8103_8105_Rutherford_CDLF_Phase2_Permit_GeotechnicalReport_FID1527953_20210205

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
EVALUATION
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
C&D Landfill — Phase 2 Expansion
Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002
Prepared For:
Rutherford County Solid Waste Department
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J19-13675-01
`,Ip11 I11rrrlr,,
CA
n;,.••''Q� , of �'s si ' �
SEAL
1
042375 1 ,
r/j11g111i 1i11110
I�zi �24
January 21, 2021
BLE North Carolina Business Licenses C-284 & C-1538
is in IM BUNNELL
LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court I Greenville, 5C 29615
864.288,1265 Fall 864,288,4330 aff [e-mail]
BLECORMOM

8 U N N E L L
LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
January 21, 2021
McGilI Associates
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Attention: Mr, Mark Cathey, P.E.
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Evaluation
Phase 2 C&D Expansion
Rutherford County Landfill
Facility Permit Number 8103-CDLF-2002
Rutherford County, North Carolina
BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
Dear Mr. Cathey:
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE) is pleased to submit this report of the geotechnical evaluation for
the Phase 2 construction and demolition (C&D) landfill expansion area of Rutherford County Landfill. The
report addresses the geotechnical engineering evaluation of the long-term global stability, foundation
settlement of the completed waste mound, and the geotechnical components for the landfill design
prescribed by the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules 15A NCAC 13B.0538.(b). The attached
report describes the work performed and presents the results obtained.
Sincerely,
BUNNELL LAMMONS ENGINEERING INC.
BLE NC Business .License C-1538
��tttrtrprryr�lt
} � 55 Q,f71`�9r�%
,� f / ! ..•tea �:%� .
Cv/ iN
SEAL {
Gary . Weckley, P.E.:
Senior Engineer = '•, c
Registered, NC No. 825 P,
Copy: Mr. Andrew W. Alexander, P.G.
f �
SEAL r
r ,
Q4t r t
Tyler W. Moody, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Registered, NC No. 42375
' 6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615 �864.288.1265 PR64.298.4450 P infoaWe[orp,com
BLECORP.COM
i
09
MO
'4«",4,MOW,
1-21-el

1t 1m 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
January 21, 2021
BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION........................................................................................................1
2.0 FIELD & LABORATORY INVESTIGATION.......................................................................... I
2.1
Soil Test Boring and Sampling........................................................................................................ 2
2.2
Laboratory Testing........................................................................................................................... 2
2.3
Regional Geology............................................................................................................................ 2
2.4
Subsurface Conditions..................................................................................................................... 3
2.4.1
Residual Soils.................................................................................................................................. 3
2.4.2
Partially Weathered Rock................................................................................................................ 3
2.4.3
Groundwater.................................................................................................................................... 3
2.4.4
Bedrock............................................................................................................................................3
2.4.5
Laboratory Test Results................................................................................................................... 4
3.0
ENGINEERING ANALYSES...................................................................................................... 4
3.1
Global Slope Stability...................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1
Results of Global Stability Analysis................................................................................................ 5
3.1.2
Slope Stability Conclusion............................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Subgrade Settlement........................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1
Results of Settlement Analysis........................................................................................................ 6
4.0
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 6
4.1
Subgrade Preparation....................................................................................................................... 6
4.2
Excavation of Partially Weathered Rock......................................................................................... 7
4.3
Structural Fill................................................................................................................................... 7
5.0
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 8
6.0 CLOSING.......................................................................................................................................8
Appendices
Appendix A
Figures
Appendix B
Test Boring Records
Appendix C
Drilling and Sampling Procedures
Appendix D
Soil Laboratory Test Results
Appendix E
Soil Laboratory Test Procedures
Appendix F
Global Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix G
Subgrade Settlement Analysis
L

1t 1m 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The project information below was obtained from multiple in -person and telephone meetings and emails
between BLE, McGill Associates, Odom Engineering and Rutherford County.
The subject landfill site is in Rutherford County, North Carolina, between the cities of Rutherfordton and
Spindale with a physical address of 656 Laurel Hill Drive, Rutherfordton, North Carolina (Appendix A,
Figure 1). Rutherford County owns and operates an active C&D landfill consisting of one waste unit
designated Phase 1. The County plans to construct a new C&D waste unit in an approximate 5.5-acre area
designated Phase 2.
Rutherford County retained McGill Associates as design and permitting engineer for the project. Rutherford
County also retained BLE as a subconsultant to McGill Associates to provide design hydrogeologic services,
geotechnical engineering, and monitoring plan services. McGill Associates has defined the limits of the
approximate 5.5-acre expansion area and developed a conceptual design plan. BLE performed six (6) borings
and installed five (5) piezometers in the expansion area as part of the design hydrogeologic investigation and
design hydrogeological report (DHR). Our DHR will be provided under a separate cover to satisfy the
hydrogeologic and geologic requirements of 15A NCAC 13B.0538.(b).
Phase 2 will extend the waste footprint from existing Phase 1 to the north. Phase 2 will have final grades
ranging from approximate elevation 894 to 994 feet with perimeter slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3:1).
The existing ground surface slopes down from east to west across the Phase 2 area from approximately
elevation 958 to 906 feet. The final cap section over the waste will be 4 feet thick, in order from top down,
as follows:
18 inches Vegetative Layer
18 inches Low Permeability Layer (k < 1 x 10-5 cm/s)
12 inches Intermediate Cover
The prepared landfill subgrade will mainly consist of residual soil following excavation to achieve the landfill
design grades. Sections of the landfill will require compacted structural fill to achieve the design grades.
2.0 FIELD & LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The Phase 2 C&D area field investigation was conducted from June 2019 to April 2020. The investigation
of Phase 2 C&D expansion area has included:
• reviewing prior assessment reports for applicable data related to Phase 2 C&D,
• conducting soil test borings and rock coring borings,
• installing piezometers,
• collecting monthly water level measurements from the piezometers,
• conducting hydraulic conductivity (slug) testing in piezometers and
• performing soil laboratory testing.
A discussion of the investigative methodologies used in the site evaluation is provided below. The field
activities reported below were performed under the direction of a North Carolina licensed geologist and
engineer. A North Carolina licensed driller from BLE (d.b.a. Landprobe) of Greenville, South Carolina

1t 1m 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
performed the borings and piezometer installation during this phase of work. The new boring and
piezometer locations were surveyed for horizontal and vertical control, by a professional land surveyor
from McGill Associates of Asheville, North Carolina, after completion of the drilling activities.
2.1 Soil Test Boring and Sampling
Six soil test borings (B-40S, B-40D, B-41, B-42, B-43 and B-44) were performed by Landprobe during the
exploration for Phase 2. The new soil test boring locations and depths were selected to comply with the
applicable Section rules. Soil samples were obtained from the new soil test borings at 2.5-foot intervals within
the upper ten feet below the ground surface and at five-foot intervals deeper than ten feet below the ground
surface. Drilling operations during this current exploration used hollow -stem augers and rock coring
techniques.
Piezometers were installed in the boreholes for B-40S, B-40D, B-41, B-42 and B-44 to monitor
groundwater elevations.
Soil test boring logs were prepared in the field by a geologist. The soil descriptions were based on visual
examination and grain -size estimations in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Upon completion of laboratory grain -size and Atterberg Limit analyses, the preliminary field classifications
were adjusted accordingly on the final boring log records. The final boring log records are included in
Appendix B. The drilling techniques used for the Phase 2 exploration are presented in Appendix C.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing of soil samples was conducted to confirm the field classifications and quantify pertinent
engineering soil properties. Soil samples were collected using split -spoon samplers, Shelby tubes
(undisturbed) and auger cuttings (bulk samples). The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance
with applicable ASTM specifications, where available. Soil laboratory test results are summarized on
Table 1 along with the laboratory data reports in Appendix D. Descriptions of the test procedures are
included in Appendix E.
2.3 Regional Geology
The subject site is located within the Inner Piedmont geologic belt. The crystalline rocks of the Inner
Piedmont Belt occur in generally northeast -southwest trending geologic belts in the Carolinas, and consist
of a stack of highly metamorphosed thrust sheets bound on the northwest by the Brevard Shear Zone and
to the southeast by the Kings Mountain Shear Zone (Rhodes and Conrad, 1985; Garrett, 2007).
The Inner Piedmont includes high-grade metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks that have been
exposed to multiple deformations (Horton and Zullo, 1991). Rock types that resulted from the multiple
metamorphisms include gneiss, schist and amphibolite with northeast/southwest trending foliation with
varying degrees of dip. Quaternary -age sediments consisting of sand and gravel fill the stream valleys.
The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey and silty soils near the surface, where soil weathering is
more advanced, underlain by micaceous sandy silts and silty sands. Residual soil zones develop by the in
situ chemical weathering of bedrock and are commonly referred to as "saprolite." Saprolite usually consists
of micaceous sand with large rock fragments and lesser amounts of clay and silt. The boundary between
soil and rock is not sharply defined.
2of8

1t 1m 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
A transitional zone of partially weathered rock (PWR) is normally found overlying the parent bedrock.
Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration
resistance (ASTM D1586) in excess of 100 blows per foot (bpf). Fractures, joints and the presence of less
resistant rock types facilitate weathering. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock and
hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find
lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above
the general bedrock level.
2.4 Subsurface Conditions
The Phase 2 footprint is underlain by residual saprolite soils, partially weathered rock and bedrock in order
of increasing depth. A description of the subsurface materials encountered is provided below.
2.4.1 Residual Soils
Residual soils are the result of in -place weathering of the gneiss bedrock. The residual soils consist of
reddish -brown, grayish -brown, tan, and brown, non -micaceous to micaceous, silty, fine to medium sand,
with lesser amounts of silty clay, clayey silt, and sandy silt. Based on our Phase 2 area borings, the thickness
of residual soil ranges from 6 to 34 feet below ground surface with an average thickness of about 18 feet.
USCS classifications of these soils are typically SM or ML and less commonly SC and CL. Standard
penetration resistance (N-values) ranged from 8 to 63 blows per foot with an average value of 23, indicating
a very firm average consistency.
2.4.2 Partially Weathered Rock
The transition between soil and rock at the site is irregular and consists of partially weathered rock (PWR)
overlying the parent bedrock. The PWR consists primarily of gray, brownish -gray, and brown, micaceous
to very micaceous, silty, fine to coarse sand with variable amounts of gravel size rock fragments and
micaceous sandy silt. USCS classifications of these soils are typically SM and less commonly ML and SM.
Where encountered, the PWR zone was found to range in thickness from 0 to 16 feet, with an average
thickness of 6 feet. This zone also includes various float rock and boulders indicative of the variable
weathering patterns.
2.4.3 Groundwater
A map of the interpolated groundwater is presented on Figure 5, Appendix A. The estimated long term
seasonable high groundwater surface slopes downward from northeast to southwest across the Phase 2
expansion with elevations ranging from approximately 940 feet in the northeast area to 890 feet near the
southwestern corner of Phase 2. Perched water may also be encountered overlying areas of shallow partially
weathered rock and lenses of rock.
Ground -water levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall variations and changes in the water
level in adjacent drainage features. Normally, the highest ground -water levels occur in late winter and spring
and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall.
2.4.4 Bedrock
A map of the approximate bedrock surface (auger refusal) is presented on Figure 6, Appendix A. The
bedrock surface slopes downward across the Phase 2 expansion with elevations ranging from approximately
940 feet in the north central area to 880 feet near the southwestern corner of Phase 2. Auger refusal depths
3 of 8

1t 1m 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
may represent competent bedrock or possibly boulders of hard rock within the residual soil and partially
weathered rock units. The depth to auger refusal can vary even over short horizontal distances due to
boulders, fractures, joints and the presence of less resistant rock types. Therefore, the actual depth to
continuous bedrock may vary somewhat from that presented on Figure 6.
2.4.5 Laboratory Test Results
Laboratory testing to characterize the residual soils and partially weathered rock in the Phase 2 area were
performed on nine split -spoon samples, four undisturbed Shelby tube samples and three bulk samples in
our laboratory. Laboratory test results are presented and summarized in Appendix D.
The grain size distribution for tested residual soils ranged from 33 to 79 percent sand, 12 to 33 percent silt,
1 to 39 percent clay and 0 to 33 percent gravel size. The grain size distributions confirm the predominantly
sandy foundation soils in the Phase 2 area. The Atterberg limits for the tested samples varied from 38 to
43 percent for liquid limit and 21 to 28 percent for plastic limit with resulting plasticity indices ranging
from 13 to 19 percent. The Atterberg limits results indicate that the soils are low to moderately plastic.
The in situ moisture content of the tested samples ranged from 12 to 18 percent which is less than the plastic
range.
Hydraulic conductivity (permeability) tests were performed on both undisturbed samples and remolded
samples of auger boring cuttings. The undisturbed samples of sandy silt and sandy clay from the upper
5 feet below the existing ground surface yielded permeability test results from 1.5 x 10-4 to 4.0 x 10-7 cm/s.
The bulk samples of clayey sand, silty sand and very sandy clay collected from the upper 6 feet were
remolded to 95% of the respective standard Proctor maximum dry density and 2% wetter than the optimum
moisture content. The remolded permeability values varied from 6.5 x 10-6 to 1.1 x 10-6 cm/s.
The shear strength of the shallow site soils was measured with triaxial shear tests on both an undisturbed
sample of very sandy clay and a remolded sample of silty sand. For the undisturbed sample, the friction
angle, cp is 24 degrees for total stress and 36 degrees for effective stress conditions. The cohesion, c values
for the undisturbed sample are 0.44 ksf for total stress and 0.72 ksf for effective stress conditions. For the
remolded sample, the friction angle, cp is 15 degrees for total stress (undrained) and 30 degrees for effective
stress (drained) conditions and the cohesion, c value is 0.26 ksf for total stress and 0.59 ksf for effective
stress conditions.
The planned subgrade elevations within Phase 2 were unknown at the time or our exploration and lab
program as they were contingent upon the bedrock and groundwater elevations. Based on our review of
the provided landfill grades presented on Figure 3, Appendix A, the soil within 5 vertical feet of the
proposed landfill subgrade is anticipated to consist of residual soil with similar geotechnical properties to
the lab results provided in this report.
3.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES
The analyses of landfill-subgrade soil interaction and stability of the planned waste mound and closure cap
system layers have been based on the electronic drawings provided by McGill Associates in October 2020,
the geotechnical boring and laboratory test data presented with this report and our experience with similar
landfills. The analyses were performed and reviewed by registered professional engineers specializing in
geotechnical engineering of municipal solid waste landfills. The geotechnical analyses are presented in
Appendices F and G of this report.
4of8

