8103_8105_Rutherford_MSWLF_CDLF_Phase2_Permit_WQMP_FID1530382_20210219

WATER QUALITY
MONITORING PLAN
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002
Permit No. 8103-MSWLF-1974
Prepared For:
Rutherford County Solid Waste Dept.
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
t%%%1111111 f►February 19, 2021
►►
NSA �� =
r
1 5
OG
wAkJ . ,.
'fillf141115
ttq ypit l it l Fla,
tt'a A
Ar
dd J
."` r:AL 4 t
26,53 €
�rr�4 }�//~��'. • as �, • ��y ,��
*ffffJJJil li tl li �tlRt%
BLE North Carolina Business Licenses C-284 & C-1538
IM 13UNNELL
LAMMONS
ENGiNEERTNG
6004 Ponders Court I Greenville, 5C 29615
t, 864.288.1265 A. 864,286.43,90 w info@blecorp.[om
RLECORP.COM

� CANNONS
ENGINEERING
February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Solid Waste Department
P.O. Box 1957
Rutherfordton, North Carolina 28139
Attention: Mr. James Kilgo
Subject: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Facility Permit Numbers:
8103-CDLF-2002 & 8103-MSWLF-1974
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Dear Mr. Kilgo:
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE) is pleased to present this Water Quality Monitoring Plan
(WQMP) for the Rutherford County Landfill located in Rutherfordton, North Carolina. This plan is being
submitted in general accordance with North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B
.0601, and .1630 through .1637 (groundwater) and 15A NCAC 13B .0602 (surface water) for the Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF); and 15A NCAC 13B .0544(b) (groundwater) and 15A NCAC 13B 0544(c)
(surface water) for the Construction and Demolition Landfill (CDLF). The plan contained herein includes
procedures performed at the facility in the past and incorporates the future development of the CDLF Phase
2 expansion area. In summary, this plan includes the use of existing groundwater monitoring wells and surface
water monitoring points with no additions for the CDLF Phase 2 expansion area or for the MSWLF.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geological and environmental consultant on this project and
look forward to continued work with you at the Rutherford County Landfill. If you have any questions, please
contact us at [phone].
Sincerely,
BUNNELL-LAMMONs ENGINEERING, INC.
d4/
Andrew W. AAlex er, P. ., RS
Consulting Hydrogeologist
Registered, NC No. 1475
cc: Ms. Jaclynne Drummond — DWM-ARO
Mr. Mark Cathey, P.E. — McGill
Attachments: Table of Contents
4>f�y J D iel, P.G.
Staff Hydrogeologist
Registered, NC No. 2653
Tables
Figures
Appendices
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615 (,864.288.1265 a 864.288.4430 Wg [e-mail]
BLECORP.COM

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... I
2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS......................................................................................................... 2
3.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN.............................................................................. 3
3.1 Groundwater Monitoring.................................................................................................................
3
3.1.1 Monitoring Well Network..................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Changes in Groundwater Elevations.....................................................................................
5
3.1.3 Monitoring Well Construction..............................................................................................
5
3.1.4 Monitoring Well Development.............................................................................................
6
3.1.5 Maintenance and Recordkeeping..........................................................................................
7
3.1.6 Monitoring Well Abandonment............................................................................................
7
3.1.7 Detection Monitoring Program.............................................................................................
8
3.1.7.1 Sampling Frequency.........................................................................................................
8
3.1.7.2 Establishment of Baseline Data........................................................................................
9
3.1.7.3 Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data.........................................................................
9
3.1.$ Assessment Monitoring Program..........................................................................................
9
3.19 Groundwater Sampling Methodology.................................................................................
10
3.1.9.1 Sample Collection...........................................................................................................
11
3.1.9.1.1 Sampling Frequency.................................................................................................11
3.1.9.1.2 Static Water Elevations.............................................................................................11
3.1.9.1.3 Well Evacuation........................................................................................................11
3.1.9.1.3.1 Standard Evacuation Procedures........................................................................11
3.1.9.1.3.2 Low -Flow Procedures........................................................................................12
3.1.93A Sample Collection Sequence.....................................................................................14
3.1.9.1.5 Decontamination.......................................................................................................14
3.1.9.2 Sample Preservation and Handling.................................................................................
14
3.1.9.3 Chain -of -Custody Program.............................................................................................
15
3.1.9.3.1 Sample Labels...........................................................................................................15
3.1.9.3.2 Sample Seal...............................................................................................................15
3.1.9.3.3 Field Logbook...........................................................................................................15
3.1.9.3A Chain -of -Custody Record.........................................................................................16
3.1.9.4 Analytical Procedures.....................................................................................................
16
3.1.9.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program...........................................................
17
3.1.10 Statistical Methods (Optional)............................................................................................
18
3.2 Surface Water Monitoring.............................................................................................................
18
3.2.1 Sampling Locations.............................................................................................................
18
3.2.2 Monitoring Frequency.........................................................................................................
18
3.2.3 Surface Water Sampling Methodology...............................................................................
18
3.2.3.1 Sample Collection...........................................................................................................
19
3.2.3.1.1 Dipper Method..........................................................................................................19
3.2.3.1.2 Direct Method...........................................................................................................19
3.2.3.1.3 Decontamination.......................................................................................................19
3.2.3.2 Sample Preservation and Handling.................................................................................
19
3.2.3.3 Chain -of -Custody Program.............................................................................................
20
i of ii

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
3.2.3.3.1 Sample Labels........................................................................................................... 20
3.2.3.3.2 Sample Seal...............................................................................................................20
3.2.3.3.3 Field Logbook...........................................................................................................20
3.2.3.3.4 Chain -of -Custody Record......................................................................................... 21
3.2.3.4 Analytical Procedures..................................................................................................... 21
3.2.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program........................................................... 22
3.3 Reporting....................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment Reports ................................................... 23
3.3.2 Water Quality Reports........................................................................................................ 23
4.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................24
Tables
Table 1
Groundwater Monitoring Well Data
Table 2
Surface Water Sampling Point Data
Table 3
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Matrix
Table 4
Surface Water Sampling and Analysis Matrix
Table 5
Sampling and Preservation Procedures
Figures
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Figure 2
Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems
Figure 3
Groundwater Elevation Map — May 7, 2019
Figure 4
Groundwater Monitoring Well Detail
Appendices
Appendix A
Monitoring Well Construction Records
Appendix B
Appendix I and Appendix II Constituent Lists
Appendix C
NCDEQ Memoranda and Reporting Limits and Standards
Appendix D
Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form
Appendix E
Low -Flow Groundwater Purging and Sampling Guidance
ii of ii

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The subject landfill site is located in Rutherford County, North Carolina, between the cities of
Rutherfordton and Spindale with a physical address of 656 Laurel Hill Dr, Rutherfordton, North Carolina
(Figure 1). Rutherford County owns and operates an inactive/closed MSWLF (Permit No. 8103-MSWLF-
1974) and an active CDLF (Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002) consisting of one waste unit designated Phase
1. The county plans to construct a new CDLF waste unit in an approximate 5.5-acre expansion area
designated Phase 2.
Odom Engineering, PLLC (Odom) and McGill Associates (McGill) have been retained by Rutherford County
to provide engineering services related to the expansion. McGill has been retained to prepare an application
for a permit to construct for Phase 2. BLE has been retained by McGill on behalf of Rutherford County to
conduct a design hydrogeologic investigation for Phase 2 required under North Carolina's Solid Waste
Management Rules, Title 15A Section 13B .0538(b)(1-2) for a Design Hydrogeologic Report (DHR). That
work and associated assessment activities have been reported under separate cover (BLE, 2020; BLE, 2021).
Rutherford County has requested that BLE prepare a comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan
(WQMP) for submittal to the North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section (SWS),
which consolidates the monitoring plans for the inactive/closed MSWLF with the operational and expansion
areas of the CDLF. The current WQMP and Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan (LFGMP) were prepared by
Odom in 2018 and were subsequently approved by the SWS (Odom, 2018). Parts of the Odom plans have
been adopted and reused herein. We understand that this WQMP will be included as part of the application
for a permit to construct CDLF Phase 2, which will be prepared by McGill.
The objective of this project is to prepare a WQMP, which will include procedures and locations for
groundwater and surface water monitoring as required following North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Solid Waste Management Rules:
• MSWLF Groundwater —North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B
Rules .0601, and. 1630 through .1637.
• MSWLF Surface Water —North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B
Rule .0602.
• CDLF Groundwater —North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule
.0544(b).
• CDLF Surface Water —North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule
.0544(c).
The WQMP herein is designed to detect and quantify contamination, as well as to measure the effectiveness
of engineered disposal systems in general compliance with state and federal guidance (USEPA, 1986). The
groundwater and surface water monitoring networks for this site will be designed to provide an early warning
of a potential disposal system failure. The locations of the groundwater, and surface water monitoring points
are indicated on the attached Figure 2 titled Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring
Systems and are listed on Table 1 and Table 2.
1 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
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, 2000; 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.
A transitional zone of partially weathered rock (PWR) is normally found overlying the parent bedrock.
PWR is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration resistance (ASTM
D 1586) 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 PWR within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.
2 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
3.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN
This Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) will serve as a guidance document for collecting and
analyzing groundwater and surface water samples, evaluating the associated analytical results, and for
monitoring existing and potential releases from the Rutherford County Landfill.
This WQMP complies with Title 15A, Subchapter 13B Rules .0601, and .1630 through .1637 pertaining to
groundwater monitoring, Rule .0602 for surface water monitoring, Rule .0544(b) for groundwater
monitoring, and Rule .0544(c) for surface water monitoring.
3.1 Groundwater Monitoring
3.1.1 Monitoring Well Network
The proposed groundwater monitoring network for the Rutherford County Landfill is designed to monitor
for potential releases to the uppermost saprolite/PWR and bedrock aquifers at the site (Table 1). The
proposed network will consist of one (1) upgradient (background) well (MW-2) and fifteen (15)
downgradient (compliance) wells (MW-3, MW-4, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, MW-10B, MW-IOC,
MW-10D, MW-11A, MW-11B, MW-12 (B-22), MW-13 (B-6), MW-14, and MW-15 (B-29), and three (3)
inactive wells (MW-1, MW-5, and MW-10A). The inactive monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-10A are
present but are not monitored as part of the compliance network. The status of inactive monitoring well
MW-5 is unknown; it may be missing. The location of each well is indicated on the Water Quality and
Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems (Figure 2). A groundwater elevation contour map, which
includes the proposed CDLF Phase 2 expansion area, was prepared from water level data collected on May
7, 2019 (Figure 3).
Five (5) existing groundwater monitoring wells [MW-3, MW-12 (B-22), MW-13 (B-6), MW-14, and MW-
15 (B-29)] have already been installed and will be utilized for monitoring of the Phase 2 CDLF expansion
(Table 1, Table 3, Figure 2, and Figure 3). No new groundwater monitoring wells are proposed or
necessary as part of the Phase 2 CDLF expansion.
A description of each groundwater monitoring point in the network and the proposed sequence of
installation is provided below.
3 of 25

1s 1M 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Monitoring
Monitoring Well Location and Justification
Location
MW-2
Existing upgradient (background) monitoring well installed in the saprolite/PWR north of
(existing)
the MSWLF and CDLF. See Table 1 for additional information. This well has been
established as the background wells for the facility including the closed MSWLF and CDLF
Phase 1 and is proposed as the background well for CDLF Phase 2.
MW-4,
Existing downgradient (compliance) monitoring well locations set to intercept east, south
MW-6,
and west flowing groundwater from the closed MSWLF waste unit. These wells are set in
MW-7,
varying strata including shallow saprolite, PAIR, and bedrock. See Table 1 and Appendix
MW-8,
A for additional information.
MW-9,
MW-1 OB,
MW-IOC,
MW-1 OD,
MW-11A,
and MW-11B
(existing)
MW-1,
Inactive monitoring well locations not currently utilized as part of the groundwater
MW-5, and
monitoring network.
MW-10A
inactive
MW-3,
Existing downgradient (compliance) monitoring well locations set to intercept east and west
MW-12,
flowing groundwater from the CDLF Phase 1 and proposed CDLF Phase 2 waste units.
MW-13,
These wells are set in varying strata including saprolite, PWR, and bedrock. See Table 1
MW-14, and
and Appendix A for additional information.
MW-15
(existing)
The existing well locations are selected to yield groundwater samples representative of the conditions in the
uppermost saprolite/PWR and bedrock aquifers underlying the facility, and to monitor for potential releases
from the landfill units. Well placement, well construction methods, well development, well maintenance, and
well abandonment procedures are discussed in the following sections. Groundwater monitoring wells shall
be sampled during the active life of the landfill as well as the post -closure period, in accordance with 15A
NCAC 13B Rule .1630 and .0544.
4 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3.1.2 Changes in Groundwater Elevations
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
After each sampling event, groundwater surface elevations will be evaluated to determine whether the
monitoring system remains adequate, and to determine the rate and direction of groundwater flow.
The direction of groundwater flow will be determined semiannually by comparing the groundwater surface
elevations among the monitoring wells, and constructing a groundwater surface elevation contour map.
The groundwater flow rate shall be determined using the following modified Darcy equation:
Ki
V=—
ne
where V = the groundwater flow rate (feet/day)
K = the hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
i = the hydraulic gradient, Ah/Al (foot/foot)
ne = the effective porosity of the host medium (unitless)
Ah = the change in groundwater elevation between two wells or
groundwater contours (feet)
Al = the distance between the same two wells or groundwater
contours (feet)
If the evaluation shows that the groundwater monitoring system does not satisfy the requirements of the
Rules, the monitoring system will be modified accordingly. These modifications may include a change in
the number, location, and/or depth of the monitoring wells.
3.1.3 Monitoring Well Construction
The well completion information for the existing groundwater monitoring wells are included on Table 1.
Completed boring and well construction logs for five (5) of the existing wells are included in Appendix A.
Boring logs/well construction records for proposed monitoring wells will be submitted to the Solid Waste
Section (SWS) following installation.
Drilling and installation of any new monitoring wells will be performed in accordance with the
specifications outlined in 15A NCAC Subchapter 2C, Section .0100. Further guidance is provided in the
Draft North Carolina Water Quality Monitoring Guidance Document for Solid Waste Facilities; Solid
Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management; Department of Environment, and Natural Resources
(March 1995).
Each groundwater monitoring well will consist of 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC, Schedule 40
ASTM 480, NSF -rated) casing with flush -threaded joints installed in a 5.0-inch (or larger) nominal diameter
augered or air -hammered borehole in soil, PWR, or bedrock. The bottom 10-foot to 15-foot section of each
well will be a manufactured well screen with 0.010-inch wide machined slots with a 0.20-foot long sediment
trap threaded onto the bottom of the screen section. The screen section of each well will be set to intersect
the water table in the residual soil or the water -producing fractures in the bedrock. The length of the screen
section may be reduced to 5-feet to maintain vertical separation and/or to intercept water -bearing fractures
in wells screened in bedrock. Silica filter sand will be placed around the outside of the pipe up to
5 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
approximately 2-feet above the top of the well screen. A hydrated bentonite seal will be installed on top of
the filter sand backfill to seal the monitoring well at the desired level. The borehole will then be grouted
with a bentonite-cement grout mixture up to the ground surface. The surface completion of each well
consisted of a PVC cap and a lockable 4" x 4" x 5' standup protective steel cover, with a 2-foot by 2-foot
concrete pad at the base of the steel cover. Each well will be constructed with a vent hole in the PVC casing
near the top of the well and a weep hole near the base of the outer protective steel cover. An identification
plate will be fastened to the protective steel cover that specifies the well identification number, drilling
contractor, date installed, total depth, and construction details. A typical groundwater monitoring well
construction detail is attached as Figure 4.
A geologist or engineer will oversee drilling activities and prepare boring and well construction logs for
each newly installed well. As -built locations of new wells will be located by a surveyor licensed in North
Carolina to within +0.1 foot on the horizontal plane and +0.01 foot vertically in reference to existing survey
points. A boring log, well construction log, groundwater monitoring network map, and well installation
certification will be submitted to the SWS upon completion.
3.1.4 Monitoring Well Development
Newly constructed wells will be developed to remove particulates that are present in the well due to
construction activities, and to interconnect the well with the aquifer. Development of new monitoring wells
will be performed no sooner than 24 hours after well construction. Wells may be developed with disposable
bailers, a mechanical well developer, or other approved method. A surge block may be used as a means of
assessing the integrity of the well screen and riser. In the event a pump is employed, the design of the pump
will be such that any groundwater that has come into contact with air is not allowed to drain back into the
well. Each well will be developed until sediment -free water with stabilized field parameters (i.e.,
temperature, pH, and specific conductance) is obtained.
Well development equipment (bailers, pumps, surge blocks) and any additional equipment that contacts
subsurface formations will be decontaminated prior to on -site use, between consecutive on -site uses, and/or
between consecutive well installations.
The purge water will be disposed on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of the monitoring
well being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the water will need to be otherwise disposed. If field
characteristics suggest, the purge water will be containerized and disposed in the facility's leachate
collection system, or by other approved disposal means.
Samples withdrawn from the facility's monitoring wells should be clay- and silt -free; therefore, existing
wells may require redevelopment from time to time based upon observed turbidity levels during sampling
activities. If redevelopment of an existing monitoring well is required, it will be performed in a manner
similar to that used for a new well.
6 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3.1.5 Maintenance and Recordkeeping
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
The existing monitoring wells will be used and maintained in accordance with design specifications
throughout the life of the monitoring program. Routine well maintenance will include inspection and
correction/repair, as necessary, of identification labels, concrete aprons, locking caps and locks, and access
to the wells. Should it be determined that background or compliance monitoring wells no longer provide
samples representative of the quality of groundwater passing the relevant point of compliance, the SWS
will be notified. The owner will re-evaluate the monitoring network, and provide recommendations to the
SWS for modifying, rehabilitating, abandoning, or installing replacement or additional monitoring wells,
as appropriate.
Laboratory analytical results will be submitted to the SWS semiannually, along with sample collection field
logs, statistical analyses (if used), groundwater flow rate and direction calculations, and groundwater
contour map(s) as described in the following sections. Analytical data, calculations, and other relevant
groundwater monitoring records will be kept throughout the active life of the facility and the post -closure
care period, including notices and reports of any groundwater quality standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202)
exceedances, re -sampling notifications, and re -sampling results.
3.1.6 Monitoring Well Abandonment
Piezometers and wells installed within the proposed landfill footprint will be properly abandoned in
accordance with the procedures for permanent abandonment, as described in 15A NCAC 2C Rule .0113(b).
The piezometers and wells will be progressively abandoned as necessary to complete construction
activities. The piezometers and wells that are within proposed waste unit footprints will be over -drilled to
remove well construction materials, and then grouted with a cement-bentonite grout. Other piezometers
and wells that will potentially interfere with clearing and construction activities will be grouted in place
without over -drilling by grouting the well in place with a cement-bentonite grout and removing all surface
features, such as concrete aprons, protective casings, and stickups. In each case, the bentonite content of
the cement-bentonite grout shall be approximately 5%, and a tremie pipe will be used to ensure that grout
is continuously placed from the bottom of the borehole/monitoring well upward.
If a monitoring well becomes unusable during the monitoring period of the landfill, the well will be
abandoned in accordance with the procedures described above. Approval from the SWS will be obtained
prior to abandoning any monitoring well.
For each monitoring well abandoned, the following information will be provided to the SWS in a report
sealed by a licensed geologist in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1623 of the Rules: the monitoring
well name, a description of the procedure by which the monitoring well was abandoned, the date when the
monitoring well was considered to be taken out of service, and the date when the monitoring well was
abandoned.
7 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3,1.7 Detection Monitoring Program
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Groundwater samples will be obtained and analyzed semiannually for the NC Appendix I list of constituents
(Appendix B), as defined in the Detection Monitoring Program for the MSWLF (15A NCAC 13B .1633)
and for the CDLF [15A NCAC 13B .0544(a)(1)(D)], during the life of the facility and the post -closure care
period (Table 3). Please note that detection monitoring for the CDLF includes analysis of groundwater for
tetrahydrof Iran per the North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding Tetrahydofuran
Analysis at Construction and Demolition Landfills dated June 25, 2010 (Table 2 and Appendix B). Also
note that detection monitoring for the MSWLF and CDLF includes analysis of groundwater for 1,4-dioxane
per the North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum 1,4-Dioxane Analysis, Solid Waste Section
Limits, and Laboratory Analytical Methods dated May 29, 2018 (Table 2 and Appendix B).
The SWS has issued six (6) memoranda concerning guidelines for electronic submittal of monitoring data
and environmental reporting limits and standards for constituents. Those memoranda include: 1) New
Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data (dated October 27, 2006), 2)
Addendum to the October 27, 2006 North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding New
Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data (dated February 23, 2007), 3) Environmental
Monitoring Data for North Carolina Solid Waste Facilities (dated October 16, 2007), 4) Groundwater,
Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal (dated November 5,
2014), 5) North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding Guidelines for 14-Day
Notification of Groundwater Exceedances Form Submittal per rule: 15A NCAC 13B .1633(c)(1) (dated
September 9, 2016) and 6) North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum New Electronic Data
Deliverable (EDD) Format (dated July 20, 2020). The SWS has also issued a Solid Waste Environmental
Monitoring Reporting Limits and Standards — Constituent List (dated October 15, 2018) which
consolidates reporting standards and limits for each required constituent. Copies of the memoranda and
constituent list are included in Appendix C.
The results of the groundwater data (and statistical analysis, if the owner so chooses to perform) will be
submitted to the SWS semiannually in accordance with the documents in Appendix C. Sampling reports
will be submitted electronically with analytical data submitted in the required format, and be accompanied
by the required Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form, which will be signed and sealed by a licensed
geologist in the State of North Carolina. A copy of this form is also included in Appendix D for reference.
3.1.7.1 Sampling Frequency
Groundwater samples will be collected semiannually and analyzed for NC Appendix I Detection
Monitoring constituents (Table 3 and Appendix B) plus required field parameters, including but not limited
to, pH, conductivity, turbidity, and temperature. Additional analytical requirements for the CDLF include
alkalinity, total dissolved solids, tetrahydrofuran, mercury, chloride, manganese, sulfate, and iron, plus
aluminum (a corrective action parameter). New monitoring wells will be sampled one time prior to waste
placement and then as prescribed in Section 3.1.7.2 of this plan followed by routine semi-annual sampling.
If the facility's groundwater monitoring program must progress to Assessment Monitoring, notification and
sampling will be conducted according to the schedule specified in Rule .1634 and/or Rule .0545.
8 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
3.1.7.2 Establishment of Baseline Data
During future phases of facility development of the CDLF, a minimum of one sample from new each well,
background and downgradient, must be collected and analyzed for the required CDLF constituents before
waste placement. Routine semiannual sampling and analysis is required for each new monitoring well
thereafter. During future phases of facility development of the MSWLF, if any, a minimum of one sample
from each new well, background and downgradient, must be collected and analyzed for the required
MSWLF constituents before waste placement. Three additional samples must be collected and analyzed
from each new monitoring well either before or after waste starts being accepted. All four samples must
be collected within a 6-month period. The data will be submitted to the SWS.
3.1.7.3 Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data
If the owner or operator determines that there is an exceedance of the groundwater protection standards
(15A NCAC 2L, .0202) for one or more of the required constituents (Table 3, Appendix B) at any
monitoring well at the relevant point of compliance, the following procedures will be performed:
1) Notify SWS within the timeframe required in the Rules of the finding and place a notice in the site
operating record indicating which constituents have exceeded groundwater protection standards.
2) Within the timeframe required in the Rules, establish an Assessment Monitoring Program meeting
the requirements of Rule .1634 and/or Rule .0545, except as discussed below.
The data may be re-evaluated within the timeframe required in the Rules to determine that a source other
than a landfill unit caused the exceedance, or the exceedance resulted from an error in sampling, analysis,
or natural variation in groundwater quality. If it can be demonstrated that one of these factors occurred, a
report (Alternate Source Demonstration) certified by a North Carolina licensed geologist or engineer will
be submitted to the SWS within the timeframe required in the Rules. A copy of this report will be placed
in the operating record. If the SWS approves the demonstration, the Detection Monitoring Program will be
resumed with the required semiannual sampling and analysis. If the SWS does not accept the demonstration
within the timeframe required in the Rules, the Assessment Monitoring Program will be initiated.
3.1.$ Assessment Monitoring Program
Assessment Monitoring (15A NCAC 13B .1634 and .0545) is required whenever a violation of the
groundwater quality standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202) has occurred, and no source of error, alternate
source, or naturally occurring condition can be identified.
Within the timeframe required in the Rules of triggering the Assessment Monitoring Program, and annually
thereafter, groundwater will be sampled for analysis of the NC Appendix II list of constituents (Appendix
B). A minimum of one groundwater sample will be collected from each well and submitted for analysis
during each Assessment Monitoring sampling event. However, the Rules allow for petitions to the SWS
for an appropriate subset of wells or a reduction in the NC Appendix II sampling list.
If any NC Appendix 11 constituents are detected in groundwater from the downgradient wells, a minimum
of four independent samples will be collected from each background and downgradient well to establish
background concentrations for the detected Appendix 11 constituents.
9 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Within the timeframe required in the Rules and after receipt of the initial or subsequent sampling analytical
data, a report identifying the detected NC Appendix II constituents will be submitted to the SWS, and a
notice will be placed in the operating record. Background concentrations of any detected NC Appendix II
constituents will be established and reported to the SWS.
Within the timeframe required in the Rules and on at least a semiannual basis thereafter, the wells will be
sampled and analyzed for the NC Appendix I list plus any additional detected Appendix II constituents. An
analytical results report of each sampling event will be submitted to the SWS and placed in the facility
operating record.
The SWS will determine whether Groundwater Protection Standards must be established for the facility
[Rules .1634(g) and (h) & Rules .0545(b)(3) and (b)(4)], and may specify a more appropriate alternate
sampling frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for the full set of NC Appendix II constituents.
Groundwater monitoring will continue in one of two ways, based on the results of the water quality
analyses:
1) If the NC Appendix II constituent concentrations are equal to or less than the approved
Groundwater Protection Standards for two consecutive sampling events, the facility may resume
Detection Monitoring with the approval of SWS.
2) If one or more NC Appendix II constituents are detected in excess of the approved Groundwater
Protection Standards, and no source of error can be identified, within the timeframe required in the
Rules the SWS will be notified, a notice will be placed in the operating record, and appropriate
local government officials will be notified. The facility operator will proceed to characterize the
nature and extent of the release [Rule .1634(f)(1) and/or Rule .0545(b)(1)]. Next, the operator will
initiate an assessment of corrective measures (ACM) and corrective action plan (CAP), and proceed
according to Rules .1635 through .1637 and/or Rules .0545(c) and (d). If the facility proceeds to
corrective action, a revised WQMP will be submitted to the SWS with the CAP, if necessary.
The results of the groundwater data will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in accordance with the
documents in Appendix C. Reports will be submitted on a CD-ROM, or electronically, with analytical
data submitted in the required format, and be accompanied by the required Environmental Monitoring
Reporting Form, which will be signed and sealed by a licensed geologist or engineer in the State of North
Carolina. A copy of this form is also included in Appendix D.
3.1.9 Groundwater Sampling Methodology
Groundwater samples will be collected in general accordance with Solid Waste Management Rule .1632,
Rule .0544, and guidance provided in the Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and
Surface Water Sampling (April 2008). Procedures for well purging, sample withdrawal, and
decontamination methods as well as chain -of -custody procedures are outlined below. Field parameter
measurements will be submitted electronically to the SWS in accordance with the documents in Appendix
C.
10 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
3.1.9.1 Sample Collection
The procedures for collecting groundwater samples are presented below. The background wells MW-2,
will be sampled first, followed by the downgradient compliance wells [MW-3, MW-4, MW-6, MW-7, MW-
8, MW-9, MW-IOB, MW-1OC, MW-1OD, MW-11A, MW-11B, MW-12 (B-22), MW-13 (B-6), MW-14,
and MW-15 (B-29)]. The downgradient wells will be sampled so that the most contaminated well, if one
is identified from the previous sampling event, is sampled last.
3.1,9, 11 Sampling Frequency
The above -mentioned samples will be collected on a semiannual basis during the Detection and/or
Assessment Monitoring programs.
33.9.12 Static Water Elevations
The static water level will be measured with an electronic water level indicator on a single day, to the
nearest 0.01 foot, in each well prior to sampling. Static water elevations will be calculated from water
depth measurements and top of casing elevations. A reference point will be marked on the top of casing of
each well to ensure the same measuring point is used each time static water levels are measured.
3.1.9.1.3 Well Evacuation
The preferred well evacuation and sampling procedure for the site is conventional bailed well technology
(standard evacuation) which is presented below.
3.1.9.1.3.1 Standard Evacuation Procedures
Monitoring wells will be evacuated with a laboratory cleaned bailer, disposable bailer, or submersible
pump. If a pump or bailer is used for multiple wells, it and any other non -dedicated equipment will be
decontaminated before use and between each well.
A low -yield well (one that yields less than 0.5 gallon per minute) will be purged so that water is removed
from the bottom of the screened interval. Low -yield wells will be evacuated to dryness once. However, at
no time will a well be evacuated to dryness if the recharge rate causes the formation water to vigorously
cascade down the sides of the screen and cause an accelerated loss of volatiles. Upon recharging of the
well and no longer than a time period of 24 hours, the first sample will be field-tested for pH, temperature,
and specific conductivity. Samples will then be collected and containerized in the order of the volatilization
sensitivity of the target constituents.
A high -yield well (one that yields 0.5 gallon per minute or more) will be purged so that water is drawn
down from above the screen in the uppermost part of the water column to ensure that fresh water from the
formation will move upward in the screen. If a pump is used for purging, a high -yield well should be
purged at less than 4 gallons per minute to prevent further well development.
11 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
A minimum of three casing volumes will be evacuated from each well prior to sampling. An alternative
purge will be considered complete if the monitoring well goes dry before removing the calculated minimum
purge volume. The well casing volume for a 2-inch well will be calculated using the following formula:
where:
Vc (gallons) = 0.163 x hw
Vc = volume in the well casing = (dc2/4) x 3.14 x hw x 7.48 gallons/cubic foot)
dc = casing diameter in feet (dc = 0.167)
hw = height of the water column (i.e., well depth minus depth to water)
The purge water will be disposed by pouring on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of the
monitoring well being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the purge water may be contaminated.
In that case, the purged water will be containerized and disposed in the facility's leachate collection system
(or by other approved disposal means).
The monitoring wells will be sampled using laboratory cleaned or disposable bailers within 24 hours of
completing the purge. The bailers will be equipped with a check valve and bottom -emptying device. The
bailer will be lowered gently into the well to minimize the possibility of degassing the water.
Field measurements of temperature, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity will be made before and after
sample collection as a check on the stability of the groundwater sampled over time. The direct -reading
equipment used at each well will be calibrated in the field according to the manufacturer's specifications
prior to each day's use. Calibration information should be documented in the instrument's calibration
logbook and the field book.
3.1.9.1.3.2 Low -Flow Procedures
Under normal conditions, monitoring wells will be purged and sampled using the Standard Evacuation
Procedures specified above. However, at the discretion of the owner/operator a low -flow sampling method
in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Low -Flow (Minimal
Drawdown) Sampling Procedures (EPA, April 1996), may be implemented as allowed under the Rules. A
summary of these procedures is listed below, and a copy of the procedures is presented in Appendix E.
Depth -to -water measurements will be obtained using an electronic water level indicator capable of
recording the depth to an accuracy of 0.01 foot. A determination of whether or not the water table is located
within the screened interval of the well will be made. If the water table is not within the screened interval,
the amount of drawdown that can be achieved before the screen is intersected will be calculated. If the
water table is within the screened interval, total drawdown should not exceed 1 foot so as to minimize the
amount of aeration and turbidity. If the water table is above the top of the screened interval, the amount of
drawdown should be minimized to keep the screen from being exposed.
If the purging equipment is non -dedicated, the equipment will be lowered into the well, taking care to
minimize the disturbance to the water column. If conditions (i.e., water column height and well yield)
allow, the pump will be placed in the uppermost portion of the water column (minimum of 18 inches of
pump submergence is recommended).
12 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
The minimum volume/time period for obtaining independent Water Quality Parameter Measurements
(WQPM) will be determined. The minimum volume/time period is determined based on the stabilized flow
rate and the amount of volume in the pump and the discharge tubing (alternatively, the volume of the flow
cell can be used, provided it is greater than the volume of the pump and discharge tubing). Volume of the
bladder pump should be obtained from the manufacturer. Volume of the discharge tubing is as follows:
3/8-inch inside diameter tubing: 20 milliliters per foot
1/4-inch inside diameter tubing: 10 milliliters per foot
3/16-inch inside diameter tubing: 5 milliliters per foot
Once the volume of the flow -cell or the pump and the discharge tubing has been calculated, the well purge
will begin. The flow rate should be based on historical data for that well (if available) and should not
exceed 500 milliliters per minute. The initial round of WQPM should be recorded and the flow rate adjusted
until drawdown in the well stabilizes. Water levels should be measured periodically to maintain a stabilized
water level. The water level should not fall within 1 foot of the top of the well screen. If the purge rate has
been reduced to 100 milliliters or less and the head level in the well continues to decline, the required water
samples should be collected following stabilization of the WQPM, based on the criteria presented below.
If neither the head level nor the WQPM stabilize, a passive sample should be collected. Passive sampling
is defined as sampling before WQPM have stabilized if the well yield is low enough that the well will purge
dry at the lowest possible purge rate (generally 100 milliliters per minute or less).
WQPM stabilization is defined as follows:
• pH (+/- 0.2 S.U.);
• conductance (+/- 5% of reading);
• temperature (+/- 10% of reading or 0.2 C);
• dissolved oxygen [+/- 10% of reading or 0.2 mg/L (whichever is greater)]; and
• oxidation reduction potential (ORP) may also be measured and ideally should also fall within +/-
10% of reading; however, this is not a required field parameter.
Stabilization of the WQPM should occur in most wells within five to six rounds of measurements. If
stabilization does not occur following the removal of a purge volume equal to three well volumes, a passive
sample will be collected.
At a minimum, turbidity measurements should also be recorded at the beginning of purging, following the
stabilization of the WQPM, and following the collection of the samples. The optimal turbidity range for
micropurging is 25 NTU or less. Turbidity measurements above 25 NTU are generally indicative of an
excessive purge rate or natural conditions related to excessive fines in the aquifer matrix.
The direct -reading equipment used at each well will be calibrated in the field according to the
manufacturer's specifications prior to each day's use and checked at a minimum at the end of each sampling
day. Calibration information should be documented in the instrument's calibration logbook and the field
book.
Each well is to be sampled immediately following stabilization of the WQPM. The sampling flow rate
must be maintained at a rate that is less than or equal to the purging rate. For volatile organic compounds,
lower sampling rates (100 - 200 milliliters/minute) should be used. Final field parameter readings should
be recorded prior to and after sampling.
13 of 25

