8003_RowanCountyMSWLF_ASD_DIN26384_20160610

Golder Associates NC, Inc. 5B Oak Branch Drive Greensboro, NC. 27407 USA Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
June 10, 2016 Project No. 063-6572015.200

Ms. Jaclynne Drummond North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management – Solid Waste Section 2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778 [phone]
RE: ALTERNATE SOURCE DEMONSTRATION TO ADDRESS ANAMALOUS VOLATILE ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS AT MW-28 ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL, PERMIT NO. 80-03 ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Dear Jackie:
On behalf of Rowan County, Golder Associates NC, Inc. (Golder) is submitting this Alternate Source Demonstration (ASD) for the above-referenced facility. This ASD has been prepared in response to
anomalous detections of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichlorofluoromethane (TCFM) in groundwater samples from monitoring well MW-28. This ASD was discussed in our meeting on March 10, 2016, and
written notification was made on March 15, 2016, of the County’s intent to prepare an ASD. This ASD has been prepared in general accordance with 15A NCAC 13B.1633 (c)(3) of the North Carolina Solid Waste
Management Regulations (NCSWMR).
1.0 BACKGROUND
Groundwater monitoring well MW-28 was installed in April 2011 along with MW-25, MW-26, MW-27, and MW-27A as part of the revised Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) associated with the Phase IV
expansion of the Rowan County Landfill, North Carolina Solid Waste Permit no. 80-03. Background sampling commenced in January 2013 for the newly installed Phase IV wells. Phase IV began operation
on August 10, 2015, and the first compliance monitoring event for MW-28 was in January 2016.
During the background sampling events, which occurred prior to waste disposal in the Phase IV expansion, PCE and TCFM were detected in samples from MW-28 (Table 1). During the background sampling events
several samples collected from MW-28 were found to contain concentrations of PCE that exceeded the NC 2L Groundwater Standard of 0.7 micro-grams per liter (µg/L), with concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 4.0
µg/L. During the same period TCFM was detected in MW-28 at concentrations below the NC 2L Groundwater Standard of 2000 µg/L.
Monitoring well MW-28 is located on the eastern side of the Phase IV landfill expansion and is approximately
500 feet from waste placed in Phase III (Drawing 1). Monitoring wells MW-23 and MW-23A are located between MW-28 and the waste in Phase III. No volatile organic constituents (VOCs) have been detected
in MW-23 or MW-23A; therefore, the source of groundwater contamination in MW-28 is not believed to be associated with the landfill.
The purpose of this ASD is to determine the source of PCE and TCFM detected in the pre-waste
background monitoring groundwater samples and the January 2016 compliance monitoring event sample from MW-28. Also, as part of our recommendations, modifications to the approved water quality monitoring
network are proposed.
Ms. Jaclynne Drummond, Compliance Hydrogeologist June 10, 2016 NCDEQ DWM Solid Waste Section 2 Project No. 063-6572015.200

2016-05-31 final asd report for active subtitle d facility.docx
2.0 ALTERNATE SOURCE DEMONSTRATION
Several potential sources of the anomalous VOCs were evaluated as part of this ASD including landfill leachate, previous land uses in and upgradient of MW-28, and landfill gas. As part of the ASD, samples
were collected on March 24, 2016, from upgradient well MW-9, downgradient well MW-28, and the landfill leachate tank, which were analyzed for common anions and cations. Additionally, samples were collected
from wells MW-6 and MW-27A and were analyzed for NC Appendix I VOCs. The samples were shipped via courier to Environmental Conservation Laboratories, Inc. (ENCO) of Cary, North Carolina. The
laboratory certificates-of-analysis are provided as Attachment 1 and the field forms are included as Attachment 2.
2.1 Landfill Leachate Evaluation
To evaluate landfill leachate as a potential source of VOCs in groundwater samples collected from MW-28, Golder has prepared a series of Piper plots (Figure 1) and Stiff diagrams (Figure 2 & 3) to compare
variability of geochemistry (i.e., common cations and anions) of the landfill leachate and groundwater from the upgradient monitoring well (MW-9) and downgradient monitoring well MW-28. In addition to the Piper
plots and Stiff diagrams, basic mixing models were prepared, which theoretically compares the different solutions created by mixing the upgradient sample and the leachate sample and comparing the results to
the concentrations of cations and anions in the sample from MW-28. A summary of the data used to prepare the Stiff diagrams, Piper plots, and basic mixing model is presented in Table 2
2.1.1 Piper Diagram Analysis
The Piper plot was chosen as a tool because it allows waters that have greatly varying total dissolved solids
(TDS) to be compared directly and differentiated based on the relative concentrations of the ions in each individual sample. Figure 1 is a Piper plot illustrating the variations in common cations and anions for the
monitoring points sampled as part of this investigation. As presented, the leachate composition exhibits a sodium-potassium-bicarbonate geochemical facies. The upgradient monitoring well MW-9 exhibits a mixed
cation-bicarbonate geochemical facies. The downgradient monitoring well MW-28 exhibits a sodium-potassium-chloride geochemical facies.
A review of Figure 1 suggests that it is unlikely that a mixture of leachate and upgradient waters (i.e., MW-9) will yield a geochemistry similar to MW-28. Theoretically, the downgradient well MW-28 would need to plot
between the upgradient sample and the leachate sample on the Piper plot, assuming a conservative mixing scenario with no precipitation interference, which we would expect given the geochemical conditions
present at the site.
2.1.2 Stiff Diagram Analysis
Figures 2 and 3 present fixed and variable (or sliding) scale Stiff diagrams that compare the upgradient monitoring well MW-9, the landfill leachate, and the downgradient monitoring well MW-28. Figure 2 shows the fixed-scale Stiff diagrams, which directly compare concentrations of cations and anions between the
groundwater samples and the landfill leachate sample. As shown, the groundwater cation and anion concentrations are overwhelmed by the leachate sample on the fixed-scale Stiff diagrams, due to the relatively low cation and anion concentrations in groundwater samples relative to the leachate sample. The
differences in TDS between the groundwater samples and the landfill leachate sample make it difficult to
draw any conclusions from the fixed-scale Stiff diagram.
Figure 3 presents the variable (or sliding) scale Stiff diagrams, in which present the relative cation and anion shape signatures for the groundwater samples relative to the facility leachate composition. In general, the
groundwater sample from MW-28 does not exhibit a geochemical signature similar to that of the leachate composition. The relative shape signature of the landfill leachate is strong in bicarbonate and weak in
chloride and magnesium as compared to the relative cation and anion concentrations in MW-28.
The upgradient monitoring well MW-9 also exhibits a markedly dissimilar shape signature to that of the landfill leachate. The sample from MW-9 exhibits a stronger signature of calcium and magnesium when compared to the landfill leachate signature. If the upgradient sample were introduced to the landfill leachate
Ms. Jaclynne Drummond, Compliance Hydrogeologist June 10, 2016 NCDEQ DWM Solid Waste Section 3 Project No. 063-6572015.200

2016-05-31 final asd report for active subtitle d facility.docx
sample it would be expected that the relative shape signature of the solution would be a shape exhibiting
characteristics of both. The sample from the downgradient monitoring well MW-28 does not exhibit these characteristics particularly due to its comparatively strong chloride and weak bicarbonate signatures.
2.1.3 Basic Mixing Model
As discussed, Table 3 presents the results of a basic mixing model that provides basic predictions of the
geochemical compositions of a solution formed by mixing the upgradient groundwater sample and the landfill leachate sample. The results of the model were then directly compared to the geochemical results
of MW-28 to determine if a solution composed of the upgradient sample and the landfill leachate sample could yield a composition similar to that of the sample obtained from MW-28. The results of this model
definitively show that no solution composed of the upgradient sample and the landfill leachate sample could create a solution similar to MW-28; therefore, for the purpose of this ASD landfill leachate is not considered
a source of the PCE or TCFM in MW-28.
2.2 Former Land Use Evaluation
Several former land uses around and upgradient of MW-28 were evaluated as part of this ASD. A historical aerial photograph package obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) is included as Attachment 3 to this report. Included in this attachment are approximately forty (40) aerial photographs of
the area from 1948 through 2012. The County has owned and operated the landfill under permit No. 80-03 since 1989.
As shown on these photographs, prior to landfill use, the landfill property was used primarily for agriculture. A private residence and barns used in agricultural activities can be seen in the oldest aerial photographs available from 1948. It should be noted that the private residence and barns shown in aerial photographs from 1948 through 1983 show the residence and farm structures in the area of monitoring well MW-28.
In the 1998 through 2012 aerial photographs the former white goods disposal area for the facility can be seen located in relative close proximity to and upgradient of MW-28. According to the landfill manager, the
County stored white goods at that location from approximately 2005 to 2015. Although not evident in the photographs, according to the landfill manager, who has worked at the facility since it began operation, the
contractor laydown and fueling/equipment maintenance area for two landfill construction projects was also located in the vicinity of MW-28.
All of these historical land uses may represent sources of the anomalous VOCs detected in samples from monitoring well MW-28. Depending on the quantities and types of materials potentially released, trace
VOCs may remain present in shallow soils and represent a continuing source of low-level (i.e., µg/L) VOCs in groundwater.
2.3 Landfill Gas Evaluation
While not formally evaluated as part of this ASD, landfill gas may also represent a potential source of VOCs
in groundwater at MW-28. Exceedances of the lower explosive limit (LEL) have been noted in MMW-8 since May 2013. Methane monitoring well MMW-8 is located approximately 650 feet north of MW-28. It is
not likely that landfill gas is the source of VOCs at MW-28, as groundwater results from wells MW-23 and MW-23A, which are located between MMW-8 and MW-28, have not shown any VOC impacts. The County
is proceeding with the installation of a landfill gas extraction system ahead of their Title V requirements, which, once installed, should resolve landfill gas migration issues north of MW-28.
3.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK
Based on the data presented above, landfill leachate and landfill gas do not appear to be the source of
anomalous VOCs detected at MW-28. Based on previous uses of the area around and upgradient of MW-28, several potential sources of VOCs exist that are no longer present including a private residence and
associated barns used for agricultural purposes (i.e., potentially including equipment maintenance), a

DRAWINGS

i2
i3
i1
650
690
690
660
650
640
OLD
LANDFILL
ENTRANCE
SCALE
HOUSE
PROPERTY
LINE
FRENCH DRAIN
SAMPLE POINT
MMW-6A
CONSULTANT
DESIGN
PREPARED
REVIEW
APPROVED
YYYY-MM-DD TITLE
PROJECT No.Rev.
PROJECTCLIENT
Pa
t
h
:

\\
a
t
l
a
n
t
a
\
C
a
d
d
\
R
o
w
a
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
\
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\

|

F
i
l
e

N
a
m
e
:

06
3
6
5
7
2
0
1
5
E
0
0
1
.
d
w
g
IF

T
H
I
S

M
E
A
S
U
R
E
M
E
N
T

D
O
E
S

N
O
T

M
A
T
C
H

W
H
A
T

I
S

S
H
O
W
N
,

T
H
E

S
H
E
E
T

S
I
Z
E

H
A
S

B
E
E
N

M
O
D
I
F
I
E
D

F
R
O
M
:

A
N
S
I

D
0
1
i
n
0636572015
PHASE
100
DRAWING
10
2016-02-02
BSD
TM
DYR
BSD
ROWAN COUNTY ACTIVE LANDFILLS
PERMIT NO.80-03
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ROWAN COUNTY
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP
JANUARY 12-14, 2016
0
FEET
250 500
SCALE
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR
FACILITY BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF WASTE
GROUNDWATER SURFACE CONTOURS
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW SEGMENT USED TO CALCULATE GRADIENT
EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL WITH GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER MONITORING POINT
NOT AVAILABLE
FRENCH DRAIN MONITORING POINT
LEGEND
NOTES
REFERENCES
1.TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET.
2.GROUNDWATER SURFACE CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10 FEET.
3.GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED ON JANUARY 12-14, 2016.
4.GROUNDWATER CONTOURS ARE BASED ON LINEAR INTERPOLATION BETWEEN AND
EXTRAPOLATION FROM KNOWN DATA, TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS, AND KNOWN FIELD CONDITIONS.
THEREFORE, GROUNDWATER CONTOURS MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL GROUNDWATER
CONDITIONS.
5.GROUNDWATER CONTOUR LINES SHOW THE WATER TABLE SHAPE AND ELEVATION. THESE
CONTOURS ARE INFERRED LINES FOLLOWING THE GROUNDWATER SURFACE AT A CONSTANT
ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL. THE GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION IS GENERALLY
PERPENDICULAR TO THE GROUNDWATER SURFACE CONTOURS, SIMILAR TO THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SURFACE WATER FLOW AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.
6.SURFACE WATER MONITORING POINT SW-1 IS APPROXIMATELY 550 FEET OFF THE MAPPING LIMITS
SHOWN AND IS COLLECTED FROM SECOND CREEK.
7.MONITORING WELLS MW-6 AND MW-27A ARE UTILIZED FOR WATER LEVEL MONITORING ONLY.
8.THE LOCATION OF THE FRENCH DRAIN MONITORING POINT IS APPROXIMATE.
1. OVERALL SITE BASE TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY S&ME ENGINEERING, INC.
SW-4
SITE LOCATION MAP
1" = 10,000'
SITE LOCATION
PE C-2862
PG C-399
GOLDER ASSOCIATES NC, INC.

TABLES

June 2016 1 of 1 Project No. 0636572015
G:\Projects\Rowan\0636572015\200 DRAFT Reports\207 DRAFT 2016 Alternate Source Demonstration\Tables\2016_06_02 Table 1 - Summary of Historical Detects.xlsx
MW-9 MW-16 MW-1 MW-6 MW-7 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-20 MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23A MW-24 MW-24R MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28
Tetrachloroethene ug/L 10/01/93 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------NC 2L = 0.7 ug/L ug/L 07/01/94 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------EPA MCL = 5 ug/L ug/L 10/01/94 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------ug/L 01/01/95 ----7 --ND 5 ND --------------------------------ug/L 05/01/95 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------ug/L 10/01/95 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------ug/L 04/01/96 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------ug/L 10/01/96 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------ug/L 04/01/97 ----ND --ND ND ND --------------------------------ug/L 10/01/97 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 04/01/98 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 10/01/98 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 04/01/99 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 09/01/99 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 05/01/00 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 09/01/00 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 04/01/01 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 10/01/01 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 04/01/02 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 11/01/02 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 05/01/03 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 10/01/03 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 05/01/04 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 11/01/04 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 05/01/05 ----ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------------------ug/L 11/04/05 --------------------ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------ug/L 12/12/05 --------------------ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------ug/L 12/13/05 --------------------ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------ug/L 12/22/05 --------------------ND ND ND ND ND ND --------------ug/L 12/30/05 --5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ------------NDug/L 09/26/06 --5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ------------8.4ug/L 01/31/07 --3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ------------NDug/L 07/12/07 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 01/17/08 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 07/30/08 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 01/21/09 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 07/14/09 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 01/07/10 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 07/20/10 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 01/31/11 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 7/18/2011 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --ND --------ND NDug/L 01/24/12 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --ND --------ND NDug/L 07/17/12 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --ND --------ND NDug/L 01/22/13 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND Dry ND ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND 0.70 J ND NDug/L 07/15/13 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 3.3 ND NDug/L 01/27/14 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND Dry ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 2.8 ND NDug/L 07/15/14 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 4.0 ND NDug/L 01/20/15 0.17 1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ----------NDug/L 07/23/15 0.17 1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND Dry ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 2.2 ND NDug/L 01/12/16 0.17 1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 2.4 ND NDTrichlorofluoromethaneug/L 01/31/07 --5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ------------NDNC 2L = 2000 ug/L ug/L 07/12/07 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDNo EPA MCL ug/L 01/17/08 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 07/30/08 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ------------ND NDug/L 01/21/09 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 07/14/09 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ----------ND NDug/L 01/07/10 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 07/20/10 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 01/31/11 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Dry ----------ND NDug/L 7/18/2011 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ----------ND NDug/L 01/24/12 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --ND --------ND NDug/L 07/17/12 --1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND --ND --------ND NDug/L 01/22/13 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND Dry ND ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND 0.99 J ND NDug/L 07/15/13 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 1.1 ND NDug/L 01/27/14 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND Dry ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 0.87 J ND NDug/L 07/15/14 --1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 1.2 ND NDug/L 01/20/15 0.24 1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ----------NDug/L 07/23/15 0.24 1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND Dry ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 0.99 J ND NDug/L 01/12/16 0.24 1 ND ND ND --ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND --ND ND ND ND 1.1 ND ND
Notes:ug/L =micrograms per litermg/L =milligrams per literS.U. =Standard UnitsNTU =Nephelometric Turbidity UnitsND =Not detected at the stated reporting limitµS/cm=microsiemens per centimetermV =millivolts-- =no data available or not establishedB = blank-qualified resultJ = estimated value below the SWS Reporting LimitBlanks =field, trip and method blanksShaded = Concentrations above the current NC 2L or Solid Waste Section Groundwater Protection Standards have been shaded.MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-10, MW-14 and MW-15 are abandoned monitoring wells and data are not included on this table.SWS Reporting Limit =NCPQL prior to 2007 and NCSWSL starting in 01/31/071) Historical data prior to September 2006 provided by Rowan County.2) Well MW-24 was replaced by MW-24R prior to the July 2011 sampling event.3) MW-25, MW-26, MW-27, MW-27A, and MW-28 were installed prior to the January 2013 sampling event to monitor the Phase IV expansion.
5) Results in parentheses represent reanalyzed data.6) MW-20 was resampled for silver on 03/20/2015.
Table 1
Rowan County, North Carolina
4) MW-9 and MW-16 are designated as the new upgradient compliance monitoring wells per the approved revised 2013 groundwater monitoring plan.
Summary of Historical Detects
SWS
Reporting
Limit
Detected Monitoring Constituents/Analytes Sample Date French Drain BlanksUnitsSidegradient and Downgradient MSW WellsUpgradient MSW Wells
Rowan County Landfill, Permit 80-03
MDL
June 2016 Page 1 of 1
TABLE 2
Summary of Detected ASD Constituents
Rowan County Landfill, Permit 80-03
Rowan County, North Carolina
Project No. 0636572015
G:\Projects\Rowan\0636572015\200 DRAFT Reports\207 DRAFT 2016 Alternate Source Demonstration\Tables\2016_06_02 Table 2 - Summary of Detected ASD Constituents.xlsx
Detected Monitoring Constituent Units Sample Date MDL MRL
Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)ug/L 3/24/2016 14000 15000 ND ND 39000 ND 680000
Calcium Total ug/L 3/24/2016 39.0 100 ND ND 9160 1870 26300
Carbonate (as CaCO3)ug/L 3/24/2016 14000 15000 ND ND ND ND 16000
Chloride ug/L 3/24/2016 11000 25000 ND ND 11000 13000 280000 D
Magnesium Total ug/L 3/24/2016 29.0 100 ND ND 5060 3750 30800
Potassium Total ug/L 3/24/2016 150 500 ND ND 297 J 5870 69500Sodium Total ug/L 3/24/2016 400 500 ND ND 17700 7310 237000
Sulfate as SO4 ug/L 3/24/2016 2900 5000 ND ND 5500 J ND 13000 J
LeachateMW-28MW-9MW-27AMW-6
June 2016 1 of 1 0636572015
G:\Projects\Rowan\0636572015\200 DRAFT Reports\207 DRAFT 2016 Alternate Source Demonstration\Tables\2016_06_02 Table 3 - Summary of Basic Mixing Model.xlsx
Solution 1:Landfill LeachateSolution 2:MW-9 (Upgradient Monitoring Well)
Percentage of solution 1 in target solution 1%-70%
Solution 1 100%70%45%20%10%5%4%3%2%1%0%
Solution 2 0%30%55%80%90%95%96%97%98%99%100%MW-28
Na+1 (µg/L)237000 171210 116385 61560 39630 28665 26472 24279 22086 19893 17700 7310
K+1 (µg/L)69500 48739 31438 14138 7217 3757 3065 2373 1681 989 297 5870
Ca+2 (µg/L)26300 21158 16873 12588 10874 10017 9846 9674 9503 9331 9160 1870
Mg+2 (µg/L)30800 23078 16643 10208 7634 6347 6090 5832 5575 5317 5060 3750
Cl-1 (µg/L)280000 199300 132050 64800 37900 24450 21760 19070 16380 13690 11000 13000CO2-3 (µg/L)16000 15400 14900 14400 14200 14100 14080 14060 14040 14020 14000 1400
HCO3-1 (µg/L)680000 487700 327450 167200 103100 71050 64640 58230 51820 45410 39000 1400
SO4-2 (µg/L)13000 10750 8875 7000 6250 5875 5800 5725 5650 5575 5500 2900
Notes:1) mg/L = milligrams per Liter
2) % = percent
TABLE 3
Summary of Basix Mixing Model with Rowan County Landfill Leachate
Rowan County Landfill, Permit No. 80-03
Rowan County, North Carolina
Mixture Proportions

FIGURES

PIPER PLOT

PROJECT No. PHASE Rev FIGURE
0636572015 100 0 FIGURE 1
ROWAN COUNTY, NC

ALTERNATE SOURCE DEMONSTRATION
ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL
PERMIT NO. 80-03
CLIENT
CONSULTANT
PROJECT
TITLE YYYY-MM-DD
PREPARED
DESIGN
REVIEW
APPROVED
BSD
JF
BSD
RPK
2016-06-10

Path: g:\projects\waste industries\red rock\groundwater\gwmr\march 2016\figures\figure 1.docx | FileName: FIGURE 1.DOCX

FIXED SCALE STIFF DIAGRAMS

PROJECT No. PHASE Rev FIGURE
0636572015 100 0 FIGURE 2
ROWAN COUNTY, NC

ALTERNATE SOURCE DEMONSTRATION
ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL
PERMIT NO. 80-03
CLIENT
CONSULTANT
PROJECT
TITLE YYYY-MM-DD
PREPARED
DESIGN
REVIEW
APPROVED
BSD
JF
BSD
RPK
2016-06-10

Path: g:\projects\waste industries\red rock\groundwater\gwmr\march 2016\figures\figure 1.docx | FileName: FIGURE 1.DOCX

VARIABLE (OR SLIDING) SCALE STIFF DIAGRAMS

PROJECT No. PHASE Rev FIGURE
0636572015 100 0 FIGURE 3
ROWAN COUNTY, NC

ALTERNATE SOURCE DEMONSTRATION
ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL
PERMIT NO. 80-03
CLIENT
CONSULTANT
PROJECT
TITLE YYYY-MM-DD
PREPARED
DESIGN
REVIEW
APPROVED
BSD
JF
BSD
RPK
2016-06-10

Path: g:\projects\waste industries\red rock\groundwater\gwmr\march 2016\figures\figure 1.docx | FileName: FIGURE 1.DOCX

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 25
Page 2 of 25
Page 3 of 25
Page 4 of 25
Page 5 of 25
Page 6 of 25
Page 7 of 25
Page 8 of 25
Page 9 of 25
Page 10 of 25
Page 11 of 25
Page 12 of 25
Page 13 of 25
Page 14 of 25
Page 15 of 25
Page 16 of 25
Page 17 of 25
Page 18 of 25
Page 19 of 25
Page 20 of 25
Page 21 of 25
Page 22 of 25
Page 23 of 25
Page 24 of 25
Page 25 of 25

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3
The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com
Rowan County Landfill
789 Campbell Road
Woodleaf, NC 27054
April 07, 2016
4583128.1
Contact:EDR Inquiry #
Search Results:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein arethe property of their respective owners.
page-
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
Year Details SourceScale
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Site Name: Client Name:
2012 1"=500'Flight Year: 2012 USDA/NAIP
2010 1"=500'Flight Year: 2010 USDA/NAIP
2009 1"=500'Flight Year: 2009 USDA/NAIP
2008 1"=500'Flight Year: 2008 USDA/NAIP
2006 1"=500'Flight Year: 2006 USDA/NAIP
2005 1"=500'Flight Year: 2005 USDA/NAIP
1998 1"=500'Flight Date: March, 13 1998 USGS
1993 1"=500'Acquisition Date: January, 28 1993 USGS/DOQQ
1983 1"=500'Flight Date: March, 02 1983 USDA
1976 1"=1000'Flight Date: March, 24 1976 USGS
1965 1"=500'Flight Date: February, 04 1965 USGS
1950 1"=500'Flight Date: April, 24 1950 USDA
1948 1"=500'Flight Date: March, 13 1948 USGS
04/07/16
Rowan County Landfill Golder Associates NC, Inc.
789 Campbell Road 5B Oakbranch Drive
Woodleaf, NC 27054 Greensboro, NC 27407
4583128.1 Benjamin Draper
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot
be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE
OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any
analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to
provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2016 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
4583128 1 2
4583128.1
2012
= 500'
4583128.1
2012
= 500'
4583128.1
2012
= 500'
4583128.1
2010
= 500'
4583128.1
2010
= 500'
4583128.1
2010
= 500'
4583128.1
2010
= 500'
4583128.1
2009
= 500'
4583128.1
2009
= 500'
4583128.1
2009
= 500'
4583128.1
2009
= 500'
4583128.1
2008
= 500'
4583128.1
2008
= 500'
4583128.1
2008
= 500'
4583128.1
2008
= 500'
4583128.1
2006
= 500'
4583128.1
2006
= 500'
4583128.1
2006
= 500'
4583128.1
2006
= 500'
4583128.1
2005
= 500'
4583128.1
2005
= 500'
4583128.1
2005
= 500'
4583128.1
2005
= 500'
4583128.1
1998
= 500'
4583128.1
1998
= 500'
4583128.1
1993
= 500'
4583128.1
1993
= 500'
4583128.1
1993
= 500'
4583128.1
1993
= 500'
4583128.1
1983
= 500'
4583128.1
1983
= 500'
4583128.1
1976
= 1000'
4583128.1
1965
= 500'
4583128.1
1965
= 500'
4583128.1
1950
= 500'
4583128.1
1950
= 500'
4583128.1
1948
= 500'
4583128.1
1948
= 500'
4583128.1
1948
= 500'

Golder Associates NC, Inc.
5B Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407 USA
[phone] - Phone
[phone] - Fax