1t 1m 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
3.1 Global Slope Stability
Analyses were performed considering static conditions for global slope stability of the final 3H:IV waste
mound. A summary of the analysis and the analysis results are provided in the following report sections.
Descriptions and conditions for the global slope stability analyses is provided in Appendix F of this report.
The site grading and waste placement conditions described in Appendix F form a significant part of the
basis of our analysis and the resulting evaluation of the performance of the landfill slopes and should
therefore be considered in design, construction and operation of the landfill.
Analysis Methodology
The analyses included circular potential failure modes of the completed landfill configuration using the
computer program Slide2 by Rocscience. The geotechnical parameters for the soil layers and C&D waste
were determined from the soil types encountered by the borings, the soil standard penetration test results,
laboratory triaxial shear testing of undisturbed and remolded site samples and our experience with materials
similar to those encountered on this site.
The proposed Phase 2 design, including the base and final grading plans prepared by McGill Associates,
were reviewed and two representative cross -sections (A -A' and C-C') were selected for analysis of global
stability. The cross-section locations are shown on Figure Nos. 2 through 6 in Appendix A.
3.1.1 Results of Global Stability Analysis
The recommended minimum factor of safety for static, long-term conditions is 1.5. The minimum long-
term, static condition factor of safety for landfill slopes was calculated to be 2.0 for both cross sections
A -A' and C-C'. Those results include potential global slope stability failure surfaces. The results of our
analysis therefore indicate acceptable stability for long-term, static conditions.
3.1.2 Slope Stability Conclusion
In summary, the resulting factors of safety of final 3H: IV waste mound were determined to be greater than
or equal to the minimum required static factor of safety. The slope stability factors of safety are therefore
acceptable as noted. Resulting factors of safety for slope stability are contingent upon considerations of
waste placement as noted in our calculations in Appendix F. Interim slope stability of temporary waste
slopes steeper than 3H:1 V should be evaluated by BLE if planned in future operational plans.
3.2 Subgrade Settlement
The soil test boring and laboratory test data contained in the Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic Report were
evaluated to estimate subsurface settlements which will result in corresponding settlement of the subgrade
due to the planned waste loads. Foundation support conditions for the landfill will consist of firm to dense
residual soils and partially weathered rock or a thin depth of engineered fill overlying residual soils. At the
time of the hydrogeologic exploration and field exploration program, the residual soil thickness in the Phase
2 expansion area ranged from 6 feet to 37 feet.
Soil elastic modulus values for settlement analyses were selected based on published correlations with
standard penetration resistance values in Piedmont area soils like those encountered, lab data, and our
experience. The analyses conservatively assumed the stress increase within the foundation materials will
be equal to the full surcharge pressure of the overlying vertical projection of the waste mound and the cap
soil layers at a given point. The surcharge pressures were conservatively estimated based on an assumed
total unit weight of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for C&D waste and 120 pcf for the cap layer materials.
5 of 8

1t 1m 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
The rock and partially weathered rock underlying the site are relatively incompressible and will not realize
appreciable settlements under the anticipated landfill loading. The residual soils are typically firm to very
firm silty sand grading coarser with depth into dense silty sands. Settlement analysis of the post -constructed
landfill subgrade considered the initial unloading during the mass excavation of overburden soils planned
to achieve the design subgrade levels. Modest settlements will be realized from re -compression of the
remaining residual soils and compression of the structural fill under the landfill waste loading. The total
settlement at a given location will be a function of the waste height at a given point and the corresponding
foundation conditions. Settlements were estimated for the proposed cell subgrade conditions at each of the
test borings and also at the maximum waste height location within Phase 2. Analysis points are shown on
Figure 2, Appendix A.
3.2.1 Results of Settlement Analysis
The results of the settlement analyses indicate an estimated maximum subgrade settlement of approximately
0.5 feet will occur near the central area of Phase 2. Estimated settlement at the boring locations vary from
0.1 to 0.2 feet. The estimated settlement considers the final grading plan of the expanded landfill over a
profile that includes the planned structural fill. Residual soil settlement should occur rapidly as Phase 2 is
filled. Differential settlement along the landfill subgrade is anticipated to be less than 5% which is suitable
for a solid waste landfill foundation.
The results of the analyses are presented in Appendix G along with the calculated post -settlement
separation between the design base grades and both the groundwater as depicted on the Estimated Long -
Term Seasonal High Water Table Elevation Contour Map (Figure 8 of the Phase 2 DHR Report) and the
top of rock as depicted on the Top of Bedrock (Auger Refusal) Elevation Contour Map (Figure 5 of the
Phase 2 DHR Report). Each of these two figures will be provided in the Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic
Report (BLE Project No. J19-13675-01) under separate cover. Groundwater and bedrock contours are
depicted in Figures 5 and 6 Appendix A, respectively of this report. The analysis demonstrates that the
post -settlement separation between the design base grades and bedrock and estimated long-term seasonal
high groundwater are greater than the minimum 4.0 feet of post -settlement vertical separation required by
the North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, Section 15ANCAC13B.1624.a.4.
4.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Subgrade Preparation
All existing topsoil, vegetation, disturbed soils, and surface soils containing organic matter or other deleterious
materials should be stripped from within the proposed Phase 2 area and all embankment fill. Topsoil and
organic soils may be stockpiled for later use in areas to be vegetated. Other deleterious material should be
disposed of in areas of the landfill site that will not be developed.
After stripping and rough excavation grading, we recommend that the Phase 2 subgrade be carefully inspected
for soft surficial soils and proofrolled with a 25 to 35-ton, four -wheeled, rubber -tired roller or similar approved
equipment. The proofroller should make at least four passes over each location, with the last two passes
perpendicular to the first two where practical.
Any areas which wave, rut, or deflect excessively and continue to do so after several passes of the proofroller
should be excavated to firmer soils. The excavated areas should be backfilled in thin lifts with engineered
fill. The proofrolling and excavating operations should be carefully monitored by an experienced engineering
6of8

1t 1M 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. Proofrolling should not be performed
when the ground is frozen or wet from recent precipitation.
4.2 Excavation of Partially Weathered Rock
There is usually no sharp distinction between soil and rock in residual soil areas such as at the Phase 2 site.
The degree of weathering in the Inner Piedmont geologic belt typically decreases with increasing depth until
sound rock is encountered. The partially weathered rock, as well as the overlying soil, may also contain
boulders, lenses or ledges of hard rock. Some of the partially weathered rock of the transitional zone could
be penetrated by the mechanical auger used in the field exploration and can sometimes be excavated without
blasting. The ease of excavation depends on the quality of grading equipment, skill of the equipment operators
and geologic structure of the material itself such as the direction of bedding, planes of weakness and spacing
between discontinuities. Weathered rock or rock that cannot be penetrated by the mechanical auger usually
requires blasting to loosen material and facilitate removal.
4.3 Structural Fill
All fill used for raising site grade or for replacement of material that is undercut should be uniformly
compacted in thin lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698).
We recommend that the fill be placed and compacted at a moisture content within three percent of the standard
Proctor optimum moisture content. Compaction parameters for the low permeability cap layer should be
confirmed by laboratory tests and test strip construction using the proposed borrow soil. However, moisture
contents will likely need to be in the range of 2 to 4 percent wetter than optimum moisture content with a
minimum density of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Based on our visual examination and laboratory test data, the on -site silty sand and moderately plastic clay
soils are suitable for use as engineered structural fill with proper moisture adjustment. In general, soils having
a Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 30 (less than 15 is preferable) should not be used for fill. Soils used for
engineered fill should be reasonably free from organics (less than 3% organics by weight) and should exhibit
a standard Proctor maximum dry density greater than 90 pcf.
Before filling operations begin, representative samples of each proposed fill material, if different than the soil
materials previously tested, should be collected and tested to determine the compaction and classification
characteristics. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content should be determined. Once
compaction operations begin, density tests should be performed by an experienced engineering technician
working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer to measure the degree of compaction being obtained.
The frequency of density tests in the fill for the Phase 2 subgrade should be every 10,000 square feet or portion
thereof. The density test frequency for utility trenches should be every 100 feet and for localized undercutting
should be every 500 sf or portion thereof.
The surface of compacted subgrade soils can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
environmental changes and construction activity. Deterioration can occur in the form of freezing, formation
of erosion gullies, extreme drying, exposure for a long period of time or rutting by construction traffic. We
recommend that the subgrades that have deteriorated or softened be recompacted prior to construction of the
floor slab or pavement. Recompaction of subgrade surfaces and compaction of backfill should be checked
with a sufficient number of density tests to determine if adequate compaction is being achieved.
7of8

1t 1M 1i
Report of Geotechnical Evaluation, Phase 2 C&D Expansion January 21, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill, North Carolina BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed Phase 2 C&D cell area is located on the north central portion of the Rutherford County landfill
facility and is contiguous to the existing Phase I C&D area. The Phase 2 C&D development will be an
approximate 5.5-acre waste unit. The subsurface geology of the Phase 2 area is typical of Inner Piedmont
terrain in North Carolina and is consistent with prior studies at the site conducted by others. No atypical or
unexpected geologic features have been observed in the Phase 2 C&D area, and the proposed landfill area
is not located in an "unstable area" in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .0532.
The proposed 3 horizontal to 1 vertical final slopes for Phase 2 will have a factor of safety greater than the
required minimums of 1.5 for static conditions. If planned for operational purposes, temporary waste slopes
steeper than 3H:1V should be evaluated by BLE.
The proposed landfill design will maintain a minimum 4-foot post -settlement vertical separation between
the base grades of the landfill and both the estimated long-term seasonal high groundwater elevation contour
map and the top of bedrock elevation contour map. However, rock lenses or boulders, partially weathered
rock and/or perched groundwater may be encountered at the proposed subgrade elevations within the
expansion area. If encountered, these conditions should be remediated during construction. Rock and
partially weathered rock may be difficult to excavate as discussed in Section 4.2 of this report. The design
engineer should incorporate plans to address this critical construction issue, and we recommend that
potentially difficult excavation conditions be noted on all bid documents and plans prepared for
construction. Contingencies should be exercised to maintain the required minimum post -settlement 4-foot
separation if difficult subsurface conditions are encountered.
Based on our evaluation, the site is not susceptible to large differential settlement other than that caused by
the sloping waste mound with variable waste thickness. The Rutherford County Landfill is not located in
an area designated as unstable.
The engineering analyses of this Report of Geotechnical Evaluation were prepared based on the results of
field and laboratory testing to satisfy the requirements specified in the North Carolina Title 15A NCAC
13B .0538 (b)(1-2). Based on the slope stability and settlement analyses presented in this report, it is our
opinion that the Phase 2 C&D area will be stable and provide the environmental separation between the
base grades and estimated long-term groundwater and top of bedrock.
6.0 CLOSING
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide professional geotechnical
services on this project. The findings contained herein are based upon the data that was compiled, reviewed
and documented in this report along with our experience on similar projects. If additional, relevant
information is discovered, or if the proposed landfill grades are modified, BLE should be contacted to
review potential effects on our evaluation.
If you have any questions concerning this report or the attached analyses, please contact us.
8of8

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Saint) l pti
Francis Episcopal p p K
°moo ti 2 Ehurch'Cem q00
h
g i w .
w3RD
West Memonal a
6urck,em a
0 /1 N'couRr 221 gtQBq�
(� srdX
O o ( \ ECpURrs� FzN��T o ��oy crT�T DEC/qsT�
�'.I W&T
0.� CSC 1 Bus
Rutherfordton l 74 Alt
" oXFp
o
C C1 o ap4o�1 _�
,o
�NP
LPARK'R�
3� y�� - ? NDUSTRIA J ti
rG y H y
z r
\2 oF4 ap C/R 7 v
O Q� 9 pD J N
O _
Alt Q
� o
0
x —
:.z o cF2 900 _ eCutter Cr
•� C� COUNT,pG ��'A l/ A, s �f—�.r
O� �p\ glC•A I oo f /
Q
0
A
��T Bus F
s
m s -
O�
A A
Fo O
Aountai DgLFNop
O �' View`'Baphst O � RT�'o
I1 0yyCh ru ch.Cem o
io G O
I REFERENCES: �.
I USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, 7.5
2000 1000 0 2000 4000 a7 MINUTE SERIES, RUTHERFORDTON
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Z . _ SOUTH. NC. QUADRANGLE 2017
DRAWN: KLW DATE: 1-20-21 BUNNELL IM FIGURE
SITE LOCATION MAP
LAMMONS RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
CHECKED: TJD CAD: RUTHERFORD-01SLM ENGINEERING PHASE 2 DESIGN HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615 RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APPROVED: JOB NO: J19-13675-01 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

960
9�0
990 EXISTING C&D LANDFILL
PHASE 1
100 50 0 100 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0
8��� 0+000 ��%
1 +00
0+00
B-40D 2/+65
2+00 2+00
0+ 40
B-40S
"� i
o 0+ 40 — 3+0o PHASE 2 C&D
B EXPANSION
o /
g�0
0+00
° 0+00 FG-66 (B-13)
4+00 0+40
0+40 APPROX. PH. 2 MAXIMUM
00 WASTE HEIGHT
4+00
+00
3
0+00 0
B-42+0
3 5+00 0+00-1+0(
0+40� B-42
8+00
F 2\
6+00
/ / �0+00
B-36
7+00 0+40
Q
`�s
0 0+0(
�9 B-44
6�
` 0+4(
1 +00
LFG-7 (B-17)_
i
0+00
0
LEGEND:
EXISTING 2' >
TOPOGRAPHY 10'
CROSS SECTION LOCATION A 0+00 1+00A?\.
BORING LOCATIONS • B-42
LANDFILL GAS
MONITORING WELL . LFG-7 (B-17)
LOCATIONS
4EFERENCES:
C�1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM ELECTRONIC DRAWING TITLED, "19.00703 BLE
10-22 0" B 2020. ILL ASSOCIATES ON
R
2. BORING LOCATIONS FROM DRAWING TITLED, "TOP
OF BEDROCK ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP"
PRODUCED BY BUNNELL LAMMONS ENGINEERING
INC. DATED JULY 30, 2020
DRAWN BY: KLW
1-8-21
REVISIONS
is IM IM BUNNELLDATE:
M LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29515
Phone: [phone] Fax: (864] 288-4430
SITE PLAN -EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
No.
DESCRIPTION
BY
CHECKED BY: GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PRODM
APPROVED BY: TWM
JOB NO: J20-13675-01

B-34
EXISTING C&D LANDFILL
PHASE 1
•
B-14
100 50 0 100 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
• B-15
BF
5.
B-33
0+00
B —
0+40
B-40,'
910/ /
0+00/
B-41'3+OC
0+40
4+00
0+00
1 +00
a
6T0,
2+65 o LFG-11
00 2+00
1+00
PHASE 2 C&D
EXPANSION
0+00
0 00 LFG- 6(B-13)
0+40
,0+40 APPROX. PH. 2 MAXIMUM
/ /WASTE HEIGHT
4+00
0+00 3+00
B-43 5 j 00
0+40
0
6+00
'0+00
6-36
7+00 +0+40
2+00 0+00 X& )r
1 +00
B-42 0+00
0+40
i
8+00 / 0+00
8+ s B-44
r 00+401
A
9�0_
LEGEND:
BASE GRADES 2'
10'
CROSS SECTION 0+00 1 +00 A P
LOCATION A
BORING LOCATIONS • B-42
LANDFILL GAS
MONITORING WELL . LFG-7 (B-17)
LOCATION
REFERENCES:
1. BASE GRADES OBTAINED FROM ELECTRONIC
DRAWING TITLED, "19.00703 BILE 12-17-20" BY
MCGILL ASSOCIATES ON JANUARY 4, 2021.
2. BORING LOCATIONS FROM DRAWING TITLED, "TOP
OF BEDROCK ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP"
PRODUCED BY BUNNELL LAMMONS ENGINEERING
INC. DATED JANUARY 8, 2021
DRAWN BY- KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
BUNNELL
ll 1 IMFIGURE
LAMMONS
M ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [864) 288-1265 Fax: [phone]
SITE PLAN —BASE GRADES
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION —PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
3
No.
DESCRIP110N
gY
CHECKED BY: GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PROD
APPROVED BY. TWM
JOB NO: J20-13675-01