1s 1M 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3.1.9.1.4 Sample Collection Sequence
Samples will be collected and containerized in the order described below.
• Volatile Organic Compounds;
• Semi -Volatile Organic Compounds;
• Herbicides;
• Pesticides;
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls;
• Cyanide and Sulfide; and
• Total Metals.
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Total metals samples may be collected out of sequence if the turbidity increases during sample collection.
Samples will be transferred directly from field sampling equipment into pre -preserved, laboratory -supplied
containers. Containers for volatile organic analyses will be filled in such a manner that no headspace
remains after filling.
3.1.9.1.5 Decontamination
Non -dedicated field equipment that is used for purging or sample collection shall be cleaned with a
phosphate -free detergent, and triple -rinsed with distilled water. Any disposable polyethylene tubing used
with non -dedicated pumps should be discarded after use at each well. Clean, chemical -resistant nitrile
gloves will be worn by sampling personnel during well evacuation and sample collection. Measures will
be taken to prevent surface soils, which could introduce contaminants into the well being sampled, from
coming in contact with the purging and sampling equipment.
3.1.9.2 Sample Preservation and Handling
Upon containerizing the water samples, the samples will be packed into pre -chilled, ice -filled coolers and
either hand -delivered or shipped overnight by a commercial carrier to the laboratory for analysis. Sample
preservation methods will be used to retard biological action and hydrolysis, as well as to reduce sorption
effects. These methods will include chemical preservation, cooling/refrigeration at 4° C, and protection
from light. The type of sample container, minimum volume, chemical preservative, and holding times for
each analysis type are provided in Table 5.
14 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3.1.9.3 Chain -of -Custody Program
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
The chain -of -custody program will allow for tracing sample possession and handling from the time of field
collection through laboratory analysis. The chain -of -custody program includes sample labels, sample seal,
field logbook, and chain -of -custody record.
3.1.9.3.1 Sample Labels
Legible labels sufficiently durable to remain legible when wet will contain the following information:
• Site identification;
• Monitoring well number or other location;
• Date and time of collection;
• Name of collector;
• Parameters to be analyzed; and
• Preservative, if applicable.
3.1.9.3.2 Sample Seal
The shipping container will be sealed to ensure that the samples have not been disturbed during transport
to the laboratory. The tape used to seal the shipping container will be labeled with instructions to notify
the shipper if the seal is broken prior to receipt at the laboratory.
3.1.9.3.3 Field Logbook
The field logbook will contain sheets documenting the following information:
• Identification of the well;
• Well depth;
• Field meter calibration information;
• Static water level depth and measurement technique;
• Purge volume (given in gallons);
• Time well was purged;
• Date and time of collection;
• Well sampling sequence;
• Types of sample containers used and sample identification numbers;
• Preservative used;
• Field analysis data and methods;
• Field observations on sampling event;
• Name of collector(s); and
• Climatic conditions including air temperatures and precipitation.
15 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3.1.9.3.4 Chain -of -Custody Record
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
The chain -of -custody record is required for tracing sample possession from time of collection to time of
receipt at the laboratory. A chain -of -custody record will accompany each individual shipment. The record
will contain the following information:
• Sample destination and transporter;
• Sample identification numbers;
• Signature of collector;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sample type;
• Identification of well;
• Number of sample containers in shipping container;
• Parameters requested for analysis;
• Signature of person(s) involved in the chain of possession;
• Inclusive dates of possession; and
• Internal temperature of shipping container upon opening in laboratory (noted by the laboratory).
A copy of the completed chain -of -custody form will accompany the shipment and will be returned to the
shipper after the shipping container reaches its destination. The chain -of -custody record will also be used
as the analysis request sheet.
3.1.9.4 Analytical Procedures
A laboratory certified by the North Carolina DEQ will be utilized for analysis of groundwater and surface
water samples from the facility. Analyses will be performed in accordance with U.S. EPA SW-846 methods
in accordance with the EPA guidance document (USEPA, June 1997). For Detection Monitoring, method
numbers and reporting limits to be used will be those listed in accordance with the documents in Appendix
C. Alternate SW-846 methods may be used if they have the same or lower reporting limit. The laboratory
must report any detection of any constituent even if it is detected below the solid waste section limit
(Appendix C).
The laboratory certificates -of -analyses shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
Narrative: Must include a brief description of the sample group (number and type of samples, field
and associated lab sample identification numbers, preparation and analytical methods used). The
data reviewer shall also include a statement that all holding times and Quality Control (QC) criteria
were met, samples were received intact and properly preserved, with a brief discussion of any
deviations potentially affecting data usability. This includes, but is not limited to, test method
deviation(s), holding time violations, out -of -control incidents occurring during the processing of
QC or field samples and corrective actions taken, and repeated analyses and reasons for the re-
analyses (including, for example, contamination, failing surrogate recoveries, matrix effects, or
dilutions). The narrative shall be signed by the laboratory director or authorized laboratory
representative, signifying that all statements are true to the best of the reviewer's knowledge, and
that the data meet the data quality objectives as described in this plan (except as noted). One
narrative is required for each sample group.
16 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
• Original Chain -of Custody Form.
• Target Analyte List (TAL)/Target Compound List (TCL): The laboratory shall list all compounds
for which the samples were analyzed. The TAL/TCL is typically included as part of the analytical
reporting forms.
• Dilution factors with a narrative of the sample results, including the reasons for the dilution (if any).
• Blank Data: For organic analyses, the laboratory shall report the results of any method blanks,
reagent blanks, trip blanks, field blanks, and any other blanks associated with the sample group.
For inorganic analyses, the laboratory shall provide the results of any preparation or initial
calibration blanks associated with the sample group.
• QC Summary: The laboratory will provide summary forms detailing laboratory QC sample results,
which include individual recoveries and relative percent differences (if appropriate) for the
following Quality Assurance (QA)/QC criteria: surrogates, MS analyses, MSD analyses, LCS, and
sample duplicate analyses. QC control limits shall also be reported; if any QC limits are exceeded,
a flag or footnote shall be placed to indicate the affected samples.
Additional QA data and/or other pertinent data may be reported as requested by the owner/operator of the
facility.
3.1.9.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program
Trip and field blanks will be collected and analyzed during each monitoring event to verify that the sample
collection and handling process has not affected the quality of the samples. The trip blank will be prepared
in the laboratory each time a group of bottles is prepared for use in the field. The appropriate number of
bottles for VOA analysis will be filled with Type II reagent grade water, transported to the site, handled
like the samples, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. The field blank will be prepared in the field
and exposed to the sampling environment. As with all other samples, the time of the blank exposure will
be recorded so that the sampling sequence is documented. The field blank will be analyzed for the same
list of constituents as the groundwater samples. The trip blank will be analyzed for volatile organic
compounds only.
The assessment of blank analysis results will be in general accordance with EPA guidance documents (EPA,
1993 and 1994). No positive sample results will be relied upon unless the concentration of the compound
in the sample exceeds 10 times the amount in any blank for common laboratory contaminants (see next
paragraph), or five times the amount for other compounds. If necessary, resampling will be performed as
necessary to confirm or refute suspect data; such resampling will occur within the individual compliance
monitoring period.
Concentrations of any contaminants found in the blanks will be used to qualify the groundwater data. Any
compound (other than those listed below) detected in the sample, which was also detected in any associated
blank, will be qualified `B" when the sample concentration is less than five times the blank concentration.
For common laboratory contaminants (methylene chloride, acetone, 2-butanone, and common phthalate
esters), the results will be qualified "B" when the reported sample concentration is less than 10 times the
blank concentration. The `B" qualifier designates that the reported detection is considered to represent
17 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
cross -contamination and that the reported constituent is not considered to be present in the sample at the
reported concentration.
3.1.10 Statistical Methods (Optional)
If the landfill owner or operator chooses, groundwater monitoring data for landfill compliance wells
screened in the uppermost and/or bedrock aquifers may be evaluated using statistical procedures. However
as specified in the Rules, this is optional (not required) under 15A NCAC 13B .1632(g) for the MSWLF.
The statistical test used to evaluate the groundwater monitoring data will be the prediction interval
procedure unless the test is inappropriate with the data collected. If statistical evaluation of groundwater
monitoring data is selected, it will be performed in compliance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1632 (g), (h),
and (i) and the USEPA's Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified
Guidance, Office of Solid Waste, Waste Management Division, US EPA, dated March 2009.
3.2 Surface Water Monitoring
3.2.1 Sampling Locations
In accordance with Rule .0602 and Rule .0544(c), five (5) surface water monitoring locations have been
established for the facility to monitor water quality surrounding the proposed and existing waste footprint
(Table 2). The surface water locations consist of one (1) upstream (background) point (SW-4), three (3)
downstream (compliance) points (SW-2, SW-3, and SW-5A), and one (1) inactive downstream
(compliance) point (SW-5). We understand that surface water location SW-5A was established as an
alternate location for SW-5 which was typically dry and that SW-5 is inactive and has been replaced by
SW-5A.
All surface water sampling locations currently exist. All downstream surface water sampling locations
except SW-3 have been established for CDLF Phase 1 and are suitable for the development of CDLF Phase
2. No new surface water sampling locations are necessary or proposed of the development of CDLF Phase
2. The location of each surface water sampling point is indicated on the Water Quality and Landfill Gas
Environmental Monitoring Systems (Figure 2).
3.2.2 Monitoring Frequency
The surface water sampling locations will be sampled semiannually (Table 4) for analysis of the NC
Appendix I list of constituents, tetrahydrof Iran and 1,4-dioxane (Appendix B), and other required or typical
water quality parameters (e.g., pH, ORP, specific conductivity, temperature, and turbidity). Site specific
monitoring frequency and monitoring constituents may be modified upon approval from the SWS. The
results of the analysis of the surface water data will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in conjunction
with the groundwater data.
3.2.3 Surface Water Sampling Methodology
The surface water samples should be collected using the Dipper Method or the Direct Method described
below. In surface water sampling, extreme care must be used to obtain a representative sample. The
greatest potential source of inadvertent sample contamination is incorrect handling by field personnel.
Therefore, extreme care should be used during sample collection to minimize the potential for inadvertent
contamination.
18 of 25

1s 1M 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
3.2.3.1 Sample Collection
Surface water samples will be obtained from areas of minimal turbulence and aeration. Samples will only
be collected if flowing water is observed during the sampling event.
3.2.3.1.1 Dipper Method
A dip sampler is useful for situations where a sample is to be recovered from an outfall pipe or where direct
access is limited. The long handle on such a device allows sample collection from a discrete location.
Sampling procedures are as follows:
1. Assemble the dip sampler device in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
2. Extend the device to the sample location and collect the sample.
3. Retrieve the sampler and transfer the sample to the appropriate sample container.
3.2.3.1.2 Direct Method
The sampler should face upstream and collect the sample without disturbing the sediment. The collector
submerses the closed sample container, opens the bottle to collect the sample and then caps the bottle while
sub -surface. The collection bottle may be rinsed two times by the sample water. Collect the sample under
the water surface avoiding surface debris. When using the direct method, pre -preserved sample bottles
should not be used because the collection method may dilute the concentration of preservative necessary
for proper sample preservation. Samples will be collected using dedicated, clean, laboratory -provided
bottles, and then the samples are carefully transferred into the pre -preserved bottles for transport to the
laboratory.
3.2.3.1.3 Decontamination
Non -dedicated field equipment that is used for sample collection shall be cleaned with a phosphate -free
detergent, and triple -rinsed with distilled water. Clean, chemical -resistant nitrile gloves will be worn by
sampling personnel during sample collection. Measures will be taken to prevent surface soils, which could
introduce contaminants into the location being sampled, from coming in contact with the sampling
equipment.
3.2.3.2 Sample Preservation and Handling
Upon containerizing the water samples, the samples will be packed into pre -chilled, ice -filled coolers and
either hand -delivered or shipped overnight by a commercial carrier to the laboratory for analysis. Sample
preservation methods will be used to retard biological action and hydrolysis, as well as to reduce sorption
effects. These methods will include chemical preservation, cooling/refrigeration at 4° C, and protection
from light. The type of sample container, minimum volume, chemical preservative, and holding times for
each analysis type are provided in Table 5.
19 of 25

1s 1M 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3.2.3.3 Chain -of -Custody Program
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
The chain -of -custody program will allow for tracing sample possession and handling from the time of field
collection through laboratory analysis. The chain -of -custody program includes sample labels, sample seal,
field logbook, and chain -of -custody record.
3.2.3.3.1 Sample Labels
Legible labels sufficiently durable to remain legible when wet will contain the following information:
• Site identification;
• Sampling location identifier;
• Date and time of collection;
• Name of collector;
• Parameters to be analyzed; and
• Preservative, if applicable.
3,2.3.3,2 Sample Seal
The shipping container will be sealed to ensure that the samples have not been disturbed during transport
to the laboratory. The tape used to seal the shipping container will be labeled with instructions to notify
the shipper if the seal is broken prior to receipt at the laboratory.
3,2.3.3.3 Field Logbook
The field logbook will contain sheets documenting the following information:
• Sampling location identifier;
• Flow conditions observations;
• Field meter calibration information;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sequence of sampling locations;
• Types of sample containers used and sample identification numbers;
• Preservative used;
• Field analysis data and methods;
• Field observations on sampling event;
• Name of collector(s); and
• Climatic conditions including air temperatures and precipitation.
20 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina
3.2.3.3.4 Chain -of -Custody Record
February 19, 2021
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
The chain -of -custody record is required for tracing sample possession from time of collection to time of
receipt at the laboratory. A chain -of -custody record will accompany each individual shipment. The record
will contain the following information:
• Sample destination and transporter;
• Sample identification numbers;
• Signature of collector;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sample type;
• Number of sample containers in shipping container;
• Parameters requested for analysis;
• Signature of person(s) involved in the chain of possession;
• Inclusive dates of possession; and
• Internal temperature of shipping container upon opening in laboratory (noted by the laboratory).
A copy of the completed chain -of -custody form will accompany the shipment and will be returned to the
shipper after the shipping container reaches its destination. The chain -of -custody record will also be used
as the analysis request sheet.
3.2.3.4 Analytical Procedures
A laboratory certified by the DEQ will be utilized for analysis of surface water samples from the facility.
Analyses will be performed in accordance with U.S. EPA SW-846 methods in accordance with the EPA
guidance document (EPA, 1997). For Detection Monitoring, method numbers and reporting limits to be
used will be those listed in accordance with the documents in Appendix C. The monitoring parameters are
also included in Appendix C, along with the proposed analytical methods and reporting limits. Alternate
SW-846 methods may be used if they have the same or lower reporting limit. The laboratory must report
any detection of any constituent even if it is detected below the solid waste reporting limit (Appendix C).
The laboratory certificates -of -analyses shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
Narrative: Must include a brief description of the sample group (number and type of samples, field
and associated lab sample identification numbers, preparation and analytical methods used). The
data reviewer shall also include a statement that all holding times and Quality Control (QC) criteria
were met, samples were received intact and properly preserved, with a brief discussion of any
deviations potentially affecting data usability. This includes, but is not limited to, test method
deviation(s), holding time violations, out -of -control incidents occurring during the processing of
QC or field samples and corrective actions taken, and repeated analyses and reasons for the
reanalyzes (including, for example, contamination, failing surrogate recoveries, matrix effects, or
dilutions). The narrative shall be signed by the laboratory director or authorized laboratory
representative, signifying that all statements are true to the best of the reviewer's knowledge, and
that the data meet the data quality objectives as described in this plan (except as noted). One
narrative is required for each sample group.
21 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
• Original Chain -of Custody Form.
• Target Analyte List (TAL)/Target Compound List (TCL): The laboratory shall list all compounds
for which the samples were analyzed. The TAL/TCL is typically included as part of the analytical
reporting forms.
• Dilution factors with a narrative of the sample results, including the reasons for the dilution (if any).
• Blank Data: For organic analyses, the laboratory shall report the results of any method blanks,
reagent blanks, trip blanks, field blanks, and any other blanks associated with the sample group.
For inorganic analyses, the laboratory shall provide the results of any preparation or initial
calibration blanks associated with the sample group.
• QC Summary: The laboratory will provide summary forms detailing laboratory QC sample results,
which include individual recoveries and relative percent differences (if appropriate) for the
following Quality Assurance (QA)/QC criteria: surrogates, MS analyses, MSD analyses, LCS, and
sample duplicate analyses. QC control limits shall also be reported; if any QC limits are exceeded,
a flag or footnote shall be placed to indicate the affected samples.
Additional QA data and/or other pertinent data may be reported as requested by the owner/operator of the
facility.
3.2.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program
Trip and field blanks will be collected and analyzed during each monitoring event to verify that the sample
collection and handling process has not affected the quality of the samples. The trip blank will be prepared
in the laboratory each time a group of bottles is prepared for use in the field. The appropriate number of
bottles for VOA analysis will be filled with Type II reagent grade water, transported to the site, handled
like the samples, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. The field blank will be prepared in the field
and exposed to the sampling environment. As with all other samples, the time of the blank exposure will
be recorded so that the sampling sequence is documented. The field blank will be analyzed for the same
list of constituents as the surface water samples. The trip blank will be analyzed for volatile organic
compounds only.
The assessment of blank analysis results will be in general accordance with EPA guidance documents (EPA,
1993 and 1994). No positive sample results will be relied upon unless the concentration of the compound
in the sample exceeds 10 times the amount in any blank for common laboratory contaminants (see next
paragraph), or five times the amount for other compounds. If necessary, resampling will be performed as
necessary to confirm or refute suspect data; such resampling will occur within the individual compliance
monitoring period.
Concentrations of any contaminants found in the blanks will be used to qualify the surface water data. Any
compound (other than those listed below) detected in the sample, which was also detected in any associated
blank, will be qualified `B" when the sample concentration is less than five times the blank concentration.
For common laboratory contaminants (methylene chloride, acetone, 2-butanone, and common phthalate
esters), the results will be qualified `B" when the reported sample concentration is less than 10 times the
22 of 25

1s 1M 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
blank concentration. The `B" qualifier designates that the reported detection is considered to represent
cross -contamination and that the reported constituent is not considered to be present in the sample at the
reported concentration.
3.3 Reporting
3.3.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment Reports
Groundwater monitoring well installation and abandonment reports will be prepared upon completion of
well installation or abandonment prior to waste disposal into a new cell in accordance with the phased
landfill construction plans. The monitoring well installation reports will include documentation of boring
logs, well diagrams, development results, and field procedures. The abandonment reports will include
documentation of abandonment logs and field procedures. Monitoring well installation and abandonment
reports will be submitted in electronic format in general accordance with the procedures in Appendix C
and if physical copies are required to the SWS at the following mailing address:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management -- Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Additionally, copies of all installation and abandonment reports will be kept at the landfill as part of the
facility's operating record.
3.3.2 Water Quality Reports
Copies of all laboratory analytical data will be forwarded to the SWS within 120 calendar days of the
sampling event. The analytical data submitted will specify the date of sample collection, the sampling point
identification and include a map of sampling locations. Should a significant concentration of contaminants
be detected in ground and surface water, as defined in North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules,
Groundwater Quality Standards, or Surface Water Quality Standards, the owner/operator of the landfill
shall notify the SWS and will place a notice in the landfill operating records as to which constituents were
detected. All monitoring reports will be submitted with the following:
1. An evaluation of potentiometric surface;
2. Analytical laboratory reports and summary tables;
3. An Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form (included in Appendix D); and
4. Laboratory Data submitted in accordance with the Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Template.
Monitoring reports will be submitted electronically by e-mail, electronic media, or in paper copy form if
requested. Copies of all laboratory results and water quality reports for the Rutherford County Landfill will
be kept at the landfill office as part of the facility's operating record. Reports summarizing all groundwater
quality results and data evaluation will be submitted in electronic form in accordance with the procedures
in Appendix C and if physical copies are required to the SWS at their current mailing address.
23 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
4.0 REFERENCES
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc., 2021, Design Hydrogeologic Report, Phase 2 C&D, Rutherford
County Landfill; BLE Project Number J19-13675-01
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc.; March 19, 2020; Report of Groundwater Assessment February 2020 —
Background for the Phase 2 C&D Expansion Area, Rutherford County Landfill, Rutherford County, North
Carolina•, BLE Project Number J20-13675-04
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc.; February 7, 2020; Report of Groundwater Assessment January 2020 —
Background for the Phase 2 C&D Expansion Area, Rutherford County Landfill, Rutherford County, North
Carolina•, BLE Project Number J20-13675-04
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc.; January 16, 2020; Work Plan for Groundwater Assessment —Background
for the Phase 2 C&D Expansion Area, Rutherford County Landfill, Rutherford County, North Carolina; BLE
Project Number J20-13675-04
David Garrett Engineering and Geology; July 2007 (Volumes 1 and 2); MSW Facility Plan Amendment and
Permit to Construct Application for CDLFPhase IA, Rutherford County, North Carolina.
David Garrett Engineering and Geology; August 2000 et seq; Permit Renewal Application, Rutherford County
C&D Landfill.
Horton, J.W. and Zullo, V.A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolinas: Carolina Geological Society fifteenth
anniversary volume: The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2006, N.C. New Guidelines for
Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data.
North Carolina Dept. Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2007, N.C. Addendum to
October 27, 2006, North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding New Guidelines for
Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data.
North Carolina Dept. Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2007, Environmental Monitoring
Data for North Carolina Solid Waste Management Facilities.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2008, Solid Waste Section,
Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2010, Division of Waste
Management, Solid Waste Section, Tetrahydrofuran Analysis at Construction and Demolition Landfills.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2014, Division of Waste
Management, Solid Waste Section, Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas
Electronic Document Submittal.
North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 2016, Division of Waste Management, Solid
Waste Section, Guidelines for 14-Day Notification of Groundwater Exceedances Form Submittal per rule:
15A NCAC 13B .1633(c)(1).
24 of 25

1s 1m 1i
Water Quality Monitoring Plan February 19, 2021
Rutherford County Landfill — Rutherfordton, North Carolina BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 2018, Division of Waste Management, Solid
Waste Section, 1,4-Dioxane Analysis, Solid Waste Section Limits, and Laboratory Analytical Methods.
North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), 2020, Division of Waste Management, Solid
Waste Section, New Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Format.
Odom Engineering, PLLC, November 15, 2018; Landfill Groundwater and Surface Water Gas Monitoring
Plan — Rutherford County Active C&D Landfill.
Odom Engineering, PLLC, November 1, 2018; Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan —Rutherford County Active C&D
Landfill.
Rhodes, Thomas S., and Conrad, Stephen G., 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the NC Geological
Survey, 1:500,000-scale, compiled by Brown, Philip M., et al, and Parker, John M. III, and in association
with the State Geologic Map Advisory Committee.
Scarlett Geophysical Consulting, P.C.; July 2019 et antequam; Rutherford County Central Sanitary Landfill
May 2019 Sampling.
USEPA, September 1986. RCRA Ground -Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document
(TEGD).
USEPA, 1996. Low -Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground -Water Sampling Procedures. Puls, Robert W.
and Barcelona, Michael J.
USEPA, 1993. Region III Modifications to Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for
Evaluating Inorganic Analyses, EPA 540/R-0 1 -008. April.
USEPA, 1994. Region III Modifications to National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review
Multi -Media, Multi -Concentration (OLMO1.0-OLMO0.9), EPA 540/R-99-008. September.
USEPA, June 1997. SW-846 Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Final
Update III.
USEPA, March 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities — Unified
Guidance. EPA/530-R-09-007. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
25 of 25

