7607-GreatOakMSWLF_Comment_CQArpt_Vol1_Cell3B4&5_FID1417258_20200629

1
Chao, Ming-tai
To:[e-mail]; Jonathan Usher; Jeff Helvey; Raphael Debaty
Cc:Harrison, Susan; Kirchner, Chuck; Stanley, Sherri
Subject:Comments on CQA Rpt-Vol. 1, Great Oak MSWLF- Phase 1, Cell 3B, 4 & 5, 76-07
Dear all:

FID XXX
After completing a review of the CQA report – Volume 1 dated 06/23/2020 (FID 1416698), the Solid Waste
Section has few comments below:

1. (Section 2.1) The property owner is Randolph County, North Carolina, and Waste Management
of Carolinas, Inc. is the operator.

2. (Section 3.1.2) The total quantity of the structural fill material is used for constructing the design
landfill subgrades. The requested quantity will be used to confirm that the number of required
test frequency of each test reported in Appendix E.

Appendix A
3. (Subgrade as-built survey)
i. Please provide the certified acreage of the as-built cell limits.
ii. Add the elevations to the 10-foot contours.

Appendix E
4. The table of “Summary of CQA Conformance Testing Requirements” reports 65 in-place density
tests – Density (Subgrade) are performed, but no test data is available in the CQA report. Please
provide the test data/results including the drawings of test locations.

5. Please provide the copies of the standard proctor results (ASTM D698) for the following
samples: SF-1H through SF-9H and SF-10 which are presented in Appendix F and some are used
as the standard for calculating compaction efforts.

Appendix F
6. Please re-check the data and calculations of dry density & compaction effort of the following test
samples – SFD-4 through SFD-9 dated 04/06/2020. Additionally, the compaction efforts of the
samples – SFD-7 & SFD-8 are less than the specified 95% of maximum dry density; please
explain why the test results are permissible, or samples were rested and passed the specified
criteria which may be discussed in Section 3.1.

Please contact me if you need further clarification on the above-mentioned comments. Thanks.

2