A 0+00
• B-15
771.
1+00
900�
-910_�
0+00
920= B-40D`
2+00
B-34 930-----____r0+4o
•- B-4(
940
EXISTING C&D LANDFILL
PHASE 1 950
960 3+(
B-41
0+ 40
970
980
990
1'
/
100 50 0 100 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
5+25
4+00
0+40
5+00 --- -
4+00
0+00 3+00�
B-43 5+00
i
0+ 40
33 1 / '
2+65- A
�� 2+00
1+00
0+00
_ �C
PHASE 2 C&D .LFG-7 (B-17)
EXPANSION
----- -
— u+00\\
—LFG-6 (B-13)
0+40
APPROX. PH. 2 MAXIMUM
WASTE HEIGHT
IIIIII
2+00 0+00
/ I w- ,1+00
0+00
B-42
0+40
6+00
co
w
0+00
0)
_ o
10 3\ 0+40
8+00 0+00
B-44
8+26
A 10+4
LFG-11
LEGEND:
FINAL LANDFILL 2'
GRADES 10'
CROSS SECTION A 0+00 1 +00 A
LOCATION
BORING LOCATIONS • B-42 —
LANDFILL GAS
MONITORING WELL . LFG-7 (B-17)
LOCATIONS
REFERENCES:
1. FINAL GRADES OBTAINED FROM ELECTRONIC
DRAWING TITLED, "19.00703 BILE 10-22-20" BY
MCGILL ASSOCIATES ON NOVEMBER 18, 2020.
2. BORING LOCATIONS FROM DRAWING TITLED, "TOP
OF BEDROCK ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP"
PRODUCED BY BUNNELL LAMMONS ENGINEERING
INC. DATED JULY 30, 2020
DRAWN BY: KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
BUNNELL
it 1. IMFIGURE
LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [864) 288-1265 Fax: [phone]
SITE PLAN -FINAL GRADES
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
4
No.
DESCRIPTION
gY
CHECKED BY. GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PRODM
APPROVED BY: TWM
JOB N0: J20-13675-01

� 8f
• B-15
8so�
870
0+00
B-40D `
c 2+65
2+00 2+00
0+ 40
B-40
EXISTING C&D LANDFILL
PHASE 1
0+00
B-41 3+00
0+ 40
910
4+00
1r 5+00
5+25 4+00
LFG-11
1 +00
. LFG-7 (B-17)
PHASE 2 C&D
EXPANSION
0+00
o+oo LFG-6 (B-13)
0+40
0+40 /
`APPROX. PH. 2 MAXIMUM
WASTE HEIGHT
92p � 3
0+00 +00
B-43 5+00 2+00 0+00 1+00 0+40
0+40 B- 42
�
B- 33 ,g_�°
6+00
-t� 0+00
B-36
7 +0+40
+00
8+00
8+26
Ar
100 50 0 100 200 I
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
B-44
/0+ 00
0+400001
0+00
c
0+00
BLEGEND:
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION 10'
CROSS SECTION A 0+00 1 +00 A
LOCATION
BORING LOCATIONS • B-42
LANDFILL GAS
MONITORING WELL . LFG-7 (B-17)
LOCATIONS
REFERENCES:
1. GROUNDWATER FROM DRAWING TITLED,
"ESTIMATED LONG-TERM SEASONAL HIGH
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP"
PRODUCED BY BUNNELL LAMMONS ENGINEERING
INC. DATED JULY 16, 2020
2. BORING LOCATIONS FROM DRAWING TITLED,
"TOP OF BEDROCK ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP"
PRODUCED BY BUNNELL LAMMONS ENGINEERING
INC. DATED JULY 30, 2020
DRAWN BY: KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
BUNNELL
is 1. IMFIGURE
LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [phone] Fax: (964) 2ee-4430
SITE PLAN -GROUNDWATER
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
No.
DESCRIPTION
BY
CHECKED BY. GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PRODM
APPROVED BY: T1WM
JOB NO: J20-13675-01

A 0+00
880
• B-15
1+00
0+00
B-40D
2+00
B-34 0+40
• B-4OS
EXISTING C&D LANDFILL \ \
PHASE 1
0+00
B-41 3+00
0+40
5+00
B-33
- 00
0
Z8+28+00
Ar
100 50 0 100 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
4+00
�o o)
4+00
�0+00
)B-43 111
r 2+65 `
2+00
Aw
o/ LFG-11
��
1+00 /
0+00
FG-7 (B-17)
APPROX. PH. 2 MAXIMUM
WASTE HEIGHT
0+00
TP2 (941.93)
o+oo LFG-6 (B-13)
_r ( *
0+40 XTP1 (<936.50)
v, I
0+40
rn '
3+00 \ ,TP3 (944.93)
5+00 2+00__0+00
�1+00
0+40
mi
6+00 PHASE 2 C&D
EXPANSION
0+00
B-36
0+40
7+00
0+00
B-44
` 0+40 9?C
971)
0+00
LEGEND:
INTERPOLATED BEDROCK 10'
ELEVATION
CROSS SECTION A 0+00 1 +00 A P
LOCATION
BORING LOCATIONS
LANDFILL GAS
MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS
B-42
. LFG-7 (13-17)
I 0+40 TEST PIT LOCATION XTP1 (936.50)
(APPROX. ROCK ELEVATION)
970 REFERENCES:/ I 1 \ \
' 19�� 1. BEDROCK ELEVATIONS AND BORING LOCATIONS
FROM DRAWING TITLED, "TOP OF BEDROCK
ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP" PRODUCED BY
' BUNNELL LAMMONS ENGINEERING INC. DATED
JANUARY 8, 2021
2. TEST PIT INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM MCGILL
ASSOCIATES IN AN ELECTRONIC FILE TITLED,
"19.00703 BLE 12-17-20" PROVIDED JANUARY 4,
2021. *
*LOCATION AND BEDROCK ELEVATION DATA FOR TEST
PITS 1-3 WAS COLLECTED BY ODOM ENGINEERING ON
DECEMBER 15, 2020 AND SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED
TO MCGILL ASSOCIATES. ODOM ENGINEERING REPORTS
THAT THE DATA WAS OBTAINED USING GPS WITH A
VERTICAL TOLERANCE OF +/- 1 INCH
DRAWN BY: KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
' � BUNNELL
LAMMONS
M ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [964) 299-1265 Fax: (964) 2e9-4430
SITE PLAN -INTERPOLATED BEDROCK
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
No.
DESCRIPTION
gy
CHECKED BY. GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PROD
APPROVED BY: TWM
JOB N0: J20-13675-01

LEGEND:
FINAL LANDFILL GRADES
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY - - - - - -
BASE GRADES
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
B-41
B-43
B-13
B-36
0+00
0+40
0+00 0+40
0+00
0+40
0+00 0+40
98
80
^100
1000
100
1000
1000
i
98
80
N
>
96
60
W
98
80
94
-
40
>
m 96
60
W
m
96
60
60
w
92
20
94
40
w
94
,
—
40
40
_
90
00
0 92
20
z
92
20
20
w
88
80
> 90
00
>
90
00
00
0+00
0+40
W
w
0+00 0+40
STATION
(FEET)
880+00
88
80
STATION (FEET)
0+4080
STATION (FEET)
0+00
STATION
0+40
(FEET)
B-40S
AND B-40D
B-42
B-44
MAXIMUM WASTE THICKNESS
0+00 0+40
1
0+00
0+40
0+00
0+40
0+40000
J
100
1000
N
100
1000
J 1000+00
94
40
m
>
>
m
98
80
>
om
98
80
0 98
80
a
92
_ —
20
w
96
60
a
96
60
96
60
Ld
v
90
00
94
_
_
40
w
94
—
—
40
w
v
zo
88
80
zo
z
94
z
40
92
20
Q
92
20
92
—
20
>
,J
86
85
60
50
w
90
00
>
w
90
00
J 907
00
0+00 0+40
STATION (FEET)
0+00
STATION
0+40
(FEET)
0+00
STATION
0+40
(FEET)
W 0+00
0+40
STATION
(FEET)
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
DRAWN BY- KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
13 JNNELL
It'-'= ENArMMONs
6hon Ponders Court,Fax:(Greenville, 2e 29615
Phone: (864J 289-1265 Fox: [phone]
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONEPHASE CROSS SECTIONS
AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
7
No.
DESCRIPTION
BY
CHECKED BY: GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PROD
APPROVED BY: TWM
JOB N0: J20-13675-01

LEGEND:
FINAL LANDFILL GRADES
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY — — — — — —
BASE GRADES
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
CROSS SECTION A -A'
0+00 1 +00 2+00
3+00 4+00 5+00
6+00 7+00 8+00 8+26
104
1040
102
1020
1000
^100
J
N
98
-
80
m 96
- ' 60
Q
W
~ 94
_
- 40
w
--
_
--
z 92
20
��
F �-
> 90 = _
-
00
_
w — —
J f —
W _
88 I
80
86
60
840
840
0+00 1 +00 2+00
3+00 4+00 5+00
6+00 7+00 8+00 8+26
STATION (FEET)
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
DRAWN BY: KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
it 1. IM BUNNELL
LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
6hon Ponders 9-126, Fax: (8lle, 2g 29635
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
CROSS SECTION A —A'
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
8
No.
DESCRIPTION
BY
CHECKED BY: GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PRODM
APPROVED BY: TWM
JOB N0: J20-13675-01

LEGEND:
FINAL LANDFILL GRADES
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY — — — — — —
BASE GRADES
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
CROSS SECTION B-B'
0+00 1+00
2+00 3+00 4+00 5+005+25
104
1040
102
1020
1000
�100
J
N
98
80
m
96 --
94
-_L940
---� --
0
920-:-
920
>
90
00
w
J
W
88
80
86
60
84
840
0+00 1+00
2+00 3+00 4+00 5+005+25
STATION (FEET)
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
DRAWN BY: KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
BUNNELL
it 1. IM,FIGURE
LAMMUNS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [phone] Fax: (864) 2ee-4430
CROSS SECTION B-B
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
9
No.
DESCRIPTION
BY
CHECKED BY: GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PRODM
APPROVED BY: TWM
JOB NO: J20-13675-01

LEGEND:
FINAL LANDFILL GRADES
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY — — — — — —
BASE GRADES
GROUNDWATER
BEDROCK
CROSS SECTION
C-C'
0+00
1 +00
2+00
2+65
102
1020
100
1000
N
98
80
M
----
>
96
_ _ —
60
m
94
���\
40
w
92
z
90
00
W
88
80
86
60
84
40
0+00
1 +00
2+00
2+65
STATION (FEET)
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1 "=60'
DRAWN BY: KLW
DATE: 1-8-21
REVISIONS
BUNNELL
it 1. IM,FIGURE
LAMMUNS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [phone] Fax: (864) 2ee-4430
CROSS SECTION C—C
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION —PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
��
No.
DESCRIPTION
BY
CHECKED BY: GLW
FILE: RUTHERFORD-01PRODM
APPROVED BY: TWM
JOB NO: J20-13675-01

APPENDIX B
TEST BORING RECORDS

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Penetration Resistance*
Relative
Particle Size Identification
Blows per Foot
Density
SANDS
Boulder: Greater than 300 mm
Cobble: 75 to 300 mm
0 to 4
Very Loose
Gravel:
5 to 10
Loose
Coarse - 19 to 75 mm
11 to 20
Firm
Fine - 4.75 to 19 mm
21 to 30
Very Firm
Sand:
31 to 50
Dense
Coarse - 2 to 4.75 mm
over 50
Very Dense
Medium - 0.425 to 2 mm
Fine - 0.075 to 0.425 mm
Silt & Clay: Less than 0.075 mm
Penetration Resistance*
Consistency
Blows per Foot
SILTS and CLAYS
0 to 2
Very Soft
3 to 4
Soft
5 to 8
Firm
9 to 15
Stiff
16 to 30
Very Stiff
31 to 50
Hard
over 50
Very Hard
*ASTM D 1586
KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS
® Grab Sample
NR = No reaction to HCL 17 Groundwater Table at Time of Drilling
® Split Spoon Sample NA = Not applicable
NS = No sample .
Undisturbed Sample Groundwater Table 24 Hours after Completion of Drilling
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Well -graded Gravel Low Plasticity Clay El Sand
GW CL SW
EQj
5 Poorly -graded Gravel
/////////////////////
//////////ML SC
Partially Weathered Rock Silt Silty Sand
SM
BLDRCBBL MIL
F.
Cla Clayey Silt Waste
High Plasticit
CH y y MH WOOD
♦.'.I Poorly Graded Sand Bedrock Liquid Sludgc`�BEDROCK SLUDGE
��w�W4V
6_00�0+&
Topsoil
TOPSOIL

It
'
IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40D
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 11-4-19 END: 11-5-19
BUNNELL-LAMMONS
ENGINEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 912.92
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL
DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS
DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 ATV with 6 inch O.D. Air Hammer and NQ coring
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: a 26.00 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 31.00 CAVING>77
N
W
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
2 BLOWS/FOOT
DETAILS
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
Very stiff, reddish brown, dry, fine
Bentonite seal, 0.0 to 63.5 feet
to medium sandy, SILT
UD-2
....................
(Residuum)...........
____.........................
Top of PVC casing elev. = 915.65
feet
910
.......................................................
Ground surface elev. = 912.92 feet
4
9
95 8
Northing = 5 0 93
5
9
E t - 1 366
as ing - 1,1 9,29 .
Firm, brown and tan, slightly
moist, silty, medium to coarse
g
SAND
7
:................:...:...:..:...:.
905
Stiff, brown and reddish brown,
5
slightly moist, fine to medium
q
10
sandy, SILT
s
Dense to very firm, gray and tan,
900
dry, silty, very fine to medium
;
.•
..
.............................
SAND
14
16
15
15
...................................................
895
..... :... :.... :.......................... .:......
14
15
11
.
20
890
.
12
5015"
s0i5.
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
sampled as moist, gray brown,
25
silty, medium to coarse SAND
R-1
Auger refusal at 26.0 feet below
ground surface.
................:................................
885
Begin NQ coring.
Very hard to moderately hard,
white to gray, well foliated,
...................................................
hornblende feldspar, quartz,
30
biotite, GNEISS; slight to
moderately severe weathering;
very close to close shallow
R-2
foliation, very close to close
.......................................................
880
shallow fractures.
R-1 recovery = 94% RQD = 80%
Fracture from 29.4 to 30.0 feet
below ground surface.
35
.......................................................
Very hard to moderately hard,
white to gray, well foliated,
R-3
hornblende feldspar, quartz,
biotite, GNEISS; slight to
875
moderately severe weathering;
....................................:
very close to close shallow
foliation, very close to close
shallow fractures.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40D
Sheet 1 of 2