Tables

Table 1
Groundwater Monitoring Well Data
Rutherford County Landfill
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002
Permit No. 8103-MSWLF-1974
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Monitoring Point
MSW or
C&D
Northing
Easting
TOC
Elevation (ft)
Ground Surface
Elevation (ft)
Depth to GW (ft)
May 7, 2019
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Well Depth (ft)
Screen Depth
(below GS)t
Waste Unit
Monitored
Installation
Date
Geology Monitored
Well
Status/Purpose
Well
Diameter (in)
MW-1
Background
596,114.7
1,120,714.4
1007.76
1006.05
NM
NM
45.5
35.5 - 45.5
Background
DNA
Saprolite/PWR
Inactive
2.0
MW-2
Background
596,355.3
1,119,904.9
994.86
994.47
32.05
962.81
60.0
50.0 - 60.0
Background
DNA
Saprolite/PWR
Background
2.0
MW-3
C&D
595,209.6
1,118,703.8
860.27
859.62
30.16
830.11
47.0
37.0 - 47.0
CDLF
DNA
Saprolite/PWR
Compliance
2.0
MW-4
MSW
594,627.1
1,118,864.3
851.03
849.72
28.49
822.54
50.0
40.0 - 50.0
MSWLF
DNA
DNA
Compliance
2.0
MW-52
MSW
592,671.0
1,119,287.9
824.23
823.23
NM
NM
DNA
DNA - DNA
MSWLF
DNA
DNA
Inactive
2.0
MW-6
MSW
593,847.1
1,118,805.4
934.95
833.43
126.62
808.33
37.5
22.5 - 37.5
MSWLF
11/16/1994
Saprolite/PWR
Compliance
2.0
MW-7
MSW
593,056.3
1,118,974.8
892.76
890.51
33.26
859.50
54.0
39.0 - 54.0
MSWLF
11/16/1994
Bedrock
Compliance
2.0
MW-8
MSW
593,666.3
1,119,935.7
860.30
857.86
35.97
824.33
44.5
29.5 - 44.5
MSWLF
3/15/1995
Saprolite
Compliance
2.0
MW-9
MSW
594,368.1
1,120,182.4
867.21
864.97
29.00
838.21
37.5
22.5 - 37.5
MSWLF
3/18/1995
Saprolite
Compliance
2.0
MW-10A
MSW
DNA
DNA
837.23
834.73
5.74
831.49
101.0
91.0 - 101.0
MSWLF
8/5/1998
Bedrock
Inactive
2.0
MW-10B
MSW
DNA
DNA
836.15
834.50
7.86
828.29
37.0
32.0 - 37.0
MSWLF
8/5/1998
PWR
Compliance
2.0
MW-10C
MSW
DNA
DNA
836.19
834.50
7.82
828.37
16.0
11.0 - 16.0
MSWLF
8/5/1998
Saprolite
Compliance
2.0
MW-IOD
MSW
DNA
DNA
837.23
834.73
8.34
828.89
66.0
56.0 - 66.0
MSWLF
8/5/1998
Bedrock
Compliance
2.0
MW-11A
MSW
DNA
DNA
817.18
815.39
7.40
809.78
45.0
35.0 - 45.0
MSWLF
8/8/1998
PWR/Bedrock
Compliance
2.0
MW-11B
MSW
DNA
DNA
817.72
816.02
8.85
808.87
20.0
10.0 - 20.0
MSWLF
8/8/1998
Saprolite
Compliance
2.0
MW-12 (B-22)
C&D
DNA
DNA
875.33
873.35
34.55
840.78
45.5
35.5 - 45.5
CDLF
6/14/2002
Saprolite/PWR
Compliance
2.0
MW-13 (B-6)
C&D
594,988.7
1,120,032.9
962.47
960.35
70.04
892.43
88.0
73.0 - 88.0
CDLF
5/24/2000
Bedrock
Compliance
2.0
MW-14
C&D
595,446.1
1,118,985.2
868.94
866.54
18.53
850.41
32.4
17.4 - 32.4
CDLF
2/7/2008
Saprolite/PWR
Compliance
2.0
MW-15 (B-29)
C&D
595,673.0
1,118,986.2
889.13
887.52
27.18
861.95
38.0
28.0 - 38.0
CDLF
5/25/2000
Bedrock
Compliance
2.0
1 - Surveying for locations was performed by McGill Associates of Asheville, NC on December 2-3, 2019.
Z - Surveying for locations was performed by Professional Surveying Services of Rutherfordton, NC on May 17, 1993.
Survey data for all other borings, piezometers, wells, from several historical documents.
DNA = Data Not Available. Information was not provided in previous SHR & DHR reports performed by others.
TOC - Top of Casing.
GS - Ground Surface.
NM - Not Measured.
All depth measurements in feet.
13675-02 WQMP Tables.xlsx Prepared by: RLB
T1 (5-7-19) MW Points Checked by: IAI/AWA

Table 2
Surface Water Sampling Point Data
Rutherford County Landfill
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002
Permit No. 8103-MSWLF-1974
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Monitoring Point
Water Body Monitored'
Existing Waste Unit
Monitored)
Current
Status/Purpose
Proposed Waste Unit
Monitored
Proposed
Status/Purpose
Northing
Easting
SW-1
Does Not Exist
SW-2
Cleghorn Creek Tributary
CDLF
Downstream
CDLF
Downstream
DNA
DNA
SW-3
Stonecutter Creek
MSWLF
Downstream
MSWLF
Downstream
DNA
DNA
SW-4
Cleghom Creek Tributary
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
DNA
DNA
SW-5 (Inactive)
Cleghorn Creek Tributary
CDLF
Downstream
CDLF
Downstream
DNA
DNA
SW-5A
Cleghorn Creek Tributary
CDLF
Downstream
CDLF
Downstream
DNA
DNA
- Based on visual observation of Rutherford County Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Plan by Odom Engineering dated November 15, 2018.
SW-5A has replaced SW-5 (Inactive) which was typically dry
DNA - Data Not Available
Revised February 1, 2021
Prepared by: RLB
Checked by: IAI/AWA
\\BLEGVLSVRI\SolidWasteProjects\Rutherford County NC Landfill\l3675-02 EMP\WQMP\l3675-02 WQMP Tables.xlsx

Table 3
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Matrix
Rutherford County Landfill
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002
Permit No. 8103-MSWLF-1974
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Semi -Annual Laboratory Parameters
Semi -Annual Field Parameters
Semi -Annual Geochemical Parameters for MNA
Monitoring Well
Well Status
Waste Unit
Appendix I VOCs +
Metals
(Various Methods)
1,4-dioxane
(EPA 8260 SIM)
C&D Parameters
(Various Methods)
—WppFn—dix
Appendix I1 Limited List
Full List (Various
(Various Methods) Methods)
WL
Turb
Temp
pH
ORP
DO
SC
Alkalinity
DH
VFA
TOC
BOD
COD
Chloride
CO2
Fee
NO3
MEE
SO4
Sulfide
MW-2
Active
Background
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-1
Inactive
Background
MW-3
Active
CDLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-4
Active
MSWLF
Y- F
Y- S
Y- F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-5
Inactive
MSWLF
MW-6
Active
MSWLF
Y- F
Y
Y- S
Y- F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-7
Active
MSWLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-8
Active
MSWLF
Y- F
Y
Y- S
Y- F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-9
Active
MSWLF
Y- F
Y
Y- S
Y- F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-10A
Inactive
MSWLF
MW-lOB
Active
MSWLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-10C
Active
MSWLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-lOD
Active
MSWLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-11A
Active
MSWLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-1113
Active
MSWLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-12 (13-22)
Active
CDLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MW-13 (13-6)
Active
CDLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
FMW-14
Active
CDLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
mW-15 (B-29)
Active
CDLF
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Notes:
Y - S = Yes, Spring Only
Y - F = Yes, Fall Only
VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds
Appendix II Limited List:
(1,3-dichloropropane, 1-3 dichlorobenzene,
4,4'-DDT, dichlorodifluoromethane, alpha-BHC,
beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC, endrin, and Mercury)
BOD = Biologic Oxygen Demand
COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand
40 CFR Part 258 Appendix I - Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Organics and Inorganics)
40 CFR Part 258 Appendix II - Constituents for Assessment Monitoring
C&D Parameters:
(Alkalinity, Chloride, Iron, Manganese, Mercury, Sulfate, TDS, Tetrahydrofuran) + Aluminum
WL = Water Level
ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
SC = Specific Conductance
DH = Dissolved Hydrogen
VFA = Volatile Fatty Acids
TOC = Total Organic Carbon
Fee = Iron II
NO3 = Nitrate
MEE = Methane/Ethene/Ethane
SO4 = Sulfate
COZ = Carbon Dioxide
T3 GW Matrix of 13675-02 WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared By: RLB
Checked By: IAI/AWA

Table 4
Surface Water Sampling and Analysis Matrix
Rutherford County Landfill
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002
Permit No. 8103-MSWLF-1974
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Standard Semi -Annual
Laboratory Parameters
Standard Semi -Annual Field Parameters
Surface
Water
Location
Location
Status
Appendix I VOCs
+
Tetrahydrofuran
1,4-dioxane
(EPA 8260 SIM)
Appendix I
Metals
Turb
Temp
pH
ORP
DO
Sc
SW-2
Active
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
SW-3
Active
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
SW-4
Active
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
SW-5
Inactive
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SW-5A
I Active
I Y
Y
Y
I Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Notes:
SW-5A has replaced SW-5 (Inactive) which was typically dry
VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds
Y=Yes
40 CFR Part 258 Appendix I - Constituents for Detection Monitoring (Organics and Inorganics)
T4 SW Matrix of 13675-02 WQMP Tables.xlsx
ORP = Oxidation Reduction Potential
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
SC = Specific Conductance
Prepared By: RLB
Checked By: IAI/AWA

Table 5
Sampling and Preservation Procedures
Rutherford County Landfill
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Permit No. 8103-CDLF-2002
Permit No. 8103-MSWLF-1974
BLE Project Number J19-13675-02
Parameter
Container & Volume
Preservative
Maximum Holding Time
Cyanide
P,G; 500 mL
4°C NaOH to pH>12, add Sodium Arsenite
14 days
Sulfide
P,G; 500 mL
4°C, add Zinc Acetate and NaOH
7 days
Chloride
P,G; 500 mL
4°C
28 days
Alkalinity
P,G; 500 mL
4°C
14 days
Total Dissolved Solids
P,G; 500 mL
4°C
7 days
Mercury (total)
P; 500 mL
HNO3 to pH<2
28 days
Metals (total) except mercury
P; 500 mL
HNO3 to pH<2
6 months
Base Neutrals & Acids
G, Teflon -lined cap; 1000 mL
4°C
7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Chlorinated Pesticides/PCBs
G, Teflon -lined cap; 1000 mL
4°C
7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Chlorinated Acids
G, Teflon -lined cap; 1000 mL
4°C
7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Purgeables
2-40 mL VOA w/G, Teflon -lined septum
4°C; HCl to pH<2
14 days
BOD
P; 1000 mL
VC
48 hours
COD
P; 250 mL
VC, H2SO4 to pH<2
28 days
Sulfate
P; 250 mL
4°C
28 days
Nitrate
P; 250 mL
4°C
48 hours
ortho-Phosphate
P; 250 mL
4°C
48 hours
Notes: P - Plastic, G - Glass, T - Fluorocarbon Resin (PTFE, Teflon®, FEP, etc.)
No headspace should be allowed in the volatile organic compound containers.
Prepared by: RLB
\\BLEGVLSVRI\SolidWasteProjects\Rutherford County NC Landfill\13675-02 EMP\WQMP\l3675-02 WQMP Tables.xlsx Checked by: IAI/AWA

Figures

Saint)
l pti
Francis Episcopal p
p
K
°moo
ti 2 Ehurch'Cem
g
q00
i w
h
.
w3RD
West Memonal
6urck,em
a
a
0
a
/1 N'couRr 221
(—� sT
�
x b°
FzND
4GQBq�.
`STrT Fp q jT�
URT ST
�-
ST o `�
?C�4 ST
O
--- - --
CSC 1 Bus
H
O
�'. - J-W&T
4•
Rutherfordton 74
Y1
oXFo
0 4pOp�1
=<v
�O
151
LPARK'R�
J
ti
�DUS7RIA V
G3�
✓rr' 1
rG y H
N 1�
�
ti
y
O
Alt
_
Q
� o
�oNE
l?FDR O
^oo
0
—
x
,.z C� COU,yTR`
•
\yF.p O ' � Op
�
i ''ci1:aTlECUtt6r Gr '
_
QQ� �p\
\� moo
�!`'�
�
((//'��
m
'V
A
yGy�1
Bus
«tim
F
7
s
j
G221
v Jr AarFRO
O
m s cc,
�p � �
1
I1 0
O
�. AAounYa�m�
View`'Baphst
'Ch ru ch.Cem
DQLFNpo
o
I
I
REFERENCES:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, 7.5
2000 1000 0 2000 4000 a7
TON
MINUTE SERIES, RUTHERFORD17—
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Z . _
SOUTH. NC. QUADRANGLE 2017
DRAWN: KLW
DATE: 1-20-21
BUNNELL
FIGURE
IM LAMMONS
M ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
SITE LOCATION MAP
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
CHECKED: RLB
CAD: F1 RCLF-02SLM
APPROVED: AWA
JOB NO: J19-13675-02

I I
I 3
3 I
0
z
-0- I I
I I
-0-
I
-0- I o
3 �
0 I — —860'
I 850
TOWN TOWN OF RUTHERFORDTON I j� 8401k____'
WASTEWATER TREATMENT I SW-2'
FACILITY °% 0,
CLEGHORN
CREEK / I I SW— -
�- $�o ®MW-11 B I I 850 SW 5A .�
a8� MW'--11A I &
ti
83005 I 860 M W— 3
840
850 M W— 6 I —s;�o
860 LFG-5 I I C
s'° I
�880 MW-4 BMW-12 (B-22) s8o
� 3
M W— 7 °°° ♦ -1/ ���///
MW-14 MW-15 (B-29)
950
960 <
o I g, 0
SW-3 )- LFG-4 1
I
980 MW-5 ��o CLOSED MSW LANDFILL 990
EXISTING C&D LANDFILL
PHASE 1
ea I �-
l� oo 0 0 I
co
1
` �o
STONECUTTER -
I
CREEK LFG-3 ® MW-8 I
o ° o
s, TRANSFER STATION MW--13 (B-6)
d
O
• - LFG— 2
f 6 M 880 I \ 11 9
° M W— 9 930
0 860�—�/ °O MAINTENANCE & STORAGES
AREAS 1 AND 2 C'910�--�
THUNDER ROAD MW —10 A' SCALEHOUSE B ° LFG-1 &
o�
®®� , cb
MW-10 C,D &
lob
1
°° r
��oo� • 0 I
3
I
-----ROW----- ROW ----- ROW -- I
--- ROW -----RO — — — -- ---ROW ----- ROW— -- —ROW
----ROW-----ROW-----ROW-----ROW----�R W -6 I •
-----ROW— ---ROW -----ROW
� 3
3 -G� I
I
EXISTING DUKE ENERGY EASEMENT I
I
I I
3 I
I
I -o- I
I
II
I0:
I I
o I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
o I
z I
I I
I o
I
I
I
I
I
DRAWN: KLW
CHECKED: RLB
APPROVED: AWA
DATE: 2-1-21
CAD FILE: F2 RCLF-02EMS
JOB NO: J19-13675-02
0
-a
APPROXIMATE FACILITY BOUNDARY
-0-
1
98.
0�
\ 920 0-
s3o\
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION
LFG-7 (B-17
FG-6 (B-13)
_V
MW 2
*o \\
LFG-8A (B-12D),
LFG-10
LFG-8 (B-12S)� \ .
% °4,
o \ °
0
\\-O-
ANIMAL
SHELTER FACILITY
\
102o \ \
1010
,oM I
00
sO
980 0
IM I BUNNELL
M LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: (864] 288-1265 Fox: (864] 288-4430
MONITORING LOCATION LEGEND
A
LFG-9
LANDFILL GAS MONITORING WELL,
SURVEYED BY
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, 12/2/19 —
12/3/19
0
LFG-5
LANDFILL GAS MONITORING WELL,
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
®
MW-8
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL,
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
MW-1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL,
SURVEYED BY
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, 12/2/19 —
12/3/19
-
SW-3
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION, APPROXIMATE
--
INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD
0
LAUREL HILL DRIVE
TOPOGRAPHIC & GEOLOGIC LEGEND
EXISTING 2' CONTOUR — LIDAR/ALS/MCGILL
EXISTING 10' CONTOUR — LIDAR/ALS/MCGILL
STREAM
FACILITY BOUNDARY
WASTE UNIT BOUNDARY
PHASE 2 UNIT BOUNDARY [EXPANSION AREA]
REFERENCES:
1. RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
MONITORING PLAN FIGURE 2 AND 3 PREPARED BY ODOM ENGINEERING
DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2018
2. RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PLAN FIGURE 2 AND
3 PREPARED BY ODOM ENGINEERING DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2018
3. RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL — SURVEY CONTROL REPORT AND
BORE/WELL LOCATIONS REPORT ID CDO0640 PREPARED BY MCGILL
DATED JANUARY 7, 2020
NOTES:
LOCATION ACCURACY OF THE FEATURES SHOWN IS LIMITED BY THE
REFERENCES THEMSELVES.
GENERAL MAP REFERENCE
200 100 0 200 400
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
C NA9tiy''%
7► 5 cc
vFot� ;P�o,;:
WATER QUALITY AND LANDFILL GAS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
2

u
sw-3 -
I 1
MW-5
STONECUI
CREEK
a
� g10
THUNDER ROAD
I I
I 3
3 I
0
z
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 3
0
3 �
& I - -860'
II �� s~—
TOWN OF RUTHERFORDTON I I to
840
WASTEWATER TREATMENT I SW-2'
FACILITY 0,
CLEGHORN
CREEK / / � � , ` �I I � sw-
®MW-11B I I 850 SW-5A-�
M W-11 A
v 0: I 860 M W- 3 I
MW-6 I
-s;�o
LFG-5
M W / 4 cM W-12 (B - 22) 880,
MING
N ME: -6
CLOSED MSW LANDFILL
0
990
-o-
a
980-
EXISTING C&D LANDFILL
PHASE 1
Im
ON
LFG-3 MW-8 i
o . !�
d TRANSFER STATION MW--13 (B-6
b - Xollo -
LFG-2 a8 X(; N ��
�� M W- 9
860� J - w o
60
60
MAINTENAN
MW -10 A,B LFG— AREAS 1 A
` MW-10 C,D o/
°° r
��oo ` to to0 I
o�
I
-----ROW----- ROW ----- ROW ----
- ROW -----RO — — — -- I
---ROW -----ROW--- —ROW (�� G
----ROW-----ROW-----ROW-----ROW-----R W � -%6 I
— e
----ROW— ---ROW-----ROW
3
0
EXISTING DUKE ENERGY EASEMENT I
I
3
0
I
I I
3 I
I
I
I
I0:
I I
3 I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
o I
z I
I I
I o
I
I
I
I
I
DRAWN: KLW
CHECKED: RLB
APPROVED: AWA
DATE: 2-1-21
CAD FILE: F3 RCLF-02GWM
JOB N0: J19-13675-02
0
-0-
APPROXIMATE FACILITY BOUNDARY
I -o-
MONITORING LOCATION LEGEND
A
LFG-9
LANDFILL GAS MONITORING WELL,
SURVEYED BY
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, 12/2/19 -
12/3/19
LFG-5
LANDFILL GAS MONITORING WELL,
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
MW-8
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL,
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
MW-1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL,
SURVEYED BY
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, 12/2/19 -
12/3/19
<1
-
SW-3
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION, APPROXIMATE
U �89� -o-
ro
INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD
900 ,
g70
o0
— �920
\93o�
PHASE 2 C&D EXPANSION '
7 9e� LFG-11
LFG-7 (B-17)
FG-6 (B-13)
Au
Moab \
IM BUNNELL
� LAMMONS
ENGINEERING
6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615
Phone: [phone] Fox: [phone]
0
TOPOGRAPHIC &GEOLOGIC LEGEND
EXISTING 2' CONTOUR - LIDAR/ALS/MCGILL
EXISTING 10' CONTOUR - LIDAR/ALS/MCGILL
STREAM
FACILITY BOUNDARY
WASTE UNIT BOUNDARY
PHASE 2 UNIT BOUNDARY [EXPANSION AREA]
890 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
CONTOUR IN FEET ABOVE MSL (CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10 FEET)
GENERALIZED GROUNDWATER FLOW PATH
REFERENCES:
1. RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
MONITORING PLAN FIGURE 2 AND 3 PREPARED BY ODOM ENGINEERING
DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2018
2. RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PLAN FIGURE 2 AND
3 PREPARED BY ODOM ENGINEERING DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2018
3. RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL — SURVEY CONTROL REPORT AND
BORE/WELL LOCATIONS REPORT ID CDO0640 PREPARED BY MCGILL
DATED JANUARY 7, 2020
NOTES:
LOCATION ACCURACY OF THE FEATURES SHOWN IS LIMITED BY THE
REFERENCES THEMSELVES.
GENERAL MAP REFERENCE
200 100 0 200 400
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP - MAY 79 2019
RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
3

WELL CAP WITH LOCK
WELL ID PLATE
WELL CAP
STEEL PROTECTOR CAP
1/4" GAS VENT
DRAIN/WEEP HOLE
SURVEYOR'S PIN (FLUSH MOUNT)
GROUND SURFACE
2' x 2' x 4" CONCRETE PAD -SLOPE TO DRAIN
T C~n w
CONTINUOUS POUR CONCRETE CAP
3 FEET MIN. � p
~ AND WELL APRON
LL N
NEAT CEMENT GROUT, CEMENT/BENTONITE
GROUT, OR HIGH SOLIDS SODIUM BENTONITE
GROUT
WELL DIAMETER 2" PVC THREADED
BOREHOLE DIAMETER
5 INCHES MINIMUM
BENTONITE LAYER
(NOMINAL DIMENSION)
(1.0 FEET MIN.)
=
SILICA FILTER PACK SAND
—_
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
o
=
SCREENED INTERVAL 0.010 INCH SLOT
Q w
__
MANUFACTURED SCREEN (NOT TO EXCEED
D 0
__
15 FEET WITHOUT AMPLE JUSTIFICATION
Q N
=
WELL INSTALLATION.)
=
cn
BOTTOM CAP
NOTES:
1. IF THE WELL IS SET IN SOIL, THE SCREEN WILL BE SET TO BRACKET THE 24-HOUR
WATER LEVEL WITH APPROXIMATELY 12-FT OF WATER IN THE WELL. IF THE WELL
IS SET INTO BEDROCK, THE SCREEN WILL BE SET TO ENCOUNTER
WATER -PRODUCING FRACTURES.
2. PLACE PEA GRAVEL IN ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN PVC STICK UP AND STEEL
PROTECTIVE CASING.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
JOB NO.: FIGURE
J20-13675-02 ' IM B U N N E L L LAMMONS GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL DETAIL
�
DATE: ENGINEERING RUTHERFORD COUNTY LANDFILL
1-21-21 SCALE: 6004 Ponders Court, Greenville, SC 29615 RUTHERFORDTON, NORTH CAROLINA
4
NOT TO SCALE Phone; [phone] Fax; [phone]

APPENDIX A
Monitoring Well Construction Records

BPA .Environmental & Engineering, Inc.
Page i of 5
Client _ Rutherford County
)iect Central Sanitary Landfill
Depth (ft.) 100.00 Elevation (ft.) 815.39
Date Started 08/06/98 Date Ended 08/08/98
Depth to Water (ft.) 7.27 Date
09/18/98
Boring No.
MWA 'I A
Type and Size 10.25" HSA16.25" AH
Driller Richard Simmons Drilling
Logged By Ken Vanhoy
Water Level Elevation (ft.) 808.12
a�
a�
¢
L'L!¢
W�
5
UJ
m a
z�
U O
Q;U
aw
wvi
U- CO
Z-i
�U
LITHOLOGEC DESCRIPTION
Remarks
See boring log MW 13 B for split spoon sample description of soil profile from 0 to 22 feet.
2 I
813.4
811.4
I
809.4
807.4
10
805.4
12
803.4
114
801.4
16
799.4
9
797.4
2Q
795.4

BPA Environmental & Engineer ' Inc. of 5
/Client Rutherford County
f aject Central Sanitary Landfill
II Depth (ft.) 100.00 Elevation (ft.) 815.39
Date Started 08/06/98 Date Ended 08/08/98
Depth to Water (ft.) 7.27 Date
09/18198
Boring No,
Type and Size
Driller
MW11A
10.25" HSA/6.25" AH
Richard Simmons Drilli
Logged By Ken Vanhoy
Water Level Elevation (ft.) 808.12
Qw
W�
o �
�uQ
Wv
�n
S'_
j �i
M a
�
LU o
aC)
dLU
i
z�
DU
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Remarks
2
793.4
I
4
791.4
MH
25 to 36 feet: Auger cuttings consist of grayish -tan clayey micaceous SILT with some
sand, Note: Augering through hard and soft layers.
26
789.4
,I
-28
787.4
0
785.4
2
783.4
4
781.4
6
779.4
36 to 37 feet: Drill cuttings consist of Gneiss and quartz.
10.25-inch I.D, auger
refusal at 36.0 ft.
37 to 40 feet: Drill cuttings consist of Gneiss and quartz, constant hammer chatter, water
Drilled 1 ft. shoe into
expelled from boring as soon as air hammer reached 37.0 feet.
top of rock with 7 7/8 in,
1)8
777.4
tricone rotary bit.
8-inch low carbon black
steel pit casing set at
37.0 ft.
40
775.4
i

BPA Environmental & Engineering,
Client Rutherford County
�roject Central Sanitary Landfill _
`al Depth (ft.) 100.00 Elevation (ft.) 815.39
Date Started 08/06/98 Date Ended 08/08/98
r
Depth to Water (ft.) 7.27 Date
09/18/98
Boring No.
Inc.
Page 3 of 5
MW-11 A
Type and Size 1025" HSA16.25" AH
Driller Richard Simmons Drilling
Logged By Ken Vanhoy
Water Level Elevation (ft.) 808.12
ut
O u"
O J
to
¢ g
jj Q
tu
5
Qy
m Q
F- [Y
W O
cC U
R
10
,r_ ¢
Z
� C�
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Remarks
40 to 42.6 feet: Drill cuttings consist of Gneiss, constant hammer chatter.
6.25-inch air hammer
drilling with constant
down pressure of 200
lbs. and constant drill
stem pressure of 150
2
773.4
psi from:37 to 100 ft,
42.5 to 45 feet: Drill cuttings consist of quartz mixed with a little biotite (Granite?),
Drill rate @ 40 to 45 ft.
constant hammer chatter.
= 2.4 min/ft., flow rate
=2.6 gpm.
Water at surface ran
thru 8" steel pipe and
4
771 4
flow rate measured with
gallon pale.
45 to 50 feet: Drill cuttings consist of layers of Granite? and biotite Gneiss?, constant
Drill rate @ 45 to 50 ft.
hammer chatter.
=2.2 min/ft., flow rate
6
769.4
=3.8 gpm.
8
767.4
0
765.4
50 to 55 feet: Drill cuttings consist of layers of dark (black) and light (white) colored
Drill rate @ 50 to 55 ft.
cuttings (75% dark cuttings), Gneiss/Granite?, constant hammer chatter.
= 2.4 min/ft., flow rate
= 4.1 gpm.
2
763.4
4
I
761.4
�
55 to 70 feet: Drill cuttings black, gray, overall medium gray, consisting of quartz,
Drill rate @ 55 to 60 ft.
feldspar?, and biotite, Granite/Gneiss?, constant hammer chatter.
= 2.6 min/ft., flow rate
6
759.4
= 4.1 gpm.
98
i
757.4
ti
60
755.4

.SPA Environmental & Engineering,
Client Rutherford County
('�-oject Central Sanitary Landfill _.
`al Depth (ft.) 100.00 Elevation (ft.) 815.39
uate Started 08/06/98 Date Ended
Depth to Water (ft.) 7.27 Date
08/08/98
09/18/98
Boring No.
Type and Size
Driller
Inc.
Page 4 of 5
MW-11 A
10.25" HSA/6.26" AH
Richard Simmons Dri
Logged By Ken Vanhoy
Water Level Elevation (ft) 808.12
a.W
ltJ �
Q .r
LD ..
¢ �
� �
ct�
c
�
OJ a`)
m C.
U
af U
W W
� U
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Remarks
Drill rate @ 60 to 65 ft. `
= 2.6 min/ft., flow rate ;
i
= 3.5 gpm.
2
753.4
i
I
4
I
751.4
I
I
I
Drill rate @ 65 to 70 ft.
= 2.0 min/ft., flow rate
6
749.4
= 3.5 gpm'
—d8
747.4
70
745.4
70 to 100 feet: Drill cuttings black, gray, overall medium to dark gray, consisting of quartz
Drill rate @ 70 to 75 ft.
and biotite Gneiss, quartz vein at 93.0 feet, constant hammer chatter.
=1.8 minlft., flow rate
= 3.5 gpm.
72
743.4
I
74
741.4
i
Drill rate @ 75 to 80 ft.
= 2.0 min/ft., flow rate ,
76
739.4
= 3.5 gpm, i
78
737.4
i
I
i
E
i
I
80
735.4

BPA Environmental & Engineering,
Client Rutherford County
('-oject Central Sanitary Landfill
`al Depth (ft.) 100.00 Elevation (ft.) 815.39
vate Started 08/06/98 Date Ended 08/08/98
r
K—
Depth to Water (ft.) 7.27 Date
09/18/98
Boring No.
InC.
Page 5 of 5
MW-'11 A
Type and Size 10.25" HSA16.25" AH
Driller Richard Simmons Drilling
Logged By Ken Vanhoy
Water Level Elevation (ft.) 808.12
CL LU
uJ
0.,
¢
¢
�v
N
m a
U o
D! 0
n.W
�
Z J
�U
LITI-IOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Remarks
Same as above.
Drill rate @ 80 to 85 ft.
I
= 2.4 minlft., flow rate
i
= 4.1 gpm.
2
733.4
I
4
731.4
1
❑rill rate @ 85 to 90 ft.
= 2.0 minift., flow rate
6
729.4
= 4.1 gpm.
-48
727.4
90
725.4
Drill rate @ 90 to 95 ft.
= 2.4 min/ft., flow rate
= 4.1 gpm.
2
723.4
i
4
721.4
Drill rate @ 95 to 100
ft. W 2.4 min/ft., flow
96
719.4
rate = 4.1 gpm.
--98
717.4
1
Note: No signs of fractures below 37 ft. bis based on constant hammer chatter, no drill
stem pressure losses, no increase in flow rates except at drill rod connections.
100
715.4
Boring terminated at 100 feet.

