6001_ROSCANS_1987

yo9y � STAIp o
'ci„ vwM vd'•
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services
P.O. Box 2091 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-2091
James G. Martin, Governor August 6 1987 Ronald H. Levine, M.D., M.P.H.
David T. Flaherty, Secretary b State Health Director
Mecklenburg County
Office of the County Manager
720 East Fourth St.
P.O. Box 31787
Charlotte, N.C. 28231
Attn: Mr. Gerald G. Fox, County Manager
Subject: Amendment to Permit #60-01, Harrisburg Road Landfill, Mecklenburg
County
Dear Mr. Fox:
The enclosed amendment to permit for the referenced site is approved in
accordance with G.S. 130A-294, subject to the revised conditions of the permit.
The subject amendment to permit provides only a relatively short-term,
(approximately S year), solution to a long-term problem. The County should
utilize this time to develop a comprehensive solid waste management plan which
will meet the forthcoming revised and expanded solid waste regulations.
If there are any questions, please call me at [phone].
Si erely,
es C. Coffey, Envi o ental Engineer
lid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Environmental Health Section
JCC/mj
cc: Neil Gilbert
Julian Foscue
Rick Doby
Mike Babuin

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT NO. 60-01
DATE ISSUED August 6, 1987
SOLID WASTE PERMIT
(Sanitary Landfill)
Conditions of Permit:
1. The following requirements shall be met prior to receiving solid waste at
the site:
a. Site preparation shall be in accordance with the construction plan.
b. Site inspection shall be made by a representative of the Division of
Health Services.
2. This solid waste disposal site is permitted to receive solid waste as
defined in 10 NCAC 10G, .0101(36), except that hazardous waste, liquid
waste and any other wastes that may pose a threat to the environment or
public health are prohibited from disposal at this site unless prior,
authorization is obtained from the Division of Health Services.
3. This permit is for design and construction according to the attached
plans, specifically the following:
a. The least permeable clay will be selected and stockpiled for use of
as final cover.
b. The final cover will consist of a minimum of 3 ft. thick layer of
well -compacted material
Any modification or deviation from the approved plans shall be approved'by the North Carolina Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch.
4. Ground water monitoring wells and monitoring requirements:
a. Wells shall be installed at locations as shown on construction plans.
b. Installation shall conform to DHS well standard (Attachment 1).
c. A well completion record shall be submitted to DHS for each
monitoring well constructed (Attachment 2) within 30 days upon
completion.
d. The location of the monitoring wells shall be physically located in
the field and approved by DHS prior to the well being constructed.
e. For new site locations, ground water monitoring wells shall be
constructed and sampled prior to the acceptance of any waste at the
landfill and conform to specifications outlined in the N.C. Water
Quality Monitoring Guidance Document for Solid Waste Facilities.
Complete specifications are delineated in this document which is
available from DHS.
f. Surface water sampling shall be performed at the locations specified
on the construction plans as per methods outlined in the
above -referenced Guidance Document.
g. Mecklenburg County shall sample monitoring wells and surface waters,
semi-annually, for the first year and annually thereafter as per the
above -referenced Guidance Document.
h. A readily accessible unobstructed path shall be initially cleared
and maintained so that 4-wheel drive vehicles may access the
monitoring wells at all times.

5. This facility shall conform to operating procedures in Rule .0505 of the
Solid Waste Management Rules.
6. Ground water quality at this facility is subject to the classification and
remedial action provisions of 15 NCAC 2L (Attachment 3).
7. This permit may be subject to review and modification if changes in State
and Federal criteria concerning existing sanitary landfills necessitate
such action.

/ a-t-e lld�"
SUP-87-1(c)
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ThrvlekClerbu County Commission approved this special use permit for
ec en ur Count
owners) and successors -in -interest of the property described as tax parcel 100-031-30, 108-031-27,
108-031-22, 108-031921, 108-03r-23, 108-031-20
and described in detail further in the application submitted to the Board of Commissioners and incor-
porated by reference herein.
This special use permit allows the owner(s) and successors -in -interest of the property to use the
property for a Sanitary Landfill in a Residential District (expansion of existing
Harrisburg Landfill)
A notation on the official zoning map at the locations of this property has been made designating the
special use approved. If authorized by ordinance, then the Mecklenburg County Zoning Regulations as
embodied in the Zoning Ordinance are amended and the official zoning map thereof.
This special use permit is subject to and incorporates by reference all of the following: plans,
specifications, all required conditions, section 3300 of the zoning ordinance, all of which preceding are
binding upon the property and all subsequent development and use of the property. It shall be
unlawful to develop or use the property in violation of this special use permit and the plans and
required conditions are incorporated by reference herein. The Mecklenburg County Commission has
the authority to revoke the special use permit in accordance with the procedure described in section
3311 of the Mecklenburg County Zoning Ordinance.

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
October 13, 1986
Cary Saul
Engineering Solid Waste
Mecklenburg County
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Dear Mr. Saul:
Dr. William W. Davis
Director
I have reviewed the site of the proposed expansion of the Mecklenburg
County landfill. The Natural Heritage Program .has no record of endangered
species or nature preserves at or near the site.
MPS/mjw
Sincerely,
Michael P. Schafale
Natural Heritage Program
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

' Department of Cultural Resources
NOrtl1 Carolina Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 27 , 1986
Mr• Cary Saul Deputy Director
Engineering, Solid Waste
Engineering Department
Mecklenburg County
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, N.C. 28202
Harrisburg Road,
Extension of landfilER 87-7401
Re; County,
.Mecklenburg
Dear Mr , Saul
2, 1986 concerning the above
-
Thank you for your letter of October
of no properties
project- ect and are aware would
roj
sign
which ect
a review of the p sig r j
i conducted archaeological comment on the p o
Oft We have historic, or have no
of architectural, project- Therefore we
be affected by the p
roposed* of the National
as currently P pursuant to Section Co gistoric
made p Council °n� codified at
ents are of 1966, the Advisory Section 106
The above cO ' atiou Act liance with ' ction and Enhance-
Presery Comp 11593, prote
Historic I Regulations for Order
Preservation s and to Executive
36 CFR Part 800 Environment." If you have questions
went of the Cultural Earley,
and consideration• Renee Gledhill -
or our cooperation lease contact Ms•
Thank you f y comment, p 733-4763.
the above at 919I
concerning
t h Review Coordinator ,
Envi.ronm
Sincerely,
t State
David Brook, De y officer
historiation
c Pr:
-Yv
DB:slw
Carolina 27611
Street • Raleigh, North
109 East Jones [phone]

Mecklenburg County
Post Office Box 31787
Charlotte, North Carolina 28231
Attention: Mr. Gerald G. Fox
County Manager
Subject: Application for Construction Permit
Harrisburg Road Landfill Expansion
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Law Job No. CH 4784A
Gentlemen:
As authorized by Mecklenburg County, Law
results of our investigative and design work
for a construction permit for development o
areas. The submittal is in two parts: a re;
separate set of thirteen drawings.
We thank you
this phase of
concerning this
NJG/JNS:cag
Attachments
July 23, 1987
LAW ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
& CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
CONSULTANTS
� d
y JUL 29 1987
%STE
Engineering herewith submits the
D support the County's application
the proposed landfill expansion
Drt that follows this letter and a
for the opportunity to provide our professional services during
the project. Please contact us if you have any questions
submittal.
- Sincerely,
=.TAW ENGINEERING
Neil J. Gilbert, P.E., P.G.
.,,1. Senior Engineering Geologist
t'.rr;irr,
- i immy N. Smith, P.E.
'Senior Geotechnical Engineer
P.O. BOX 11297
CHARLOTTE, NC 28220
501 MINUTE LANE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28217
704-523-2022

LAW ENGINEERING
Application for Construction Permit
Harrisburg Road Landfill' Expansion
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Law Job No. CH 4784A

Application for Construction Permit
Harrisburg Road Landfill Expansion
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Law Job No. CH 4784A
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1
1.1
Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1
1.2
Utilization and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 2
2.0
GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3
2.1
Site Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3
2.2
Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
2.2.1
Site Features - East Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
2.2.2
Site Features - West Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
2.2.3
Topography and Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
2.2.4
Soil Survey Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 6
2.3
Regional Hydrogeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 7
2.3.1
Geology . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 7
2.3.2
Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 8
2.4
Site Hydrogeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 9
2.4.1
Soil Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 9
2.4.2
Ground -Water Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 10
2.4.3
Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 12
2.5
Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Evaluation. . . . . . . . .
. . . 12
2.5.1
Allowable Excavation Depths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 12
2.5.2
Suitability of Excavated Soils for Landfill Development. . .
. 14
2.5.3
Surface -Water Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
2.5.4
Ground -Water Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 18
2.5.5
Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 20
I AW FNGINFFRING TESTING

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2.6
Siting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 21
3.0
LANDFILL DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 22
3.1
Overall Site Development . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 22
3.1.1
Landfill Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 23
3.1.2
Surface -Water Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 23
3.1.3
Control of Leachate Generation . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 24
3.1.4
Control of Gas Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 24
3.1.5
Borrow Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 25
3.1.6
On -Site Access Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 25
3.2
Erosion/Sediment-Control Measures . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 25
3.2.1
Silt Fences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 26
3.2.2
Sediment Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 26
3.2.3
Grassing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 26
3.3
Operation Progession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 28
3.3.1
Landfill Progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 28
3.3.2
Landfill Capacity and Lifespan . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 29
3.4
Landfill Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 30
3.4.1
Final Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 30
3.4.2
Final Contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 30
3.4.3
Surface -Water Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 30
3.5
Final Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 31
3.6
Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 31
4.0
QUALIFICATION OF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 33
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

LIST OF DRAWINGS
Drawing No. Title
1 Two -Mile Radius Map
2 & 2A One -Quarter -Mile Radius Photograph
3 Site Description Map
4 Boring Location Plan
5 Ground -Water Contour Map
6 Cross Sections - West Tract
7 Cross Sections - East Tract
8 Grading Plan
9 Erosion/Sediment-Control Measures
10 Site Development Plan
11 Construction Plan
12 Proposed Final Use
arr� u.vi���Vi �i�YV �LJIIIYV liNYlf-/11Y1

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title
Ground -Water Data
Laboratory Test Data
Field Permeability Test Results
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANY

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Description
The Harrisburg Road Landfill is a sanitary municipal landfill operated by
Mecklenburg County. It is located in the eastern part of the County, bounded by
Harrisburg Road to the east and by a Norfolk Southern Railroad line to the south
(see Two-mile Radius Map, Drawing 1). The County has acquired seven additional
parcels of land that it wishes to consider for expansion of the landfill. Three
of the parcels are located northeast of existing landfill property and together
are designated the East Tract. Four parcels are west and south of the present
landfill and are designated the West Tract (see One -Quarter -Mile Radius
Photograph, Drawing 2). The area to the north of the East Tract is wooded and
undeveloped; scattered residences are to the east and northeast. The West Tract
is bounded by landfill property to the north and east and by light industry to
the south and west. Zoning is shown on Drawing 2A.
Boundary surveys of the parcels were completed by others prior to the study
reported herein and supplemented, as necessary, by others for inclusion with
this application (see Site Description Map, Drawing 3). The East Tract consists
of 12.65 acres and the West Tract includes 21.08 acres.
1
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING

1.2 Utilization and Operation
The Harrisburg Road Landfill is currently the only permitted sanitary
landfill in Mecklenburg County. It is utilized by residents, businesses and
industries within the County. At some time in the future, the site may also
receive waste from a proposed transfer station near the center of Charlotte. It
is projected that the site will receive 800 to 1200 tons per day of municipal
solid waste, depending upon what other waste disposal facilities are in
operation. The landfill is operated using landfill compactors, scrapers,
bulldozers, and any other equipment needed to maintain the site as required.
Mr. Luther Bingham, representing the Mecklenburg County Engineering Department,
is responsible for operation and maintenance of the landfill.
K
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING

2.0 GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL EVALUATION
2.1 Site Exploration
Field exploration of the two expansion areas consisted of:
-- site reconnaissance by a senior engineering geologist and a senior
geotechnical engineer;
-- five soil test borings;
-- two auger borings to collect bulk samples;
-- collection of four bulk samples from the borings;
-- installation of piezometers in all five (soil test boring) boreholes;
-- in -situ permeability testing at four boring/piezometer locations;
The base map (existing topography) used for site -specific exploration and
evaluation was compiled from Mecklenburg County and City of Charlotte
topographic maps referenced on Drawing 4 (Boring Location Plan). Law
Engineering selected drilling locations in the field and obtained surveyed
locations and elevations (referenced to control points installed on site by
others) of the borings as drilled. All elevations in this report are referenced
to Mean Sea Level (MSL). Approximate boring locations are shown on the Boring
3
ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANI

Location Plan (Drawing 4). Offset auger borings for bulk sampling are not shown
on the Boring Location Plan; they are generally within about 15 ft of the
referenced soil test boring. Selected soil test borings drilled and wells
installed by Law Engineering for an earlier site expansion are included on the
Boring Location Plan (Drawing 4) along with selected observation wells placed by
the U.S. Geological Survey (in cooperation with Mecklenburg County).
Laboratory testing for this exploration included the following:
-- five grain size distribution tests, dry sieve;
-- one grain size distribution test, percent passing No. 200 sieve;
-- four grain size distribution tests, hydrometer;
-- four Atterberg limits tests;
-- ten moisture contents tests;
-- two compaction tests;
-- two permeability tests on remolded samples; and
-- five specific gravity determinations.
Field and laboratory test data reported in the earlier application for expansion
(June, 1984) were considered in the evaluation reported herein.
4
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

Descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing procedures
along with the results obtained are presented in the Appendices.
2.2 Site Conditions
2.2.1 Site Features - East Tract
The western part of the East Tract, previously wooded, recently has been cut
for timber and/or cleared and graded for landfill -support activities. An
abandoned wood -frame dwelling is located in that part. The eastern part of the
tract contains three brick -veneer houses (unoccupied) and a few ancillary
structures. The County has established a radio tower in the east -central part
of the tract.
2.2.2 Site Features - West Tract
The northern approximately three-quarters of the West Tract is wooded. Two
occupied dwellings and ancillary structures are located in the west central part
with a previously cultivated field to the north of those houses. The
southernmost part of the tract has been cleared and presently is used for
surface storage of construction equipment and debris.
2.2.3 Topography and Surface Water
Topography in the two tracts consists of level to gently sloping terrain
with ground -surface elevations in the East Tract ranging from about 742 to 782
9
ENGINEERING TESTING COM

ft and in the West Tract from about 738 to 778 feet. Grades locally range up to
12 to 15 percent in the southwestern portion of the East Tract and the
northwestern corner of the West Tract.
Neither tract contains flowing streams. A drainage divide is located in the
eastern part of the East Tract. Surface runoff from the eastern part flows off
site to the east. The remainder of the tract drains to the west and southwest
to creeks on existing landfill property. The dike for a man-made pond
previously located just southwest of the East Tract (on landfill property) has
been breached and the pond drained. Surface runoff from the West Tract is
mainly to the east, north and west to creeks on existing landfill property. A
small area at the southernmost part of the tract drains off site to the south.
Both tracts are upland topographic settings and are not affected by stream
flooding.
2.2.4 Soil Survey Information
Both tracts are underlain by Cecil soils, which are the most common
residual -series soils in Mecklenburg County (Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County,
Soil Conservation Service, 1980). The typical profile of Cecil series is
characterized as a 6-inch surface layer of sandy clay loam, underlain by clayey
soil to a depth of about 46 inches, followed by clay loam to 53 inches and
saprolite that crushes to loam and clay loam to 65 inches.
6
FNGINFFRING TFSTING

2.3 Regional Hydrogeology
2.3.1 Geology
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is located in the Piedmont Physiographic
Province, an area underlain by ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks. The
virgin soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in -place
chemical weathering of rock which was similar to the rock presently underlying
the site. The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the
surface where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and
silty sands that generally become harder/more dense with depth. Residual soils
that retain the relic structure of the parent bedrock often are referred to as
saprolite. The boundary between soil and rock is often not sharply defined; a
transition zone termed "partially weathered rock" is normally found. Partially
weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with
standard penetration resistances equivalent to or in excess of 100 blows per
foot. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints and she presence of less
resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of partially weathered rock and
hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances.
Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of
partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock
level.
Alluvial soils, eroded by surface water from the hillsides, often blanket
the residual soils and weathered rock in valleys and flood plains. Colluvial
soils, sloughed from the hillsides, often collect on the lower hillsides and at
7
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

the base of slopes. Alluvial and colluvial soils often are soft and
compressible, because they have never experienced overburden pressures in excess
of their own weight. They also may contain entrapped organic matter.
2.3.2 Ground Water
Ground water is present in intergranular pore spaces of the saprolite and in
fractures present in the bedrock. Saprolite, which normally contains clay and
silt, is capable of storing fairly large volumes of water because of its high
porosity. Its ability to transmit water is fairly low, however, because of the
small size of the pores and the complexity of their interconnections.
Unweathered bedrock has essentially no primary (intergranular) porosity.
Stresses through geologic time have fractured the rocks, however, and ground
water is transmitted through these fractures. In general, the storage capacity
of bedrock is lower than that of an equal volume of saprolite, but its
permeability (ability to transmit water) locally may be greater. Rock fractures
become smaller and less numerous with depth, and are normally insignificant for
water supply at depths greater than about 300 feet.
Ground water currently is used in Mecklenburg County for principally
domestic, agricultural and industrial water supplies. These supplies are
normally obtained through drilled wells which draw water from the fractured
bedrock. Many domestic and small -volume agricultural supplies historically were
obtained from the saprolite zone through shallow, large -diameter dug or bored
wells. This practice is becoming less common because of higher potential for
pollution to occur and the. less reliable nature of this type of water supply
8
_AW ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANY

when compared to an otherwise similar bedrock well. By using deeper wells which
are isolated from the saprolite by casing, the saprolite serves as a storage
reservoir and natural filter for water slowly infiltrating from the surface -into
the fractured bedrock.
The water table varies from near the ground surface in valleys, to more than
100 ft below the ground surface on sharply rising hills. In general, the
ground -water table is a subdued replica of the ground surface under natural
conditions. The quantities of water available are generally small, with typical
yields of less than 10 gpm for domestic wells.
2.4 Site Hvdrogeology
2.4.1 Soil Conditions
Five soil test borings (E-11 through E-15) were drilled at the approximate
locations shown on the Boring Location Plan (Drawing 4). The borings generally
encountered a 5-inch thick layer of topsoil and roots at the surface (1.5-ft
thick plow zone at boring E-11) underlain by residual soil. The generalized
profile of residual soil encountered in the borings consists of an upper,
somewhat clayey zone that grades with depth to sandy and silty soils.
The Harrisburg Road Landfill is located in an area underlain by igneous and
metamorphic rocks ranging in composition from granite (acidic) to gabbro
(basic). Diorite and quartz diorite (intermediate composition) are the
predominant rock types at the site.
9
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

The upper residual soils at the borings are stiff to hard clayey sandy silt
and sandy clayey silt. They extend to about 12 ft in depth at boring E-13 and
to about 6 ft at the remaining borings. The uppermost 3 ft at boring E-14 may
have been disturbed by site clearing activities.
The lower residual zone at the borings consists of variably micaceous stiff
to hard sandy silt and firm to dense silty sand. San dy/silty soils extend to
the boring termination depths of 40 ft (E-11 through E-14) and 60 feet (E-15).
2.4.2 Ground -Water Conditions
Ground water was encountered in all the borings. Within the time frame that
the borings were drilled (February, 1986), ground water was measured (after a
stabilization period) at depths ranging from 18.3 to 35 ft (see Table 1) or
elevations of about 751 to 727 feet.
Ground -water levels were measured periodically in the borings/wells after
their completion. A complete set of water -level measurements was made on March
10, 1986 and is included in Table 1.
Ground -water levels in wells at other locations on adjoining, undeveloped
portions of the landfill also were measured on March 10, 1986. These include
observation wells and piezometers installed by Law Engineering for the earlier
site expansion and observation wells placed by the-U.S. Geological Survey.
These data are the basis for the Ground -Water Contour Map on Drawing 5. Where a
previously existing well. had been destroyed prior to March 10, 1986, an
10
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING

estimated ground -water level based on the history of seasonal fluctuation at
that and nearby wells was used for preparation of the ground -water contour map.
Ground -water elevations at wells where surveyed surface elevations are not
available are shown as approximate values on Drawing 5.
Ground -water levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall
variations and with changes in the water level in adjacent drainage features.
Normally, the highest seasonal ground -water levels occur in the spring or early
summer and the lowest levels occur in the fall or early winter. In early March,
when the data contoured on Drawing 5 were obtained, ground water typically would
be at an intermediate level relative to the seasonal fluctuation. In general,
the water table is nearer the land surface under the lower -elevation portions of
the sites and deeper under the higher areas (see Cross Sections, Drawings 6 and
7). The ground -water table follows the same general trend as the topography,
but is smoother and has a lower, more uniform slope.
Ground -water flow directions are influenced by on -site and off -site
drainage. Drainage features on the proposed expansion sites and on adjacent
parts of the existing landfill property are paths for surface -water runoff.
Related ground -water flow directions are primarily toward existing landfill
property. The primary flow direction on the East Tract is to the west toward a
north -flowing creek on landfill property. Flow from the West Tract is to the
northwest, north and northeast to two north -flowing streams on the existing
site. All of these streams merge northward into a northeast -trending tributary
to Reedy Creek.
11
.AW ENGINEERING TESTING

2.4.3 Comments
The above descriptions of soil and ground water provide a general summary of
the subsurface conditions encountered. Generalized subsurface conditions are
illustrated on the Cross Sections (Drawings 6 and 7). The Test Boring Records
in Appendix I contain detailed information recorded at each boring location;
they represent interpretation of the field logs based on engineering examination
of the field samples. Lines designating the interfaces between various strata
represent approximate boundaries and the transition between strata may be
gradual.
2.5 Geotechnical_and Hydrogeological Evaluation
2.5.1 Allowable Excavation Depths
It is generally desirable to excavate as much soil as possible from within a
landfill to maximize waste storage volume. Two major factors limit the depth of
excavation: ground water and rock (or very dense soil to partially weathered
rock). State regulations require that the landfill be designed to allow at
least 4 ft of soil between the waste material and the seasonal high ground -water
level (or rock; fractures in rock can provide direct paths to the ground water).
It should be noted again that ground -water levels may fluctuate several feet
with seasonal and rainfall variations and with changes in the water level of
adjacent drainage features. Long-term fluctuations of ground -water levels may
be as much as 10 to 12 ft beneath hills and ridges and less at lower -lying areas
(based on monitoring of wells at Piedmont sites, including some in other parts
12
ENGINEERING TESTING

of the Harrisburg Road Landfill property, and long-term hydrographs of wells
monitored by the State of North Carolina). The water levels measured on March
10, 1986 and used for development of the Ground -Water Contour Map (Drawing 5)
are considered to be intermediate values.
The following tabulation incorporates Law Engineering's best judgement of a
conservatively selected, probable long-term seasonal high water table at the
borings based on data available at the time of this report.
Boring/Well Estimated Long -Term
Number Seasonal High Water (Elev., Ft�
E-11 733
E-12 757
E-13 747
E-14 749
E-15 762
Based on the borings completed at these two sites, depth to ground water
will be the limiting factor in the determination of excavation limits. (Though
not encountered in the borings, pinnacles or large boulders of rock locally
could be a limiting factor.) Based on the ground -water criterion for excavation
limits and considering that the seasonal high ground -water levels at some
borings might approach those estimated above, excavation depths are expected to
range as follows:
East Tract - near zero at the southwest corner, perhaps requiring some
fill to achieve the 4-ft separation, to about 20 ft at the higher
elevations;
13
ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

West Tract - about 5 ft in the northeasternmost part to about 25 ft
beneath the central part of the ridge.
In general, conventional earth -moving equipment should be capable of
excavating materials with penetration resistances of less than about 50 blows
per foot. If very dense soil, partially weathered rock, boulders or rock
pinnacles occur in excavations, special equipment or techniques will be
required. Ripping and/or blasting may be necessary to excavate areas where
these materials are encountered above the general allowable or planned
excavation depths. A pinnacle of rock above the proposed excavation bottom may
be covered with a compacted layer of soil if the resulting mound is acceptable;
if not, the rock could be excavated to 4 to 5 ft below the proposed landfill
bottom and covered with compacted soil to the desired landfill bottom elevation.
Boulders too large to be removed by bulldozers would require blasting for
efficient removal or, if left in place, would be treated as pinnacles.
2.5.2 Suitability of Excavated Soils for Landfill Development
The typical profile of residual soil at these tracts consist of an upper,
clayey zone that grades with depth to a lower, sandy/silty zone. The clayey
zone consists of sandy clayey silt and clayey sandy silt. Based on laboratory
tests of selected samples, these soils are classified predominantly as MH and
subordinately as ML according to the Unified Soil Classification system.
The silty soils are variably micaceous sandy silt with Unified Soil
Classification of ML. The variably micaceous silty sands are classified as SM.
14
FNGINFFRING TFSTING

Results of all laboratory tests conducted (classification, compaction,
permeability) are listed in Table 2; those results delineate individual soil
properties and relate to the suitability of those soils for specific landfill
utilization. Details of the laboratory test results are provided on the Soil
Sample Data sheets and Compaction Test sheets in Appendix II.
The in -situ moisture contents of the two soils tested at these tracts are
2.2 and 3.5 percent wet of the optimum moisture contents as determined from the
laboratory compaction tests (see Table 2). The measured in -situ moisture
content of the tested soils would typically be suitable to achieve adequate
compaction. However, in -situ moisture content varies and, depending upon soil
type, proximity to the water table, season of the year and prevailing weather
conditions, wetting or drying of borrow soils could be required. (Soils tested
from other parts of the Harrisburg site had in -situ moisture contents up to 9.5
percent above optimum. Those soils are suitable for use with drying, much or
all of which typically is achieved during excavation and placement.) Drying of
borrow soils often is achieved by spreading or discing under sunny and/or windy
conditions.
Generally, it is more difficult to change the moisture content of more
clayey soils (to enhance workability) than that of less clayey soils. This
difficulty is usually greatest with soils having higher plasticity index (PI)
values, especially when the PI is greater than about 30. All of the samples
tested at these sites had PI's less than 30. Any clayey soils with PI's greater
than 30 may require blending with less clayey soils to improve their
workability.
15
ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANY

Suitability of the residual soils for use as landfill cover material is
considered to be good if the moisture contents are properly controlled. Based
on the results of two laboratory permeability tests, remolded samples of these
soils have saturated hydraulic conductivities in the range of 3 x 10-6 to 9 x
10-7 cm/sec (see Table 2). These two test results are toward the lower range
(least permeable) of those tested during studies for the previous expansion.
Use of more clayey soils as final cover material would tend to reduce the amount
of water infiltrating into the waste material and thus reduce the potential for
generation of leachate. To assure that appropriate soil materials for the final
cover are available on site, the landfill operator may elect to stockpile a
quantity of clayey soils. Because of the volume -change potential of plastic
clayey soils, if soils with PI's greater than about 30 are encountered and used
as final landfill cover, an 8 to 12-inch thick layer of less clayey soils should
be placed on top of the clayey layer.
Erosion potential of the residual soils will require that erosion protection
be provided in areas where these soils are exposed. Generally, the erosion
potential of the more clayey soils is less than that of sandy/silty soils. To
reduce erosion potential from rainfall and run-off, it is recommended that
completed slopes, especially those utilizing sandy soils, be grassed immediately
to establish a protective cover. Temporary erosion protection and sediment
control (gravel -lined ditches, sediment basins, silt fences, etc.) will be
required at the lower reaches of active landfilling areas and perhaps on
previously landfilled areas (until an adequate stand of grass is developed).
The residual soils generally would be suitable for use as fill (roads,
parking or other area fills) if proper design procedures and field controls are
IV
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

followed. The plasticity characteristics of clayey borrow soils should be
checked so that the higher -plasticity soils (PI greater than 30) that locally
may be present in borrow areas (none was encountered during site exploration)
are not used in the uppermost 2 to 3 ft of compacted fills.
The residual soils are considered marginally suitable for use in relatively
high (greater than about 25 ft) water -retention and/or embankment structures
because of slope stability and potential seepage considerations. The more
clayey soils are sensitive to variations in moisture and can lose strength or
develop planar surfaces (potential failure planes) when saturated.
Cut slopes in the shallow, more clayey soils, especially temporary cut
slopes, should be relatively stable. Deeper soils typically retain the relic
structure of the parent rock from which they weathered. Unfavorable
orientations of discontinuities can result in movement of blocks or wedges of
soil in cut slopes when triggered by disturbance or excess moisture. Permanent
cut slopes should be no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. Engineering
evaluations should be performed for steeper slopes or cut slopes higher than
about 25 feet. If planes of weakness are identified during construction or if a
surcharge load is placed near the top of a cut slope, stability of that slope
should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer.
2.5.3 Surface -Water Control
Both expansion tracts include portions of surface -water divides so that run-
on to these areas is minimal. Surface drainage from the higher -elevation parts
17
L/-1V7 CJYJ IINGLf IIVJ IGJI IIVJ Uk.,Mr'WINOT

of these tracts that would tend to flow to the west (East Tract) and northeast
to northwest (West Tract) onto waste -fill areas likely could be controlled by
interceptor ditches and routed around fill areas to discharge into existing,
northward -flowing creeks. Those creeks would remain open during and after
landfilling.
2.5.4 Ground -Water Protection
Ground -water protection at a landfill can be enhanced by minimizing leachate
generation through control of potential surface and subsurface sources of
infiltrating water and by providing a soil buffer between waste material and
ground water. Run-on to the landfill should be intercepted and routed as
previously described. The final cover should be designed to provide positive
drainage. The projected long-term seasonal high water levels at the borings
(see Section 2.5.1), which are the basis for design of the landfill bottom, are
conservatively selected to minimize the potential for an unanticipated rise in
the water table.
In -situ permeability tests conducted in four selected boreholes indicate a
range of saturated horizontal hydraulic conductivities generally from about 2 x
10-4 to 3 x 10-5 cm/sec for residual soil and saprolite (see Table 3). These
values are within the range of hydraulic conductivities considered typical for
in -place residual soils at similar Piedmont sites. They are also within the
range of hydraulic conductivities determined by field and laboratory
permeability tests done during studies for the previous site expansion.
114]
--y-111\v I GOI IIYV l %AVIFMIV I

Based on the results of the field permeability tests and on published
relationships between soil classification and permeability, an average, upper -
bound hydraulic conductivity for in -place, sandy/silty residual soils at this
site is considered to be about 2 x 10-4 cm/sec. Based on that average hydraulic
conductivity and typical values of effective porosity and ground -water gradients
consistent with soil and site conditions, ground -water movement in residual
soils is expected to be generally less than about 30 ft per year. The rate of
ground -water movement with the steeper slopes bordering the creeks on currently
permitted parts of the landfill might be somewhat greater.
The general direction of ground -water flow from the East Tract is to the
west, through currently permitted property and toward a north -flowing perennial
stream on existing landfill property. Ground water from the West Tract would
flow generally northward, ultimately discharging into two, north -flowing streams
on the west side of the currently permitted landfill site. Thus, no new
discharges would be created by development of these two expansion areas.
Small seeps that are encountered within landfilling areas could be "sealed
off" by placement of about 5 ft of compacted soil. (It may be necessary to
place gravel or crushed stone, to serve as a working surface beneath the soil
"seal".)
Any wells located in parts of the site to be landfilled, including those
installed for this exploration, should be sealed for their full depth so they
will not remain as potential conduits to the ground water. Casing should be
removed prior to or during placement of the grout seal.
19
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING

2.5.5 Monitoring
A system of ground -water monitoring wells and surface -water monitoring
stations is recommended to evaluate ground water and surface water for potential
contamination (see Drawing 10). The proposed monitoring system is similar to
that proposed for the earlier site expansion, modified to accommodate both the
currently proposed expansion areas and the associated change in operation plan
of adjoining, previously permitted areas.
Three up -gradient monitoring wells are recommended: one in the eastern part
of the East Tract, one in the southern part of the West Tract and one in the
southwestern part of the site, to the west of the West Tract. A down -gradient
well is recommended to the west of the East Tract. Existing U.S. Geological
Survey/Mecklenburg County monitoring wells (HBW-12, HBW-14A and HBW-15) are
recommended for down -gradient monitoring of ground water at the western part of
the site. The proposed construction, depth and screened intervals are
illustrated on Drawing 10. New components of the monitoring system should be
installed as soon as possible to establish background conditions at the specific
locations.
Surface -water monitoring stations are proposed at three locations where
north -flowing streams exit the landfill property.
Water quality in the monitoring wells and at the surface -water monitoring
stations should be routinely checked. Appropriate indicator tests should be
performed to identify potential contamination. The results of those tests would
be correlated to background information.
20
AW ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANI

2.6 Siting -Requirements
The two tracts proposed herein for expansion of the Harrisburg Road Landfill
are considered to satisfy the requirements of Section .0503(1) of 10 NCAC 10G in
that
(a) the 100—year flood does not affect the sites;
(b) (i) endangered or threatened species of plants, fish or wildlife are
not known to exist in the vicinity;
(ii) habitats of endangered or threatened species have not been
identified on site;
(iii) significant archaeological or historical sites have not been
identified on the properties;
(iv) we are not aware of any elements of the state nature and historic
preserve that would be affected by operation of the landfill;
(c) existing aircraft runways are separated from the site by more than the
required minimum distances; and
(d) on —site soils are adequate in quantity and characteristics for the
proposed landfill uses.
21
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

3.0 LANDFILL DESIGN
3.1 Overall Site Development
The proposed overall development of the expansion areas is illustrated on
the Site Development Plan (Drawing 10). The proposed expansion will not require
changes in the current operation of the existing Harrisburg Road Landfill;
landfilling will simply extend into the adjacent, expansion areas. Development
of these new expansion areas for landfilling does affect both partly completed
and undeveloped portions of the landfill site previously permitted. Design
provisions herein include appropriate adjustments to planned development of
those adjoining areas.
The existing landfill entrance (from Harrisburg Road) will not be
appreciably affected by the proposed expansion. The existing landfill exit to
Pence Road will become the entrance and exit for the maintenance building
associated with the nine -hole golf course. A new exit to Pence Road will be
constructed about 2900 ft northwest of the existing exit. Generally, on -site
facilities and utilities will remain essentially as they are; however, the
following changes are planned. (1) A new maintenance building will be
constructed near the new exit to Pence Road. The new building will be a one-
story structure with a storage loft and will measure about 50 by 84 ft in plan
dimension. It will replace the existing maintenance building located near the
existing exit to Pence Road which will become the maintenance facility for the
initial nine -hole golf course. (2) The existing storage shed (approximately
2800 sq ft) located south of the site entrance will be relocated north of the
entrance to make room for the golf -course clubhouse. (3) An approximately 900
22
1AW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

sq ft, one-story house existing on the East Tract will be used as an employee
Day Room. (4) The current site security system will remain and be extended into
the expansion areas.
The area method of landfilling currently being used at the existing landfill
will be used in the expansion areas. The area method generally consists of
progressive excavating, landfilling and covering.
3.1.1 Landfill Bottom
The allowable depth of excavation is limited by the projected seasonal high
ground -water levels. The landfill bottom is separated from the conservatively
projected seasonal high water table by at least 4 feet. The proposed landfill
bottom is illustrated on Drawing 8 (Grading Plan) and on Drawings 6 and 7 (Cross
Sections).
3.1.2 Surface -Water Control
In general, surface water currently flowing onto the proposed landfill areas
will be intercepted and routed around the landfill via perimeter diversion
ditches. However, the quantity of surface drainage toward the expansion areas
will be small since the upgradient boundaries of the landfill areas occur near
drainage divides.
There will be no significant change in the quantity or location of pre -
development surface -water discharge from the site either during or after
landfilling. The provisions for controlling surface water during landfilling
23
_AW ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPAN`

are shown on Drawing 9 (Erosion/Sediment-Control Measures). The closure plan,
similarly, provides for control of surface water by means of grassed berms which
will direct surface water to riprap-lined drainage ditches or swales, which in
turn will direct the water off the landfill to natural drainage features (see
Construction Plan, Drawing 11).
3.1.3 Control of Leachate Generation
Minimizing the amount of water that enters a landfill is the most effective
method of minimizing Leachate generation. Disposal of liquids, regardless of
degree of contamination, should not be permitted. As discussed above, surface
water will be routed around the landfilling areas. Properly placing soil covers
and maintaining adequate slopes to insure positive drainage will minimize
infiltration of rainfall. Rainfall will be routed from landfilling areas
through the site erosion/sediment-control measures. The landfill bottom is
designed to be at least 4 ft above the conservatively projected seasonal high
water table to prevent inundation of the waste material by ground water.
3.1.4 Control of Gas Generation
Minimizing the amount of moisture in the landfill will minimize the amount
of gas generated during decomposition of waste material. The same provisions
discussed above to minimize leachate generation will be applicable to minimize
gas generation. A gas venting system will be installed after closure of
significant portions of the landfill. Site -specific data will be obtained from
the initially closed -out areas to tailor design of the final venting system to
the site's production of gas; the .future use of a specific area also would be a
24
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING

factor in design. The initial gas venting system will consist of a series of
gas vent wells; details of the proposed methane gas vent are illustrated on
Drawing 10 (Site Development Plan).
3.1.5 Borrow Area
Borrow materials for the intermediate and final covers will be obtained from
excavations intended to create storage space within the areas of proposed
landfilling. The need for a supplemental borrow area is not indicated at this
time.
3.1.6 On -Site Access Roads
The proposed expansion consists of two major landfilling areas. Access to
these major areas will be by extension of existing on -site, all-weather roads.
The access roads generally will have maximum grades less than 8 percent.
Locations of the access roads are shown on Drawing 10.
3.2 Erosion Sediment -Control Measures
Temporary erosion/sediment-control will be required during landfill
construction and operation. The overall erosion/sediment-control plan is
illustrated on Drawing 9. Generally, the anticipated minor amounts of run-on
water to the site will be routed around disturbed or landfilled areas by
perimeter diversion ditches. All run-off water in contact with disturbed or
landfil.led areas will be routed through the site erosion/sediment-control
measures. Details of surface -water control ditches are included on Drawing 9.
25
ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

Generally, closed -out landfill areas and disturbed areas that will not be used
for 6 months or longer will be grassed to minimize erosion.
3.2.1 Silt Fences
Areas where non -point, low -volume run-off might enter existing streams
typically are protected by construction of a temporary silt fence. Details and
proposed locations of the recommended silt fence are shown on Drawing 9.
3.2.2 Sediment Basins
Run-off water from disturbed and/or landfilled areas will be channelled by
interior grading and perimeter ditches to basins to collect sediment prior to
discharge into the existing streams. Four basins will be utilized during
filling of the new expansion areas and the adjoining parts of existing landfill
property. Two of the basins (one west of the East Tract and one north of the
West Tract) have already been constructed for operation of currently permitted
areas. The two proposed new basins are designed based on procedures outlined in
the Mecklenburg County Guidelines and Specifications for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control (April, 1980). A typical section of the recommended basin is
illustrated on Drawing 9. Design parameters for the two new basins are included
on Drawing 9.
3.2.3 Grassing
The surface of all areas that have been disturbed or landfilled will be
stabilized with an erosion -resistant grass cover. Landfilling will be year-
26
ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

round for several years; however, grassing will occur twice a year. Preparation
of the areas to be seeded will be according to the following procedures:
1. Install surface -water control measures.
2. Disc areas to be seeded to depth of 4 to 6 inches.
3. Remove loose rocks, roots and other obstructions from the surface so
that they will not interfere with establishment and maintenance of
vegetation. The surface to be seeded should be reasonably smooth and
uniform.
4. If no soil test is taken, apply fertilizer and lime according to the
seeding specifications presented below.
5. If soil test is taken, apply fertilizer and lime according to soil test
report.
6. Apply lime and fertilizer uniformly and mixed with the soil during
seedbed preparation.
If no soil test is taken, seeding will be according to the following
specifications:
1. Apply agricultural lime at the rate of 1000 pounds per acre.
2. Apply 10-10-10 commercial fertilizer at the rate of 600 pounds per acre.
27
ENGINEERING TESTING

3. Seed according to the following schedule and application rates:
Date Type Rate
March 1 to May 15 Tall Fescue 100 pounds per acre
September 15 to November 15 Wintery Rye 100 pounds per acre
4. Mulch with straw applied at the rate of 60 bales per acre.
3.3 Operation Progression
Landfilling in the expansion areas should be tied in to the adjoining
landfill areas by field -determined, best -fit procedures to allow continuous
landfilling from the existing landfill into the expansion areas and to optimize
storage volume.
3.3.1 Landfill Progression
Generally, an area of several acres is excavated to the proposed landfill
bottom contours; the excavated material is used for site development (access
roads, drainage and erosion/sediment-control measures, etc.) or as cover for a
previously excavated area. As a previously excavated area is landfilled, a
subsequent area (typically adjacent) is excavated and that soil used as cover
for the previous area and for development of the subsequent area. This
procedure continues until landfilling is complete. Temporary stockpiling of
soil for future use as cover may be required in some areas of the site. A
typical section illustrating the landfilling progression is shown on the Site
Development Plan (Drawing 10).
fm
_AW ENGINEERING TESTING

3.3.2 Landfill Capacity and Lifespan
The design capacity of the landfill expansions is based on excavating the
site as illustrated on the Grading Plan (Drawing 8) and landfilling the site to
the final contours shown on the Construction Plan (Drawing 11). The parameters
utilized for estimating the lifespan of the landfill include:
. waste volume to required borrow soil volume = 2.5 cubic yards to 1 cubic
yard.
. amount of waste to be landfilled = 290,000 to 440,000 tons per year (a
range in annual volume is indicated because of unknowns associated with
the possible development of additional landfill sites, use of recycling
or incineration, etc.)
. waste density (in place) = 1000 pounds per cubic yard.
The estimated waste volume capacity of the proposed and previous expansion areas
including associated increase in the volume of adjoining landfill areas is 3.3
million cubic yards. Based on the above parameters, the lifespan associated
with this additional landfill capacity (and thus the expansion areas) is between
3.8 and 5.6 years.
29
UAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

3.4 Landfill Closure
3.4.1 Final Cover
After completion of landfilling in a specific area, a final cover will be
placed. It will consist of a minimum 3-ft-thick layer of well -compacted soil,
preferably the more clayey soils typically found near the present ground
surface. The final cover will be sloped to enhance runoff. After placement of
the final cover, an erosion -resistant grass cover will be established over the
area in accordance with seeding formulas, schedules and mulching discussed in
Section 3.2.3.
3.4.2 Final Contours
The proposed final contours are shown on the Construction Plan (Drawing 11).
The fill slopes are 4 horizontal to 1 vertical, and the top (relatively flat
portion) of the landfill has grades of not less than 1 percent. The final
surface at the perimeter of the landfill will have a multiple -terrace (benched)
configuration.
3.4.3 Surface -Water Control
The perimeter diversion and interceptor ditches constructed to control run-
on and run-off at the site during landfilling will remain to permanently control
the surface water. The flat portions of the site will be graded to provide
positive drainage and minimize erosion problems. Fifteen-ft wide benches with
longitudinal slopes of about 1 percent are to be placed at 20-ft vertical
30
urrr u.v u.l_�.I �nvv iwiIII LNYIrHiv1

intervals on the 4 H:1 V slopes to minimize erosion and to direct runoff to
riprap-lined ditches for removal from landfilled areas. Details of the slope,
bench and run-off control ditches are illustrated on Drawing 9
(Erosion/Sediment-Control Measures).
3.5 Final Use
The proposed final use of the closed -out landfilled areas is portions of a
community recreation facility. The plan consists of a golf course and golf
driving range, and ball fields, tennis courts, bike trails and associated
facilities. The final use has been discussed with representatives of the nearby
community and with the County recreation staff and the County's Park and
Recreation Commission. The proposed final use illustrated on Drawing 12 is
considered compatible with the proposed final contours illustrated on Drawing
11.
3.6 Design Requirements
The proposed expansion of the Harrisburg Road Landfill is considered to
satisfy the requirements of Section .0503(2) of 10 NCAC IN in that:
(a) a system of gas vents will be constructed such that the tendency for
gases to collect beneath structures or to migrate off site would be
minimized;
(b) public access to the site will be controlled;
31
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

(c) provisions are incorporated in the design such that it is not
anticipated that off -site surface waters would be polluted;
(d) the landfill bottom will be a minimum of 4 ft above the design seasonal
high water table and contamination of off -site underground drinking
water sources is not anticipated;
(e) open burning of solid waste will not be permitted;
(f) the minimum buffers are (1) 100 ft between property lines and disposal
areas (required by County ordinance), (2) 500 ft between dwellings and
wells and disposal areas, and (3) 50 ft between streams and disposal
areas; and
(g) erosion/sediment-control measures are incorporated into the design.
32
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANY

4.0 QUALIFICATION OF REPORT
The activities and evaluative approaches used in this study are consistent
with those normally employed in hydrogeological and waste management engineering
for projects of this type. The recommendations contained in this report are, in
our opinion, consistent with applicable codes and regulations for sanitary
landfills at the time this report was prepared. The recommendations may or may
not comply with or may exceed the criteria of future codes and regulations.
We do not warrant or guarantee that the disposal site will function without
problems. Qualified engineering input during construction, together with post —
construction performance checks, constitute the owner's best resource for
identifying problems at an early stage or for mitigating problems. We request
that any variations in the design affected during operation be reported to us
for our review. We also request that the excavations be examined during
landfill operations and that any variants in subsurface conditions be reported
to us for our review.
The evaluation of this site as a potential sanitary landfill should not be
used to evaluate it for any other purpose.
33
ENGINEERING TESTING

LAN ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

O
lZ •4
n
O
u•1
ctl
N
00 41
rn
ON
r-4
M
u1
o w
u
CM
N
CPO
c0 �
to
Ln
00
N
O
d
M
N
_q
N
M
� A
3
O
pq
w
a� �
(A N 4,
41 •rl
G � �
.0
O
O
M
N
w co
P W 4.J
L4
a0
M
O
0 G7
M
N
1-1
N
M
N
U
O cti
co
W H O
z
3
b
H
cF�
z ti
o
?
ol o
rX4
ch w
a
44 4.Ja
0
Lf)
Lr)
N A
v
L4
�o
• 4
cn
M
1-1
N
Hbi
G
•a
O
Pq
N
U �
co 44
44
P
:j 0
.-c
r 4
00
.t
to O
'b a.r
IO
1l
cr)
�D
00
❑ cb
n
n
n
n
n
0 9
O N
P
U' W
W Sa
q N
c
N
M
�t
tt1
•r1
1
1
r1
_q
.1
O O
W
W
W
W
W
aq z

U +�
r
to
> o
I
I
•r m
o
C3
m +3 W
e'
L U
13 7
X
X
Tm U
2 C
Q)
03
O
U
E T
Wo
m
rn
U
E T •r 4
C •r
r L W U
{(j
�
O {J
X O C
m
O
r W
W m
•r
O
Q
U L
m m
a 40
m �
E U
E C
O m
3 m
m
r
U L
E E +J ++ 32
W
•r W C
n
m
L
+�•r O
cu
U
CL
O x
M
IO
N
m
co
m a
cu
.-
W
CD 4J
m J
cu
cu
m
O
m E dJ
03
m
Cr)
4J J
m
m o C
L ++ m
m
n
N
7 W +2 aQ
(y
C)LL��
Co
{O
Co
cr
cufo
4- •.- C
[i'
cuCM
V'
cu
m
c-
co
cucu
Q t
Z � U
H m
i
4�
C W
C
(D
N
n
Cm
m
m
n
m
m
ct
CU~
C
O
J} Z
mLL
CD
m
m
CD
CCoo
LD
C9
Cwo
n
Co
F
¢
�a0
a
Sr4l
cc
S
mm
E
E
N
Jci
=
[n
m
'D
a
C +J
C T
+-
C
O
m
m
W L
0 m
L
aLL
O
+i
TO
W
4
L
co
I••• cm
CO
>.
E
U
coW
L)
T
J
m ...1
.� E
J 7
L T
O +�
'O m
m
C
W m
a
E
3
O •r -
U
mCn
U
U) •r
J
m C
C
W
m
•O
O
L
CL
U
co
O
m
T
m
m
Cm >.
Y m
U U)
O LL
LL
J
•O
C7
ma
C O
U
+�
C
}
W C
W
+3 W
O N
m
W—
m W
7 0
W
m
LL
L. W
O
7
U 7 +3
>T •N
+> > 4.2
7
U
� 4-
CA
C
13
OO
m+3
7 0
r 0—
m�
a•r
T C
E m
+� m •r
r
m m :-
E
•D W
m
LL
W m
•O E
•O co
U 'O
U m
V Cn
•r U CO
WW
C G
G
T
C 7
C C
'O CO C
7 m
••-� (p
m
U) En
W r
C
C W
m •r
co •r
C U co
i U-
C >%
En U T
W
co
LL
LL
3 4J
3
•O
LL
m •r CA
'O
S 'Cl•p
O
W
C +4
O-�
OU+1
C m
m 4s
f
Of C
O C
Cg C
O
C
L •r
L ,�
W i
+a W
T m
C W
L- m
3 co
U
0 7-�
•�-
3
m Cn
m >,•r
F-
3 •r
CoW T W
m TCn
m O
O TU)
L O Cn
O
-+ m
O
t 0 to
L —+ L.
C-
m m
L
m T
m 4-
3 iJ
3: m
C7 Y W
m +� E
m E
m Y E
r
U T
m
m (U
cm
U T
.0 O
— L:3
C) 7
L 7
W •O
+1
C T
C m •O
-+ m +�
CO •O
m U
a 0%
C •r
Y m •r
m
C
C U C
C •r
L r 'O
W 'O
C •r 'O
Cl)
m m
m
L
L J W
a)
W W
91
W J O
:3 m
L m
m
m
F-Xu)
Qco
OU
Omw
>-LLcn
U) 4J
[Lm�
OX
[1mm
C
0
e-
m
m
J
+l
J m
a
W
a
L
L
m
m
L
L
L
L
m
m
E
E
m
CD
CD
l-
'm7
7
m
7
'm7
-I
m
m
W
4-
U)
c
m
O
O
W
W
a
+3
W
U
mLL
IO
If)
O
117
I
M
cuC7
CU
Y
a
I
iO
cn
o
tO
I
I
I
L)
a
r
U'j
CU
to
ll]
117
I
cu
_
O
CON
N
!O
^
!O
I
a
m
N
O-
CO
W
m
P)
O
Co
N
N
O
V
O
W
m
r
�
c
L
aLi�
Q
Q
Q
Q
-Wi
m
• a
e-
cu
cu
cu
CO
cl
�t
W
L)
u)
C-a--
I
I
di
w
I
I
I
m z'
LL
I

