time for testing without hindering
production. The Contractor shall take care not to over-roll the cover such that the
underlying waste materials would pump or rut, causing the overlying soil layers to crack –
adequate subgrade compaction within the upper 36 inches of waste materials and/or the
intermediate cover soil underlying the final cover is critical. All final cover soils shall be
thoroughly compacted through the full depth to achieve the required maximum
permeability required by Division regulations of 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec, based on site-specific
test criteria (see below). Compaction moisture control is essential for achieving adequate
strength and permeability.
2.1.4.3 Vegetated Surface Layer
Materials shall be blended and placed in two loose lifts no thicker than 12 inches and
compacted by tamping, rolling, or other suitable method – the targeted final layer thickness
is 18 inches minimum per the design criteria. A thicker soil layer is acceptable. A
relatively high organic content is also desirable. The incorporation of decayed wood mulch
or other organic admixtures (WWTP sludge, with advance permission from the Division)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 6
is encouraged to provide nutrient and enhanced field capacity. These surface materials are
not subject to permeability requirements; thus no testing will be specified. Care should be
taken to compact the materials sufficiently to promote stability and minimize erosion
susceptibility, but not to over-compact the materials such that vegetation would be
hindered. Following placement and inspection of the surface layer, seedbed preparation,
seeding and mulching should follow immediately. The work should be scheduled to
optimize weather conditions, if possible.
2.1.4.4 Inspection and Testing
Soils for the barrier layer are subject to the testing schedule outlined in the Construction
Quality Assurance plan (see Section 3.0). The proposed testing program includes a
minimum of one permeability test per lift per acre and four nuclear density gauge tests per
lift per acre, to verify compaction of the compacted barrier layer. The moisture-density-
permeability relationship of the materials has been established by the laboratory testing
(discussed elsewhere in this report). The Contractor shall proof roll final cover subgrade
materials (i.e., intermediate cover), which consist of essentially the same materials as the
compacted barrier layer (without the permeability requirements), to assure that these
materials will support the final cover.
2.1.5 Final Cover Vegetation
Seedbed preparation, seeding, and mulching shall be performed accordance the
specifications provided in the Construction Plans (see Drawing EC3), unless approved
otherwise by the Engineer). In areas to be seeded, fertilizer and lime typically should be
distributed uniformly at a rate of 1,000 pounds per acre for fertilizer and 2,000 pounds per
acre for lime and incorporated into the soil to a depth of at least 3 inches by disking and
harrowing. The incorporation of the fertilizer and lime may be a part of the cover
placement operation specified above. Distribution by means of an approved seed drill or
hydro seeder equipped to sow seed and distribute lime and fertilizer at the same time will
be acceptable. Please note that the seeding schedule varies by season.

All vegetated surfaces shall be mulched with wheat straw and a bituminous tack. Areas
identified as prone to erosion mat be secured with curled-wood excelsior, installed and
pinned in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Some perimeter channels
require excelsior or turf-reinforcement mat (TRM), as specified in the Channel Schedule.
Alternative erosion control products may be substituted with the engineer’s consent.
Rolled erosion control materials should be installed according to the generalized layout
and staking plan found in the Construction Plans or the manufacturer’s recommendations.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 7
Irrigation for landfill covers is not a typical procedure, but consideration to temporary
irrigation may be considered if dry weather conditions prevail during or after the planting.
Care should be taken not to over-irrigate in order to prevent erosion. Collected storm water
will be suitable for irrigation water. Maintenance of the vegetation, described in the Post-
Closure Plan (see Appendix 7), is critical to the overall performance of the cover.
2.1.6 Documentation
The Owner shall complete an “as-built” survey to depict final elevations of each final cover
layer, i.e., top of the intermediate cover layer, top of the compacted soil barrier, and top of
the vegetated soil layer, along with construction narrative to document any problems,
amendments or deviations from the plan drawings. Records of all testing, including maps
with test locations, shall be prepared by the third-party CQA testing firm. All materials
pertaining to the closure shall be placed in the Operational Record for the facility. Whereas
the closure will be incremental, special attention shall be given to keeping the closure
records separate from the normal operational records.
2.1.7 Maximum Area/Volume Subject to Closure
The largest anticipated area that will require final closure at any one time within the next
5-year period – including all of Phases 1 – 3 (maximum footprint) is 25.5 acres.
Intermediate cover shall be used on areas that have achieved final elevations until the final
cover is installed. An annual adjustment is required by the Division for the open area (and
the bond requirement). Based on the prior volumetric analyses (Phase 3 PTC), the volume
of Phases 1 – 3 is 1,720,250 cubic yards Phase 1 – 4 is 2,240,000 cubic yards.
2.1.8 Closure Schedule
Refer to the requirements outlined in Section 1.3.5 (above). Whereas an incremental
closure is planned as Stages come to final grade, the schedule reflects a flexible approach.
It is anticipated Stage 2 will come to grade (above Stage 1) beginning approximately 10
years after Stage 1 is begun and completed over the next 5 years hence.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 8
3 FINAL COVER CQA PLAN
3.1 General Provisions
This Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan has been prepared to provide the Owner,
Engineer, and CQA Testing Firm – operating as a coordinated team – the means to govern
the construction quality and to satisfy landfill certification requirements. The CQA
program includes both a quantitative testing program (by a third-party) and qualitative
evaluations (by all parties) to assure that the construction meets the desired criteria for
long-term performance. Variations in material properties and working conditions may
require minor modification of handling and placement techniques throughout the project.
Close communication between the various parties is paramount. It is anticipated that the
early stages of the construction activities will require more attention by the CQA team, i.e.,
the Contractor, Engineer, Owner and CQA Testing Firm.

The requirements of the CQA program (construction oversight and testing) apply to the
preparation of the base grades, embankments, and engineered subgrade, as well as the final
cover installation. All lines, grades, and layer thicknesses shall be confirmed by
topographic surveys performed under the supervision of the Engineer of Record or the
CQA Testing Firm, and as built drawings of the base grades and final cover shall be made
part of the construction records. Once the base grade and final cover construction is
completed, the Engineer shall verify that all surfaces are vegetated within 20 days
following completion of final grades. The Engineer shall also verify that interior slopes
and base grades of new cells are protected until waste is placed.
3.2 Definitions
3.2.1 Construction Quality Assurance (CQA)
In the context of this CQA Plan, Construction Quality Assurance is defined as a planned
and systematic program employed by the Owner to assure conformity of base grade and
embankment construction and the final cover system installation with the project drawings
and specifications. CQA is provided by the CQA Testing Firm as a representative of the
Owner and is independent from the Contractor and all manufacturers. The CQA program
is designed to provide confidence that the items or services brought to the job meet
contractual and regulatory requirements and that the final cover will perform satisfactorily
in service.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 9
3.2.2 Construction Quality Control (CQC)
Construction Quality Control refers to actions taken by manufacturers, fabricators,
installers, and/or the Contractor to ensure that the materials and the workmanship meet the
requirements of the project drawings and the project specifications. The manufacturer's
specifications and quality control (QC) requirements are included in this CQA Manual by
reference only. A complete updated version of each manufacturer's QC Plan for any
Contractor-supplied components shall be incorporated as part of the Contractor's CQC
submittal. The Owner and/or the Engineer shall approve the Contractor’s QC submittal
prior to initial construction. Contractor submittals may be (but are not required to be)
incorporated into the final CQA certification document at the Owner’s discretion.
3.2.3 CQA Certification Document
The Owner and/or the Engineer will prepare a certification document upon completion of
construction, or phases of construction. The Owner will submit these documents to the NC
DENR Division of Waste Management Solid Waste Section. The CQA certification report
will include relevant testing performed by the CQA Testing Firm, including field testing
used to verify preliminary test results and/or design assumptions, records of field
observations, and documentation of any modifications to the design and/or testing program.
An “as-built” drawing (prepared by/for the Owner), showing competed contours, shall be
included. The Certification Document may be completed in increments, i.e., as several
documents, as respective portions of the final cover are completed. Section 2 discusses
the documentation requirements.
3.2.4 Discrepancies Between Documents
The Contractor shall be instructed to bring discrepancies to the attention of the CQA
Testing Firm who shall then notify the Owner for resolution. The Owner has the sole
authority to determine resolution of discrepancies existing within the Contract Documents
(this may also require the approval of State Solid Waste Regulators). Usually the more
stringent requirements shall be the controlling resolution.
3.2.5 Responsibilities and Authorities
The parties to Construction Quality Assurance and Quality Control include the Owner,
Engineer, Contractor, CQA Testing Firm (i.e., a qualified Soils Laboratory).
3.2.5.1 Owner
The Owner is A-1 Sandrock, Inc., who operates and is responsible for the facility. The
Owner or his designee is responsible for the project and will serve as liaison between the
various parties.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 10
3.2.5.2 Engineer
The Engineer (a.k.a. the “Engineer of Record”) is responsible for the engineering design,
drawings, and project specifications, regulatory affairs, and communications coordinator
for the construction of the base grades, embankments, engineered subgrade, drainage and
final cover systems. The Engineer represents the Owner and coordinates communications
and meetings as outlined in Section 4.3. The Engineer shall also be responsible for proper
resolution of all quality issues that arise during construction. The Engineer shall prepare
the CQA certification documents, with input from the Owner, the CQA Testing Firm and
the Owner’s Surveyor. The Engineer shall be registered in the State of North Carolina.
3.2.5.3 Contractor
The Contractor is responsible for the construction of the subgrade, earthwork, and final
cover system. The Contractor is responsible for the overall CQC on the project and
coordination of submittals to the Engineer. Additional responsibilities of the Contractor
include compliance with 15A NCAC 4, the NC Sedimentation and Erosion Control rules.
Qualifications – The Contractor qualifications are specific to the construction
contract documents and are independent of this CQA Manual. The Owner may
serve as the contractor, as long as the specifications are met.
3.2.5.4 CQA Testing Firm
The CQA Testing Firm (a.k.a. Soils Laboratory) is a representative of the Owner,
independent from the Contractor, and is responsible for conducting conformance samples
of soils and aggregates used in structural fills and the final cover system. Periodic site
visits shall be coordinated with the Engineer of Record and the Contractor.
Qualifications – The CQA Testing Firm shall have experience in the CQA aspects
of landfill construction and be familiar with ASTM and other related industry
standards. The Soils CQA Laboratory will can provide test results within 24 hours
or a reasonable time after receipt of samples, depending on the test(s) to be
conducted, as agreed to at the outset of the project by affected parties, and will
maintain that standard throughout the construction.
3.2.6 Control vs. Records Testing
3.2.6.1 Control Testing
In the context of this CQA plan, Control Tests are those tests performed on a material prior
to its actual use in construction to demonstrate that it can meet the requirements of the
project plans and specifications. Control Test data may be used by the Engineer as the
basis for approving alternative material sources.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 11
3.2.6.2 Record Testing
Record Tests are those tests performed during or after the actual placement of a material to
demonstrate that its in-place properties meet or exceed the requirements of the project
drawings and specifications.
3.2.7 Modifications and Amendment
This document was prepared by the Engineer to communicate the basic intentions and
expectations regarding the quality of materials and workmanship. Certain articles in this
document may be revised with input from all parties, if warranted based on project specific
conditions. No modifications will be made without the Division’s approval.
3.2.8 Miscellaneous
3.2.8.1 Units
In this CQA Plan, and through the plans and specifications for this project, all properties
and dimensions are expressed in U.S. units.
3.2.8.2 References
This CQA Plan includes references to the most recent version of the test procedures of the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Table 3D at the end of this text
contains a list of these procedures.
3.3 Inspection, Sampling and Testing
The requirements of the General Earthwork (perimeter embankments and subgrade) and
Final Cover Systems (soil barrier, vegetative cover, and storm water management
devices) differ with respect to continuous or intermittent testing and oversight. The
following two sections are devoted to the specific requirements of each work task.
3.3.1 General Earthwork
This section outlines the CQA program for structural fill associated with perimeter
embankments, including sedimentation basins, and general grading of the subgrade. Issues
to be addressed include material approval, subgrade approval, field control and record tests,
if any, and resolution of problems.
3.3.1.1 Compaction Criteria
All material to be used as compacted embankment shall be compacted to a minimum of
95% of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D-698), or as approved
by the Engineer or designated QC/QA personnel. Specifically, field observation of the
response of soils beneath equipment and the use of a probe rod and/or a penetrometer are
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 12
other means of determining the adequacy of compaction. Skilled soil technicians working
under the supervision of an engineer may make this determination, subject to concurrence
by the engineer. Approval is based on visual evaluation for consistency with project
specification and objectives. Such material evaluations may be performed either during
material handling, i.e., delivery to or upon receipt at the landfill, or from existing stockpiles
and/or the soil borrow site. Borrow soils shall be evaluated by the Engineer and QC/QA
personnel prior to placement on the work site. All visual inspection and testing shall be
documented for the CQA Report.

Where permeability is the key parameter of interest, field and/or lab tests will be used.
3.3.1.2 Testing Criteria
Periodic compaction (moisture-density) testing requirements are imposed on the structural
fill, although compaction and testing requirements may not be as stringent as that required
for the final cover construction. Initial compaction testing shall be in accordance with the
project specifications. The Engineer may recommend alternative compaction testing
requirements based on field performance. Additional qualitative evaluations shall be made
by the Contractor Superintendent and the Engineer to satisfy the performance criteria for
placement of these materials.

CQA monitoring and testing will not be “full-time” on this project. Rather, the CQA
Testing Firm will test completed portions of the work at the Contractor’s or Owner’s
request. The CQA Testing Firm may be called upon to test final cover and/or compacted
structural fill at any time, ideally scheduling site visits to optimize his efforts. The Engineer
will make an inspection at least monthly, more often as needed (anticipated more often in
the initial stages of new construction).
3.3.1.3 Material Evaluation
Each load of soil will be examined either at the source, at the stockpile area, or on the
working face prior to placement and compaction. Any unsuitable material, i.e., that which
contains excess moisture, insufficient moisture, debris or other deleterious material, will
be rejected from the working face and routed to another disposal area consistent with its
end use. Materials that are either too dry or too wet, may be stockpiled temporarily near
the working face for further evaluation by designated QC/QA personnel. The Contractor
may blend such materials with other materials (in the event of dryness) or dry the materials
(in the event of excess moisture). Soils Selected for the compacted barrier layer must be
capable of being compacted to the permeability requirement. The Engineer may specify
which onsite soils will be suitable. Typically soils with classifications of ML, MH, CL,
CH, and mixed SM-ML are more likely to meet the criteria.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 13
3.3.1.4 Subgrade Approval
Designated QC/QA personnel shall verify that the compacted subgrade (interim cover) are
suitable to provide sufficient support to allow compaction of the overlying compacted
barrier layer. These activities include an inspection of the subgrade by a qualified engineer,
geologist, or soil technician working under the supervision of an engineer, who will
examine and classify the subgrade soils and perhaps require proof-roll evaluation. The
frequency of visual inspection and testing shall conform to Table 3A.
3.3.2 Construction Monitoring
3.3.2.1 Monitoring Criteria
A. Earthwork shall be performed as described in the project specifications. The
Construction Superintendent has the responsibility of assuring that only select
materials are used in the construction, discussed above.
B. Only materials previously approved by the Engineer or his designee shall be
used in construction of the compacted embankment. Unsuitable material will
be removed and replaced followed by re-evaluation to the satisfaction of the
Engineer and retesting, as may be required.
C. All required field density and moisture content tests shall be completed before
the overlying lift of soil is placed – as applicable. The surface preparation
(e.g. wetting, drying, scarification, compaction etc.) shall be completed
before the Engineer (or his designate) will allow placement of subsequent
lifts.
D. The CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer shall monitor protection of the
earthwork, i.e., from erosion or desiccation during and after construction.
3.3.2.2 Control Tests
The control tests, as shown on Table 3A, will be performed by the CQA Testing Firm prior
to placement of additional compacted embankment.
3.3.2.3 Record Tests
The record tests, as shown on Table 3A, will be performed by the CQA Testing Firm
during placement of compacted embankment. The CQA Testing Firm may propose and
the Engineer may approve an alternative testing frequency. Alternatively, the Engineer
may amend the testing frequency, without further approval from the regulatory agency,
based on consistent and satisfactory field performance of the materials and the construction
techniques.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 14
3.3.2.4 Record Test Failure
Failed tests shall be noted in the construction report, followed by documentation of
mitigation. Soils with failing tests shall be evaluated by the Engineer (or his designee),
and the soils shall either be recompacted or replaced, based on the Engineer’s judgment.
Reworking and more compaction of the failed area shall be performed and retested until
the area meets or exceeds requirements outlined in the specifications.
3.3.2.5 Judgment Testing
During construction, the frequency of control and/or record testing may be increased at the
discretion of the CQA Testing Firm when visual observations of construction performance
indicate a potential problem. Indications that additional testing may be necessary include:
• Rollers slipping during rolling operation;
• Lift thickness is greater than specified;
• Fill material is at an improper moisture content;
• Fewer than the specified number of roller passes is made;
• Dirt-clogged rollers are used to compact the material;
• Rollers may not have used optimum ballast;
• Fill materials differ substantially from those specified;
• Degree of compaction is doubtful.
3.3.2.6 Deficiencies
The CQA Testing Firm will immediately determine the extent and nature of all defects and
deficiencies and report them to the Owner and Engineer. The CQA Testing Firm shall
properly document all defects and deficiencies – this shall be more critical on the final
cover construction, although this applies to structural fill as well. The Contractor will
correct defects and deficiencies to the satisfaction of the Owner and Engineer. The CQA
Testing Firm shall perform retests on repaired defects.
3.3.3 Final Cover Systems
This section outlines the CQA program for piping, drainage aggregate, geotextiles,
compacted soil barrier layer, and the vegetative soil layer of the final cover system, as well
as the related erosion and sedimentation control activities. Issues to be addressed include
material approval, subgrade approval, field control and record tests, if any, and resolution
of problems.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 15
3.3.3.1 Material Approval
The Engineer and/or the CQA Testing Firm shall verify that the following materials (as
applicable) are provided and installed in accordance with the project drawings,
specifications, and this CQA Manual. In general, the Contractor shall furnish material
specification sheets to the Engineer for review and approval. In certain cases, materials
furnished by the Contractor may need to meet the Owner’s requirements, in which case the
Owner shall approve of the materials with the Engineer’s concurrence. The materials
approval process may involve the submittals furnished by the Owner, (for documentation
purposes) in the event that the Owner decides to furnish certain materials.
A. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on HDPE pipe.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
B. Corrugated Polyethylene (CPE) Pipe
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on CPE pipe.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
C. Aggregates (Verify for each type of aggregate)
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on aggregates.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(3) Verify aggregates in stockpiles or borrow sources conform to project specifications. Certifications from a quarry will be sufficient.
(4) Perform material evaluations in accordance with Table 3B.
D. Vegetative Soil Layer and Drainage Layer
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Review contractor’s submittals on seed specifications.
(3) Perform material evaluations in accordance with Table 3C.
E. Compacted Barrier Layer
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Conduct material control tests in accordance with Table 3C.
F. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(1) Review Contractor's submittals on erosion and sedimentation control items
(including rolled erosion control products and silt fence).
(2) Review of submittals for erosion and sedimentation control items for conformity to the project specifications.
(3) Perform visual examination of materials for signs of age or deterioration.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 16
3.3.3.2 Final Cover Systems Installation
The CQA Testing Firm, in conjunction with the Engineer, will monitor and document the
construction of all final cover system components for compliance with the project
specifications. Monitoring for the components of the final cover system includes the
following:
• Verify location of all piping;
• Assuring sufficient vertical buffer between field equipment and piping;
• Monitoring thickness and moisture-density of the final cover layers and
verification that equipment does not damage the compacted barrier layer or other components; and
• Assuring proper installation of sedimentation and erosion control measures.
3.3.3.3 Deficiencies
The CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer will immediately determine the extent and
nature of all defects and deficiencies and report them to the Owner. The CQA Testing
Firm and/or the Engineer shall properly document all defects and deficiencies. The
Contractor will correct defects and deficiencies to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The
CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer shall observe all retests.
3.4 CQA Meetings
Effective communication is critical toward all parties’ understanding of the objectives of
the CQA program and in resolving problems that may arise that could compromise the
ability to meet those objectives. To that end, meetings are essential to establish clear open
channels of communication. The frequency of meetings will be dictated by site conditions
and the effectiveness of communication between the parties.
3.4.1 Project Initiation CQA Meeting
A CQA Meeting will be held at the site prior to placement of the compacted barrier layer.
At a minimum, the Engineer, the Contractor, and representatives of the CQA Testing Firm
and of the Owner will attend the meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to begin planning
for coordination of tasks, anticipate any problems that might cause difficulties and delays
in construction, and, above all, review the CQA Manual to all of the parties involved.
During this meeting, the results of a prior compaction test pad will be reviewed, and the
project specific moisture-density relationships and it is very important that the rules
regarding testing, repair, etc., be known and accepted by all. This meeting should include
all of the activities referenced in the project specifications. The Engineer shall document
the meeting and minutes will be transmitted to all parties.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 17
3.4.2 CQA Progress Meetings
Progress meetings will be held between the Engineer, the Contractor, a representative of
the CQA Testing Firm, and representatives from any other involved parties. Meeting
frequency will be, at a minimum, once per month during active construction or more often
if necessary, during critical stages of construction (i.e., initial stages of final cover). These
meetings will discuss current progress, planned activities for the next week, and any new
business or revisions to the work.

The Engineer will log any problems, decisions, or questions arising at this meeting in his
periodic reports. Any matter requiring action, which is raised in this meeting, will be
reported to the appropriate parties. The Engineer will document these meetings and
minutes will be transmitted to interested parties and to a record file.
3.4.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meetings
A special meeting will be held when and if a problem or deficiency is present or likely to
occur. At a minimum, the Engineer, the Contractor, the CQA Testing Firm, and
representatives will attend the meeting from any other involved parties. The purpose of
the meeting is to define and resolve the problem or work deficiency as follows:
• Define and discuss the problem or deficiency;
• Review alternative solutions; and
• Implement an action plan to resolve the problem or deficiency.
The Engineer will document these meetings and minutes will be transmitted to interested
parties and to a record file.
3.5 Documentation and Reporting
An effective CQA plan depends largely on recognition of which construction activities
should be monitored and on assigning responsibilities for the monitoring of each required
activity. This is most effectively accomplished and verified by the documentation of
quality assurance activities. The CQA Testing Firm will provide documentation to address
quality assurance requirements. Monitoring will not be continuous and full-time, although
the CQA Testing Firm representative (typically this is a Soil Technician) and the Engineer
will make frequent and periodic visits to inspect and/or test the work. Both parties shall
keep records of their visits and observations. The Soils Technician will visit the site
periodically (e.g., once per week) to document activities during placement of the structural
fill and during final cover construction. Site visits by the CQA Testing Firm shall be
coordinated between the Contractor and the CQA Testing Firm. The Engineer will make
monthly site visits during these critical stages to review the work.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 18
The Construction Superintendent or his representative shall be present on-site daily and
shall keep a record of the general construction progress, noting specifically any problems
or inconsistencies that need to be brought to the Owner’s attention. The specifics of the
Contractor’s records will not be spelled out, but at a minimum, daily or weekly progress
records shall be kept and made available to the Owner upon request. The CQA Testing
Firm will provide the Owner (or his designee) with periodic progress reports including
signed descriptive remarks, data sheets, and logs to verify that required CQA activities
have been carried out. These reports shall also identify potential quality assurance
problems. The CQA Testing Firm will also maintain at the job site a complete file of
project drawings, reports, project specifications, the CQA Plan, periodic reports, test results
and other pertinent documents. The Owner shall keep this record file.
3.5.1 Periodic CQA Reports
The CQA Testing Firm representative's reporting procedures will include preparation of a
periodic report that will include the following information, where applicable:
• A unique sheet number for cross referencing and document control;
• Date, project name, location, and other identification;
• Data on weather conditions;
• A Site Plan showing all proposed work areas and test locations;
• Descriptions and locations of ongoing construction;
• Descriptions and specific locations of areas, or units, of work being tested and/or observed and documented;
• Locations where tests and samples were taken;
• A summary of test results (as they become available, in the case of laboratory tests);
• Calibration or recalibration of test equipment, and actions taken as a result of recalibration;
• Off-site materials received, including quality verification documentation;
• Decisions made regarding acceptance of units of work, and/or corrective actions to be taken in instances of substandard quality;
• Summaries of pertinent discussions with the Contractor and/or Engineer;
• The Technician's signature.
The periodic report must be completed by the end of each Technician's visit, prior to
leaving the site. This information will keep at the Contractor’s office and reviewed
periodically by the Owner and Engineer. The CQA Testing Firm on a weekly basis should
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 19
forward copies of the Periodic CQA Reports electronically to the Engineer. Periodic CQA
Reports shall be due to the Engineer no later than noon on the next working day (typically
Monday) following the end of a work week (typically Friday). If a periodic visit is
postponed or cancelled, that fact should be documented by the CQA Testing Firm and
noted in the next periodic report.
3.5.2 CQA Progress Reports
The Engineer will prepare a summary progress report each month, or at time intervals
established at the pre-construction meeting. As a minimum, this report will include the
following information, where applicable:
• Date, project name, location, and other information;
• A summary of work activities during the progress reporting period;
• A summary of construction situations, deficiencies, and/or defects
occurring during the progress reporting period;
• A summary of all test results, failures and retests, and
• The signature of the Engineer.
The Engineer's progress reports must summarize the major events that occurred during that
week. This report shall include input from the Contractor and the CQA Testing Firm.
Critical problems that occur shall be communicated verbally to the Engineer immediately
(or as appropriate, depending on the nature of the concern) as well as being included in the
Periodic CQA Reports.
3.5.3 CQA Photographic Reporting
Photographs shall be taken by the CQA Testing Firm at regular intervals during the
construction process and in all areas deemed critical by the CQA Testing Firm. These
photographs will serve as a pictorial record of work progress, problems, and mitigation
activities. These records will be presented to the Engineer upon completion of the project.
Electronic photographs are preferred; in which case the electronic photos should be
forwarded to the Engineer (the CQA Testing Firm shall keep copies, as well). In lieu of
photographic documentation, videotaping may be used to record work progress, problems,
and mitigation activities. The Engineer may require that a portion of the documentation be
recorded by photographic means in conjunction with videotaping.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 20
3.5.4 Documentation of Deficiencies
The Owner and Engineer will be made aware of any significant recurring nonconformance
with the project specifications. The Engineer will then determine the cause of the non-
conformance and recommend appropriate changes in procedures or specification. When
this type of evaluation is made, the results will be documented, and the Owner and Engineer
will approve any revision to procedures or specifications.
3.5.5 Design or Specification Changes
Design and/or project specification changes may be required during construction. In such
cases, the Contractor will notify the Engineer and/or the Owner. The Owner will then
notify the appropriate agency, if necessary. Design and/or project specification changes
will be made only with the written agreement of the Engineer and the Owner and will take
the form of an addendum to the project specifications. All design changes shall include a
detail (if necessary) and state which detail it replaces in the plans.
3.6 Final CQA Report
At the completion of each major construction activity at the landfill unit, or at periodic
intervals, the CQA Testing Firm will provide final copies of all required forms, observation
logs, field and laboratory testing data sheets, sample location plans, etc., in a certified
report. Said report shall include summaries of all the data listed above. The Engineer will
provide one or more final reports, pertinent to each portion of completed work, which will
certify that the work has been performed in compliance with the plans and project technical
specifications, and that the supporting documents provide the necessary information.