BPA Environmental &
("�'=,ent Ruthertord County
`ect Central Sanita
Landfill
! Kcal Depth (ft.)
22.00 Elevation (ft.) 816.02
Date Started 08/08/98 Date Ended 08/08/98
Depth to Water (ft.)
9.01 Date 09/18/98
z"
o^,
c
zW
o�
Engineering, -Tnc.
Page 1 of 2
Boring No. MW-11 B
Type and Size 4.25 in. ID HS Auger
Driller Richard Simmons Drilling
Logged By Ken Vanhoy
Water Level Elevation (ft.) 807.01
¢5 m o _
LU
CLw : LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
fl� WW m a aW �U
Brown sandy SILT at surface.
Note: Fill, drill pad approximately 3 feet thick.
814.0
812.0
4 75
5
810.0 S
7
M1_ IBrown sandy SILT, stiff.
Note: Residual soil, dry.
I
i- 8
I
808.0
r i
1 10
806.0
EI
!
3
58
SM
Tan, gravelly silty SAND, loose.
4
E
!
Note: Residual soil, wet.
j
k
!
€
7
'
12 i
!
I
804.0
i
I
i
--14
802.0
1
�
-
I
'
3 •.
I
gg ML !Alternating layers of white, tan, gray, vertically layered, micaceous SILT with a little sand,
j
stiff.
--��
800.01
5
Note: Saprolite, wet
i
7
3
798.0 !
!
I
E
i
t
E
E
- 20
796.01
j
Remarks

B.P.Q. Environmental & Engineering, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
(�''qnt Rutherford County Boring No. MW-11 B
%0 Central Sanitary Landfill
I utal Depth (ft.) 22.00 Elevation (ft.)
Date Started 8/8/98 Date Ended 08/08/98
Depth to Water (ft.)
Date Measured
Type and Size 4.25 in. 1D HS Auger
Driller Richard Simmons Drilling
Logged By Ken l/anho_y
Water Level Elevation (ft.)
0- t i
0 L
z _
a
J t1=
LU
i0
M Q
>
ZW
p
LU W
D_ x
flco
>i
(�
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Remarks
3
100
ML
Tan, gray, green, sandy SILT with a little mica, stiff.
S
Note'. Saprolite, wet.
8
8
22
Auger boring terminated at 20.0 feet.
Split spoon sampling terminated at 22.0 feet.
24
26
28
30
�32
34
�36
f
40

F`ZELD BOREHOLE I. OS
BOREHOLE NUMBER,
PROJECT NUMBER. PVJT)W FD11D—y TOP or OMOTNO ELEVATION:
PROJECT NAME, With—rnwdl Ddasray Laixlr111 TOTAL DEPTH- yp,Q IT 575.33
LOCATION: 1*x on Dar.011rM GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION:
DRILLING COMPANY, Baru A Cprr SHEET- I OF•I 873. 35
RID TYPE S NUMBER, ATY wig STATIC, WATER LEVEL IBLSJ DRILLING M£THOO, N.II� �ksin '
HEATHER TD
FIELD PARTY: Pka M3 w'• Tim.
GEDLGGieT- Philip Ploy
a*v,
DATE 6EbUN: ! DATE COMPLETED: MeAAttg
�
LITHOLOGY DESCRIPTION
�
s.D
s.Q
D.p
D
SAT! ME: DorVW W dry F si Ity D.D
�I ca<',�us
1.D
sand.
a.n
a.D
7•q
1a
Se
e.t
D
9.4
—
D
iG
$•q
6.D
—
D
D
c.a
c.o
—
T•q
Y.D
=IIYXT
a
Se
ea
D
o.n
SRM3 Dark brown­&y'F cIffm micacxaua 9.o
.
so.o
�-
ss.o
N.
17.0
3
se
190
D
dryer a I I ty
11 q
"clri
1
1•+.D
■ICOC2aW
3!.
1s.a
sc.
IT.O
sT.
N.o
19.D
B
yD
—0.
D
I ."��"y'
mi sl tr rU9#t (i ROB i Ing
ao.D
and safe Mn 11o't•tim (hall). °0
aL.o
xx.o
—
O.D
1
6
Sa
oe
D
xa•
—
L i gg �......
CD.O
L
D
D
ZT.q
ar.
al.o
B
sa
ee
sM
L-V
Light grey sfi4ff ly assist rsandy zr.
�•o
B
aD.D
silt, Feb Mn.
30.0
3I.0
3c
3°
e1
Se
eY
SM
e••
11��� lAD I S� �,
a
�S�IyI ly siIty h04 Mn Wgtle&, quartz grains
I
—
O
'l" d W.
7L.q
'0
O
O
SFIi�ry�:DOWM sandquartz (up
al q
ao.o
5aASs
se
H
n�.
t0 GItIII) i �'
PWt Frain 3T to 37.5';
O
O
O
O
�ID.o
'D•
O
O
sD
a
CQ
la
M..
13.5" No FCCDVC<'y — PIS �3•
O
�Oy
°
95.5' Auger refusal, boring terairxited.

David Garrett, P.G., RE, Test Boring No. B-6
Engineering and Geology Page 1 of 3
Client and Project Rutherford County Central MSW Landfill Collar Elevation 960.80
Equipment Mobile B-53 ATV Drilling Method HSA14" rotary air Water Level, TOB 81.0
Date Started 5199199 Date Ended 5/24100 Water Level, 24 Hr.
Drilling Firm Bore & Core (Seiler) Logged by David Garrett Stabilized Level 79.4
Comments Cleared and stripped Total Depth B8.0 Date of Observation 611100
All depths are given in feet and referenced b.q.s.
Depth and Elev. SPT Value and Plot Soil Description and USCS Symbol Fiezomete r Constuction Data
0
960.00
2
958.00
4
956.00
6
954.00
8
952.00
10
950.00
12
948.00
14
946.00
16
944.00
18
942,00
20
940.00
22
938.00
24
936.00
26
934.00
28
932.00
30
930.00
32
928.00
34
926.00
36
nn s nn
}
FILL DIRT: medium stiff, dark
,
red -brown, silty clayey fine
r
T "
sand, dry NOTE: original
boring dry to 65 feet, left
/
5
r
open, caved moist to 49 feet,
s
T
redrilled with air a year later
'
i
and converted to a monitoring
I
-r-
well
1
I
I
E
1
4
E
i
i
i
i
i
77
T.
4
6
----
SILT: medium stiff, brown,
_ =
-----
i
mlcaCeQUS, variably sandy,
/
with clayey layers and aplite
seams, slightly moist
4
E
[
-----
8
i
i
s
i
__
SILTY SAND: medium dense
to dense, tan -brown -red,
/
variable clay, Fe-Mn staining
>
and color mottling, moist,
changing to gray -brown,
— —
micaceous, Fe-Mn staining
/
g
$4
1
1
—
s
Portland-
14
1
'
Cement
_ _
Grout

David Garrett, P.G., P.E. Test Boring No. B-d
Engineering and Geology
Page 2 of 3
(Client and Project Rutherford County Central MSW Landfill
Collar Elevation 960.80
Equipment Mobile B-53 ATV Drilling Method HSA14" rotary air
Water Level, TOB 81.0
Date Started 5/19199 Date Ended 5124V00
Water Level, 24 Hr.
Drilling Firm Bore & Core (Seiler) Logged by David Garrett
Stabilized level 79.4
Comments Cleared and stripped Total Depth Sex
Date of Observation 611100
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
yL4.uu
38
922.00
40
920.00
42
918.00
44
916.00
46
914.00
48
j.
912.00
50
910.00
52
908.00
54
906.00
56
904.00
58
902.00
60
900.00
62
898.00
64
896.00
66
894.00
68
892.00
70
890.00
72
888.00
W
17
21
50
50
501.51
D D:.
PWR: very dense, tan -brown -
gray, micaceous silty sand,
0
coarse sand seams, relict
4
rock texture, auger refusal at
65 feet, advanced with 4" air-
�- O
rotary tricone
p O
o
:0 O
:p O
0.
-per
-0�
0.
D�
>R..
:p O
Bentonite
Seai

David Garrett, P.G., P.E. Test Boring No. B-6
Engineering and Geology
Page 3 of 3
)Client and Project Rutherford County Central MSW Landfill
Collar Elevation 960.80
Equipment Mobile B-53 ATV Drilling Method HSA14" rotary air
Water Level, TOB $1.0 s
Date Started 5179199 Date Ended S124100
Water Level, 24 Hr.
Drilling Firm Bore & Core (Seiler) Logged by David Garrett
Stabilized Level 79.4 s
Comments Cleared and stripped Total Depth 88.o
Date of Observation stiloo
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
74
-�
886.00
76
-�
884.00
78
D o
882.00
i
o
80o.0
ti
880.00
-
—o 0
0
-75
82
878.00
84
876.00
i
86
874.00
i
88
I
i
GNEISS: hard competent
bedrock, very hard drilling
with rotary tricone
Sand Pack
0.010"
Slotted
Screen

David Garrett. P.G. P.E. Test Boring No. B-29
Engineering and Geology Page 1 of 1
Client and Project Rutherford County Central MSW Landfill Collar Elevation 887.58
Equipment Mobile B-53 ATV Drilling Method HSA1Rotary Air Water Level, TQB 31.7 t
Date Started 512100 Date Ended 5126100 Water Level, 24 Hr. 31.8
Drilling Firm Bare & Care (Seiler) Logged by David Garrett Stabilized Level 31.8
Comments Cleared area beside sed basin Total Depth 40.0 Date of Observation 6/1100
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
886-00
- 4
884.00
- B
882.00
- 8
880.00
- 10
878.00
- 12
8761.00
- 14
874.00
- 1fi
872.00
- 18
870.00
- 20
868-00
- 22
$66-00
- 24
864.00
- 26
862.00
- 28
860.00
- 30
858.00
- 32
856.00
- 34
854-00
- 36
852.00
- 38
850.00
- 40
84$.00
-
CLAYEY SILT: brown -red,
slightly moist, advanced with
1
auger (no SPT samples)
PP p
PWR variably hard drilling,
auger refusal at 26 feet
3
Y�
k
E
I
o�
a
k
11O
jCyoQ
p0
D..- -D -
i
.a.
I
-
{
GNEISS: advanced with air-
!
i
rotary tricone
I
I
i
!
k
I
i
i
�
i
I
i
I
I
j
!
1
i
I
I
{
?
I
_
�

APPENDIX B
Appendix I and Appendix II Constituent Lists

Constituents for Detection Monitoring
(40 CFR 258, Appendix I)
Common name
CAS RN
Antimony
(Total)
Arsenic
Total
Barium
(Total)
Beryllium
Total
Cadmium
(Total)
Chromium
(Total)
Cobalt
(Total)
Copper
Total
Lead
(Total)
Nickel
Total
Selenium
(Total)
Silver
(Total)
Thallium
(Total)
Vanadium
(Total)
Zinc
(Total)
Acetone
67-64-1
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
Benzene
71-43-2
Bromochloromethane
74-97-5
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
Bromoform; Tribromomethane
75-25-2
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride
75-00-3
Chloroform; Trichloromethane
67-66-3
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane
124-48-1
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlo ro ane; DBCP
96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB
106-93-4
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
110-57-6
1, 1 -Dichloroethane; Ethylidene chloride
75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethl ene dichloride
107-06-2
1, 1 -Dichloroethylene; 1-1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene
chloride
75-35-4
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-59-2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
1,2-Dichlo ro ane; Propylene dichloride
78-87-5
cis- 1,3 -Dichlorpropene
10061-01-5
trans-1,3-Dichlorpropene
10061-02-6
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
2-hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone
591-78-6
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane
74-83-9
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane
74-87-3
Methylene bromide Dibromomethane
74-95-3
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane
75-09-2
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone
78-93-3
Methyl iodide; Iodomethane
74-88-4
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl isobutyl
ketone
108-10-1
Styrene
100-42-5
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
Tetrachloroethylene; Tetracholorethene;
Perchloroethylene
127-18-4
Toluene
108-88-3
1,1,1-Trochlorethane; Methylchloroform
71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
Trichloroethylene; Trichlorethene
79-01-6
Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-11
75-69-4
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
96-18-4
Vinyl acetate
108-05-4
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
Xylenes
1330-20-7

Constituents for Assessment Monitoring
(40 CFR 258, Appendix II)
Common Name
CAS RN
Acena hthene
83-32-9
Acena hth lene
208-96-8
Acetone
67-64-1
Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide
75-05-8
Aceto henone
98-86-2
2-Ace laminofluorene; 2-AAF
53-96-3
Acrolein
107-02-8
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
Aldrin
309-00-2
All l chloride
107-05-1
4-Aminobi hen l
92-67-1
Anthracene
120-12-7
Antimony
(Total)
Arsenic
(Total)
Barium
(Total)
Benzene
71-43-2
Benzo[a]anthracene; Benzanthracene
56-55-3
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
205-99-2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
207-08-9
Benzo[ hi] a lene
191-24-2
Benzo[a] rene
50-32-8
Ben 1 alcohol
100-51-5
Beryllium
(Total)
al ha-BHC
319-84-6
beta-BHC
319-85-7
delta-BHC
319-86-8
gamma-BHC; Lindane
58-89-9
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether; Dichloroethyl ether
111-44-4
Bis-(2-chlor-l-methyl) ether; 2, 2-Dichloro-
diiso ro l ether; DCIP, See note 6
108-60-1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
Bromochloromethane; Chlorobromomethane
74-97-5
Bromodichloromethane; Dibromochloromethane
75-27-4
Bromoform; Tribromomethane
75-25-2
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate
85-68-7
Cadmium
(Total)
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
Chlordane
See NOTE 1
p-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
Chlorobenzilate
510-15-6
p-Chloro-m-cresol; 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7

Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride
75-00-3
Chloroform; Trichloromethane
67-66-3
2-Chlorona hthalene
91-58-7
2-Chloro henol
95-57-8
4-Chloro hen 1 phenylether
7005-72-3
Chloro rene
126-99-8
Chromium
Total
Chrysene
218-01-9
Cobalt
218-01-9
Copper
(Total)
m-Cresol; 3-meth 1 henol
108-39-4
o-Cresol; 2-methl henol
95-48-7
-Cresol; 4-meth 1 henol
106-44-5
Cyanide
57-12-5
2,4-D; 2,4-Dichloro henox acetic acid
94-75-7
4,4-DDD
72-54-8
4,4-DDE
72-55-9
4,4-DDT
50-29-3
Diallate
2303-16-4
aDibenz[a,h]anthracene
53-70-3
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane
124-48-1
1,2-Dibromo-30chloro ro ane; DBCP
96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB
106-93-4
Di-n-but 1 phthalate,
84-74-2
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
m-Dichlorobenzene; 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
110-57-6
Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12;
75-71-8
1, 1 -Dichloroethane chloride
75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride
107-06-2
1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethane;
Vin lidene
75-35-4
chloride
(Total)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-59-2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
2,4-Dichloro henol
120-83-2
2,6-Dichloro henol
87-65-0
1,2-Dichloro ro ane; Propylene dichloride
78-87-5
1,3-Dichloro ro ane; Trimeth lene dichloride
142-28-9
2,2-Dichloro ro ane; Isopropylidene chloride
594-20-7
1,1-Dichloro ro ene
563-58-6
cis- 1,3-Dichloro ro ene
10061-01-5
trans- 1,3-Dichloro ro ene
10061-02-6
Dieldrin
60-57-1
Dieth 1 phthalate,
84-66-2

0,0-Diethyl 0-2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate;
thionazin
297-97-2
Dimethoate
60-51-5
- Dimeth lamino azobenzene
60-11-7
7,12-Dimeth lbenxz[a]anthracene
57-97-6
3,3-Dimeth lbenzidine
119-93-7
2,4-Dimethl henol; m-X lenol
105-67-9
Dimeth 1 phthalate
131-11-3
m-Dinitrobenzene
99-65-0
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol4,6-Dinitro-2-meth 1 henol
534-52-1
2,4-Dinitro henol
51-28-5
74-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
Dinoseb; DNBP; 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitro henol
88-85-7
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
Di hen lamine
122-39-4
Disulfoton
298-04-4
Endosulfan I
959-98-8
Endosulfan 11
33213-65-9
Endodulfan sulfate
1031-07-8
Endrin
72-20-8
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
Eth lbenzene
100-41-4
Ethyl methac late
97-63-2
Ethyl methanesulfonate
62-50-0
Fam hur
52-85-7
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
Fluorene
86-73-7
Heptachlor
76-44-8
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
Hexachloroc clo entadiene
77-47-4
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
Hexachloro ro ene
188-71-7
2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone
591-78-6
Indenol(1,2,3-cd) ene
193-39-5
Isopbutyl alcohol
78-83-1
Isodrin
465-73-6
Iso horone
78-59-1
Isosafrole
120-58-1
Ke one
143-50-0
Lead
(Total)
Mercury
(Total)
Methac lonitrile
126-98-7
Metha Ilene
91-80-5
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane
74-83-9
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane
74-87-3
3-Methylcholanthrene
56-49-5
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone
78-93-3
Methyl iodide; lodomethane
74-88-4

Methyl methac late
80-62-6
Methyl methanesulfonate
66-27-3
2-Meth lna hthalene
91-57-6
Methylparathion; Parathion methyl
298-00-0
4-Meth 1-2- entanone; Methyl isobut 1 ketone
108-10-1
Meth lene bromide; Dibromomethane
74-95-3
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane
75-09-2
Naphthalene
91-20-3
1,4-Na htho uinone
130-15-4
1-Na hth lamine
134-32-7
2-Na hth lamine
91-59-8
Nickel
(Total)
o-Nitroaniline; 2-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
m-Nitroaniline; 3-Nitroanile
99-09-2
-Nitroaniline; 4-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
o-Nitro henol; 2-Nitrophenol
88-75-5
-Nitro henol; 4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
N-Nitrosodi-n-bu lamine
924-16-3
N-Nitrosodieth lamine
55-18-5
N-Nitrosodimeth lamine
62-75-9
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-Nitroso-N-Di-n-
ro lnitrosamine
86-30-6
N-Nitrosodi ro lamine; di ro lamine;
621-64-7
N-Nitrosometh lethalamine
10595-95-6
N-Nitroso i eridine
100-75-4
N-Nitroso olidine
930-55-2
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
99-55-8
Parathion
56-38-2
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
Pentachloronitrobenzene
82-68-8
Pentachloro henol
87-86-5
Phenacetin
62-44-2
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
Phenol
108-95-2
-Phen lenediamine
106-50-3
Phorate
298-02-2
Polychlorinated bi hen is (PCBs); Aroclors
see NOTE 2
Pronamide
23950-58-5
Pro ionitrile; Ethyl cyanide
107-12-0
Pyrene
129-00-0
Safrole
94-59-7
Selenium
(Total)
Silver
(Total)
Silvex; 2,4,5-TP
93-72-1
St rene
100-42-5
Sulfide
18496-25-8
2,4,5-T; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
93-76-5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5

Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene;
Perchloroeth lene
127-18-4
2,3,4,6-Tetrachloro henol
58-90-2
Thallium
Total
Tin
Total
Toluene
108-88-3
o-Toluidine
95-53-4
Toxa hene
See NOTE 3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane; Meth lchloroform
71-55-6
172-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
Trichloroeth lene; Trichloroethene
79-01-6
Trichlorrofluoromethane; CFC-11
75-69-4
2,4,5-Trichloro henol
95-95-4
2,4,6-Trichloro henol
88-06-2
1,2,3-Trichloro ro ane
96-18-4
0,0,0-Trieth 1 phosphorothioate
126-68-1
s-Trinitrobenzene
99-35-4
Vanadium
(Total)
Vinyl acetate
108-05-4
Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene
75-01-4
X lene total
See NOTE 4
Zinc
(Total)
1. Chlordane: This entry includes alpha -chlordane (CAS RN 5103-71-9), beta -chlordane
(CAS RN 5103-74-2), gamma -chlordane (CAS RN 5566-34-7), and constituents of chlordane
(CAS RN 57-74-9 and CAS RN 12789-03-6)
2. Polychlorinated biphenyls (CAS RN 1336-36-3); this category contains congener chemicals, including
constituents ofAroclor-1016 (CAS RN 12674-11-2), Aroclor-1221 (CAS RN 11104-28-2),
Aroclor-1232 (CAS RN 11141-16-5), Aroclor-1242 (CAS RN 53469-21-9), Aroclor-1248
(CAS RN 12672-29-6), Aroclor-1254 (CAS RN 11097-69-1), and Aroclor-1260
(CAS RN 11096-82-5)
3. Toxaphene: This entry includes congener chemicals contained in technical toxaphene
(CAS RN 8001-35-2), ie, chlorinated camphene
4. Xylene (total): This entry includes o-xylene (CAS RN 96-47-6), m- xylene (CAS RN 108-38-3),
p-xylene (CAS RN 106-42-3), and unspecified xylenes (dimethylbenzenes) (CAS RN 1330-20-7)

A,LTT4
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
June 25, 2010
MEMORANDUM
To: Solid Waste Directors, Landfill Owners/Operators, and North Carolina Certified
Laboratories
From: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: Tetrahydrofuran Analysis at Construction and Demolition Landfills
Based upon historical sampling results, health and environmental concerns, and an ongoing EPA
evaluation of tetrahydrofuran (THF), the Solid Waste Section (Section) is requiring, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .0601, that Construction and Demolition Landfills (CDLFs)
begin analyzing ground and surface water samples collected after January 1, 2011 for THE The
purpose of this memorandum is to inform CDLF owners and operators and laboratories that are
involved in the collection or analysis of environmental samples of this requirement.
Although the North Carolina Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch previously
established a health based standard for THF, there are currently no established
Maximum Contaminant Levels or 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Standards due to the lack
of historical toxicological data necessary to promulgate regulatory standards. However,
THF analysis is currently required at CDLFs located in several states throughout the U.S. and
has been shown to be a constituent of concern in groundwater at CDLFs for several years. In
addition, THF has been documented as a contaminant associated with CDLF leachate.
Due to the potential health hazards associated with THF and its documented presence at CDLFs,
the Section has determined that CDLFs should begin analyzing ground and surface water
samples for THF to ensure protection of human health and the environment. Although
regulatory standards have not yet been established for THF, its presence in groundwater must be
determined in order to accurately assess the risks at each CDLF and determine if regulatory
standards need to be established. The Section will reevaluate monitoring requirements for THF
in the future after enough data has been collected to determine the extent of THF at C&D
facilities.
Laboratories are advised to contact the Division of Water Quality -Laboratory Section -
Certification Branch prior to initiating THF analysis using Method 8260.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-
8500) or Ervin Lane (919-508-8516). Thank you for your continued cooperation with this
matter.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.wastenotnc.org NofthC arohna
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper ;Vaturully

ROY COOPER
Governor
K.1
MICHAEL S. REGAN � 0_
Waste Management MICHAEL SCOTTDirenu,
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
May 29, 2018
MEMORANDUM
To: Solid Waste Directors, Landfill Owners/Operators, and North Carolina Certified
Laboratories
From: Ed Mussler, Section Chief
North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: 1,4-Dioxane Analysis, Solid Waste Section Limits, and Laboratory Analytical
Methods
1,4-Dioxane Sampling
In accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .0601, .0544, and .1632, the Solid Waste Section (Section) is
requiring that all groundwater and surface water samples collected at landfills after July 1, 2018
be analyzed for the constituent 1,4-Dioxane. It is primarily used as a stabilizer for chlorinated
solvents, however also used in many products including paint strippers, dyes, greases, varnishes
and waxes. Additionally, it is found in a variety of consumer products such as detergents,
shampoos, deodorants, and cosmetics. The current 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Standard for 1,4-
Dioxane is 3.0 µg/1. Due to the potential health hazards associated with 1,4-Dioxane, the Section
has determined that all landfills should begin analyzing groundwater and surface water samples
for 1,4-Dioxane to ensure protection of human health and the environment. A USEPA Technical
Fact Sheet for 1,4-Dioxane is provided in Appendix A of this Memorandum.
Solid Waste Section Limits & Laboratory Analytical Methods
In 2006, the Solid Waste Section made a policy decision to develop and use Solid Waste Section
Limits (SWSLs). The purpose for this policy decision was to ensure that low level analytical data
was consistently being reported for the purpose of making the correct choices when designing site
remediation strategies, alerting the public to health threats, and protecting the environment from
toxic contaminants. Over the past 12 years, technologies have advanced such that the majority of
the SWSLs are outdated. Given the rapid pace of technology, the need for the Section to attempt
to continuously update and/or maintain the SWSLs is not warranted.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Waste Management
217 West ]ones Street 1 I646 Mail ServiCe Center I Raleigh, NOrth Carolina 27699-1646
9l9 707 8200

Although the use of the SWSLs will be discontinued, facilities should choose EPA approved
analytical methods sufficiently sensitive to quantify the presence of a pollutant at or below
applicable standards. Consistently achieving low level data is key for the continued purpose of
making the correct choices when designing site remediation strategies, alerting the public to health
threats, and protecting the environment from toxic contaminants. Facilities should communicate
and coordinate with their analytical laboratory(s) to use sufficiently sensitive analytical methods
to achieve analytical results with detection limits below the applicable groundwater standards and
surface water standards. For guidance purposes, the Section recommends the use of the following
analytical methods for groundwater and surface water samples.
Volatile Organic Compounds
SW 846 Method 8260
1,4-Dioxane
SW 846 Method 8260 SIM
SW 846 Method 8270 SIM
Semi -Volatile Organic
SW 846 Method 8270
Compounds
Metals, Pesticides, PCBs,
SW 846 Methods, USEPA
Dioxins, Cyanide,
methods, or method published
Formaldehyde, and any other
in Standard Methods for the
constituents not covered by
Examination of Water and
above methods
Wastewater having the lowest
detection limits or having
detection limits below
applicable standards
Notes:
• The analytical methods should be the most recent versions of the analytical methods
tabulated above. For SW- 846 Methods, the latest edition of SW-846, including any
subsequent updates which have been incorporated into the edition, must be used. Sampling
must be planned so that required holding times for analytical methods are met.
• Select Ion Monitoring (SIM) is recommended when analyzing for 1,4-Dioxane in order to
achieve applicable detection limits. SIM may be useful for other VOCs/SVOC constituents.
• SW-846 Method 1610 does not have detection limits below the 1 SA NCAC 2L standards
for all of the hazardous substance list metals.
• The Section considers "J" flag values valid and relevant in the decision making process
and hence all "J" flag values should be reported.
If you have any questions, please contact Adam Ulishney at [phone] or via email at
adam.ulishney&ncdenr.gov. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Waste Management
217 West ]ones Street 1 I646 Mail ServiCe Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
9l9 707 8200

APPENDIX A
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Waste Management
217 West ]ones Street 1 I646 Mail ServiCe Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
9l9 707 8200

■=. EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Technical Fact Sheet —
1,4-Dioxane
January 2014
Introduction
This fact sheet, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), provides a
summary of the contaminant 1,4-dioxane, including physical and chemical
properties; environmental and health impacts; existing federal and state
guidelines; detection and treatment methods; and additional sources of
information. This fact sheet is intended for use by site managers who may
address 1,4-dioxane at cleanup sites or in drinking water supplies and for
those in a position to consider whether 1,4-dioxane should be added to the
analytical suite for site investigations.
1,4-Dioxane is a likely human carcinogen and has been found in
groundwater at sites throughout the United States. The physical and
chemical properties and behavior of 1,4-dioxane create challenges for its
characterization and treatment. It is highly mobile and has not been shown
to readily biodegrade in the environment.
What is 1,4-dioxane?
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical that is completely miscible
in water (EPA 2006).
❖ Synonyms include dioxane, dioxan, p-dioxane, diethylene dioxide,
diethylene oxide, diethylene ether and glycol ethylene ether
(EPA 2006; Mohr 2001).
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is unstable at elevated temperatures and pressures and
may form explosive mixtures with prolonged exposure to light or air
(DHHS 2011; HSDB 2011).
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is a likely contaminant at many sites contaminated with
certain chlorinated solvents (particularly 1,1,1-trichloroethane [TCA])
because of its widespread use as a stabilizer for chlorinated solvents
(EPA 2013a; Mohr 2001)
❖ It is used as: a stabilizer for chlorinated solvents such as TCA; a solvent
for impregnating cellulose acetate membrane filters; a wetting and
dispersing agent in textile processes; and a laboratory cryoscopic solvent
for molecular mass determinations (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011; EPA
2006).
❖ It is used in many products, including paint strippers, dyes, greases,
varnishes and waxes. 1,4-Dioxane is also found as an impurity in
antifreeze and aircraft deicing fluids and in some consumer products
(deodorants, shampoos and cosmetics) (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2006; Mohr
2001).
Disclaimer: The U.S. EPA prepared this fact sheet from publically-available
sources; additional information can be obtained from the source documents. This
fact sheet is not intended to be used as a primary source of information and is not
intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party
in litigation with the United States. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
United States Office of Solid Waste and EPA 505-F-14-011
Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response (5106P) January 2014
1

What is 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is used as a purifying agent in the
manufacture of pharmaceuticals and is a by-
product in the manufacture of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic (Mohr 2001).
❖ Traces of 1,4-dioxane may be present in some
food supplements, food containing residues from
packaging adhesives or on food crops treated with
pesticides that contain 1,4-dioxane as a solvent or
inert ingredient (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011).
Exhibit 1: Physical and Chemical Properties of 1,4-Dioxane
(ATSDR 2012; Howard 1990; HSDB 2011)
Property
Value
Abstracts Service (CAS) Number
123-91-1
Physical Description (physical state at room temperature)
Clear, flammable liquid with a faint, pleasant
odor
Molecular weight (g/mol)
88.11
Water solubility
Miscible
Melting point (°C)
11.8
Boiling point (°C) at 760 mm Hg
101.1 °C
Vapor pressure at 25°C (mm Hg)
38.1
Specific gravity
1.033
Octanol-water partition coefficient (log Kow)
-0.27
Organic carbon partition coefficient (log Kos)
1.23
Henry's law constant at 25 °C (atm-m3/mol)
4.80 X 10-6
Abbreviations: g/mol — grams per mole; °C — degrees Celsius; mm Hg — millimeters of mercury;
atm-m3/mol — atmosphere -cubic meters per mole.
What are the environmental impacts of 1,4-dioxane?
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is released into the environment from surface water bodies (DHHS 2011; EPA
during its production, the processing of other 2006).
chemicals, its use and its generation as an
impurity during the manufacture of some
consumer products. It is typically found at some
solvent release sites and PET manufacturing
facilities (ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
❖ It is short-lived in the atmosphere, with an
estimated 1- to 3-day half-life as a result of its
reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl
radicals (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011). Breakdown
products include aldehydes and ketones (Graedel
1986).
❖ It may migrate rapidly in groundwater, ahead of
other contaminants and does not volatilize rapidly
❖ Migration to groundwater is weakly retarded by
sorption of 1,4-dioxane to soil particles; it is
expected to move rapidly from soil to groundwater
(EPA 2006; ATSDR 2012).
It is relatively resistant to biodegradation in water
and soil and does not bioconcentrate in the food
chain (ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
As of 2007, 1,4-dioxane had been identified at
more than 31 sites on the EPA National Priorities
List (NPL); it may be present (but samples were
not analyzed for it) at many other sites (HazDat
2007).
What are the routes of exposure and the health effects of 1,4-dioxane?
❖ Potential exposure could occur during production Inhalation is the most common route of human
and use of 1,4-dioxane as a stabilizer or solvent exposure, and workers at industrial sites are at
(DHHS 2011). greatest risk of repeated inhalation exposure
Exposure may occur through inhalation of vapors, (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011).
ingestion of contaminated food and water or
dermal contact (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011).

What are the routes of exposure and the health effects of 1,4-dioxane?
(continued)
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is readily adsorbed through the
lungs and gastrointestinal tract. Some
1,4-dioxane may also pass through the skin, but
studies indicate that much of it will evaporate
before it is absorbed. Distribution is rapid and
uniform in the lung, liver, kidney, spleen, colon
and skeletal muscle tissue (ATSDR 2012).
❖ Short-term exposure to high levels of 1,4-
dioxane may result in nausea, drowsiness,
headache, and irritation of the eyes, nose and
throat (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2013b; NIOSH 2O10)
❖ Chronic exposure may result in dermatitis,
eczema, drying and cracking of skin and liver
and kidney damage (ATSDR 2012; HSDB
2011).
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is weakly genotoxic and
reproductive effects in humans are unknown;
however, a developmental study on rats
indicated that 1,4-dioxane may be slightly toxic
to the developing fetus (ATSDR 2012; Giavini
and others 1985).
❖ Animal studies showed increased incidences of
nasal cavity, liver and gall bladder tumors after
exposure to 1,4-dioxane (DHHS 2011; EPA IRIS
2013).
❖ EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as "likely to be
carcinogenic to humans" by all routes of
exposure (EPA IRIS 2013).
❖ The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services states that 1,4-dioxane is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from
studies in experimental animals (DHHS 2011).
❖ The American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has classified
1,4-dioxane as a Group A3 carcinogen —
confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown
relevance to humans (ACGIH 2O11).
❖ The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) considers 1,4-dioxane a
potential occupational carcinogen (NIOSH
2010).
Are there any federal and state guidelines and health standards for
1,4-dioxane?
❖ Federal and State Standards and Guidelines:
■ EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database includes a chronic oral
reference dose (RfD) of 0.03 milligrams per
kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) based on liver
and kidney toxicity in animals and a chronic
inhalation reference dose (RfC) of 0.03
milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) based
on atrophy and respiratory metaplasia inside
the nasal cavity of animals (EPA IRIS 2013).
■ The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) has established
minimal risk levels (MRLs) for inhalation
exposure to 1,4-dioxane : 2 parts per million
(ppm) for acute -duration (14 days or less)
inhalation exposure; 0.2 ppm for
intermediate -duration (15 to 364 days)
inhalation exposure; and 0.03 ppm for
chronic -duration (365 days or more)
inhalation exposure (ATSDR 2012).
■ Oral exposure MRLs have been identified as
5 mg/kg/day for acute -duration oral
exposure; 0.5 mg/kg/day for intermediate -
duration oral exposure; and 0.1 mg/kg/day
for chronic -duration oral exposure (ATSDR
2012).
• The cancer risk assessment for 1,4-dioxane
is based on an oral slope factor of 0.1
mg/kg/day and the drinking water unit risk is
2.9 x 10-6 micrograms per liter (pg/L) (EPA
IRIS 2013).
■ EPA risk assessments indicate that the
drinkinP water concentration representing a
1 x 10- cancer risk level for 1,4-dioxane is
0.35 µg/L (EPA IRIS 2013).
■ 1,4-Dioxane may be regulated as hazardous
waste when waste is generated through use
as a solvent stabilizer (EPA 1996b).
■ No federal maximum contaminant level
(MCL) for drinking water has been
established; however, an MCL is not
necessary to determine a cleanup level
(EPA 2012).
■ 1,4-Dioxane was included on the third
drinking water contaminant candidate list,
which is a list of unregulated contaminants
that are known to, or anticipated to, occur in
public water systems and may require
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (EPA 2009).

Are there any federal and state guidelines and health standards for
1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ Federal and State Standards and Guidelines
(continued):
■ The EPA has established drinking water
health advisories for 1,4-dioxane, which are
drinking water -specific risk level
concentrations for cancer (10-4 cancer risk)
and concentrations of drinking water
contaminants at which noncancer adverse
health effects are not anticipated to occur over
specific exposure durations. The EPA
established a 1-day health advisory of 4.0
milligrams per liter (mg/L) and a 10-day health
advisory of 0.4 mg/L for 1,4-dioxane in
drinking water for a 10-kilogram child. EPA
also established a lifetime health advisory of
0.2 mg/L for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water
(EPA 2012).
■ The EPA's drinking water equivalent level for
1,4-dioxane is 1 mg/L (EPA 2012).
■ EPA has calculated a screening level of 0.67
pg/L for 1,4-dioxane in tap water, based on a
1 in 10-6 lifetime excess cancer risk (EPA
2013c). ' , 2
■ EPA has calculated a residential soil
screening level (SSL) of 4.9 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) and an industrial SSL of 17
mg/kg. The soil -to -groundwater risk -based
SSL is 1.4 x10-4 mg/kg (EPA 2013c).
■ EPA has also calculated a residential air
screening level of 0.49 micrograms per cubic
meter (pg/m3) and an industrial air screening
level of 2.5 pg/m3 (EPA 2013c).
Screening Levels are developed using risk assessment guidance
from the EPA Superfund program. These risk -based concentrations
are derived from standardized equations combining exposure
information assumptions with EPA toxicity data. These calculated
screening levels are generic and not enforceable cleanup standards
but provide a useful gauge of relative toxicity.
2 Tap water screening levels differ from the IRIS drinking water
concentrations because the tap water screening levels account for
dermal, inhalation and ingestion exposure routes; age -adjust the
intake rates for children and adults based on body weight; and time -
adjust for exposure duration or days per year. The IRIS drinking
water concentrations consider only the ingestion route, account only
for adult -intake rates and do not time -adjust for exposure duration or
days per year.
❖ Workplace Exposure Limits:
■ The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration set a general industry
permissible exposure limit of 360 mg/m3 or 100
ppm based on a time -weighted average (TWA)
over an 8-hour workday for airborne exposure
to 1,4-dioxane (OSHA 2013).
■ The ACGIH set a threshold limit value of 72
mg/m3 or 20 ppm based on a TWA over an 8-
hour workday for airborne exposure to 1,4-
dioxane (ACGIH 2O11).
■ The NIOSH has set a ceiling recommended
exposure limit of 3.6 mg/m3 or 1 ppm based on
a 30-minute airborne exposure to 1,4-dioxane
(NIOSH 2O10).
■ NIOSH also has established an immediately
dangerous to life or health concentration of 500
ppm for 1,4-dioxane (NIOSH 2O10).
❖ Other State and Federal Standards and
Guidelines:
■ Various states have established drinking water
and groundwater guidelines, including the
following:
Colorado has established an interim
groundwater quality cleanup standard of
0.35 pg/L (CDPHE 2012);
California has established a notification
level of 1 pg/L for drinking water (CDPH
2011);
— New Hampshire has established a
reporting limit of 0.25 pg/L for all public
water supplies (NH DES 2011); and
— Massachusetts has established a drinking
water guideline level of 0.3 pg/L (Mass
DEP 2012).
• The Food and Drug Administration set 10
mg/kg as the limit for 1-4-dioxane in glycerides
and polyglycerides for use in products such as
dietary supplements. FDA also surveys raw
material and products contaminated with
1,4-dioxane (FDA 2006).
• 1,4-Dioxane is listed as a hazardous air
pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA) (CAA
1990).
■ A reportable quantity of 100 pounds has been
established under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (EPA 2011).

What detection and site characterization methods are available for
1,4-dioxane?
❖ As a result of the limitations in the analytical
methods to detect 1,4-dioxane, it has been difficult
to identify its occurrence in the environment. The
miscibility of 1,4-dioxane in water causes poor
purging efficiency and results in high detection
limits (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2006).
❖ Conventional analytical methods can detect
1,4-dioxane only at concentrations 100 times
greater than the concentrations of volatile organic
compounds (EPA 2006; Mohr 2001).
❖ Modifications of existing analytical methods and
their sample preparation procedures may be
needed to achieve lower detection limits for
1,4-dioxane (EPA 2006; Mohr 2001).
❖ High -temperature sample preparation techniques
improve the recovery of 1,4-dioxane. These
techniques include purging at elevated
temperature (EPA SW-846 Method 5030);
equilibrium headspace analysis (EPA SW-846
Method 5021); vacuum distillation (EPA SW-846
Method 8261); and azeotrophic distillation (EPA
SW-846 Method 5031) (EPA 2006).
❖ The presence of 1,4-dioxane may be expected at
sites with extensive TCA contamination; therefore,
some experts recommend that groundwater
samples be analyzed for 1,4-dioxane where TCA
is a known contaminant (Mohr 2001).
NIOSH Method 1602 uses gas chromatography —
flame ionization detection (GC-FID) to determine
the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in air. The
detection limit is 0.01 milligram per sample
(ATSDR 2012; NIOSH 2O10).
❖ EPA SW-846 Method 8015D uses gas
chromatography (GC) to determine the
concentration of 1,4-dioxane in environmental
samples. Samples may be introduced into the GC
column by a variety of techniques including the
injection of the concentrate from azeotropic
distillation (EPA SW-846 Method 5031). The
detection limits for 1,4-dioxane in aqueous
matrices by azeotropic microdistillation are 12 pg/L
(reagent water), 15 pg/L (groundwater) and 16
pg/L (leachate) (EPA 2003).
EPA SW-846 Method 8260B detects 1,4-dioxane
in a variety of solid waste matrices using GC and
mass spectrometry (MS). The detection limit
depends on the instrument and choice of sample
preparation method (ATSDR 2012; EPA 1996a).
A laboratory study is underway to develop a
passive flux meter (PFM) approach to enhance the
capture of 1,4-dioxane in the PFM sorbent to
improve accuracy. The selected PFM approach
will be field tested at 1,4-dioxane contaminated
sites. The anticipated projection completion date is
2014 (DoD SERDP 2013b).
❖ EPA Method 1624 uses isotopic dilution gas
chromatography — mass spectrometry (GC -MS) to
detect 1,4-dioxane in water, soil and municipal
sludges. The detection limit for this method is 10
pg/L (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2001 b).
❖ EPA SW-846 Method 8270 uses liquid -liquid
extraction and isotope dilution by capillary column
GC -MS. This method is often modified for the
detection of low levels of 1,4-dioxane in water
(EPA 2007, 2013a)
❖ GC -MS detection methods using solid phase
extraction followed by desorption with an organic
solvent have been developed to remove
1,4-dioxane from the aqueous phase. Detection
limits as low as 0.024 pg/L have been achieved by
passing the aqueous sample through an activated
carbon column, following by elution with acetone-
dichlormethane (ATSDR 2012; Kadokami and
others 1990).
❖ EPA Method 522 uses solid phase extraction and
GC/MS with selected ion monitoring for the
detection of 1,4-dioxane in drinking water with
detection limits ranging from 0.02 to 0.026 pg/L
(EPA 2008).
What technologies are being used to treat 1,4-dioxane?
❖ Pump -and -treat remediation can treat dissolved
1,4-dioxane in groundwater and control
groundwater plume migration, but requires ex situ
treatment tailored for the unique properties of
1,4-dioxane (such as, a low octanol-water partition
coefficient that makes 1,4-dioxane hydrophilic)
(EPA 2006; Kiker and others 2010).
❖ Commercially available advanced oxidation
processes using hydrogen peroxide with ultraviolet
light or ozone is used to treat 1,4-dioxane in
wastewater (Asano and others 2012; EPA 2006).
❖ A study is under way to investigate facilitated -
transport enabled in situ chemical oxidation to
treat 1,4-dioxane-contamined source zones and
groundwater plumes effectively. The technical
approach consists of the co -injection of strong
oxidants (such as ozone) with chemical agents
that facilitate the transport of the oxidant (DoD
SERDP 2013d).

What technologies are being used to treat 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ Ex situ bioremediation using a fixed -film, moving -
bed biological treatment system is also used to
treat 1,4-dioxane in groundwater (EPA 2006).
❖ Phytoremediation is being explored as a means to
remove the compound from shallow groundwater.
Pilot -scale studies have demonstrated the ability
of hybrid poplars to take up and effectively
degrade or deactivate 1,4-dioxane (EPA 2001 a,
2013a; Ferro and others 2013).
❖ Microbial degradation in engineered bioreactors
has been documented under enhanced conditions
or where selected strains of bacteria capable of
degrading 1,4-dioxane are cultured, but the impact
of the presence of chlorinated solvent co -
contaminants on biodegradation of 1,4-dioxane
needs to be further investigated (EPA 2006,
2013a; Mahendra and others 2013).
❖ Results from a 2012 laboratory study found
1,4-dioxane-transforming activity to be relatively
common among monooxygenase-expressing
bacteria; however, both TCA and
1,1-dichloroethene inhibited 1,4-dioxane
degradation by bacterial isolates (DoD SERDP
2012).
❖ Several Department of Defense Strategic
Environmental Research and Development
Program (DoD SERDP) projects are under way to
investigate 1,4-dioxane biodegradation in the
presence of chlorinated solvents or metals.
Laboratory studies will (1) identify microbial
cultures as well as biogeochemistry, which
generate desirable enzymatic activity for
1,4-dioxane biodegradation; (2) assess
biodegradation by methane oxidizing bacteria in
coupled anaerobic -aerobic zones; (3) and
evaluate branched hydrocarbons as stimulants for
the in situ cometabolic biodegradation of
1,4-dioxane and its associated co -contaminants
(DoD SERDP 2013c, a and f).
❖ Photocatalysis has been shown to remove
1,4-dioxane in aqueous solutions. Laboratory
studies documented that the surface plasmon
resonance of gold nanoparticles on titanium
dioxide (Au — TiO2) promotes the photocatalytic
degradation of 1,4-dioxane (Min and others 2009;
Vescovi and others 2010).
❖ Other in -well combined treatment technologies
being assessed include air sparging; soil vapor
extraction (SVE); and dynamic subsurface
groundwater circulation (Odah and others 2005).
❖ SVE is known to remove some 1,4-dioxane, but
substantial residual contamination is usually left
behind because of 1,4-dioxane's high solubility,
which leads to preferential partitioning into pore
water rather than vapor. The DoD SERDP is
conducting a project to evaluate and demonstrate
the efficacy of enhanced or extreme SVE, which
uses a combination of increased air flow,
sweeping with drier air, increased temperature,
decreased infiltration and more focused vapor
extraction to enhance 1,4-dioxane remediation in
soils (DoD SERDP 2013a).
Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane?
❖ Asano, M., Kishimoto, N., Shimada, H., and Y.
Ono. 2012. "Degradation of 1,4-Dioxane Using
Ozone Oxidation with UV Irradiation (Ozone/UV)
Treatment." Journal of Environmental Science and
Engineering. Volume A (1). Pages 371 to 279.
❖ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). 2012. "Toxicological Profile for
1,4-Dioxane."
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tpl 87.pdf
❖ American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH). 2011. "2011 Threshold Limit
Values (TLVs) for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents Biological Exposure Indices."
Cincinnati, Ohio.
❖ California Department of Public Health (CDPH).
2011. "1,4-Dioxane." Drinking Water Systems.
www.cdoh.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/1,4-
dioxane.aspx
❖ Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA). 1990.
"Hazardous Air Pollutants". 42 USC § 7412.
❖ Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment (CDPHE). 2012. "Notice of Public
Rulemaking Hearing before the Colorado Water
Quality Control Commission." Regulation No. 31
and No. 41.
www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/Upload/NoticeOfRulem
aking/ProposedRuleAttach20l 2-00387. PDF
❖ Ferro, A.M., Kennedy, J., and J.C. LaRue. 2013.
"Phytoremediation of 1,4-Dioxane-Containing
Recovered Groundwater." International Journal of
Phytoremediation. Volume 15. Pages 911 to 923.
❖ Giavini, E., Vismara, C., and M.L Broccia. 1985.
"Teratogenesis Study of Dioxane in Rats."
Toxicology Letters. Volume 26 (1). Pages. 85 to
88.

Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ Graedel, T.E. 1986. Atmospheric Chemical
Compounds. New York, NY: Academic Press.
❖ Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). 2011.
1,4-Dioxane." http://toxnet.nim.nih.gov/cqi-bin/
sis/htmlgen?HSDB
❖ HazDat. 2007. "1,4-Dioxane." HazDat Database:
ATSDR's Hazardous Substance Release and
Health Effects Database. Atlanta, GA: Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
❖ Howard, P.H. 1990. Handbook of Environmental
Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals.
Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI. Pages 216 to
221.
❖ Kadokami, K, Koga, M. and A. Otsuki. 1990. "Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometric
Determination of Traces of Hydrophilic and
Volatile Organic Compounds in Water after
Preconcentration with Activated Carbon."
Analytical Sciences. Volume 6(6). Pages 843 to
849.
❖ Kiker, J.H., Connolly, J.B., Murray, W.A., Pearson,
S.C.; Reed, S.E., and R.J. Robert. 2010. "Ex -Situ
Wellhead Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane Using
Fenton's Reagent." Proceedings of the Annual
International Conference on Soils, Sediments,
Water and Energy. Volume 15, Article 18.
❖ Mahendra, S., Grostern, A. and L. Alvarez -Cohen.
2013. "The Impact of Chlorinated Solvent Co -
Contaminants on the Biodegradation Kinetics of
1,4-Dioxane." Chemosphere. Volume 91 (1).
Pages 88 to 92.
❖ Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (Mass DEP). 2012. "Standards and
Guidelines for Contaminants in Massachusetts
Drinking Waters."
www.mass.gov/dep/water/dwstand.pdf
❖ Min, B.K., Heo, J.E., Youn, N.K., Joo, O.S., Lee,
H., Kim, J.H., and H.S. Kim. 2009. "Tuning of the
Photocatalytic 1,4-Dioxane Degradation with
Surface Plasmon Resonance of Gold
Nanoparticles on Titania." Catalysis
Communications. Volume 10 (5). Pages 712 to
715.
❖ Mohr, T.K.G. 2001. "1,4-Dioxane and Other
Solvent Stabilizers White Paper." Santa Clara
Valley Water District of California. San Jose,
California.
❖ National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH). 2010. "Dioxane." NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards.
www.cdc.gov/niosh/npq/npqd0237.htmi
❖ New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NH DES). 2011 "Change in Reporting
Limit for 1,4-Dioxane."
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/hwr
b/sss/hwrp/documents/report-limits 14dioxane. pdf
❖ Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). 2013. "Dioxane." Chemical Sampling
Information. www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/
data/CH 237200.html
❖ Odah, M.M., Powell, R., and D.J. Riddle. 2005.
"ART In -Well Technology Proves Effective in
Treating 1,4-Dioxane Contamination."
Remediation Journal. Volume 15 (3), Pages 51 to
64.
❖ U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Strategic
Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP). 2012. "Oxygen ase-Catalyzed
Biodegradation of Emerging Water Contaminants:
1,4-Dioxane and N-Nitrosodimethylamine." ER-
1417. www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/
Environmental-Restoration/Contam inated-
Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-1417/ER-1417
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013a. "1,4-Dioxane Remediation
by Extreme Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE)." ER-
201326. www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/
Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Ground
water/Emerging-Issues/ER-201326/ER-201326
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013b. "Development of a Passive
Flux Meter Approach to Quantifying 1,4-Dioxane
Mass Flux." ER-2304. www.serdp.org/Program-
Areas/Environ mental-Restoration/Contam inated-
Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2304/ER-2304/
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013c. "Evaluation of Branched
Hydrocarbons as Stimulants for In Situ
Cometabolic Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane and
Its Associated Co -Contaminants." ER-2303.
www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contam i nated-Groundwater/
Emerging-Issues/ER-2303/ER-2303
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013d. "Facilitated Transport
Enabled In Situ Chemical Oxidation of 1,4-
Dioxane-Contaminated Groundwater." ER-2302.
www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contam i nated-Groundwater/
Emerging-Issues/ER-2302/ER-2302/(language)/
eng-US
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013e. "In Situ Biodegradation of
1,4-Dioxane: Effects of Metals and Chlorinated
Solvent Co -Contaminants." ER-2300.
www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contam i nated-Groundwater/
Emerging-Issues/ER-2300/ER-2300

Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013f. "In Situ Bioremediation of
1,4-Dioxane by Methane Oxidizing Bacteria in
Coupled Anaerobic -Aerobic Zones." ER-2306.
www.serdp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/
Emerging- Issues/ER-2306/ER-2306
❖ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS). 2011. "Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth
Edition." Public Health Service, National
Toxicology Program. 12t" Edition.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/rocl2.pdf
❖ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1996a. "Method 8260B: Volatile Organic
Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS)." www.epa.gov/osw/
hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/8260b.pdf
❖ EPA. 1996b. "Solvents Study." EPA 530-R-96-
017.
❖ EPA. 2001a. "Brownfields Technology Primer:
Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site
Cleanup." EPA 542-R-01-006.
www.brownfieldstsc.orq/pdfs/phytorem primer.pdf
❖ EPA. 2001 b. "Method 1624." Code of Federal
Regulations. Code of Federal Regulations. 40
CFR Part 136. Pages 274 to 287.
❖ EPA. 2003. "Method 8015D: Nonhalogenated
Organics Using GC/FID." SW-846. www.epa.gov/
osw/hazard/testmethods/pdfs/8015d r4.pdf
❖ EPA. 2006. "Treatment Technologies for
1,4-Dioxane: Fundamentals and Field
Applications." EPA 542-R-06-009.
www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/542r06009.pdf
❖ EPA. 2007. "Method 8270D: Semivolatile Organic
Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS)."
❖ EPA. 2008. "Method 522: Determination of
1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water By Solid Phase
Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion
Monitoring (SIM)." EPA/600/R-08/101.
❖ EPA. 2009. "Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List 3 - Final." Federal Register Notice.
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/10/08/E9-
24287/drinking-water-contaminant-candidate-list-
3-final
❖ EPA. 2011. "Reportable Quantities of Hazardous
Substances Designated Pursuant to Section 311
of the Clean Water Act. Code of Federal
Regulations." 40 CFR 302.4.
www.gpo.gov/fdsVs/pkq/CFR-2011-title40-
vol28/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vo128-sec302-4. pdf
❖ EPA. 2012. "2012 Edition of Drinking Water
Standards and Health Advisories."
water. epa.gov/action/advisories/d ri nki ng/upload/d
wstandards2012. pdf
❖ EPA. 2013a. "1,4-Dioxane." www.clu-in.org/conta
minantfocus/default.focus/sec/1,4-Dioxane/
cat/Overview/
❖ EPA. 2013b. "1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)."
Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website.
www.epa.gov/ttnatwOl/hlthef/dioxane.html
❖ EPA. 2013c. Regional Screening Level (RSL)
Summary Table.
www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/Generic Tables/index.htm
❖ EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
2013. "1,4-Dioxane (CASRN 123-91-1)."
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0326.htm
❖ U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2006.
"Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to
Food for Human Consumption; Glycerides and
Polyglycides." Code of Federal Regulations. 21
CFR 172.736.
❖ Vescovi, T., Coleman, H., and R. Amal. 2010.
"The Effect of pH on UV -Based Advanced
Oxidation Technologies - 1,4-Dioxane
Degradation." Journal of Hazardous Materials.
Volume 182. Pages 75 to 79.
Additional information on 1,4-dioxane can be found at
www.cluin.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/1,4-Dioxane/cat/Overview
Contact Information
If you have any questions or comments on this fact sheet, please contact: Mary Cooke, FFRRO, by phone at
[phone] or by email at cooke.maryt(o)epa.gov.

APPENDIX C
NCDEQ Memoranda and Reporting
Limits and Standards

e;A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 27, 2006
To: SW Director/County Manager/Consultant/Laboratory
From: NC DENR-DWM, Solid Waste Section
Re: New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data
The Solid Waste Section receives and reviews a wide variety of environmental monitoring data from permitted
solid waste management facilities, including the results from groundwater and surface water analyses, leachate
samples, methane gas readings, potentiometric measurements, and corrective action data. We are in the process
of developing a database to capture the large volume of data submitted by facilities.
To maintain the integrity of the database, it is critical that facilities, consultants, and laboratories work with the
Solid Waste Section to ensure that environmental samples are collected and analyzed properly with the resulting
data transferred to the Solid Waste Section in an accurate manner.
In order to better serve the public and to expedite our review process, the Solid Waste Section is requesting
specific formatting for environmental monitoring data submittals for all solid waste management facilities.
Effective, December 1, 2006, please submit a Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Data Form in
addition to your environmental monitoring data report. This form will be sent in lieu of your current cover
letter to the Solid Waste Section. The Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Data Form must be filled out
completely, signed, and stamped with a Board Certified North Carolina Geologist License Seal.
The solid waste environmental monitoring data form will include the following:
1. Contact Information
2. Facility Name
3. Facility Permit Number
4. Facility Address
5. Monitoring Event Date (MM/DD/YYYY)
6. Water Quality Status: Monitoring, Detection Monitoring, or Assessment Monitoring
7. Type of Data Submitted: Groundwater Monitoring Wells, Groundwater Potable Wells, Leachate,
Methane Gas, or Corrective Action Data
8. Notification of Exceedance of Groundwater, Surface Water, or Methane Gas (in table form)
a. Signature
10. North Carolina Geologist Seal
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer — Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

Page 2 of 2
Most of these criteria are already being included or can be added with little effort. The Solid Waste
Environmental Monitoring Data Form can be downloaded from our website:
hllp://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro monitoring.asp.
The Solid Waste Section is also requesting a new format for monitoring wells, potable wells, surface water
sampling locations, and methane probes. This format is essential in the development and maintenance of the
database. The Solid Waste Section is requesting that each sampling location at all North Carolina solid waste
management facilities have its own unique identification number. We are simply asking for the permit number
to be placed directly in front of the sampling location number (example: 9901-MW1 = Permit Number 99-01
and Monitoring Well MW-1). No changes will need to be made to the well tags, etc. This unique identification
system will enable us to accurately report data not only to NCDENR, but to the public as well. We understand
that this new identification system will take some time to implement, but we feel that this will be beneficial to
everyone involved in the long term.
Additionally, effective December 1, 2006, the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) established in 1994
will change. The Solid Waste Section is requiring that all solid waste management facilities use the new Solid
Waste Reporting Limits (SWRL) for all groundwater analyses by a North Carolina Certified Laboratory.
Laboratories must also report any detection of a constituent even it is detected below the new SWRL (e.g., J
values where the constituent was detected above the detection limit, but below the quantitation limit).
PQLs are technology -based analytical levels that are considered achievable using the referenced analytical
method. The PQL is considered the lowest concentration of a contaminant that the lab can accurately detect and
quantify. PQLs provided consistency and available numbers that were achievable by the given analytical
method. However, PQLs are not health -based, and analytical instruments have improved over the years
resulting in lower achievable PQLs for many of the constituents. As a result, the Solid Waste Section has
established the SWRLs as the new reporting limits eliminating the use of the PQLs.
We would also like to take this opportunity to encourage electronic submittal of the reports. This option is
intended to save resources for both the public and private sectors. The Solid Waste Section will accept the
entire report including narrative text, figures, tables, and maps on CD-ROM. The CD-ROM submittal shall
contain a CD-ROM case and both CD-ROM and the case shall be labeled with the site name, site address,
permit number, and the monitoring event date (MM/DD/YYYY). The files maybe a .pdf, .txt, .csv, .xls, or .doc
type. Also, analytical lab data should be reported in an .xls file. We have a template for analytical lab data
available on the web at the address listed above.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call [phone]. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter.

North Carolina
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
MEMORANDUM
4 'A
,A_�79 0 .
NCDENR
Department of Environment and
Division of Waste Management
February 23, 2007
Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
To: Solid Waste Directors, Landfill Operators, North Carolina Certified Laboratories, and Consultants
From: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: Addendum to October 27, 2006, North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding New
Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data.
The purpose of this addendum memorandum is to provide further clarification to the October 27, 2006, North
Carolina Solid Waste Section memo titled, "New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data."
The updated guidelines is in large part due to questions and concerns from laboratories, consultants, and the
regulated community regarding the detection of constituents in groundwater at levels below the previous
practical quantitation limits (PQLs). The North Carolina Solid Waste Section solicited feedback from the
regulated community, and, in conjunction with the regulated community, developed new limits. The primary
purpose of these changes was to improve the protection of public health and the environment. The North
Carolina Solid Waste Section is concerned about analytical data at these low levels because the earliest possible
detection of toxic or potentially carcinogenic chemicals in the environment is paramount in the North Carolina
Solid Waste Section's mission to protect human health and the environment. Low level analytical data are
critical for making the correct choices when designing site remediation strategies, alerting the public to health
threats, and protecting the environment from toxic contaminants. The revised limits were updated based on
readily available laboratory analytical methodology and current health -based groundwater protection standards.
Definitions
Many definitions relating to detection limits and quantitation limits are used in the literature and by government
agencies, and commonly accepted procedures for calculating these limits exist. Except for the Solid Waste
Section Limit and the North Carolina 2L Standards, the definitions listed below are referenced from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The definitions are also an attempt to clarify the meaning of these
terms as used by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section.
Method Detection Limit (MDL) is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and
reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
Method Reporting Limit or Method Quantitation Limit (MRL or MQL) is the minimum concentration of a
target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) is a quantitation limit that represents a practical and routinely achievable
quantitation limit with a high degree of certainty (>99.9% confidence) in the results. Per EPA Publication
Number SW-846, the PQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured within specified limits of
precision and accuracy for a specific laboratory analytical method during routine laboratory operating
conditions in accordance with "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods. The
PQL appears in older NCDENR literature; however, it is no longer being used by the North Carolina Solid
Waste Section.
Solid Waste Section Limit (SWSL) is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with suitable precision and accuracy. The SWSL is the concentration below which reported
analytical results must be qualified as estimated. The SWSL is the updated version of the PQL that appears in
older North Carolina Solid Waste Section literature. The SWSL is the limit established by the laboratory survey
conducted by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section. The nomenclature of the SWRL described in the October
27, 2006, memorandum has changed to the SWSL.
North Carolina 2L Standards (2L) are water quality standards for the protection of groundwaters of North
Carolina as specified in 15A NCAC 2L .0200, Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the
Groundwaters of North Carolina.
Method Detection Limits (MDLs)
Clarification of detection limits referenced in the October 27, 2006, memorandum needed to be addressed
because of concerns raised by the regulated community. The North Carolina Solid Waste Section is now
requiring laboratories to report to the method detection limit.
Method detection limits are statistically determined values that define the concentration at which measurements
of a substance by a specific analytical protocol can be distinguished from measurements of a blank (background
noise). Method detection limits are matrix -specific and require a well defined analytical method. In the course
of routine operations, laboratories generally report the highest method detection limit for all the instruments
used for a specific method.
In many instances, the North Carolina Solid Waste Section gathers data from many sources prior to evaluating
the data or making a compliance decision. Standardization in data reporting significantly enhances the ability to
interpret and review data because the reporting formats are comparable. Reporting a method detection limit
alerts data users of the known uncertainties and limitations associated with using the data. Data users must
understand these limitations in order to minimize the risk of making poor environmental decisions. Censoring
data below unspecified or non -statistical reporting limits severely biases data sets and restricts their usefulness.
Solid Waste Section Limits (SWSLs
Due to comments from the regulated community, the North Carolina Solid Waste Section has changed the
nomenclature of the new limits referenced on Page 2 of the October 27, 2006, memorandum, from the North
Carolina Solid Waste Reporting Limits (SWRL) to the Solid Waste Section Limits (SWSL). Data must be
reported to the laboratory specific method detection limits and must be quantifiable at or below the SWSL. The
SWSLs must be used for both groundwater and surface water data reported to the North Carolina Solid Waste
Section. The PQLs will no longer be used.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

The North Carolina Solid Waste Section has considered further feedback from laboratories and the regulated
community and has made some additional changes to the values of the SWSLs. These changes may be viewed
on our webpage:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/sw/swenvmonitoringlist.asp
Analytical Data Reporting Requirements
The strategy for implementing the new analytical data reporting requirements involves reporting the actual
laboratory method detection limit with all analytical laboratory results along with the following requirements:
1) Any analyte detected at a concentration greater than the MDL but less than the SWSL is known to be present,
but the uncertainty in the value is higher than a value reported above the SWSL. As a result, the actual
concentration is estimated. The estimated concentration is reported along with a qualifier (" Y' flag) to alert data
users that the result is between the MDL and the SWSL. Any analytical data below quantifiable levels should
be examined closely to evaluate whether the analytical data should be included in any statistical analysis. A
statistician should make this determination. If an analyte is detected below the North Carolina 2L Standards,
even if it is a quantifiable concentration, compliance action may not be taken unless it is statistically significant
increase over background.
These analytical results may require additional confirmation.
2) Any analyte detected at a concentration greater than the SWSL is present, and the quantitated value can be
reported with a high degree of confidence. These analytes are reported without estimated qualification. The
laboratory's MDL and SWSL must be included in the analytical laboratory report. Any reported concentration
of an organic or inorganic constituent at or above the North Carolina 2L Standards will be used for compliance
purposes, unless the inorganic constituent is not statistically significant). Exceedance of the North Carolina 2L
Standards or a statistically significant increase over background concentrations define when a violation has
occurred. Any reported concentration of an organic or inorganic constituent at or above the SWSL that is not
above an North Carolina 2L Standard will be used as a tool to assess the integrity of the landfill system and
predict the possibility that a constituent concentration may exceed the North Carolina 2L Standards in the
future.
These analytical results may be used for compliance without further confirmation.
Failure to comply with the requirements described in the October 27, 2006, memorandum and this addendum to
the October 27, 2006, memorandum will constitute a violation of 15A NCAC 13B .0601, .0602, or .1632(b),
and the analytical data will be returned and deemed unacceptable. Submittal of unacceptable data may lead to
enforcement action.
Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Submittal
The North Carolina Solid Waste Section would also like to take this opportunity to encourage electronic
submittal of the reports in addition to the analytical laboratory data. This option is intended to save resources
for both the public and private sectors.
The North Carolina Solid Waste Section will accept the entire report including narrative text, figures, tables,
and maps on CD-ROM. Please separate the figures and tables from the report when saving in order to keep the
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 3
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

size of the files smaller. The CD-ROM submittal shall contain a CD-ROM case and both CD-ROM and the
case shall be labeled with the site name, site address, permit number, and the monitoring event date
(MM/DD/YYYY). The reporting files maybe submitted as a .pdf, .txt, .csv, .xls,. or .doc type.
Also, analytical lab data and field data should be reported in .xls files. The North Carolina Solid Waste Section
has a template for analytical lab data and field data. This template is available on our webpage:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp. Methane monitoring data may also be submitted
electronically in this format.
Pursuant to the October 27, 2006, memorandum, please remember to submit a Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form in addition to your environmental monitoring data report. This
form should be sealed by a geologist or engineer licensed in North Carolina if hydrogeologic or geologic
calculations, maps, or interpretations are included with the report. Otherwise, any representative that the
facility owner chooses may sign and submit the form. Also, if the concentration of methane generated by the
facility exceeds 100% of the lower explosive limits (LEL) at the property boundary or exceeds 25% of the LEL
in facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery system components), include the exceedance(s) on the
North Carolina Solid Waste Section Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-8500) or Ervin
Lane (919-508-8520).
Thank you for your continued cooperation with this matter.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 4
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

46PA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
MEMORANDUM
Division of Waste Management
October 16, 2007
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
To: Solid Waste Directors, Landfill Operators, North Carolina Certified
Laboratories, and Consultants
From: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: Environmental Monitoring Data for North Carolina Solid Waste
Management Facilities
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a reiteration of the use of the Solid Waste
Section Limits (SWSLs), provide new information on the Groundwater Protection
Standards, and provide a reminder of formats for environmental monitoring data
submittals.
The updated guidelines are in large part due to questions and concerns from laboratories,
consultants, and the regulated community regarding the detection of constituents in
groundwater at levels below the previous Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs). The
North Carolina Solid Waste Section solicited feedback from the regulated community,
and, in conjunction with the regulated community, developed new limits. The primary
purpose of these changes was to improve the protection of public health and the
environment.
Data must be reported to the laboratory specific method detection limits and must be
quantifiable at or below the SWSLs. The SWSLs must be used for both groundwater and
surface water data reported to the North Carolina Solid Waste Section. The PQLs will no
longer be used.
In June 2007, we received new information regarding changes to the Groundwater
Protection Standards. If a North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standard does not exist, then
a designated Groundwater Protection Standard is used pursuant to 15A NCAC 13B
.1634. Toxicologists with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
calculated these new Groundwater Protection Standards. Questions regarding how the
standards were calculated can be directed to the North Carolina Department of Health
and Human Services.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
1
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

We have reviewed the new results from the North Carolina Department of Public Health
and have updated our webpage accordingly. The list of Groundwater Protection
Standards, North Carolina 2L Standards and SWSLs are subject to change and will be
reviewed every year or sooner if new scientific and toxicological data become available.
Please review our website periodically for any changes to the 2L NC Standards,
Groundwater Protection Standards, or SWSLs. Specific updates will be noted on our
website.
http://www.wastenotnc.org/sw/swenvmonitorin lig st.asp
In addition, the following should be included with environmental monitoring data
submittals:
1. Environmental Monitoring Data Form as a cover sheet:
http://www.wastenotnc. org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/NCEnvMonRptFonn.pdf
2. Copy of original laboratory results.
3. Table of detections and discussion of 2L exceedances.
4. Electronic files on CD or sent by email. These files should include the written report as
a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and the laboratory data as an excel file following
the format of the updated Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) template on our website:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro monitoring.asp
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Donald Herndon (919-
508-8502), Ervin Lane (919-508-8520) or Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-8500).
Thank you for your continued cooperation with these matters.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper

A�
L&�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary
November 5, 2014
MEMORANDUM
To: Solid Waste Directors, Public Works Directors, Landfill Operators, and Landfill Owners
From: Solid Waste Section
Re: Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal
The Solid Waste Section is continuing its efforts to improve efficiencies in document management. All
groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, and landfill gas documents submitted to the Solid Waste Section are
stored electronically and are made readily available for the public to view on our webpage. Please remember that
hard copies/paper copies are not required, and should not be submitted. The submittal of these electronic
documents following a consistent electronic document protocol will also assist us in our review. Please follow
these procedures when submitting all groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, and landfill gas documents to the
Solid Waste Section.
Submittal Method and Formatting
• All files must be in portable document format (pdf) except for Electronic Data Deliverables (EDDs)
unless otherwise specified by the Solid Waste Section. All pdf files should meet these requirements:
o Optical Characteristic Recognition (OCR) applied;
o Minimum of 300 dpi;
o Free of password protections and/or encryption (applies to EDDs as well);
o Optimized to reduce file size; and
o Please begin using the following naming convention when submitting all electronic files: Permit
Number (00-00)_Date of Document (YYYYMMDD). For example: 00-00_20140101.
• Please submit all files via email or by file transfer protocol (FTP) via email to the appropriate
Hydrogeologist unless otherwise specified by the Solid Waste Section. If the electronic file is greater
than 20 MB, please submit the file via FTP or on a CD. If submitting a CD, please mail the CD to the
appropriate Hydrogeologist. The CD should be labeled with the facility name, permit number, county,
name of document, date of monitoring event (if applicable), and the date of document.
• Please be sure a signed Environmental Monitoring Data Form is submitted as part of the electronic file for
all water quality and landfill gas documents (monitoring, alternate source demonstration, assessment,
investigation, corrective action). This completed form should be the first page of the document before the
cover/title page and should not be submitted as an individual file. Blank forms can be downloaded at
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/NCEnvMonRptForrnpdf
Monitoring Data
Monitoring data documents may include any or all of the following: 1) groundwater and surface water monitoring;
2) soil and sediment, and 3) landfill gas monitoring. In addition to the above procedures, at a minimum, please
include the following:
Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
• A copy of the laboratory report(s).
• A copy of the sampling log(s).
• A separate table of detections and exceedances for each monitoring location.
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2090 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-82111
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

o All analytical results should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L) except for field
parameters and specific Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) parameters.
o Please also include the laboratory's method detection limit (MDL) in ug/L, the Solid Waste
Section Limit (SWSL) in ug/L, the appropriate NC regulatory standard in ug/L (2L, 213,
GWPS, IMAC), and the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in ug/L.
o Please BOLD each exceedance result.
• A separate table of field parameters for each monitoring location.
• An Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) spreadsheet for each monitoring event submitted in the correct
format. All analytical results should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L) except for field
parameters and specific Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) parameters. The blank EDD template
can be downloaded at hlt 2://www.wastenotnc.org,/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp. Please pay
attention to the formats within the spreadsheet. Any EDD received that is not formatted correctly will
be emailed back to be resubmitted via email within five (5) days.
• A separate groundwater monitoring well construction table.
o Please also include the date the well was drilled, well diameter, total well depth, depth to top
of screened interval (in feet), screened interval (in feet), geology of screened interval, TOC
elevation, ground elevation, groundwater elevation, GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude),
and depth to water (in feet).
• A separate groundwater table with groundwater flow rate(s).
• A recent facility figure that includes labeled groundwater and surface water monitoring locations.
• A groundwater flow map with an arrow(s) indicating flow direction(s), including date the
measurements were taken.
Soil and Sediment Sampling
• A copy of the laboratory report(s).
• A copy of the sampling log(s).
• A separate table of detections and exceedances for each sampling location.
o Please also include the results in micrograms per liter (ug/L), the laboratory's method
detection limit (MDL) in ug/L, and the appropriate NC regulatory standard (PSRG) in ug/L.
o Please BOLD each exceedance result.
• A separate table of soil and/or sediment characteristics.
• A recent facility figure that includes labeled sampling locations.
Landfill Gas Monitoring
• A blank Landfill Gas Monitoring Data Form can be found within the Landfill Gas Monitoring
Guidance document and can be downloaded at
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_librar/get file?uuid=da699t7e-8cl3-4249-9012-
16af8aefdc7b&groupId=3 8361.
• A separate table of landfill gas detections and exceedances for each monitoring location. Please
BOLD each exceedance result.
• A recent facility figure that includes labeled landfill gas monitoring locations (both permanent and
temporary).
If you have any questions or concerns regarding electronic submittals, please feel free to contact the
Hydrogeologist overseeing your facility. The Solid Waste Section greatly appreciates your assistance on
this matter. Working together, we can continue to provide excellent customer service to you and to the
public.
• Jackie Drummond, Asheville Regional Office, 828-296-4706, jaclynne.drummond a,ncdenr.gov
• Ervin Lane, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8288, ervin.lane(a),ncdenr.gov
• Elizabeth Werner, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8253, elizabeth.werner(a),ncdenngov
• Christine Ritter, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8254, christine.ritter(d),ncdenngov
• Perry Sugg, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8258, perry.sugg(a)ncdenr.gov
2
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2090 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-82111
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
http://poftal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

Waste Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
September 9, 2016
MEMORANDUM
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
MICHAEL SCOTT
Director
To: Solid Waste Directors, Public Works Directors, Landfill Operators, and
Landfill Owners
From: The Solid Waste Section
Reference: Guidelines for 14-Day Notification of Groundwater Exceedances Form
Submittal per rule: 15A NCAC 13B .1633(c)(1)
• The 14-day notification form should be submitted whenever a groundwater
protection standard (GWPS) is exceeded for the first time.
o As defined in 13B .1634(g)(h), a GWPS will be either of the following: the 2L
standard (most cases); 2L Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration; a
groundwater protection standard calculated by the SWS; or a site -specific
statistical background level approved by the SWS.
• If a facility is undergoing assessment or corrective action, the 14-day notification
form should be submitted ONLY when the constituent with the reported
exceedance is not being addressed through assessment or corrective action.
• If a facility plans to conduct a re -sampling event to confirm the initial
exceedance, the 14-day notification form should be submitted .ONLY. when the
re -sampling event analytical data confirms the initial exceedance.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center 1217 West Jones Street I Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
919 707 8200 T

NCDWM Solid Waste Section
14-Day Notification of GWPS Exceedances Flowchart
[per Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1633(c)(1)]
Groundwater
Protection
Standard
Exceedance*
Is Facility
Currently in
YES Assessment
or Corrective
Action?
No
No 14-Day
Notification
STOP
No
No '<
Does
Verification
Sampling
Confirm GWPS
Exceedance(s)?
I
YES
NOTE:
*GWPS = see Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1634(g)(h)
Is Assessment or
7
CA addressing the
Constituent w/
YES current
exceedance
value(s)?
Will verification no
resampling &
Analysis be
conducted?
7
(:
YES
No
Submit 14-Day
Notification Form to
SWS
No 14-Day
Notification
STOP
Proceed with
Alternative Source
Demonstration
(ASD) or
Assessment
YES
August 2016

NC DEQ 14-Day Notification of Groundwater
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Protection Standard Exceedance(s)
per rule: 15A NCAC 136.1633(c)(1)
Notice: This form and any information attached to it are "Public Records" as defined in NC General Statute 132-1. As such, these documents are
available for inspection and examination by any person upon request (NC General Statute 132-6).
Instructions:
Prepare one form for each individually monitored unit.
Please type or print legibly.
Attach a notification table with values that attain or exceed applicable groundwater protection standards.
Send the original signed and sealed form, any tables, and Electronic Data Deliverable to: Compliance Unit, NCDEQ-DWM, Solid Waste
Section, 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646.
Solid Waste Monitoring Data Submittal Information
Name of entity submitting data (laboratory, consultant, facility owner):
Contact for questions about data formatting. Include data preparer's name, telephone number and E-mail address:
Name: Phone:
E-mail:
Actual sampling dates (e.g.,
Facility name: Facility Address: Facility Permit # October 20-24, 2006)
Environmental Status: (Check all that apply)
❑ Initial/Background Monitoring ❑ Detection Monitoring ❑ Assessment Monitoring ❑ Corrective Action
Additional Information:
❑ A notification of values exceeding a groundwater protection standard as defined in 15A NCAC 13B .1634(g)(h) is attached. It includes a list of
groundwater monitoring points, dates, analytical values, NC 2L groundwater standard, NC Solid Waste GWPS and preliminary analysis of the
cause and significance of any concentration.
❑ A re -sampling event was conducted to confirm the exceedances.
❑ Alternate Source Demonstration(s) have been approved for the following constituents with report date:
Certification
To the best of my knowledge, the information reported and statements made on this data submittal and attachments are true and correct.
Furthermore, I have attached complete notification of any sampling values meeting or exceeding groundwater standards or explosive gas
levels, and a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of concentrations exceeding groundwater standards. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for making any false statement, representation, or certification including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.
Facility Representative Name (Print)
Signature
Facility Representative Address
Title
NC PG/PE Firm License Number (if applicable effective May 1, 2009)
Revised 6/2016
Date
(Area Code) Telephone Number
Affix NC Licensed/Professional Geologist or Professional
Engineer Seal

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
MICHAEL SCOTT
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
July 20, 2020
To: Solid Waste Facility Owners and Operators/ SW Directors/County
Managers/Consultants/Laboratories
From: NC DEQ-DWM, Solid Waste Section
Re: New Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Format
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (Department) has procured an
environmental data management system to streamline the submittal, organization, and presentation
of environmental data collected across the state. The Department has adopted a standardized
Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) format across all its divisions to regiment how data is
transmitted to the Department in order to achieve the above objectives, as well as to better facilitate
data review and decision making. Since all divisions will be using the same EDD format, this
should also ease the burden of reporting on facilities, laboratories, and environmental consultants.
The Division of Waste Management's Solid Waste Section (Section) is requiring that all solid
waste facilities begin submitting environmental data using the new EDD format on or before July
1, 2021. While the EDD format has changed slightly from the existing EDD employed by the
Section in the past, the information being requested, and the Excel format being used, remains
similar. The new EDD, along with comprehensive guidance documents can be obtained on the
Solid Waste Section's Environmental Monitoring Webpage. To assist facilities in gravitating to
this new reporting condition, the Section also intends to hold training sessions, which will be
posted on the website at a later date.
To maintain the integrity of the Department's environmental data management system, it is critical
that facilities, consultants, and laboratories work with their Solid Waste Section contacts to ensure
that environmental data and the associated new EDD format is being used and transferred in an
accurate manner.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
NORTHCAROUNAD_E Q�I
Uapartmmt of Envirentnental quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management
217 West Jones Street 1 1646 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
919.707.8200

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
NCSolid Waste Section Environmental Monitoring
Groundwater Protection Complianceaandards-ConstituentsList
(updated October 15, 2018)
All units are ug/ L unless otherwise noted.
NE = Not Established
Groundwater Protection Standards
DE D
Calculated
CASRN2 SINSID3 CHEMICAL NAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GVVP3d Reference List
67-64-1
3 Acetone
6000
NE
NE NE
NE NE
6 NE
Appendix 1
107-13-1
8
Acrylonitrile
NE
NE
NE
1
A
j2 e
endix I
7440-36-0
13
Antimony
7440-38-2
14
Arsenic
10
NE
10
NE
Appendix 1
7440-39-3
15
Barium
700
NE
2000
NE
endix I
71-43-2
16
Benzene
1
NE
5
NE
endix 1
7440-41-7
23
Beryllium
NE
4
4
NE
endix 1
74-97-5
28
Bromochloromethane; Chlorobromethane
NE
NE
NE
0.6
endix I
75-27-4
29
Bromodichloromethane; Dibromochloromethane
0.6
NE
1 80
NE
AQ2endix 1
75-25-2
30
Bromoform; Tribromomethane
4
2
NE
NE
80
5
NE
NE
endix 1
endix I
7440-43-9
34
Cadmium
75-15-0
35
Carbon disulfide
700
NE
NE
I NE
Ap2endix I
56-23-5
36
Carbon tetrachloride
0.3
NE
5
NE
endix I
108-90-7
39
Chlorobenzene
50
NE
100
NE
Aippendix I
I AW-dix 1
75-00-3
41
Chloroethane; Bhyl chloride
3000
NE
NE
NE
67-66-3
44
Chloroform; Trichloromethane
70
NE
80
NE
A endix I
7440-47-3
51
Chromium
10
NE
100
NE
A endix I
7440-48-4
53
Cobalt
NE
1
NE
NE
endix 1
7440-50-8
54
Copper
1000
NE
1300
NE
endix 1
124-48-1
66
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane
0.4
NE
80
NE
endix I
96-12-8
67
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP
0.04
NE
1 0.2
NE
endix I
106-93-4
68
1,2-Dibromoethane; Bhylene dibromide; ®B
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-IDichlorobencene
0.02
NE
0.05
NE
Appendix 1
Ajopendix 1
95-50-1
69
20
NE
600
NE
106-46-7
71
p-Dichlorobencene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
6
NE
75
NE
AQ2endix I
110-57-6
73
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
NE
NE
I NE
NE
endix1
75-34-3
75
1,1-Dichloroethane; Bhyldidenechloride
6
NE
NE
NE
endixI
107-06-2
76
1,2-Dichloroethane; ghylenedichloride
0.4
NE
5
NE
endixI
75-35.4
1 77
1 1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene;
350
NE
7
NE
I AW-dixI
Page 1 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
C4SRN2
SINSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEIMIG4LNAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d Reference List 4
156-59-2
78
Vinylidene chloride cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene; as-1,2-
Dichloroethene
70
NE
70
NE -clix I
156-60-5
79
trans- 1,2-Dichloroet hylene; trans- 1,2-Dichloroet hene
100
NE
100
NE
-clixI
78-87-5
82
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.6
NE
5
NE
-clix I
10061-01-5
86
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.4
NE
NE
NE
-clix I
10061-02-6
87
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.4
600
NE
NE
NE
40
NE
1 700
NE
NE
NE
NE
AppendixI
-clixI
Appendix I
100-41-4
110
Ethylbenzene
591-78-6
124
2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone
7439-92-1
131
Lead
15
NE
15
NE
&pendix I
74-83-9
136
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane
NE
10
NE
NE
AQ2endix I
74-87-3
137
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane
Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane
3
NE
I NE
NE
-clix I
74-95-3
139
NE
70
NE
NE
-clix I
75-09-2
140
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane
5
NE
5
NE
AQ2endixI
78-93-3
141
Methyl ethyl ketone; MB( 2-Butanone
4000
NE
NE
NE
Appendix I
74-88-4
142
Methyl iodide; Iodomethane
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone
Nickel
Selenium
giver
3yrene
NE
NE
I NE
NE
-clix I
108-10-1
147
NE
100
NE
NE
AQ2endixI
7440-02-0
152
100
NE
NE
NE
AQ2endix I
7782-49-2
183
20
NE
50
NE
-clix I
7440-22-4
184
20
NE
I NE
NE
-clix I
100-42-5
186
70
NE
100
NE
-clix I
630-20-6
190
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
NE
1
NE
NE
endixI
79-34-5
191
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.2
NE
NE
NE
-clix I
127-18-4
192
Tetrachloroethylene; r oro ene;
Perchloroethylene
0.7
NE
1 5
NE
-clix I
7440-28-0
194
Thallium
NE
0.2
2
NE
-clix I
108-88-3
196
Toluene
600
NE
1000
NE
Ap2enclix I
71-55-6
200
1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform
200
NE
200
NE
-clix I
79-01-6
201
Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene
3
NE
5
NE
-clix I
79-00-5
202
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane; CFG11
NE
0.6
5
NE
I AW-clix I
75-69-4
203
2000
0.005
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
-clixl
-clix I
96-18-4
206
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
7440-62-2
209
Vanadium
NE
0.3
NE
NE
-clix I
108-05-4
210
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene
NE
88
NE
I NE
I Ap2enclix I
75-01-4
211
0.03
NE
2
1 NE
I AMenclix I
Page 2 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
C4SRN2
SNSID3
CHBMIGALNAME
Zinc
Xylene(total)
DED
Calculated
2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d PeferenceList 4
7440-66-6
213
1000
NE NE NE AWendix I
NE 10000 NE Appendix I
1330-20-7
346
500
83-32-9
1
Acenaphthene
80
200
NE NE NE Appendix II
NE NE NE &Lgndix II
208-96-8
2
Acenaphthylene
75-05-8
4
Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide
NE
NE
NE
NE
Ajovendix II
98-86-2
5
Acetophenone
NE
700
NE
NE
A
j2pendix II
53-96-3
6
2-Acetylaminofluorene; 2-AAF
NE
NE
NE
NE
&Lendix II
107-02-8
7
Acrolein
NE
4
NE
NE
AWELndix II
309-00-2
9
Aldrin
NE
0.002
NE
NE
A
pLendix II
107-05-1
10
AIIyl chloride
NE
NE
NE
NE
Aimendix II
92-67-1
11
4-Aminobiphenyl
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
avendix II
120-12-7
12
Anthracene
2000
NE
NE
NE
56-55-3
17
Benzo[a]anthracene; Benzanthracene
0.05
NE
NE
NE
Armendix II
205-99-2
18
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
0.05
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
Appendix II
207-08-9
19
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
0.5
NE
NE
NE
191-24-2
20
Benzo[ghi]perylene
200
NE
NE
NE
50-32-8
21
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.005
NE
0.2
NE
AMndix II
100-51-6
22
Benzyl alcehol
NE
700
NE
NE
Avvendix II
apendix II
319-84-6
24
alpha-BHC
NE
0.006
NE
NE
319-85-7
25
beta-BHC
NE
0.02
NE
NE
Avvendix II
319-86-8
26
delta-BHC
NE
NE
NE
0.019
AMndix II
58-89-9
27
gamma-BHC Lindane
0.03
NE
0.2
NE
apendix II
101-55-3
31
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
endix II
&Lffindix II
85-68-7
32
Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate
1000
700
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
84-74-2
33
Di-n-butyl phthalate
106-47-8
38
p-Chloroaniline
NE
NE
NE
NE
Amendix II
510-15-6
40
Chlorobenalate
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
endix II
111-91-1
42
Bs(2-chloroethoxy)methane
NE
NE
NE
NE
111-44-4
43
Bs(2-chloroethyl)ether; Dichloroethyl ether
NE
NE
NE
0.031
AMqndix II
59-50-7
45
p-Chloro-m-cresol; 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
NE
NE
I NE
NE
Armendix II
108-60-1
46
Bs(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether; 2,2'-
Dichlorodiisopropyl ether; DClP
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appgndix II
91-58-7
47
2-Chloronaphthalene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Page 3 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
C4SRN2
SNSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEIM IGAL NAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d Reference List 4
2-Chlorophenol 0.4 NE NE NE endix II
95-57-8
48
7005-72-3
49
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
AQpendix II
126-99-8
50
Chloroprene
NE
NE
NE
NE
218-01-9
52
Chrysene
5
NE
NE
NE
AMendix II
95-48-7
56
o-Cresol; 2-Methylphenol
NE
400
NE
NE
Ajovendix II
Appendix II
Appendix II
57-12-5
58
Cyanide
2,4-D; 2,4-Dchlorophenoxyaceticadd
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
70
NE
200
NE
94-75-7
59
70
NE
70
NE
72-54-8
60
0.1
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
72-55-9
61
NE
NE
NE
I NE
endix II
50-29-3
62
4,4'-DDT
0.1
NE
NE
NE
Armendix II
2303-16-4
63
Diallate
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
AppendixII
53-70-3
64
Dibanz[a,h]ant hracene
0.005
NE
NE
NE
132-64-9
65
Dibenzofuran
NE
28
NE
NE
AMendix II
541-73-1
70
m-Dichlorobemmine; 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
200
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
&Lendix II
91-94-1
72
3,3-Dichlorobenadine
NE
NE
NE
NE
75-71-8
74
Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC12
1000
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
120-83-2
80
2,4-1)ichlorophenol
NE
0.98
NE
NE
Appendix II
87-65-0
81
2,6-Dichlorophenol
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
A
j2pendix II
142-28-9
83
1,3-Dichloropropane; Trimethylene dichloride
NE
NE
NE
NE
594-20-7
84
2,2-Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene chloride
NE
NE
NE
NE
Avvendix II
563-58-6
85
1,1-Dichloropropene
NE
NE
NE
NE
AMndix II
60-57-1
88
Dieldrin
O,O-Diethyl 0-2-pyra2inyl phosphorothioate; Thionaan
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
0.002
NE
NE
NE
A
2pendix II
297-97-2
89
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
84-66-2
90
6000
NE
NE
NE
60-51-5
91
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
60-11-7
92
p-(Dimethylamino)azoben2Bne
57-97-6
93
7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]ant hraoene
NE
NE
100
NE
I NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
A2p2ndix II
I Appgndix II
Appendix II
119-93-7
94
3,3'-Di methylbenadine
105-67-9
95
2,4-Dimethylphenol; m-Xylenol
131-11-3
96
Dimethyl phthalate
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
99-65-0
97
m-Dinitrobemmine
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
534-52-1
98
1 4,6-Dinitro-o-aresol; 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
NE
NE
NE
I NE
endix II
Page 4 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
CASRN2
SNSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEMIIALNAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d ReferenoeList 4
2,4-Dinitrophenol NE NE NE NE avendix II
51-28-5
99
121-14-2
100
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
NE
0.1
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
606-20-2
101
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
NE
NE
NE
NE
88-85-7
102
Dinoseb; DNBP, 2-sao-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
NE
7
7
NE
Arvendix II
122-39-4
103
Diphenylamine
NE
NE
NE
NE
Ajovendix II
endix II
298-04-4
104
Disulfoton
0.3
NE
I NE
NE
959-98-8
105
Endosulfan I
40
NE
NE
NE
Aggenclix II
33213-65-9
106
Endosulfan II
NE
NE
NE
42
Armendix II
1031-07-8
107
Endosulfan sulfate
NE
40
NE
NE
Appendix II
72-20-8
108
Endrin
2
NE
2
NE
Aimendix II
7421-93-4
109
Endrin aldehyde
2
NE
NE
NE
endix II
endix II
117-81-7
111
l3is(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
3
NE
NE
NE
97-63-2
112
Ethyl methacc:rylate
NE
NE
NE
NE
&Lndix II
62-50-0
113
Ethyl methanesulfonate
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
&Lndix II
52-85-7
114
Famphur
NE
NE
NE
NE
206-44-0
115
Ruoranthene
300
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
86-73-7
116
Ruorene
300
NE
NE
NE
AMndix II
76-44-8
117
Heptachlor
0.008
NE
0.4
NE
Appendix II
&Lndix II
1024-57-3
118
Heptachlor epobde
0.004
NE
0.2
NE
118-74-1
119
Hexachlorobenzene
0.02
NE
1
NE
AMenclix II
87-68-3
120
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.4
NE
NE
NE
Arvendix II
77-47-4
121
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
NE
NE
50
50
Appendix II
apendix II
67-72-1
122
Hexachloroethane
NE
NE
NE
2.5
1888-71-7
123
Hexachloropropene
NE
NE
NE
NE
AMenclix II
193-39-5
125
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
0.05
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
78-83-1
126
Isobutyl aloohol
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
465-73-6
127
Isodrin
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
&Lndix II
78-59-1
128
Isophorone
40
NE
NE
NE
120-58-1
129
Isosafrole
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
143-50-0
130
Kapone
NE
NE
I NE
NE
AMndix II
7439-97-6
132
Mercury
1 1
NE
2
NE
App. II / t&D
126-98-7
133
1 Met hacrylonit rile
NE
NE
NE
NE
AMndix II
Page 5 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
CASRN2
SNSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEIM IALNAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d Reference List 4
Methapyrilene NE NE NE NE avendix II
91-80-5
134
72-43-5
135
Methoxychlor
40
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
A2pendix II
56-49-5
138
3-Methylcholanthrene
NE
NE
I NE
NE
80-62-6
143
Methyl methacrylate
NE
25
NE
NE
6gpLndix II
66-27-3
144
Methyl methanesulfonate
NE
NE
NE
NE
Ajovendix II
A2Lndix II
AMendix II
91-57-6
145
2-Methylnaphthalene
Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
30
NE
NE
NE
298-00-0
146
NE
NE
I NE
NE
91-20-3
148
6
NE
NE
NE
AWELndix II
130-15-4
149
NE
NE
NE
NE
AQLELndixII
134-32-7
150
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
&Uendix II
Armendix II
91-59-8
151
2-Naphthylamine
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
I NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
99-09-2
153
m-Nitroaniline; 3-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
154
o-Nitroaniline; 2-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
155
p-Nitroaniline; 4-Nitroaniline
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
98-95-3
156
Nitrobenzene
NE
NE
I NE
NE
99-55-8
157
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
NE
NE
NE
NE
AMendix II
88-75-5
158
o-Nitrophenol; 2-Nitrophenol
NE
NE
NE
NE
Armendix II
100-02-7
159
p-Nitrophenol; 4-Nitrophenol
NE
NE
NE
NE
Ajovendix II
apendix II
Appendix II
55-18-5
160
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
NE
0.0007
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
62-75-9
161
N-Nit rosod i m et hyl am i ne
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
924-16-3
162
NE
NE
NE
NE
AWndix II
86-30-6
163
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
NE
NE
NE
NE
AMqndix II
621-64-7
164
N-Nitrosodipropylamine; N-Nitroso-N-dipropylamine; Di-
n-propylnitrosamine
N-Nitrosomethylethalamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Di-n-octyl phthalate
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
10595-95-6
165
NE
NE
NE
NE
100-75-4
166
NE
NE
NE
NE
A2p2ndix II
930-55-2
167
NE
NE
NE
NE
A2p2ndix II
117-84-0
168
100
NE
NE
NE
NE
I NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
A2pendix II
56-38-2
169
Parathion
1336-36-3
170
Pblychlorinated biphenyls; PCBs
NE
0.09
0.5
NE
Appendix II
608-93-5
171
Pentachlorobenzene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
82-68-8
172
Pentachloronitrobenzene
I NE
NE
NE
NE
I Appendix II
87-86-5
173
Pentachlorophenol
0.3
t NE
1 1
NE
L AMendx II
Page 6 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
C4SRN2
SNSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEIM IGAL NAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d PeferenceList 4
Phenaoetin NE NE NE NE endix II
62-44-2
174
85-01-8
175
Phenanthrene
200
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Apipendix II
101 -50-3
176
p-Phenylenediamine
NE
NE
I NE
NE
108-95-2
177
Phenol
30
NE
NE
NE
Arvendix II
298-02-2
178
Phorate
1
NE
NE
NE
Ajovendix II
Appendix II
23950-58-5
179
Pronamide
NE
NE
NE
NE
107-12-0
180
Propionitrile; Rhyl cyanide
NE
NE
NE
NE
A2pendix II
129-00-0
181
Pyrene
200
NE
I NE
NE
endix II
94-59-7
182
81role
NE
NE
NE
I NE
endix II
93-72-1
185
Slvex; 2,4,5-TP
50
NE
NE
NE
Appendix II
Appendix II
Aoendix II
18491 -25-8
187
Salfide
NE
NE
NE
NE
93-76-5
188
2,4,5-T; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyaceticacid
NE
NE
I NE
NE
95-94-3
189
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
NE
2
NE
NE
Armendix II
58-90-2
193
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
200
NE
NE
NE
Ajovendix II
Appendix II
7440-31-5
195
Tin
NE
2000
NE
NE
95-53-4
197
o-Toluidine
NE
NE
I NE
NE
A2pendix II
8001-35-2
198
Toxaphene
0.03
NE
3
NE
A2Lendix II
120-82-1
199
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
70
NE
70
NE
Ajovendix II
A
j2pendix II
95-95-4
204
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
NE
63
NE
NE
88-06-2
205
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
NE
4
NE
NE
Avvendix II
126-68-1
207
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothioate
NE
NE
NE
NE
AMendix II
99-35-4
208
sym-Trinitrobenzene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Amendix II
Amendix II
57-74-9
339
Chlordane
0.1
1 NE
NE
NE
106-44-5
344
p-Cresol; 4-Methylphenol
40
NE
NE
NE
Armendix II
108-39-4
345
m-Cresol; 3-Methylphenol
400
NE
NE
NE
endix II
122-09-8
386
Benzeneethanamine, alpha,alpha-dimethyl
NE
NE
NE
NE
AMendix II
1746-01-6
440
2,3,7,8-TCDD; 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin
.0002 ng/L
1 NE 0.03 NE Appendix1l
123-91-1
422
1,4-dioxane
3
NE NE NE ALL
W301
301
Chloride
Total Dissolved Solids
250000
NE
NE
NE
C&D
C&D
SN311
311
500000
NE
NE
NE
14808-79-8
315
Salfate
250000
NE
NE
NE
C&D/ Leachate
W337
337
1 Alkalinity
I NE
NE
I NE
NE
C&D
Page 7 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
C4SRN2
SNSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEMIGALNAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d IeferenoeList 4
Iron 300 NE NE NE C&D
7439-89-6
340
7439-96-5
342
Manganese
Tetrahydrofuran
50
NE
NE
NE
C&D
109-99-9
441
NE
NE
NE
NE
C&D
SN316
316
Biological Oxygen Demand
NE
NE
NE
NE
Leachate
Leachate
SN317
317
Chemical Oxygen Demand
NE
NE
NE
NE
SN419
419
No21No3 (nitrate & nitrite reported together)
Orthophosphate Phosphorus
pH (lab)
Qpecbnd (lab)
NE
NE
I NE
NE
I Leachate
W437
437
NE
NE
NE
NE
Leachate
W321
321
7.0
NE
NE
NE
Leachate
W324
324
NE
NE
NE
NE
Leachate
226-36-8
385
1,25,6-Dibenzacridine
NE
NE
I NE
NE
Other
122-66-7
394
1,2-Diphenylhydraane
1-2-3-Trichlorobenzene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
87-61-6
371
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
120-36-5
352
2-(2-4{iichlorophenoxy)propionicacid
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
94-82-6
350
2-4 DB
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
110-75-8
358
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
109-06-8
390
2-Piooline
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
56-57-5
388
4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
64-19-7
416
Acetic Add
NE
5000
NE
NE
Other
62-53-3
381
Aniline
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
140-57-8
382
Aramite
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
12674-11-2
401
Arodor 1016
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
11104-28-2
402
Arodor 1221
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
11141-16-5
403
Arodor 1232
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
53469-21-9
404
Arodor 1242
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
12672-29-6
405
Arodor 1248
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
11097-69-1
406
Arodor 1254
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
11096-82-5
407
Arodor 1260
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
92-87-5
383
Benadine
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
7440-42-8
428
Boron
700
NE
NE
NE
Other
W347
347
Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
101-84-8
423
biphenyl ether
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
108-86-1
360
Bromobenzene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
Page 8 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
C4SRN2
SNSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEIM IGAL NAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d Reference List 4
Butyric Add NE NE NE NE Other
SN418
418
7440-70-2
375
Calcium
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
Other
SN413
413
Carbon Dioxide (002)
Carbonate (as CaCD3)
NE
NE
I NE
NE
SN348
348
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
12789-03-6
400
Chlordane(constituents)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
79-06-1
429
Acylamide
0.008
NE
NE
NE
Other
5103-71-9
379
Chlordane, alpha
Chlordane, beta
NE
NE
I NE
NE
Other
5103-74-2
378
NE
NE
2
NE
Other
5566-34-7
399
Chlordane, gamma
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
75-99-0
355
Dalapon
NE
200
200
NE
Other
SN318
318
Depth To Water (ft)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
1918-00-9
353
Dicamba
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN334
334
Ferrous Iron- Dissolved
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN427
427
Groundwater Elevation (feet)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN319
319
Head (ft mean sea level)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
70-30-4
387
Hexachlorophene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN338
338
Hydrogen Sulfide
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN415
415
LacticAcid
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN329
329
Landfill Gas
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN374
374
m-&p-Cresol (combined)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
92-52-4
421
1,1-biphenyl
400
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN359
359
m-&p-Xylene (combined)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
1563-66-2
430
Carbofuran
40
NE
40
NE
Other
107-21-1
424
ethyleneglycol
10000
NE
NE
NE
Other
142-82-5
432
Heptane
400
NE
NE
NE
Other
7439-95-4
376
Magnesium
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
94-74-6
351
MCPA
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
76-13-1
398
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
200000
NE
NE
NE
Other
93-65-2
354
Mecopop, MCPP
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN333
333
Methane- Dissolved
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
7439-98-7
397
Molybdenum
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
108-38-3
409
m-Xylene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
Page 9 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
Groundwater Protection Standards
04SRN2
SNSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEIMIG4LNAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWP3d Reference List 4
N-nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine NE NE NE NE Other
SN426
426
SN439
439
N-Nit rosod i phenyl ami net Di phenyl ami ne
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
65-85-0
395
BenzoicAcid
30000
NE
I NE
NE
Other
39638-32-9
384
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
0.03
NE
NE
NE
Other
59-89-2
389
N-Nitrosomorpholine
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN309
309
lbliform (total)
1
NE
5
NE
Other
SN310
310
lblor (oolor units)
15
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN336
336
Oxygen (eduction Potential (mV)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN313
313
Foaming Agents
500
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN314
314
Gross Alpha
15
NE
NE
NE
Other
10643-4
365
4-Chlorotoluene
NE
24
NE
NE
Other
99-87-6
368
p-Gymene
NE
25
NE
NE
Other
108-20-3
366
Isopropyl ether
70
NE
NE
NE
Other
98-82-8
367
Isopropylbenzene
70
NE
NE
NE
Other
76-01-7
380
Pentachloroethane
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN335
335
Manganese -Dissolved
50
NE
NE
NE
Other
108-67-8
373
Mesitylene(1-3-5-trimethylbenzene)
400
NE
NE
NE
Other
7440-09-7
377
Potassium
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
1634-04-4
369
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (M1BE)
20
70
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
Other
104-51-8
361
n-Butylbenzene
Propionic Acid
SN417
417
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
10642-3
410
p-Xylene
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
103-65-1
370
n-Propylbenzene
70
NE
NE
NE
Other
95-49-8
364
o-Chlorotoluene
100
NE
NE
NE
Other
110-86-1
391
Pyridine
NE
NE
NE
7
Other
SN414
414
PyruvicAcid
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
7440-23-5
322
Sodium
NE
NE
NE
20000
Other
SN323
323
Epec(bnd (field)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
Other
SN307
307
petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction dass CI - C36
10000
NE
NE
NE
SN305
305
petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class 05 - C8
400
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN306
306
petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction dass C9 - C18
700
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN308
1 308
petroleum aromatics carbon fraction class C9 - C22
200
NE
NE
I NE
Other
Page 10 of 11

NCS:)lid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring Lid
Groundwater Protection Standards
CASFN2
SWSID3
DED
Calculated
CHEMICALNAME 2L 2LIMAC MCL GWPSd Reference List 4
pH (field) 7.0 NE NE NE Other
SN320
320
95-63-6
372
Pseudocumene (1-24-trimethylben2Bne)
400
NE
NE
NE
Other
3689-24-5
392
Sulfotep
NE
NE
I NE
NE
Other
SN325
325
Temp (oC)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
135-98-8
362
sec-ButylbemBne
70
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN328
328
Top Of Casing (ft mean sea level)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN425
425
Total BHC
0.02
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN436
436
Total Fatty Adds
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
E-10195
357
Tot al Organic Carbon
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
98-06-6
363
tert-Butylbenzene
70
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN396
396
Total Organic Halides
Total Suspended Solids
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN343
343
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN411
411
Total Well Depth (ft)
NE
NE
NE
NE
Other
SN330
330
Turbidity
NE
I NE
NE
NE
Other
NOTE G1NPS- as listed are current as of October 15, 2018 and are subject to change. Refer to originating sources for any changes.
t Groundwater Protection Standard (GVVPS)- For compliance purposes, the applicable GVVPSisthe lower of the listed standards.
2 C4SRN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number. For listed contituentswith no CAS the SNS ID is used.
3 SNSID = Solid Waste Section ID. Unique ID assigned bythe Section.
4 Constituents P--ferenceLists
APPENDIX I - Oondituentsfor Detection Monitoring per 40 CFRPart 258 (7-1-2017 Edition)
APPENDIX II -List of Hazardous Inorganic& Organic Constituents per 40 CFRPart 258 (7-1-2017 Edition). Appendix II lid includes all Appendix I constituents.
C&D-Additional monitored constituents required for Construction & Demolition landfills(CDLFs)
L54CHATE- Monitored condituentsfor leachate sampling as specified in permit conditions.
Ctther-Other constituents, field testing, field measurements, or miscellaneous data that maybe required by the Section.
e ALL-1,4-Dioxane sampling required for all MStN, C&D, & Industrial landfills (active and dosed) per SNSMemo dated May 29, 2018.
GVV Protection Standards References
2L- NCgroundwater water standards per 15A NCAC 02L.0202
2LIMAC (Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations)- Interim NCgroundwater standards per 15A NCAC 02L.0202
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) -National primary drinking water standards per -We Drinking Water Act under 40 CFRPart 141
NC GWPSd (NCGroundwater Protected Standard) -Groundwater value calculated by NCDH2for constituents with no established 2Lstandard. Values are calculated using
criteria 1 & 2 of the NC Groundwater standards and do not consider taste, odor, MCLs, MCLG, and secondary drinldng water standards.
Weblink for 40 CFR Part 258
Page 11 of 11

APPENDIX D
Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form

DEN
R USE ONLY ❑Paper Report ❑Electronic Data - Email CD (data loaded: Yes / No Doc/Event #:
NC DENR I IEnvironmental Monitoring
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Reporting Form
Notice: This form and any information attached to it are "Public Records" as defined in NC General Statute 132-1. As such, these documents are
available for inspection and examination by any person upon request (NC General Statute 132-6).
Instructions:
Prepare one form for each individually monitored unit.
Please type or print legibly.
Attach a notification table with values that attain or exceed NC 2L groundwater standards or NC 2B surface water standards. The notification
must include a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of each value. (e.g. naturally occurring, off -site source, pre-existing
condition, etc.).
Attach a notification table of any groundwater or surface water values that equal or exceed the reporting limits.
Attach a notification table of any methane gas values that attain or exceed explosive gas levels. This includes any structures on or nearby the
facility (NCAC 13B .1629 (4)(a)(i).
Send the original signed and sealed form, any tables, and Electronic Data Deliverable to: Compliance Unit, NCDENR-DWM, Solid Waste
Section, 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646.
Solid Waste Monitoring Data Submittal Information
Name of entity submitting data (laboratory, consultant, facility owner):
Contact for questions about data formatting. Include data preparer's name, telephone number and E-mail address:
Name: Phone:
E-mail:
NC Landfill Rule: Actual sampling dates (e.g.,
Facility name: Facility Address: Facility Permit # (.0500 or .1600) October 20-24, 2006)
Environmental Status: (Check all that apply)
Initial/Background Monitoring Detection Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action
of data submitted: (Check all that apply)
Groundwater monitoring data from monitoring wells
Groundwater monitoring data from private water supply wells El
Leachate monitoring data El
water monitoring data
Methane gas monitoring data
Corrective action data (specify)
Other(specify)
Notification attached?
e No. No groundwater or surface water standards were exceeded.
Yes, a notification of values exceeding a groundwater or surface water standard is attached. It includes a list of groundwater and surface water
monitoring points, dates, analytical values, NC 2L groundwater standard, NC 2B surface water standard or NC Solid Waste GWPS and
preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of any concentration.
El Yes, a notification of values exceeding an explosive methane gas limit is attached. It includes the methane monitoring points, dates, sample
values and explosive methane gas limits.
Certification
To the best of my knowledge, the information reported and statements made on this data submittal and attachments are true and correct.
Furthermore, I have attached complete notification of any sampling values meeting or exceeding groundwater standards or explosive gas
levels, and a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of concentrations exceeding groundwater standards. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for making any false statement, representation, or certification including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.
Facility Representative Name (Print) Title (Area Code) Telephone Number
Signature
Facility Representative Address
Date
Affix NC Licensed/ Professional Geologist Seal
NC PE Firm License Number (if applicable effective May 1, 2009)
Revised 6/2009

APPENDIX E
Low -Flow Groundwater
Purging and Sampling Guidance

United States Office of Office of Solid Waste EPA/540/S-95/504
Environmental Protection Research and and Emergency April 1996
Agency Development Response
%=,EPA Ground Water Issue
LOW -FLOW (MINIMAL DRAWDOWN)
GROUND -WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES
by Robert W. Puls' and Michael J. Barcelona'
Background
The Regional Superfund Ground Water Forum is a
group of ground -water scientists, representing EPA's
Regional Superfund Offices, organized to exchange
information related to ground -water remediation at Superfund
sites. One of the major concerns of the Forum is the
sampling of ground water to support site assessment and
remedial performance monitoring objectives. This paper is
intended to provide background information on the
development of low -flow sampling procedures and its
application under a variety of hydrogeologic settings. It is
hoped that the paper will support the production of standard
operating procedures for use by EPA Regional personnel and
other environmental professionals engaged in ground -water
sampling.
For further information contact: Robert Puls, 405-436-8543,
Subsurface Remediation and Protection Division, NRMRL,
Ada, Oklahoma.
I. Introduction
The methods and objectives of ground -water
sampling to assess water quality have evolved over time.
Initially the emphasis was on the assessment of water quality
of aquifers as sources of drinking water. Large water -bearing
units were identified and sampled in keeping with that
objective. These were highly productive aquifers that
supplied drinking water via private wells or through public
water supply systems. Gradually, with the increasing aware-
ness of subsurface pollution of these water resources, the
understanding of complex hydrogeochemical processes
which govern the fate and transport of contaminants in the
subsurface increased. This increase in understanding was
also due to advances in a number of scientific disciplines and
improvements in tools used for site characterization and
ground -water sampling. Ground -water quality investigations
where pollution was detected initially borrowed ideas,
methods, and materials for site characterization from the
water supply field and water analysis from public health
practices. This included the materials and manner in which
monitoring wells were installed and the way in which water
was brought to the surface, treated, preserved and analyzed.
The prevailing conceptual ideas included convenient generali-
zations of ground -water resources in terms of large and
relatively homogeneous hydrologic units. With time it became
apparent that conventional water supply generalizations of
homogeneity did not adequately represent field data regard-
ing pollution of these subsurface resources. The important
role of heterogeneity became increasingly clear not only in
geologic terms, but also in terms of complex physical,
'National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA
'University of Michigan
—I- ATlON
y Superfund Technology Support Center for
s
r, Ground Water
echnology
upport National Risk Management Research Laboratory
• roject Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
t-a;) 5`yAda, Oklahoma
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, US EPA, Washington, DC
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director

chemical and biological subsurface processes. With greater
appreciation of the role of heterogeneity, it became evident
that subsurface pollution was ubiquitous and encompassed
the unsaturated zone to the deep subsurface and included
unconsolidated sediments, fractured rock, and aquitards or
low -yielding or impermeable formations. Small-scale pro-
cesses and heterogeneities were shown to be important in
identifying contaminant distributions and in controlling water
and contaminant flow paths.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize all
the advances in the field of ground -water quality investiga-
tions and remediation, but two particular issues have bearing
on ground -water sampling today: aquifer heterogeneity and
colloidal transport. Aquifer heterogeneities affect contaminant
flow paths and include variations in geology, geochemistry,
hydrology and microbiology. As methods and the tools
available for subsurface investigations have become increas-
ingly sophisticated and understanding of the subsurface
environment has advanced, there is an awareness that in
most cases a primary concern for site investigations is
characterization of contaminant flow paths rather than entire
aquifers. In fact, in many cases, plume thickness can be less
than well screen lengths (e.g., 3-6 m) typically installed at
hazardous waste sites to detect and monitor plume movement
over time. Small-scale differences have increasingly been
shown to be important and there is a general trend toward
smaller diameter wells and shorter screens.
The hydrogeochemical significance of colloidal -size
particles in subsurface systems has been realized during the
past several years (Gschwend and Reynolds, 1987; McCarthy
and Zachara, 1989; Puls, 1990; Ryan and Gschwend, 1990).
This realization resulted from both field and laboratory studies
that showed faster contaminant migration over greater
distances and at higher concentrations than flow and trans-
port model predictions would suggest (Buddemeier and Hunt,
1988; Enfield and Bengtsson, 1988; Penrose et al., 1990).
Such models typically account for interaction between the
mobile aqueous and immobile solid phases, but do not allow
for a mobile, reactive solid phase. It is recognition of this third
phase as a possible means of contaminant transport that has
brought increasing attention to the manner in which samples
are collected and processed for analysis (Puts et al., 1990;
McCarthy and Degueldre, 1993; Backhus et al., 1993; U. S.
EPA, 1995). If such a phase is present in sufficient mass,
possesses high sorption reactivity, large surface area, and
remains stable in suspension, it can serve as an important
mechanism to facilitate contaminant transport in many types
of subsurface systems.
Colloids are particles that are sufficiently small so
that the surface free energy of the particle dominates the bulk
free energy. Typically, in ground water, this includes particles
with diameters between 1 and 1000 nm. The most commonly
observed mobile particles include: secondary clay minerals;
hydrous iron, aluminum, and manganese oxides; dissolved
and particulate organic materials, and viruses and bacteria.
These reactive particles have been shown to be mobile under
a variety of conditions in both field studies and laboratory
column experiments, and as such need to be included in
monitoring programs where identification of the total mobile
contaminant loading (dissolved + naturally suspended
particles) at a site is an objective. To that end, sampling
methodologies must be used which do not artificially bias
naturally suspended particle concentrations.
Currently the most common ground -water purging
and sampling methodology is to purge a well using bailers or
high speed pumps to remove 3 to 5 casing volumes followed
by sample collection. This method can cause adverse impacts
on sample quality through collection of samples with high
levels of turbidity. This results in the inclusion of otherwise
immobile artifactual particles which produce an overestima-
tion of certain analytes of interest (e.g., metals or hydrophobic
organic compounds). Numerous documented problems
associated with filtration (Danielsson, 1982; Laxen and
Chandler, 1982; Horowitz et al., 1992) make this an undesir-
able method of rectifying the turbidity problem, and include
the removal of potentially mobile (contaminant -associated)
particles during filtration, thus artificially biasing contaminant
concentrations low. Sampling -induced turbidity problems can
often be mitigated by using low -flow purging and sampling
techniques.
Current subsurface conceptual models have under-
gone considerable refinement due to the recent development
and increased use of field screening tools. So-called
hydraulic push technologies (e.g., cone penetrometer,
Geoprobe®, QED HydroPunch®) enable relatively fast
screening site characterization which can then be used to
design and install a monitoring well network. Indeed,
alternatives to conventional monitoring wells are now being
considered for some hydrogeologic settings. The ultimate
design of any monitoring system should however be based
upon adequate site characterization and be consistent with
established monitoring objectives.
If the sampling program objectives include accurate
assessment of the magnitude and extent of subsurface
contamination over time and/or accurate assessment of
subsequent remedial performance, then some information
regarding plume delineation in three-dimensional space is
necessary prior to monitoring well network design and
installation. This can be accomplished with a variety of
different tools and equipment ranging from hand -operated
augers to screening tools mentioned above and large drilling
rigs. Detailed information on ground -water flow velocity,
direction, and horizontal and vertical variability are essential
baseline data requirements. Detailed soil and geologic data
are required prior to and during the installation of sampling
points. This includes historical as well as detailed soil and
geologic logs which accumulate during the site investigation.
The use of borehole geophysical techniques is also recom-
mended. With this information (together with other site
characterization data) and a clear understanding of sampling

objectives, then appropriate location, screen length, well
diameter, slot size, etc. for the monitoring well network can be
decided. This is especially critical for new in situ remedial
approaches or natural attenuation assessments at hazardous
waste sites.
In general, the overall goal of any ground -water
sampling program is to collect water samples with no alter-
ation in water chemistry; analytical data thus obtained may be
used for a variety of specific monitoring programs depending
on the regulatory requirements. The sampling methodology
described in this paper assumes that the monitoring goal is to
sample monitoring wells for the presence of contaminants and
it is applicable whether mobile colloids are a concern or not
and whether the analytes of concern are metals (and metal-
loids) or organic compounds.
II. Monitoring Objectives and Design
Considerations
The following issues are important to consider prior
to the design and implementation of any ground -water
monitoring program, including those which anticipate using
low -flow purging and sampling procedures.
A. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
Monitoring objectives include four main types:
detection, assessment, corrective -action evaluation and
resource evaluation, along with hybrid variations such as site -
assessments for property transfers and water availability
investigations. Monitoring objectives may change as contami-
nation or water quality problems are discovered. However,
there are a number of common components of monitoring
programs which should be recognized as important regard-
less of initial objectives. These components include:
1) Development of a conceptual model that incorporates
elements of the regional geology to the local geologic
framework. The conceptual model development also
includes initial site characterization efforts to identify
hydrostratigraphic units and likely flow -paths using a
minimum number of borings and well completions;
2) Cost-effective and well documented collection of high
quality data utilizing simple, accurate, and reproduc-
ible techniques; and
3) Refinement of the conceptual model based on
supplementary data collection and analysis.
These fundamental components serve many types of monitor-
ing programs and provide a basis for future efforts that evolve
in complexity and level of spatial detail as purposes and
objectives expand. High quality, reproducible data collection
is a common goal regardless of program objectives.
High quality data collection implies data of sufficient
accuracy, precision, and completeness (i.e., ratio of valid
analytical results to the minimum sample number called for by
the program design) to meet the program objectives. Accu-
racy depends on the correct choice of monitoring tools and
procedures to minimize sample and subsurface disturbance
from collection to analysis. Precision depends on the
repeatability of sampling and analytical protocols. It can be
assured or improved by replication of sample analyses
including blanks, field/lab standards and reference standards.
B. Sample Representativeness
An important goal of any monitoring program is
collection of data that is truly representative of conditions at
the site. The term representativeness applies to chemical and
hydrogeologic data collected via wells, borings, piezometers,
geophysical and soil gas measurements, lysimeters, and
temporary sampling points. It involves a recognition of the
statistical variability of individual subsurface physical proper-
ties, and contaminant or major ion concentration levels, while
explaining extreme values. Subsurface temporal and spatial
variability are facts. Good professional practice seeks to
maximize representativeness by using proven accurate and
reproducible techniques to define limits on the distribution of
measurements collected at a site. However, measures of
representativeness are dynamic and are controlled by
evolving site characterization and monitoring objectives. An
evolutionary site characterization model, as shown in Fig-
ure 1, provides a systematic approach to the goal of consis-
tent data collection.
r — --1 Dal my Pmgrarn Ohlarl ivx
Erlshliph Dala ❑uallry
1� --1W aVFI'D 5A' plirl!l Urld
Evolullonory $Ile Aimlyllca l PI VIouol%
Crluras lei iral Karl 1
Apply P rratoca Is
1 4
. RoilnoPratocola 4.. . _y MalooSilo Decmions
Figure 1. Evolutionary Site Characterization Model
The model emphasizes a recognition of the causes of the
variability (e.g., use of inappropriate technology such as using
bailers to purge wells; imprecise or operator -dependent
methods) and the need to control avoidable errors.

