4407_ROSCANS_1996

State of North Carolina IT
Department of Environment, WA
Health and Natural Resources 4 • 0
Division of Waste Management a
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Adam
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary N R William L. Meyer, Director
December 31, 1996
Mr. Norman E. Divers, III
Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (NC), Inc.
106 Cherryville Road
Shelby, North Carolina 28150
RE: Proposal To Relocate The Upgradient Monitoring Wells At The
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill (Permit # 44-07)
Dear Mr. Divers,
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed your request of November 25,
1996, to relocate the upgradient monitoring wells at the White Oak
MSW Landfill. This request is not approved at this time for the
following reasons:
1) The Division of Waste Management has not approved a borrow
area at the proposed location.
The Solid Waste Section does not permit borrow activities in
the 300 foot buffer zone. The question of authorization for
borrow activities was previously raised in the September 29,
1993, letter from Mr. Jim Coffey to Mr. Jack Horton. The DSA
(resubmittal) response of October 6, 1993, references the
"erosion control plan for the soil stockpile areas to the
south of the facility", however this document does not clearly
indicate borrow areas. It was the understanding of the Solid
Waste Section that some soil stockpiles would be located in
the area within the facility boundaries. The cover letter for
the Permit to Operate, dated October 8, 1993, in item 4 of
page 2, specifically states "Excavation of soils below
previous existing grade for use as borrow soil for daily cover
requires prior approval from the Division, unless it is
authorized in the Approved Plan". The Solid Waste Section
has no record of such authorization in the Approved Plan.
According to our records, no approval of borrow activities
within the facility boundaries has been approved for the area
indicated in your letter.
P.O. Box 27687, �y� FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 OPT f F.-17 L7"MM 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Norman Divers
Page 2
2) The Solid Waste Section requires all monitoring wells,
including the upgradient wells, to be located within the
facility boundaries.
The Solid Waste Section only has jurisdiction over the solid
waste management permitted facility. Therefore, it has always
been the policy of the Section to require all wells, including
upgradient wells, to be located within the facility boundary.
One of the reasons for the 300 foot buffer requirement is to
provide room for the (upgradient) monitoring wells. The rules
discuss locating background wells in locations other than
upgradient (if necessary), however the rules do not discuss
locating background wells outside the facility boundaries.
The Solid Waste Section has never received an accurate survey of
the facility since construction of the landfill. The "as built"
survey drawing only extends to the grading limits. It would be
helpful to have a facility survey that also extends off -site to the
south, showing the borrow area. The survey should clearly show the
property boundaries, facility boundaries, fence, borrow area,
disposal cell limits, grading limits, monitoring well locations,
and other pertinent features. Such a survey needs to be prepared
in order to determine the extent of the existing and proposed
borrow activities.
For the reasons stated above, the Solid Waste Section is not
approving the relocation of the upgradient monitoring wells at this
time. Please submit the survey requested above as soon as
possible, so the Section can further evaluate current and proposed
borrow activities. If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please call me at [phone], extension 258.
Sincerely,
Bobby Lutfy
Hydrogeologist
Solid Waste Section
CC: Jim Coffey, Solid Waste Section
Jim Patterson, SWS - Asheville
Jack Horton, Haywood County Manager

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
December 31, 1996
Mr. Jack Horton
Haywood County Manager
Courthouse Annex
420 North Main Street
Waynesville, N.C. 28786
MAI
DEHNR
RE: Review of Revisions To The Transition Plan For The Haywood
County White Oak MSW Landfill (Permit # 44-07)
Dear Mr. Horton,
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the recent revisions to the
Transition Plan submitted in late November, that were attached
behind the letter requesting to relocate the upgradient monitoring
wells. There is still one revision and some additional information
that are needed.
1) Regarding the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, the requested
revision to the text of Page 4 of the 4-06-94 letter was not
made. Although the text of Page 5 was revised, the erroneous
statement on Page 4 is still uncorrected. The word
"undisturbed" should be substituted for the word "remolded" at
the bottom of Page 4. If this is done, the text revisions
made to Page 5 will no longer be necessary.
2) The referenced "set of photographs" have still not been
provided to the Solid Waste Section for our copy of the
Transition Plan.