The Engineer will provide Record Drawings, prepared with input from the Owner’s
Surveyor, which will include scale drawings depicting the location of the construction and
details pertaining to the extent of construction (e.g., depths, plan dimensions, elevations,
soil component thicknesses, etc.). All final surveying required for the Record Drawings
will be performed by the Owner’s Surveyor. The following is a suggested outline for the
Final CQA Report(s). Note that some items may not be applicable to all stages of the
project.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 21
Table 3.1
FINAL COVER SYSTEM CQA REPORT GENERAL OUTLINE
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Project Description
3.0 CQA Program
3.1 Scope of Project
3.2 Personnel
4.0 Earthwork CQA
5.0 Final Cover System CQA
6.0 Summary and Conclusions
7.0 Project Certification
Appendices
A Design Clarifications/Modifications
B Photographic Documentation
C CQA Reporting
C1. CQA Reports
C2. CQA Meeting Minutes
D Earthwork CQA Data
D1. CQA Test Results - Control Tests
D2. CQA Test Results - Record Tests
E Final Cover System CQA Data
E1. Manufacturer’s Product Data and QC Certificates
E2. Test Results - Drainage Aggregate
E3. Test Results - Vegetative Soil Layer
E4. Test Results - Pressure Testing of HDPE Piping (Manufacturer data)
E5. Test results on compacted soil barrier/low permeability layer
F Record Drawings
F1. Subgrade As Built
F2. Compacted soil barrier/low permeability layer as-built drawing
F3. Vegetative Soil Layer As Built Each CQA report shall bear the signature and seal of the Engineer (or multiple Engineers
as applicable), attesting that the construction was completed in accordance with the CQA
plan, the conditions of the permit to construct, the requirements of the North Carolina Solid
Waste Rules, and acceptable engineering practice.
3.7 Storage of Records
All approved drawings and data sheets shall be stored in electronic format and as paper
copies in a secure location. These documents will become the property of the Owner.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 22
3.8 Protection of Finished Surfaces
The only relevant systems exposed after construction will be the finished slopes, including
both interior and exterior slopes, various drainage systems, and the subgrade. Ground
cover shall be established on all finished surfaces to prevent erosion, i.e., seeding of the
finished surfaces within 20 days, per NC DEQ Division of Land Quality rules, or other
measures for preventing erosion (e.g., mulch, rain sheets). Maintenance of finished slopes
and subgrade until waste is placed is required. Exterior slopes shall be vegetated in
accordance with application sediment and erosion control regulations. The Engineer shall
document that the finished surfaces are adequately protected upon completion and said
documentation shall be recorded in the CQA report.

The Owner/Operator shall be responsible for maintaining the finished surfaces, including
exterior slope vegetation and drainage conveyances, along with the interior slopes and
subgrade. If finished surfaces within the waste disposal area are required to sit completed
for more than 30 days following completion, the Engineer shall examine the finished
surfaces prior to waste disposal and the Owner shall be responsible for any necessary
repairs, e.g., erosion that might affect embankment integrity or vertical separation with a
subgrade. The Engineer shall document any required maintenance or repairs prior to
commencing disposal activities and place said documentation into the Operating Record.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 23
Table 3A
CQA TESTING SCHEDULE FOR GENERAL EARTHWORK
PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Consistency Evaluation ASTM D 2488 (visual)1 Each Material
RECORD TESTS:
Lift Thickness Direct Measure Each compacted lift
In-Place Density ASTM D 29222 20,000 ft2 per lift
Moisture Content ASTM D 30173 20,000 ft2 per lift
Subgrade Consistency within the upper 24 inches4 Visual 4 tests per acre
Subgrade Consistency within the upper 24 inches4 ASTM D 4318 ASTM D 7928
ASTM WK 39106
1 test per acre
Notes:
1. To be performed by Contractor Superintendent, Engineer, or CQA Testing Firm. Direct measure shall be facilitated with hand auger borings.
2. Optionally use ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937. For every 10 nuclear density tests perform at least 1 density test by ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937 as a verification of the accuracy of the nuclear testing device. Minimum required soil density is 95 percent of the standard proctor maximum dry density, which is dependent on the moisture-density characteristic developed for the specific soil during initial construction; soils which result in a failed test and the lift must reworked and retested.
2a. If “beneficial fill” materials are used to subgrade, the Contractor shall spread large particles evenly and fill all voids with finer soil – this is referred to as “choking off” the voids; density testing shall be suspended at the discretion of the Engineer, but judgment testing shall be applied and the use of these materials and evaluation thereof shall be documented as normal
3. Optionally use ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959. For every ten (10) nuclear density-moisture tests, perform at least 1 moisture test by ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959 as a verification of the accuracy of the nuclear testing device.
4. Subgrade evaluation shall be conducted via continuous inspection with the indicated testing frequency, in order to evaluate the full 24-inch depth, of an intrusive investigation (e.g., hand auger borings) may be performed after portions of the subgrade are completed with the indicated testing frequency – all testing locations, testing types and test results shall be recorded on a site map and made part of the construction record
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 24
Table 3B
CQA TESTING SCHEDULE FOR DRAINAGE AND FINAL COVER MATERIALS

COMPONENT PROPERTY TEST METHOD

MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
RECORD TESTS:
Gas Vent Pipes and Stone Correct type, grade and placement for pipes; correct gradation and trench dimensions for collection stone2
Visual Each Vent
Coarse Aggregate: Confirm Gradation Visual 5,000 CY1
Vegetative Soil Layer: (In-Situ Verification) Visual Classification ASTM D 2488 1 per acre
Layer Thickness Direct measure Survey4

Notes: 1. A quarry certification is acceptable for aggregate from a commercial quarry. If on-site derived stone or a byproduct is used, i.e., crushed concrete aggregate, the gradation test frequency may be adjusted based on project specific conditions. The Engineer shall approve all materials and alternative test frequencies. Materials that do not meet relevant ASTM or AASHTO standard gradation specifications (either may be used at the discretion of the Engineer) shall be rejected.
2. Relative to Detail G on Drawing EC3.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 25
Table 3C
CQA TESTING SCHEDULE FOR FINAL COVER COMPACTED SOIL BARRIER

PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST FREQUENCY
RECORD TESTS:
Lift Thickness Direct measure Survey4
Permeability ASTM D50841 1 per acre per lift
In-Place Density ASTM D 29222 4 per acre per lift
Moisture Content ASTM D 30173 4 per acre per lift
Direct Shear Friction Test ASTM D 53215 1 per acre
Notes:
1. Optionally use ASTM D6391. Maximum allowable confining pressure for laboratory testing under ASTM D5084 is 20 psi; maximum gradient is 10; actual confining pressure and gradient values shall be at the discretion of the engineer in charge of the CQA program. Maximum allowable soil permeability is 1 x 10-5 cm/sec; higher permeability results in a failed test and the lift must be reworked and retested. 2. Optionally use ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937. For every 10 nuclear density tests perform at least 1 density test by ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937 as a verification of the accuracy of the nuclear device. Minimum required density is dependent on the moisture-density-permeability characteristic developed for the specific soil during initial construction; lower density or incorrect moisture may result in higher permeability. Permeability criteria shall govern the determination of a passing test. 3. Optionally use ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959. For every ten nuclear-moisture tests, perform at least 1 moisture test by ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959 as a verification of the accuracy of the nuclear testing device. 4. Topographic survey to be performed by licensed surveyor, observing the following technical specifications to confirm that the minimum thickness of each proposed final cover component is constructed according to the Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0543. Each of the following layers shall be documented with individual surveys: a) The top elevations of the final intermediate soil cover layer. b) The top elevations of the final compacted soil liner layer. c) The top elevations of the final vegetation cover layer. The survey shall be performed on a regular grid or triangular grid layout – ideally the same point locations would be used for each layer based on the original construction grid; locations of each data point shall be measured to a minimum accuracy of 0.01 feet on the horizontal and vertical; any stakes placed on the slopes shall be removed and the holes backfilled with soil that is similar to the layer of interest; the backfill soil shall be placed in maximum 9 inch thick loose lifts and compacted to approximately 6 inches thickness with a hand tamp; lifts shall be measured directly down-hole with a stick or tape measure; the as-built drawings for each layer shall be drawn as layer thickness contours paralleling the slopes, i.e., an thickness isopach map, with the same 0.01 foot vertical accuracy. Digital data acquisition will be assumed. 5. These tests may be altered at the Engineer’s discretion, providing minimum standards of practice are observed and the minimum project requirements are met.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure CQA Plan Page 26
Table 3D REFERENCE LIST OF ASTM TEST METHODS ASTM C 136 Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
ASTM D 698 Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3).
ASTM D 1556 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone
Method. ASTM D 2167 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Rubber Balloon Method.
ASTM D 2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of
Soil and Rock by Mass.
ASTM D 2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).
ASTM D 2922 Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear
Methods (Shallow Depth).
ASTM D 2937 Standard Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive Cylinder Method.
ASTM D 3017 Standard Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
ASTM D 4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM D 4643 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by the
Microwave Oven Method.
ASTM D 4959 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Direct Heating Method.
ASTM D5084 Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
ASTM D 5993 Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit of Geosynthetic Clay Liners.
ASTM D6391 Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity Limits of Porous Materials Using Two Stages of Infiltration from a Borehole ASTM D 6768 Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength of Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM D 5321 Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and Geosynthetic or
Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear Method ASTM D 7928 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis ASTM WK38106 New Test Method for Particle Size Analysis for Soils Combining the Sieve and Sedimentation Techniques
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 27
4 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE MSE BERM
4.1 Safety Concerns
Slips, trips, falls and rollovers are especially hazardous conditions for personnel walking or
operating equipment atop the steep outer slopes of the MSE berm. Visibility may be limited by
slope geometry in all directions. These areas should be avoided, or if workers must be near
the slope, they should be tied off with ropes, OSHA-approved harnesses and suitable ground
anchors. This includes routine inspection and maintenance activities. Rigging equipment shall
be dedicated to this purpose, kept in good order and inspected before each use. The Site
Manger shall be alerted to any work taking place near the slopes. All work near the slopes
shall be performed by tandem work crews. Each worker shall have a two-way communication
device and remain in close contact with the Site Manager. No personnel shall be allowed near
the slopes in wet, icy or windy conditions, or after dark. No machinery will be allowed on the
front slope of the MSE berm except specialty contractors.

Equipment movement near the crests of the reinforced slopes poses safety concerns for
personnel working below the slope, i.e., collapsing the edge of the slope, dislodging soil or
debris, skidding or overturning equipment. Barricades consisting of guardrails shown in the
project drawings, including concrete “bin blocks” or jersey barriers should already be
deployed. Before placing final cover materials within 50 feet of the front slope of an MSE
berm, the slopes shall be marked with high visibility warnings and sturdy, movable barricades
set at least 20 feet behind the slope face to prevent equipment from venturing to close.
Permanent barriers previously placed along the interstitial bench on the southwest side of the
CDLF and along completed sections elsewhere, shall not be disturbed. The interstitial space
between the barriers shall allow movement of authorized vehicular traffic – not the storage of
construction materials. No private vehicles shall be allowed on the landfill berms or upper
slopes. Only appropriately insured vehicles belonging to an authorized contractor, the Owner,
or emergency vehicles shall be allowed on the landfill. Access shall be restricted to perform
necessary activities by trained staff.

All personnel working on near landfill berms or upper slopes shall receive training on the
hazards present it the site. Precautions should include wearing appropriate PPE and being
alert to upslope activities, as well as the perils of working above or below the front slope.
Radio communications with the site manager should be maintained. Any incidents of soil or
debris tumbling down the front slope should be reported to the site manager, and if a direct
cause cannot be determined, the slopes should be reconnoitered to detect erosion or signs of
instability. Any incidents should be reported to the site manager, and if a direct cause cannot
be determined, the slopes should be reconnoitered to detect erosion or signs of instability.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 28
4.2 Final Cover Placement near MSE Berm
Contemporaneous waste placement will occur during berm construction. Once the upper
slopes are on-grade, interim soil cover will be placed with appropriate equipment and
techniques and sloped to facilitate water management as described in the Operations Plan.
Within the prescribed timeframe (see Section 1.3.5) of this Closure Plan, final cover shall be
applied. That section might be interpreted to imply the cover should be applied in a maximum
of 10-acre increments. However, it is in the Operator’s interests to close slopes above the MSE
berm in smaller increments, e.g., 5-acre plots, or less. The Final Cover shall consist of that
described Section 2 of this Closure Plan in Drawings EC1 – EC4. A tighter closure schedule
influences water management and reduces the amount of water that infiltrates behind the berm,
i.e., the amount of leachate that will be generated.
Final cover will be placed over portions of the unreinforced zone within the MSE berm, which
contains compacted but unreinforced soil with an embedded granular “chimney” drain placed
no more than 10 feet behind the reinforced zone. No final cover should be placed until the
limits of the reinforced zone within each berm is clearly marked in the field. Final cover should
not be placed above the reinforced zone – that zone is reserved for access and water
management. Section 3.5.2 of the Facility Engineering Plan discusses construction of the
berm. No construction equipment should be operated on the reinforced zone unless approved
by the Engineer and then with restrictions, e.g., low ground pressure and no sharp turns.
Care should be taken when operating heavy equipment on the unreinforced zone, to avoid
damaging the berm or its components. Soil placement should proceed as outlined in Section
2.1.4 of this Closure Plan. The direction of the compactor movement should be parallel to
the slope contours. The vibrator should not be run within 20 feet behind the slope face.
4.3 Leachate System
4.3.1 Routine Operation
The Operations Plan describes a procedure for normal monitoring and servicing the leachate
collection system as a manual operation. During Final Closure activities, the same procedures
should be employed (see Section 4.3 of the Operations Plan). Even if the system is automated
for monitoring quantities and directing the leachate via gravity pipes or force mains to an
approved POTW access, the Operator should periodically observe the leachate for qualitative
purposes. Changes in flow rate is expected – presumably the flow should decrease. Changes
in clarity or odors could indicate conditions that require the Engineer Team’s attention.
Records will continue to be kept quantifying all volumes of leachate, i.e. routine tank
service and/or emergency mode; records will be filed with the Operating Record. The
Engineer and Owner will review the records quarterly; should the leachate generation rate
warrant, plans to automate the system will be drawn up. Per the Operations Plan, the ball
valves above the leachate tanks shall always be open except in emergency operations.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 29
4.3.2 Leachate System Inspection
Per the Operations Plan, the leachate collection system should be inspected weekly, to prevent
leaks and spills due to casual damage to piping, valves, fittings and tanks. The inspections
shall be conducted by trained facility staff. Inspections may be combined with the routine
Operations activities described in Section 4.3.1. Key to the success of the program is
documentation. Records of inspections shall be kept and incorporated into the Facility
Operation Record. The Engineering Team will review these records periodically.
4.3.3 Leachate System Maintenance
Per the Operations Plan, normal maintenance and repairs to the leachate collection system
should continue. Records of inspections should be documented and required maintenance
or repairs should be brought to the Engineer’s attention. If needed, the Engineer may
investigate. These records shall be reviewed periodically by the Engineering Team and
entered into the Operating Record.
4.4 Slope Monitoring
Monitoring slope deformation as described in Section 5 of the Facility Engineering Plan shall
continue into the Closure mode. Section 4.4 of the Operations Plan describes the means,
methods and schedule for slope monitoring. Unless further modified, this program will
continue as prescribed. Relative to Final Closure activities, additional care should be taken
during the construction to avoid disturbing the various monitoring devices. The locations of
the devices are shown in Drawing M1.
4.5 Slope Maintenance
This section briefly discusses a continuation of inspection and maintenance requirements
presented in Section 4.5 of the Operations Plan and Section 5.7 of the Facility Engineering
Plan. These guidelines focus on maintaining vegetation and surface drainage on the front
slope of the berm and final cover systems. Records of inspections and required maintenance
shall be kept and incorporated into the Facility Operation Record. The Engineering Team
will review these records periodically.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 30
Table 4.1 Monitoring Schedule for the MSE Berm during Closure
Monitoring Location Required Personnel Schedule
Laser-Scan Monuments
Manually Operated Instruments Licensed Surveyor Monthly

Engineer Semi-annual review
Strain Gauges
Electronic Data Collection with Periodic Download Facility Staff Weekly/Bi-weekly3
Engineer Semi-annual review
Pressure Transducers
Electronic Data Collection with Periodic Download Facility Staff Weekly/Bi-weekly
Engineer Semi-annual review
Slope Inclinometers
Manually Operated Instrument Trained Technician Monthly/Quarterly
Engineer Semi-annual review
Piezometers
Manual or Electronic Facility Staff Monthly
Engineer Semi-annually
Visual Inspection2
Erosion on slopes and behind berm Facility Staff Weekly
Deposits of soil below slopes “ “
Vegetation health and coverage “ “
Sags or depressions holding water “ “
Leachate system (check for leaks) “ “
Engineer Monthly
Quantify Drainage
Direct Measure Facility Staff Weekly
Engineer Semi-annually
1 Schedule may be adjusted subject to data findings, subject the NCDEQ approval
2 Weekly wall-through by designated staff; may be facilitated by periodic drone surveys
3 Schedule depends on limits of equipment

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 31
5 CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE
The following cost estimate is considered suitable for the Financial Assurance
requirements (see Section 6 of the Updated Facility Plan). Whereas the entire footprint
is now “open” with a PTC, the area subject to Financial Assurance is the full 25.5 acres.
Costs estimates are based on 25.5 acres and unit rates approved in the 2019 Phase 3 PTC.
No area within this Facility currently has a certified final cover in place. The cost estimate
shown in Table 2.1 below includes additional costs estimated for 2.24 acres of front slopes
for the MSE berm. The base area for conventional slope closure has been adjusted, i.e.,
25.50 – 2.24 = 23.26 acres.
Table 5.1
ESTIMATED FINAL CLOSURE COSTS FOR Stages 1 – 2 (2020 dollars) 1, 5
VSL (topsoil) 2, 6 – 23.26 ac 61,710 c.y. @ $4.67 / cubic yard $ 299,198
CSB (barrier) 2, 6 – 23.26 ac 70,967 c.y. @ $11.42 / cubic yard $ 809,024
Establish Vegetation 23.26 acres @ $2,040 per acre $ 47,450
Establish Vegetation (Berm) 2.24 acres @ $7,500 per acre $ 16,800
Storm Water Piping 3, 6 530 LF @ $36.34 / LF $ 19,260
Erosion Control Stone 3, 6 27 tons @ $41.53 / ton $ 1,121
Cap Gas Vents (3/acre) 77 @ $103.83 ea. $ 7,995
Subtotal 1,200,848
Testing and Surveying 4, 6 Estimated 20 percent of above $ 240,170
Contingency Estimated 15 percent of above $ 180,127
Total Closure Construction Cost (EXCLUDES MSE BERM) $ 1,621,145
Notes:
1 The calculation is intended to represent likely third-party construction costs for a hired
contractor, not the Owner/Operator, based on knowledge of local construction costs for
similar projects. These estimates meet NCDEQ Division of Waste Management financial
assurance requirements; actual costs may be lower for construction by the
Owner/Operator. Final closure work will be performed incrementally, spreading out the
costs over the life of the project. Costs are included in MSE berm construction
2 Includes soil work for regulatory requirements of 15A NCAC 13B .0543, i.e., a minimum of
18 inches of compacted soil barrier (max. permeability of 1 x 10-5 cm/sec) and 18 inches
of topsoil (total soil thickness is 36 inches). For the compacted soil barrier, use a
shrinkage factor of 15%; costs include surface preparation, soil procurement and transport
costs, soil placement and compaction, machine/equipment costs, fuel costs
3 Conservative estimates based on similar project history; includes materials and installation
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Final Closure Plan Page 32
4 Includes Construction document and bidding, construction administrative fee, CQA field
monitoring and lab testing, CQA reporting and certification, final survey for as-built
drawings, recordation/notation fee
5 Unit rates subject to inflation have been adjusted for using the rates listed on Table 2.2,
e.g. the VSL (topsoil) was $4.50/cy in 2018. In 2020, this unit rate is calculated as:
$4.50 (2018) * 1.022 = $4.60 (2019) * 1.016 = $4.67 (2020)
The inflation multiplier applies each unit rate for closure, post-closure, current corrective
action, and potential assessment of corrective action (PACA) per the above example,
starting with the last permitted rates. Since 2018 the aggregate multiplier is 1.038352.
6 These costs pertaining to the berm are included in the MSE berm construction cost
estimate, Section 6 of the Updated Facility Plan.

Table 2.2
ANNUAL INFLATION MULTIPLIERS Year Multiplier
2011 1.013
2012 1.021
2013 1.018
2014 1.015
2015 1.014
2016 1.010
2017 1.013
2018 1.018
2019 1.022
2020 1.016 1 These data are downloaded from the Solid Waste Section web site and should be used to update
the Financial Assurance bond on an annual basis.