TABLE 3
FIELD PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
LETCo. Job No. CH 4784A
Boring
Approximate Depth
Hydraulic Conductivity,
Number
Interval (Ft)
k (cm/sec)
E-11
35.0 to 38.2
5 x 10-5
E-13
18.2 to 28.5
3 x 10-5
E-14
23.1 to 32.2
2 x 10-4
E-15
30.1 to 41.8
1 x 10-4

APPENDIX I
FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANY

Site Reconnaissance
Surface conditions at the site were examined on several occasions by project
personnel of Law Engineering. The purposes of the site reconnaissance were to
observe the general site topography and to note any outstanding surface features
that might affect the proposed project. A visual site reconnaissance, when used
in conjunction with field and laboratory testing, provides a more accurate
evaluation of possible construction problems related to surface and subsurface
conditions and an increased awareness of overall site conditions.
Soil Test Borinss
The borings were drilled by mechanically advanced, hollow -stem steel augers.
Soil Sampling and penetration testing were performed in general accordance with
ASTM D 1586. At regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard
1.4-inch I. D., 2-inch 0. D., split -tube sampler. The sampler was first seated
6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an additional 12
inches with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches was recorded and is
designated the "penetration resistance". The penetration resistance, when
properly evaluated, is an index to the soil's strength, ability to be excavated
and load supporting capability.
Representative portions of the soil samples, thus obtained, were placed in
glass jars and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples
were examined by an engineering geologist to verify the driller's field
classifications. Test Boring Records are attached, showing the soil
descriptions and penetration resistances.
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CCMPANY

Bag Samples
Loose, bulk samples of potential on -site borrow soils were obtained cuttings
from the desired depths in selected auger borings. The soil samples were placed
in cloth sacks and, along with a sealed jar sample for determination of natural
moisture content, returned to the laboratory for testing.
Ground -Water Level Readings
Water -level readings were recorded at the time of boring. These readings
indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of
our field exploration. Ground -water level readings were made again after a
period of 24 hours or more following completion of the borings to permit
stabilization of the ground -water table which had been locally disrupted by the
drilling operations. Additional ground -water level measurements were made at
various intervals after the "24 hour" readings.
Piezometers
Open tube piezometers were installed at the five boring locations. The
piezometers were constructed by inserting a length of 3-inch diameter PVC pipe
into an auger -drilled borehole. The bottom approximately 10-ft section of the
pipe was a manufactured well screen with 0.010-inch wide slots. After the PVC
pipe was in place, clean sand backfill was placed around the outside of the pipe
to about 3 or 4 ft above the well screen. A bentonite seal of 2-ft thickness
or more was placed on top of the sand backfill to seal the piezometer at the
desired level. The borehole was then backfilled with native soils to a level
ENGINEERING TESTING

near the ground surface. A grout collar was installed at the ground surface at
each piezometer location. Attached Piezometer Installation Records illustrate
the piezometer installations.
Permeability Tests
Inflow -type permeability tests were conducted at four piezometer locations
to determine the hydraulic conductivity, a constant of proportionality relating
to the ease with which a fluid passes through a porous medium. The field
procedure is to: 1) measure the depth to the ground water, 2) remove the water
from the borehole by bailing or pumping and, 3) measure the recovering ground-
water level. The hydraulic conductivity is determined by the variable -head or
time-lag method (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) depending upon which method is
appropriate for the specific geometry of the piezometer.
LI.VII.L LI\II.V IL✓I II VU-MINI

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
FT.
0
1.5
3.0
2.0
7.0
_2.0
0.0
Elev. , Ft. • PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
762.10 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Plowed Field
Residuum - Hard Red Brown Slightly
Micaceous Clayey Fine to Medium Saner*
Hard Orange Brown and Yellow Tan Claye
Micaceous Fine to Medium Sandy Silt -
757.1
(ML)
Hard to Very Stiff Tan and Multicolored
Slightly Micaceous Fine to Medium Very
Sandy Silt With Thin Layers of Silty
Fine to Coarse Sand - (ML)
752.1
Very Firm Purple, Tan and White
Slightly Micaceous Very Silty Fine
to Medium Sand - (SM)
747.1
Dense to Firm Tan and Multicolored
Silty to Very Silty Fine to Medium
Sand - (SM)
742.1
737.1
32.1
Very Stiff Tan, Brown and Multicolored
Micaceous to Slightly Micaceous Fine
to Medium Sandy Silt - Moist - ML
727.1
22.1
naxi.ng -xerminatea at 4u.0 rL. water at s7.5 rt. at -1-ime of Boring
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586 TEST BORING RECORD
Groundwater at 35.0 Ft. on 2-21-86
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER
BORING NO. E-11
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. 1. D. SAMPLER 1 FT. DATE DRILLED 2-17-86
Installed Piezometer to 38.2 Ft. (See CH 4784A
Piet t I t 11 ti n Record) JOB NO.
PAGE 1 OF 1
ome er ns a a o
WATER TABLE, 24 HR.
WATER TABLE, 1 HR.
*Silt With Rock Fragments - (ML)
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

DEPTH
FT.
0
511
3.0
•
8.0
7.0
DESCRIPTION Elev. , Ft. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
776.1 0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Topsoil With Organics
Residuum - Hard Red Brown Fine Sandy
Clayey Silt - MH
40
Hard Red Brown Clayey Fine Sandy Silt-
(ML)
771.1
Hard Orange Brown Slightly Clayey Fine
Sandy Silt - (ML)
Very Stiff Brown, Yellow Tan and Gray
Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy Silt -
766.1
(ML)
761.1
Stiff to Very Stiff Brown, Purple
and Multicolored Fine Sandy Silt -
(ML)
756.1
751.1
746.1
741.1
736.1
Boring Terminates at 4U.0 rt. water at su r't. at 'fime of Boring
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586 TEST BORING RECORD
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM 0-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER
BORING NO. E-12
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I. D. SAMPLER I FT. DATE DRILLED 2-10-86
Installed Piezometer to 38.8 Ft. (See Piezometer CH 4784A
Installation Record) JOB NO.
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE, — WATER TABLE, 24 HR. PAGE 1 OF 1
-- WATER TABLE, 1 HR.
150 ( % ROCK CORE RECOVERY LOSS OF DRILLING WATER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
Groundwater at 29.0 Ft. After 24 Hours

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
FT.
0
20.0
Approx.
Elev., Ft.
-77c i+n
• PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
ing Drilled to Obtain
es
F
own Fine Sandy Clayey Silt -
can
MH
ro
w
771.1
766.1
Orange Brown and Yellow Tan Slightly
a�
s�
ca
n
761.1
Clayey Fine Slightly Sandy Silt - ML
0
w
756.1
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft.
No Groundwater Encountered at
Time of Boring
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. 1. D. SAMPLER 1 FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE. WATER TABLE, 24 HR.
-- WATER TABLE, 1 HR.
150 ( % ROCK CORE RECOVERY
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. E-12A
DATE DRILLED 2-17-86
JOB NO. CH 4784A
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

DEPTH
FT.
0
5"
3.0
. E
'®�
-2.0
7.0
27.0
-2.0
DESCRIPTION Elev. , Ft. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
7 C 70
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Topsoiesiduum
- Stiff Tan Brown Clayey
rI
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt - (ML)
Very Stiff Orange Brown Clayey Fine
to Coarse Sandy Silt - (ML)
752.8
Hard Yellow Tan and Orange Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey Silt - MH
Very Stiff Yellow Tan and Orange
Brown Slightly Micaceous Clayey
747.8
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt - (ML)
Very Stiff Tan and Multicolored
Slightly Micaceous Fine Sandy Silt -
(ML)
742.8
Very Stiff Tan, White and Black
Slightly Micaceous Fine to Medium
Sandy Silt - Moist - ML
737.8
732.8
Very Firm Tan, White and Black
Slightly Micaceous Very Silty Fine
to Medium Sand - Moist - (SM)
727.81
Dense to Very Firm Tan, White and
Gray Slightly Micaceous Silty to Very
Silty Fine to Coarse Sand - Moist -
722.8
(SM)
717.8
0.0 �/
Boring Terminated at 40.0 Ft. Water at 19.5 Ft. at Time of Boring
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586 TEST BORING RECORD
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER BORING NO. E-13
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. 1. D. SAMPLER 1 FT. DATE DRILLED 2-11-86
Installed Piezometer to 28.5 Ft. (See Piezometer
CH 4784A
Installation Record) JOB NO.
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE . - WATER TABLE, 24 HR. PAGE 1 OF 1
0WATER TABLE, / HR.
so I % ROCK CORE RECOVERY LOSS OF DRILLING WATER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
Groundwater at 18.3 Ft. on 2-17-86

DEPTH
FT.
0
511
3.0
LAW
2.0
7.0
22.0
27.0
2.0
7.0
0.0
DESCRIPTION Elev. , Ft. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
764.4 0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Toposil With Organics
Disturbed Residuum - Firm Orange
Brown Clayey Fine to Medium Sandy Silt
With Roots - (MTj
Residuum - Hard Orange Brown Slightly
Micaceous Clayey Fine to Medium Sandy
759.41
Silt With Roots - (ML)
Very Stiff Purple and Multicolored
Slightly Micaceous Fine to Medium
Sandy to Very Sandy Silt - (ML)
754-4
Very Stiff Purple and Tan Gray Fine
to Medium Very Sandy Silt - (ML)
749.4
Very Firm Purple, Tan and Multicolored
Silty Fine to Coarse Sand With Quartz
Pegmatite Fragments - (SM)
744.4
Dense Tan, Gray and Multicolored
Silty Fine to Coarse Sand - (SM)
739.41
Dense Tan, Gray and Multicolored
Slightly Micaceous Silty Fine to
Coarse Sand - SM
734.4
Dense Multicolored Slightly Micaceous
Very Silty Fine to Coarse Sand -
- (SM)
29.4
Gray Tan and White Very Silty
LoFine
o Medium Sand - (SM)
24.4
boring -zerminaLeu aU r L. waL_ci dL_ 411 r L
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. 1. D. SAMPLER 1 FT.
Installed Piezometer to 32.2 Ft. (See Piezometer
Installation Record)
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE. WATER TABLE, 24 HR.
-- WATER TABLE, 1 HR.
150 I % ROCK CORE RECOVERY
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
Groundwater at 23.4 Ft. on 2-17-86
aL llme of bUi1.11y
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. E-14
DATE DRILLED 2-10-86
JOB NO. CH 4784A
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