1) Questions of Scale
A sampling plan designed to collect representative
samples must take into account the potential scale of
changes in site conditions through space and time as well as
the chemical associations and behavior of the parameters
that are targeted for investigation. In subsurface systems,
physical (i.e., aquifer) and chemical properties over time or
space are not statistically independent. In fact, samples
taken in close proximity (i.e., within distances of a few meters)
or within short time periods (i.e., more frequently than
monthly) are highly auto -correlated. This means that designs
employing high -sampling frequency (e.g., monthly) or dense
spatial monitoring designs run the risk of redundant data
collection and misleading inferences regarding trends in
values that aren't statistically valid. In practice, contaminant
detection and assessment monitoring programs rarely suffer
these over -sampling concerns. In corrective -action evaluation
programs, it is also possible that too little data may be
collected over space or time. In these cases, false interpreta-
tion of the spatial extent of contamination or underestimation
of temporal concentration variability may result.
2) Target Parameters
Parameter selection in monitoring program design is
most often dictated by the regulatory status of the site.
However, background water quality constituents, purging
indicator parameters, and contaminants, all represent targets
for data collection programs. The tools and procedures used
in these programs should be equally rigorous and applicable
to all categories of data, since all may be needed to deter-
mine or support regulatory action.
C. Sampling Point Design and Construction
Detailed site characterization is central to all
decision -making purposes and the basis for this characteriza-
tion resides in identification of the geologic framework and
major hydro-stratigraphic units. Fundamental data for sample
point location include: subsurface lithology, head -differences
and background geochemical conditions. Each sampling point
has a proper use or uses which should be documented at a
level which is appropriate for the program's data quality
objectives. Individual sampling points may not always be
able to fulfill multiple monitoring objectives (e.g., detection,
assessment, corrective action).
1) Compatibility with Monitoring Program and Data
Quality Objectives
Specifics of sampling point location and design will
be dictated by the complexity of subsurface lithology and
variability in contaminant and/or geochemical conditions. It
should be noted that, regardless of the ground -water sam-
pling approach, few sampling points (e.g., wells, drive -points,
screened augers) have zones of influence in excess of a few
feet. Therefore, the spatial frequency of sampling points
should be carefully selected and designed.
2) Flexibility of Sampling Point Design
In most cases well -point diameters in excess of 1 7/8
inches will permit the use of most types of submersible
pumping devices for low -flow (minimal drawdown) sampling.
It is suggested that short (e.g., less than 1.6 m) screens be
incorporated into the monitoring design where possible so
that comparable results from one device to another might be
expected. Short, of course, is relative to the degree of vertical
water quality variability expected at a site.
3) Equilibration of Sampling Point
Time should be allowed for equilibration of the well
or sampling point with the formation after installation. Place-
ment of well or sampling points in the subsurface produces
some disturbance of ambient conditions. Drilling techniques
(e.g., auger, rotary, etc.) are generally considered to cause
more disturbance than direct -push technologies. In either
case, there may be a period (i.e., days to months) during
which water quality near the point may be distinctly different
from that in the formation. Proper development of the sam-
pling point and adjacent formation to remove fines created
during emplacement will shorten this water quality recovery
period.
III. Definition of Low -Flow Purging and Sampling
It is generally accepted that water in the well casing
is non -representative of the formation water and needs to be
purged prior to collection of ground -water samples. However,
the water in the screened interval may indeed be representa-
tive of the formation, depending upon well construction and
site hydrogeology. Wells are purged to some extent for the
following reasons: the presence of the air interface at the top
of the water column resulting in an oxygen concentration
gradient with depth, loss of volatiles up the water column,
leaching from or sorption to the casing or filter pack, chemical
changes due to clay seals or backfill, and surface infiltration.
Low -flow purging, whether using portable or dedi-
cated systems, should be done using pump -intake located in
the middle or slightly above the middle of the screened
interval. Placement of the pump too close to the bottom of the
well will cause increased entrainment of solids which have
collected in the well over time. These particles are present as
a result of well development, prior purging and sampling
events, and natural colloidal transport and deposition.
Therefore, placement of the pump in the middle or toward the
top of the screened interval is suggested. Placement of the
pump at the top of the water column for sampling is only
recommended in unconfined aquifers, screened across the
water table, where this is the desired sampling point. Low-

flow purging has the advantage of minimizing mixing between
the overlying stagnant casing water and water within the
screened interval.
A. Low -Flow Purging and Sampling
Low -flow refers to the velocity with which water
enters the pump intake and that is imparted to the formation
pore water in the immediate vicinity of the well screen. It
does not necessarily refer to the flow rate of water discharged
at the surface which can be affected by flow regulators or
restrictions. Water level drawdown provides the best indica-
tion of the stress imparted by a given flow -rate for a given
hydrological situation. The objective is to pump in a manner
that minimizes stress (drawdown) to the system to the extent
practical taking into account established site sampling
objectives. Typically, flow rates on the order of 0.1 - 0.5 L/min
are used, however this is dependent on site -specific
hydrogeology. Some extremely coarse -textured formations
have been successfully sampled in this manner at flow rates
to 1 L/min. The effectiveness of using low -flow purging is
intimately linked with proper screen location, screen length,
and well construction and development techniques. The
reestablishment of natural flow paths in both the vertical and
horizontal directions is important for correct interpretation of
the data. For high resolution sampling needs, screens less
than 1 m should be used. Most of the need for purging has
been found to be due to passing the sampling device through
the overlying casing water which causes mixing of these
stagnant waters and the dynamic waters within the screened
interval. Additionally, there is disturbance to suspended
sediment collected in the bottom of the casing and the
displacement of water out into the formation immediately
adjacent to the well screen. These disturbances and impacts
can be avoided using dedicated sampling equipment, which
precludes the need to insert the sampling device prior to
purging and sampling.
Isolation of the screened interval water from the
overlying stagnant casing water may be accomplished using
low -flow minimal drawdown techniques. If the pump intake is
located within the screened interval, most of the water
pumped will be drawn in directly from the formation with little
mixing of casing water or disturbance to the sampling zone.
However, if the wells are not constructed and developed
properly, zones other than those intended may be sampled.
At some sites where geologic heterogeneities are sufficiently
different within the screened interval, higher conductivity
zones may be preferentially sampled. This is another reason
to use shorter screened intervals, especially where high
spatial resolution is a sampling objective.
B. Water Quality Indicator Parameters
It is recommended that water quality indicator
parameters be used to determine purging needs prior to
sample collection in each well. Stabilization of parameters
such as pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxida-
tion-reduction potential, temperature and turbidity should be
used to determine when formation water is accessed during
purging. In general, the order of stabilization is pH, tempera-
ture, and specific conductance, followed by oxidation-
reduction potential, dissolved oxygen and turbidity. Tempera-
ture and pH, while commonly used as purging indicators, are
actually quite insensitive in distinguishing between formation
water and stagnant casing water; nevertheless, these are
important parameters for data interpretation purposes and
should also be measured. Performance criteria for determi-
nation of stabilization should be based on water -level draw -
down, pumping rate and equipment specifications for measur-
ing indicator parameters. Instruments are available which
utilize in -line flow cells to continuously measure the above
parameters.
It is important to establish specific well stabilization
criteria and then consistently follow the same methods
thereafter, particularly with respect to drawdown, flow rate
and sampling device. Generally, the time or purge volume
required for parameter stabilization is independent of well
depth or well volumes. Dependent variables are well diam-
eter, sampling device, hydrogeochemistry, pump flow rate,
and whether the devices are used in a portable or dedicated
manner. If the sampling device is already in place (i.e.,
dedicated sampling systems), then the time and purge
volume needed for stabilization is much shorter. Other
advantages of dedicated equipment include less purge water
for waste disposal, much less decontamination of equipment,
less time spent in preparation of sampling as well as time in
the field, and more consistency in the sampling approach
which probably will translate into less variability in sampling
results. The use of dedicated equipment is strongly recom-
mended at wells which will undergo routine sampling over
time.
If parameter stabilization criteria are too stringent,
then minor oscillations in indicator parameters may cause
purging operations to become unnecessarily protracted. It
should also be noted that turbidity is a very conservative
parameter in terms of stabilization. Turbidity is always the
last parameter to stabilize. Excessive purge times are
invariably related to the establishment of too stringent turbidity
stabilization criteria. It should be noted that natural turbidity
levels in ground water may exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU).
C. Advantages and Disadvantages of Low -Flow
(Minimum Drawdown) Purging
In general, the advantages of low -flow purging
include:
• samples which are representative of the mobile load of
contaminants present (dissolved and colloid-assock
ated);
• minimal disturbance of the sampling point thereby
minimizing sampling artifacts;
• less operator variability, greater operator control;

• reduced stress on the formation (minimal drawdown);
• less mixing of stagnant casing water with formation
water;
• reduced need for filtration and, therefore, less time
required for sampling;
• smaller purging volume which decreases waste
disposal costs and sampling time;
• better sample consistency; reduced artificial sample
variability.
Some disadvantages of low -flow purging are:
• higher initial capital costs,
• greater set-up time in the field,
• need to transport additional equipment to and from the
site,
• increased training needs,
• resistance to change on the part of sampling practitio-
ners,
concern that new data will indicate a change in
conditions and trigger an action.
IV. Low -Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Sampling
Protocols
The following ground -water sampling procedure has
evolved over many years of experience in ground -water
sampling for organic and inorganic compound determinations
and as such summarizes the authors' (and others) experi-
ences to date (Barcelona et al., 1984, 1994; Barcelona and
Helfrich, 1986; Puls and Barcelona, 1989; Puls et. al. 1990,
1992; Puls and Powell, 1992; Puls and Paul, 1995). High -
quality chemical data collection is essential in ground -water
monitoring and site characterization. The primary limitations
to the collection of representative ground -water samples
include: mixing of the stagnant casing and fresh screen
waters during insertion of the sampling device or ground-
water level measurement device; disturbance and
resuspension of settled solids at the bottom of the well when
using high pumping rates or raising and lowering a pump or
bailer; introduction of atmospheric gases or degassing from
the water during sample handling and transfer, or inappropri-
ate use of vacuum sampling device, etc.
A. Sampling Recommendations
Water samples should not be taken immediately
following well development. Sufficient time should be allowed
for the ground -water flow regime in the vicinity of the monitor-
ing well to stabilize and to approach chemical equilibrium with
the well construction materials. This lag time will depend on
site conditions and methods of installation but often exceeds
one week.
Well purging is nearly always necessary to obtain
samples of water flowing through the geologic formations in
the screened interval. Rather than using a general but
arbitrary guideline of purging three casing volumes prior to
sampling, it is recommended that an in -line water quality
measurement device (e.g., flow -through cell) be used to
establish the stabilization time for several parameters (e.g. ,
pH, specific conductance, redox, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)
on a well -specific basis. Data on pumping rate, drawdown,
and volume required for parameter stabilization can be used
as a guide for conducting subsequent sampling activities.
The following are recommendations to be considered
before, during and after sampling:
• use low -flow rates (<0.5 L/min), during both purging
and sampling to maintain minimal drawdown in the
well;
• maximize tubing wall thickness, minimize tubing
length;
• place the sampling device intake at the desired
sampling point;
• minimize disturbances of the stagnant water column
above the screened interval during water level
measurement and sampling device insertion;
• make proper adjustments to stabilize the flow rate as
soon as possible;
• monitor water quality indicators during purging;
• collect unfiltered samples to estimate contaminant
loading and transport potential in the subsurface
system.
B. Equipment Calibration
Prior to sampling, all sampling device and monitoring
equipment should be calibrated according to manufacturer's
recommendations and the site Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) and Field Sampling Plan (FSP). Calibration of pH
should be performed with at least two buffers which bracket
the expected range. Dissolved oxygen calibration must be
corrected for local barometric pressure readings and eleva-
tion.
C. Water Level Measurement and Monitoring
It is recommended that a device be used which will
least disturb the water surface in the casing. Well depth
should be obtained from the well logs. Measuring to the
bottom of the well casing will only cause resuspension of
settled solids from the formation and require longer purging
times for turbidity equilibration. Measure well depth after
sampling is completed. The water level measurement should
be taken from a permanent reference point which is surveyed
relative to ground elevation.
D. Pump Type
The use of low -flow (e.g., 0.1-0.5 L/min) pumps is
suggested for purging and sampling all types of analytes. All
pumps have some limitation and these should be investigated
with respect to application at a particular site. Bailers are
inappropriate devices for low -flow sampling.

1) General Considerations
There are no unusual requirements for ground -water
sampling devices when using low -flow, minimal drawdown
techniques. The major concern is that the device give
consistent results and minimal disturbance of the sample
across a range of low flow rates (i.e., < 0.5 L/min). Clearly,
pumping rates that cause minimal to no drawdown in one well
could easily cause significant drawdown in another well
finished in a less transmissive formation. In this sense, the
pump should not cause undue pressure or temperature
changes or physical disturbance on the water sample over a
reasonable sampling range. Consistency in operation is
critical to meet accuracy and precision goals.
2) Advantages and Disadvantages of Sampling Devices
A variety of sampling devices are available for low -
flow (minimal drawdown) purging and sampling and include
peristaltic pumps, bladder pumps, electrical submersible
pumps, and gas -driven pumps. Devices which lend them-
selves to both dedication and consistent operation at defin-
able low -flow rates are preferred. It is desirable that the pump
be easily adjustable and operate reliably at these lower flow
rates. The peristaltic pump is limited to shallow applications
and can cause degassing resulting in alteration of pH,
alkalinity, and some volatiles loss. Gas -driven pumps should
be of a type that does not allow the gas to be in direct contact
with the sampled fluid.
Clearly, bailers and other grab type samplers are ill -
suited for low -flow sampling since they will cause repeated
disturbance and mixing of stagnant water in the casing and
the dynamic water in the screened interval. Similarly, the use
of inertial lift foot -valve type samplers may cause too much
disturbance at the point of sampling. Use of these devices
also tends to introduce uncontrolled and unacceptable
operator variability.
Summaries of advantages and disadvantages of
various sampling devices are listed in Herzog et al. (1991),
U. S. EPA (1992), Parker (1994) and Thurnblad (1994).
E. Pump Installation
Dedicated sampling devices (left in the well) capable
of pumping and sampling are preferred over any other type of
device. Any portable sampling device should be slowly and
carefully lowered to the middle of the screened interval or
slightly above the middle (e.g., 1-1.5 m below the top of a 3 m
screen). This is to minimize excessive mixing of the stagnant
water in the casing above the screen with the screened
interval zone water, and to minimize resuspension of solids
which will have collected at the bottom of the well. These two
disturbance effects have been shown to directly affect the
time required for purging. There also appears to be a direct
correlation between size of portable sampling devices relative
to the well bore and resulting purge volumes and times. The
key is to minimize disturbance of water and solids in the well
casing.
F. Filtration
Decisions to filter samples should be dictated by
sampling objectives rather than as a fix for poor sampling
practices, and field -filtering of certain constituents should not
be the default. Consideration should be given as to what the
application of field -filtration is trying to accomplish. For
assessment of truly dissolved (as opposed to operationally
dissolved [i.e., samples filtered with 0.45 pm filters]) concen-
trations of major ions and trace metals, 0.1 pm filters are
recommended although 0.45 pm filters are normally used for
most regulatory programs. Alkalinity samples must also be
filtered if significant particulate calcium carbonate is sus-
pected, since this material is likely to impact alkalinity titration
results (although filtration itself may alter the CO2 composition
of the sample and, therefore, affect the results).
Although filtration may be appropriate, filtration of a
sample may cause a number of unintended changes to occur
(e.g. oxidation, aeration) possibly leading to filtration -induced
artifacts during sample analysis and uncertainty in the results.
Some of these unintended changes may be unavoidable but
the factors leading to them must be recognized. Deleterious
effects can be minimized by consistent application of certain
filtration guidelines. Guidelines should address selection of
filter type, media, pore size, etc. in order to identify and
minimize potential sources of uncertainty when filtering
samples.
In -line filtration is recommended because it provides
better consistency through less sample handling, and
minimizes sample exposure to the atmosphere. In -line filters
are available in both disposable (barrel filters) and non -
disposable (in -line filter holder, flat membrane filters) formats
and various filter pore sizes (0.1-5.0 pm). Disposable filter
cartridges have the advantage of greater sediment handling
capacity when compared to traditional membrane filters.
Filters must be pre -rinsed following manufacturer's recom-
mendations. If there are no recommendations for rinsing,
pass through a minimum of 1 L of ground water following
purging and prior to sampling. Once filtration has begun, a
filter cake may develop as particles larger than the pore size
accumulate on the filter membrane. The result is that the
effective pore diameter of the membrane is reduced and
particles smaller than the stated pore size are excluded from
the filtrate. Possible corrective measures include prefiltering
(with larger pore size filters), minimizing particle loads to
begin with, and reducing sample volume.
G. Monitoring of Water Level and Water Quality
Indicator Parameters
Check water level periodically to monitor drawdown
in the well as a guide to flow rate adjustment. The goal is
minimal drawdown (<0.1 m) during purging. This goal may be
difficult to achieve under some circumstances due to geologic
heterogeneities within the screened interval, and may require
adjustment based on site -specific conditions and personal
experience. In -line water quality indicator parameters should
be continuously monitored during purging. The water quality

indicator parameters monitored can include pH, redox
potential, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and turbidity.
The last three parameters are often most sensitive. Pumping
rate, drawdown, and the time or volume required to obtain
stabilization of parameter readings can be used as a future
guide to purge the well. Measurements should be taken
every three to five minutes if the above suggested rates are
used. Stabilization is achieved after all parameters have
stabilized for three successive readings. In lieu of measuring
all five parameters, a minimum subset would include pH,
conductivity, and turbidity or DO. Three successive readings
should be within ± 0.1 for pH, ± 3% for conductivity, ± 10 my
for redox potential, and ± 10% for turbidity and DO. Stabilized
purge indicator parameter trends are generally obvious and
follow either an exponential or asymptotic change to stable
values during purging. Dissolved oxygen and turbidity usually
require the longest time for stabilization. The above stabiliza-
tion guidelines are provided for rough estimates based on
experience.
H. Sampling, Sample Containers, Preservation and
Decontamination
Upon parameter stabilization, sampling can be
initiated. If an in -line device is used to monitor water quality
parameters, it should be disconnected or bypassed during
sample collection. Sampling flow rate may remain at estab-
lished purge rate or may be adjusted slightly to minimize
aeration, bubble formation, turbulent filling of sample bottles,
or loss of volatiles due to extended residence time in tubing.
Typically, flow rates less than 0.5 L/min are appropriate. The
same device should be used for sampling as was used for
purging. Sampling should occur in a progression from least to
most contaminated well, if this is known. Generally, volatile
(e.g., solvents and fuel constituents) and gas sensitive (e.g.,
Fe", CH4, H2S/HS-, alkalinity) parameters should be sampled
first. The sequence in which samples for most inorganic
parameters are collected is immaterial unless filtered (dis-
solved) samples are desired. Filtering should be done last
and in -line filters should be used as discussed above. During
both well purging and sampling, proper protective clothing
and equipment must be used based upon the type and level
of contaminants present.
The appropriate sample container will be prepared in
advance of actual sample collection for the analytes of
interest and include sample preservative where necessary.
Water samples should be collected directly into this container
from the pump tubing.
Immediately after a sample bottle has been filled, it
must be preserved as specified in the site (QAPP). Sample
preservation requirements are based on the analyses being
performed (use site QAPP, FSP, RCRA guidance document
[U. S. EPA, 1992] or EPA SW-846 [U. S. EPA, 1982] ). It
may be advisable to add preservatives to sample bottles in a
controlled setting prior to entering the field in order to reduce
the chances of improperly preserving sample bottles or
introducing field contaminants into a sample bottle while
adding the preservatives.
The preservatives should be transferred from the
chemical bottle to the sample container using a disposable
polyethylene pipet and the disposable pipet should be used
only once and then discarded.
After a sample container has been filled with ground
water, a Teflon TM (or tin) -lined cap is screwed on tightly to
prevent the container from leaking. A sample label is filled
out as specified in the FSP. The samples should be stored
inverted at 4°C.
Specific decontamination protocols for sampling
devices are dependent to some extent on the type of device
used and the type of contaminants encountered. Refer to the
site QAPP and FSP for specific requirements.
I. Blanks
The following blanks should be collected:
(1) field blank: one field blank should be collected from
each source water (distilled/deionized water) used for
sampling equipment decontamination or for assisting
well development procedures.
(2) equipment blank: one equipment blank should be
taken prior to the commencement of field work, from
each set of sampling equipment to be used for that
day. Refer to site QAPP or FSP for specific require-
ments.
(3) trip blank: a trip blank is required to accompany each
volatile sample shipment. These blanks are prepared
in the laboratory by filling a 40-mL volatile organic
analysis (VOA) bottle with distilled/deionized water.
V. Low -Permeability Formations and Fractured
Rock
The overall sampling program goals or sampling
objectives will drive how the sampling points are located,
installed, and choice of sampling device. Likewise, site -
specific hydrogeologic factors will affect these decisions.
Sites with very low permeability formations or fractures
causing discrete flow channels may require a unique monitor-
ing approach. Unlike water supply wells, wells installed for
ground -water quality assessment and restoration programs
are often installed in low water -yielding settings (e.g., clays,
silts). Alternative types of sampling points and sampling
methods are often needed in these types of environments,
because low -permeability settings may require extremely low -
flow purging (<0.1 L/min) and may be technology -limited.
Where devices are not readily available to pump at such low
flow rates, the primary consideration is to avoid dewatering of

the well screen. This may require repeated recovery of the
water during purging while leaving the pump in place within
the well screen.
Use of low -flow techniques may be impractical in
these settings, depending upon the water recharge rates.
The sampler and the end -user of data collected from such
wells need to understand the limitations of the data collected;
i.e., a strong potential for underestimation of actual contami-
nant concentrations for volatile organics, potential false
negatives for filtered metals and potential false positives for
unfiltered metals. It is suggested that comparisons be made
between samples recovered using low -flow purging tech-
niques and samples recovered using passive sampling
techniques (i.e., two sets of samples). Passive sample
collection would essentially entail acquisition of the sample
with no or very little purging using a dedicated sampling
system installed within the screened interval or a passive
sample collection device.
A. Low -Permeability Formations (<O.1 L/min
recharge)
1. Low -Flow Purging and Sampling with Pumps
"portable or non -dedicated mode" - Lower the pump
(one capable of pumping at <0.1 L/min) to mid -screen
or slightly above and set in place for minimum of 48
hours (to lessen purge volume requirements). After 48
hours, use procedures listed in Part IV above regard-
ing monitoring water quality parameters for stabiliza-
tion, etc., but do not dewater the screen. If excessive
drawdown and slow recovery is a problem, then
alternate approaches such as those listed below may
be better.
b. "dedicated mode" - Set the pump as above at least a
week prior to sampling; that is, operate in a dedicated
pump mode. With this approach significant reductions
in purge volume should be realized. Water quality
parameters should stabilize quite rapidly due to less
disturbance of the sampling zone.
2. Passive Sample Collection
Passive sampling collection requires insertion of the
device into the screened interval for a sufficient time period to
allow flow and sample equilibration before extraction for
analysis. Conceptually, the extraction of water from low
yielding formations seems more akin to the collection of water
from the unsaturated zone and passive sampling techniques
may be more appropriate in terms of obtaining "representa-
tive" samples. Satisfying usual sample volume requirements
is typically a problem with this approach and some latitude will
be needed on the part of regulatory entities to achieve
sampling objectives.
B. Fractured Rock
In fractured rock formations, a low -flow to zero
purging approach using pumps in conjunction with packers to
isolate the sampling zone in the borehole is suggested.
Passive multi -layer sampling devices may also provide the
most "representative" samples. It is imperative in these
settings to identify flow paths or water -producing fractures
prior to sampling using tools such as borehole flowmeters
and/or other geophysical tools.
After identification of water -bearing fractures, install
packer(s) and pump assembly for sample collection using
low -flow sampling in "dedicated mode" or use a passive
sampling device which can isolate the identified water -bearing
fractures.
VI. Documentation
The usual practices for documenting the sampling
event should be used for low -flow purging and sampling
techniques. This should include, at a minimum: information
on the conduct of purging operations (flow -rate, drawdown,
water -quality parameter values, volumes extracted and times
for measurements), field instrument calibration data, water
sampling forms and chain of custody forms. See Figures 2
and 3 and "Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A Workshop
Summary" (U. S. EPA, 1995) for example forms and other
documentation suggestions and information. This information
coupled with laboratory analytical data and validation data are
needed to judge the "useability" of the sampling data.
VII. Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office
of Research and Development funded and managed the
research described herein as part of its in-house research
program and under Contract No. 68-C4-0031 to Dynamac
Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review and has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
VIII. References
Backhus, D,A., J.N. Ryan, D.M. Groher, J.K. McFarlane, and
P.M. Gschwend. 1993. Sampling Colloids and Colloid -
Associated Contaminants in Ground Water. Ground Water,
31(3):466-479.
Barcelona, M.J., J.A. Helfrich, E.E. Garske, and J.P. Gibb.
1984. A laboratory evaluation of groundwater sampling
mechanisms. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 4(2):32-41.

Barcelona, M.J. and J.A. Helfrich. 1986. Well construction and
purging effects on ground -water samples. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 20(11):1179-1184.
Barcelona, M.J., H.A. Wehrmann, and M.D. Varljen. 1994.
Reproducible well purging procedures and VOC stabilization
criteria for ground -water sampling. Ground Water, 32(1):12-
22.
Buddemeier, R.W. and J.R. Hunt. 1988. Transport of Colloidal
Contaminants in Ground Water: Radionuclide Migration at the
Nevada Test Site. Applied Geochemistry, 3: 535-548.
Danielsson, L.G. 1982. On the Use of Filters for Distinguish-
ing Between Dissolved and Particulate Fractions in Natural
Waters. Water Research, 16:179.
Enfield, C.G. and G. Bengtsson. 1988. Macromolecular
Transport of Hydrophobic Contaminants in Aqueous Environ-
ments. Ground Water, 26(1): 64-70.
Gschwend, P.M. and M.D. Reynolds. 1987. Monodisperse
Ferrous Phosphate Colloids in an Anoxic Groundwater
Plume, J. of Contaminant Hydrol., 1: 309-327.
Herzog, B., J. Pennino, and G. Nielsen. 1991. Ground -Water
Sampling. In Practical Handbook of Ground -Water Moni-
toring (D.M. Nielsen, ed.). Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 449-
499.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The effect
of membrane filtration artifacts on dissolved trace element
concentrations. Water Res., 26(6):753-763.
Laxen, D.P.H. and I.M. Chandler. 1982. Comparison of
Filtration Techniques for Size Distribution in Freshwaters
Analytical Chemistry, 54(8):1350.
McCarthy, J.F. and J.M. Zachara. 1989. Subsurface Transport
of Contaminants, Environ. Sci. Technol., 5(23):496-502.
McCarthy, J.F. and C. Degueldre. 1993. Sampling and
Characterization of Colloids and Ground Water for Studying
Their Role in Contaminant Transport. In: Environmental
Particles (J. Buffle and H.P. van Leeuwen, eds.), Lewis Publ.,
Chelsea, MI, pp. 247-315.
Parker, L.V. 1994. The Effects of Ground Water Sampling
Devices on Water Quality: A Literature Review. Ground
Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(2):130-141.
Penrose, W.R., W.L. Polzer, E.H. Essington, D.M. Nelson,
and K.A. Orlandini. 1990. Mobility of Plutonium and Ameri-
cium through a Shallow Aquifer in a Semiarid Region,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 24:228-234.
Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Filtration of Ground
Water Samples for Metals Analyses. Hazardous Waste and
Hazardous Materials, 6(4):385-393.
Puls, R.W., J.H. Eychaner, and R.M. Powell. 1990. Colloidal -
Facilitated Transport of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground
Water: Part I. Sampling Considerations. EPA/600/M-90/023,
NTIS PB 91-168419.
Puls, R.W. 1990. Colloidal Considerations in Groundwater
Sampling and Contaminant Transport Predictions. Nuclear
Safety, 31(1):58-65.
Puls, R.W. and R.M. Powell. 1992. Acquisition of Representa-
tive Ground Water Quality Samples for Metals. Ground Water
Monitoring Review, 12(3):167-176.
Puls, R.W., D.A. Clark, B.Bledsoe, R.M. Powell, and C.J.
Paul. 1992. Metals in Ground Water: Sampling Artifacts and
Reproducibility. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials,
9(2): 149-162.
Puls, R.W. and C.J. Paul. 1995. Low -Flow Purging and
Sampling of Ground -Water Monitoring Wells with Dedicated
Systems. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation,
15(1):116-123.
Ryan, J.N. and P.M. Gschwend. 1990. Colloid Mobilization in
Two Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifers. Water Resour. Res., 26:
307-322.
Thurnblad, T. 1994. Ground Water Sampling Guidance:
Development of Sampling Plans, Sampling Protocols, and
Sampling Reports. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
U. S. EPA. 1992. RCRA Ground -Water Monitoring: Draft
Technical Guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC
EPA/530/R-93/001, NTIS PB 93-139350.
U. S. EPA. 1995. Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A
Workshop Summary, Dallas, TX, November 30 - December 2,
1993. EPA/600/R-94/205, NTIS PB 95-193249, 126 pp.
U. S. EPA. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
10

Figure 2. Ground Water Sampling Log
Project
Well Depth
Sampling Device
Measuring Point
Sampling Personnel
Type of Samples Collected
Site
Screen Length
Tubing type
Well No.
Otherinfor
Well Diameter
Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Vol,y, = rrrzh, Volsphe e = 4/3rr r3
Date
Casing Type
Water Level
Is

Figure 3. Ground Water Sampling Log (with automatic data logging for most water quality
parameters)
Project
Well Depth
Sampling Device
Measuring Point
Sampling Personnel
Type of Samples Collected
Site
Screen Length
Tubing type
Well No.
Otherinfor
Well Diameter
Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Vol,Y, = rrrzh, Volsphe e = 4/3rr r3
Date
Casing Type
Water Level
12