1 Value estimated as average of nine years thus published. The values are typically published in
April for a current year.

https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/solid-waste-section/financial-assurance-
for-solid-waste-management-facilities

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 8
POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE PLAN
With Cost Estimate

MSE BERM PTC POST-CLOSURE PLAN
A-1 SANDROCK C&D LANDFILL (4117-CDLF-2008)

Submitted to:

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

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

David Garrett & Associates
Engineering and Geology
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

January 10, 2020 (Rev. 1)
Project No.: G18-8008
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Closure Plan Page i

CONTENTS
FORWORD ..................................................................................................................................... 2
OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 2
SITE LOCATION DATA ............................................................................................................... 2
REGULATORY CONTACTS ........................................................................................................ 2
1 POST-CLOSURE CARE PLAN ........................................................................................ 3
1.1 Monitoring and Maintenance .................................................................................. 3
1.1.1 Term of Post-Closure Care ......................................................................... 3
1.2 Maintenance of Closure Systems ............................................................................ 3
1.3 Environmental Monitoring...................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Ground Water Monitoring .......................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring ............................................................................. 3
1.4 Record Keeping ...................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Certification of Completion .................................................................................... 4
2 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MSE BERM ..................................................................... 4
2.1 Safety Concerns ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Front Slope Inspection and Maintenance ................................................................ 5
2.3 Leachate System ..................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Slope Monitoring .................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Responsible Party Contact ...................................................................................... 8
2.6 Planned Uses of Property ........................................................................................ 8
3 POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................... 8

TABLES
1.1 Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule ................................................... 6
1.2 Estimated Post-Closure Costs for Stages 1 and 2 ......................................................... 8

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 2
FORWORD
This Closure Plan was prepared in accordance with North Carolina Solid Waste Rules 15A
NCAC 13B .0531, et seq. in support of a Permit to Construct application for a planned vertical
expansion of A-1 Sandrock CDLF (NC Solid Waste Permit 4717-CDLF-2008). The facility
was permitted and constructed in three phases on the ground, one overlapping phase, denoted
as Phases 1 – 4. The vertical expansion will be pursued in four Stages overlapping the four
stages and each other, essentially within the same footprint. The vertical expansion will be
facilitated by a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) berm, the subject of this PTC
application. The MSE berm is a gravity retaining structure that contains a “reinforced zone”
in addition to surface drains, internal drains and non-reinforced structural embankment. The
following Closure Plan Update prepared in accordance with Rule .0543 includes aspects typical
of North Carolina-regulated landfills with special accommodations concerning the MSE berm.
Those accommodations are be highlighted in the following text. This document updates the
2019 PTC application for Phase 3 and supersedes all previous versions.
OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – President
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Vice President
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406 Tel. [phone]
SITE LOCATION DATA
Latitude 35.98745 N
Longitude -79.84639 E
Parcel Number 12-03-0185-0-0739-W -007
Guilford County, NC Deed Date 1/17/1996
Deed Book 4378 Deed Page 0198
Plat Book 149 Plat Page 93
REGULATORY CONTACTS
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Section
Division of Land Resources - Land Quality Section
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Tel. [phone] Fax: [phone]
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 3
1 POST-CLOSURE CARE PLAN
1.1 Monitoring and Maintenance
1.1.1 Term of Post-Closure Care
The facility shall conduct post-closure care for a minimum of 30 years after final closure
of the landfill, unless justification is provided for a reduced post-closure care period. The
post-closure care period may be extended by the Division if necessary, to protect human
health and the environment.
1.2 Maintenance of Closure Systems
Inspections of the final cover systems and sediment and erosion control (S&EC) measures
shall be conducted quarterly. Maintenance will be provided during post-closure care as
needed to protect the integrity and effectiveness of the final cover. The cover will be
repaired as necessary to correct the effects of settlement, subsidence, erosion, or other
events. Refer to the Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule (below).
1.3 Environmental Monitoring
1.3.1 Ground Water Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring will be conducted during the post-closure period under the current
Groundwater Monitoring Plan (see Appendix 9). The term of the monitoring reflects
Solid Waste Section (SWS) guidelines for post-closure care (currently 30 years) or as
modified in the future with SWS approval. Post closure LFG monitoring will be a
continuation of the operational monitoring program, subject to amendment as might be
required by future rule changes or conditions indicated by the data. The primary concern
is the potential for migration of contaminants into the local groundwater supply, although
the potential is relatively low for this facility. The regulations require that constituents
downgradient of the landfill remain within groundwater protection standards established
the 15A NCAC 02L Groundwater Rules. The monitoring plan prepared in accordance
with the current SWS guidance includes monitoring locations, procedures, and contingency
action if regulatory thresholds are exceeded.
1.3.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring
Landfill gas (LFG) monitoring will be conducted during the post-closure period under the
current Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan (see Appendix 10). The term of the monitoring
reflects Solid Waste Section (SWS) guidelines for post-closure care (currently 30 years) or
as modified in the future with SWS approval. Post closure LFG monitoring will be a
continuation of the operational monitoring program, subject to amendment as might be
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 4
required by future rule changes or conditions indicated by the data. The primary concern
is the potential for migration of explosive gas (chiefly methane), although the potential is
relatively low for this facility. The regulations require that LFG levels remain below 100
percent of the lower Explosive Level (LEL) – approximately 5 percent methane by volume
in air or soil gas – at the facility boundary and below 25 percent of the LEL within on-site
structures. The monitoring plan prepared in accordance with the current SWS guidance
includes monitoring locations, procedures, and contingency action if regulatory thresholds
are exceeded.
1.4 Record Keeping
During the post closure period, maintenance and inspection records, i.e., a Post Closure
Record, shall be kept as a continuation of the Operating Record that was kept during the
operational period. The Post Closure Record shall include future inspection and
engineering reports, as well as documentation of all routine and non-routine maintenance
and/or amendments. The Post Closure Record shall include the ground water and gas
monitoring records collected for the facility.
1.5 Certification of Completion
At the end of the post-closure care period the facility manager shall contact the Division to
schedule an inspection. The facility manager shall make the Post Closure Record available
for inspection. A certification that the post-closure plan has been completed, signed by a
North Carolina registered professional engineer, shall be placed in the operating/post
closure record. C&D Landfill, Inc. shall maintain these records indefinitely.

2 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MSE BERM
2.1 Safety Concerns
The Post-Closure period involves more isolation of the workers on slopes, without a Site
Manager and staff available for support or to respond to problems. The work crews will need
to be more self-sufficient with their own Health and Safety Plan, task-specific equipment, PPE
and a designated Safety Officer. Likely the post-closure care will be provided by a contracted
Caretaker. This text is not intended to dictate the terms to as-yet unidentified entities; rather
it is intended to point out known issues, safety-oriented and otherwise, relative to the steep
front slopes. Obviously, slips, trips, falls and rollovers are especially hazardous conditions
for personnel walking or operating equipment atop the steep outer slopes of the MSE berm.
Visibility may be limited by slope geometry in all directions. If workers must be near the slope,
they should be tied off with ropes, OSHA-approved harnesses and suitable ground anchors.
This includes routine inspection and maintenance activities.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 5
Equipment movement near the crests of the reinforced slopes poses safety concerns for
personnel working below the slope, i.e., collapsing the edge of the slope, dislodging soil or
debris, skidding or overturning equipment. Permanent barriers previously placed along the
interstitial bench on the southwest side of the CDLF and along completed sections elsewhere,
shall be inspected every site visit. Only appropriately insured vehicles belonging to an
authorized contractor, the Owner, or emergency vehicles shall be allowed on the landfill.
Access shall be restricted to perform necessary activities by trained staff.
2.2 Front Slope Inspection and Maintenance
It is typically assumed that 5% of the cover vegetation will require replacement annually. On
the steep front slopes this rate may be higher in the first few years after planting. The trend is
toward less replacement required after the first 5 years. The front slopes will be inspected and
replanted via hydroseeding as needed. It should be recognized that the staged construction
and interim closure means an overlap of status of various slopes – some will just be constructed
and vegetated while others will have been in a “post-closure” state for some time. This is
fortuitous for making the vegetation receives adequate attention while establishing.
Assessing the relative health of vegetation is somewhat subjective and should include the
services of a trained agronomist. Determining slope coverage is easier to quantify and can be
performed by less specialized staff. Regardless, the slopes should be observed at least as often
as scheduled and, if replanting is needed or erosion is present, the Caretaker shall make the
necessary arrangements to conduct such activities. A hydro-seeder mentioned above is likely
the most efficient way to plant grasses and herbaceous seeds, however shrubs and certain other
species respond better when planted as sprigs or saplings. Depending on the replanting needs,
direct access to the slopes by personnel may require rope access, cranes, scaffolds or other
types of industrial climbing. Certain long-reach machinery, such as used for mechanized rock-
slope scaling, may be considered.
It is imperative that the front slopes be maintained to promote long-term stability. Erosion and
vegetation are routine activities, but if the structural components behind the slope become
exposed, the Engineering Team should investigate and, as needed, implement repairs. Small
problems are likely to require small repairs. The intent of the post-closure monitoring and
maintenance is to identify and correct problems while they are small. If problems advance to
a high degree of severity that a breech occurs, the Contingency Plan described in Section xxx
of the Facility Engineering Plan will be implemented. This action requires input of the
Engineering Team and notification of the regulatory agencies.
2.3 Leachate System
It is anticipated that during the Post-Closure care period the leachate system will be hard
piped to the POTW located on and adjacent to the Facility. Inspections of the collection pipes,
valves, fittings and tanks will continue from the Operations phase. Inspections should observe
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 6
whether leachate is still being produced (if flow totalizers are not used), the valves are working,
and tanks are clear of sediment or biological accumulations. The Caretaker should pay
attention to access, erosion and evidence of leaks on the ground below the toes of the slopes.
Records of inspections, maintenance and repairs will be filed with the Operating Record.
The Engineer and Owner will review the records according to the schedule.
2.4 Slope Monitoring
Monitoring slope deformation as described in Section 5 of the Facility Engineering Plan shall
continue into the Post Closure mode. Section 4.4 of the Operations Plan describes the means,
methods and schedule for slope monitoring. Unless further modified, this program will
continue as prescribed. Post Closure slope maintenance activities should avoid disturbing the
various monitoring devices. The locations of the devices are shown in Drawing M1. Records
of inspections and required maintenance shall be kept and incorporated into the Facility
Operation Record. The Engineering Team will review these records periodically.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 7
Table 2.1
POST-CLOSURE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Activities for General Grounds and Slopes Frequency
Yrs. 1 - 5
Frequency
Yrs. 6-15
Frequency
Yrs. 16-30
General site security Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
Maintain all-weather access Semi-An. Semi-An. Semi-An.
Final Cover Systems/Slopes 1 Quarterly Semi-An. Annually
Storm Water/Erosion Control Systems 1 Quarterly Semi-An. Annually
Mow cover vegetation and remove thatch Semi-An. Annually None 2
Inspect vegetation cover and remove trees Annually Annually Annually
Landfill Gas Monitoring Quarterly 3 Quarterly 3 Quarterly 3
Groundwater well heads, access Semi-An. Semi-An. Semi-An.
Ground Water Monitoring 4 Semi-An. Semi-An. Semi-An.
Activities for MSE Berm
Slope Deformation Monitoring 5 - Laser Scan Semi-An. Annually Annually
Strain Gauges Semi-An. Annually Annually
Pressure Transducers Semi-An. Annually Annually
Slope Inclinometers Semi-An. Annually Annually
Piezometers Semi-An. Annually Annually
Visual Inspection of Front Slope 6 Semi-An. Annually Annually
Quantify Drainage (Leachate) 7 Semi-An. Annually Annually
Leachate System Integrity Semi-An. Annually Annually
Replant Front slope vegetation Semi-An. Annually Annually
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 8
Detect Seepage Semi-An. Annually Annually
Repair Erosion / Sloughs Semi-An. Annually Annually
Inspect Surface Drainage Semi-An. Annually Annually
Inspect Safety Barriers Semi-An. Annually Annually

Notes:
1. Inspect after every major storm event, i.e., 25-year 24-hour design storm
2. Dependent on vegetation type, periodic mowing may be required
3. The Solid Waste Section may be petitioned for discontinuation of gas monitoring if no
detections occur in gas sampling locations or on-site buildings
4. See current Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan
5. The Engineering Team may petition for a cessation of laser scans or making them less
frequent, depending on the data and with the consent of SWS
6. This would be a good application for aerial photographic surveys (drones)
7. It is likely that an automated system will be installed, ideally gravity drainage to a POTW,
lessening the need for long-term quantifying of leachate volumes
2.5 Responsible Party Contact
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – Owner
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Operator
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406 Tel. [phone]
2.6 Planned Uses of Property
Currently, there is no planned use for the landfill area following closure. The closed facility
will be seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Any post-closure use of the property
considered in the future will not disturb the integrity of the final cover or the function of
the monitoring systems unless necessary (and to be accompanied by repairs or upgrades).
Future uses shall not increase the potential threat to human health and the environment.

3 POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE
The following cost estimate is considered representative of post-closure care costs for the
Financial Assurance (see Section 10.0). This calculation includes all of Phase 1 and
Phase 2, totaling 16.0 acres.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020
Post Closure Plan Page 9
Table 1.2
ESTIMATED POST-CLOSURE COSTS FOR A-1 CDLF (2020 dollars)
Annual Events Units Unit
Cost
Cost/
Event Annual Costs
Reseeding/mulching and erosion repair
Assume 5% of 23.26 ac., once per year 3 1.16 ac. $1,661 $1,926.76 $1,926.76
Replant (hydroseed) MSE Berm Slope
All of surface area, once per year 3 2.24 ac. $2,000 $4,480.00 $4,480.00
Mow final cap (twice per year) 3 23.26 ac. $26 $604.76 $1,209.52
Ground Water (semi-annual, 6 wells) 1,3 6 ea. $415 $2490.00 $4,980.00
Surface Water
(semi-annual, 4 locations) 1,3 4 ea. $363 $1452.00 $5,808.00
Water quality analysis and reporting
(semi-annual) 1 ea. $2250 $2250.00 $4,500.00
Landfill Gas Monitoring (quarterly) 2,3 1 ea. $872 $872.00 $ 872.00
Engineering inspection (annual basis) 1 ea. $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Maintain storm water conveyances 3 1 ea. $1,038 $1,038.00 $1,038.00
Maintain access roads, gates, buildings 3 1 ea. $1,038 $1,038.00 $1,038.00
Repair minor erosion on MSE Berm
25% of 2.24 ac. surface area 0.56 ac. $10,000 $5,600.00 $5,600.00
Engineer site visit (Quarterly) 1 ea. $2,500 $2,500.00 $10,000.00
Slope monitoring data oversight
(Quarterly) 1 ea. $2,500 $2,500.00 $10,000.00
Estimated Annual Costs $52,952.28
Subtotal Cost for 30 Years $1,588,568.40
One-Time Events
Replace 25% of the MSE berm 0.25 $1,072,577.00 $268,144.25
Contingency 4 0.10 $1,072,577.00 $107,257.70
Subtotal One-Time Costs $375,401.95
Total Estimated Post-Closure Cost $1,963,970.35
1 Appendix I Detection Monitoring (Section 9.0)
2 Monitor 12 LFG wells, 8 hr @ $80 = $640 + $200 equipment rental = $840/quarter
3 Apply same multipliers to unit rates used in the Closure Plan
4 Includes engineering and permitting costs, plus some allowance for unknowns
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 9
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 1
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Solid Waste Permit #41-17)
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan
December 20, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Documents Incorporated by Reference....................................................................................................... 2
Revisions ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Certification................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Monitoring Location Criteria ............................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Changes to the Monitoring Program ............................................................................................... 5
2.1 Sampling Schedule and Term ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Monitoring Locations ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Sampling Protocols .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Reporting of Data ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.0 Other Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Well Rehabilitation and Abandonment ........................................................................................... 7
3.2 Additional Well Installations ............................................................................................................ 7
3.3 Well Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Modifications and Revisions ............................................................................................................ 8
TABLES
1 Monitoring Well Construction Data
2 Required Analytical Parameters
ATTACHMENTS
1
2
3
Drawing M2
Monitoring well construction logs
Monitoring Well Schematics (Type 2 and Type 3)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 2
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE*
1 Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling,
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste
Management, Solid Waste Section, Rev 4-08

2 New Guidelines for the Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data, Solid Waste Section
Memorandum, October 27, 2006

3 Environmental Monitoring Data Form

4 February 23, 2007 Addendum to the October 27, 2006 Memorandum

5 October 16, 2007 Memorandum

6 November 5, 2014 Memorandum

7 May 2018 Memorandum

8 July 2018 Memorandum

*available online at http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/SolidWasteSamplingGuidance.pdf

REVISIONS
0 Water Quality Monitoring Plan, A-1 Sandrock CDLF (South Facility) Sep. 2002
1 Amendment to support Phase 1 PTC, A-1 Sandrock CDLF (Permit 41-17) Feb. 2009
2 Corrections to February 2009 plan text, Sep. 2013
3 Amendment to support Phase 2 PTC/PTO (Added MW-6), Mar 2015
4 Amendment to support Phase 3 PTC and Assessment Monitoring (Added MW-7)

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

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 3
CERTIFICATION
This water quality monitoring plan has been prepared by a qualified geologist who is licensed to
practice in the State of North Carolina. The plan was prepared based on firsthand knowledge of
site conditions and familiarity with North Carolina solid waste rules and industry standard protocol.
In accordance with North Carolina Solid Waste Regulations, this Water Quality Monitoring Plan
amendment should provide early detection of any release of hazardous constituents to the
uppermost aquifer, to be protective of public health and the environment. No other warranties,
expressed or implied, are made.

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

Not valid unless this document bears the seal of the above-named licensed professional.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 4
1.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Background
Monitoring of the A-1 Sandrock, Inc., CDLF ground and surface water quality is required by NC
DEQ Solid Waste Section rules 15A NCAC 13B .0544 et. seq. The Facility has performed
Detection stage water quality monitoring since its opening in 2009. Recent regulatory emphasis
has been placed on metals concentrations at CDLF’s, which has triggered the requirement for
this Facility to enter an Assessment monitoring program.

The Facility is located at 2091 Bishop Road, south of Greensboro, North Carolina. The Facility is
within the Randleman Reservoir Watershed, though not in the critical water supply area. The
surrounding area is rural but gradually undergoing commercial and/or industrial development.
Ground water is the principal source for the local potable water supply; no downgradient water
supply wells have been identified.

The current monitoring well network consists of six wells: MW-1 is the background well and MW2
through MW-5 are compliance wells. There are four surface water sampling locations along the
boundary streams (see Drawing M1). The monitoring network is based on site studies performed
in 2002, 2015 and 2017-18. Sampling and analysis are performed in accordance with the SWS
Guidelines, Reference 1.

Historic sampling has been based on the Appendix I list of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 258, which includes the common volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 8 RCRA metals.
In addition, the SWS requires sampling for mercury, manganese, iron, chloride, sulfate, alkalinity,
tetrahydrofuran, total dissolved solids (TDS), specific conductivity, pH and temperature.
Analytical protocols and reporting criteria have been modified by the referenced memoranda and
guidelines.

Sampling has been conducted at semi-annual intervals, typically in November and May.
Applicable regulatory requirements include:

• 15A NCAC 13B .0544 (Solid Waste Construction and Demolition Rules)
• 15A NCAC 2C (Well Construction Rules)
• 15A NCAC 2L (Ground Water Classifications and Standards)
• 15A NCAC 27 (Well Contractor Certification Rules)
• 15A NCAC 2H (Water Quality Laboratory Certification Rules)

Requirements of additional monitoring points and sampling criteria germane to the Assessment
are discussed in Section 2.

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 5
1.2 Monitoring Location Criteria
The monitoring well network consists of six wells (MW-1 through MW-6), each located to monitor
the saprolite aquifer (Unit 1) and/or the transition zone within the bedrock (Unit 2). These units
are discussed in detail within the Phase 3 Design Hydrogeologic Report. The wells surround
the CDLF footprint and are located near the regulatory review boundary, approximately 150 feet
from the waste boundary, and no closer than 50 feet inside the facility boundary. Well locations
were selected based on topographic relationships, depths to groundwater and bedrock, and a
fracture trace analysis. The site studies indicate the groundwater flow direction is primarily to the
west. The wells have been designated as MW-1 (up-gradient, background well), MW-2 and MW5
(cross-gradient, compliance wells), and MW-3, MW-4, and MW-6 (down-gradient compliance
wells). Note that with the opening of Phase 3, MW-2 will become downgradient.
Surface water sample locations are designated as SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, and SW-4. SW-1 is
located at the northwest boundary where Hickory Creek enters the Facility. SW-2 is located along
an unnamed tributary to Hickory Creek where it enters the east side of the landfill. SW-3 is located
along an unnamed tributary to Hickory Creek where it enters the south side of the landfill. SW-4
is located downstream on Hickory Creek, where it exits the southwest corner of the Facility. All
streams originate off-site but form the boundaries of a small watershed occupied by the CDLF.
Current locations of the monitoring wells and surface water points are depicted in Drawing M2
(see Attachment 1). Details of the well construction are shown on Table 1 following this text.
Monitoring well construction logs are presented in Attachment 2.
2.0 CHANGES TO THE MONITORING PROGRAM
2.1 Sampling Schedule and Term
Sampling shall be conducted on a semi-annual basis, specifically once in the spring and once in
the fall. Monitoring shall be conducted for the duration of operations and for a minimum of 30
years following final closure, unless the schedule is amended by the SWS.
A requirement of the Assessment is the gathering of data from four background sampling events,
followed by statistical analyses and reporting. The tentative schedule for the next two years of
Assessment monitoring follows:
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #1 Nov 2018
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #2 May 2019
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #3 Nov 2019
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #4 May 2020
Alternate Source Demonstration Report July 2020
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 6
2.2 Monitoring Locations
Per the requirements of 15A NCAC 13B .0545, as part of the Assessment, the Facility is required
to install a new monitoring well. As part of a negotiated Assessment Monitoring Plan prepared in
2018, a new well shall be installed downgradient of MW-4 during the 1st Quarter of 2019, prior to
the May 2019 sampling event. A tentative location for the new well, to be labeled MW-7, is shown
in Drawing M2. Likewise, an additional surface water sampling station will be established in
the stream (Hickory Creek) downgradient of MW-4.
2.3 Sampling Protocols
All sampling activities will be conducted in accordance with Solid Waste Section Guidelines for
Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling, 2008, as amended by multiple guidance
documents listed in the Reference Documents
Groundwater samples will be collected from the seven monitoring wells using low flow sampling
techniques according to EPA sampling guidance to minimize the turbidity of the samples.
Typically, this is accomplished with a peristaltic pump and dedicated Tygon™ tubing for each
well. The goal is to reduce turbidity values to < 10 NTU. An option is to re-develop the wells if
needed. Samples will be preserved and shipped to the laboratory under a chain-of-custody in the
conventional manner.
Prior to sample collection, the depth to groundwater will be measured and each well will be purged
to allow the groundwater geochemical parameters (i.e., pH, DO, ORP, temperature, and specific
conductivity) to stabilize. Turbidity less than the NCDEQ recommended value of 10 NTU will also
be obtained prior to sample collection. During each assessment monitoring event, field
parameters including pH, DO, ORP, temperature, turbidity, and specific conductivity will be
recorded for each well.
Surface water samples will be collected into laboratory-provided containers via direct submersion
into the creek and/or tributary by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves. One set of
surface water field parameters consisting of pH, DO, ORP, temperature, turbidity, and specific
conductivity will be measured and recorded at each sampling location prior to sample collection.
Groundwater and surface water samples will be analyzed for the organic constituents listed in
Appendix I of the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 258, along with tetrahydrofuran, the
metal constituents listed in Appendix II of the 40 CFR Part 258 including mercury, and additional
constituents including total iron (EPA Method 6010), ferric iron (SM 3500-Fe D#4), ferrous iron
(SM 3500-Fe B), total manganese (EPA Method 6010), chloride (EPA Method 300), alkalinity (SM
2320B), sulfate (EPA Method 300), sulfide (SM 4500 S=F), and total dissolved solids (TDS)
(SM2540C), in addition to field parameters. Table 2 lists the required sampling parameters.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 7
2.4 Reporting of Data
Analytical results will be evaluated to determine if the concentrations of constituents are
influenced by aquifer conditions within the landfill (i.e., naturally-occurring metals, fluctuations in
groundwater geochemistry). Following each semi-annual groundwater assessment monitoring
event, an assessment monitoring report will be prepared in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B
.0545(b)(7) and submitted to the SWS. The reports will include analytical results, tables and
figures, and potentiometric surface maps.
Following the fourth assessment monitoring event and/or the establishment of background
concentrations (the goal of the Assessment program), the data will be evaluated to determine
whether potential alternative sources other than the landfill exist. This work will be incorporated
into an alternate source demonstration report. The alternate source demonstration report will be
prepared and submitted to the SWS in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .0545(b)(8).
3.0 OTHER REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Well Rehabilitation and Abandonment
The Facility operator shall take precautions to avoid disturbing any monitoring well, including
training staff not to bump the wells when mowing or traversing the site. Should wells become
irreversibly damaged or require rehabilitation, the SWS shall be notified. If monitoring wells and/or
piezometers within unconsolidated formations are damaged irreversibly they shall be abandoned
by over-drilling and/or pulling the well casing and plugging the well with an impermeable,
chemically-inert sealant such as neat cement grout and/or bentonite clay.
For bedrock wells the abandonment shall consist of plugging the interior well riser and screen
with an impermeable neat cement grout and/or bentonite clay sealant. Piezometers in the waste
footprint shall be abandoned by over drilling the boring and backfilling with a bentonite-cement
grout. All well repairs or abandonment shall be certified by a NC-licensed geologist or engineer.
3.2 Additional Well Installations
All additional monitoring wells (new or replacement) shall be installed under the supervision of a
qualified geologist or engineer who is registered in North Carolina and who shall certify to the
SWS that the installation complies with the North Carolina Regulations. Documentation for the
installation of future wells shall be submitted by the registered geologist or engineer after well
completion.
Newly constructed wells shall be developed to remove particulates that are present in the well
due to construction activities, and to interconnect the well with the aquifer. Development of new
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 8
monitoring wells will be performed no sooner than 24 hours after well construction. Wells may be
developed with disposable bailers, a mechanical well developer, or other approved method.
A surge block may be used as a means of assessing the integrity of the well screen and riser. In
the event a pump is employed, the design of the pump will be such that any groundwater that has
contacted air is not allowed to drain back into the well. In general, each well will be developed
until sediment-free water with stabilized field parameters (i.e., temperature, pH, and specific
conductance) is obtained.
Well development equipment (bailers, pumps, surge blocks) and any additional equipment that
contacts subsurface formations shall be decontaminated prior to on-site use, between
consecutive on-site uses, and/or between consecutive well installations. The purge water will be
disposed of on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of the monitoring well that is
being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the purge water should be containerized and
disposed of by approved means.
3.3 Well Maintenance
The existing monitoring wells shall be used and maintained in accordance with design
specifications throughout the life of the monitoring program. Routine well maintenance will include
inspection and correction/repair of, as necessary, identification labels, concrete aprons, locking
caps and locks, and access to the wells.
Should it be determined that background or compliance monitoring wells no longer provide
samples representative of the quality of ground water passing the relevant point of compliance,
the SWS shall be notified. The owner shall evaluate the monitoring network and provide a plan
to the SWS for modifying, rehabilitating, decommissioning, or installing replacement wells or
additional monitoring wells, as appropriate.
3.4 Modifications and Revisions
At a future time, it may be appropriate to modify this plan, e.g. add or delete sampling locations
or analytical parameters. Such changes require advance approval from the SWS. Also, this plan
will be reviewed periodically and amended as needed. Users of this plan are advised to check
the revision section for the latest edition.
TABLES
TABLE 1AMonitoring Well and Surface Sampling Location DataLocation and Elevation DataLithologic DataBoring Northing Easting PVC Pipe Ground Drilling Total Bottom PWR BedrockNumberCoordinate1Coordinate1Elevation2Elevation2Method Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev.MW-13815,671.56 1,749,908.65 816.05 813.40 HSA/Core 44.0 769.40 13 800.40 19 794.40MW-2 815,438.94 1,749,056.29 761.92 759.90 HSA/Core 33.0 726.90 8 751.90 13 746.90MW-3 815,693.01 1,748,698.85 731.82 729.80 HSA 33.0 696.80 9 720.80 33 696.80MW-4 816,281.49 1,748,723.33 733.17 731.10 HSA 24.0 707.10 11 720.10 24 707.10MW-5 816,702.88 1,749,461.06 762.88 761.10 HSA/Core 28.5 732.60 4 757.10 8 753.10MW-6 816,499.93 1,748,826.85 755.89 753.10 HSA 45.00 708.10 31.00 722.10 45.00 708.10Well Construction DataStabilized WaterBoring PVC Pipe Ground Stickup Top of Screen Bot. of Screen Level at 24 HoursNumberElevation2Elevation2ft. Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev.MW-13816.05 813.40 2.6 34.0 779.4 44.0 769.4 34.0 779.4MW-2 761.92 759.90 2.0 23.0 736.9 33.0 726.9 13.6 746.3MW-3 731.82 729.80 2.0 28.0 701.8 33.0 696.8 8.0 721.8MW-4 733.17 731.10 2.1 9.0 722.1 24.0 707.1 13.0 718.1MW-5 762.88 761.10 1.8 28.5 732.6 28.5 732.6 17.2 743.9MW-6 755.89 753.10 2.8 30.00 723.1 45.00 708.1 39.00 716.9TABLE 1BExisting Surface Sampling LocationsMonitoring Location Description of Monitoring LocationSW-13Background on Hickory Creek (at Colonial Pipeline crossing)SW-2 3, 4Background on “north” unnamed tributary (at property line)SW-3 4Background on “south” unnamed tributary (at property line)SW-4 Down gradient on Hickory Creek (below stream convergence)Notes: 1. NAD83 (2007)PWR = Partially Weathered Rock, or 100+ bpf material2. NGVD293. Background monitoring location4. These streams can go dry during late summer, sample subject to flow conditionsSurvey by Allied Associates, P.A., April 7, 2009 except MW-6, surveyed April 8, 2015PWRBedrockPWRMonitored HydrogeologicUnitBedrockBedrockPWR
Table 2

Ground and Surface Water Analysis Methodology
For Semi-Annual Detection Monitoring

Inorganic Required Solid Waste North Carolina 2L**
Constituent Section Limit (ug/l)* Ground Water Standard

Antimony 6 1.4 ***
Arsenic 10 50
Barium 100 2000
Beryllium 1 4 ***
Cadmium 1 1.75
Chromium 10 50
Cobalt 10 70 ***
Copper 10 1000
Lead 10 15
Nickel 50 100
Selenium 10 50
Silver 10 17.5
Thallium 5.5 0.28 ***
Vanadium 25 3.5 ***
Zinc 10 1050
Mercury 0.2 1.05
Chloride NE 250,000
Manganese 50 50
Sulfate 250,000 250,000
Iron 300 300
Alkalinity NE NE
Total Dissolved Solids NE 500,000
Specific Conductivity (field)
pH (field)
Temperature (field)

Table 2 (continued)

Ground and Surface Water Analysis Methodology

Organic Required Solid Waste North Carolina
Constituent Section Limit (ug/l)* Ground Water Standard
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 5 1.3 ***
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1 200
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 3 0.18 ***
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1 0.6 ***
1,1-Dichloroethane 5 70
1,1-Dichloroethylene 5 7
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1 0.005
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 13 0.025
1,2-Dibromoethane 1 0.0004
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5 24
1,2-Dichloroethane 1 0.38
1,2-Dichloropropane 1 0.51
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 1.4
2-Butanone 100 4200
2-Hexanone 50 280
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 100 560 ***
Acetone 100 700
Acrylonitrile 200 NE
Benzene 1 1
Bromochloromethane 3 0.6 ***
Bromodichloromethane 1 0.56
Bromoform 4 4.43
Bromomethane 10 NE
Carbon Disulfide 100 700
Carbon Tetrachloride 1 0.269
Chlorobenzene 3 50
Chloroethane 10 2800
Chloroform 5 70
Chloromethane 1 2.6
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene 5 70
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene 1 0.19
Dibromochloromethane 3 0.41
Dibromomethane 10 NE
Ethylbenzene 1 550
Iodomethane 10 NE
Methylene chloride 1 4.6
Styrene 1 100
Tetrachloroethylene 1 0.7
Toluene 1 1000
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 5 100

Table 2 (continued)

Ground and Surface Water Analysis Methodology

Organic Required Solid Waste North Carolina
Constituent Section Limit (ug/l)* Ground Water Standard
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1 0.19
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene 100 NE
Trichloroethylene 1 2.8
Trichloroflouromethane 1 2100
Vinyl acetate 50 7000 ***
Vinyl chloride 1 0.015
Xylene (total) 5 530
Tetrahydrofuran 1 NE

Notes:
All samples shall be unfiltered.
NE = not established

* Per North Carolina DENR Division of Waste Management guidelines, eff. 2006, equivalent to the PQL.
Only SW-846 methodologies that are approved by the NC DENR Solid Waste Section shall be used for
laboratory analyses. The laboratory must be certified by NC DENR for the specific lab methods per SW-
846.

** 15A NCAC 2L Standard for Class GA Ground Water – this applies unless otherwise noted (see below)

***North Carolina DWM Ground Water Protection Standard (quoted from website)
Groundwater standards and Solid Waste Section Limits are subject to change; the most current
standards and limits will be used.

ATTACHMENT 1
Monitoring Location Map (Drawing M2)
6,/7)(1&(
)$&,/,7<%281'$5<
<($5)/22'3/$,1
&2/21,$/3,3(/,1(($6(0(17

5,3$5,$1%8))(5
6$1,7$5<6(:(5($6(0(17
',9(56,21%(50&+$11(/
3+$6(%281'$5<
*5281':$7(5021,725,1*:(//
685)$&(:$7(56$03/,1*32,17
/$1'),//*$66$03/,1*32,17
($5/,(57(67%25,1*
5(&(177(67%25,1*
5(&(17%25,1*:,7+3,(=20(7(5
%281'$5<6859(<%<'(11,6/((3/6&$
3+*5$'(6859(<6%<&/,1726%2513/6
7232):$67(6+2:1,13+$6(%$6('21
($5/,(56859(<6%<%27+
7232):$67(*5$'(6,13+$6($%$6('213(50,77('),1$/*5$'(6
$0%,(177232*5$3+<)520*8,/)25'&2*,6
52$':$<$1'(;6/23(6%(+,1')8785(06(%(50,13+$6(6$1'6859(<('-$1%<&/,1726%2513/6
6&$/(,1)((7
06(%(50)281'$7,21(/(9
06(%(50%$6(/,1(67$7,21
( 6&21752/0($685(6'(3,&7('+(5($5(&216,67(17:,7+7+26($33529('%<1&'(372)(1(5*<0,1(5$/6$1'1$785$/5(6285&(6/$1'48$/,7<6(&7,213(50,1,1*3(50,7
06(%(50%$&.6/23(
06(%(50%$6()22735,170:
6:
6:
6:
6:
0:
0:
0:
0:
0:
06(%(50)22735,17
3(50,77(':$67(%281'$5<
)2273523(57<6(7%$&.
6,/7)(1&(
)$&,/,7<%281'$5<
<($5)/22'3/$,1
&2/21,$/3,3(/,1(($6(0(17

5,3$5,$1%8))(5
6$1,7$5<6(:(5($6(0(17
',9(56,21%(50&+$11(/
3+$6(%281'$5<
*5281':$7(5021,725,1*:(//
685)$&(:$7(56$03/,1*32,17
/$1'),//*$66$03/,1*32,17
($5/,(57(67%25,1*
5(&(177(67%25,1*
5(&(17%25,1*:,7+3,(=20(7(5
06(%(50)281'$7,21(/(9
06(%(50%$6(/,1(67$7,21
06(%(50%$6()22735,17
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
*,1 ('$5 59,'*$
7
52)
*512+&$52
(
6($/

(1 (
6(6 ,2
77/,$1
531
$/6&$/(,1)((7 


0(19,5210
/021,725,1*
 7(17+6,1&+(6 
':*6,=(5(9,6,21'5$:,1*12
),/(1$0(
':*7<3(
-2%12
'$7(
6&$/( '(6
&+.'
(1*5
$33'
$
)
(
'
&
%


$
)
&
%
[$16,'
6($/
)255(*8/$725<5(9,(:

$6127('
*'*
*'*
%
-8/<5(9-$1
$6$1'52&.0$67(5'5$:,1*06(
')75
$6$1'52&.,1&&'/)
0(&+$1,&$//<67$%,/,=('($57+%(5037&
3(50,7&'/)
+$5%28572:1('5,9(
GDYLGJDUUHWWSJSH#JPDLOFRP7(/
5$/(,*+1257+&$52/,1$
'$9,'*$55(77 $662&,$7(6
(1*,1((5,1* *(2/2*<
5(9 '$7( -2%12 352-(&77<3( '(6 ')75 &+.' (1*5 $33' '(6&5,37,21
$)$&,/,7<3/$1 *'* *'* *'* ,668(')253(50,77,1*
)$&,/,7<3/$1 *'* *'* *'* ,668(')253(50,77,1*%)$&,/,7<3/$1 *'* *'* *'*
0&5
 
0&50&5 
ATTACHMENT 2
Monitoring Well Construction Logs
S C S E N G I N E E R S Test Boring Log MW-6
Environmental Consultants Northing 816,499.93
2520 Whitehall Park Drive, Suite 450 Easting 1,748,826.85
Charlotte, NC 28273 Logged By: Kelly Grant, Driller
704 504-3107 FAX [phone] Total Bore Depth: 45' below ground surface
Drilling Company: American Environmental Drilling, Inc.Date Started: 4/2/2015 Completion Water Level: 38' below top of casing
Drilling Method:Rotary Hollow Stem Auger Date Ended:4/2/2015 24 Hour Water Level:39'below top of casing
Boring Diameter:7.5-inch O.D.
Boring terminated at 45.0 feet WATER LEVEL23
13
14
15
3 SAMPLE # DEPTH IN FT. 6" SPT VALUE 6" SPT VALUE 6" SPT VALUESTRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
2
4
5
6
7
8
0
1 DEPTH, FT.ELEVATION755.89
16
19
20
21
22
9
10
11
12
50
43
44
45
46
47
48
37
38
39
40
41
42
49
31
32
33
34
35
36
25
26
27
28
29
30
24
17
18
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Recycling
Greensboro, NC (Permit # 41-17)
708.1
753.1 Ground Elev.
Casing Elev.
Grout
Solid 2" PVC Pipe
Bentonite
Slotted 2" PVC Pipe
Sand Pack
731.1
722.1
Stiff tan-brown sandy clay
Hard brown sandy clay
Dense white-orange rocky soil w/ quartz
Wet from 38 to 45 feet
Hard gray sandy clay (PWR)
SCS Project No. 02214704.00
PIEZOMETER DATA
741.1
ATTACHMENT 3
Monitoring Well Schematics (Type 2 and Type 3)
Figure 1 – Type 3 Monitoring Well Construction Schematic (Lower Aquifer)
Figure 2 – Type 2 Monitoring Well Construction Schematic (Upper Aquifer)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Vertical Expansion
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm PTC Rev. 1 January 10, 2020

APPENDIX 10
LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PLAN

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 1
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Solid Waste Permit #41-17)
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan
December 20, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Documents Incorporated by Reference ........................................................................................................ 2
Revisions ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Certification................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Monitoring Location Criteria ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Thresholds Requiring a Response ................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Rationale for LFG Sampling Locations ........................................................................................... 4
2.0 LFG Monitoring Program ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Sampling Logistics ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Structures and Ambient Sampling ................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Sampling Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Modifications and Revisions 6
3.0 General Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Equipment and Calibration ........................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Record Keeping and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 7
5.0 Contingency Plan .................................................................................................................................... 8
ATTACHMENTS
1
2
3
4
LFG Monitoring Well Locations (Drawing M2 )
LFG Monitoring Well Construction Schematic
LFG Monitoring Well Construction Data (FUTURE)
LFG Monitoring Data Form
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 2
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE*
1 “Landfill Gas Monitoring Guidance,” November 2010, North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
*available online at http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=da699f7e-8c13-
4249-9012-16af8aefdc7b&groupId=38361
REVISIONS
0 A-1 Sandrock CDLF Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan, ca. 2009
1.1 Amendment to support Phase 2, May 2015
2 Amendment to support Phase 3 PTC (Added LFG wells)
Upon approval by NC DENR-Division of Waste Management, this plan will supersede all
previous versions for LFG monitoring at the CDLF.
CERTIFICATION
The landfill gas monitoring plan for this facility has been prepared by a qualified geologist or
engineer who is licensed to practice in the State of North Carolina. The plan has been prepared
based on first-hand knowledge of site conditions and familiarity with North Carolina solid waste
rules and industry standard protocol. This certification is made in accordance with North Carolina
Solid Waste Regulations, indicating this Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan should provide early
detection of any release of hazardous constituents to the uppermost aquifer, so as to be protective
of public health and the environment. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made.
Signed _______________
Printed G. David Garrett
Date December 20, 2018
Not valid unless this document bears the seal of the above-named licensed professional.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 3
1.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1.1 Background
Monitoring of landfill gas (LFG) is required at C&D landfills by Solid Waste Rule 15A NCAC 13B
.0544. Landfill gas is a by-product from the decomposition of organic waste in a sanitary landfill,
including certain C&D wastes. Landfill gas typically comprises about 50 percent methane, which
can be explosive under certain conditions, as well as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and small
amounts of hydrogen sulfide. LFG has been known to promote the migration of contaminants
into ground water.
The Solid Waste Rules typically focus on the explosive properties from a public safety standpoint.
Landfill gas migrates in soil above the ground water table and is restricted laterally by streams.
Highly porous soils that tend to occur near the soil-rock interface within the Piedmont are good
pathways for gas migration. Pipelines and other utility trenches can serve as pathways for gas
migration, with the potential to convey gas for considerable distances. Open landfills are not as
likely to experience subsurface gas migration, but once a low permeability cover is installed,
lateral migration into adjacent soils may be more likely if gas is present.
Experience suggests that up-gradient areas should be targeted for monitoring, especially if porous
soils are present. In addition, this zone typically is an aquifer, thus fluctuations in the water table
will affect the gas migration pattern or rate, as does surface saturation, frozen soils, and variation
in barometric pressure. The Guidance suggests that the ideal time to sample for subsurface gas
is during times of low barometric pressure.
1.2 Monitoring Location Criteria
The Facility is situated high on a ridge bounded on three sides by blue line streams, which act as
natural barriers to gas migration. Groundwater generally follows the surface topography, which
slopes moderately to the west but diverges sharply to the north and south (toward the streams)
near the margins of the disposal area. Topographic relief near the streams is moderately steep
to very steep, with elevation changes from the footprint to the streams on the order of 10 to 20
feet on the south side and 20 to 30 feet on the north and west sides. The landfill is unlined and
has been excavated into the ridge.
Onsite soils are porous, weathered granite that extends 20 to 50 feet beneath the original surface.
The water table is approximately 25 to 40 feet deep over most of the site, except near the streams
where water levels are 8 to 10 feet deep. The approved base grades are 8 to 12 feet above the
level of the streams and a minimum of 4 feet above groundwater and/or bedrock. Lateral
separation to the streams is 50 feet minimum. Such dimensions provide little opportunity for gas
to migrate beyond the facility boundary on the three sides bound by streams.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 4
On the upgradient (southeast) side the original topography increased by approximately 14 feet
between the approved footprint and the nearest occupied structures, located approximately 750
feet from the approved disposal footprint. Earlier site data indicates the soils on this side of the
site are generally finer grained (less permeable), and the landfill is mostly above-ground on the
east side at this stage of development. Recent off-site grading activities has removed
approximately 15 feet of soil east of the Facility boundary.
To the north, pipelines are present that could serve as potential conduits for off-site landfill gas
migration – the nearest pipeline (sewer line) is a target for gas monitoring – although the pipelines
are located along (and mostly across) a deeply incised stream. The facility offices are also located
across the stream, approximately 550 feet from the waste boundary. No occupied structures
appear to be at risk for gas migration near this facility. The “upgradient” side of the CDLF, i.e.,
the southeast side, and the pipeline corridor immediately north of the CDLF footprint are the
primary targets for monitoring landfill gas at this Facility.
1.3 Thresholds Requiring a Response
Thresholds that trigger responsive action are methane levels of 100 percent of the lower explosive
limit (LEL), about 5 percent by volume in soil-gas or air at the facility boundary; 25 percent of the
LEL within onsite structures, not limited to just buildings but inclusive of drainage structures and
utility vaults; anything above zero in off-site structures. The contingency plan (Section 5) contains
a summary of action required if a regulatory threshold is exceeded. Solid Waste Section (SWS)
guidance requires that LFG be monitored with a calibrated meter that can detect hydrogen sulfide
(H2S), whereas the action limits are 4% by volume at 100% LEL (methane), and 1% by volume at
25% LEL (methane).
1.4 Rationale for LFG Sampling Locations
Twelve LFG monitoring points are located around the CDLF footprint as shown in Drawing M2
(Attachment 1). Locations LFG-1, LFG-2 and LFG-12 are located on the upgradient side of the
unlined landfill, opposite of ground water flow (refer to Section 1.1). Locations LFG-3 through
LFG-6 are strategically located relative to the sanitary sewer pipeline corridor, albeit the
topography of these locations and the water table make it unlikely that landfill gas would migrate
in those directions (at least not very far). Location LFG-7 is so-located to provide uniform spacing,
with the unlikelihood of any soil-gas migrating more than 50 feet from the landfill perimeter.
Of interest, a small H2S seep was observed at the far northwest corner of Phase 1, evidenced by
the browning of vegetation and the characteristic “rotten egg” odor that persisted for a few weeks
in 2013. The gas seep area was mitigated by digging out the temporary soil cover and some of
the underlying waste, in what amounted to two test pits, which were left open to vent for 2 to 3
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 5
weeks prior to replacing the excavated materials and enhancing the thickness of the interim soil
cover. No trace of the gas seep has been observed since.
The Operator is alert to observing that spot for further indications of LFG migration. It is known
that sheetrock debris had been concentrated in that area. Continued reaction between the
sheetrock and water is unlikely now that the interim soil cover is functional. In response to this
event, a new sampling location, LFG-8, was added to the northwest corner (Drawing M2). The
sampling location is within 50 feet of the waste boundary, as are the other sampling locations.
Locations LFG-9 through LFG 11 have been activated incrementally as CDLF phases opened.
2.0 LFG MONITORING PROGRAM
2.1 Sampling Logistics
Historic LFG monitoring for this facility consisted of sampling soil-gas adjacent to the landfill
footprint via bar-hole punch test, at locations approximately 500 feet apart (see Drawing M2).
The SWS recently enacted a policy change that disallowed the use of the bar-hole punch test at
landfills. The reasoning behind the use of that method when it was approved in 2009 stemmed
from the newness of the Facility. Due to the present volume and age of the wastes, it is likely that
reactions leading to the production of landfill gas are becoming more active.
Heretofore, LFG monitoring will be accomplished via monitoring wells constructed in accordance
with a schematic (see Attachment 2), which includes sealed construction and a specialized port
at the top to facilitate sampling. The monitoring wells will be located near the same points as
currently monitored with the bar-hole punch tests, for the same reasoning described above.
Installation of the LFG wells shall be overseen by a licensed geologist or engineer.
This plan will be amended to include monitoring well construction data table (Attachment 3).
Sampling and data recording protocols will remain the same – see Section 3. All monitoring data
shall be recorded on a LFG Monitoring Data Form (Attachment 4) and archived in the Operating
Record. Note, the requirements in this section are consistent with earlier versions.
2.2 Structures and Ambient Sampling
Within the offices and any future buildings on-site, atmospheric sampling for methane shall be
conducted. Methane is heavier than air and tends to accumulate in the lower zones with restricted
circulations, i.e., crawlspaces, closets, and corners of rooms near the floor, cracks in walls, floor
slabs, or foundations, crawlspace vents, drainage pipes, utility vaults and sanitary sewer
manholes. Methane detection in and around the structures, though unlikely, would signify a
problem such that the site manager should be notified – immediate action may be required – refer
to the Contingency Plan (Section 5).
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 6
Ambient monitoring consists of a “walk-around” of building foundations and along the toe of slopes
(at road level) to survey for gas that may be seeping through the cover. A key to potential side
slope seepage includes stained soil, wetness with visible bubbling, and distressed (or absent)
vegetation. Any detection of methane in the ambient monitoring should be noted on a site map
and a special notation recorded in the monitoring report. Follow up sampling or close attention in
future sampling events might be warranted. The site manager should be alerted to any ambient
gas detection, whereas a response may be required. Note, the requirements in this section are
consistent with earlier versions.
2.3 Sampling Schedule
Landfill gas monitoring will be performed during the active life of the landfill, estimated at 20 years,
and throughout the post-closure care period, i.e., 30 years unless future data warrant a schedule
revision, subject to approval by the SWS. The Facility is planning to install the permanent LFG
monitoring wells during the first quarter of 2019, in conjunction with the opening of Phase 3.
Quarterly monitoring shall be conducted at the LFG monitoring wells, all occupied structures
located on the landfill property, and the “walkaround” monitoring. Though not subject to periodic
monitoring requirements, as a precaution any enclosed structures, such as manholes, utility
vaults, crawl spaces and buried drainage pipes should be checked for gas prior to servicing.
Future passive gas vents for the final cover, when installed, are not required to be monitored.
Monitoring times are important when conducting landfill gas monitoring. Proper landfill gas
monitoring should include sampling during times when landfill gas is most likely to migrate. LFG
monitoring should be conducted when the barometric pressure is low, and soils are saturated.
Landfill gas monitoring is not recommended when the ground is frozen. Note, the requirements
in this section are consistent with earlier versions.
2.4 Modifications and Revisions
At a future time, it may be appropriate to modify this plan, e.g. add or delete sampling locations
or analytical parameters. Such changes require advance approval from the SWS. Also, this plan
will be reviewed periodically and amended as needed. Users of this plan are advised to check
the revision section for the latest edition.
3.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Equipment and Calibration
A landfill gas meter that meets the requirements of SWS Landfill Gas Monitoring Guidance with
respect to detecting methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide shall be utilized.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 7
Calibration of the meter shall be performed according to the manufacturer’s specifications.
Should this element of the program change, this plan will be amended accordingly.
3.2 Sampling Procedures
The procedures outlined in the Guidance document (Reference 1) shall be followed. A brief
overview of the program follows.
Step 1 Calibrate the instrument according to the manufacturer’s specifications. In addition,
prepare the instrument for monitoring by allowing it to properly warm up as directed by
the manufacturer. Make sure the static pressure shows a reading of zero on the
instrument prior to taking the first sample.
Step 2 At the LFG monitoring well, purge the sample tube for at least one minute prior to
taking reading. Typically, this is accomplished with a mechanical pump, often
incorporated into the meter. Connect the meter tubing to the landfill gas monitoring
well cap via a preinstalled stopcock valve or quick connect coupling.
Step 3 Open the valve and record the initial reading and the stabilized reading for methane.
A stable reading is one that does not vary more than 0.5 percent by volume on the
instrument’s scale in real time.
Step 4 Record the stabilized readings for the other gases, including the oxygen, and the
barometric pressure. A proper reading should have two percent oxygen by volume or
less. If levels of oxygen are higher, it may indicate that air is being drawn into the
system. This can cause a false reading on the balance of all the gases.
Step 5 Turn the stopcock valve to the off position and disconnect the tubing.
Step 6 Proceed to the next landfill gas monitoring well and repeat Steps 2 – 5.
4.0 RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING
The sampling technician shall record the date, time, location, sampling personnel, calibration
data, gas pump rate, barometric pressure (from local weather reports), ambient temperature,
general weather conditions at the time of sampling, initial and stabilized concentrations of
methane, on the Landfill Gas Monitoring Data Form following this text. These monitoring
records shall be maintained in the landfill operating record. Should methane be detected at any
sampling location, the facility manager should be notified and, depending on the concentrations,
a report to the Solid Waste Section might be warranted. In any event a qualified engineer should
be consulted.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17)Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 8
5.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
Solid Waste Rule .0544 (d) (3) requires the following responses if methane and/or hydrogen
sulfide concentrations are detected above the regulatory limits:
A Immediately take all steps necessary to ensure protection of human health and safety,
then notify the Division. If occupied structures are affected, the primary response
should be evacuation and ventilation until the methane concentrations subside; it may
be prudent to contact the local fire department; close monitoring of structures shall be
implemented; for facility boundary violations, further evaluation is warranted, subject
to notification and approval by the Division.
B Within seven days of detection, place in the operating record the methane or explosive
gas levels and a description of the steps taken to protect human health;
C Within 60 days of detection, implement a remediation plan for the methane or
explosive gas releases, place a copy of the plan in the operating record, and notify the
Division that the plan has been implemented. The plan must describe the nature and
extent of the problem and the proposed remedy.
D Based on the need for an extension demonstrated by the operator, the Division may
establish alternative schedules for demonstrating compliance with the limits.
E "Lower explosive limit" means the lowest percent by volume of a mixture of explosive
gases in air that will propagate a flame at 25o C, at atmospheric pressure.
F Upon completion of mitigation activities, a thorough report shall be placed in the
operating record to document the incident and outcome.
ATTACHMENT 1
Monitoring Location Map (Drawing M2)
6,/7)(1&(
)$&,/,7<%281'$5<
<($5)/22'3/$,1
&2/21,$/3,3(/,1(($6(0(17

