HomeMy WebLinkAbout10001_YanceyMitchellMSWLF_GWMR_DIN26882_20160715
Prepared for
Yancey County, North Carolina
and Mitchell County, North Carolina
Project Number 2119.14
Prepared by
Altamont Environmental, Inc.
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, NC 28801
(828) 281-3350
Spring 2016 Semiannual
Water Quality Monitoring Report
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill
Yancey County, North Carolina
Permit #100-01
July 15, 2016
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page iii
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling ...................................................................2
2.1.1 Groundwater Purging and Sampling Methods ..................................................2
2.1.2 Surface Water Sampling Methods ....................................................................3
2.2 Sample Handling, Documentation, and Analysis...........................................................3
3.0 Findings .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Analytical Results ..........................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Groundwater Samples ......................................................................................5
3.1.2 Surface Water Samples ....................................................................................6
3.2 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................7
4.0 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Future Activities .............................................................................................................8
5.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 9
Figures
1. Site Location Map
2. Sample Location and Posted Data Map
3. Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction Map
Tables
1. Monitoring Well Construction Summary
2. Summary of Laboratory Analyses Performed on Samples
3. Summary of Analytical Results
Appendices
A. Sampling Logs and Equipment Documentation & Instrument Calibration Data Sheets
B. Reports of Laboratory Analysis and Chain-of-Custody Documentation
C. Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form and Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring
Data 10001March2016 (Electronic Only)
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 1
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
1.0 Introduction
The Yancey County Solid Waste Department operates a solid waste facility located on Landfill Road near
North Carolina (NC) Highway 80 in Burnsville, North Carolina (Figure 1). The facility accepts solid waste from
both Yancey County and Mitchell County and includes the following permitted components:
A closed municipal solid waste landfill (MSW Landfill) (Permit #100-01)
A closed construction and demolition debris landfill (C&D Landfill) (Permit #100-02)
An active transfer station (Permit #100-03T)
The approximate locations of the two landfill units within the solid waste facility are shown on Figure 2.
This report addresses water quality associated with the MSW Landfill. Water quality at the C&D Landfill is
addressed in a separate report, because the C&D Landfill is permitted separately under the rules codified in
Title 15A, Subchapter 13B, Section .0500 and .0601 (per June 25, 2010 Memorandum) of the North
Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 13B.0500 and 15A NCAC 13B.0601).
State regulations applicable to landfills are enforced by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Division of Waste Management (DWM). The closed MSW Landfill is permitted by the DEQ DWM
under Permit #100-01, which requires semiannual monitoring of groundwater and surface water quality.
This report documents the first semiannual groundwater and surface water monitoring event for 2016 and is
being submitted in accordance with requirements stipulated in the closure letter issued by DEQ DWM for the
MSW Landfill on December 21, 1995 and with regulations codified in the DEQ Solid Waste Management
(SWM) Rules 15A NCAC 13B.0510. The December 21, 1995 letter requires semiannual monitoring of
groundwater and surface water quality. This report provides an evaluation of surface water and groundwater
quality for the MSW Landfill.
The water quality monitoring network for the MSW Landfill consists of four compliance monitoring wells
(MW-2, MW-3, MW-AR, and MW-B), one background monitoring well (MW-J), and two surface water sampling
locations (SW-1 and SW-2) located along the North Toe River.
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 2
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
2.0 Methods
2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling
Groundwater and surface water samples were collected by Altamont Environmental, Inc. (Altamont) on
March 22 and 23, 2016. All sampling locations are shown on Figures 1 and 2. A monitoring well
construction summary and a water level measurement summary are presented in Table 1. This table
includes both the closed MSW Landfill wells and the closed C&D Landfill wells to provide a more
comprehensive data set that can be used to evaluate groundwater flow direction. Table 2 provides a list of
all groundwater and surface water samples collected that are applicable to the MSW Landfill and the
analyses performed on each sample.
2.1.1 Groundwater Purging and Sampling Methods
Groundwater purging and sampling was performed using either a disposable bailer or a pump. Prior to
purging and sampling the monitoring wells, the static water level was gauged with a decontaminated water
level meter. Field parameters—including pH, specific conductivity (SC), dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity,
oxidation reduction potential (ORP), and temperature—were measured and recorded during purging. Well
sampling logs with static water level measurements and field parameter data are included in Appendix A.