It
'
IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40D
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 11-4-19 END: 11-5-19
BUNNELL-LAMMONS
ENGINEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 912.92
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL
DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS
DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 ATV with 6 inch O.D. Air Hammer and NQ coring
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: a 26.00 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 31.00 CAVING>77
N
W
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
a BLOWS/FOOT
DETAILS
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
R-2 recovery = 92% RQD = 57%
Fracture at 31.9 feet below
R-4
ground surface.
............................................:.......
Fractured from 32.0 to 33.0 feet
870
below ground surface.
Very fractured, black and gray,
.....................................................
very hard, micaceous, very fine
45
grained biotite GNEISS
..................................
R-3 recovery = 100% RQD = 59%
Diagonal fracture from 37.0 to
.......................................................
38.0 feet below ground surface.
.......................................................
Very hard to hard, white to gray,
865
......... ............................. .:......
moderately well to well foliated,
hornblende feldspar, quartz,
..................................................
biotite GNEISS: fresh to very
50
slight weathering; very close
......................................................
shallow dipping foliation, close to
moderately close shallow dipping
fractures.
..... :... :.... :........................................
860
Air hammered from 46.0 to 76.0
..................................................
feet below ground surface.
R-4 recovery = 100% RQD = 100%
........................................:
55
......... ............................. ........
855
........................................................
60
...............................................
850
...:.........................:........
.....................................:......
Filter pack, sand 63.5 to 76.0 feet
65
......... ..........................................
...................................... :...:...:..:...:.
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen 65.8
to 75.8 feet
845
..... ............................. .........
.'.
70
...................................................
......................................................
..................................................
840
...... ............................. .........
75
....................................................
..........:...:...:.....:....:....:. .......:...:..
Total well depth, 76.0 feet
Boring terminated at 76.0 feet
below ground surface.
......................................................
835
Groundwater encountered at
..................................................
26.00 feet below ground surface
at time of drilling and at 31.00 feet
24 hours after time of drilling.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40D
Sheet 2 of 2

It
'
IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40S
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 10-28-19 END: 11-5-19
BUNNELL-LAMMONS
ENGINEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 912.40
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL
DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS
DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger and 6 inch O.D. Air Hammer
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: V 26.00 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 29.65 CAVING>M
rn
w
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
Q BLOWS/FOOT
DETAILS
W 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
Very stiff, reddish brown, dry, fine
Bentonite seal, 0.0 to 34.0 feet
to medium sandy, SILT
UD_1
....................
(Residuum)
__________________________________________
Top of PVC casing elev. = 915.44
910
feet
4
..........................
Ground surface elev. = 912.40 fee
Firm, light gray, clayey, medium to
'• .
fine SAND
9
_....-.....�.............:
Northing = 595,833.87'
5
9
E t 1 7 as ing = 1,1 9,2950 .
Firm, brown and tan, slightly
:•.
. •
..
5
.........................................
moist, silty, medium to coarse
6
905
SAND
7
..:...:..:...:..
5
Stiff, brown and reddish brown,
slightly moist, fine to medium
4
10
sandy, SILT
6
900
......................................
Dense to very firm, gray and tan,
dry, silty, very fine to coarse
.•
..
.........................................
SAND
14
16
15
15
:•.:.
......... ................................... .:
895
...................................
14
.•..
15
11
..:....:
.......................................................
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
890
sampled as moist, gray brown,
silty, medium to coarse SAND
12
50/51,
.....:...:....:...:...:.....:....:....:...:........
25
......................................................
.................................................
Auger refusal at 26.0 feet below
885
ground surface.
........................................................
Begin Air Hammer.
.....:... :....:...:...:.....:....:....:...:...:
Very hard to moderately hard,
white to gray, well foliated,
...................................................
hornblende feldspar, quartz,
30
biotite, GNEISS; slight to
. . .
moderately severe weathering;
........ .......................... .........
very close to close shallow
foliation, very close to close
............
.......................................................
880
shallow dipping fractures.
.....:... :....:......................:...:.
Filter pack, sand 34.0 to 46.0 feet
35
....................................................
.....:...:....:........................ .:.......
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
:....:...:...:.....:....:....:...:...:
Schedule 40 PVC well screen 35.8
875
.....:...
...................................................
.• .
to 45.8 feet
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40S
Sheet 1 of 2

It
' IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40S
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 10-28-19 END: 11-5-19
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 912.40
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger and 6 inch O.D. Air Hammer
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: a 26.00 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 29.65 CAVING>=
ELEVATIONI
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
a BLOWS/FOOT
DETAILS
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Very hard to hard, white to gray,
...........................
moderately well to well foliated,
........................................................
870
hornblende feldspar, quartz,
..... :... :.... :......................................
biotite GNEISS: fresh to very
slight weathering; very close
. .............................. .
shallow dipping foliation; close to
45
moderately close shallow dipping
...................................................
fractures.
........................................:...:..
Total well depth, 46.0 feet
Boring terminated at 46.0 feet
865
below ground surface.
Groundwater encountered at
.................................................
26.00 feet below ground surface
at time of drilling and at 29.65 feet
50
24 hours after time of drilling.
860
...................................................
55
......................................................
855
.................................................
60
....................................................
850
...................................................
65
......... ............................. .........
845
...................................................
70
......................................................
840
...................................................
75
.....................................................
i
835
n
9
h
J
J
L
...................................................
PIEZOMETER NO. B-40S
3 Sheet 2 of 2
D

It
'
IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-41
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 10-25-19 END:10-25-19
BUNNELL-LAMMONS
ENGINEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 914.81
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL
DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS
DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger and 6 inch O.D. Air Hammer
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: a 22.00 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 22.96 CAVING>777
N
W
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
BLOWS/FOOT
DETAILS
a
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
Loose to firm, brown, slightly
Bentonite seal, 0.0 to 23.0 feet
moist, micaceous, silty, fine to
q
medium SAND (Residuum)
:.
4
�...............:....:...:... ..
Top of PVC casing elev. = 917.94
5
feet
.................
.......................................
Ground surface elev. = 914.81 feet
5
5
Northing = 595,739.81'
5
::;
:
. .... .........................
E t 1 as ing = 1,1 9,41519
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
50/1"
sampled as brown and black, dry,
micaceous, fine to medium sandy,
SILT
Very firm, gray, slightly moist,
3
micaceous, silty, medium to
6
905
1U
coarse SAND with gravel
•
.
16
..... ............................. .........
................................................
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
sampled as very firm, gray,
slightly moist, micaceous, fine to
...................................................
coarse, silty, SAND with gravel
50/5"
900
15
..........................................
42
50/5"
.....:...:....:...:...:.....:....:....:...:... . ....
895
20
....... ............................. .
......................................................
Auger refusal at 22.0 feet below
ground surface.
................................. .
Filter pack, sand 23.0 to 35.0 feet
Begin Air Hammer.
........................................................
890
25
.........................................................
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Hard to very hard, white, gray,
Schedule 40 PVC well screen 24.8
black, GNEISS
to 34.8 feet
Fractured from 25.0 to 26.0 feet
.......................................................
.• .
below ground surface.
.................................................
885
30
...................................................
......................
...................................................
......................................................
.• .
.• .
880
35.......
................ ............................
Total well depth, 35.0 feet
Boring terminated at 35.0 feet
below ground surface.
...................................................
Groundwater encountered at
22.00 feet below ground surface
...........
at time of drilling and at 22.96 feet
...................................................
24 hours after time of drilling.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-41
Sheet 1 of 1

It
'
IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-42
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 10-24-19 END:10-25-19
BUNNELL-LAMMONS
ENGINEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 945.47
DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS
DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger and 6 inch O.D. Air Hammer
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: V 17.50 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 13.90 CAVING>M
rn
w
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
Q BLOWS/FOOT
I DETAILS
y 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
945
Very dense, brown and tan, dry,
Bentonite seal, 0.0 to 22.0 feet
micaceous, silty, very fine to
UD 1
.....................
medium SAND (Residuum)..
...................
.........
Top of PVC casing elev. = 948.78
feet
Ground surface elev. = 945.47 feet
13
:
28
....
Northing = 5 9 12
5
:.•
29
940
Easting = 1,119,652.32'
18
27
36
Dense, brown and tan, dry to
26
slightly moist, micaceous, silty,
17
fine to coarse SAND with gravel
:.
14
10
.....................................
935
.......................................................
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
sampled as tan, dry, micaceous,
.......................................................
silty, fine to medium SAND
14
48
5o/,,.
15
50/2"
All
930
........................................................
Auger refusal at 18.5 feet below
ground surface.
20
..:............:...:.................................
925
Begin Air Hammer.
Hard to moderately hard, black
.............................
Filter pack, sand 22.0 to 33.8 feet
and gray GNEISS
...................................................
25
...................................................
......................................................
.• .
920
...................................................
.• .
Fractured from 27.0 to 28.0 feet
.......................................................
below ground surface.
..... ...........................................
...................................................
30
......................................................
915
...................................................
Fracture at 33.0 feet below
.......................................................
...................................................
.• .
ground surface.
...... . . .....................:.
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
35
............ .........
PVC well screen 33.
Schedule 40 8
910
.......................................................
...................................................
. • .
to 43.8 feet
PIEZOMETER NO. B-42
Sheet 1 of 2

It
' IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-42
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 10-24-19 END:10-25-19
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 945.47
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger and 6 inch O.D. Air Hammer
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: a 17.50 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 13.90 CAVING>=

It
'
IMMINC.
BORING NO. B-43
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 11-6-19 END: 11-6-19
BUNNELL-LAMMONS
ENGINEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 935.35
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL
DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS
DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger and NQ Core
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS:1 CAVING>777
N
W
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
a BLOWS/FOOT
DETAILS
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
935
Dense, black and gray, dry, silty,
Abandoned to ground surface with
very fine to medium, silty, SAND
8
.......... -
bentonite
(Residuum)
19
13
5
..... :... :.... :......................................
Ground surface elev. = 935.35 feet
Very stiff, tan and black, dry, fine
to medium sandy, SILT
7
.........................
�
95 83 '
Northing = 5 7 83
5
14
930
Easting = 1,119,622.68'
Very firm, tan, dry, silty, fine to
8
medium SAND
98
11
..........................•
---------------
Dense, brown to light gray, dry,
8
silty, fine to coarse SAND with
24
. . ..............:
10
gravel
19
925
........................................................
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
sampled as gray to black and
........................................................
brown, slightly moist, silty, fine to
18
5o/4"
medium SAND
5014"
........:...:................................
920
15
R1
....:...:............................. .:......
Auger refusal at 15.0 feet below
ground surface.
...... ............................. .........
Begin NQ core.
..................................................... ...........
Moderately hard to hard,
moderately weathered, black,
........................................................
gray and white, horneblende,
quartz, feldspar, biotite GNEISS;
20
very thin to thin, shallow dipping
....:...:...:..:...:.
915
foliation; very close to moderately
close shallow dipping fractures
..................................
R-1 recovery=92% RQD=64%
Heavily fractured from 15.0 to 17.0
....................................................... ...........
feet below ground surface.
.......................... .:
Hard to very hard, slight to fresh,
......................................................
black, gray and white,
910
25
horneblende, quartz, feldspar,
R3
biotite GNEISS; very thin to thin,
shallow dipping foliation, i
moderately close shallow dipping I
(fractures I
IR-2 recovery=100% RQD=100% I
R-3 recovery=98% RQD=98%
... :.... :.........................................
Fracture at 27.0 feet below
905
30
ground surface.
.... :... :.... :.............................. . ..........
Boring terminated at 30.4 feet.....
............................. .........
below ground surface. No
piezometer installed.
.................:...:................................
900
35
..................................................... ..........
BORING NO. B-43
Sheet 1 of 1

It
'
IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-44
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 10-23-19 END:10-24-19
BUNNELL-LAMMONS
ENGINEERING, INC.
LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 952.21
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL
DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS
DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: V 25.00 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 22.13 CAVING>3M
rn
w
ELEVATION/
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
Q BLOWS/FOOT
n DETAILS
W 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
Very stiff to firm, brown, dry to
Bentonite seal, 0.0 to 26.6 feet
slightly moist, fine to medium
8
................
sandy, CLAY (Residuum)
9
�...............:...:..:...:..
Top of PVC casing elev. = 955.13
950
10
feet
UD-1
............................................:......
Ground surface elev. = 952.21 feet
2
:...:...:.....:....:....:...:.
4
.
.. .........
Northin g = 5 2.12
5
4
..
....................................... ..
E t - 1 737
as ing - 1,1 9,89 .
Stiff, reddish brown, dry, slightly
2
.................................. .
fine to medium sandy, silty, CLAY
4
945
7
..................:...:...:..:...:..
UD-2
.....:...:....:...:...:.....:....:....:...:...:..:...:..
3
5
8
.. .........
10
Undisturbed samples from an
.......... ............... ............................
offset 'n marked boring i yellow.
m
940
..... :... :.... :.........................
Firm, brown to white, dry,
micaceous, silty, fine to medium
. ...... . .......:......
SAND
3
5
7
............:....:....:
15
:•.:.
935-
Loose, brown, slightly moist,
;.
:.:.
..........
micaceous, silty, very fine to
;
.•
..
........................................................
medium SAND
4
4
5
.....:...:.....:...:....
20
:•.:.
..:... :.... :........................................
930
-----------------
Very firm to firm, gray to brown,
.......................................................
;.•;
wet, micaceous, silty, fine to
medium SAND
:..
;:
.....:............:...:................................
7
.•..
:'.
9
12
925
. ;
•
..
- - -
Filter pack, sand 26.6 to 39.0 feet
6
:, :.
•
8
. .... .
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
30
11
Schedule 40 PVC well screen 28.8
to 38 8feet
920-
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
sampled as brown and black, wet,
........................................................
micaceous, silty, fine to coarse
37
50/2,
SAND with quartz gravel
50/2"
35
fragments
.......................................................
915
.:............:...:................................
50/4"
........................................................
Total well depth, 39.0 feet
Auger refusal at 39.00 feet below
PIEZOMETER NO. B-44
Sheet 1 of 2

It
' IMMINC.
PIEZOMETER NO. B-44
PROJECT: RCLF C&D Landfill - Phase 2 PROJECT NO.: J19-13675-01
BUNNELL-LAMMONS CLIENT: McGill Associates, PA START: 10-23-19 END:10-24-19
ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: Rutherford County, North Carolina ELEVATION: 952.21
GEOTECHNICAL AND EN VIRONMENTAL DRILLER: J. Gorman, Landprobe LOGGED BY: I. Irizarry
CONSULTANTS DRILLING METHOD: CME 750 with 6.25 inch I.D. Hollow Stem Auger
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: a 25.00 AFTER 24 HOURS:1 22.13 CAVING>=
ELEVATIONI
DESCRIPTION
SOIL
a STANDARD PENETRATION RESULTS
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DEPTH (FT)
TYPE
a BLOWS/FOOT
DETAILS
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 70 90
ground surface.
Boring terminated at 39.00 feet
...........................
below ground surface.
910
Groundwater encountered at
.....:...:....:...:...:.....:....:....:...:...:..:...:.
25.00 feet below ground surface
........................................................
at time of drilling and at 22.13 feet
24 hours after time of drilling.
45
.................................................
905
.....:............:...:................................
50
......................................................
900
.....:............:...:..............................:.
55
......................................................
895
..:............:...:..............................:.
60
....... ............................. .........
890
.... :... :.... :......................... :.......
65
......................................................
885
.....:............:...:................................
70
......................................................
880
.... :... :.... :......................... :.......
75
..:... :.... :.......................................
i
875
n....:......................................
9
h
J
J
L
PIEZOMETER NO. B-44
3
Sheet 2 of 2