3) The additional monitoring wells and surface water sampling
location need to be established and measured in order resolve
the water table elevations and vertical separation issue.
These monitoring locations need to be established as soon as
possible. The County should not wait for further resolution
regarding the proposed relocation of the upgradient monitoring
wells, but immediately proceed with the installation of
additional monitoring wells GMW-8 and 9 and surface water
sampling location SWM-5.
P,O, Box 27687,
� � FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Nvf CAn Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 - - 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Jack Horton
Haywood Transition Plan
Page 2
The additional informat
the Solid Waste Sectio
Transition Plan or eva
to incorporate the le
approved facility plan.
letter, please call me
ion requested abov
n can complete ou
luate the request
achate pond and
If you have any
at [phone],
Sincerely,
e must be received before
r technical review of the
for a permit modification
stream culvert into the
questions regarding this
extension 258.
t4+
Bobby Lutfy
Hydrogeologist
Solid Waste Section
cc: Ed Mussler, Solid Waste Section
Jim Patterson, SWS - Asheville
Norman Divers, Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (NC)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • a
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor OL
ID E H N F 1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L, Meyer, Director May 24, 1996
Mr. Joe Walker
Haywood County Solid Waste Management
1 Recycle Road
Clyde, North Carolina 28721
Re: Water Quality Monitoring at the Haywood County Landfill (Permit # 44-07)
Dear Mr. Walker,
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the April 29, 1996 monitoring well data from the White
Oak landfill. Data shows that 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was found in the sample from
MW-31). The concentration of 5.9 ppb was greater than the method detection limit of 5.0 ppb.
Technically, this is a violation of the 2L Groundwater Standards.
The landfill must now demonstrate that the data for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is incorrect, or
proceed with assessment monitoring within 90 days of the last sampling episode (Solid Waste
Management Rule .1634). If the decision is to question the validity of the data, please provide
the Solid Waste Section with supporting evidence as soon as possible. This may include, but is
not limited to any of, or possible combination of, the following: resampling of MW-31),
statistical analysis of the data, demonstration of laboratory contamination of the sample, proving
sampling error, or furnishing some other detail that the data is inaccurate.
It should also be noted that ground -water flow rate and direction must be determined and data
statistically analyzed for each monitoring episode (Rule .1632). This information has not been
included with the last three data reports. Please submit to the Solid Waste Section calculations
for ground -water flow rate and direction, and the statistical analyses for each monitoring event.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone],
ext. 257.
Si rely,
Larry R e
Hydrog ological Technician
Solid Waste Section
c: Julian Foscue
Jim Patterson
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
June 2, 1997
Mr. Joe Walker
Haywood County Solid Waste Management
1 Recycle Road
Clyde, N.C. 28721
e��
�EHNR
RE: Water Quality Monitoring Requirement - White Oak Landfill
Dear Mr Walker:
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules (Rule .1632) require a statistical analysis of
monitoring data, and the determination of groundwater flow rate and direction each time the
monitoring wells are sampled at all operating municipal solid waste landfills. The report for the
April 30, 1997 sampling event at the new landfill did not include this information. Please
provide this information to the Solid Waste Section as soon as possible and include it as part of
all future water quality monitoring reports.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone],
ext. 257.
Sinc rely,
�i
Larry se
Hydrogeological Technician
Solid Waste Section
c: Julian Foscue
Jim Patterson
P.O. Box 27687, ��®C FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
October 8, 1996
Mr. Jack Horton
Haywood County Manager
420 N. Main St., Courthouse Annex
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
1DEHNR
RE: Additional Hydrogeologic Review Of The Transition Plan For The
Haywood County MSW Landfill, Permit # 44-07
Dear Mr. Horton,
--__ -_The_Solid Waste Section_ Hydrogeologic Unit has completed a review
of the June 16, 1995, revisions to the Transition Plan for the
Haywood County Landfill that were submitted by DS Atlantic
(including the June 6, 1995, Response from Law Engineering). There
are still some revisions needed. Please address the following
comments and questions:
SUMMARY REPORT
The response appears to be adequate, however the revised
copies of Page 2 were not attached to the letter. Please
provide the revised copies of Page 2.