Static water level measurements are also provided in Table 1. Groundwater samples were collected after
purging the monitoring wells and after field parameters had stabilized. When monitoring wells were purged
with a disposable bailer, a minimum of three well volumes were purged from the monitoring well or, if the
monitoring well recharged slowly, the monitoring well was bailed dry and allowed to recharge prior to
sampling.
Monitoring well total depth, the condition of the well casing, the groundwater recharge rate as determined
during purging, and the sample collection method(s) used at each monitoring well were recorded on
sampling logs provided in Appendix A. All groundwater purging and sampling were conducted by Altamont
personnel wearing new nitrile gloves and laboratory-supplied sample containers.
2.1.1.1 Monitoring Well MW-2
Monitoring well MW-2 was purged and sampled on March 22, 2016. No well construction log or drilling
record is available for MW-2 (Table 1). The screened interval for monitoring well MW-2 is assumed to be
constructed in saprolite. The well’s total depth is 56.30 feet below the top of the well casing (TOC). Although
the well’s surface completion is capped and secure, the casing is bent and likely cracked at approximately
10 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs). Altamont personnel used a more flexible, dedicated Teflon™ bailer
(rather than a polyethylene bailer) to bypass the bend in the casing, purge three well volumes, and
subsequently collect a groundwater sample. Field parameters were recorded for the initial groundwater
withdrawal and after each consecutive well volume was purged.
2.1.1.2 Monitoring Wells MW-AR, MW-B, and MW-3
A bladder pump and low-flow sampling techniques were used to purge and sample compliance monitoring
wells MW-3, MW-AR, and MW-B on March 22 and 23, 2016. No well construction log or drilling record is
available for monitoring wells MW-3 or MW-AR (Table 1). The screened interval for monitoring well MW-3 is
assumed to be constructed in saprolite. Monitoring well MW-3 has a total well depth of 38.0 feet below TOC.
Monitoring well MW-AR has a total depth of 71.4 feet (ft) below TOC, and its screened interval is assumed to
be constructed in bedrock. The screened interval for monitoring well MW-B is constructed in bedrock and
has a total well depth of 70 ft below TOC. These three monitoring wells were purged using low-flow sampling
techniques in accordance with the procedures described in Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water
Sampling Procedures (Puls and Barcelona, 1996).
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 3
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
During purging, the field parameters were measured and recorded approximately every 3 minutes. Well
purging continued until these parameters stabilized for three consecutive readings.
The required stabilization criteria were as follows:
pH values within +/- 0.1 unit
SC values within +/- 3 percent
Temperature, DO, and turbidity values within +/- 10 percent
ORP values within +/- 10 millivolts
Once the parameters stabilized, a groundwater sample was collected.
2.1.1.3 Monitoring Well MW-J
Monitoring well MW-J, which has a total depth of 194.5 ft-bgs (Table 1), is located on a ridge in the western
part of the C&D Landfill. It is screened in bedrock and serves as a background well for the water quality
monitoring network. A bladder pump could not be used to purge and/or sample this well due to the pressure
head caused by the deep groundwater level in this well (146.20 ft below TOC [ft-TOC]). Instead, Altamont
technicians used a GeoTech® Geosub® pump and performed low-flow sampling techniques to purge and
sample the well on March 22, 2016. During purging, the field parameters for groundwater were measured
and recorded approximately every 3 minutes. Well purging continued until these parameters stabilized for
three consecutive readings. The stabilization criteria were the same as for other wells (as described in
Section 2.1.1.2). Once the parameters had stabilized, groundwater samples were collected and placed into
laboratory-supplied sample bottles by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves.
2.1.2 Surface Water Sampling Methods
Surface water samples SW-1 and SW-2 were collected on March 22, 2016 at designated locations from the
North Toe River, which is located just east of the MSW Landfill. The SW-1 sample represents surface water
quality upstream of the landfills, and the SW-2 sample represents surface water quality downstream from
the landfills. One round of field parameters—consisting of temperature, pH, SC, DO, ORP, and turbidity—was
measured and recorded at each surface water sampling location prior to collecting the surface water
sample. Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied sample containers by a technician wearing a
new pair of nitrile gloves.
