5701_ROSCANS_1993

An
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
December 15, 1993
Mr. Mike Carpenter
Solid Waste Coordinator
Macon County
5 West Main Street
Franklin, NC 28734
RE: Seepage Problem
Old Franklin Landfill
Dear Mike:
This letter serves to summarize my site visit to the referenced site to observe a subsurface seep and
offers recommendations for containment of same.
On Tuesday, December 7, 1993, 1 accompanied yourself and Bill Collins to the former Franklin landfill
site. Upon arrival at the site I immediately noticed that the entrance road was experiencing a great deal of
soil erosion, evidenced by a one (1) foot deep gully traversing most of its length. I further noted a small
amount of drainage in the gully, which no doubt perpetuates the erosion problem. It is likely that the erosion
is more severe during periods of wet weather. The drainage in the gully could be traced back to a small
seep at the toe of the north fill slope of the landfill. According to Bill Collins this particular area had been
used as a demolition disposal site in the late stages of the landfill's active life, during the 1991-92 period.
Upon closer inspection, the drainage had a noticeable petroleum odor and visible sheen, which leads me
to believe that it may be a machinery lubricant, possibly transmission fluid.
According to Bill, this seepage and erosion problem has been an ongoing problem since the landfill was
closed in the Spring of 1992. The seepage is no doubt emanating from within the landfill cell, and must be
eliminated or secured according to the conditions of the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste landfill permit
under post -closure care. We recommend the County take the following steps to identify and
eliminate/control the source of the seepage:
1. Excavate an area 10-15 feet either side of the seep and 20 feet horizontally back into the
bank in hopes of locating its source. If successful, remove and dispose all suspected
contributors.
If the seep appears to originate further back into the landfill, measures must be taken to
contain the seep for further analysis. We recommend installing a suitable length of 1 inch
PVC piping, with 1 /4 inch perforations over a five foot length on one end. The perforated
end should be wrapped with filter fabric and inserted into the fill area where the seep is most
concentrated. In this manner the pipe may extend out the toe of the slope and act as a
collector conduit for the drainage. Once this is accomplished, a grab sample should be
taken and delivered to a certified laboratory for testing of typical monitoring well parameters.
3. If the chemical analysis proves positive, additional steps must be taken to control and/or
treat the drainage. Since the quantity of the seep is very minor, the most economical
solution would be the installation of a 1,000 gallon septic tank to collect the seep drainage.
The contents of the septic tank would need to be pumped periodically for transport to the
P.O. BOX 2259 / 704/252-0575 / 38 ORANGE STREET
ASHEVILLE, NC 2BB02 704/252-2518 [FAX) ASHEVILLE, NC 2BB01

Mr. Mike Carpenter
December 15, 1993
page 2
active Franklin Landfill, and discharged to the leachate treatment system.
4. Once the seep is either eliminated or otherwise secured, the entrance road should be
regraded down to a firm subgrade, over which a 6 inch layer of CABC shall be placed. Also,
the drainage ditch on the landfill side of the entrance road should be cleaned of all debris
and enlarged to encourage drainage to be channeled away from the road.
Mike, it may become necessary to recommend an alternate course of action depending upon the
success of the above measures.
During the course of my visit, I also noticed that a major portion of the former borrow area was exposed
and somewhat eroded. This area should be hydro -seeded in the Spring to encourage the permanent growth
of a fescue ground cover. Likewise, a minor slope area on the west face of the landfill showed some
erosion. A suitable grass ground cover should also be established in this area.
Mike, I hope these recommendations will prove useful to you and your staff as you address this problem.
If you require additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
v JOEL L. STORROW, P.E.
JLS/kms
cc: Rick Honeycutt
Jim Patterson
93141 /carpentl5

Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
NO. 12 CHESTNUT SQUARE POST OFFICE BOX 450 CASHIERS, NORTH CAROLINA 28717
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELECOPIER [phone]
J. CRAIG CRANSTON, P.E.
THOMAS H. ROBERTSON, P.E.
ELDRIDGE A. WHITEHURST, JR., P.E.
Mr. Jim Coffey
NC EHNR
Solid Waste Management
401 Overlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
RE: Our File No. 92-539
Dear Jim:
January 29, 1993
ffii 02 1993
L. HOLMAN WATERS, JR., P.E., ILLS.
Macon County Landfill -Franklin Landfill Site
Please find enclosed the general plan sheet of the final grading plan for the old
Franklin Landfill site, permit #5701. This closure and post closure plan has been previously
submitted and subsequently approved by your office.
In accordance with the regulations, we have revisited the site to determine final
elevations of strategic points in the landfill. These compare very favorably with the
proposed elevations in our plan, in fact, the majority of these points which we checked were
within several feet of our proposed elevations.
Please find enclosed the permeability testing for the top cover of the final cover of
the landfill. As you can see from the results of the testing performed by Atlanta Testing,
the permeability is generally suitable for this type of situation and is certainly better than
the existing soils around the area.
The long term monitoring plan will be to monitor twice yearly monitoring wells of
the surface water monitoring points for a period of five years. The locations of the three
monitoring wells have been approved by Mr. Robert Lutfy. This has been the standard
agreement on other landfills of which we are aware and trust that this will be the same
arrangement.
The final vegetative cover will initially be grass. We will coordinate our grassing
activity with the agricultural extension agent and the soil conservation service to determine
the optimum type of grass to be utilized. I would expect that rye will be planted initially
and then resow with some sort of lespedizia or creeping red fescue, which is suitable for this
type area. Ultimately, depending upon the use, obviously pine trees and locusts will
germinate naturally unless maintained as a grassed surface.

NC EHNR
January 29, 1993
Page 2
I trust that all the above information is clear, and that which you require. Please do
not hesitate to call should you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
CRANSTON, ROBERTSON & WHITEHURST, P.C.
L. Holman Waters Jr., P.E.
LHW/sbm
cc: Macon County
Jim Patterson

t +..t I l i •..� :? i i
L5 `.i 1.."] u v
It �►1{� l
i
t _ F IIC1 °ICl
it
carolinos,
JAN i7 �99'3.,
III"
f
�'division, .
110
r
atlanta testing
ki 1�
&engineering
R
'(-:0�n�l 3i► i )
�..
102 pilgrim road / greenville, south
carolina 29607 / [phone]
January 20, 1993
Cranston, Robertson, & Whitehurst, P.C.
P.O. Box 450
Cashiers, North Carolina 28717
Attention: Mr. L. Holman Waters
Re: Permeability Testing
Macon County Landfill,
Franklin, North Carolina
AT&E Job No. G-3234
Report No. G-46484
Gentlemen:
Atlanta Testing & Engineering has completed laboratory controlled gradient permeability tests
on two soil samples collected from the cover material at the referenced project. The work was
performed as requested and authorized by Mr. Waters.
A technician from Atlanta Testing & Engineering visited the project site on December 17, 1992
to obtain soil samples at two locations as selected by Cranston, Robertson, & Whitehurst
personnel. At each location, a soil sample was collected between the ground surface and about
one foot below the ground surface using a Shelby Tube sampler. After sampling, our
representative performed hand auger borings to confirm that the cover materials exceeded two
feet in thickness.
The undisturbed samples were transported to a geotechnical laboratory, and controlled gradient
permeability tests were performed using a triaxial shear test apparatus. Laboratory report forms
are attached. The test results indicate saturated permeabilities of approximately 1.7 x 1 0-4and
1.2 x 10-6 centimeters per second. The higher permeability (1.7 x 10-4) was obtained for the
sample taken from the west side of the entrance driveway.
Atlanta Testing & Engineering is pleased to be of service to you on this project. Please call if
you have any questions concerning our test results or if we may provide additional assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
ATLANTA TESTING & ENGINEERING
�;� r-::e
David D. Wilson, P.E.
Senior Engineer
DDW/jl S.C. Registration # 11701
atlanta, brunswick, southside, gainesville, georgic / auburndale, jacksonville, orlando, lakeland, tompa, florida I greenville, columbia, south carollna
_ .� t:illy ,-,floiy firklit ��

CONTROLLED GRADIENT
Q
atlanta testing PERMEABILITY
TEST REPORT
& engineering
PROJECT Franklin Landfill
JOB NO. G-3234
REPORT NO.
DATE 1/18/93
BORING -
DEPTH/ELEV. -
SAMPLE NO. 1
TEST PROCEDURE Ef1110-2-1906
SAMPLETYPE UD
REVIEWED
A. pendix__VZI�
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SPECIMEN DIAMETER, IN. 2.86
SPECIMEN HEIGHT, IN. 3.22
Red clayey sandy silt with a. trace of mica
INDEX PROPERTIES
EL-
PI -
Cs 2.70
FINES, % _
U
:SPECIMEN NUMBER
1 2 3
4
WATER CONTENT, % Wo 20.6 - -
w
Q DRY DENSITY, PCF
Ydo 100. 8 - -
Y
SATURATION, %
So 82.6 - -
r 2
—
H
VOID RATIO
eo 0.672 - -
F-
WATER CONTENT, %
We 24.7 - -
z
O
ZO 0
H DRY DENSITY, PCF
Q
Ydc 101.0 - -
U _
0
U
- SATURATION, %
100 - -
0 10 20 30 40
0
cc0
VOID RATIO
- -
ec 0.667FINAL
= FLOW IN PORE VOLUMES, Qp, %
BACK
w
Uo 60.0 - -
PRESSURE, PSI
EFFECTIVE
Q CONSOLIDATION
Q=� 5.0 - -
PRESSURE, PSI
PORE PRESSURE
AU, 3.5 - -
SPECIMEN
DIFFERENCE, PSI
z
NUMBER
O HYDRAULIC GRADIENT I 30 - -
1
t-
AVG. TEMP.
20 - -
HYDRAULIC
PERMEANT, Co
Q
CONDUCTIVITY,
a TOTAL FLOW, CC
c 57.1 - -
K x 10 - 6 CM/S 1.2 -
- a TOTAL FLOW PORE
Q
P 41. 9
VOLUMES, %
PERMEANT PROPERTIES
REMOLDED SOIL PROPERTIES
PERMEANT DESCRIPTION
TEST PROCEDURE:
Deaired Tap Water
N.A.
OPTIMUM
SPECIFIC VISCOSITY,
MAXIMUM DRY
MOISTURE
WT., DYNES 1. 7x10-2 POISE 0.01005
DENSITY, PCF
_ CONTENT, % _

CONTROLLED GRADIENT
Q,.
atlanta testing PERMEABILITY TEST REPORT
& engineering
PROJECT Franklin Landfill
JOB NO. G-3234
REPORT NO.
DATE 1/ 18/ 93
BORING -
DEPTH/ELEV. -
SAMPLE NO. 2
TEST PROCEDURE EM1110-2-1906
endix VII
SAMPLE TYPE UD
REVIEWED
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SPECIMEN DIAMETER, IN. 2.84
SPECIMEN HEIGHT, IN. 2.82
Red -brown sandy silt with a trace of clay and mica
INDEX PROPERTIES
LL -
PI -
Gs 2. 70
FINES, % -
Cn
fill 11 till
SPECIMEN NUMBER
1 2 3
4
—
WATER CONTENT, % Wo 28.5 —fill
-� DRY DENSITY, PCF
Yd0 88.4 — -
T
a
x
Y
SATURATION, %
So 85.0 — —
>: 2
'-
F'
VOID RATIO
eo 0.903 — -
>
WATER CONTENT, % We 33.2- -
�
Z
ZO 0
0 DRY DENSITY, PCF
Q
Ydc 88.7 — —
U
0
U
._.1 SATURATION, %
100 — —
0 20 40 60 80 0
CCQ
VOID RATIO
ec 0.895 - -
�
U
z FLOW IN PORE VOLUMES, QP, %
W FINAL BACK
U0 60. 2 — —
W PRESSURE, PSI
4 EFFECTIVE
CONSOLIDATION
Q 5.0 — —
PRESSURE, PSI
PORE PRESSURE
�U0 1.0 — —
SPECIMEN
DIFFERENCE, PSI
Z
NUMBER
O HYDRAULIC GRADIENT
1 10 — —
1 2
3 w AVG. TEMP.
T 20 — —
HYDRAULIC
PERMEANT, C°
CONDUCTIVITY,
TOTAL FLOW, CC
Qc 96.0 - -
K 10 " 4 CM/S 1 ' 7 —
— �- TOTAL FLOW PORE
_ O
p 69.0 - -
x
VOLUMES. %
PERMEANT PROPERTIES
REMOLDED SOIL PROPERTIES
PERMEANT DESCRIPTION
TEST PROCEDURE:
➢eaired '.lap Water
N.A.
OPTIMUM
SPECIFIC VISCOSITY,
MAXIMUM DRY
MOISTURE
WT., DYNES 1. 7x10-Z POISE 0.01005
DENSITY, PCF -
CONTENT, % -

September 24, 1993
MEMO TO: Julian Foscue
Solid Waste Supervisor
FROM: Jim Patterson
Waste Management Specialist
SUBJECT: Final Closure Inspection
Macon County Landfill @ Franklin
(Permit #57-01)
j OCT 071993,
,.,; ; - ..
On September 15, 1993, I conducted a final closure inspection at the Macon County
Landfill at Franklin (Permit #57-01) to verify that the site had been stabilized with grass.
This inspection verified that the site is now properly stabilized with native grasses (photos
attached).
A previous inspection on April 28, 1993, documented that this site had at least 2 feet
of final soil cover and that it was properly graded.
Other than verification from a consulting engineering firm that the final soil cover on
this site meets the required soil permeability of lx10-Scmisec, Macon County Landfill (Permit
#57-01) has met closure requirements.
Please let me know if additional information is required.
Attachment

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Solid Haste Management
Solid Haste Section
SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EVALUATION REPORT
F� tt
Type of Facility {� n 1 r1l i Ly"A I ► Penai t * Canty ��� C °i i
Name of Faci lity 1 KI (0I)a L Ak1r)FILd di'�""" P t16�ko0Aj Location e /�. jam , . ErFI NLkl
Date of Last Evaluation A — 1 W
I. Permit Conditions Followed i Yes No N/A
A_ Specific Condition(s) Violated
II. Operational Requirements Followed Yes No
15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B Section
A_ Specific Violation(s) by number and letter.
III. Other Violations of Rule or
IV_ Evaluator's Consents i. I b5i1 V � In �i Ci ('C /f5/�° �'�� �� Y�1�� f .hrr-L
V. Continuation Page Required? Yes No Receiving Signature
a. Evaluation Date � " "` Solid Haste Section +���.;�:; � �e&
DEHNR 3793 (Part I White: Facility Part II Canary: Central;Office Part III Pink: Regional Office)
Solid Waste Section (Review 7/%)

AY 2 41333
May 11, 1993
MEMO TO: Julian Foscue
FROM: Jim Patterson W �'
SUBJECT: Macon County Landfill (#57-01)
Macon County
On April 28, 1993, I conducted the first phase of a closure inspection at the Macon
County Landfill at Franklin (Permit #57-01) located on State Road 1325 near Franklin, North
Carolina. The inspection consisted of soil borings to ensure adequate final cover and a visual
inspection to ascertain that the site was properly graded to ensure drainage. A series of
eighteen (18) soil borings (plat attached) on the landfill site indicated that waste was properly
covered with two feet or more of soil cover (the soil permabilities have been submitted to the
Raleigh office for review). The landfill surface area also appeared to be properly graded.
Subsequent inspections will be made at a future date to verify that the site has been
properly stabilized with native grasses. I will submit a report when I have determined the
landfill area to be stable.

. /J, __ \`mil -3'�/• J� �r f ' ,- /4�
o

NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EVALUATION REPORT
Type of Fac i l i ty �SAM' I Permit # ,.,e — 4/ t c—ty f 6 4 cr
Name of Faci I ity tNum %a '� l�. d t r� - rem. 101 Location .� . � � � � , l � "d'I", �t1 ii
Date of Last Evaluation f ' / wJ
I. Permit Conditions Followed Yes No N/A
A. Specific Condition(s) Violated
II. Operational Requirements Followed 4—yes No
15A N.C. Admin. Code 13B Section a o J o!
A. Specific Violation(s) by n miler and letter.
III. other Violations of Rule or
IV. Evaluator's
rlic�Sej utL�a
V. Contirxiation Page Regquired? Yes __,L Mo Receiving Signature
Evaluation Date t� n Solid Waste Section fu..
cl
DEHNR 3793 (Part I White: Facility Part II Canary: Central Office Part III Pink: Regional office)
Solid Waste Suction (Review 7/94)

NC DEPARTMENT OF EN,.-RONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURA, RESOURCES
Division of Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EVALLATION REPORT
Type of Facility Permit # County.
Name of Facility Location
Date of Last Evaluation
I . Permit Condi-tions-Fol-towed -Yes— No N/A
A- Specific Condition(s) Violated
11- Operational Requiremients Followed Yes No
15A N.C_ Admin. Code 13B Section
A- Specific VioLation(s) by number and letter.
III- Other Violations of Rule or Law
IV. Evaluator's Comments
X1 12
V. Continuation Page Required? —Yes No Receiving Signature
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 7/94)