LOCAL AREA STUDY
i
- Since Permit No. 44-07 is for a lined MSWLF, the Local Area
Study is not required for the Transition Plan. Therefore,
this section should be withdrawn and a reference to the Site
Study and Construction Plan Application documents should be
inserted.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN (WQMP)
- Although Law Engineering's June 6, 1995 Response acknowledges
"that laboratory testing of undisturbed samples to estimate
total porosity is more representative of in situ conditions",
P.O. Box 27687, ��� FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 CAn Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/ 109% post -consumer paper

Mr. Jack Horton
Haywood Co. Transition Plan
Page 2
there has been no change in the text of Page 4 of the 4-06-94
letter included as part of the Transition Plan. Either Law
needs to submit revised pages to the 4-06-94 letter, or
Haywood County needs to annotate, date, and initial the change
in text and submit a cover letter explaining the changes.
Law also acknowledges the incorrect designations for the
additional surface water sampling location on Page 11 of the
4-06-94 letter. The text needs to be changed to correct this
error. Either Law or Haywood County needs to provide the
revisions as outlined in the previous comment.
- In order to resolve the water table elevations and vertical
separation issue in the vicinity of the leachate pond, the
additional monitoring wells GWM-8 and 9 and surface water
sampling location SWM-5 proposed in-Law----Eng-ineez�ing s 4=--06 94--
letter need to be established as soon as possible. These
additions to the monitoring system -have been previously
authorized several times by the Solid Waste Section. Boring
Logs and Well Completion Records should be submitted to the
Section within 30 days of well installation. Then water table
elevations for all monitoring wells should be taken and
additional evaluation of the vertical separation for the
leachate pond should be submitted as soon as possible. These
sampling locations should then be included in all future water
quality monitoring for the facility.
- As previously requested, a set of the photographs needs to be
;provided to the Solid Waste Section for our copy of the
`Transition Plan.
The sampling and analysis reports will receive no further
evaluation as a part of the Transition Plan review. The sampling
reports are reviewed by our Groundwater Compliance Unit.
As discussed in our meeting this past week, the rules require the
completion of the reviews of the Transition plans this week.
Therefore, please provide the corrections and revisions to the
Transition Plan as soon as possible, so the Solid Waste Section can
complete our technical review.

Mr. Jack Horton
Haywood Co. Transition Plan
Page 3
The request for a permit modification to incorporate the leachate
pond and stream culvert into the approved facility plan can not be
evaluated until the additional monitoring wells and water level
elevations are provided.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me
at [phone], extension 258.
Sincerely,
&43— 1_b�
Bobby Lutfy
Hydrogeologist
Solid -Waste Section -
cc: Jim Coffey, Solid Waste Section
Greg Eades, Solid Waste Section
Jim Patterson, SWS - Asheville

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
SOLID WASTE MANAGE ENT FACILITY EVALUATION REPORT
Type of Facility Y\ 'S yy- L r, Permit ir county. it
't
Nam of Facility. 1A41))0">A CA) IAX Y, Location WA
gi
Date of Last Evaluation
I. Permit Conditions Followed Z Yes No N/A
A. Specific Condition(s) Viol
II. Operational Requirements Followed Yes No
15A N.C. Admin. Code 138 Section s IP7
A. Specific Violation(s) by number and Letter.
k0 a,) (_fu.'*z (1'.'Ip"A") L-Od"
�jn -?-I* P i'y0P rtQ a Y( 4 S 1), L't,
III- Other Violations of Rule or Law
IV. Evaluator's Commmts lelc'
a
V. Continuation Page Required? -Yes No Receiving Signature w
Evaluation Date Solid Waste Section
DEHUR 3793 (Part I White: Facility Part 11 Canary: Central Office Part III Pink: Regional Office)
Solid Waste Section (Review 7/94)

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Solid waste Management
Solid waste Section
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EVALUATION REPORT
Type of Faci l i ty M 5u) L,1: Permi t # ' County La Z%%!/0
Name of Facility � icA/ ` �-� h% A L?tz `l t Location SR f � � L� 4� �te�
Date of Last Evaluation Cam`` 1
I. Permit Conditions Followed Yes No N/A
A. Specific Condition(s) Violated
II. Operational Requirements Followed Yes No
15A N.C_ Admin_ Code 138 Section
A. Specific Violation(s) by number and letter.
III. Other Violations of Rule or
[V. Evaluator's Consents
V. Continuation Page Required? Yes No Receiving Signature
Evaluation Date ..?� j Solid waste Section fr_
DEHNR 3793 (Part I White: Facility Part II Canary: 9�4Central' Office
Solid Waste Section (Review 7/) /
rA }�
Part III Pink: Regional Office)

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EVALUATION REPORT
r ,.