2.2 Sample Handling, Documentation, and Analysis
Field parameters and additional observations pertaining to the MSW Landfill sampling locations are provided
on sampling logs, which are included in Appendix A. Following collection, each groundwater and surface
water sample was immediately placed on ice in a sample cooler for shipment to Prism Laboratories, a North
Carolina-certified laboratory located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The 1995 Closure Letter refers to the
sampling parameter list found in its Attachment 2 titled “Sampling and Analysis Requirements for
Construction and Demolition Landfills and Closed Sanitary Landfills” of the North Carolina Water Quality
Monitoring Guidance Document for Solid Waste Facilities (DENR, 1995). Table 2 provides details of analyses
performed on all collected samples.
Proper chain-of-custody documentation procedures were followed during collection and transportation of
each sample to the laboratory. Documentation is included in Appendix B of this report. A trip blank, provided
by the laboratory, was placed in each sample cooler and analyzed for Appendix I volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) per Title 40 of the United States (US) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 258. The laboratory
analytical reports are provided in Appendix B.
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 4
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
The Prism laboratory report of analysis, presented in Appendix B, contains results for selected constituents
that are not discussed in the text of this report. These constituents include eight additional metals from the
Appendix I constituent list, as well as tetrahydrofuran, chloride, manganese, sulfate, iron, alkalinity, and total
dissolved solids. The additional constituents were included in the laboratory analyses performed on three
samples: the two surface water locations (SW-1 and SW-2) and monitoring well MW-J. Samples were
collected from these points to satisfy monitoring requirements for both the MSW Landfill and the C&D
Landfill. Samples collected from the three referenced sampling points were analyzed for the additional
constituents to meet requirements of the 15A NCAC 13B.0500 and .0601 rules, pertaining to C&D landfills.
A discussion of the results for applicable constituents is included in the Fall 2015 Semiannual Water Quality
Monitoring Report, Yancey-Mitchell County Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill submitted in January
2016 (Altamont, 2016).
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 5
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
3.0 Findings
3.1 Analytical Results
The laboratory analytical results and field parameters data for the groundwater and surface water samples
collected at the landfill are included in Appendices A and B. Appendix C provides the collected data in the
Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) format specified by the Solid Waste Section (SWS) of the DWM.
Non-detections were reported at the method detection limit (MDL), and all concentrations exceeding the
MDL were reported and appropriately qualified. The MDL is the minimum concentration of a substance that
can be measured and reported by a laboratory with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is
greater than zero. All detections were compared to the analyte-specific Solid Waste Section Limit (SWSL)
established by the DEQ SWS. The SWSL is defined by the SWS as the lowest concentration of an analyte in a
sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy. If the reported
concentration is above the laboratory MDL and below the method reporting limit (MRL), the analytical result
is qualified as estimated and is flagged with a “J” qualifier (J-flag). The MRL is the minimum concentration of
a target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method. If the reported concentration
is above the laboratory MRL and below the SWSL, the analytical result is qualified as estimated and is
flagged by Altamont with an italicized “J” qualifier (italicized J-flag). Concentrations detected below the
respective SWSLs are not discussed in the text of this report unless they exceed their contaminant-specific
water quality standard.
Detected concentrations of analytes in groundwater samples were compared to current groundwater quality
standards specified in 15A NCAC 2L.0202 and are referred to as “2L standards.” Detected concentrations of
analytes in groundwater with no established 2L standard were compared either to the interim maximum
allowable concentrations (IMACs) for Class GA and GSA groundwater (in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L
.0202 [c]) or Groundwater Protection Standards (GWPS), pursuant to 15A NCAC 13B.1634. Detections of
analytes in surface-water samples were compared to 15A NCAC 2B surface-water quality standards (2B
standards) established for trout waters. (Altamont understands that the reach of the North Toe River
adjacent to the landfill is classified by the DEQ Division of Water Quality [DWQ] as B: Tr, or Class B trout
water.)