DEPTH
FT.
0
5"
5.E
wo
i2.0
7.0
')2.0
27.0
0.0
DESCRIPTION • PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
Elev., Ft.
781.40 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Roots and Topsoil
[Grass
Residuum - Hard Orange Brown Slightly
Micaceous Clayey Fine to Medium
Sandy Silt - (ML)
776.4
Very Stiff Tan and Multicolored
Slightly Micaceous Slightly Clayey
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt - (ML)
Very Firm Tan, Purple and Brown
Very Silty Fine to Medium Sand -
771.4
(SM)
Very Stiff Tan, Purple and Brown
Slightly Micaceous Fine to Medium
Sandy Silt - (ML)
Very Stiff Tan, Purple and Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt - (ML)
761.4
Very Stiff Purple and Multicolored
Slightly Micaceous Fine to Medium
Sandy Silt - ML
756.4
Very Stiff to Hard Purple, Tan and
Multicolored Slightly Micaceous
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt -
751.4
Moist - (ML)
746.4
741.4
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM 0-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I. D. SAMPLER i FT.
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE . WATER TABLE, 24 HR.
WATER TABLE, 1 HR.
150 I
% ROCK CORE RECOVERY
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. E-15
DATE DRILLED 2-7-86
JOB NO. CH 4784A
PAGE 1 OF 2
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
FT.
Elev.., Ft. • PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
10.0
MR
414 0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Very Stiff to Hard Purple, Tan and
Multicolored Slightly Micaceous
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt - Moist -
(ML)
736.4
731.4
726.4
721.4
Boring Terminated at 60.0 Ft.
Water at 46.0 Ft. at Time of Boring
Installed Piezometer to 41.8 Ft.
(See Piezometer Installation Record)
Groundwater at 30.2 Ft. on 2-10-86
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE
1.4 IN. I. D. SAMPLER 1 FT.
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
WATER TABLE, 24 HR.
WATER TABLE, 1 HR.
50
I % ROCK CORE RECOVERY
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. E-15
DATE DRILLED 2-7-86
JOB NO. CH 4784A
PAGE 2 OF 2
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
FT.
0
S
Approx. • PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
Elev., Ft.
f 0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Auger Boring Drilled to Obtain
Bag Samples
Orange Brown Clayey Fine to Medium
Sandy Silt - ML
a�
ro E
ro
Cl)
776.4
771.4
Pink Brown Slightly Clayey Slightly
Micaceous Fine to Medium Sandy Silt -
ML
�
R
ro
cn
766.4
ro
761.4
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft.
No Groundwater Encountered at
Time of Boring
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. 1. D. SAMPLER 1 FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE, WATER TABLE, 24 HR.
-- WATER TABLE, 1 HR.
150 I % ROCK CORE RECOVERY
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. E-15A
DATE DRILLED 2-17-86
JOB NO. CH 4784A
PAGE 1 OF 1
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION RECORD
JOB NAME _Harrisburg Road Landfill JOB NUMBER CH 4784A
BORING NUMBER E-11 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION 762.1 Ft.
LOCATION Approx. 1200 Ft. Northeast of Pence Road
INSTALLATION DATE 2-17-86
--77AT17-
GROUND SURFACE
GROUT
BORING
(6" DIA.)
SOIL
3" PVC PIPE
BENTONITE SEAL
VENTED PVC CAP
STICKUP 2.1 Ft.
DEPTH TO
BASE OF
GROUT SEAL
5.0 Ft.
DEPTH TO TOP
OF SAND BACKRLL
24.2 Ft.
THICKNESS OF
BENTONITE SEAL
2.0 Ft.
SAND
PVC SCREEN DEPTH OF
PVC SCREEN
28.2 to 38.2 Ft.
CAP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING
COMPANY
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL DEPTH
OF WELL
40.0 Ft.
PI EZOMETER
INSTALLATION RECORD

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION RECORD
JOB NAME Harrisburg Road Landfill JOB NUMBER CH 4784A
BORING NUMBER E-12 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION 776.1 Ft.
LOCATION Approx. 600 Ft. Northeast of Pence Road
INSTALLATION DATE 2-10-86
^-nmf
GROUND SURFACE GROUT
BORING
(6" DIA.)
SOIL
3" PVC PIPE
BENTONITE SEAL
VENTED PVC CAP
STICKUP 1.5 Ft.
EDEPTH TO
BASE OF
GROUT SEAL
0 Ft.
DEPTH TO TOP
OF SAND BACKRLL
25.8 Ft.
THICKNESS OF
BENTONITE SEAL
2.0 Ft.
SAND
PVC SCREEN DEPTH OF
PVC SCREEN
28.8 to 38.8 Ft.
CAP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
,iI&LAW ENGINEERING TESTING
COMPANY
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL DEPTH
OF WELL
40.0 Ft.
PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION RECORD

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION RECORD
JOB NAME Harrisburg Road Landfill JOB NUMBER CH 4784A
BORING NUMBER E-13 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION 757.8 Ft.
LOCATION Approx. 1300 Ft. Northeast of Pence Road
INSTALLATION DATE 2-11-86
VENTED PVC CAP
STICKUP 1.9 Ft.
--7rmq;7'- DEPTH TO
GROUND SURFACE GROUT BASE OF
GROUT SEAL
BORING op 3.0 Ft.
(6° D IA. )
SOIL
3" PVC PIPE
BENTONITE SEAL
DEPTH TO TOP
OF SAND BACKFILL
15.5 Ft.
THICKNESS OF
BENTONITE SEAL
2.0 Ft.
SAND
PVC SCREEN DEPTH OF
PVC SCREEN
18.5 to 28.5 Ft.
CAP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
�&
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING
COMPANY
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL DEPTH
OF WELL
40.0 Ft.
PI EZOMETER
INSTALLATION RECORD

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION RECORD
JOB NAME Harrisburg Road Landfill JOB NUMBER CH 4784A
BORING NUMBER E-14 GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATION 764.4 Ft.
LOCATION Approx. 950 Ft. Northwest of Harrisburg Road
INSTALLATION DATE 2-10-R6
GROUND SURFACE GROUT
BORING
(6" DIA.)
SOIL
3" PVC PIPE
BENTONITE SEAL
SAND
PVC SCREEN
CAP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
VENTED PVC CAP
STICKUP 2.5 Ft.
DEPTH TO
BASE OF
GROUT SEAL
4.0 Ft.
DEPTH TO TOP
OF SAND BACKFILL
18.2 Ft.
DEPTH OF
"I PVC SCREEN
22.2 to 32.2 Ft.
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING
COMPANY
CHARLOTTE,NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL DEPTH
OF WELL
40.0 Ft.
PI EZOMETER
INSTALLATION RECORD

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION RECORD
JOB NAME Harrisburg Road Landfill JOB NUMBER CH 4784A
BORING NUMBER E-15 GROUNDSURFACE ELEVATION .
LOCATION Approx. 400 Ft. Northwest of Harrisburg Road
INSTALLATION DATE 2-7-86
"'7T1trr
GROUND SURFACE
GROUT
BORING
(6" DIA.)
SOIL
3" PVC PIPE
BENTONITE SEAL
VENTED PVC CAP
STICKUP 2.6 Ft.
DEPTH TO
BASE OF
GROUT SEAL
r 2.0 Ft.
DEPTH TO TOP
OF SAND BACKFILL
27.8 Ft.
THICKNESS OF
BENTONITE SEAL
3.0 Ft.
SAND
PVC SCREEN DEPTH OF
PVC SCREEN
31.8 to 41.8 Ft.
CAP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
�&
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING
COMPANY
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
781.4 Ft.
TOTAL DEPTH
OF WELL
60.0 Ft.
PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION RECORD

APPENDIX II
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY

Natural Moisture Content Tests
The natural moisture content of selected samples was determined in
accordance with ASTM D 2216. The moisture content of the soil is the ratio,
expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the
weight of the soil particles. The results are presented on the attached Soil
Sample Data sheets.
Grain Size Distribution Tests
Grain size tests were performed on selected soil samples to determine the
particle size distribution of these materials. After initial drying, the
samples were washed over a U. S. standard No. 200 sieve to remove the fines
(particles finer than a No. 200 mesh sieve). The samples were then dried and
sieved through a standard set of nested sieves. For those grain size analyses
that included the hydrometer test, materials passing the No. 10 sieve were
suspended in water and the grain size distribution (of particles finer than the
No. 200 sieve) were calculated from the measured rate of settlement. These tests
were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The results are presented
as percent finer by weight versus particle size curves on the attached Soil
Sample Data sheets.
Percent Fines
The percentage of fine-grained particles present in selected samples was
determined by passing the samples through a No. 200 mesh sieve. The percent by
ENGINEERING TESTING

weight passing the sieve is the percentage of fines or portions of the sample in
the silt and clay size range. This test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D
1140. The results are shown on the attached Soil Sample Data sheets.
Soil Plasticity Tests
Samples of the upper clayey soils were selected for Atterberg Limits testing
to determine their soil plasticity characteristics. The soil's Plasticity Index
(PI) is representative of this characteristic and is bracketed by the Liquid
Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The LL is the moisture content at which
the soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid and is determined in general
accordance with ASTM D 423. The PL is the moisture content at which the soil
begins to lose its plasticity and is determined in accordance with ASTM D 424.
The data obtained are presented on the attached Soil Sample Data sheets.
Compaction Tests
Samples of soils from the project site were collected, placed in cloth sacks
and returned to the laboratory for compaction testing. Standard Proctor
compaction tests (ASTM D 698) were performed on selected samples to determine
their compaction characteristics, including their maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content. Test results are presented on the attached Compaction
Test sheets.
Permeability Tests
Permeability tests were conducted on two selected remolded samples to
determine the hydraulic conductivity (k), a constant of proportionality relating
ENGINEERING TESTING

to the ease with which a fluid passes through a porous medium. The two
laboratory methods (ASTM D 2434) available for this test are constant water head
or pressure and falling head. For this project, constant head tests were
conducted.
The sample is placed in the permeability apparatus and saturated to remove
all air. Then, water is passed through the sample at a known (measured) head,
and the rate of flow through the sample is measured. The hydraulic conductivity
is calculated using Darcy's Law, Q=kiA, where "Q" is the measured flow through
the sample, "i" is the hydraulic gradient (water head/sample length) and "A" is
the cross -sectional area of the soil sample. The test results are presented in
Table 2 as the hydraulic conductivity expressed in units of cm/sec.
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-11
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS SPLIT SPOON, 33.5 TO 35.0 FT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2.71
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 42.9 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
10
.0
100.0
20
.4
99.3
40
5.2
91.6
60
13.3
78.6
140
21.5
65.4
200
24.1
61.2
I■■�111111■■P�111111■■�iiia:!!■■�IIal11■■�111111■■�11111
I■■111■IIIIII■■a�111111■■�111118\■�Ilal11■■�I11111■■�I11■
I■■ III 11111■mIIa111■■IIIIII■■IIIIII
OEM �111111■■0♦IIIIII■■�11111■\■�IIa111■■�111111■■�11111
I■■111111■■a�111111■■IIIIII■■\7�I1a111■■IIIIII■■IIIIII
I■■�111111■■a1I�111111■■�111111■a�IIRIII■■ IIIIII■■IIIIII
mom �111111■■�111111■■�111118■■\�IIa111■■�111111■■�11111
I■■12411■■�II1111■■�II111
I■■I■■ME111111■■9�111111■■IIIIII■■■�I11i11■■�111111■■IIIIII
�111111■■�111119■■�111116■■�Ilal\\■■�111111■■IIIIII
I■■1110 IIIIII■■� IIIIII■■� IIIIII ■■� IIRII\\■� IIIIII■■� IIIII
1■■�111111■■�11111H■■IIIIII■■■�111111■��111111■■IIIIII
1■■�Ilil11■■E•IIIIII■■�Iuule■■III■nam■1■►�wu1■■�11111
1■■�uau1■■R>•mn1■■�Innn■■�uau1■■��nnu■■mum
1■■�111111■■E�111111■■�IIIIIB■■mIIal11■■�1111111■■IIIIII
I■■�111111■■a�111111■■I IIIII■■■mIIR111■■�N111■■�11111
����IIII�1111il■oommm1111 I1� 711111
1■■�IIi111■■�111111■■�IIIIIB■■�IIR111■■IIIIII■■\711111
1■■� IIIIII■■�111111■■�111111■■mIIRIII■■� IIIIII■■ WE11111
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ON SOIL PASSING NO. 10 SIEVE
ELAPSED HYDRO CORR TEMP DIA IN PERCENT
TIME
READING
HYDRO
MM
FINER
.5
41.0
34.2
23.
.0569
54.3
1.0
38.0
31.2
23.
.0413
49.5
2.0
35.0
28.2
23.-
.0299
44.7
5.0
32.0
25.2
23.
.0193
40.0
15.0
24.0
17.2
23.
.0118
27.3
30.0
21.0
14.2
23.
.0085
22.5
60.0
18.0
11.2
23.
.0061
17.7
250.0
17.0
10.4 .
24.
. . 003 0
16.5
1440.0
11.0
4.2
23.
.0013
6.6
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
SOIL SAMPLE IS NON -PLASTIC BASED ON VISUAL ENGINEERING EXAMINATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 38.8% SAND 50.5% SILT 10.7% CLAY
UNIFORMITY COEF = 37.78 COEF OF CURVATURE = 1.35
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS ML
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-4 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 0

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-12
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS SPLIT SPOON, 1.0 TO 2.5 FT
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 24.8 PERCENT;
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
200 29.8 82.7
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
LIQUID LIMIT IS 57
PLASTIC LIMIT IS 32
PLASTICITY INDEX IS 25
LIQUIDITY INDEX IS -.27
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS MH F
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-7-5 WITHA GROUP INDEX OF 25

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-12A
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS BAG SAMPLE, 0.5 TO 6.0
SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2.70
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 30.1 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
10 .0 100.0
20 1.4 99.2
40 4.4 97.5
60 7.9 95.5
140 14.3 91.7
200 17.4 89.9
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
LIQUID LIMIT IS 69
PLASTIC LIMIT IS 42
PLASTICITY INDEX IS 27
LIQUIDITY INDEX IS —.43
.. I■■�111111■■R�111119■■�iii::�!�� Ilall�■■� IIIIII■■�I111/
I■■ I®111■■ IIIUII■■�mula■��naw■■�Iluu■■�I1111
1■■�1111II■■aI�IIII�RI■■�11111■■■�IIal1�■■�1111■■■m11111
I■■mn1■1■■111111 �nm■■■1�uam■■tl■uun■■�nw
. I■■�IIII■■■9�IIIIIRI■■�II111■■■�Ilalu■■�1111■■■�II11/
1■■�u1■I■■a�uula■■gnu■■■�ualn■■�mu1■■�uw
I■■�u1■I■■R�nuln■■�nln■■■�uaun■■� unu■■�uw
1■■�n�u1■■a�nwA■■�uw■■■�Ilau�■■�unn■■�um
I■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIIH■■�I1111■■■�IIal1�■■�I11111■■�11111
I■■mII1111■■�1111191■■�11111■■■�11611�■■�IIIIII■■�11111
I■ ■� 1111II■■ate It11I11■■� 11111■ ■■� IIRII�■■e 1111II■■� I1111
, I■■�111111■■a�I1111N■■�11111■■■�IIRII�■■�IIIIII■■�11111
I■■�IIi11I■■6�1111191■■�11111■■■�IIR11�■■�I11111■■�II111
I■■�111111■■�IIIIIN■■�IIIIIII■■�I
MINE
■�IIIIII■■�llill
I■■�u1ul■■a�u■a■■�nlu■■■�uam■■�uun■■�mn
I■■m111111■■a�I111IR1■■�IIIII■■■mIIRIIso■■o111111,■■m11111
I■■�111111■■E�IIIIIN■■�111118■■�IIR11�■■�IIIIII■■�II111
I■■�IRIII■■a�I1111,11■1■mIIIIIB■■�IIRII100=I11■I■■m11111
' I■■�111111■■E�IIIIIRI■■�IIIIIB■■!•IIRII�■■�IIIIII■■�11111
, I■■�IHIII■■�IIIIIAI■■�11111�■■�IIRII�■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 10.1% SAND 89.97. FINES
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS MH
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-7-5 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 31

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-12A
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS BAG SAMPLE, 10.0 TO 20.0 FT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2.79
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 45.5 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE
#CUM WT
PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED
FINER
10
.0
100.0
40
.2
99.6
60
.5
99.1
140
.9
98.4
200
1.2
97.9
.. I■■�uln1■■R�uoI1■■�uulN:��;:�u1■■�unn■■�um
. I■■�nlu1■■a�null■■11■uw8■■tl•ua19■■Iii■mu1■■I�nw
I■■�IIl1I1■■al■IIII■11■■� IIIIIB■■�11911►�■�IIIIII■■�IIIII
. I■■�IIl1I1■■al■ 111111■■�IIIII■■■�Ilallll!■1�111111■■i11111
I■■�IIi111■■�IIIIIRI■■IIIIIB■■�IIRII■■`�IIIIII■■�IIIII
. I ■■� olio■■al■ lun9■■Il• uwlo ■■� uRln■■►! IIIIU■■�I1111
I■■� 111111■■R� 11111N■■� IIIIIB■■� IIRIII ■■�\
a111■■zIIIIII■■� IIIII
1■■�II1111■■�IIIIIRI■■�11111 mmii!111U■■11111
I■■�IIl1I1■■8�111111■■I�mula■■t�nalimmomill4i Lulu
I■■�II1111■■�111111■■�11111■■■�ilalll■■�IIICII■■�IIIII
I■■�IIl11I■■R�IIIIII■■�IIIII6■■�IIRII■■■�IIII►\■■�IIIII
. I■■�II1111■■�IIIIIN■■� ORION
■
IIIIIB■■�IIR111■■�111111�I1111�IIIII
1■■�Ilil11■■a�111111■■�11111■■■�IIR11■■■�111111■`
.1■■�II1111■■R�IIIIII■■�IIIII■■■�IIRII■■■�111111■■ �IIIII
1■IIIIIB■■11,111■■�IIIIII■■�t1111
1■■m111111■■a�111111■■� IIIIIB■■�IIRII■■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII
I■■mII1111■■mIIt11RI■■�11111■■■�IIRII■■■�IIIIII■■�1111
I■■�111111■■E•111111■■IIIIIB■■�IIR111■■�111111■■�11111
I■■�111111■■R�IIIIIRI■■IIIIIB■■!•IIRII■■■�IIIIII■■�111■
I■■mIIIIII■■= 11111■■■M11R111■■M111111■■�IIIIi
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ON SOIL PASSING NO. 10 SIEVE
ELAPSED HYDRO CORR TEMP DIA IN PERCENT
TIME
READING
HYDRO
MM
FINER
.5
59.0
52.2
23.
.0463
87.4
1.0
56.0
49.2
23.
.0339
82.3
2.0
54.0
47.2
23.
.0245
79.0
5.0
49.0
42.2
23.
.0163
70.6
15.0
44.0
37.2
23.
.0099
62.2
30.0
40.0
33.2
23.
.0072
55.5
60.0
35.0
28.2
23.
.0053
47.2
250.0
30.0
23.4
24.
.0027
39.2
1440.0
25.0
18.2
23.
.0012
30.4
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
SOIL SAMPLE IS NON -PLASTIC BASED ON VISUAL ENGINEERING EXAMINATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 2.1% SAND 62.7% SILT 35.2% CLAY
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS ML
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-4 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 0

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-13
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS SPLIT SPOON, 6.0 TO 7.5 FT
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 28.5 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
4
.0
100.0
10
2.5
99.1
20
16.1
94.4
40
31.0
89.3
60
39.0
86.5
140
46.2
84.0
200
48.7
83.1
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
LIQUID LIMIT IS 56
PLASTIC LIMIT IS 38
PLASTICITY INDEX IS 18
LIQUIDITY INDEX IS —.44
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■��IIIIIB■■Hllall/■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
I■I■Hul■I■■Hwul■■Hlu:a■■■Huaul■■Hnuu■■HHIII
1■■Hultn■■Hnwl■I■Hnmea�Huaul■■Huun■■Hum
. I■■Hulln■■Hnml■■Hnlu■■■�i:�lu■■Roan■■Hula
I■■H Ilil11■■HIIII//■■HIIIII■■■HIIa11IHH IIIII/■■HIIIII
. I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■H IIRIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIIII■■H IIRIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
/■■HIIIII/■■HIM//■■HIIIIIB■■Hllall/■■HIIIII/■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII■■■HIIIIII■■HIIInI■■Hluu
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII/■■HIIIIIB■■HIIIIn■■HIIIIII■■H11111
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIIB■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIIlow
HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■H 111118■■HIIIII/■■HIIIIIlow
HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII/■■HIIIII■■■HIIIIII■■H111111■■H 11111
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII■■■HIIIII/■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIMEN
HIIIIII■■HIIIII■■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIIB■■HIIRIII■■H11111I■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII/■■HIIIII6■■H IIRIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIIB■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIIB■H■IIRIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
I■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIIB■■HIIIIII■■HIIIIII■■HIIIII
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 16.9% SAND 83.1% FINES
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS MH
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-7-5 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 21

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-13
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS SPLIT SPOON, 23.5 TO 25.0 FT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2.71
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 35.1 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
4
.0
100.0
10
11.2
93.2
20
5.7
84.4
40
11.4
75.7
60
15.2
69.9
140
19.6
63.1
200
21.9
59.6
"
I■■1�I1i111■■11.111111�'1■111111■■■
.
I■■�
I1i111■■a�111111■'�111■■1■11�IIIII
11 1■■■1■IIIIIIIIR111
■■■�I111111111■■■■�I1111
I■■�Ilil11■■a�11111a■■�
11111■■■1■I11111■■1�111111■■�I1111
I■■�111111■■a�llllla■■��:�IIB■■�II1111■■1�111111■■�IIIII
1■■�Ilil11■■1�11111a■■�II11:N■■1■111111■■1�111111■■1�IIIII
.
I■■�Ilil11■■a�IIIIIa■■�IIIII■���IIIIII■■�IIIIII■■�11111
I■■�
I1i111■■ate
llllla■■�
11111■
■\'�
11R111■■M
111111■■M
11111
1■■�uim■■�uma■■�nm■■■�aau1■■�uun■■�u1u
I■■
11i111■■a�11111a■■�I1111■■■�ilu:el■■1�II1111■■1�I1111
I■■�Ilil11■■a�llllla■■MIIIIIB■■1■IIRII`►■■1�111■1■■�IIIII
I■■�Ilil11■■a�llllla■■IIIIIB■■�IIR111\`��111111■■�IIIII
I■■�I1i111■■a�llllla■■1■IIIII■■■1■IIR111■\\�111111■■�11111
I■■1�I1i111■■a�llilla■■�
IIIIIB■■1■IIR111■■i111111■■1�11111
.
I■■�
ulm■■a�uwa■■�nm■■■�ulu1■■��nuu1l■�um
I■■1�I1i111■■ate
IIIIIa■■�1111111■■�
IIR111■■�a111111■■�
I1111
I■■1�I1i111■■a�111111■■1■IIIIIB■■�IIR111■■�111111■■1■IIIII
1■■1�I1i111■■a�llllla■■1■111116■■1■IIR111■■�li!111■■�IIIII
I■■�111111■■a�111111■■IIIIIB■■�IIR111■■�IIlo�1■■�I1111
I■■�Ilil11■■a�llllla■■�11111■■■1■II
HIM
I■■�IIIII��■�11111
I■■1�I1i111■■1�
Illlla■■1■
I1111■■■1■
IIR111■■�111111■�.711111
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ON SOIL PASSING NO. 10 SIEVE
ELAPSED HYDRO CORR TEMP DIA IN PERCENT
TIME
READING
HYDRO
MM
FINER
.5
44.0
37.2
23.
.0554
56.3
1.0
41.0
34.2
23.
.0402
51.7
2.0
36.0
29.2
23.
.0296
44.2
5.0
32.0
25.2
23.
.0193
38.1
15.0
24.0
17.2
23.
.0118
26.0
30.0
20.0
13.2
23.
.0086
19.9
60.0
15.0
8.2
23.
.0062
12.4
250.0
11.0
4.4
24.
.0031
6.7
1440.0
9.0
2.2
23.
.0013
3.3
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
SOIL SAMPLE IS NON -PLASTIC BASED ON VISUAL ENGINEERING EXAMINATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 40.4% SAND 55.0% SILT 4.6% CLAY
UNIFORMITY COEF = 16.48 COEF OF CURVATURE = .51
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS ML
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-4 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 0

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-14
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS SPLIT SPOON, 28.5 TO 30.0 FT
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 16.9 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
38
.0
100.0
4
.5
99.8
10
26.6
87.9
20
82.8
62.2
40
108.9
50.3
60
122.0
44.3
140
137.9
37.1
200
145.4
33.7
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
ON
NO
1■■�111111■l�111111■\�I1111■■l�Ilal1■■l�111111■l�11111
1■ll�nllu■!a•uu11■��nw■■l�uanl■l�mn1■■�nm
1■l�n�lu■lo.ulna■■►�nme■■�ualu■■�uuu■l�nm
1■l�111111■■�IIIIIAI■!\�111116■■�IIRIII■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII
1■l�111111■lB�111111■■�\IIIII■■■� IIRII■■■�IIIIII■1�11111
1■l�11■1■oR�nm1■■� alu■■l�uanl■■�uuu■■�uw
1■■�111111■■�IIIIIA■■�lilll■■■�IIRII■■l�IIIII■■l�IIIII
1■l�111111■■8.11111a■■�IIICI■■■�IIR111■l�111111■!� 11111
1■■m111111■■millI1EI■■1111\q■■�IIRII■■■�IIIIII■■III■I
' I■��111111■l�111111■■�111118►1�IIRII■■l�111111■l�II111
1■■�111111■■�111111■■� IIIII■■,�IIRII■■■�IIIII■■■�11111
' 1■ll�nlul■lR11■um1■■1�nm■■■1` nanl■lt�Inn1■■I�uw
I■l 111111■!8. IIIIII■■mIIIII
1■l�111111■lB�111111■l�1111111■l�IIR111■■�I11111■l�I1111
1■■m111111■■�IIIIII■lIIIIIB■■�IIRI11■l=111111■l�11111
1■■�111111■■�111111■■� IIIIIB■■�IIR11■■■�111111■■E11111
1■■�111111■lB�111111■l�11111■■!� IIR111■■�111111■■m11111
' 1■■�111111■■�I11111■■�11111■■l�IIR111■l�111111■l�11111
I■l�111111■l�IIIIII■■�IIIII■■l�IIR111■■�IIIIII■l�Ilil1
K;WVXIFM
SOIL SAMPLE IS NON —PLASTIC BASED ON VISUAL ENGINEERING EXAMINATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.2% GRAVEL 66.1% SAND 33.7% FINES
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS SM
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-2-4 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 0

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-15
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS SPLIT SPOON, 23.5 TO 25.0 FT
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 34.8 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
10
.0
100.0
20
3.0
97.9
40
13.5
90.8
60
32.3
77.9
140
46.6
68.1
200
51.5
64.8
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
.. I■■�11�111■■1�111111■��ii:l1■■■�IIa111■■� I11111■■�I1111
I■■�n�w■■a�um1■■�u■I�■■�1au1■■�nun■■�uw
I■■mill■■■mIIII11■■E111116►\■m111111■■E111111■■E11111
I■■EMn1u1■■a�1■1mom
�nm■■��nau1■■�unn■■�nw
" 1■■�11�111■■A•IIIII(1■■�111118■1►`�IIa11■■■�111111■■�IIIII
I■■m113111■■8.1111�0■■�II111�■■\�Ilal11■■om111111■■�I1111
I■■� 11,111■■=nulN■■� mnB■■�;!Am■■�mu1■■� uw
1■■�u�w■■a•wuA■■�mu■■■�■�u1■■�mm■■�nm
' I■■�11�111■■�111111■■�IIIIIB■■�IIal11■■�111111■■�IIIII
I■■�111,11■■=111111■■�II111■■■�IIal1■■■�111111■■�II111
' I■■�11�111■■a�111111■■�IIIII■■■�Ilal1■■■�111111■■�11111
I■■�11�111■■a�111111■■�11111■■■�Ilal1■■■�111111■■�I1111
I■■�Ilil11■■E�111111■■�IIIIIB■■�IIa111■■� 111111■■E11111
I■MEM11 "Imm Illl�aEm�lll,,,Rom 11811����11111�■��I1111
I■■�Ilil11■■1.111111■■�II111■■■mIIa111■■�111111■■�I1111
I■■�111111■■E•111111■■�IIIII■■■�Ilal11■■�111111■■�IIIII
I■■�111111■■E•111111■■� IIIII■■■
�Ilal11■■� IIIIII■■�IIIII
I■■�111111■■�111111■■�111116■■�Ilal11■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII
I■■�IIIIII■■�111111■■�IIIIIB■■�Ilal11■■�111111■■�IIIII
Imcallm
SOIL SAMPLE IS NON —PLASTIC BASED ON VISUAL ENGINEERING EXAMINATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 35.2% SAND 64.8% FINES
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS ML
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-4 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 0

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-15A
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS BAG SAMPLE, 0.5 TO 5.0 FT
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 22.7 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
4
.0
100.0
10
.3
99.8
20
13.8
93.7
40
31.3
85.7
60
42.2
80.7
140
51.9
76.3
200
55.0
74.9
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
LIQUID LIMIT IS 46
PLASTIC LIMIT IS 30
PLASTICITY INDEX IS 16
LIQUIDITY INDEX IS —.44
/■■tii�/3ul■■a�ulul■:�nw■■■�uan1■■�unu■■�uw
1■■�I1u11■■9�11111RI■■phi!I■■■�119111■■�IIIIII■■itt■um
' 1■■�nlu1■■�ulu/■■�nm.�■�uam■■�Iun1■■�ulu
1■■�i�t■1131■■■a�l11111■1■It� uwtel.�tt�uau/■1■It�mm■1■It�uw
.1■■�n3m■■a•u■//■■�mne■■weal■■�mm■■�uw
1■■Itt■ 113111■■
113111■■=11111/■111111■M■� mu�■■It� IIB111■■Itt■unn■■�11111
/■■� � IIIIIB■■� Ilal■■■� 111111■■�I IIII
1■■�119111■■8.111111■■�11111■■■�IIa11/■■SIIIIII■■�II111
1■■m113111■■8.111111■■�IIIII■■■�IIal11■■�111111■■�IIIII
1■■�113u/■■{• nn/9■■�nm■■■�Ilal11■■�111111■■�II111
/■■�113111■■1•IIIIIRI■■�11111■■■�IIa111■■�111111■■�11111
1■■1113111■■M111111■��11111■■■�IIa111■■�IIlu1■■MIII11
1■■�111111■■a�111111■■� IIIII■■■�IIR111■■�111111■■�11111
I■■m1111■■■B•111111■■�nm/I■■� haul■■�II1111■■�11111
I■■� 113111■■ate I11111■■� IIIIIB■■� IIal11■■�111111■■� 11111
.1■■Itt■n1u1■■a�uu11■■�ume■■�■an1■■�unn■�tttt■um
I■■�111111■■01111111111■■�IIIII■■■�IIR111■■�Ii1111■■�IIIII
1■■11111■■ate IIIIIN■■�I1111■■■�IIR111■■�I11111■■�I1111
I■■�113111■■B• 11111t1■■m11111■■■�IIR111■■�IIIII/■■�IIIII
/■■�IN111■■�11111/■■�11111■■■�IIR111■��111111■■�I1111
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 25.1% SAND 74.9% FINES
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS ML
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-7-6 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 13

LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
SOIL SAMPLE DATA
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE HARRISBURG ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION, CH-4784A
BORING NUMBER IS E-15A
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS BAG SAMPLE, 10.0 TO 20.0 FT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2.74
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT = 26.2 PERCENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE #CUM WT PERCENT
NUMBER RETAINED FINER
4
.0
100.0
10
7.8
96.9
20
6.5
86.7
40
13.1
76.3
60
17.1
70.0
140
21.0
63.9
200
22.6
61.4
.. I■■�111111■■I�IIIIII���IIIIIB■■�IIa111■■� II1111■■�I11■
I■■�III111■■F�I11111■■� 111116■■�IIa111■■�111111■■�Illll
' I■■�111111■■F�IIIIII■■�1:IIIB■■�IIa111■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII
1■■�111111■■a�111111■■�IIIi16■■�IIa111■■�IIII■■■�IIIII
' I■■�111111■■B•I11111■■�11111.�■■�111111■■�II11■■■EI1111
now 1111mommmI111mNmmm111illiow 1101�somm1111loomm11111
1■■�119111■■B�IIII�A■■�IIIIIB■■�ll111�■■�II1111■■�I1111
I■■�111111■■E•I11111■■�1111111■■�Ilais�■■�II1111■■�I1111
I■�111111■■8•IIIIII■■�IIIII�■■�Ilalll0d•�IIIIII■■�IIIII
I■■m111I1ism F•IIIIII■■m111116■■�111111■\�IIII■■■�IIIII
I■■�111111■■�I11111■■�11111■■■�111111■■\\I11111■■�I1111
I■■�111111■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIIB■■�II1111■■�!11111■■�IIIII
. I■■�111111■■a�lllllf�l■■�IIIIIN■■�119111■■�Ili!11■■�11111
1■■�111111■■a�111111■■�IIIII■■■� 111111■■�1111►�■■�IIIII
1■■�1111■■■a�lllllal■■�IIIIIB■■� Ilal11■■�IIIIO\■�IIIII
I■■�111111■■B�IIIIII■■�11111■■■� I11111■■�IIIIII■iMIIIII
1■■�111111■■a�111111■■E11111■■■�111111■■oililll■■millil
I■■m111111■■1�111111■■m1I111■■■E111111■■mIII111■■�I1111
I■■�111111■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII■■■�111111■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ON SOIL PASSING NO. 10 SIEVE
ELAPSED HYDRO CORR TEMP DIA IN PERCENT
TIME
READING
HYDRO
MM
FINER
.5
43.0
36.2
23.
.0554
55.7
1.0
42.0
35.2
23.
.0395
54.2
2.0
41.0
34,2
23.
.0282
52.6
5.0
36.0
29.2
23.
.0186
44.9
15.0
32.0
25.2
23.
.0111
38.8
30.0
28.0
21.2
23.
.0081
32.6
60.0
25.0
18.2
23.
.0058
28.0
250.0
18.0
11.4
24.
.0029
17.6
1440.0
12.0
5.2
23.
.0013
8.0
PLASTICITY PROPERTIES
SOIL SAMPLE IS NON -PLASTIC BASED ON VISUAL ENGINEERING EXAMINATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
.0% GRAVEL 38.6% SAND 49.3% SILT 12.1% CLAY
UNIFORMITY COEF = 42.46 COEF OF CURVATURE = .40
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS ML
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS A-4 WITH A GROUP INDEX OF 0

. N■■■■■■■���„LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO
COMPACTION TEST
MENEEMMEMILNEL JOB «
■■■■■■■■■■■mkv% CLIENT MecklenburgCounty
mm■■■■■■■■■■1vLI :.
- .. • . '. - .. .
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EtikiL
2.75
2.70
-
I:z• 100
N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�BE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■►���:�
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■■�\\�.
cr
90
85
805 10 15 20 25 30 35
WATER CONTENT -PERCENT OF WEIGHT
MOISTURE
METHOD
MAX. DRY
OPTIMUM
DENSITY
OF
DENSITY
MOISTURE
SOIL DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION AND SAMPLE LOCATION
RELATION
TEST
PCF
CONTENT %
ASTM
Orange Brown Fine Sandy Clayey Silt - MH
1
D 698
95.3
27.9
In -Situ Moisture Content = 30.1.
Boring E-12A, O.5 to 6.0 Ft.

[_00100
110
10
LL
. ,
SERVE►
-
A'' -
.:. .
.:0182
■■■■■■■■►�1\
E■E■■■EMI\V1►\►
E■■■■■■■NOW
■E■E■■■■■■►UN
■E■■■■NE■E\\\\
■■E■■■■E■■■►UER
■eN■■■■■■■■■■■■\�►
MEN■MI
■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E�\\\.
.■■
MINE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�\�,
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MIN■■MIN■■■■■■■■e■\\\.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MIN■■■■EMIN■e■E►�\�
:.■■NE■■■■■■■■E■E■■EE■■■■E■■■■■E■■■■
VVHI tP( wry 1 tN 1 -rtM r_N 1 yr wtIUM i
MOISTURE
DENSITY
RELATION
I METHOD
OF
TEST
MAX. DRY
DENSITY
PCF
I
OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
CONTENT%
SOIL DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION AND SAMPLE LOCATION
I
AS TM
Pink Brown Slightly Clayey Slightly Micaceous Fine
2
D 698
104.9
19.1
to Medium Sandy Silt - ML
In -Situ Moisture Content = 26.2%
Borinq E-15A, 10.0 to 20.0 Ft.