Type of Faci l i ty�� ' Perwi t # " "� Canty
Nam of Facility I� �AUG9r(}E)d ""�.' ,'?�t�'•,U�?�«. I -and Location
Date of Last Evaluation r t\
I_ Permit Conditions Followed Yes No N/A
A. Specific Condition(s) Violated
II. Operational Requirements Followed Yes No
15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B section' r
A. Specific Violation(s) by number and letter.
III. Other Violations of Rule or Law
IV. Evaluator's Comments
V. Continuation Page Required? Yes No Receiving Signature i.t� f
t! i
Evaluation Date s� t Solid Waste SectionM,��
DEHNR 3793 (Part I White: Facility Part II Canary: Central Office Part III Pink: Regional Office)
Solid Waste Section (Review 7/94)

Main Office
P.O. Box 646
Waynesville, NC 28786
800/822-1247
7041456-4216 FAX
b G
Mr. Joe Walker 1_�
IIaywood County Solid Waste Management
1 Recycle Road
Clyde, NC 28721
CORPORATION
Dear Mr. Walker:
r/ /IT 11
August 6, 1996
Physical Address
556 Hazelwood Avenue
Waynesville, NC 28786
704/456-4332
(,-p ��J-
�L
c
Per our phone conversation yesterday, please find attached the analyses of coal -contaminated
soil. The soil is beside the warehouse at the old AC Lawrence Tannery, between the warehouse
and rail spur serving it. There would be abou cubic yards of the material. We would hope
the soil can be used as daily cover at the lined landfill.
There would be very little to no gravel in the soil. We would try to pull back as much of the
ballast gravel as we can.
Ms. Charlotte Jesneck with the State's Superfund Section in Raleigh (phone: [phone])
suggested that the contaminated soil might be used as daily cover at the local landfill. We're
trying to get a clean bill of health on the site, and the State has said it will grant such if the soil
containing the offending contamination is removed.
The concern seems to be that whereas there is no exposure hazard where the soil is now, there
could be in the future if access to the site is not controlled, and the goal is that access need not be
controlled... hence, best to remove the soil.
The specific compounds of concern are the polymrclear aromatics highlighted on the attached
copy. It is interesting that the same analysis from a coal stockpile area would not be a concern.
Away from a stockpile coal is considered a special waste, and a different sets of regulations
apply.
Your permission to use this material as daily cover would be greatly appreciated, and the request
is hereby made. What else do I need to do? If possible we would like to excavate and dispose
of the material this month, ideally within the next week or two.
Sincerely,
NYO C r got at' tt
Jack Whisnant, L.G.
Branch Offices / Service Centers
Raleigh -Durham, NC 919/688-2405 Statesville, NC 704/873-6896 Chattanooga, TN 423/954-1806
FAX [phone] FAX [phone] FAX [phone]

Y•....:+�a2::w—w aw.;rrai�te,..ua,u:ri��d:�:'sf..s,L v.aweu,..N�a+si.:va»y„,�kx,dusim..,e�,,.«�L:x..a`a.�„<...,,,,.r......e..�„
AN
ALYTICAL INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.