Table 3 presents the summary of detected constituents and outlines concentrations of analytes that were
above applicable SWSLs, as well as detected analytes that exceeded their respective 2L standard, IMAC, or
2B standard.
In the EDD (Appendix C), the identification of a well (“WELL ID” on the table) consists of the name of the well
prefaced by the unhyphenated permit number for the facility. For example, monitoring well MW-2 is
identified in the EDD as 10001-MW2. In the tables and figures of this report, the identification of a well
consists only of the name of the well without the permit number associated with the facility.
3.1.1 Groundwater Samples
The following sections summarize detections of field parameters, Appendix I VOCs, and metals in
groundwater.
3.1.1.1 Field Parameters
The pH readings measured from the samples collected from all monitoring wells, with the exception of MW-J,
were below the acceptable range of 6.5 to 8.5 Standard Units (SU) specified in the 2L standards (Table 3).
The pH readings recorded for this event are consistent with historical data.
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 6
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
Turbidity values at the time of sampling the monitoring wells ranged from 1.86 nephelometric turbidity units
(NTUs) to 14.0 NTUs (Table 3). The highest concentration of barium was detected in the well with the highest
turbidity.
SWSLs and 2L standards are not established for the remaining field parameters collected during the spring
2016 sampling event.
3.1.1.2 VOCs
Fifteen VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples collected from one or more of the monitoring wells
(Table 3). Eight of the fifteen VOCs (1,4-dichlorobenzene, acetone, benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, vinyl chloride, and total xylenes) were detected at concentrations above their respective SWSLs in
samples from one or more monitoring wells (Table 3). 1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, and vinyl chloride were
detected at concentrations above their 2L standards in the groundwater sample collected from MW-B
(Table 3). Benzene was also detected above 2L standards in the sample collected from MW-3. Historic data
for monitoring well MW-B show consistent exceedances of these constituents during prior sampling events.
Review of historical data shows that 1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, and chlorobenzene have been detected
consistently and at similar concentrations, with occasional exceedances of 2L standards, in monitoring wells
MW-2 and MW-3.
3.1.1.3 Metals
Seven metals were detected in the groundwater samples collected from one or more monitoring wells (Table
3). Of these seven metals, barium had concentrations that were detected above its SWSL in the samples
collected from monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-B (Table 3). None of the detected metals had concentrations
that exceeded their respective 2L groundwater quality standards or IMACs.
3.1.2 Surface Water Samples
The following sections summarize detections of field parameters, VOCs, metals, and field parameters in
surface water. The location of sample point SW-1 in the North Toe River is upstream of the landfill and is
assumed to represent surface water quality upstream of the Yancey County landfills. The location of sample
point SW-2 in the North Toe River is downstream of the landfill and is assumed to represent surface water
quality downstream of the Yancey County landfills.
3.1.2.1 Field Parameters
The pH readings were obtained on March 22, 2016 for surface water samples. The pH readings measured
6.78 and 6.98 SU for surface water samples SW-1 and SW-2, respectively. Both results are within the 2B
standard range for pH established at 6.0 to 9.0 SU (Table 3) and are consistent with historical readings.
Turbidity was measured and recorded for SW-1 and SW-2 at 2.21 NTUs and 1.84 NTUs, respectively. Both
values are within the 2B standard of 10 NTUs (Table 3) and are consistent with historical readings.
Dissolved oxygen was measured within the established 2B standard for dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/L (the
2B standard indicates “not less than 5.0 mg/L” for freshwater aquatic life) and are consistent with historical
readings.
2B standards do not exist for the remaining field parameters measured in surface water samples. Detailed
field parameter results are provided as Appendices A and C of this report.
3.1.2.2 VOCs
No VOCs were detected from either surface water sample collected from the MSW Landfill.
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 7
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
3.1.2.3 Metals
Six metals were detected in one or both surface water samples (Table 3). None of the detected metals
exceeded their respective SWSLs. Silver exceeded its 2B standard in the downstream surface water sample
(SW-2). Silver was detected in the downstream surface water sample for the first time in the fall 2015
sampling event. This sampling event was the second time silver was detected in the downstream surface
water sample. The recent increase in silver detections may be the result of lower laboratory detection limits.