David Garrett, P.G., P.E. Test Boring No. B-13
Engineering and Geology Page 1 of 1
I Client and Project Rutherford County Central MSW Landfill Collar Elevation 939.92
Equipment Mobile B-53 ATV Drilling Method NQWL core Water Level, TOB 15.5
Date Started 5/02100 Date Ended 5/02100 Water Level, 24 Hr.
Drilling Firm Bore &. Core (Seiler) Logged by David Garrett Stabilized Level 16.0
Comments Cleared surface, rocky Total Depth 31.0 Date of Observation 5/5100
All depths are given in feet and referenced b.g.s.
Depth and Elev. SPT Value and Plot Soil Description and USCS Symbol Piezometer Constuction Data
-0
_ 2
938.00
_ 4
936.00
- 6
934.00
_ 8
932.00
- 10
930.00
- 12
928.00
- 14
926.00
- 16
924.00
_ 18
922.00
- 20
920.00
- 22
918.00
- 24
916.00
- 26
914.00
- 28
912.00
- 30
910.00
_
PWR: hard rocky, set casing
GNEISS: Core Run #1:
I
I
weathered brown -white mica
gneiss, schistose, with aplite
seams; REC = 76, RQD 0
I
GNEISS: Core Run #2:
E
E
k
REC = 80%, RQD = 16%
E
I
1
f
Soil Backfill
GNEISS: Core Run #3:
REC = 80%, RQD = 10%
I
I
i
E
I
E
[
Y
nr
Bentonite
GNEISS: Core Run #4: more
i
I
E
competent aplite and schist;
Seal
!
iI
1
REC = 100%, RQD = 60%
j
E
GNEISS: Core Run #5: same
I
with increasing quartz
content; REC = 100%, RQD
= 94%
i
Sand Pack
GNEISS: Core Run #6:
'
E
I
r
REC = 100%, RQD = 95%
i
0.0101,
Slotted
I
I
E
€
Screen

David Garrett, P.G. P.E. Test Boring No. B-36
Engineering and Geology Page 1 of 1
Client and Project Rutherford County Central MSW Landfill Collar Elevation 945.67
Equipment Mobile B-53 ATV Drilling Method HSA/Rotary Air Water Level, TOB 25.0
Date Started 512100 Date Ended 5123/00 Water Level, 24 Hr.
Drilling Firm Bare & Care (Seller) Logged by David Garrett Stabilized Level 18.0 T
Comments Cleared, former barrow site Total Depth 32.0 Date of Observation 811100
All depths are given In feet and referenced b.g.s.
Depth and 1`iev. SPT Value and Plot Soil Description and USCS Symbol Piezometer Constuction Data
0
944.00
4
942.00
6
940.00
$
— 938.00
10
936.0Q
_ 12
934.00
14
932.00
— 1 B
930.00
— 1$
928.00
20 —
926.00
22
924.00
24
922.00
26
920.00
— 28
918.00
— 30
1916.00
17
914.00
[
-
SANDY SILT: very stiff, tan-
j
orange -brown mottled, slightly
micacous, slightly moist,
I
—
4 refusal at 15.5 feet
12er
I
11
-
T
:-
ML
1R
l
i�
f
F
1
Soil Backfill
77
ML
l
-
$
ML
1
l
!
Q a
PWR: variably hard drilling,
j
i
P o
advanced with air -rotary
Sentonite
0
tricone, with layers
Seal
a.
o:0
f
D:.:`D:.
i
E
0
I
�
I
SZ
GNEISS: advanced with air-
i
i
1
:MML
rotary tricone
Sand Pack
0.0101,
f
5
i
Slotted
I
Screen

APPENDIX C
DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX C
DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
SOIL TEST BORINGS
Soil test borings were advanced by mechanically twisting a continuous flight steel auger into the soil. Soil
sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586. At regular
intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch ID, 2-inch OD, split -tube sampler. The
sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an additional 12 inches
with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and designated the "penetration resistance."
CORE DRILLING
Core drilling procedures were required to determine the character and vertical continuity of refusal
materials. Refusal to soil drilling equipment may result from hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock,
coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams or the upper surface of solid continuous rock.
Prior to coring, a 4-inch diameter PVC pipe was seated in the refusal material and grouted into place with
a cement-bentonite mixture. Refusal materials were then cored according to the ASTM D2113 using a
diamond -studded bit fastened to the end of a hollow, double -tube core barrel. The NQ and HQ sizes
designate bits that obtain rock cores 1-7/8 and 2-1/2 inches in diameter. Upon completion of each drill run,
the inner core barrel was brought to the surface, the core was recovered from the inner barrel and length
was measured and the core samples placed in boxes for storage.
The core samples were returned to our laboratory where the refusal material was identified and the percent
core recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) was determined by a geologist. The percent core
recovery is the ratio of the core length obtained to the length cored, expressed as a percent. The RQD is
obtained by summing only those pieces of recovered core which are 4 inches or longer and are at least
moderately hard and dividing by the total length cored. The percent core recovery and the RQD are related
to soundness and continuity of the refusal material. Refusal material descriptions, recoveries and the bit
size are shown on the Test Boring Records (see Appendix B).

APPENDIX D
SOIL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

11I IN I BUNNELL
LAMMONS
■■ ENGINEERING
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Rutherford County Landfill - Phase 2 C&D DHR
Rutherford County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J19-13675-01
Standard Proctor I Remolded Hvdraulic Conductivity I Triaxial Shear I Consolidation
Boring
No.
Sample
Depth
(feet)
Sample
Type
I
In Situ
Moisture
Content
(%)
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(Undisturbed)
(cm/sec)
Optimum
Moisture
Content
(%)
Maximum
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Pressure
Gradient
(psi)
Moisture Content
Dry Density
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Cohesion, C
(ksf)
Friction Angle, d,
(degrees)
Preconsolidation
Pressure, Pc
(ksf)
Consolidation
Coefficient, Cc
Wet Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Specific
Gravity
Atterberg Limits
Grain Size Distribution
(% by weight)
% Pass
200 Sieve
USCS
T.".m.wet
of Opt.)
(pcf)
(% of MDD)
Total
Effective
Total
Effective
LL
PL
PI
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
B-40S/D
1.0 - 3.0
UD
12.8
7.8E-06
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
132.3
111.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B-40S/D
4.0 - 6.0
Bulk
-
15.3
113.1
10
17.3
2.0
106.7
95.0
1.1E-06
-
128.7
106.7
-
38
24
14
2.2
51.8
32.9
13.1
46.0
Sc
B40S/D
13.5 - 15.0
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.1
54.5
12.0
0.4
12.4
-
B40S/D
23.5 - 25.0
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.2
77.5
17.9
0.4
18.3
-
B-41
1.0 - 2.5
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.2
67.9
29.5
1.4
30.9
-
B-41
1.0 - 5.0
Bulk
-
-
16.3
109.4
10
18.3
2.0
103.6
94.7
6.5E-06
0.26
0.59
14.81
30.42
125.5
101.1
-
41
28
13
2.4
57.4
30.8
9.4
40.2
SM
B41
18.5 - 20.0
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
79.6
20.0
0.4
20.4
-
B42
1.0 - 2.0
UD
12.1
1.5E-04
-
-
-
-
135.7
115.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B42
8.5 - 10.0
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.8
71.8
23.8
0.6
24.4
-
B43
8.5 - 10.0
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.4
70.5
15.8
0.3
16.1
-
B44
0.0 - 5.0
Bulk
-
-
16.1
111.5
10
18.1
2.0
106
95.1
1.2E-06
-
-
-
-
-
-
129.5
107.6
-
39
21
18
1.3
46.5
23.4
28.8
52.2
CL
B44
2.0 - 4.0
UD
18.4
4.0E-07
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.44
0.72
23.83
35.76
11.679
0.13
130.5
109.4
2.65
40
21
19
1.2
42.0
20.9
35.9
56.8
CL
B44
6.0 - 7.5
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
33.0
27.7
39.3
67.0
-
B-44
8.0 - 10.0
UD
13.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43
27
16
2.7
53.2
25.8
18.3
44.1
SM
B44
23.5 - 25.0
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
72.8
25.6
1.5
27.1
-
B-44
33.5 - 35.0
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
74.6
13.1
2.8
15.9
-
NOTES:
1. USCS = Unified Soil Classification System
2. Refer to Appendix D for laboratory data sheets.
Prepared by: TJD
Checked by: LU

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
120
115
110
U
Q
T
U)
C
N
T
105
100
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
95
2.70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
4.0-6.0
SC
A-6(3)
38
14
2.2
46.0
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 113.1 pcf
Optimum moisture = 15.3 %
Light grey clayey fi.-med. SAND
Project No. 13675-01 Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
OSource of Sample: Boring Sample Number: B-40
Remarks:
Figure
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville SC

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
120
115
110
U
Q
T
C
N
T
105
100
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
951
2.70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
1.0-5.0
SM
A-7-6(2)
41
13
2.4
40.2
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 109.4 pcf
Optimum moisture = 16.3 %
Brown silty fi.-med. SAND
Project No. 13675-01 Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
OSource of Sample: Boring Sample Number: B-41
Remarks:
Figure
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville SC

COMPACTION TEST REPORT
120
115
110
U
Q
T
C
N
T
105
100
ZAV for
Sp.G. _
95
2.70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
Elev/
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
Sp.G.
LL
PI
% >
#4
% <
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
0.0-5.0
CL
A-6(6)
39
18
1.3
52.2
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 111.5 pcf
Optimum moisture = 16.1 %
Brown fi.-med. sandy CLAY
Project No. 13675-01 Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
OSource of Sample: Boring Sample Number: B-44
Remarks:
Figure
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville SC

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY USCS
NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
• Boring B-40 4.0-6.0 24 38 14 SC
■ Boring B-41 1.0-5.0 28 41 13 SM
♦ Boring B-44 0.0-5.0 21 39 18 CL
♦ Boring B-44 2.0-4.0 18.4 21 40 19 CL
♦ Boring B-44 8.0-10.0 13.5 27 43 16 SM

Particle Size Distribution Report
000
100
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
80
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 1 1 k ii
I I I I I I I I
I I I
70
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
L
w 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
z
IZ
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
z 50
I1I I I I I I I I I I I I
U I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
w 40
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IN
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0. 01
GRAIN gl7F -mm
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
%+3"
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt
Clay
O
0.0
0.0
2.2
3.6
15.8
32.4
32.9
13.1
❑
0.0
0.0
33.1
11.2
10.4
32.9
12.0
0.4
0
0.0
0.0
4.2
6.8
24.8
45.9
17.9
0.4
O
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.9
18.8
46.2
29.5
1.4
0
0.0
0.0
2.4
2.7
16.9
37.8
30.8
9.4
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
Material Description
USCS
O
Boring
B-40
4.0-6.0
Light grey clayey fi.-med. SAND
SC
❑
Boring
B-40
13.5-15.0
Light grey & brown silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel
Boring
B-40
23.5-25.0
Grey silty fi.-med. SAND
O
Boring
B-41
1.0-2.5
Brown silty fi.-med. SAND
V
Boring
B-41
1.0-5.0
Brown silty fi.-med. SAND
SM
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc. I Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Greenville, SC J Project No.: 1

Particle Size Distribution Report
000
100
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
90
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
80
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
70
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
L,f 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
z
LL
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
z 50
I1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
w 40
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
10
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0. 01
GRAIN .qI7F -mm
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
%+3"
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
I Medium
Fine
Silt
Clay
O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
27.1
52.0
20.0
0.4
❑
0.0
0.0
3.8
4.3
24.7
42.8
23.8
0.6
0
0.0
0.0
13.4
9.1
26.9
34.5
15.8
0.3
O
0.0
0.0
1.3
2.5
15.6
28.4
23.4
28.8
0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.8
15.3
24.9
20.9
35.9
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
Material Description
USCS
O
Boring
B-41
18.5-20.0
Grey silty fi.-med. SAND
❑
Boring
B-42
8.5-10.0
Grey silty fi.-med. SAND
Boring
B-43
8.5-10.0
Light grey silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel
O
Boring
B-44
0.0-5.0
Brown fi.-med. sandy CLAY
CL
V
Boring
B-44
2.0-4.0
Brown &-med. sandy CLAY
CL
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc. I Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Greenville, SC J Project No.: 1

Particle Size Distribution Report
000
(O M N
100
90
80
70
z
LL
Z
50
LLI
W 40
30
N�
20
Y%
10
---r --- t
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN g17F -mm
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
%+3"
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt
Clay
O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.2
18.8
27.7
39.3
❑
0.0
0.0
2.7
4.1
19.4
29.7
25.8
18.3
0
0.0
0.0
0.1
5.2
28.6
39.0
25.6
1.5
O
0.0
0.0
9.5
4.0
24.2
46.4
13.1
2.8
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
Material Description
USCS
O
Boring
B-44
6.0-7.5
Reddish brown fi.-med. sandy CLAY
❑
Boring
B-44
8.0-10.0
Reddish brown silty fi.-med. SAND
SM
Boring
B-44
23.5-25.0
Grey fi.-med. SAND w/some silt
O
Boring
B-44
33.5-35.0
Dark grey silty fi.-co. SAND
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc. I Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Greenville, SC J Project No.: 1

CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
-2
\
-1
\
0
1
2
C0
INS
3
N
N
4
5
6
7
8
100 1000 10000
Applied Pressure - psf
Natural
Dry Dens.
(pcf)
LL
PI
Sp.
Gr.
Overburden
(psf)
PC
(psf)
C
C r
Swell Press.
(psf)
Swell
%
e o
Sat.
Moist.
74.4 %
15.7 %
106.1
40
19
2.65
11679
0.13
0.03
0.559
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
AASHTO
Brown fi.-med. sandy CLAY
CL
A-6(8)
Project No. 13675-01 Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 2.0-4.0 Sample Number: B-44
Remarks:
Figure
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville SC

Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.: 13675-01
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 2.0-4.0 Sample Number: B-44
t90
-0.36025
-0.36000
-0.35975
-0.35950
c
0.35925
c
�-0.35900
a�
--0.35875
6
-0.35850
-0.35825
-0.35800
-0.35775 L_
0
t90
-0.3576
-0.3572
-0.3568
-0.3564
c
0.3560
-0.3556
�o-0.3552
0
-0.3548
-0.3544
-0.3540
-0.3536
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
0 4 8
12 16 20 24 28 32
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
-Bunnell Lammons Engineering, In
36 40
Load No.= 3
Load= 1000 psf
DO =-0.3606
D90 =-0.3595
D 100 =-0.3594
T90 = 0.48 min.
Cv @ T90
4.389 ft.2/day
Load No.= 4
Load= 2000 psf
DO =-0.3574
D90 =-0.3561
D100 =-0.3560
T90 = 0.74 min.
Cv @ T90
2.864 ft.2/day
Figure

Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.: 13675-01
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 2.0-4.0 Sample Number: B-44
t90
-0.3523
-0.3518
-0.3513
-0.3508
c
0.3503
c
c-0.3498
aD
w
ia-0.3493
0
-0.3488
-0.3483
-0.3478
-0.3473
0
t90
-0.347
-0.346
-0.345
-0.344
c
-0.343
c
co -0.342
W
Of
is -0.341
0
-0.340
-0.339
-0.338
-0.337
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
0 4 8
12 16 20 24 28 32
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
-Bunnell Lammons Engineering, In
36 40
Load No.= 5
Load= 4000 psf
DO =-0.3528
D90 =-0.3508
D 100 =-0.3506
T90 = 0.53 min.
Cv @ T90
3.962 ft.2/day
Load No.= 6
Load= 8000 psf
DO =-0.3464
D90 =-0.3433
D 100 =-0.3429
T90 = 0.56 min.
Cv @ T90
3.664 ft.2/day
Figure

Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.: 13675-01
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 2.0-4.0 Sample Number: B-44
t90
-0.34245
-0.34230
-0.34215
-0.34200
c
0.34185
c
c-0.34170
a�
ia-0.34155
0
-0.34140
-0.34125
-0.34110
-0.34095
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
t90
-0.3411
-0.3408
-0.3405
-0.3402
c
0.3399
C-0.3396
aD
Of
m-0.3393
6
-0.3390
-0.3387
-0.3384
-0.3381
0 4 8
12 16 20 24 28 32
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
-Bunnell Lammons Engineering, In
36 40
Load No.= 9
Load= 4000 psf
DO =-0.3426
D90 =-0.3422
D 100 =-0.3421
T90 = 0.66 min.
Cv @ T90
3.103 ft.2/day
Load No.= 10
Load= 8000 psf
DO =-0.3411
D90 =-0.3405
D 100 =-0.3404
T90 = 0.89 min.
Cv @ T90
2.307 ft.2/day
Figure

Dial Reading vs. Time
Project No.: 13675-01
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 2.0-4.0 Sample Number: B-44
-0
-0
-0
-0
c
_- -0
c
cc -0
10
Ca -0
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
t90
332
331
330
329
328
327
326
325
324
323
322-
1
L
I -L
V Y V IG IV IV LV IV JL JV IV
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
t90
-0.313
-0.311
-0.309
-0.307
c
-0.305
c
c -0.303
0)
of
-0.301
0
-0.299
-0.297
-0.295
-0.293
0 4 8
12 16 20 24 28 32
Square Root of Elapsed Time (min.)
-Bunnell Lammons Engineering, In
36 40
Load No.= 11
Load= 16000 psf
DO =-0.3328
D90 =-0.3285
D 100 =-0.3280
T90 = 0.60 min.
Cv @ T90
3.353 ft.2/day
Load No.= 12
Load= 32000 psf
DO =-0.3130
D90 =-0.3045
D100 =-0.3035
T90 = 0.62 min.
Cv @ T90
3.112 ft.2/day
Figure

'
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ems■■■■■■■■■■;Ira■■■■■■■■■■■.�■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■R5i■■■■■■■■■Rai■■■■\l�■■■■■■■■■■\�■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t'Lid■■■■■■■■�i/.■■■■■■■■1�1�■■■■■■■■■■\`\■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■di■■■■■■ISM■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■!■■■■■■■■■■■\\■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■ts�■■Ise■■.�■■■■■■■ri■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■a■■■■■■■■■■■a■■■■
pia\■■'�■■■III■■■■■■�■■Il■It■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■A■■■■■■■■■■■11■■
FluidPrincipal
Press. psi
Fail. Stress, psi
Ult. Stress, psi
Stresses
at Failure psi
®
Total Pore
Pressure
Total Pore
Pressure
©
1 1
111
1 •
•
�
.1
Consolidated Sample Parameters
% Water
Content
Dry Dens.
pcf
Satur-
ation
Diameter
in.
Height
in.
Strain Rate
in/min.
11 1'.
1
•1
1 1
Strength Parameters
Material Description
TotalMohr-Coulomb
FrictionStrength intercept, c= 3.250 psi 2.482 psi
• - 23.83 deg 35.76 •
Tangent,u = 0.44 1
Brown fi.-med. sandy CLAY
Client: McGill Associates.72
Project:• • County,
Source of Sample: Boring Depth:1
Sample Number: i ..
Date Sampled:
Rutherford . 1
Proj. No.:• 1
logo 0 is •

150 1
150
120
120
3 90
3
90
cn
cn
CO
N 'in
a
a) to
a
a�
IL
a) `0 60
a) o`
60
0 M
0 M
a '>
C '>
30
30
0
0
0%
8%
16%
0% 8%
16%
150 3
150 4
120
120
3 (n 90
3
90
N a) •tn _- -
in a) M
'
a) 0 60
a) 0
60
0 m i
,,
o is
0- >
---
C �
a)
coo p
a)
ru p
30
30-
0-
0
0%
8%
16%
0% 8%
16%
120
80
a
s
40
0
0
40
80
120
160 200
240
p, psi
Stress Paths:
Total
Effective -------
Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 2.0-4.0 Sample Number: B-44
Project No.: 13675-01
Figure
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
2
Peak Strength
Peak Strength
Total Effective
a= 2.973 psi 2.014 psi
a= 22.00 deg 30.30 deg
tan a= 0.40 0.58
i
i
i
i
'
r
i

TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT
90
'
60
a
ui
in
'
c�
U)
30
i
t
t
0 t
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Total Normal Stress, psi
Effective Normal Stress, psi -------
Type of Test: CU with Pore Pressures Sample Type:
NO.
Fluid Press. psi
Fail. Stress psi
>
Ult. Stress psi
>
Principal Stresses
at Failure psi
Cell
Back
Deviator
Total Pore
Pressure
Deviator
Total Pore
Pressure
61
63
1
41.490
38.000
7.063
38.644
10.937
36.390
9.908
2.846
2
58.780
38.000
19.155
50.063
22.307
48.999
27.873
8.717
3
107.350
38.000
52.368
82.424
57.502
81.627
77.294
24.926
Consolidated Sample Parameters
No.
% Water
Content
Dry Dens.
pcf
Satur-
ation
Void
Ratio
Diameter
in.
Height
in.
Strain Rate
in/min.
1
24.5
100.4
100.0%
0.6483
2.903
5.982
0.015
2
22.9
102.9
100.0%
0.6075
2.877
5.940
0.015
3
20.2
107.7
100.0%
0.5361
2.834
5.852
0.015
Mohr -Coulomb Strength Parameters
Material Description
Total Effective
Strength intercept, c= 1.831 psi 0.357 psi
Friction angle, = 14.81 deg 30.42 deg
Tangent, � = 0.26 0.59
Brown silty fi.-med. SAND
Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring Depth: 1.0-5.0
Sample Number: B-41
Date Sampled:
File: Rutherford COLF 13675.01
Remarks:
Proj. No.: 13675-01
Figure
TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST REPORT
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville SC

100
100
80
;
80
60
60
a
a�
a
a) 0 40------- -
L
a) 0
40
(0
f6
^0
I . 'i
^0
a. 'i
0
O 20
r
O
r
20
L
0
O
I I
0%
8%
16%
0% 8%
16%
100
100 4
so
80
60
60
a
Cn N
CO 'Fn
a�
aUCL
a) 0 40
a� 0
40
o m
0 m
a. '>
a. '>
a�
cap
a�
�0
20
20
0
0
0%
8%
16%
0% 8%
16%
60
40
a
s
20-
0
0
20
40
60
80 100
120
p, psi
Stress Paths: Total
Effective -------
Client: McGill Associates
Project: Rutherford County, NC - CDLF
Source of Sample: Boring
Depth: 1.0-5.0
Sample Number: B-41
Project No.: 13675-01
Figure
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
2
3
Peak Strength
3
Peak Strength
Peak Strength
Total Effective
a= 1.770 psi 0.308 psi
a= 14.34 deg 26.85 deg
tan a= 0.26 0.51
i

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT: RUTHERFORD COUNTY. NC - CDLF
PROJECT NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
J20-13675-01
11-27-19
TESTED BY: JOHN MATHEW
CHECKED BY: PAUL YARBER
SAMPLE NO. B-40 SAMPLE LOCATION: 1.0-3.0'
TYPE UNDISTURBED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: REDDISH BROWN SILTY FL-MED. SAND
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM
INITIAL
FINAL
inches
centimeters
inches
centimeters
Sample Length
2.957
7.511
2.948
7.488
Sample Diameter
2.876
7.305
2.825
7.176
Length/Diameter Ratio
1.03
Moisture Content (%)
WW= 225.3 DW=
199.7
12.8
WW= 257.8
DW= 217.9
18.3
Sample Wet Weight(grams)
607.6
641.9
Wet Density c
120.5
132.3
Dry Densit c
106.8
111.9
Saturation (%) ASSUMED So= 2.7
60
98
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Chamber Pressure (psi)
70 M Influent Pressure (psi)
60
Effluent Pressure (psi)
60
B-Value
0.96
Reset
(Y/N)
Date
Clock Time
Elapsed Time HADUT
(cm)
HAIN
(cm)
Temp
°C
Gradient
K
(cm/sec)
Temp
Correction
K20°C
(cm/sec)
Y
4-23-20
2:13:09
7.5
1.77
21.7
10
4-23-20
2:13:14
0:00:05
7.0
1.80
21.7
9
8.5E-06
0.960
8.1E-06
4-23-20
2:13:20
0:00:11
6.5
1.82
21.7
8
8.1E-06
0.960
7.8E-06
4-23-20
2:13:27
0:00:18
6.0
1.84
21.7
7
7.9E-06
0.960
7.5E-06
4-23-20
2:13:34
0:00:25
5.5
1.86
21.7
6
8.0E-06
0.960
7.7E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20.0 7.8E-06 cm/sec

PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC - CDLF
J20-13675-01
11-27-19
TESTED BY: JOHN MATHEW
CHECKED BY: PAUL YARBER
SAMPLE NO. B-40 SAMPLE LOCATION: 4.0-6.0'
TYPE REMOLDED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: LIGHT GREY CLAYEY FI.-MED. SAND
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM
INITIAL
FINAL
inches
centimeters
inches
centimeters
Sample Length
3.000
7.620
3.010
7.645
Sample Diameter
2.850
7.239
2.855
WW= 236.9
Dw= 196.4
7.252
20.6
Length/Diameter Ratio
Moisture Content (%)
WW= 224.1 Dw= 191.0
1.05
17.3
Sample Wet Weight(grams)
633.2
650.8
Wet Density c
126.0
128.7
Dry Densit c
107.4
106.7
Saturation (%) ASSUMED So= 2.7
82
96
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Chamber Pressure (psi)
70 M Influent Pressure (psi)
60
Effluent Pressure (psi)
60
B-Value
0.96
Reset
(Y/N)
Date
Clock Time
Elapsed Time HADUT
(cm)
HAIN
(cm)
Temp
°C
Gradient
K
(cm/sec)
Temp
Correction
K20°C
(cm/sec)
Y
4-23-20
2:28:24
irr77M
7.9
2.07
21.7
10
4-23-20
2:28:52
0:00:28
7.5
2.09
21.7
9
1.2E-06
0.960
1.1E-06
4-23-20
2:29:30
0:01:06
7.0
2.11
21.7
8
1.2E-06
0.960
1.1E-06
4-23-20
2:30:16
0:01:52
6.5
2.13
21.7
8
1.1E-06
0.960
1.1E-06
4-23-20
2:31:09
0:02:45
6.0
2.15
21.7
7
1.1E-06
0.960
1.1E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20.0 LIE-06 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698): 95.0
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698): +2.0

PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC - CDLF
J20-13675-01
11-27-19
TESTED BY: JOHN MATHEW
CHECKED BY: PAUL YARBER
SAMPLE NO. B-41 SAMPLE LOCATION: 1.0-5.0
TYPE REMOLDED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: BROWN SILTY FL-MED. SAND
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM
INITIAL
FINAL
inches
centimeters
inches
centimeters
Sample Length
3.001
7.623
3.051
7.750
Sample Diameter
2.850
7.239
2.857
WW= 204.5
DW= 164.7
7.257
24.2
Length/Diameter Ratio
Moisture Content (%)
WW= 210.3 Dw= 177.8
1.05
18.3
Sample Wet Weight(grams)
616.0
644.6
Wet Density c
122.6
125.5
Dry Densit c
103.6
101.1
Saturation (%) ASSUMED So= 2.7
79
98
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Chamber Pressure (psi)
70 M Influent Pressure (psi)
60
Effluent Pressure (psi)
60
B-Value
0.95
Reset
(Y/N)
Date
Clock Time
Elapsed Time HAOUT
(cm)
HAIN
(cm)
Temp
°C
Gradient
K
(cm/sec)
Temp
Correction
K20°C
(cm/sec)
Y
4-23-20
2:37:10
7.9
2.07
21.7
10
4-23-20
2:37:21
0:00:11
7.0
2.11
21.7
8
7.2E-06
0.960
6.9E-06
4-23-20
2:37:29
0:00:19
6.5
2.13
21.7
7
6.8E-06
0.960
6.5E-06
4-23-20
2:37:38
0:00:28
6.0
2.15
21.7
7
6.7E-06
0.960
6.4E-06
4-23-20
2:37:49
0:00:39
5.5
2.17
21.7
6
6.5E-06
0.960
6.2E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20.0 6.5E-06 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698): 94.7
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698): +2.0

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT: RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC - CDLF TESTED BY:
PROJECT NO.: J20-13675-01 CHECKED BY:
DATE RECEIVED: 11-27-19
JOHN MATHEW
PAUL YARBER
SAMPLE NO.
B-42
SAMPLE LOCATION:
0.0-2.0'
TYPE
UNDISTURBED
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
DARK BROWN SILTY FL - CO. SAND w/ larger weathered rock layers
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM
INITIAL
FINAL
inches
centimeters
inches
centimeters
Sample Length
3.140
7.976
3.083
7.831
Sample Diameter
2.855
7.252
2.863
7.272
Length/Diameter Ratio
1.10
Moisture Content %
WW- 245.9 Dw- 219.3
12.1
WW- 294.9
DW= 250.9
17.5
Sample Wet Weight(grams)
690.6
707.2
Wet Density c
130.9
135.7
Dry Density c
116.7
115.5
Saturation (%) nssun D so= 2.7
74
103
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
FALLING HEAD TEST
Confining Pressure (psi) 70.2 1 1 Influent Pressure (psi) 60.2I
Effluent Pressure (psi) 60.0 B-Value 0.95
Date
Clock Time
Elapsed
Time
seconds
Pipet Readings
Head
Temp
°C
Gradient
K
cm/sec
Temp
Correction
K20°C
cm/sec
Initial
Final
Initial
cm
Final
cm
Start
End
in
out
in
out
4-24-20
10:32:00
10:32:32
32
1.0
23.0
2.0
22.0
40.092
37.726
21.7
5
1.5E-04
0.960
1.5E-04
4-24-20
10:32:32
10:33:06
34
2.0
22.0
3.0
21.0
37.726
35.361
21.7
5
1.5E-04
0.960
1.5E-04
4-24-20
10:33:06
10:33:41
35
3.0
21.0
4.0
20.0
35.361
32.995
21.7
5
1.6E-04
0.960
1.5E-04
4-24-20
10:33:41
10:34:20
39
4.0
20.0
5.0
19.0
32.995
30.629
21.7
5
1.5E-04
0.960
1.5E-04
Pipet Length, cm
28.390
...............................
28.390
Pipet Volume, cc ...................24...........-24......
Cross -sectional Area of
Pipet, Cm
0.8454
0.8454
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20-C) 1.5E-04 cm/sec

PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC - CDLF
J20-13675-01
11-27-19
TESTED BY: JOHN MATHEW
CHECKED BY: PAUL YARBER
SAMPLE NO. B-44 SAMPLE LOCATION: 0.0-5.0
TYPE REMOLDED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: BROWN FI.-MED. SAND CLAY
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM
INITIAL
FINAL
inches
centimeters
inches
centimeters
Sample Length
2.999
7.617
2.986
7.584
Sample Diameter
2.850
7.239
2.836
7.203
Length/Diameter Ratio
1.05
Moisture Content (%)
WW= 211.7 Dw=
179.3
18.1
WW= 247.3
Dw= 205.4
20.4
Sample Wet Weight(grams)
628.6
641.3
Wet Density c
125.2
129.5
Dry Densit c
106.0
107.6
Saturation (%) ASSUMED SG-- 2.7
83
97
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Chamber Pressure (psi)
70 M Influent Pressure (psi)
60
Effluent Pressure (psi)
60
B-Value
0.96
Reset
(Y/N)
Date
Clock Time
Elapsed Time HADUT
(cm)
HAIN
(cm)
Temp
°C
Gradient
K
(cm/sec)
Temp
Correction
K20'C
(cm/sec)
Y
4-23-20
2:33:57
7.6
1.77
21.7
10
4-23-20
2:34:36
0:00:39
7.0
1.80
21.7
9
1.3E-06
0.960
1.2E-06
4-23-20
2:35:17
0:01:20
6.5
1.82
21.7
8
1.2E-06
0.960
1.2E-06
4-23-20
2:36:04
0:02:07
6.0
1.84
21.7
7
1.2E-06
0.960
1.1E-06
4-23-20
2:36:57
0:03:00
5.5
1.86
21.7
6
1.2E-06
0.960
1.1E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20.0 1.2E-06 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698): 95.1
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698): +2.0

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT: RUTHERFORD COUNTY. NC - CDLF
PROJECT NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
J20-13675-01
11-27-19
TESTED BY: JOHN MATHEW
CHECKED BY: PAUL YARBER
SAMPLE NO. B-44 SAMPLE LOCATION: 2.0-4.0
TYPE UNDISTURBED SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: BROWN FI.-MED. SAND CLAY
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM
INITIAL
FINAL
inches
centimeters
inches
centimeters
Sample Length
3.019
7.668
3.046
7.737
Sample Diameter
2.869
7.287
2.887
7.333
Length/Diameter Ratio
1.05
Moisture Content (%)
WW= 287.9 DW=
243.1
18.4
WW= 277.5
DW= 232.5
19.4
Sample Wet Weight(grams)
662.5
683.3
Wet Density c
129.3
130.5
Dry Densit c
109.2
109.4
Saturation (%) ASSUMED SG-- 2.7
92
97
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Chamber Pressure (psi)
70 M Influent Pressure (psi)
60
Effluent Pressure (psi)
60
B-Value
0.97
Reset
(Y/N)
Date
Clock Time
Elapsed Time HADUT
(cm)
HAIN
(cm)
Temp
°C
Gradient
K
(cm/sec)
Temp
Correction
K20°C
(cm/sec)
Y
4-23-20
2:16:10
8.0
2.07
21.7
10
4-23-20
2:17:44
0:01:34
7.5
2.09
21.7
9
4.3E-07
0.960
4.1E-07
4-23-20
2:19:31
0:03:21
7.0
2.11
21.7
8
4.2E-07
0.960
4.1E-07
4-23-20
2:21:32
0:05:22
6.5
2.13
21.7
7
4.2E-07
0.960
4.0E-07
4-23-20
2:23:50
0:07:40
6.0
2.15
21.7
7
4.1E-07
0.960
4.0E-07
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20.0 4.0E-07 cm/sec

APPENDIX E
SOIL LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES

APPENDIX E
SOIL LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
MOISTURE CONTENT AND UNIT WEIGHT
An undisturbed sample is trimmed in the laboratory into a right circular cylinder approximately three to six
inches long. The dimensions and weight of the specimen are determined, and the total unit weight
calculated. Moisture contents are determined from representative portions of the specimen. The soil is
dried to a constant weight in an oven at 100 degrees C and the loss of moisture during the drying process is
measured. From this data, the moisture content and dry unit weight are computed. The test is performed
in general accordance with ASTM D2216.
ATTERBERG LIMITS
The Atterberg Limits Tests, Liquid Limit (LL), and Plastic Limit (PL), are performed to aid in the
classification of soils and to determine the plasticity and volume change characteristics of the materials.
The Liquid Limit is the minimum moisture content at which a soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The
Plastic Limit is the minimum moisture content at which the solid behaves as a plastic material. The
Plasticity Index (PI) is the numeric difference of Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit and indicated the range
of moisture content over which a soil remains plastic. These tests are performed in accordance with ASTM
D4318. Test results are presented on the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report sheet in Appendix D.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of soils coarser than the No. 200 (75-um) sieve is determined by passing a representative
specimen through a standard set of nested sieves. The weight of material retained on each sieve is
determined and the percentage retained (or passing) is calculated. A specimen may be washed through only
the No. 200 sieve, if the full range of particle sizes is not required. The percentage of material passing the
No. 200 sieve is reported. The distribution of materials finer than No. 200 sieve is determined by use of
the hydrometer. The particle sizes and distribution are computed from the time rate of settlement of the
different size particles while suspended in water. These tests are performed in accordance with ASTM
D421, D422, and D1140. Test results are presented on the Particle Size Distribution sheets in Appendix D.
COMPACTION
Bulk samples of potential borrow soils from the project site were collected and transported to the laboratory
for compaction testing. A standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D698) was performed on each sample
to determine compaction characteristics, including the maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content. Test results are presented on the Compaction Test Report sheets in Appendix D.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
The ease with which water flows through a soil is characterized by its hydraulic conductivity also referred
to as permeability. Two different test methods are employed depending on the soil type.
The Constant Head method (ASTM D2434) is used for coarse -grained materials (sands and gravels). The
sample is confined in a permeameter chamber while water is allowed to flow through it from a continuous
water column or constant head level. The quantity of water flowing through the specimen in a given time
period is used to calculate the hydraulic conductivity.

1t 1m 1MS
Appendix E - Soil Laboratory Test Procedures
Rutherford County Landfill
Rutherford County, North Carolina
BLE Project Jo. J19-13675-01
Fine-grained materials (silts and clays) require the use of a Flexible Wall Permeameter (ASTM D5084).
The sample is prepared in a similar manner as in the triaxial compression test. It is encased in a rubber
membrane and place inside a permeameter chamber. The specimen is back -pressure saturated and allowed
to consolidate under a specified effective stress. Water is then forced through the specimen under a
controlled hydraulic gradient. The quantity of water flowing into the sample in a given time period is used
to calculate the hydraulic conductivity. This test is performed in general accordance with ASTM D 5084.
Test results are presented on the Hydraulic Conductivity Test Report sheets in Appendix D.
TRIAXIAL SHEAR
Multi -stage consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed soil
samples. Each sample was trimmed and the initial moisture content and unit weight was determined. The
trimmed sample was placed into a waterproof membrane and loaded into the test cell. The sample was
subjected to an assigned confining pressure and allowed to consolidate. The sample was then subjected to an
axial compressive load, which was gradually increased until incipient failure, at which point the confining
pressure was increased and the process repeated. Pore pressures were measured during the test to permit
determination of the total stress and effective stress parameters. The test results are used to estimate the
strength parameters of the soil (angle of internal friction and cohesion). The test results are presented in the
form of Stress -Strain Curves and Mohr Diagrams on the Triaxial Shear Test Report sheets in Appendix D.
CONSOLIDATION TEST
A single section of an undisturbed sample was extruded from its sampling tube for consolidation testing. The
sample was then trimmed into a disc 2.4 inches in diameter and 1-inch thick. The disc was confined in a
stainless steel ring and sandwiched between porous plates. It was then subjected to incrementally increasing
vertical loads and the resulting deformations measured with a micrometer dial gauge. The test results are
presented in the form of a pressure versus percent strain curve on the Consolidation Test Report sheet in
Appendix D.

APPENDIX F
GLOBAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

CALCULATION DOCUMENTATION
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY C&D LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
Prepared By: --
1 Debaty, E.I.T.
Date: January 21, 2021
�,•,•,`��ti � � etc � rn�0
i
�.Q V
,7
AL
042375
Reviewed By: "A
FN�IN
Tyler W. Moody, P.E. '••,;�/�` W. -00o�••'•.
Registered, NC No. 42375 �40411"dt+++""'����
Date: January 21, 2021
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, South Carolina
864-288-1265 (Voice)
864-288-4430 (Fax)

1t 1m 1i
Calculation Documentation —Slope Stability Analysis January 21, 2021
Rutherford County C&D Landfill BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
Rutherford County, North Carolina
PURPOSE
1. Analyze the global slope stability of the construction and demolition (C&D) waste slopes
for the proposed Expansion Phase 2 area.
2. A minimum long term static factor of safety (F.S.) > 1.5 is recommended.
DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS
General Conditions
1. BLE performed six (6) borings in the expansion area as part of the design hydrogeologic
investigation and design hydrogeological report (DHR). Soil samples were collected using
split -spoon samplers and laboratory tests were performed in accordance with applicable
ASTM specifications, where available. Laboratory testing included grain size and Atterberg
limits, hydraulic conductivity, and triaxial shear tests. The soils encountered were classified
per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
2. An interpolated bedrock surface map prepared using the auger refusal depths. Auger refusal
depths may represent competent bedrock or possibly boulders of hard rock within the
residual soil and partially weathered rock units. The bedrock elevations are presented on
Figure 6, Appendix A.
3. An estimated long-term ground water contour map was prepared from monitoring the water
level fluctuations in piezometers during the investigative period. Groundwater elevation
contours are presented on Figure 5, Appendix A.
4. The Phase 2 area topography and proposed final cap grades were provided by McGill
Associates within the electronic drawings titled 1119.00703 BLE 10-22-20" dated October
22, 2020. Landfill base grades were provided by McGill Associates in an electronic
drawing dated December 17, 2021.
5. The subsurface of the landfill consists of the following layers in order of decreasing
elevation:
a. Where necessary, the existing ground surface will be raised to design grades using
structural fill from onsite sources. Structural fill soils on the site will consist of
excavated residual silty sands. The thickest structural fill areas will require
approximately 6 feet of fill to achieve the proposed design subgrade.
b. A layer of residual soil ranging from 6 to 34 feet thick below the subgrade.
Generally, this layer of near surface residual material exhibited a very firm average
consistency based on standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts.
c. A layer of partially weathered rock classified as silty fine to coarse sand ranging
in thickness from 0 to 16 feet.
d. Relatively incompressible bedrock.
6. Shear strengths of the underlying residual material were conservatively assumed based on
typical values for sandy silt to silty sand and SPT N-values from the current soil test
borings.
7. Shear strength of the construction and demolition (C&D) waste was estimated from
published literature and our experience with similar materials. C&D waste typically
includes larger size material pieces that provide for higher friction angles. Given the
potential variability of the material, we have conservatively estimated the C&D waste
2

1t 1m 1i
Calculation Documentation —Slope Stability Analysis
Rutherford County C&D Landfill
Rutherford County, North Carolina
January 21, 2021
BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
strengths and unit weight, though the referenced literature suggests that the C&D is likely
stronger than was is used in this analysis (Piratheepan et al., 2013).
The following cross sections were analyzed for slope stability:
a. A -A' represents the final grades of the landfill, crossing east to west through the
slopes and top of the waste mound of the Phase 2 Expansion. The cross section
represents the thickest portion of waste above base grades. The slope is at 3H:IV.
b. C-C' represents the final grades of the north facing slope of the Phase 2 Expansion.
The toe of the waste slope transitions to a 3H:1 V residual cut slope.
Assumptions
1. Slope stability analysis was performed for the final planned landfill grades. The analysis
assumes long-term effective stress (drained) conditions.
2. The analysis assumes proper bonding between C&D waste and soil subgrades, and between
all C&D waste fills.
a. Suitable bonding of the C&D wastes assumes the new waste has been keyed into
the existing Phase 1 waste materials through benching of the existing waste
surfaces, and that waste cover soils have been stripped to the greatest extent
practicable prior to waste placement. Likewise, cover soils placed over Phase 2
waste should be removed to allow waste to waste contact.
b. Prior to the placement of C&D wastes above the soil subgrade, the soil subgrade
is to be maintained in its final constructed condition (e.g. well compacted, without
excess moisture or softening due to moisture) until C&D waste is placed.
a. Placement of the C&D waste is assumed to occur in a "bottom up" manner of
placement, with the waste placed at the bottom of Phase 2 and placed in
subsequent overlying benches. Waste is placed starting from the lowest elevation
of Phase 2 then working upward in horizontal lifts. Downhill placement and
compaction of the waste was not considered in this analysis and is not a
recommended method of placement.
c. Storm water is not allowed to pond over portions of the landfill.
d. Intermediate landfill slopes, whether interior or exterior (Phase 2 perimeter) will
be no steeper than 3H:1 V. If steeper intermediate slopes are required for
operations, BLE should be contacted to evaluate the condition.
e. Failure to properly place, compact, and maintain the waste mound could result in
lower factors of safety than those calculated in this analysis and therefore may lead
to instability.
3. The analysis assumes the C&D waste is fully draining and does not have a perched
piezometric head within the waste.
4. The analysis was performed using Slide2 of the Rocscience software package (2020
Release, Version 9.009). The analysis used the Morgenstern -Price method of slices for
limit equilibrium and analyzed scenarios using the Cuckoo (non -circular), Slope (circular),
and Grid (circular) slip surface search criteria. An iterative optimization search procedure
was then performed, which provided an optimized composite failure surface. In general,
the program calculates the factor of safety for potential slip surfaces from the ratio of
available shear resistance and the shear resistance required to provide equilibrium.
Table 1 outlines the estimated Mohr -Coulomb shear strength envelopes utilized for the various
materials and conditions.

1t 1m 1i
Calculation Documentation —Slope Stability Analysis
Rutherford County C&D Landfill
Rutherford County, North Carolina
Table 1: Material Parameters (Long Term Drained Conditions)
January 21, 2021
BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
Material
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Friction Angle, 4�
(degrees;)
Cohesion, c
(psf)
Bedrock
"Impenetrable"
Residual Soils (V. Firm Consistency)
120
32
0
Structural Fill
120
30
0
C&D Waste
65
30
200
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The following tables summarizes the minimum slope stability factors of safety results for the cross
sections analyzed:
Table 2: Minimum Slope Stability Factors of Safety for Cross Sections
LOWEST
SCENARIO
No
FAILURE LOCATION
FAILURE
MINIMUM
F.S.
A -A'- Phase 2 Expansion, East [West Cross Section
Outside SF Slope
Noncircular,
Failure
A-1
Residual Soil Slope
Optimized
2.0
C&D Waste and Residual
Global/Basal Failure
A-2
Soils
Circular
2.0
C&D Waste Failure
A-3
C&D Waste
Circular
2.2
C-Cl- Phase 2 Expansion, Residual Soil Slope
Outside SF Failure
C-1
Residual Soil Slope
Circular
2.0
Global/Basal Failure
C-2
Residual Soil Slope
Circular
2.0
The proposed final waste grades for the Phase 2 expansion area consisting of 3H:1 V slopes with
intermediate benches represented by the south to east cross section A -A' achieved the minimum
recommended F.S. > 1.5 under the assumptions for optimized circular and block failures.
The proposed Phase 2 expansion area final waste grades of the C&D waste slope represented by
north slope cross section C-C' achieved the minimum recommended F.S. > 1.5 under the
assumptions for optimized circular and block failures.
4

1t 1m 1i
Calculation Documentation —Slope Stability Analysis January 21, 2021
Rutherford County C&D Landfill BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
Rutherford County, North Carolina
CONCLUSION
A global slope stability analysis was performed for the base grades and proposed final C&D waste
slopes for the Phase 2 expansion at the Rutherford County Landfill. The analysis used the provided
base and final grades prepared by Mc Gill Associates.
The recommended static factor of safety of F.S. > 1.5 was achieved for the planned final waste
slope conditions.
These factors of safety are contingent upon the conditions included in this analysis and presented
in our geotechnical report. The analysis was performed using the provided plans and grades. Any
deviation from the fill plan related to the waste slope benching, toe of waste location and steepened
waste slopes should be re-evaluated by BLE.
REFERENCES
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering. (2020). Design Hydrogeologic Report - Phase 2 C&D Area
Rutherford County Landfill. Rutherford County, NC.
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). (1982). NAVFAC
DM- 7.1, Soil Mechanics. Alexandria, VA: NAVFAC.
Duncan, J. M., Wright, S. G., & Brandon, T. L. (2014). Soil Strength and Slope Stability, 2nd
Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Piratheepan, J., Arulrajah, A., & Disfani, M. M. (2013). Large -Scale Direct Shear Testing of
Recyled Construction and Demolition Materials. Advances in Civil Engineering Materials,
2(1), 25-36.
Slide2 Version 9.009 released 2020 developed by Rocscience, Inc.
US Army Corps of Engineers. (2003). Engineering and Design: Slope Stability EM I110-2-1902.

1
0 100 200
Project
IM BUNNELLGroup
LAMM13NS
ENGINEERIN1;Dra—'5y
File Name
Method Name Min FS
GLE / Morgenstern -Price 1 2.0
Unit
Material
Strength
Cohesion
Phi
Allow
Water
Color
Weight
Ru
Name
Type
(psf)
(deg)
Sliding
Surface
(Ibs/ft3)
65
200
30
None
0
Waste
Coulomb
Structural
Mohr-
LJ
120
0
30
None
0
Fill
Coulomb
Mohr-
Piezometric
Residual
120
0
32
Coulomb
Line 1
Infinite
Piezometric
Bedrock
120
Yes
I
strength
Line 1
400 500 600
700
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic Report
A -A' Extended Scenario Outside SF Failure - Noncircular Cuckoo Method
Raphael M. Debaty, E.I.T. company Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, INC.
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Stability.slmd Run No. A-1 Date 11/10/2020

0
2.0
Method Name Min FS
GLE / Morgenstern -Price 2.0
Unit
Material
Strength
Cohesion
Phi
Allow
Water
Color
Weight
Ru
Name
Type
(psf)
(deg)
Sliding
Surface
(lbs/ft3)
65
200
30
None
0
Waste
Coulomb
Structural
Mohr-
❑
120
0
30
None
0
Fill
Coulomb
Mohr-
Piezometric
Residual
120
0
32
Coulomb
Line 1
Infinite
Piezometric
Bedrock
®
120
Yes
strength
Line 1
100 200 300
Project
BUNNELLGroup
LAMMONS
ENGINEERIN1;Dra—'5y
File Name
400
500
600
0
700
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic Report
A -A' Extended Scenario Global/Basal Failure - Circular Slope Method
Raphael M. Debaty, E.I.T. company Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, INC.
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Stability.slmd Run No. A-2 Date 11/10/2020

Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
100
2.2
Method Name I Min FS
GLE / Morgenstern -Price 1 2.2
Unit
Material
Strength
Cohesion
Phi
Allow
Water
Color
Weight
Ru
Name
Type
(psf)
(deg)
Sliding
Surface
(lbs/ft3)
Waste
65
Coulomb
200
30
None
0
Infinite
Piezometric
Bedrock
120
Yes
strength
1 Line 1
1 1
200 300
Project
BUNNELLGroup
LAMMONS
ENGINEERIN1;Dra—'5y
File Name
i , , , 1
400 500
600
700
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic Report
A -A' Extended Scenario C&D Waste Failure - Circular Grid Method
Raphael M. Debaty, E.I.T. company Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, INC.
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Stability.slmd Run No. A-3 Date 11/10/2020
800

0
50
Project
BUNNELLGroup
LAMMONS
ENGINEERIN1;Drawney
File Name
Method Name I Min FS
GLE / Morgenstern -Price 1 2.0
Unit
Material
Strength
Cohesion
Phi
Allow
Water
Color
Weight
Ru
Name
(Ibs/ft3)
Type
(psf)
(deg)
Sliding
Surface
65
200
30
None
0
Waste
Coulomb
Structural
Mohr -
Fill
120
Coulomb
0
30
None
0
Residual
120
Mohr-
0
32
Piezometric
Coulomb
Line 1
Bedrock
®
120
Infinite
Yes
Piezometric
strength
Line 1
00 0
00
� 00�
000 0 0 000 0 0
� oo 0()
1
0
0
100 150 200 250 300
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic Report
Scenario
C-C Outside SF Failure -Circular slope Method
Raphael M. Debaty, E.I.T. company Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, INC.
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Stability.slmd Run No. C-1 Date 11/10/2020

cz,
1
o-
0
50 100
Project
BUNNELLGroup
LAMMONS
ENGINEERIN1;Drawney
File Name
Method Name Min FS
GLE / Morgenstern -Price 1 2.0
Unit
Material
Strength
Cohesion
Phi
Allow
Water
Color
Weight
Ru
Name
Type
(psf)
(deg)
Sliding
Surface
(lbs/ft3)
65
200
30
None
0
Waste
Coulomb
Structural
Mohr-
❑
120
0
30
None
0
Fill
Coulomb
Mohr-
Piezometric
Residual
120
0
32
Coulomb
Line 1
Infinite
Piezometric
Bedrock
Ll
120
Yes
strength
Line 1
150
200
250
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Design Hydrogeologic Report
C-C, Scenario Global/Basal Failure - Circular Grid Method
Raphael M. Debaty, E.I.T. company Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, INC.
Rutherford County Landfill Phase 2 Stability.slmd Run No. C-2 Date 11/10/2020

APPENDIX G
SUBGRADE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

CALCULATION DOCUMENTATION
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY C&D LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
BLE Project No. J19-13675-01
Prepared By:
-- R phael M. Debaty, E.I.T.
Date: January 21, 2021
,,•'10
•��``'1,,,C A{RHO
AL -
042375 1 -
1 -
Reviewed By:P!'4,•'�
1G�NE• q
Tyler W. Moody, P.E. '•,�����FR y�yr M�"o".
Registered, NC No. 42375 I„If{III{lilt Nl�'�'
Date: January 21, 2021
Bunnell-Larnmons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, South Carolina
864-288-1265 (Voice)
864-288-4430 (Fax)

11' ' I 6WRNELL
LAMMONS
BURNELL
iX61N[IRIX■
SURCHARGE DETERMINATION
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BLE Project No. J20-13675-01
January 2021
last revised 1-14-2021
B-36
945.7
944.7
-1.0
41.6
4.0
990.3
3,064
B-40D
912.9
906.8
-6.1
12.2
4.0
923.0
541
B-41
914.8
913.5
-1.3
43.0
4.0
960.5
3,119
B-42
945.5
950.0
4.5
2.9
4.0
956.9
668
B-43
1 935.4
935.0
-0.4
1 54.0
4.0
993.0
3,942
B-44
952.2
952.8
0.6
6.3
4.0
963.1
890
B-13 (LFG-6)
Maximum
Waste
938.7
923.8
942.9
926.7
4.2
2.9
32.0
58.6
4.0
4.0
978.9
1 989.3
2,560
1 4,289
(1) References to Phase 2 base grade elevation, locations shown on Appendix A Figure 3.
(2) Net Surcharge = cap weight + weight of waste down to base grade elevation - net
stress relief between original ground and base grade.
(3) Closure Cap thickness is 4.0 Feet
Base grades, finished grade (cap) elevations and existing ground surface elevations were obtained from electronic drawing
prepared by McGill Associates dated December 17, 2020.
Gary L. Weekley, P.E.
Tvler W. Moodv. P.E.
Material Unit Weight
C&D Waste 65 pcf
Structural Fill & Residual Soil 120 pcf
Cap Soil 120 pcf

BUNNELL
,� LRMMONS
EN GIXE EF]NG
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Project No. J20-13675-01
last revised January 14, 2021
Boring No.: B-36
944.7 - 929.7
Very Stiff sandy SILT
16
15.0
120
120
3,064
260
1.3
929.7 -
Intact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 15.0 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches) 1.3
EW------------------------------------------------------------------------- �.-i -----
Boring No.: B-40D
906.8 - 900.9
Stiff sandy SILT
13
5.9
120
120
541
220
0.1
900.9 - 889.4
Very Firm silty SAND
28
11.5
120
58
541
370
0.1
889.4 - 886.9
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)
100
2.5
130
68
541
860
0.0
886.9 -
1hitact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 19.9 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches) 0.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------T--(f------et) -------0-.-1 -----
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENe
Boring No.: B-41
913.5 - 909.3
Firm silty SAND
10
4.2
120
120
3,119
190
0.5
909.3 - 907.8
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)
100
1.5
120
120
3,119
860
0.0
907.8 - 903.3
Very Firm silty SAND
22
4.5
120
120
3,119
320
0.3
903.3 - 892.8
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)
100
10.5
130
68
3,119
860
0.3
892.8 -
Intact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 20.7 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches)
EW ------- - ----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (feet)
1.1
-------------
0.1
' Surcharge pressure assumes unit weight of C&D waste of 65 pc£
Reference Appendix A Figure 2 for settlement point and boring locations.

BUNNELL
AMMO wo
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Project No. J20-13675-01
last revised January 14, 2021
Boring No.: B-42
950.0 - 945.5
Structural Fill
NA
4.5
120
120
668
240
0.1
945.5 - 937.5
Very Dense silty SAND
60
8.0
120
120
668
610
0.1
937.5 - 933.5
Dense silty SAND
31
4.0
120
58
668
400
0.0
933.5 - 927.0
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)
100
6.5
130
68
668
860
0.0
927.0 -
Intact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 23.0 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches) 0.2
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (feet) 0.1
Boring No.: B-43
935.0 - 923.4
IDense silty SAND
31
11.6
120
120
3,942
400
0.8
923.4 - 920.3
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)
100
3.1
130
68
3,942
860
0.1
920.3 -
Intact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 14.7 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches) 0.9
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (feet) 0.1
Boring No. • B-44
952.8 - 952.2
Structural Fill
NA
0.6
120
120
890
240
0.0
952.2 - 940.2
Stiff sandy CLAY
12
12.0
120
120
890
210
0.4
940.2 - 930.7
Firm silty SAND
10
9.5
120
120
890
190
0.3
930.7 - 920.2
lVery Firm silty SAND
20
1 10.5
1 120
68
890
1 300
0.2
920.2 - 913.2
Partially Weathered Rock (PWR)
100
7.0
130
68
890
860
0.1
913.2 -
Intact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 39.6 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches)
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (feet)
1.0
0.1
Surcharge pressure assumes weight of C&D waste of 65 pcf.
Reference Appendix A Figure 2 for settlement point and boring locations.

III.I. I LAMMON1p
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. Project No. J20-13675-01
last revised January 14, 2021
Maximum Waste & Cap Surcharge(Using Nearby Boring B-44
926.7 - 923.8
Structural Fill
NA 2.9
120
120 4,289
240
0.4
923.8 - 919.0
Firm sandy CLAY
8
4.8
120
120
4,289
160
0.9
919.0 -
Intact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 7.7 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches) 1.3
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (feet) 0.2
Boring No.: B-13 LFG-6
942.9 - 938.7
Structural Fill
NA
4.2
120
120
2,560
240
0.3
938.7
Intact Rock
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 4.2 Feet
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches) 0.3
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (feet) 0.0
Total Thickness of Compressible Material 0.0 Feet
EWTOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (inches)
TOTAL ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT (feet)
0.0
0-.0
Surcharge pressure assumes weight of C&D waste of no pci.
Reference Appendix A Figure 2 for settlement point and boring locations.

� LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
GROUNDWATER SEPARATION WITH BASE GRADE
POST -SETTLEMENT
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BLE Project No. J20-13675-01
January 2021
last revised January 14, 2021
Settlement
Point
Reference(l)
Estimated
Settlement
Feet
Base
Grade
Elevation
Feet
Groundwater
Elevation (2)
Feet
Groundwater
Elevation
Separation
Feet
B-36
0.2
944.7
937.6
6.9
B-40D
0.1
906.8
895.6
11.1
B-41
0.1
913.5
903.3
10.1
B-42
0.1
950.0
939.2
10.7
B-43
0.1
935.0
925.4
9.5
B-44
0.1
952.8
940.2
12.5
B-13
0.0
942.9
928.9
14.0
Maximum
Waste
0.2
926.7
919.3
7.2
Note (1): Reference Appendix A Figure 2 for settlement point locations.
Note (2): Reference BLE Figure 8 titled "Estimated Long -Term Seasonal High Groundwater Elevation
Contour Map", from Design Hydrogeologic Report.
Note (3): An increase in waste elevations (greater thickness) from landfill expansion will result
in greater subgrade settlement.

BUNNELL
� LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
BEDROCK SEPARATION WITH PROPOSED BASE GRADE
POST -SETTLEMENT
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION AREA
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BLE Project No. J20-13675-01
January 2021
last revised January 14, 2021
Settlement
Point
Reference(l)
Estimated
Settlement
Feet
Base Grade
Elevation
Feet
Bedrock
Elevation (2)
Feet
Bedrock
Elevation
Separation
Feet
B-36
0.2
944.7
929.7
14.8
B-40D
0.1
906.8
886.9
19.8
B-41
0.1
913.5
892.8
20.6
B-42
0.1
950.0
927.0
22.9
B-43
0.1
935.0
920.3
14.6
B-44
0.1
952.8
913.2
39.5
B-13
0.0
942.9
938.7
4.2
Maximum
Waste
0.2
926.7
919.0
7.5
Note (1): Reference Appendix A Figure 2 for settlement point locations.
Note (2): Reference BLE Figure 5 titled "Top of Bedrock Elevation Contour Map",
from Design Hydrogeologic Report.
Note (3): An increase in waste elevations (thickness) from landfill expansion will result
in greater subgrade settlement.