429.5 CROMWELL RD, STE 611
CHATTANOOGA , TN 37421-2177
PRONE: ( 423 ) 899 - 9301 FAX ( 423) 892 - 9402V
�J
A.I.R.L. SAMPLE ID: 08595 \�
CUSTOMER: NEO CUSTOMER PO :
SAMPLE: SW WISE 2D SOIL SAMPLE DATE • NON 4 GIVEN
BASE/NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
(8270 )
COMPOUND
RESULT
SOIL MDL
N-Nilrosodimctltylamine
R — ND
330
Ilcxachlorocthanc
ND
330
Bis(2-chlorocthy9)cthcr
ND
330
Benzy) Alcohol
NJ)
330
Dis(2-chloroisopropyl)cthcr
ND
330
N-nitrosodi-n-propylatninc
ND
330
` Nitrobenzene
ND
330
Ilcxachlorobutadicnc
330
2-Methylnaphlhalcnc
2D
10
330
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
ND
330
isophoronc
Naphthalene
l)
p 2920
330
330
4-Chloroaniline
ND
330
Dis (2-chlorocthoxy) trnthanc
ND
330
I Icxachloroc.N•clopcntadicnc
ND
330
2-cliloronaph(halcnc
ND
330
2-Nitroanilinc
ND
1600
Acenaphynhylcttc
ND
330
3-Nitroaniline
1600
Acenaphthene
0)
9*L) 20
330
Dibcnzofuran
2 41 90
330
Dimcthylphthalate
D
330
2,6-Dinitrololuene
ND
330
Fluorene
GZ 0 7�00
330
4-Nitroanilinc
4-Chlorophcnyl
`ND
1600
phenyl ether
ND
330
ACIDS (8270 )
COMPOUND
RESULT
SOIL MDL
Benzoic Acid
ND
1600
7 Phenol
ND
330
2-chlorophenol
ND
330
2-nitrophcnol
ND
1600
2-niclhylphenol
ND
330
2,4-dimcthylphcnol
ND
330
4-mctliylpltcnol
ND
330
2,4-dichlorophenol
ND
330
ALL I LSUi.TS AM) MDL'S ARI: IN MICROG RAMSIKI LOG RAM
ANALYZED: 07/12/96 BY: JIiK
COMPOUND
RESULT
SOIL hIDL
2,4-Din itrot olucne
ND
330
Dicthylphthalate
ND
330
N-Nitrosodiphenylaminc
NI)
330
1Imichlorobcnzcne
ND
330
Phenanlhrene
4' 00
330
4-13romophcnyl phenyl ether
D
330
Anlhracene
1 isp0
330
Dibutylphdialatc
D
330
Fluoranthene
6 2-d
500
330
Pyrcnc
4 500
330
Butyl bctizyl phUtalatc
330
I3is (2 ctl,ylhcryQ pha,a,atc
ND
330
Chryscnc{�I`
gg
2,
(jp>
330
I3cnro (a) antluaccnc
R.Bg
2:00.
330
3,3' Diclilorobcnzidcnc
-
ND
330
Di-n-oclyl phthalate
ND
330
Bcnzo (b) fluroanthene
0.85
37),00
330
Bcnzo (k) fluoranthcne
P- S
1 100
330
Bcnzo (a) pyrenc `;t± is i` d ,09S
I ,00
330
Ideno (1,2,3-cd) Pyrcnc
6 zo
1 00
330
i Dibenzo (a,h)anthracene
3 50
330
Bcnzo (g,h,i) peQ'Icnc
77o
9kf,0
330
1,2-DichIorobcnzene
IND
330
1,3-Di clrlorobcttzcne
ND
330
1,4 -Dichl orobcnzenc
Nll
330
ANALYZED: 07/12/96
BY:
JHK
COMPOUND
RESULT
SOIL MDL
2,4,6-trichlorophcnol
ND
330
2,4,5-trichlorophcnol
ND
1600
4-c:hloro-3-mcthylphcnol
ND
330
2,4-dinitrophcnol
ND
1600
2-mcdiyl-4,6-dinitrophcnol
ND
1600
Pcnlachlorophcnol
ND
1600
4-nitrophcnol
ND
1600

,kNALYTICAL INDUSTRIAL.., RESEARCH LABORATORIES , INC .
4295 CROMWELL RD, STE 611
CHATTANOOGA , TN 37421-2177
PHONE: ( 423 ) 899 - 9301 FAX: ( 423) 892 - 9402
A.I.R.L. SAMPLE ID: 08594
CUSTOMER: NEO
'SAMPLE: NW `'VI-ISI? 2C SOIL
BASE/NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (8270 )
COMPOUND
`N-Nitrosodimcihylamine
�IlcNachlorocth;me
13is (2-chloroclllyl) ether
I3cnzyl Alcohol
�.13is (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
rN-nitrosocli-n-propl'lamine
Nitrobenzene
I-Icxachlorobutadienc
2-Melhylnaphthalenc.