5,3$5,$1%8))(5
6$1,7$5<6(:(5($6(0(17
',9(56,21%(50&+$11(/
3+$6(%281'$5<
*5281':$7(5021,725,1*:(//
685)$&(:$7(56$03/,1*32,17
/$1'),//*$66$03/,1*32,17
($5/,(57(67%25,1*
5(&(177(67%25,1*
5(&(17%25,1*:,7+3,(=20(7(5
%281'$5<6859(<%<'(11,6/((3/6&$
3+*5$'(6859(<6%<&/,1726%2513/6
7232):$67(6+2:1,13+$6(%$6('21
($5/,(56859(<6%<%27+
7232):$67(*5$'(6,13+$6($%$6('213(50,77('),1$/*5$'(6
$0%,(177232*5$3+<)520*8,/)25'&2*,6
52$':$<$1'(;6/23(6%(+,1')8785(06(%(50,13+$6(6$1'6859(<('-$1%<&/,1726%2513/6
6&$/(,1)((7
06(%(50)281'$7,21(/(9
06(%(50%$6(/,1(67$7,21
( 6&21752/0($685(6'(3,&7('+(5($5(&216,67(17:,7+7+26($33529('%<1&'(372)(1(5*<0,1(5$/6$1'1$785$/5(6285&(6/$1'48$/,7<6(&7,213(50,1,1*3(50,7
06(%(50%$&.6/23(
06(%(50%$6()22735,170:
6:
6:
6:
6:
0:
0:
0:
0:
0:
06(%(50)22735,17
3(50,77(':$67(%281'$5<
)2273523(57<6(7%$&.
6,/7)(1&(
)$&,/,7<%281'$5<
<($5)/22'3/$,1
&2/21,$/3,3(/,1(($6(0(17

5,3$5,$1%8))(5
6$1,7$5<6(:(5($6(0(17
',9(56,21%(50&+$11(/
3+$6(%281'$5<
*5281':$7(5021,725,1*:(//
685)$&(:$7(56$03/,1*32,17
/$1'),//*$66$03/,1*32,17
($5/,(57(67%25,1*
5(&(177(67%25,1*
5(&(17%25,1*:,7+3,(=20(7(5
06(%(50)281'$7,21(/(9
06(%(50%$6(/,1(67$7,21
06(%(50%$6()22735,17
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
/*
*,1 ('$5 59,'*$
7
52)
*512+&$52
(
6($/

(1 (
6(6 ,2
77/,$1
531
$/6&$/(,1)((7 


0(19,5210
/021,725,1*
 7(17+6,1&+(6 
':*6,=(5(9,6,21'5$:,1*12
),/(1$0(
':*7<3(
-2%12
'$7(
6&$/( '(6
&+.'
(1*5
$33'
$
)
(
'
&
%


$
)
&
%
[$16,'
6($/
)255(*8/$725<5(9,(:

$6127('
*'*
*'*
%
-8/<5(9-$1
$6$1'52&.0$67(5'5$:,1*06(
')75
$6$1'52&.,1&&'/)
0(&+$1,&$//<67$%,/,=('($57+%(5037&
3(50,7&'/)
+$5%28572:1('5,9(
GDYLGJDUUHWWSJSH#JPDLOFRP7(/
5$/(,*+1257+&$52/,1$
'$9,'*$55(77 $662&,$7(6
(1*,1((5,1* *(2/2*<
5(9 '$7( -2%12 352-(&77<3( '(6 ')75 &+.' (1*5 $33' '(6&5,37,21
$)$&,/,7<3/$1 *'* *'* *'* ,668(')253(50,77,1*
)$&,/,7<3/$1 *'* *'* *'* ,668(')253(50,77,1*%)$&,/,7<3/$1 *'* *'* *'*
0&5
 
0&50&5 
ATTACHMENT 2
LFG Monitoring Well Construction Schematic
Figure 1 – Landfill Gas Monitoring Well Detail 
ATTACHMENT 3
LFG Monitoring Well Data (Future)

ATTACHMENT 4
LFG Monitoring Data Form

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

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

If your facility has more gas monitoring locations than there is room on this form, please attach additional sheets listing the
same information as contained on this form.
Certification
To the best of my knowledge, the information reported and statements made on this data submittal and attachments
are true and correct. I am aware that there are significant penalties for making any false statement, representation, or
certification including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.
SIGNATURE TITLE
SITE LOCATION
SITE VICINITY MAP - 1" = 2000'
MAP SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPOGRAPHIC BASEMAP
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT APPLICATION
A-1 SANDROCK, INC. CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008 (GUILFORD COUNTY, NC)
JANUARY 2020 RESUBMITTAL
1
2
3
4
6
GENERAL INFORMATION
MR. R.E. 'GENE' PETTY, SR. - OWNER/OPERATOR
MR. RONNIE E. PETTY, III - OWNER/OPERATOR
A-1 SANDROCK, INC.
2091 BISHOP ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27406 TEL. [phone]
SITE LOCATION DATA
LATTITUDE 35.98745 N
LONGITUDE -79.84639 E
PARCEL NUMBER 12-03-0185-0-0739-W-007
DEED DATE 1/17/1996 GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
DEED BOOK 4378 DEED PAGE 0198
PLAT BOOK 149 PLAT PAGE 93
ACREAGE INFORMATION
TAX MAP 71.1 ACRES
DISTURBED 38.6
MINE/LANDFILL 25.5
IMPERVIOUS 3.5
ZONING HI W/ SPECIAL USE
EXISTING PERMIT INFORMATION:
NC SOLID WASTE PERMIT 41-17
NC MINING PERMIT 41-22 (FORMER)
NC STORMWATER PERMIT NCG020458
ELEVATION CONTOURS ARE BASED ON GUILFORD COUNTY GIS
DATA, SURVEYS PERFORMED BY ALLIED ENGINEERING AND
SURVEYING AND EARLIER PERMITTING.
5
C1 COVER SHEET WITH VICINITY MAP
ISSUED FOR REVIEW ONLY
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
7
9
8
EC1
EC4
10
11
FINAL COVER E&S CONTROLS
E&S CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (1)
12
13
15
14
18
EC2 E&S CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (2)
19
20
EC3 E&S CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
ME1 MSE FOUNDATION PLAN OVERVIEW
ME2 LAYOUT STA 13+00 TO 18+00
ME3 LAYOUT STA 18+00 TO 23+00
ME4 LAYOUT STA 23+00 TO 28+50
ME5 LAYOUT STA 28+50 TO 33+50
ME6 LAYOUT STA 33+50 TO 38+50
ME7 LAYOUT STA 33+50 TO 41+50
ME8
MSE FOUNDATION PLAN 1 OF 3
ME9 LAYOUT STA 7+50 TO 13+00
S1 STAGE 1 TRANSVERSE SECTIONS (1)
S2 STAGE 1 TRANSVERSE SECTIONS (2)
S3 STAGE 1 LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS
S4 INTERNAL DRAINAGE & MONITORING
S5 DESIGN CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS
ES1 STAGE 1 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
ES2 STAGE 2 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
ES3 STAGE 3 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
ES4 STAGE 4 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
21
22
C1 - LOCATION MAP
F1 FACILITY PLAN (LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT)
AND STA 0+00 TO 3+00
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
17
16 ME10
LAYOUT STA 3+00 TO 7+50
ME11
ME12
MSE FOUNDATION PLAN 2 OF 3
MSE FOUNDATION PLAN 3 OF 3
23
25
26
27
28
S6 SOLID WASTE SECTIONS24
30
29
31
32
33
RW1 STAGE 1 SECTION 0+00 TO 10+00 (FEA DRAWING)
34
RW2
RW3
RW4
RW5
RW6
STAGE 1 SECTION 10+00 TO 20+00 (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 SECTION 20+00 TO 30+00 (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 SECTION 30+00 TO 38+40 (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 CROSS SECTION & DETAILS (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (FEA DRAWING)
35
36
MW1
MW2
SLOPE MONITORING - STAGE 1 MSE BERM
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING - FACILITY
SILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATIONMSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTMW-5SW-4SW-1SW-2MW-1MW-2MW-4MW-6MW-3GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSCALE IN FEET 1"=100'0 50 100 200 400 600PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTEDRAINAGE SWALEMSE BERM FOOTPRINTCONSTRUCTION BASELINEFUTURE EDGE OF WASTEF-1 FACILITY PLAN REVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
SW-2EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMW-1MW-3MW-6MW-2MW-4MSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600CURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.ES1 - STAGE 1 FINAL GRADES10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 1 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 770
SW-2EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600SILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, LAND QUALITY SECTION, PER MINING PERMIT 47-22 MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTCURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.STAGE 2 ADDS 823,540 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,387,454 C.Y.ES2 - STAGE 2 EXPANSION10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 2 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 800
SW-2MW-3MW-6MW-4MW-2MW-1EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600CURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.STAGE 2 ADDS 823,540 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,387,454 C.Y.STAGE 3 ADDS 344,775 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,732,229 C.Y.ES3 - STAGE 3 EXPANSION10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 3 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 840
SW-2EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMW-1MW-3MW-6MW-2MW-4MSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600CURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.STAGE 2 ADDS 823,540 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,387,454 C.Y.STAGE 3 ADDS 344,775 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,732,229 C.Y.STAGE 4 ADDS 575,035 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 4,307,264 C.Y.ES4 - STAGE 4 EXPANSION10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 4 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 860
SW-2PHASE 1
MW-1
MW-3
MW-6
MW-2
MW-4
B-7
B-17
B-19
B-31
B-24
B-25
B-41
B-39
B-40
B-38
B-37
B-36
B-35
B1900
B1700
B2500
B2400
B2300
B2200
B2100
B2000
B1800
< 762.0
< 760.5 < 759.0 < 757.5 < 756.0
< 754.5 < 753.0
< 751.5
< 750.0
< 748.5
< 763.5
< 765.0
< 766.5
< 768.0
< 769.5
< 771.0
< 772.5
< 774.0
775.5
< 777.0 < 778.5
< 780.0
< 781.5
< 783.0
< 784.5 < 747.0
< 745.5
< 744.0
< 742.5
< 741.0
< 739.5
˄ 738.0
˄ 736.5
5. ALL SURFACES DEPICTED WITHIN THE CDLF FOOTPRINT
ARE EXISTING GROUND OR AS-BUILT BASE GRADES
REFER TO DRAWINGS ME-10, ME-11 AND ME-12 FOR
DETAILED VIEWS OF THE FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS

B-14
< 757.5
< 756.0
< 754.5
< 753.0
˅ 748.5
˅ 750.0
˅ 751.5
˅ 744.0
˅ 745.5
˅ 747.0
˅ 742.5
˅ 741.0
˅ 739.5
˅ 738.0
˅ 736.5
˅ 735.0
˅ 733.5
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
INSIDE LINE REPRESENTS FUTURE EDGE OF WASTE
AFTER FRANCHISE UPDATE AND PERMIT AMENDMENT
EXISTING EMBANKMENT FILL
STAGE 2 MSE BERM (EL. 770 TO 800)
ORIGINAL GROUND (MINIMAL FILL)
UPON REACHING THE NORTH END WITH STAGE 1,
DOUBLE BACK WITH NORTH LEG OF STAGE 2 MSE BERM
STAGE 1 MSE BERM (TO EL. 770)
FUTURE STAGE 3 MSE BERM
BEGIN FUTURE STAGE 4 MSE BERM
(WORK TOWARD SOUTH)
START STAGE 1 MSE BERM (STA 13+40)
STAGE 2 MSE BERM
4. MSE BERM FOUNDATIONS FOR STAGES 1 AND 2 ARE SHOWN
HERE AS SAME ELEVATION, BASED ON PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS
3. BASELINE DEPICTED HERE CAME FROM PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT
(WILL BE FIELD ADJUSTED AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION)
NOTE:1. THESE SYMBOLS, < ˄ ˅ >, INDICATE THE DIRECTION THAT
THE FOUNDATION STEP CONTINUES UNTIL THE NEXT CALL OUT
2. FOUNDATION ELEVATION AT INDICATED STEP POINT
(DIMENSIONS APPROXIMATED FROM DRAWINGS RW-2 THRU RW-4)
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PRELIMINARY BASELINE
EXCAVATE AND BUILD THIS DEEP
SECTION FIRST, NEXT WORK
TOWARD SOUTH END, THEN TO
NORTH END TO COMPLETE STAGE 1
100-YEAR FLOOD LINE ESTABLISHES LIKELY
HIGH WATER AT APPROXIMATELY EL. 738
(TO BE VERIFIED WITH FEMA FLOOD MAPS)
POND RIM EL. 740 AND EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
AT EL. 739 ESTABLISHES LIKELY HIGH WATER AT
APPROXIMATELY EL. 739 IN THE POND
˄ 733.5
˄ 735.0
B-6
NEW WASTE BOUNDARY
EXISTING WASTE BOUNDARY
SILT FENCE
FACILITY BOUNDARY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
50' RIPARIAN BUFFER
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
DIVERSION BERM/CHANNEL
PHASE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT
LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINT
EARLIER TEST BORING
RECENT TEST BORING
RECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER
1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 2001
2. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON
EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH
4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON
PERMITTED FINAL GRADES
5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS
6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE
BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018
BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BASELINE STATION
7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT.
OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
LAND QUALITY SECTION, PER MINING PERMIT 47-22
MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINT
< 748.5 MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BACKSLOPEMSE BERM FOOTPRINT
PERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARY
200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACK
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'
0 25 50 100 200 400 600
DETAIL PLAN VIEW BY STATIONS
FOR STATIONS SEE DRAWING
0+00 -- 3+00 ME7
3+00 -- 7+50 ME8
7+50 -- 13+00 ME9
13+00 -- 18+00 ME2
18+00 -- 23+00 ME3
23+00 -- 28+50 ME4
28+50 -- 33+50 ME5
33+50 -- 38+50 ME6
38+50 -- 41+50 ME7 ME1 - FOUNDATION PLAN
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
MCR
8-12-2019
SYMBOLS LEGEND
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME2 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (1)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW2 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME3 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (2)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-2 AND RW-3 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME4 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (3)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-3 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME5 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (4)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-3 AND RW-4 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME6 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (5)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-3 AND RW-4 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYMCR8-12-2019
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLS GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME7 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (6)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-4 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME8 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (7)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-1 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME9 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (8)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-1 AND RW-2 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEWMW-510 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
B-7
B-25
B-39
B-40
B-38 B-37 B-36
B-35
˅ 744.0 ˅ 742.5 ˅ 741.0 ˅ 739.5 ˅ 738.0 ˅ 736.5 ˅ 735.0 ˅ 733.5 ˄ 762.0
˄ 760.5
˄ 759.0
˄ 757.5
˄ 756.0
˄ 754.5
˄ 753.0
˄ 751.5
˄ 750.0
˄ 748.5
˄ 733.5
˄ 735.0
˄ 736.5
˄ 738.0
˄ 739.5
˄ 741.0
˄ 742.5
˄ 744.0
˄ 745.5
˄ 747.0
˄ 763.5
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE EXCAVATION TO GRADE;
SOILS HERE ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SANDROCK
PERIMETER IS ORIGINAL GROUND (MINIMAL FILL)
BEGIN EX. FILL SECTION (STEP 2)
STEPPED FOUNDATION
GRADES WITH TENTATIVE
ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS
BACK OF STAGE 2 MSE BERM
IS NEW EDGE OF WASTE
STEP 1 CONSTRUCTION
B-6
MW-2
END SPLIT SECTION ON NEW MSE
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
TENTATIVE BASELINE
SEE STEP 2 ON DRAWING ME-12
B-41
STEP 2 CONTINUED ON
DRAWING ME-11
SEE STEP 3 ON DRAWING ME-11
1. PREPARE FOUNDATION FROM APPROX. STATIONS 23+00 TO 35+00
2. EXCAVATE DEEP FOUNDATION FROM STATIONS 23+00 TO 28+00
3. TRANSFER EXCAVATED SOILS AND START MSE BEYOND STA. 30+00
4. UPON REACHING DESIGN FOUNDATION GRADES IN DEEP CUT, OR
SUITABLE BEARING AS DETERMINED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER,
BUILD MSE BERM TO EL. 770 FROM STA. 23+00 TO STA. 30+00
5. BUILD CHIMNEY DRAIN AND BACKSLOPE FILL TO MATCH GRADES
INCREMENTALLY; DO NOT OPERATE EQUIPMENT ABOVE DRAIN
6. INSTALL SLOPE MONITORING DEVICES AND BEGIN OBSERVATION
OF MOVEMENTS AND WATER LEVELS BEHIND THE BERM
SPECIAL NOTES:
A) EXPECT VERY HARD SOILS AND POSSIBLE ROCK-LIKE
CONDITIONS FOR DEEPER FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS
B) GROUNDWATER LIKELY MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, POSSIBLY
REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS
C) SPLIT-FACE BERM DESIGN WAS DEVELOPED PER OWNER'S
REQUEST TO ALLOW MIDSLOPE ACCESS ROAD
D) THIS DESIGN MODIFICATION PROVIDES A NATURAL BREAK
IN SCHEDULE, ALLOWING OBSERVATION OF CRITICAL SECTION
BEFORE STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION
E) FOUNDATION FOR SPLIT SECTION (STA. 23+00 TO STA 30+00)
WILL SIT ON A ROCKY RIDGE REMNANT OF ORIGINAL GROUND,
ALL SURFACES DEPICTED IN THESE VIEWS RESULTED FROM GRADE
CUTS OR ARE NATURAL GROUND EXCEPT AS NOTED; COMPOSITE
BASE GRADES PER AS-BUILT DRAWINGS (MINIMAL FILL IS PRESENT)
RIPARIAN
BUFFER
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSCALE IN FEET 1"=20'
0 10 20 40 80
ME-10 FOUNDATION PLAN (1)
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
END STAGE 1
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
B-17
B1900
B1700
B2000
B1800
˅ 747.0 ˅ 745.5 ˅ 751.5 ˅ 750.0 ˅ 748.5B2100
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE
EXCAVATION TO FOUNDATION GRADE
BACK OF MSE BERM IS
NEW EDGE OF WASTE
COMPOSITE BASE GRADES DEPICTED IN THIS VIEW ARE CUT
SLOPES (PER AS-BUILT DRAWINGS) OR NATURAL GROUND

PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
B-19
EX. CUT SLOPES UNDERLAIN BY SANDROCK
100 YEAR FLOODLINE
MW-6
SEE STEP 4 ON DRAWING ME-12
ALL SURFACES DEPICTED IN THIS VIEW ARE GRADE
CUTS OR NATURAL GROUND EXCEPT AS NOTED
(MINIMAL FILL IS PRESENT)
TENTATIVE BASELINE
CDLF PHASE LINESTEP 3 CONSTRUCTION
13. BUILD MSE FROM STATIONS 23+00 TO 30+00
14. CONTINUE MSE FROM STATIONS 23+00 TO 13+65
WORKING NORTHWARD USING SELECT SANDROCK
15. TERMINATE AT APPROX. ELEV. 770
16. REVERSE DIRECTION FOR STAGE 2 (STEP 4)
17. SEE DRAWINGS ME-2, ME-3 AND ME-4
18. ADHERE TO SPECIFICATIONS AND CQA PLAN
THOUGHOUT ALL WORK
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'
0 10 20 40 80
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALME-11 FOUNDATION PLAN 2
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
B-14
˄ 76
5.0
˄ 766.5
˄ 769.5
˄ 7
7
1.0
˄ 7
7
2.5 ˄ 7
7
4.0
˄ 7
7
5.5
˄ 7 7 8 .5
˄ 780.0 ˄ 781.5 ˄ 783.0 ˄ 784.5 ˄ 777.0
STEP 2 CONSTRUCTION
END OF STAGES 1 & 2
CONSTRUCTION
STATION 34+20
B-31
B-24
˄ 768.0
12. WORK INCREMENTALLY TO THE
WEST AND NORTH; APPLY FINAL
COVER AND SURFACE DRAINS IN
2-ACRE SECTIONS
7. BUILD MSE FROM STATIONS 30+00 TO 35+00
8. SCHEDULE ACTVITIES TO MINIMIZE HANDLNG
OF EXCAVATED SOILS AND WASTES