Cadmium was detected at concentrations that exceeded the 2B standard in both surface water samples.
The relationship of overall metals concentrations between the upstream and downstream surface water
samples do not show evidence of the landfill impacting surface water downstream of the landfill.
The data shown in Table 3 further supports this conclusion. Table 3 provides the list of the 6 detected
metals in the upstream and downstream surface water sampling locations and many of these same metals
detected in the upstream surface water sample were also detected in the groundwater samples. The
detected metals in the downstream stream sample location were of similar concentration ranges as the
upstream sample location and supports the conclusion that the metal concentrations in the landfill
groundwater monitoring wells are not impacting the surface water.
Altamont will continue to monitor surface water quality in the North Toe River upstream and downstream of
the landfill, and will pay close attention to any new detections of metals in the samples.
3.2 Hydrogeology
Groundwater elevations were calculated for the spring 2016 semiannual water quality monitoring event
using the measured depths to water and the associated top-of-casing elevations determined from a survey
performed for the monitoring wells in October 2009. Groundwater elevation data are reported in Table 1.
Figure 3 presents the generalized groundwater flow direction for the water table aquifer and the bedrock
aquifer. Generalized groundwater flow directions were estimated using groundwater elevation data
associated with a limited number of locations in an area of complex topographic and geologic conditions.
The estimated groundwater flow directions indicate that groundwater in the bedrock aquifer is flowing
generally in a northeasterly direction and that groundwater in the water table aquifer is generally mimicking
topography. In the area where data is available, groundwater flow in the water table aquifer appears to be
convergent toward a topographic trough in a northerly direction. The apparent groundwater flow directions
and the local topography suggest that groundwater is flowing toward the North Toe River.
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 8
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
4.0 Summary
Altamont completed the first semiannual water quality monitoring event of 2016 at the Yancey-Mitchell
County MSW Landfill on March 22 and 23, 2016.
Table 3 of this report, Prism Analytical Reports (Appendix B), and the EDD (Appendix C) provide detailed
analytical results and field data representing the groundwater and surface water quality at the MSW Landfill.
Generally, the groundwater and surface water analytical results show that constituent concentrations are
less than the respective SWSLs, 2B standards, and 2L standards, with the exception of 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
benzene, and vinyl chloride in downgradient monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-B. 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
benzene, and vinyl chloride have never been detected in the downstream surface water sample. Cadmium
exceeded its surface water standard in the upstream (SW-1) and downstream (SW-2) samples and Silver
exceeded its surface water standard in the downstream (SW-2) sample. The lack of detections of VOCs in the
downstream surface water sample, the presence of cadmium in both surface water samples, and the lack of
cadmium and silver detections in the on-Site groundwater, suggest that groundwater flow from the landfill
toward the North Toe River is not impacting surface water.
4.1 Future Activities
Altamont will continue to measure field parameters and collect water quality samples from groundwater and
surface water monitoring points associated with the MSW Landfill. Water quality samples will be submitted
to a North Carolina-certified laboratory for analysis for eight metals, as well as Appendix I VOCs on a
semiannual basis. The next sampling event is scheduled for September 2016.
Spring 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report July 15, 2016
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 9
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2016\Spring\MSW LF\10001March2016 Water Quality Report.docx
5.0 References
Altamont. January 16, 2014. Fall 2013 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report, Yancey-Mitchell
County Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill.
DENR, 1995. North Carolina Water Quality Monitoring Guidance Document for Solid Waste Facilities.
DENR, DWM, SWS. Rev 4-08. Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water
Sampling.
Puls, R.W., and M. J. Barcelona. 1996. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER, EPA/540/S-95/504.
Constituents for Detection Monitoring, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258, Appendix I.
FIGURES
1
¦
#*
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
¦
2
!U
!U
#*
#*
#*
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
NC
-
8
0
SR
#
1
4
4
0
SR#1305
NC80
NC80
238
0
2420
2440
24602480
252
0
2540
2360
2560 2580
2620
26402660 2
6
8
0
2620
2560
258
0MW-I
MW-H
MW-3
MW-2
MW-J
MW-B
MW-AR
¦
3
!U
!U
TABLES
Table 1
Monitoring Well Construction Summary
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Yancey County, North Carolina
Northing Easting
Ground
Surface
Elevation
TOC
Elevation Stick Up
Total
Well
Depth
Depth
to
Water
Groundwater
Elevation
Approximate
Depth to
Bedrock
Approximate
Bedrock
Elevation
Depth to
Top of
Screened
Interval
Depth to
Bottom of
Screened
Interval
Top of
Screen
Elevation
Bottom of
Screen
Elevation
(NAD 83;
2007)
(NAD 83;
2007)
(feet NAVD
88)
(feet NAVD
88)
(feet
above
ground
surface)
(feet
below
TOC)
(feet
below
TOC)
(feet NAVD 88)(feet bgs)(feet NAVD 88)(feet bgs)(feet bgs)(feet NAVD
88)
(feet NAVD
88)
MW-2 809474.01 1059181.42 2,568.85 2,572.06 3.21 56.30 32.48 2,539.58
MW-3 809357.74 1058830.13 2,551.34 2,553.57 1.70 38.00 27.78 2,525.79
MW-AR 808483.97 1059176.2 2,688.76 2,691.17 2.30 71.40 57.58 2,633.59 Assumed
Bedrock
MW-B 12/02/
1996 809020.07 1059514.58 2,624.07 2,626.27 2.00 70.00 57.37 2,568.90 18.00 2,606.07 53.00 68.00 2,571.07 2,556.07 Bedrock
100-01 MW-J 11/26/
1996 808698.05 1057994.86 2,873.58 2,875.99 2.30 196.80 146.20 2,729.79 2.00 2,871.58 179.50 194.50 2,694.08 2,679.08 Bedrock
MW-H 12/04/
1996 809563.75 1058698.38 2,566.36 2,568.68 2.32 64.50 53.59 2,515.09 62.00 2,504.36 47.00 62.00 2,519.36 2,504.36 Saprolite
MW-I 12/02/
1996 809923.04 1058531.91 2,596.57 2,598.77 2.00 83.00 57.89 2,540.88 85.0 2,512.00 64.00 79.00 2,532.57 2,517.57 Saprolite
Notes:
"No Well Record"Indicates that the well record, if it exists, was not readily obtainable.
NAD North American Datum 1983
NAVD North American Vertical Datum 1988
TOC Top of casing
bgs Below ground surface
Depth to Water Measured on March 22 and 23, 2016
Survey Data Survey data showing the horizontal and vertical positions of the monitoring wells were presented in Appendix A of Fall 2009 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report, Yancey-Mitchell County Municipal Solid Waste Landfill dated December 31, 2009.
100-02
100-01
No Well
Construction/
Drilling Record Is
Available
DENR Well
Construction/
Drilling Log
Record, dated
12/31/96
DENR Well
Construction/
Drilling Log
Record, dated
12/31/96
No Well Record No Well Record No Well
Record
No Well
Record
No Well
Record
No Well
Record
Assumed
Saprolite
C&D Landfill Monitoring Wells
No Well
Record
MSW Landfill Monitoring Wells
Well ID Date
Drilled
Geology of
Screened
Interval
Source of Well
Construction
Information
Facility Permit
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Analytical & Data\Water\2016\Spring\10001MSWLF_1987\Tables\10001March2016 T1-Well Construction Details Page 1 of 1
Table 2
Summary of Laboratory Analyses Performed on Samples
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Yancey County, North Carolina
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
VOCs Metals
EPA 8260B EPA 6020B
EPA 7470A
100-01 MW-2 03/22/2016 X X
100-01 MW-3 03/22/2016 X X
100-01 MW-AR 03/23/2016 X X
100-01 MW-B 03/23/2016 X X
100-01 MW-J 03/22/2016 X X
SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
VOCs Metals
EPA 8260B EPA 6020B
EPA 7470A
100-01 SW-1 03/22/2016 X X
100-01 SW-2 03/22/2016 X X
QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
VOCs
EPA 8260B
100-01 TRIP BLANK (MSW-1)03/23/2016 X
100-01 TRIP BLANK (MSW-2)03/23/2016 X
100-01 TRIP BLANK (BACKGROUND)03/23/2016 X
Notes:
VOCs Volatile organic compounds, analyses include Appendix I constituents per 40 CFR Part 258.