1,2,4-trichlorobemcne
Isophoronc
}' Naphthalene
� 4-Chloroaniline
Bis (2-clilorocth0N)) methane
Ilexichloroc�•clopcntadicne
12-chloronaphthalcne
2-Nitroanilinc
Accnaph)4hylcnc
3-Nitroanilinc
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Dimethylphihalate
2.6-Dinilrololucnc
1 Fluorene
4-Nitroaniline
4-Chlorophcnyl phenyl ether
ACIDS (8270 )
COMPOUND
!i
; 13cnzoic Acid
Phenol
2-chlorophcnol
�' 2-nitrophcnol
I 2-mcthylphcnol
2,4-dimcthylphcnol
i 4-methylphenol
2,4-dichlorophcnol
ALL RESULTS AND MDL'S Alt,E IN MICROGI"S/KILOGRAM
% RESULT
h
NU
NI)
ND
N1)
ND
ND
NJ)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NJ)
ND
ND
ND
ND
9sfo 420
ND
Nll
ND
6 Zo 510
ND
NI)
SOIL N1DL
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
3.10
330
330
330
330
330
330
1600
330
1600
330
330
330
330
330
1600
330
CUSTOMER PO:
SAMPLE DATE NONE GIVEN
ANALYZED: 07/12/96 13Y:
COMPOUND
2,4-Dinilrololucne
Dicthylphthalate
N-N i Irosodiphenylaminc
IImichlorobcnzcne
Phenanthrene
4-13romophcnyl phenyl ether
Anthracene
Dibutylphtlialatc
Fluoranthene
Pyrenc
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dis (2-ethylhcx31) phihalate
Chryscnc
X Bcnzo (a) anthraccnc
3,3'-Dichlorobcilziduie
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Bcnzo (b) iluroanthene
Bcnzo (k) fluoranthcne
Bcnzo (a) pyrcnc
Ideno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Dibcnzo (a,h) anthraccnc
Bcnzo (g,li,i) perylcnc
1,2-Diell lorobeiucne
1,3-Dichlorohenrcnc
1,4-Dichlorobcnzcne
�6 00
A6
RESULT
PI
NJ)ND
NI)
ND
3700
N 1)
730
D
o �50
30
Nll
370
4 's0
1 SO
Nll
'D
G•13� 2�/00
g, f5o
0,022 160
6 ° 70
ND
c) 0 640
ND
ND
ND
J 1-IK
SOIL MDL
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
ANALYZED: 07/12/96 BY: JHK
RESULT SOIL MDL COMPOUND
RESULT SOIL MDL
ND
1600
2,4,6-trichlorophcnol
ND
330
ND
330
2,4,5-trichlorophcn01
ND
1600
ND
330
4-chloro-3-mcthylplicn01
ND
330
ND
1600
2,4-dinitrophcnol
ND
1600
ND
330
2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophcnol
N1)
1600
M)
330
Pcntachlorophcnol
ND
1600
ND
330
4-nitrophenol
ND
1600
ND
330

State of Borth Carow )a
Department Qf Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 •ll
a
Asheville Regional Office
MOM
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor dM
EDE H N FR
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
September 6, 1996
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
Mr. James Patterson
Solid Waste Section
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear M. Patterson:
As per your request, The Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the analysis of samples
collected at the former AC Lawrence Tannery site in Haywood County. Although the site is on
the North Carolina Superfund In -active Sites Listing, it is the determination of the Section that
the removed soils are not a hazardous waste. This determination has been made for the following
reasons. There is no RCRA unit associated with the contamination, as the area of concern is a rail
spur used for transporting product. In this case the product was coal, therefore the contamination
is not due to the release of a listed hazardous waste. Neither can the contamination be classified
as a characteristic waste. Therefore, the Hazardous Waste Section is referring the soil pile to the
Solid Waste Section for any further review and action.
Please contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter, at 704-251-6208.