9. SEE DRAWINGS ME-4, ME-5 AND ME-6
10. TERMINATE AT APPROX. ELEV. 770 (STAGE 1)
11. BUILD STAGE 2 WITH CONCURRENT WASTE
PLACEMENT TO FINISHED GRADES
EX. PERIMETER ROAD
STEPPED FOUNDATION
GRADES W/ TENTATIVE
ELEVATIONS AND
CONTOURS
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE
EXCAVATION TO GRADE
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
BACK OF MSE BERM IS
NEW EDGE OF WASTE
EXISTING EMBANKMENT
FILL AND/OR SOFT GROUND;
MAY REQUIRE UNDERCUT
˅ 756.0˅ 754.5˅ 753.0˅ 757.5B2200
B2300
B2400
B2500
EX. PERIMETER ROAD
"START" STAGES 1 & 2
CONSTRUCTION
STATION 13+65
SEE DRAWING ME-10
FOR SEQUENCING
EX. GEOTEXTILE
REINFORCED EMBANKMENT
STEP 4 CONSTRUCTION
18. THIS SECTION IS BUILT LAST TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO UPSTATION AREAS
19. REVERSE DIRECTION FROM STATION 13+65
TO WORKING SOUTHWARD
20. FOR STAGE 2 BUILD MSE USING SELECT
SANDROCK, EXTENDING TO STATION 34+20
21. TERMINATE AT APPROX. ELEV. 800
22. SOLID WASTE PLACEMENT BEHIND THE MSE
SHOULD BE CONCURRENT
ALL SURFACES DEPICTED
IN THIS VIEW ARE GRADE
CUTS OR NATURAL GROUND
EXCEPT AS NOTED
(MINIMAL FILL IS PRESENT)
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE
EXCAVATION TO GRADE
STEPPED FOUNDATION GRADES WITH
TENTATIVE ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'
0 10 20 40 80
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALME-12 FOUNDATION PLAN (3)
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
13+60740750760770780790800B25000+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-60-7014+608007407507607707807901+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-6040 506015+608007407507607707807902+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-6040 506016+608007507607707807907403+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706019+607207307407507607707807907107006906806706606506406306+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706080022+607207307407507607707807107006906806707909+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706080018+607207307407507607707807905+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706080017+608007407507607707807904+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-6040 506021+607207307407507607707807907107006906806706608008+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-70608007207307407507607707807907+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706020+6023+4067068069070071072073074075076077078010+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-7060790800LEGENDB-14B-7B-6B-24B-31B1800B1900B2000B2100B2200B2300B2400B2500B-35B-36B-37B-38B-41B-40B-39B-17B1700B-19GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L S1 - CROSS SECTIONS (1) 10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
24+4072073074075076077078068069070071011+00.000 10 20 30 40 50-800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9079080025+4068069070071072073074075076077078012+00.000 10 20 30 40 50-800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9079080071072073074075076077078079015+00.000 10 20 30 40-100 -800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9028+0080071072073074075076077078080014+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706027+0079070073074075076077078079080016+00.000 10 20 30 40-100 -800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9029+0081082083074075076077078079080017+00.000 10 20 30 400-10-20-30-40-50-60-7030+2050706081082083073072084026+4065072073074075076077078067068069070071066013+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706079080075076077078079080081034+1020+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706082083084085032+4082083074075076077078079080081019+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706084085031+4073074075076077078079080018+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-7060810820830LEGENDB-14B-7B-6B-24B-31B1800B1900B2000B2100B2200B2300B2400B2500B-35B-36B-37B-38B-41B-40B-39B-17B1700B-19GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L S2 - CROSS SECTIONS (2) 10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
B2500GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
30' STAGE 130' STAGE 2LEGENDS3 - CROSS SECTIONS (3) 10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
S5 CRITICAL SECTIONS REVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLS
SHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BY
NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL
RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22
MSE BERM BACKSLOPEXSECTION 3
STA 30+42
XSECTION 1
STA 26+48
XSECTION 2
STA 16+37
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
PERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARY
200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACK
XSECTION 1
STA 26+48 NORTH END
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSTAGE 4
STAGE 3
STAGE 2
STAGE 1
STAGE 0 - AS PERMITTED
XSECTION 2
STA 16+37 NORTH END
XSECTION 3
STA 30+42 NORTH END
S6 SECTIONS THRU WASTE
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009EC1 - E&S DETAILS (1)
10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009EC2 - E & S DETAILS (2)
SEDIMENT BASINSTHE PERMANENT SEDIMENT BASIN (SB-1) LOCATED WEST OF THE LANDFILL SHALL SERVE AS THE PRIMARY SEDIMENT BASIN THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. THE SEDIMENT BASIN WILL BE CONVERTED TO A PERMANENT STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION. THE BASIN SHALL BE INSPECTED AND CLEANED OUT OR MAINTAINED AS NEEDED PRIOR TO INITIATING SITE-WIDE GRADING WORK. THE OUTLET STRUCTURES WILL REMAIN IN PLACE INDEFINITELY. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REFURBISH THE BASIN BY REPLACING THE BARREL OR RISER STRUCTURES. SEE OUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIR PROCEDURE. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEGENERAL GRADING AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES - UPGRADE EXISTING CHANNELS LEADING TO SB-1 TO DESIGN DIMENSIONS AND PLACE CHANNEL LINER PER THE SCHEDULE. INSTALL TEMPORARY MEASURES AND REMOVE SEDIMENT BUILDUP IN SB-1. PLACE AND COMPACT COVER SOIL ON SIDE SLOPES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. CONSTRUCT PERMANENT CAP DIVERSION BERMS AT 2 PERCENT GRADES (SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS) AND INSTALL SLOPE DRAIN PIPES. BE SURE TO COMPACT ALL SOIL WORK AND INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ON SLOPE DRAINS. VERY IMPORTANT - VEGETATE SLOPES USING STRAW MULCH AND TACK AS SOON AS SECTIONS ARE COMPLETED TO CURTAIL EROSION. REFER TO THE SEEDBED PREPARATION NOTES AND SEEDING SCHEDULE. A NURSE CROP OF RYE AND OTHER SHORT-TERM VEGETATION MAY BE REQUIRED. IF EXCESSIVE WET OR DRY WEATHER CONDITIONS PREVAIL DURING CONSTRUCTION, COVER THE SLOPES WITH TEMPORARY WOODY MULCH COVER IS ADVISED, THEN FOLLOW UP DURING MORE FAVORABLE WEATHER BY PLOWING THE MULCH INTO THE TOPSOIL AND SEEDING IN A TYPICAL MANNER WITH SOIL AMENDMENTS, SEED, STRAW MULCH AND TACK.SOIL BORROW ACTIVITIES - INSTALL TEMPORARY MEASURES (E.G., SILT FENCE) AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS, FOLLOWED BY CLEARING AND GRUBBING FOR NEW EMBANKMENT AND CONVEYANCES. PLACE ALL MEASURES INTO SERVICE PRIOR TO INITIATING FULL-SCALE GRADING ACTIVITIES. DURING DISPOSAL OPERATIONS - AS WASTE SLOPES BECOME POSITIVE (ABOVE THE ELEVATIONS OF THE PERIMETER CHANNELS), USE VEGETATION AND/OR WOODY MULCH TO STABILIZE INTERIM COVER SOIL. WORK THE LANDFILL IN SMALL INCREMENTS TO MINIMIZE EXPOSED SLOPE AREAS - IDEALLY, THE WORKING FACE SHOULD BE KEPT TO A HALF-ACRE IN SIZE. ONCE AN AREA IS BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE, IT SHOULD BE CLOSED WITH APPROVED COVER. INTERIM COVER SHALL BE APPLIED AND VEGETATED OR COVERED WITH WOODY MULCH IN AREAS THAT WILL NOT RECEIVE ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY FOR 20 DAYS, OR MORE. INSPECTIONS - DURING ALL PHASES OF OPERATIONS, INSPECT THE SEDIMENT BASINS AND/OR OTHER MEASURES FOR EXCESS SEDIMENT BUILDUP OR DAMAGE. INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED WEEKLY OR AFTER ANY RAINFALL EVENT MEASURING IN EXCESS OF ONE-HALF INCH WITHIN 24 HOURS. REMOVE EXCESS SEDIMENT AND/OR MAKE REPAIRS AS NEEDED. INSPECT SLOPES FREQUENTLY AND CORRECT OBVIOUS EROSION PROBLEMS. CONVERTING SEDIMENT BASIN TO STORM WATER QUALITY PONDAFTER THE SITE IS STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION, INCLUDING THE DAM AND SIDE SLOPES WITHIN THE BASIN, THE BASIN SHALL BE INSPECTED AND ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT REMOVED. REPAIR ANY EROSION AND UPGRADE STONE ENERGY DISSIPATERS AND/OR VEGETATIVE COVER AS NEEDED. ENSURE THAT THE POND DRAIN IS FUNCTIONAL (MAKE SURE THE DRAIN IS SHUT). REMOVE ANY ACCUMULATED DEBRIS FROM THE TRASH RACK AND/OR RISER PIPE AND CHECK THE SECURITY OF THE RISER PIPE AND TRASH RACK. ENSURE ALL ENERGY DISSIPATERS, INCLUDING INLETS TO BASIN THAT EXTEND TO BOTTOM, ARE IN PLACE. ENSURE ALL PIPES, INLETS, GRATES, AND APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONAL. PROCEDURE FOR REPLACING A PIPE OR RISER/BARREL STRUCTURE IF A PIPE OR SEDIMENT BASIN RISER/BARREL STRUCTURE FAILS OR MUST BE REFURBISHED, THE STRUCTURE MAY BE TEMPORARILY BYPASSED DURING THE REPAIRS VIA PUMPING TO A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP. THIS SHOULD BE PERFORMED DURING A TIME OF FAIR WEATHER. PIPE INLETS SHOULD BE BLOCKED AND RUNOFF DIVERTED TO AN APPROVED MEASURE. REMOVAL - DEWATER THE BASIN (IF NEEDED), INSTALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES (E.G., SILT FENCING, TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, DIVERSION SWALES AND/OR BERMS), THEN REMOVE SEDIMENT BUILD-UP. EXCAVATION SPOILS SHOULD BE STOCKPILED AWAY FROM THE DIRECT FLOW EXPOSURE AND ALLOWED TO DRAIN, THEN REMOVE OR UTILIZE ON-SITE. REPLACEMENT - THE DAMAGED PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND REPLACED WITH EQUAL OR BETTER MATERIALS AS THE ORIGINAL. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED AND VEGETATED IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION. IF THE ENERGY DISSIPATERS ARE DISTURBED, E.G., RIP-RAP APRONS, THAT WORK SHALL BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL OR BETTER CONDITION. THE ENGINEER SHALL EVALUATE SUITABILITY OF ORIGINAL MATERIALS FOR REUSE. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVENOTIFICATIONSPRIOR TO COMMENCING EARTH WORK IN ANY CRITICAL AREAS, E.G., NEAR STREAM BUFFERS OR WETLANDS FEATURES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE NCDEQ DIVISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, WATER QUALITY SECTION AND NC DEPT, OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND LAND RESOURCES (NC DEMLR) DIV. OF LAND QUALITY, LAND QUALITY SECTION AND THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR AN INSPECTION OF SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. NO GROUND DISTURBING WORK SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHOUT PROPER MEASURES IN PLACE. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE KEPT INFORMED OF ALL NEW WORK.GENERALALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE RULES AND GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SEDIMENTATION CONTROL LAW, AS ADMINISTERED BY NC DEPT, OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND LAND RESOURCES (NC DEMLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION AND GUILFORD COUNTY PLANNING. CRITICAL SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FEATURES, E.G., CLEARING LIMITS, SEDIMENT TRAPS, GRADED CHANNELS, BASINS, OUTLET STRUCTURES, LEVEL SPREADERS, ETC., SHALL BE FIELD STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR OTHER PARTY APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO PLAN DIMENSIONS. ALL WORK SHALL PROCEED IN A METHODICAL AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER. THE OWNER/OPERATOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ANY REQUIRED LAND DISTURBING PERMITS AND PAYING FEES. THIS S&EC PLAN DESCRIBES TEMPORARY AS WELL AS PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. THIS PLAN ASSUMES THAT ALL DESIGNED MEASURES WILL BE INSTALLED. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS ARE ALLOWABLE WITH THE ADVANCE PERMISSION OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BY GUILFORD COUNTY. IF ANY MEASURES ARE FOUND INADEQUATE, A REVIEW OF THE MEASURES AS CONSTRUCTED SHALL BE PERFORMED TO ENSURE ADHERENCE TO THE PLANS. THEN, IF NEEDED, ADDITIONAL DESIGNS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO NC DEMLR LAND QUALITY SECTION FOR REVIEW. SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED IN ADVANCE BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE LAND QUALITY SECTION O`R GUILFORD COUNTY PLANNING. SILT FENCINGADEQUATE SILT FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE PLANS SHOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AREAS INTENDED FOR SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION. THE SILT FENCE SHALL BE OF THE TYPE DESIGNATED IN THE PLANS, UNLESS THE ENGINEER APPROVES A SUBSTITUTE. PREFABRICATED SILT FENCING ATTACHED TO WOODEN STAKES WILL NOT BE APPROVED - ONLY METAL POSTS AND WIRE-BACKED SILT FENCING WILL BE ACCEPTABLE. THE BASE OF THE FABRIC SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN A TRENCH PER THE PLANS AND AN APPROVED BACKFILL USED TO SECURE THE FABRIC. OUTLETS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, OR AS DESIGNATED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD (EOR). DIVERSIONS DITCHES AND SOIL BERMSTEMPORARY AND PERMANENT DIVERSION DITCHES (SWALES) AND SOIL BERMS ARE REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO CONVEY SURFACE RUNOFF. ALL DITCHES SHALL BE BUILT TO THE DIMENSIONS AND GIVEN THE CHANNEL-LINING MATERIAL SPECIFIED IN THIS PLAN, UNLESS THE ENGINEER HAS APPROVED AN ALTERNATIVE. ALL SOIL BERMS SHALL BE BUILT TO THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SOIL SHALL BE COMPACTED AND STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL DITCHES AND SOIL BERMS MAY BE REQUIRED. ALL WATER-DIVERSION STRUCTURES, WHETHER SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR ADDED AS A FIELD ADJUSTMENT, SHALL BE MADE TO DRAIN TO AN APPROVED MEASURE. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPSSEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL CONFORM TO NC DEMLR LAND QUALITY SECTION STANDARDS AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN THE PLANS DURING THE EARLY STAGES OF CLEARING. ASSOCIATED DITCHES AND SILT FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF LOCATIONS MAY BE ALLOWABLE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE CLEANED OUT AND MAINTAINED AS NEEDED FOR AS LONG AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY. ALL EARTHWORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE VEGETATED UPON COMPLETION. THE TRAPS MAY BE LEFT IN PLACE INDEFINITELY, OR, ONCE THE ENGINEER DEEMS A TRAP TO BE OBSOLETE, IT MAY BE REMOVED AND THE GROUND RESTORED TO PROMOTE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND VEGETATION ESTABLISHED IMMEDIATELY AT THE SITE OF ANY ABANDONED TRAPS. NOTES:1 Maximum allowable soil storage depth is 3.5 feet per NC Division of Land Quality regulations2 Bottom geometry may be adjusted to reflect field conditions, but must provide minimum volume at maximum allowable height3 * Anticipated based on site geometry, may be adjusted to reflect actual field conditions4 Use 2H:1V side slopes inside and outside basin, vegetate slopes as soon as practical 5 Make width of berm and weir at crest minimum 3 feet, compact soil per specifications6 **Minimum length required to pass design storm7 Line overflow face with rip-rap (d50 = 12 inches), underlain by geotextile with water stops8 ***Provide minimum 1.5 feet of freeboard9 Clean basin once every 6 months as required. Basin shall be inspected after each rainfall event. Side slope vegetation shall be maintained in good condition. 10 Line temporary ditches leading to traps with high velocity excelsior or TRMCHANNEL DESIGN SCHEDULEChannel recommendations based on Normal-Depth Procedure calculationsPerimeter Drained Maximum Channel Slope Pk. Runoff Peak Flow Normal Velocity Max. Shear Channel Required Channel DimensionsChannelChannel Area, ac. Relief, ft. Length, ft. ft./ft. in/hrQ25, cfs Flow Depth Q25, fps Stress, psf Type bot. widthmin. depth top width side slope Liner Req.1A 6.52 130 500 6.0% 8.29 12 0.45 7.5 1.8 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1V TRM/veg.1B 6.52 130 350 1.2% 8.29 18 0.72 4.1 0.6 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1V TRM/veg.2 7.24 142 550 2.4% 8.29 20 0.63 5.4 1.0 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1VTRM/veg.3 7.94 156 550 3.4% 8.29 22 0.59 6.5 1.3 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1VTRM/veg.4A 1.02 54 400 6.3% 8.29 3 0.29 3.6 1.2 Trapezoidal 2 1 8 3H:1V TRM/veg.4B 1.81 64 350 2.3% 8.29 6 0.44 3.1 0.7 Trapezoidal 3 1 9 3H:1V TRM/veg.5 2.58 74 600 2.0% 8.29 6 0.49 3.0 0.6 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1V TRM/veg.6 12.48 146 600 1.0% 8.29 37 0.82 4.3 0.5 Trapezoidal 8 1 14 3H:1V TRM/veg.7A 1.08 30 170 4.7% 8.29 4 0.28 3.8 0.9 Trapezoidal 2 1 8 3H:1V TRM/veg.7B 1.08 30 600 2.0% 8.29 4 0.42 2.8 0.6 Trapezoidal 2 1 8 3H:1V Grass/ECBDown Drained Maximum Channel Slope Pk. Runoff Peak Flow Normal Velocity Max. Shear Channel Required Channel DimensionsChannelChannel Area, ac. Relief, ft. Length, ft. ft./ft. in/hrQ25, cfs Flow Depth Q25, fps Stress, psf Type bot. widthmin. depth top width side slope Liner Req.DC1 12.48 146 120 28.0% 8.29 37 0.39 10.3 6.3 Trapezoidal 8 2 203H:1V Rip-RapDC2 15.20 156 100 20.0% 8.29 43 0.46 10 5.6 Trapezoidal 8 2 20 3H:1V Rip-RapDiversion Drained Maximum Channel Slope Pk. Runoff Peak Flow Normal Velocity Max. Shear Channel Bottom Min. TopSideChannelBrm/Swale Area, ac. Relief, ft. Length, ft. ft./ft. in/hr Q25, cfs Flow Depth Q25, fps Stress, psf Type Width Depth Width Slope Liner Req.DBS1 0.64 4 330 2.0% 8.29 2 0.31 2.3 0.4 Trapezoidal 1 1 13 6H:1VGrass/ECBDBS2 0.64 4 300 2.0% 8.29 2 0.31 2.3 0.4 Trapezoidal 1 1 13 6H:1VGrass/ECBDBS3 0.64 4 250 2.0% 8.29 2 0.31 2.3 0.4 Trapezoidal 1 1 13 6H:1VGrass/ECBChannel Liner and Erosion Protection Notes:1 TRM is synthetic turf reinforcement mat (TRM) and vegetation used as permanent channel liner, e.g., EnkaMat, Recyclex, or equivalent2 Rip-rap is quarry stone with d50 = 12 inch, or other suitable natural or man-made material, underlain by geotextile with water stops spaced on 75- foot centers 3 ECB is high velocity excelsior or synthetic erosion control blanket used as a temporary channel liner to promote the development of vegetation4 Stone check dams shall be provided above channel liner, sized appropriate to channel depth, with spacings as directed by the engineer to overlap in the vertical dimension5 Outlets for down-pipes shall be protected with rip-rap apron (see dimensions shown in Down Pipe Schedule and energy dissipater details)6 Inspect all channels frequently, especially after significant rainfall events, and repair any erosion or upgrade channel liners as neededREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009EC3 - E&S SCHEDULESSEDIMENT TRAP DESIGN SCHEDULE25-year, 24-hour storm Sediment Trap No. I K MDisturbed drainage area, acres 2.18 5.04 2.23Min. Req' Soil Volume (1800 f^3/ac), cf 3,924 9,072 4,014Design Soil Storage Volume, cf 4,043 9,240 2,646Req'd Surface Area (0.01 * Qp), s.f. 4,356 3,049 3,049Design Surface Area, s.f. 1,155 2,640 756Design Storm EventQ25 Q25 Q2524-hour Precipitation, inches 6.41 6.41 6.41Peak Runoff Intensity, in/hr 8.29 8.29 8.29Peak Runoff Flow, Qp, cfs 10 7 7Basin Bottom Dimensions, length, ft. 35 60 27width, ft. 33 44 28Basin Bottom Elevation* 727.0 765.0 770.0Maximum Basin Depth 3.5 3.5 3.5Overflow Weir Length, feet ** 16 15 12Overflow Weir Elevation*** 730.5 768.5 773.5Perimeter Rim Elevation*** 732.0 770.0 775.0Overflow water velocity, fps 1.3 0.9 1.2(must be less than 4 fps)DOWN PIPE DESIGN SCHEDULEPipe Pipe Diam. Type Length Slope Design Drained Each Bench Inlet Each Bench Outlet Outlet Structure Stone d50 Pipe-end Far-end LengthNo. Do, inches feet ft./ft. flow, cfs Bench Diam., in. Type Flow, cfs Vel., fps Type inches W1, ft. W2, ft. L, ft.DP 1a 18 CPE 100 30.0% 8 A - west 18Projecting pipe*20.2 17.6 Projecting pipe end with30" mixed w/4.5 22.5 18rip-rap apron on 3:1 slope 12 to 24"DP 1b 18 CPE 100 30.0% 6 B - west 18 Projecting pipeConverges with DC-2DP 1c 18 CPE 100 30.0% 5 C - west 18 Projecting pipe(see Energy Dissipater Detail)DP 1d 18 CPE 100 30.0% 3 D - west 18 Projecting pipeDP 2a 18 CPE 60 30.0% 8 A - north 18Projecting pipe*21.4 17.6 Projecting pipe end with30" mixed w/4.5 24.5 20rip-rap apron on 2% slope 12 to 24"DP 2b 18 CPE 110 30.0% 7 B - north 18 Projecting pipeConverges with PerimeterDP 2c 18 CPE 120 30.0% 5 C - north 18 Projecting pipe Channel #6DP 2d 18 CPE 110 30.0% 4 D - north 18 Projecting pipe (see Energy Dissipater Detail)DP 3c 18 CPE 110 30.0% 6 C - east 18Projecting pipe*11.4 17.6 Projecting pipe end with30" mixed w/4.5 16.5 12rip-rap apron on 2% slope 12 to 24"DP 3d 12 CPE 110 30.0% 4 D - east 18 Projecting pipeConverges with PerimeterDP 3e 12 CPE 110 30.0% 2 final cap 12 Flared-end Channel #6(see Energy Dissipater Detail)Notes: Rip-rap apron end-width dimensions may be adjusted reflect field conditionsPlace rip-rap up side slopes of ditch and completely surrounding the pipe endUse Class B rip-rap; place rip-rap in two interlocking layers, larger particles laid down first, with a minimum thickness of 2 feetExcavate below ditch line and widen receiving channel as needed to install rip-rap apron for positive drainageProvide geotextile erosion blanket (minimum 8 o.s.y., non-woven) underneath stone, with water stops placed at 25 feet centers (minimum of one); water stop shall be at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deepUse Hancor Sur-Lok F477, or equivalent, corregated polyethylene pipe and fittings (e.g., Tee's and Wye's) with bell and spigot joints and rubber gaskets.Follow pipe manufacturer's installation guidelines. Be sure all joints are secure and leakproof. Stake the pipe, if needed, to prevent horizontal movement while exposed. The waste surface may be trenched to secure pipe, but provide minimum 2 feet of soil cover between waste and all sides of pipe (requires 4-foot deep trench).Bury pipe under minimum 2 feet of soil cover to provide permanent installation. Compact all backfill and final cover by tamping (avoid damaging the pipe).Provide rip-rap protection around side-slope bench inlets to prevent erosion; bury pipe a minimum of 24 inches of stone if using a "tee". See details for filter construction.* Consists of a "tee" for drainage from both directions; place a circular, fitted grate over the end of the pipe to serve as a trash rack.Pipe diameters given above are considered minimum; e.g., on Down Pipe 3, a constant diameter of 18 inches may be used10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
HICKORY CREEKMW-1MW-3MW-6MW-2MW-4GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SITE PLAN NOTES 1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 2001 2. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS 3. TOP OF WASTE CONTOURS BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH 4. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH FORMER MINING PERMIT 47-22 WHICH WERE APPROVED BY NORTH CAROLINA DEPTARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL SCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600SILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATIONMSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTEC4 - FINAL COVER E&SREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
CLUSTER #15CLUSTER #14CLUSTER #16DDDDD
D
CLUSTER #2CLUSTER #3CLUSTER #4CLUSTER #1CLUSTER #11CLUSTER #10CLUSTER #9CLUSTER #8ALL SLOPE MONITORING LOCATIONS ARE TENTATIVECLUSTER #7CLUSTER #6CLUSTER #5CLUSTER #13CLUSTER #12GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80M1 - SLOPE MONITORINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
SILT FENCE
FACILITY BOUNDARY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
50' RIPARIAN BUFFER
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
DIVERSION BERM/CHANNEL
PHASE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT
LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINT
EARLIER TEST BORING
RECENT TEST BORING
RECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER
1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 2001
2. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON
EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH
4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON
PERMITTED FINAL GRADES
5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS
6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE
BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018
BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
SCALE IN FEET
MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BASELINE STATION
7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT.
OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
LAND QUALITY SECTION, PER MINING PERMIT 47-22
MSE BERM BACKSLOPE
MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTMW-5
SW-4
SW-1
SW-3
SW-2
MW-1
MW-2
MW-4
MW-6
MW-3
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
PERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARY
200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACK
SILT FENCE
FACILITY BOUNDARY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
50' RIPARIAN BUFFER
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
DIVERSION BERM/CHANNEL
PHASE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT
LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINT
EARLIER TEST BORING
RECENT TEST BORING
RECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER
MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BASELINE STATION
MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINT
LG-5
LG-2
LG-3
LG-7
LG-4
LG-12
LG-6
LG-1
LG-11
LG-9
LG-8
LG-10
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSCALE IN FEET 1"=100'
0 50 100 200 400 600
M2 - ENVIRONM'L MONITORING
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
SITE LOCATION
SITE VICINITY MAP - 1" = 2000'
MAP SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPOGRAPHIC BASEMAP
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT APPLICATION
A-1 SANDROCK, INC. CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008 (GUILFORD COUNTY, NC)
JANUARY 2020 RESUBMITTAL
1
2
3
4
6
GENERAL INFORMATION
MR. R.E. 'GENE' PETTY, SR. - OWNER/OPERATOR
MR. RONNIE E. PETTY, III - OWNER/OPERATOR
A-1 SANDROCK, INC.
2091 BISHOP ROAD
GREENSBORO, NC 27406 TEL. [phone]
SITE LOCATION DATA
LATTITUDE 35.98745 N
LONGITUDE -79.84639 E
PARCEL NUMBER 12-03-0185-0-0739-W-007
DEED DATE 1/17/1996 GUILFORD COUNTY, NC
DEED BOOK 4378 DEED PAGE 0198
PLAT BOOK 149 PLAT PAGE 93
ACREAGE INFORMATION
TAX MAP 71.1 ACRES
DISTURBED 38.6
MINE/LANDFILL 25.5
IMPERVIOUS 3.5
ZONING HI W/ SPECIAL USE
EXISTING PERMIT INFORMATION:
NC SOLID WASTE PERMIT 41-17
NC MINING PERMIT 41-22 (FORMER)
NC STORMWATER PERMIT NCG020458
ELEVATION CONTOURS ARE BASED ON GUILFORD COUNTY GIS
DATA, SURVEYS PERFORMED BY ALLIED ENGINEERING AND
SURVEYING AND EARLIER PERMITTING.
5
C1 COVER SHEET WITH VICINITY MAP
ISSUED FOR REVIEW ONLY
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
7
9
8
EC1
EC4
10
11
FINAL COVER E&S CONTROLS
E&S CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (1)
12
13
15
14
18
EC2 E&S CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (2)
19
20
EC3 E&S CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
ME1 MSE FOUNDATION PLAN OVERVIEW
ME2 LAYOUT STA 13+00 TO 18+00
ME3 LAYOUT STA 18+00 TO 23+00
ME4 LAYOUT STA 23+00 TO 28+50
ME5 LAYOUT STA 28+50 TO 33+50
ME6 LAYOUT STA 33+50 TO 38+50
ME7 LAYOUT STA 33+50 TO 41+50
ME8
MSE FOUNDATION PLAN 1 OF 3
ME9 LAYOUT STA 7+50 TO 13+00
S1 STAGE 1 TRANSVERSE SECTIONS (1)
S2 STAGE 1 TRANSVERSE SECTIONS (2)
S3 STAGE 1 LONGITUDINAL SECTIONS
S4 INTERNAL DRAINAGE & MONITORING
S5 DESIGN CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS
ES1 STAGE 1 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
ES2 STAGE 2 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
ES3 STAGE 3 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
ES4 STAGE 4 FILL GRADES W/ E&S
21
22
C1 - LOCATION MAP
F1 FACILITY PLAN (LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT)
AND STA 0+00 TO 3+00
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
17
16 ME10
LAYOUT STA 3+00 TO 7+50
ME11
ME12
MSE FOUNDATION PLAN 2 OF 3
MSE FOUNDATION PLAN 3 OF 3
23
25
26
27
28
S6 SOLID WASTE SECTIONS24
30
29
31
32
33
RW1 STAGE 1 SECTION 0+00 TO 10+00 (FEA DRAWING)
34
RW2
RW3
RW4
RW5
RW6
STAGE 1 SECTION 10+00 TO 20+00 (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 SECTION 20+00 TO 30+00 (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 SECTION 30+00 TO 38+40 (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 CROSS SECTION & DETAILS (FEA DRAWING)
STAGE 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (FEA DRAWING)
35
36
MW1
MW2
SLOPE MONITORING - STAGE 1 MSE BERM
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING - FACILITY
SILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATIONMSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTMW-5SW-4SW-1SW-2MW-1MW-2MW-4MW-6MW-3GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSCALE IN FEET 1"=100'0 50 100 200 400 600PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTEDRAINAGE SWALEMSE BERM FOOTPRINTCONSTRUCTION BASELINEFUTURE EDGE OF WASTEF-1 FACILITY PLAN REVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
SW-2EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMW-1MW-3MW-6MW-2MW-4MSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600CURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.ES1 - STAGE 1 FINAL GRADES10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 1 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 770
SW-2EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600SILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, LAND QUALITY SECTION, PER MINING PERMIT 47-22 MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTCURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.STAGE 2 ADDS 823,540 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,387,454 C.Y.ES2 - STAGE 2 EXPANSION10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 2 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 800
SW-2MW-3MW-6MW-4MW-2MW-1EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600CURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.STAGE 2 ADDS 823,540 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,387,454 C.Y.STAGE 3 ADDS 344,775 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,732,229 C.Y.ES3 - STAGE 3 EXPANSION10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 3 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 840
SW-2EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLSSHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BYNC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACKPERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARYMSE BERM BACKSLOPEMW-1MW-3MW-6MW-2MW-4MSE BERM FOOTPRINTGINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A LSILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINTLANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINTEARLIER TEST BORINGRECENT TEST BORINGRECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 20012. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON PERMITTED FINAL GRADES5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018 BY CLINT OSBORN, PLSMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATION7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600CURRENT PERMITTED VOLUME IS 2,240,000 C.Y.STAGE 1 ADDS 323,914 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 2,563,914 C.Y.STAGE 2 ADDS 823,540 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,387,454 C.Y.STAGE 3 ADDS 344,775 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 3,732,229 C.Y.STAGE 4 ADDS 575,035 C.Y.CUMULATIVE VOLUME WILL BE 4,307,264 C.Y.ES4 - STAGE 4 EXPANSION10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009STAGE 4 MSE BERM BUILT TO EL. 860
SW-2PHASE 1
MW-1
MW-3
MW-6
MW-2
MW-4
B-7
B-17
B-19
B-31
B-24
B-25
B-41
B-39
B-40
B-38
B-37
B-36
B-35
B1900
B1700
B2500
B2400
B2300
B2200
B2100
B2000
B1800
< 762.0
< 760.5 < 759.0 < 757.5 < 756.0
< 754.5 < 753.0
< 751.5
< 750.0
< 748.5
< 763.5
< 765.0
< 766.5
< 768.0
< 769.5
< 771.0
< 772.5
< 774.0
775.5
< 777.0 < 778.5
< 780.0
< 781.5
< 783.0
< 784.5 < 747.0
< 745.5
< 744.0
< 742.5
< 741.0
< 739.5
˄ 738.0
˄ 736.5
5. ALL SURFACES DEPICTED WITHIN THE CDLF FOOTPRINT
ARE EXISTING GROUND OR AS-BUILT BASE GRADES
REFER TO DRAWINGS ME-10, ME-11 AND ME-12 FOR
DETAILED VIEWS OF THE FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS

B-14
< 757.5
< 756.0
< 754.5
< 753.0
˅ 748.5
˅ 750.0
˅ 751.5
˅ 744.0
˅ 745.5
˅ 747.0
˅ 742.5
˅ 741.0
˅ 739.5
˅ 738.0
˅ 736.5
˅ 735.0
˅ 733.5
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
INSIDE LINE REPRESENTS FUTURE EDGE OF WASTE
AFTER FRANCHISE UPDATE AND PERMIT AMENDMENT
EXISTING EMBANKMENT FILL
STAGE 2 MSE BERM (EL. 770 TO 800)
ORIGINAL GROUND (MINIMAL FILL)
UPON REACHING THE NORTH END WITH STAGE 1,
DOUBLE BACK WITH NORTH LEG OF STAGE 2 MSE BERM
STAGE 1 MSE BERM (TO EL. 770)
FUTURE STAGE 3 MSE BERM
BEGIN FUTURE STAGE 4 MSE BERM
(WORK TOWARD SOUTH)
START STAGE 1 MSE BERM (STA 13+40)
STAGE 2 MSE BERM
4. MSE BERM FOUNDATIONS FOR STAGES 1 AND 2 ARE SHOWN
HERE AS SAME ELEVATION, BASED ON PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS
3. BASELINE DEPICTED HERE CAME FROM PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT
(WILL BE FIELD ADJUSTED AS NEEDED DURING CONSTRUCTION)
NOTE:1. THESE SYMBOLS, < ˄ ˅ >, INDICATE THE DIRECTION THAT
THE FOUNDATION STEP CONTINUES UNTIL THE NEXT CALL OUT
2. FOUNDATION ELEVATION AT INDICATED STEP POINT
(DIMENSIONS APPROXIMATED FROM DRAWINGS RW-2 THRU RW-4)
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PRELIMINARY BASELINE
EXCAVATE AND BUILD THIS DEEP
SECTION FIRST, NEXT WORK
TOWARD SOUTH END, THEN TO
NORTH END TO COMPLETE STAGE 1
100-YEAR FLOOD LINE ESTABLISHES LIKELY
HIGH WATER AT APPROXIMATELY EL. 738
(TO BE VERIFIED WITH FEMA FLOOD MAPS)
POND RIM EL. 740 AND EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
AT EL. 739 ESTABLISHES LIKELY HIGH WATER AT
APPROXIMATELY EL. 739 IN THE POND
˄ 733.5
˄ 735.0
B-6
NEW WASTE BOUNDARY
EXISTING WASTE BOUNDARY
SILT FENCE
FACILITY BOUNDARY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
50' RIPARIAN BUFFER
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
DIVERSION BERM/CHANNEL
PHASE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT
LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINT
EARLIER TEST BORING
RECENT TEST BORING
RECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER
1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 2001
2. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON
EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH
4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON
PERMITTED FINAL GRADES
5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS
6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE
BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018
BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BASELINE STATION
7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT.
OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
LAND QUALITY SECTION, PER MINING PERMIT 47-22
MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINT
< 748.5 MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BACKSLOPEMSE BERM FOOTPRINT
PERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARY
200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACK
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSCALE IN FEET 1"=75'
0 25 50 100 200 400 600
DETAIL PLAN VIEW BY STATIONS
FOR STATIONS SEE DRAWING
0+00 -- 3+00 ME7
3+00 -- 7+50 ME8
7+50 -- 13+00 ME9
13+00 -- 18+00 ME2
18+00 -- 23+00 ME3
23+00 -- 28+50 ME4
28+50 -- 33+50 ME5
33+50 -- 38+50 ME6
38+50 -- 41+50 ME7 ME1 - FOUNDATION PLAN
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
MCR
8-12-2019
SYMBOLS LEGEND
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME2 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (1)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW2 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME3 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (2)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-2 AND RW-3 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME4 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (3)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-3 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME5 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (4)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-3 AND RW-4 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME6 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (5)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-3 AND RW-4 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYMCR8-12-2019
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLS GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME7 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (6)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-4 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME8 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (7)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-1 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEW10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80ME9 - MSE BERM LAYOUT (8)NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSEE DRAWINGS RW-1 AND RW-2 AND S3 FOR PROFILE VIEWMW-510 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
B-7
B-25
B-39
B-40
B-38 B-37 B-36
B-35
˅ 744.0 ˅ 742.5 ˅ 741.0 ˅ 739.5 ˅ 738.0 ˅ 736.5 ˅ 735.0 ˅ 733.5 ˄ 762.0
˄ 760.5
˄ 759.0
˄ 757.5
˄ 756.0
˄ 754.5
˄ 753.0
˄ 751.5
˄ 750.0
˄ 748.5
˄ 733.5
˄ 735.0
˄ 736.5
˄ 738.0
˄ 739.5
˄ 741.0
˄ 742.5
˄ 744.0
˄ 745.5
˄ 747.0
˄ 763.5
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE EXCAVATION TO GRADE;
SOILS HERE ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SANDROCK
PERIMETER IS ORIGINAL GROUND (MINIMAL FILL)
BEGIN EX. FILL SECTION (STEP 2)
STEPPED FOUNDATION
GRADES WITH TENTATIVE
ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS
BACK OF STAGE 2 MSE BERM
IS NEW EDGE OF WASTE
STEP 1 CONSTRUCTION
B-6
MW-2
END SPLIT SECTION ON NEW MSE
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
TENTATIVE BASELINE
SEE STEP 2 ON DRAWING ME-12
B-41
STEP 2 CONTINUED ON
DRAWING ME-11
SEE STEP 3 ON DRAWING ME-11
1. PREPARE FOUNDATION FROM APPROX. STATIONS 23+00 TO 35+00
2. EXCAVATE DEEP FOUNDATION FROM STATIONS 23+00 TO 28+00
3. TRANSFER EXCAVATED SOILS AND START MSE BEYOND STA. 30+00
4. UPON REACHING DESIGN FOUNDATION GRADES IN DEEP CUT, OR
SUITABLE BEARING AS DETERMINED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER,
BUILD MSE BERM TO EL. 770 FROM STA. 23+00 TO STA. 30+00
5. BUILD CHIMNEY DRAIN AND BACKSLOPE FILL TO MATCH GRADES
INCREMENTALLY; DO NOT OPERATE EQUIPMENT ABOVE DRAIN
6. INSTALL SLOPE MONITORING DEVICES AND BEGIN OBSERVATION
OF MOVEMENTS AND WATER LEVELS BEHIND THE BERM
SPECIAL NOTES:
A) EXPECT VERY HARD SOILS AND POSSIBLE ROCK-LIKE
CONDITIONS FOR DEEPER FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS
B) GROUNDWATER LIKELY MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, POSSIBLY
REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS
C) SPLIT-FACE BERM DESIGN WAS DEVELOPED PER OWNER'S
REQUEST TO ALLOW MIDSLOPE ACCESS ROAD
D) THIS DESIGN MODIFICATION PROVIDES A NATURAL BREAK
IN SCHEDULE, ALLOWING OBSERVATION OF CRITICAL SECTION
BEFORE STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION
E) FOUNDATION FOR SPLIT SECTION (STA. 23+00 TO STA 30+00)
WILL SIT ON A ROCKY RIDGE REMNANT OF ORIGINAL GROUND,
ALL SURFACES DEPICTED IN THESE VIEWS RESULTED FROM GRADE
CUTS OR ARE NATURAL GROUND EXCEPT AS NOTED; COMPOSITE
BASE GRADES PER AS-BUILT DRAWINGS (MINIMAL FILL IS PRESENT)
RIPARIAN
BUFFER
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSCALE IN FEET 1"=20'
0 10 20 40 80
ME-10 FOUNDATION PLAN (1)
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
END STAGE 1
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
B-17
B1900
B1700
B2000
B1800
˅ 747.0 ˅ 745.5 ˅ 751.5 ˅ 750.0 ˅ 748.5B2100
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE
EXCAVATION TO FOUNDATION GRADE
BACK OF MSE BERM IS
NEW EDGE OF WASTE
COMPOSITE BASE GRADES DEPICTED IN THIS VIEW ARE CUT
SLOPES (PER AS-BUILT DRAWINGS) OR NATURAL GROUND

PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
B-19
EX. CUT SLOPES UNDERLAIN BY SANDROCK
100 YEAR FLOODLINE
MW-6
SEE STEP 4 ON DRAWING ME-12
ALL SURFACES DEPICTED IN THIS VIEW ARE GRADE
CUTS OR NATURAL GROUND EXCEPT AS NOTED
(MINIMAL FILL IS PRESENT)
TENTATIVE BASELINE
CDLF PHASE LINESTEP 3 CONSTRUCTION
13. BUILD MSE FROM STATIONS 23+00 TO 30+00
14. CONTINUE MSE FROM STATIONS 23+00 TO 13+65
WORKING NORTHWARD USING SELECT SANDROCK
15. TERMINATE AT APPROX. ELEV. 770
16. REVERSE DIRECTION FOR STAGE 2 (STEP 4)
17. SEE DRAWINGS ME-2, ME-3 AND ME-4
18. ADHERE TO SPECIFICATIONS AND CQA PLAN
THOUGHOUT ALL WORK
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'
0 10 20 40 80
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALME-11 FOUNDATION PLAN 2
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
B-14
˄ 76
5.0
˄ 766.5
˄ 769.5
˄ 7
7
1.0
˄ 7
7
2.5 ˄ 7
7
4.0
˄ 7
7
5.5
˄ 7 7 8 .5
˄ 780.0 ˄ 781.5 ˄ 783.0 ˄ 784.5 ˄ 777.0
STEP 2 CONSTRUCTION
END OF STAGES 1 & 2
CONSTRUCTION
STATION 34+20
B-31
B-24
˄ 768.0
12. WORK INCREMENTALLY TO THE
WEST AND NORTH; APPLY FINAL
COVER AND SURFACE DRAINS IN
2-ACRE SECTIONS
7. BUILD MSE FROM STATIONS 30+00 TO 35+00
8. SCHEDULE ACTVITIES TO MINIMIZE HANDLNG
OF EXCAVATED SOILS AND WASTES

9. SEE DRAWINGS ME-4, ME-5 AND ME-6
10. TERMINATE AT APPROX. ELEV. 770 (STAGE 1)
11. BUILD STAGE 2 WITH CONCURRENT WASTE
PLACEMENT TO FINISHED GRADES
EX. PERIMETER ROAD
STEPPED FOUNDATION
GRADES W/ TENTATIVE
ELEVATIONS AND
CONTOURS
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE
EXCAVATION TO GRADE
PERMITTED EDGE OF WASTE
BACK OF MSE BERM IS
NEW EDGE OF WASTE
EXISTING EMBANKMENT
FILL AND/OR SOFT GROUND;
MAY REQUIRE UNDERCUT
˅ 756.0˅ 754.5˅ 753.0˅ 757.5B2200
B2300
B2400
B2500
EX. PERIMETER ROAD
"START" STAGES 1 & 2
CONSTRUCTION
STATION 13+65
SEE DRAWING ME-10
FOR SEQUENCING
EX. GEOTEXTILE
REINFORCED EMBANKMENT
STEP 4 CONSTRUCTION
18. THIS SECTION IS BUILT LAST TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO UPSTATION AREAS
19. REVERSE DIRECTION FROM STATION 13+65
TO WORKING SOUTHWARD
20. FOR STAGE 2 BUILD MSE USING SELECT
SANDROCK, EXTENDING TO STATION 34+20
21. TERMINATE AT APPROX. ELEV. 800
22. SOLID WASTE PLACEMENT BEHIND THE MSE
SHOULD BE CONCURRENT
ALL SURFACES DEPICTED
IN THIS VIEW ARE GRADE
CUTS OR NATURAL GROUND
EXCEPT AS NOTED
(MINIMAL FILL IS PRESENT)
PROPOSED CUT TO FACILITATE
EXCAVATION TO GRADE
STEPPED FOUNDATION GRADES WITH
TENTATIVE ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'
0 10 20 40 80
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALME-12 FOUNDATION PLAN (3)
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
13+60740750760770780790800B25000+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-60-7014+608007407507607707807901+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-6040 506015+608007407507607707807902+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-6040 506016+608007507607707807907403+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706019+607207307407507607707807907107006906806706606506406306+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706080022+607207307407507607707807107006906806707909+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706080018+607207307407507607707807905+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706080017+608007407507607707807904+00.000 10 20 300-10-20-30-40-50-6040 506021+607207307407507607707807907107006906806706608008+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-70608007207307407507607707807907+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706020+6023+4067068069070071072073074075076077078010+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-7060790800LEGENDB-14B-7B-6B-24B-31B1800B1900B2000B2100B2200B2300B2400B2500B-35B-36B-37B-38B-41B-40B-39B-17B1700B-19GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L S1 - CROSS SECTIONS (1) 10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
24+4072073074075076077078068069070071011+00.000 10 20 30 40 50-800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9079080025+4068069070071072073074075076077078012+00.000 10 20 30 40 50-800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9079080071072073074075076077078079015+00.000 10 20 30 40-100 -800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9028+0080071072073074075076077078080014+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706027+0079070073074075076077078079080016+00.000 10 20 30 40-100 -800-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-9029+0081082083074075076077078079080017+00.000 10 20 30 400-10-20-30-40-50-60-7030+2050706081082083073072084026+4065072073074075076077078067068069070071066013+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706079080075076077078079080081034+1020+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706082083084085032+4082083074075076077078079080081019+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-706084085031+4073074075076077078079080018+00.000 10 20 30 40 50 700-10-20-30-40-50-60-7060810820830LEGENDB-14B-7B-6B-24B-31B1800B1900B2000B2100B2200B2300B2400B2500B-35B-36B-37B-38B-41B-40B-39B-17B1700B-19GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L S2 - CROSS SECTIONS (2) 10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
B2500GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
30' STAGE 130' STAGE 2LEGENDS3 - CROSS SECTIONS (3) 10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
S5 CRITICAL SECTIONS REVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION (E&S) CONTROLS
SHOWN HERE WERE PERMITTED CA. 2002 BY
NC DEPT. OF ENERGY, MINING & NATURAL
RESOURCES, DEMNR (FMR. DLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION, UNDER FORMER MINE PERMIT #41-22
MSE BERM BACKSLOPEXSECTION 3
STA 30+42
XSECTION 1
STA 26+48
XSECTION 2
STA 16+37
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
PERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARY
200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACK
XSECTION 1
STA 26+48 NORTH END
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSTAGE 4
STAGE 3
STAGE 2
STAGE 1
STAGE 0 - AS PERMITTED
XSECTION 2
STA 16+37 NORTH END
XSECTION 3
STA 30+42 NORTH END
S6 SECTIONS THRU WASTE
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009
10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009EC1 - E&S DETAILS (1)
10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGYREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009EC2 - E & S DETAILS (2)
SEDIMENT BASINSTHE PERMANENT SEDIMENT BASIN (SB-1) LOCATED WEST OF THE LANDFILL SHALL SERVE AS THE PRIMARY SEDIMENT BASIN THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. THE SEDIMENT BASIN WILL BE CONVERTED TO A PERMANENT STORM WATER QUALITY BASIN AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION. THE BASIN SHALL BE INSPECTED AND CLEANED OUT OR MAINTAINED AS NEEDED PRIOR TO INITIATING SITE-WIDE GRADING WORK. THE OUTLET STRUCTURES WILL REMAIN IN PLACE INDEFINITELY. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REFURBISH THE BASIN BY REPLACING THE BARREL OR RISER STRUCTURES. SEE OUTLET STRUCTURE REPAIR PROCEDURE. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEGENERAL GRADING AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES - UPGRADE EXISTING CHANNELS LEADING TO SB-1 TO DESIGN DIMENSIONS AND PLACE CHANNEL LINER PER THE SCHEDULE. INSTALL TEMPORARY MEASURES AND REMOVE SEDIMENT BUILDUP IN SB-1. PLACE AND COMPACT COVER SOIL ON SIDE SLOPES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. CONSTRUCT PERMANENT CAP DIVERSION BERMS AT 2 PERCENT GRADES (SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS) AND INSTALL SLOPE DRAIN PIPES. BE SURE TO COMPACT ALL SOIL WORK AND INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ON SLOPE DRAINS. VERY IMPORTANT - VEGETATE SLOPES USING STRAW MULCH AND TACK AS SOON AS SECTIONS ARE COMPLETED TO CURTAIL EROSION. REFER TO THE SEEDBED PREPARATION NOTES AND SEEDING SCHEDULE. A NURSE CROP OF RYE AND OTHER SHORT-TERM VEGETATION MAY BE REQUIRED. IF EXCESSIVE WET OR DRY WEATHER CONDITIONS PREVAIL DURING CONSTRUCTION, COVER THE SLOPES WITH TEMPORARY WOODY MULCH COVER IS ADVISED, THEN FOLLOW UP DURING MORE FAVORABLE WEATHER BY PLOWING THE MULCH INTO THE TOPSOIL AND SEEDING IN A TYPICAL MANNER WITH SOIL AMENDMENTS, SEED, STRAW MULCH AND TACK.SOIL BORROW ACTIVITIES - INSTALL TEMPORARY MEASURES (E.G., SILT FENCE) AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS, FOLLOWED BY CLEARING AND GRUBBING FOR NEW EMBANKMENT AND CONVEYANCES. PLACE ALL MEASURES INTO SERVICE PRIOR TO INITIATING FULL-SCALE GRADING ACTIVITIES. DURING DISPOSAL OPERATIONS - AS WASTE SLOPES BECOME POSITIVE (ABOVE THE ELEVATIONS OF THE PERIMETER CHANNELS), USE VEGETATION AND/OR WOODY MULCH TO STABILIZE INTERIM COVER SOIL. WORK THE LANDFILL IN SMALL INCREMENTS TO MINIMIZE EXPOSED SLOPE AREAS - IDEALLY, THE WORKING FACE SHOULD BE KEPT TO A HALF-ACRE IN SIZE. ONCE AN AREA IS BROUGHT TO FINAL GRADE, IT SHOULD BE CLOSED WITH APPROVED COVER. INTERIM COVER SHALL BE APPLIED AND VEGETATED OR COVERED WITH WOODY MULCH IN AREAS THAT WILL NOT RECEIVE ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY FOR 20 DAYS, OR MORE. INSPECTIONS - DURING ALL PHASES OF OPERATIONS, INSPECT THE SEDIMENT BASINS AND/OR OTHER MEASURES FOR EXCESS SEDIMENT BUILDUP OR DAMAGE. INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED WEEKLY OR AFTER ANY RAINFALL EVENT MEASURING IN EXCESS OF ONE-HALF INCH WITHIN 24 HOURS. REMOVE EXCESS SEDIMENT AND/OR MAKE REPAIRS AS NEEDED. INSPECT SLOPES FREQUENTLY AND CORRECT OBVIOUS EROSION PROBLEMS. CONVERTING SEDIMENT BASIN TO STORM WATER QUALITY PONDAFTER THE SITE IS STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION, INCLUDING THE DAM AND SIDE SLOPES WITHIN THE BASIN, THE BASIN SHALL BE INSPECTED AND ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT REMOVED. REPAIR ANY EROSION AND UPGRADE STONE ENERGY DISSIPATERS AND/OR VEGETATIVE COVER AS NEEDED. ENSURE THAT THE POND DRAIN IS FUNCTIONAL (MAKE SURE THE DRAIN IS SHUT). REMOVE ANY ACCUMULATED DEBRIS FROM THE TRASH RACK AND/OR RISER PIPE AND CHECK THE SECURITY OF THE RISER PIPE AND TRASH RACK. ENSURE ALL ENERGY DISSIPATERS, INCLUDING INLETS TO BASIN THAT EXTEND TO BOTTOM, ARE IN PLACE. ENSURE ALL PIPES, INLETS, GRATES, AND APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONAL. PROCEDURE FOR REPLACING A PIPE OR RISER/BARREL STRUCTURE IF A PIPE OR SEDIMENT BASIN RISER/BARREL STRUCTURE FAILS OR MUST BE REFURBISHED, THE STRUCTURE MAY BE TEMPORARILY BYPASSED DURING THE REPAIRS VIA PUMPING TO A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP. THIS SHOULD BE PERFORMED DURING A TIME OF FAIR WEATHER. PIPE INLETS SHOULD BE BLOCKED AND RUNOFF DIVERTED TO AN APPROVED MEASURE. REMOVAL - DEWATER THE BASIN (IF NEEDED), INSTALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES (E.G., SILT FENCING, TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, DIVERSION SWALES AND/OR BERMS), THEN REMOVE SEDIMENT BUILD-UP. EXCAVATION SPOILS SHOULD BE STOCKPILED AWAY FROM THE DIRECT FLOW EXPOSURE AND ALLOWED TO DRAIN, THEN REMOVE OR UTILIZE ON-SITE. REPLACEMENT - THE DAMAGED PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND REPLACED WITH EQUAL OR BETTER MATERIALS AS THE ORIGINAL. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED AND VEGETATED IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION. IF THE ENERGY DISSIPATERS ARE DISTURBED, E.G., RIP-RAP APRONS, THAT WORK SHALL BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL OR BETTER CONDITION. THE ENGINEER SHALL EVALUATE SUITABILITY OF ORIGINAL MATERIALS FOR REUSE. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVENOTIFICATIONSPRIOR TO COMMENCING EARTH WORK IN ANY CRITICAL AREAS, E.G., NEAR STREAM BUFFERS OR WETLANDS FEATURES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE NCDEQ DIVISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, WATER QUALITY SECTION AND NC DEPT, OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND LAND RESOURCES (NC DEMLR) DIV. OF LAND QUALITY, LAND QUALITY SECTION AND THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR AN INSPECTION OF SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. NO GROUND DISTURBING WORK SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHOUT PROPER MEASURES IN PLACE. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE KEPT INFORMED OF ALL NEW WORK.GENERALALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE RULES AND GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SEDIMENTATION CONTROL LAW, AS ADMINISTERED BY NC DEPT, OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND LAND RESOURCES (NC DEMLR) LAND QUALITY SECTION AND GUILFORD COUNTY PLANNING. CRITICAL SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FEATURES, E.G., CLEARING LIMITS, SEDIMENT TRAPS, GRADED CHANNELS, BASINS, OUTLET STRUCTURES, LEVEL SPREADERS, ETC., SHALL BE FIELD STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR OTHER PARTY APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO PLAN DIMENSIONS. ALL WORK SHALL PROCEED IN A METHODICAL AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER. THE OWNER/OPERATOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ANY REQUIRED LAND DISTURBING PERMITS AND PAYING FEES. THIS S&EC PLAN DESCRIBES TEMPORARY AS WELL AS PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. THIS PLAN ASSUMES THAT ALL DESIGNED MEASURES WILL BE INSTALLED. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS ARE ALLOWABLE WITH THE ADVANCE PERMISSION OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BY GUILFORD COUNTY. IF ANY MEASURES ARE FOUND INADEQUATE, A REVIEW OF THE MEASURES AS CONSTRUCTED SHALL BE PERFORMED TO ENSURE ADHERENCE TO THE PLANS. THEN, IF NEEDED, ADDITIONAL DESIGNS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO NC DEMLR LAND QUALITY SECTION FOR REVIEW. SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATIONS FROM THIS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED IN ADVANCE BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE LAND QUALITY SECTION O`R GUILFORD COUNTY PLANNING. SILT FENCINGADEQUATE SILT FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE PLANS SHOW THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AREAS INTENDED FOR SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION. THE SILT FENCE SHALL BE OF THE TYPE DESIGNATED IN THE PLANS, UNLESS THE ENGINEER APPROVES A SUBSTITUTE. PREFABRICATED SILT FENCING ATTACHED TO WOODEN STAKES WILL NOT BE APPROVED - ONLY METAL POSTS AND WIRE-BACKED SILT FENCING WILL BE ACCEPTABLE. THE BASE OF THE FABRIC SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN A TRENCH PER THE PLANS AND AN APPROVED BACKFILL USED TO SECURE THE FABRIC. OUTLETS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, OR AS DESIGNATED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD (EOR). DIVERSIONS DITCHES AND SOIL BERMSTEMPORARY AND PERMANENT DIVERSION DITCHES (SWALES) AND SOIL BERMS ARE REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO CONVEY SURFACE RUNOFF. ALL DITCHES SHALL BE BUILT TO THE DIMENSIONS AND GIVEN THE CHANNEL-LINING MATERIAL SPECIFIED IN THIS PLAN, UNLESS THE ENGINEER HAS APPROVED AN ALTERNATIVE. ALL SOIL BERMS SHALL BE BUILT TO THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SOIL SHALL BE COMPACTED AND STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL DITCHES AND SOIL BERMS MAY BE REQUIRED. ALL WATER-DIVERSION STRUCTURES, WHETHER SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR ADDED AS A FIELD ADJUSTMENT, SHALL BE MADE TO DRAIN TO AN APPROVED MEASURE. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPSSEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL CONFORM TO NC DEMLR LAND QUALITY SECTION STANDARDS AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN THE PLANS DURING THE EARLY STAGES OF CLEARING. ASSOCIATED DITCHES AND SILT FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF LOCATIONS MAY BE ALLOWABLE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE CLEANED OUT AND MAINTAINED AS NEEDED FOR AS LONG AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY. ALL EARTHWORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE VEGETATED UPON COMPLETION. THE TRAPS MAY BE LEFT IN PLACE INDEFINITELY, OR, ONCE THE ENGINEER DEEMS A TRAP TO BE OBSOLETE, IT MAY BE REMOVED AND THE GROUND RESTORED TO PROMOTE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND VEGETATION ESTABLISHED IMMEDIATELY AT THE SITE OF ANY ABANDONED TRAPS. NOTES:1 Maximum allowable soil storage depth is 3.5 feet per NC Division of Land Quality regulations2 Bottom geometry may be adjusted to reflect field conditions, but must provide minimum volume at maximum allowable height3 * Anticipated based on site geometry, may be adjusted to reflect actual field conditions4 Use 2H:1V side slopes inside and outside basin, vegetate slopes as soon as practical 5 Make width of berm and weir at crest minimum 3 feet, compact soil per specifications6 **Minimum length required to pass design storm7 Line overflow face with rip-rap (d50 = 12 inches), underlain by geotextile with water stops8 ***Provide minimum 1.5 feet of freeboard9 Clean basin once every 6 months as required. Basin shall be inspected after each rainfall event. Side slope vegetation shall be maintained in good condition. 10 Line temporary ditches leading to traps with high velocity excelsior or TRMCHANNEL DESIGN SCHEDULEChannel recommendations based on Normal-Depth Procedure calculationsPerimeter Drained Maximum Channel Slope Pk. Runoff Peak Flow Normal Velocity Max. Shear Channel Required Channel DimensionsChannelChannel Area, ac. Relief, ft. Length, ft. ft./ft. in/hrQ25, cfs Flow Depth Q25, fps Stress, psf Type bot. widthmin. depth top width side slope Liner Req.1A 6.52 130 500 6.0% 8.29 12 0.45 7.5 1.8 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1V TRM/veg.1B 6.52 130 350 1.2% 8.29 18 0.72 4.1 0.6 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1V TRM/veg.2 7.24 142 550 2.4% 8.29 20 0.63 5.4 1.0 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1VTRM/veg.3 7.94 156 550 3.4% 8.29 22 0.59 6.5 1.3 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1VTRM/veg.4A 1.02 54 400 6.3% 8.29 3 0.29 3.6 1.2 Trapezoidal 2 1 8 3H:1V TRM/veg.4B 1.81 64 350 2.3% 8.29 6 0.44 3.1 0.7 Trapezoidal 3 1 9 3H:1V TRM/veg.5 2.58 74 600 2.0% 8.29 6 0.49 3.0 0.6 Trapezoidal 4 1 10 3H:1V TRM/veg.6 12.48 146 600 1.0% 8.29 37 0.82 4.3 0.5 Trapezoidal 8 1 14 3H:1V TRM/veg.7A 1.08 30 170 4.7% 8.29 4 0.28 3.8 0.9 Trapezoidal 2 1 8 3H:1V TRM/veg.7B 1.08 30 600 2.0% 8.29 4 0.42 2.8 0.6 Trapezoidal 2 1 8 3H:1V Grass/ECBDown Drained Maximum Channel Slope Pk. Runoff Peak Flow Normal Velocity Max. Shear Channel Required Channel DimensionsChannelChannel Area, ac. Relief, ft. Length, ft. ft./ft. in/hrQ25, cfs Flow Depth Q25, fps Stress, psf Type bot. widthmin. depth top width side slope Liner Req.DC1 12.48 146 120 28.0% 8.29 37 0.39 10.3 6.3 Trapezoidal 8 2 203H:1V Rip-RapDC2 15.20 156 100 20.0% 8.29 43 0.46 10 5.6 Trapezoidal 8 2 20 3H:1V Rip-RapDiversion Drained Maximum Channel Slope Pk. Runoff Peak Flow Normal Velocity Max. Shear Channel Bottom Min. TopSideChannelBrm/Swale Area, ac. Relief, ft. Length, ft. ft./ft. in/hr Q25, cfs Flow Depth Q25, fps Stress, psf Type Width Depth Width Slope Liner Req.DBS1 0.64 4 330 2.0% 8.29 2 0.31 2.3 0.4 Trapezoidal 1 1 13 6H:1VGrass/ECBDBS2 0.64 4 300 2.0% 8.29 2 0.31 2.3 0.4 Trapezoidal 1 1 13 6H:1VGrass/ECBDBS3 0.64 4 250 2.0% 8.29 2 0.31 2.3 0.4 Trapezoidal 1 1 13 6H:1VGrass/ECBChannel Liner and Erosion Protection Notes:1 TRM is synthetic turf reinforcement mat (TRM) and vegetation used as permanent channel liner, e.g., EnkaMat, Recyclex, or equivalent2 Rip-rap is quarry stone with d50 = 12 inch, or other suitable natural or man-made material, underlain by geotextile with water stops spaced on 75- foot centers 3 ECB is high velocity excelsior or synthetic erosion control blanket used as a temporary channel liner to promote the development of vegetation4 Stone check dams shall be provided above channel liner, sized appropriate to channel depth, with spacings as directed by the engineer to overlap in the vertical dimension5 Outlets for down-pipes shall be protected with rip-rap apron (see dimensions shown in Down Pipe Schedule and energy dissipater details)6 Inspect all channels frequently, especially after significant rainfall events, and repair any erosion or upgrade channel liners as neededREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009EC3 - E&S SCHEDULESSEDIMENT TRAP DESIGN SCHEDULE25-year, 24-hour storm Sediment Trap No. I K MDisturbed drainage area, acres 2.18 5.04 2.23Min. Req' Soil Volume (1800 f^3/ac), cf 3,924 9,072 4,014Design Soil Storage Volume, cf 4,043 9,240 2,646Req'd Surface Area (0.01 * Qp), s.f. 4,356 3,049 3,049Design Surface Area, s.f. 1,155 2,640 756Design Storm EventQ25 Q25 Q2524-hour Precipitation, inches 6.41 6.41 6.41Peak Runoff Intensity, in/hr 8.29 8.29 8.29Peak Runoff Flow, Qp, cfs 10 7 7Basin Bottom Dimensions, length, ft. 35 60 27width, ft. 33 44 28Basin Bottom Elevation* 727.0 765.0 770.0Maximum Basin Depth 3.5 3.5 3.5Overflow Weir Length, feet ** 16 15 12Overflow Weir Elevation*** 730.5 768.5 773.5Perimeter Rim Elevation*** 732.0 770.0 775.0Overflow water velocity, fps 1.3 0.9 1.2(must be less than 4 fps)DOWN PIPE DESIGN SCHEDULEPipe Pipe Diam. Type Length Slope Design Drained Each Bench Inlet Each Bench Outlet Outlet Structure Stone d50 Pipe-end Far-end LengthNo. Do, inches feet ft./ft. flow, cfs Bench Diam., in. Type Flow, cfs Vel., fps Type inches W1, ft. W2, ft. L, ft.DP 1a 18 CPE 100 30.0% 8 A - west 18Projecting pipe*20.2 17.6 Projecting pipe end with30" mixed w/4.5 22.5 18rip-rap apron on 3:1 slope 12 to 24"DP 1b 18 CPE 100 30.0% 6 B - west 18 Projecting pipeConverges with DC-2DP 1c 18 CPE 100 30.0% 5 C - west 18 Projecting pipe(see Energy Dissipater Detail)DP 1d 18 CPE 100 30.0% 3 D - west 18 Projecting pipeDP 2a 18 CPE 60 30.0% 8 A - north 18Projecting pipe*21.4 17.6 Projecting pipe end with30" mixed w/4.5 24.5 20rip-rap apron on 2% slope 12 to 24"DP 2b 18 CPE 110 30.0% 7 B - north 18 Projecting pipeConverges with PerimeterDP 2c 18 CPE 120 30.0% 5 C - north 18 Projecting pipe Channel #6DP 2d 18 CPE 110 30.0% 4 D - north 18 Projecting pipe (see Energy Dissipater Detail)DP 3c 18 CPE 110 30.0% 6 C - east 18Projecting pipe*11.4 17.6 Projecting pipe end with30" mixed w/4.5 16.5 12rip-rap apron on 2% slope 12 to 24"DP 3d 12 CPE 110 30.0% 4 D - east 18 Projecting pipeConverges with PerimeterDP 3e 12 CPE 110 30.0% 2 final cap 12 Flared-end Channel #6(see Energy Dissipater Detail)Notes: Rip-rap apron end-width dimensions may be adjusted reflect field conditionsPlace rip-rap up side slopes of ditch and completely surrounding the pipe endUse Class B rip-rap; place rip-rap in two interlocking layers, larger particles laid down first, with a minimum thickness of 2 feetExcavate below ditch line and widen receiving channel as needed to install rip-rap apron for positive drainageProvide geotextile erosion blanket (minimum 8 o.s.y., non-woven) underneath stone, with water stops placed at 25 feet centers (minimum of one); water stop shall be at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deepUse Hancor Sur-Lok F477, or equivalent, corregated polyethylene pipe and fittings (e.g., Tee's and Wye's) with bell and spigot joints and rubber gaskets.Follow pipe manufacturer's installation guidelines. Be sure all joints are secure and leakproof. Stake the pipe, if needed, to prevent horizontal movement while exposed. The waste surface may be trenched to secure pipe, but provide minimum 2 feet of soil cover between waste and all sides of pipe (requires 4-foot deep trench).Bury pipe under minimum 2 feet of soil cover to provide permanent installation. Compact all backfill and final cover by tamping (avoid damaging the pipe).Provide rip-rap protection around side-slope bench inlets to prevent erosion; bury pipe a minimum of 24 inches of stone if using a "tee". See details for filter construction.* Consists of a "tee" for drainage from both directions; place a circular, fitted grate over the end of the pipe to serve as a trash rack.Pipe diameters given above are considered minimum; e.g., on Down Pipe 3, a constant diameter of 18 inches may be used10 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
HICKORY CREEKMW-1MW-3MW-6MW-2MW-4GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SITE PLAN NOTES 1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 2001 2. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS 3. TOP OF WASTE CONTOURS BASED ON EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH 4. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH FORMER MINING PERMIT 47-22 WHICH WERE APPROVED BY NORTH CAROLINA DEPTARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL SCALE IN FEET 1"=75'0 25 50 100 200 400 600SILT FENCEFACILITY BOUNDARY100 YEAR FLOODPLAINCOLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT 50' RIPARIAN BUFFERSANITARY SEWER EASEMENTDIVERSION BERM/CHANNELPHASE BOUNDARYGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLMSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.MSE BERM BASELINE STATIONMSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTEC4 - FINAL COVER E&SREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
CLUSTER #15CLUSTER #14CLUSTER #16DDDDD
D
CLUSTER #2CLUSTER #3CLUSTER #4CLUSTER #1CLUSTER #11CLUSTER #10CLUSTER #9CLUSTER #8ALL SLOPE MONITORING LOCATIONS ARE TENTATIVECLUSTER #7CLUSTER #6CLUSTER #5CLUSTER #13CLUSTER #12GINED ARRVIDGATROF.GRNOHCARO ESEAL25462ENESESIOTTLIAN RPN A L
SCALE IN FEET 1"=20'0 10 20 40 80M1 - SLOPE MONITORINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVDATE JOB NO. PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTIONAFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDGMCR08-12-2019 18-8009.0018-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-800910 2030TENTHSINCHES1 2 3DWG SIZEREVISIONDRAWING NO.FILENAME:DWG TYPE:JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DES:CHKD:ENGR:APPD:AFEDCB23457864578 9 106AFCB22"x34"ANSI DSEALFOR REGULATORY REVIEW6468-18-8008 AS NOTEDGDGGDGBJULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSEDFTR:A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLFMECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC PERMIT 4117-CDLF-20085105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE [e-mail]. [phone]RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATESENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
SILT FENCE
FACILITY BOUNDARY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
50' RIPARIAN BUFFER
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
DIVERSION BERM/CHANNEL
PHASE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT
LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINT
EARLIER TEST BORING
RECENT TEST BORING
RECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER
1. BOUNDARY SURVEY BY DENNIS LEE, PLS, CA. 2001
2. PH 2 GRADE SURVEYS BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
3. TOP OF WASTE SHOWN IN PHASE 1 BASED ON
EARLIER SURVEYS BY BOTH
4. TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 2A BASED ON
PERMITTED FINAL GRADES
5. AMBIENT TOPOGRAPHY FROM GUILFORD CO. GIS
6. ROADWAY AND EX. SLOPES BEHIND FUTURE MSE
BERM IN PHASES 1 AND 2 SURVEYED JAN 2018
BY CLINT OSBORN, PLS
SCALE IN FEET
MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BASELINE STATION
7. E & S CONTROL MEASURES DEPICTED HERE ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THOSE APPROVED BY NC DEPT.
OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
LAND QUALITY SECTION, PER MINING PERMIT 47-22
MSE BERM BACKSLOPE
MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINTMW-5
SW-4
SW-1
SW-3
SW-2
MW-1
MW-2
MW-4
MW-6
MW-3
MSE BERM FOOTPRINT
PERMITTED WASTE BOUNDARY
200-FOOT PROPERTY SETBACK
SILT FENCE
FACILITY BOUNDARY
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
COLONIAL PIPELINE EASEMENT
50' RIPARIAN BUFFER
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
DIVERSION BERM/CHANNEL
PHASE BOUNDARY
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT
LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING POINT
EARLIER TEST BORING
RECENT TEST BORING
RECENT BORING WITH PIEZOMETER
MSE BERM FOUNDATION ELEV.
MSE BERM BASELINE STATION
MSE BERM BASE FOOTPRINT
LG-5
LG-2
LG-3
LG-7
LG-4
LG-12
LG-6
LG-1
LG-11
LG-9
LG-8
LG-10
GIN ED
A R RVIDGA
T
ROF
.GRNOH CARO
E
SEAL
25462
EN E
SESIO
TTLI
AN
RPN
ALSCALE IN FEET 1"=100'
0 50 100 200 400 600
M2 - ENVIRONM'L MONITORING
10 20 30TENTHSINCHES123
DWG SIZE REVISIONDRAWING NO.
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
22"x34"
ANSI D
SEAL
FOR REGULATORY REVIEW
6468-18-8008
AS NOTED
GDG
GDG
B
JULY 13, 2018; REV. JAN 25, 2019
A-1 SANDROCK MASTER DRAWING MSE
DFTR:
A-1 SANDROCK, INC., CDLF
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH BERM PTC
PERMIT 4117-CDLF-2008
5105 HARBOUR TOWNE DRIVE
[e-mail]
TEL. [phone]
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID GARRETT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
A FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
FACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG ISSUED FOR PERMITTINGBFACILITY PLAN GDG GDG GDG
MCR
08-12-2019 18-8009.001
8-12-2019MCR6468-18-800904-01-2018 MCR04-01-2018 6468-18-8009