Tetrahydrofuran Analysis has been performed since the spring 2011 sampling event per the North Carolina Division of
Waste Management, Solid Waste Section requirement specified in the June 25, 2010 memorandum.
FACILITY PERMIT SAMPLE ID COLLECT DATE
FACILITY PERMIT WELL ID COLLECT DATE
FACILITY PERMIT SAMPLE ID COLLECT DATE
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Analytical & Data\Water\2016\Spring\10001MSWLF_1987\Tables\10001March2016 T2,T3.xls Page 1 of 1
Table 3
Summary of Analytical Results
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Yancey County, North Carolina
Metals (RCRA)VOCs (Appendix I)Field Parameters
Lab Certification 402 402 5445 (pH only)
Lab Method EPA 6020B, EPA 7470A EPA 8260B
Parameter Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Selenium Silver
1,4-
Dichloro-
benzene
2-Butanone 2-Hexanone Acetone Benzene Chloro-
benzene
cis-1,2-
Dichloro-
ethene
Ethyl-
benzene
Methyl
Isobutyl
Ketone
m,p-Xylenes o-Xylene Tetra-
hydrofuran Toluene Vinyl
Chloride
Xylenes,
Total pH Turbidity Dissolved
Oxygen
CAS Number 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-43-9 7440-47-3 7439-92-1 7782-49-2 7440-22-4 106-46-7 78-93-3 591-78-6 67-64-1 71-43-2 108-90-7 156-59-2 100-41-4 108-10-1 108-38-3 95-47-6 109-99-9 108-88-3 75-01-4 1330-20-7 SW320 SW330 7782-44-7
SWS ID 14 15 34 51 131 183 184 71 141 124 3 16 39 78 110 147 359 408 458 196 211 346 320 330 356
Units µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L SU NTU mg/L
Sample ID Collect Date Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result
Groundwater Samples
MW-2 03/22/2016 0.79 J 62 J 0.30 J 0.95 J, B 0.70 J 0.35 U 0.026 J 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 5.69 6.77 3.77
MW-3 03/22/2016 0.42 J 140 0.30 J 0.51 U 0.085 J 0.35 U 0.011 U 3.8 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 1.0 11 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 6.49 14.0 0.88
MW-AR 03/23/2016 0.29 U 17 J 0.17 J 0.51 U 0.097 J 0.35 U 0.017 J 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 5.48 1.86 0.74
MW-B 03/23/2016 1.7 J 110 0.16 J 0.51 U 0.14 J 2.4 J 0.016 J 7.2 21 J 2.5 J 120 5.0 8.7 0.84 J 2.0 23 J 6.2 3.4 150 2.4 2.5 9.6 6.37 10.3 1.39
MW-J 03/22/2016 1.1 J 16 J 0.12 J 7.4 J 0.47 J 0.35 U 0.033 J 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 7.14 4.96 8.65
Surface Water Samples
SW-1 03/22/2016 0.98 J 16 J 0.18 J 0.76 J, B 0.15 J 0.35 U 0.011 U 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 6.78 2.21 7.93
SW-2 03/22/2016 0.47 J 13 J 0.20 J 0.83 J, B 0.17 J 0.35 U 0.077 J 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 6.98 1.84 6.69
Quality Control Samples
TRIP BLANK (MSW-1)03/23/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U NA NA NA
TRIP BLANK (MSW-2)03/23/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U NA NA NA
TRIP BLANK (BACKGROUND)03/23/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.050 U 0.24 U 0.065 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.061 U 0.078 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.16 U 0.044 U 0.097 U 0.15 U NA NA NA
MDL 0.29 0.041 0.019 0.51 0.02 0.35 0.011 0.050 0.24 0.065 0.31 0.048 0.062 0.056 0.061 0.078 0.12 0.044 0.16/1.60 0.044 0.097 0.15 NA NA NA
MRL 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.50 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 5.0 1.0 0.50 10/100 0.50 0.50 3.0 NA NA NE
SWSL 10 100 1 10 10 10 10 1 100 50 100 1 3 5 1 100 NE NE NE 1 1 5 NE NE NE
2L 10 700 2 10 15 20 20 6 4000 NE 6000 1 50 70 600 NE NE NE NE 600 0.03 500 6.5-8.5 NE NE
IMAC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 40 NE NE NE 60 NE 100 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
GWPS NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 40 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
2B 10 200,000 0.15 35 0.54 5 0.06 56 750,000 NE 2,000 51 140 720 97 26,000 670 400 NE 0.36 2.4 450 6.0-9.0 10 <5.0
Notes:
Detections Only detected constituents are listed on this table. Please refer to the Prism laboratory report of analyses for further details.
Appendix I Indicates VOCs and metals per 40 CFR Part 258.
Lab Method The analytical method used to analyze the constituents.
CAS Number A unique number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) to all identified parameters.
SWS ID The Solid Waste Section Identification Number.
Units Micrograms per liter (µg/L) for analytical results, Standard Units (SU) for pH, nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) for turbidity, and milligrams per liter (mg/L) for dissolved oxygen.
Collect Date The date on which the sample was collected in the field.
Result Analytical data reported by the laboratory or field data collected by Altamont.
MDL Method detection limit, which is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
MRL Method reporting limit, which is the minimum concentration of a target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.
SWSL The Solid Waste Section Limit. This limit (identified by DEQ) is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy.
U A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters not detected at concentrations above MDL.
J A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters detected at estimated concentrations above MDL but below MRL.
J A qualifier assigned by Altamont to reflect a detected concentration that is greater than MRL and MDL but less than the SWSL.
B A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters that were found in the associated laboratory blank at a concentration greater than one-half of the report limit.
2L Subchapter 2L - Groundwater Classifications and Standards, DEQ (Amended April 1, 2013).Groundwater standard from North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality
IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration. The IMAC concentrations are listed in Appendix #1 of the 2L.
GWPS
2B
NE Not Established
NA Not Applicable
140 Indicate an SWSL exceedance.
1.0 Indicate result in exceedance of the 2L, IMAC, GWP, or 2B standard.
The Groundwater Protection Standard pursuant to 15A NCAC 13B .1634, DEQ. Current standards were obtained from https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/waste-management-permit-
guidance/solid-waste-section/environmental-monitoring/environmental-monitoring-list (last updated June, 2011). GWPS is used only if 2L or IMAC standards are not established for specific constituent.
Indicates surface water standard per North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality, Subchapter 2B - Surface Water and Wetland Standards (last amended in March
2016) or standard obtained from National Criteria per EPA table (current as of May 15, 2013).
P:\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Analytical & Data\Water\2016\Spring\10001MSWLF_1987\Tables\10001March2016 T2,T3.xls Page 1 of 1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Sampling Logs and Equipment
Documentation & Instrument Calibration
Data Sheets
APPENDIX B
Reports of Laboratory Analysis
and
Chain-of-Custody Documentation
Page 1 of 15
Page 2 of 15
Page 3 of 15
Page 4 of 15
Page 5 of 15
Page 6 of 15
Page 7 of 15
Page 8 of 15
Page 9 of 15
Page 10 of 15
Page 11 of 15
Page 12 of 15
Page 13 of 15
Page 14 of 15
Page 15 of 15
Page 1 of 15
Page 2 of 15
Page 3 of 15
Page 4 of 15
Page 5 of 15
Page 6 of 15
Page 7 of 15
Page 8 of 15
Page 9 of 15
Page 10 of 15
Page 11 of 15
Page 12 of 15
Page 13 of 15
Page 14 of 15
Page 15 of 15
Page 1 of 22
Page 2 of 22
Page 3 of 22
Page 4 of 22
Page 5 of 22
Page 6 of 22
Page 7 of 22
Page 8 of 22
Page 9 of 22
Page 10 of 22
Page 11 of 22
Page 12 of 22
Page 13 of 22
Page 14 of 22
Page 15 of 22
Page 16 of 22
Page 17 of 22
Page 18 of 22
Page 19 of 22
Page 20 of 22
Page 21 of 22
Page 22 of 22
APPENDIX C
Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form
and
Electronic Submittal of Environmental
Monitoring Data
10001March2016 (Electronic Only)