Sincerely,
Spring Allen, CHMM
1Vaste Management Specialist
Hazardous Waste Section
cc: D. Keith Masters
Central files
Interchange Building, 4 voice 704-251-6208 FAX [phone]
59 Woodfin Place, An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EVALUATION REPORT
or
i.i3lt �t :•
ry p /l-
Type of Facility. �I i tb' �« Permit # f county
�{t ( �,p 1—?)� � h1�� Location
Nara of Foci L ity�};a ubo,
Date of Last Evaluation
I. Permit Conditions Followed Yes No N/A
A. Specific Condition(s) Violated _
J
II. Operational Requirements Followed Yes No
15A N.C_ Admin. Code 13B Section C wx
A. specific Violation(s) by number and letter.
,�.� t.' },,%i o 1. i�-�' � �f'?-•� �i,a+.`l��a�..,
III. Other Violations of Rule or Law
IV. Evaluator's CaTmints
V. Continuation Page Required? Yes Y No Receiving Signature.,^ -a
Evaluation Date Solid Waste Section +.
DEHNR 3793 (Part I White: Facility Part II Canary: Central Office Part III Pink: Regional Office)
Solid Waste Section (Review 7/%)

W
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director October 29, 1996
Mr. Jack Horton
Haywood County Manager
420 N. Main Street
Waynesville, NC 28786
1DEHNR
RE: Expansion of the Haywood County MS VLF, Permit Number 44-07
Dear Mr. Horton:
This letter is in response to your request for clarification concerning the permitting requirements
for an expansion of the referenced facility.
The site suitability letter for the referenced facility was issued on December 11, 1990, approving
a 104-acre site and a disposaLarea of approximately 23 acres, as delineated on Attachment 1 of
that letter. A permit to construct was issued on July 23, 1992, and a permit to operate on October
8, 1993 for an approximate 10-acre MSWLF unit.
If the County proposes to laterally expand the existing lined MSWLF unit within the 23-acre
area, permit renewal is required. The permitting requirements for permit renewal are contained in
Rule .1617(e) and include a facility plan, an engineering plan, a construction quality assurance
plan, an operation plan, a closure and post closure plan, and a water quality monitoring plan.
The existing buffers established in the site suitability letter shall be maintained.
However; if the County proposes to laterally expand the existing unit beyond the 23-acre area
or expand the MSWLF unit boundary beyond the 104 acre site, a new facility permit is required.
A new facility permit includes all the permitting requirements of Rule .1617(a) including an
approved site study as well as the requirements for permit renewal.
If there are any questions or comments, please contact me @ [phone], extension 255.
Sincerely,
ames C. Coffey, Su*isr
Permitting Branch
Solid Waste Section
P.O. Box 27687, Nf
��4C FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-4996 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor � p
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary r1
William L. Meyer, Director May 24, 1996
Mr. Joe Walker
Haywood County Solid Waste Management
1 Recycle Road
Clyde, North Carolina 28721
Re: Water Quality Monitoring at the Haywood County Landfill (Permit # 44-07)
Dear Mr. Walker,
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the April 29, 1996 monitoring well data from the White
Oak landfill. Data shows that 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was found in the sample from
MW-31). The concentration of 5.9 ppb was greater than the method detection limit of 5.0 ppb.
Technically, this is a violation of the 2L Groundwater Standards.
The landfill must now demonstrate that the data for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is incorrect, or
proceed with assessment monitoring within 90 days of the last sampling episode (Solid Waste
Management Rule .1634). If the decision is to question the validity of the data, please provide
the Solid Waste Section with supporting evidence as soon as possible. This may include, but is
not limited to any of, or possible combination of, the following: resampling of MW-31),
statistical analysis of the data, demonstration of laboratory contamination of the sample, proving
sampling error, or furnishing some other detail that the data is inaccurate.
It should also be noted that ground -water flow rate and direction must be determined and data
statistically analyzed for each monitoring episode (Rule .1632). This information has not been
included with the last three data reports. Please submit to the Solid Waste Section calculations
for ground -water flow rate and direction, and the statistical analyses for each monitoring event.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone],
ext. 257.
Si rely,
Larry ?Rie
Hydrological Technician
Solid Waste Section
c: Julian Foscue
Jim Patterson
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper