4407_Haywood_WhiteOakMSW_WQMPPhases1-5_DIN26742_20160913

BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS

WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN
LANDFILL PHASES 1 THROUGH 5

WHITE OAK LANDFILL
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT NUMBER 44-07 PREPARED FOR:

SANTEK ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE
PREPARED BY: BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
BLE NORTH CAROLINA BUSINESS LICENSE C-1538
BLE PROJECT NUMBER J15-1957-51
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS
6004 PONDERS COURT PHONE [phone] GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29615 FAX [phone]
September 13, 2016

Santek Waste Services
650 25th St, NW Suite 100
Cleveland, TN 37311
Attention: Mr. Ron E. Vail, P.E. Subject: Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Landfill Phases 1 through 5 White Oak Landfill Haywood County, North Carolina
Facility Permit Number 47-07 BLE North Carolina Business License C-1538 BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
Dear Mr. Vail:

Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE) is pleased to present this Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) for the White Oak Landfill located in Haywood County, North Carolina. This Plan is being
submitted in general accordance with North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC
13B .0601, and .1630 through .1637 (groundwater), 15A NCAC 13B .0602 (surface water), and 15A NCAC 13B .1624(12)(c) (leachate). The Plan contained herein includes procedures performed at the
facility in the past and incorporates the future development of landfill waste disposal area Phases 4 & 5.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geological consultant on this project and look forward to continue working with you at the White Oak Landfill. If you have any questions, please contact us at [phone].

Sincerely, BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.

Andrew W. Alexander, P.G., RSM Mark S. Preddy, P.G. Senior Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist
Registered, NC No. 1475 Registered, NC No. 1043
Attachments: Table of Contents Tables Figures Appendices
e:\awa projects\mcgill\haywood county lf\1957-51 wolf phases 4&5 dhr\wqmp phase 4&5\wolf phase 4-5 wqmp\draft wolf haywood county wqmp 1957-51.docx

Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016 Haywood County – White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 2
3.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN .......................................................... 3 3.1 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Monitoring Well Network .................................................................. 3 3.1.2 Changes in Groundwater Elevations ................................................ 4 3.1.3 Monitoring Well Construction .......................................................... 5
3.1.4 Monitoring Well Development .......................................................... 5 3.1.5 Maintenance and Recordkeeping ...................................................... 6 3.1.6 Monitoring Well Abandonment ........................................................ 6
3.1.7 Detection Monitoring Program ......................................................... 7 3.1.7.1 Sampling Frequency .............................................................. 7 3.1.7.2 Establishment of Background Data ....................................... 8 3.1.7.3 Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data ............................. 8 3.1.8 Assessment Monitoring Program ...................................................... 8 3.1.9 Groundwater Sampling Methodology .............................................. 9 3.1.9.1 Sample Collection ................................................................... 10 3.1.9.1.1 Sampling Frequency ................................................ 10 3.1.9.1.2 Static Water Elevations .......................................... 10 3.1.9.1.3 Well Evacuation ..................................................... 10 3.1.9.1.3.1 Standard Evacuation Procedures .................. 10 3.1.9.1.3.2 Low-Flow Procedures ................................... 11 3.1.9.1.4 Sample Collection.................................................... 13
3.1.9.1.5 Decontamination ..................................................... 13
3.1.9.2 Sample Preservation and Handling ....................................... 14 3.1.9.3 Chain-of-Custody Program .................................................... 14 3.1.9.3.1 Sample Labels.......................................................... 14 3.1.9.3.2 Sample Seal ............................................................. 14 3.1.9.3.3 Field Logbook.......................................................... 14
3.1.9.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record ........................................ 15
3.1.9.4 Analytical Procedures ............................................................ 15 3.1.9.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program ................. 16 3.1.10 Statistical Methods (Optional) .......................................................... 17
3.2 Surface Water Monitoring.............................................................................. 17 3.2.1 Sampling Locations ............................................................................ 17 3.2.2 Monitoring Frequency ....................................................................... 17
3.2.3 Surface Water Sampling Methodology ............................................ 17 3.2.3.1 Sample Collection ................................................................... 18 3.2.3.1.1 Dipper Method ........................................................ 18 3.2.3.1.2 Direct Method.......................................................... 18 3.2.3.1.3 Decontamination ..................................................... 18
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
ii
3.2.3.2 Sample Preservation and Handling ....................................... 18 3.2.3.3 Chain-of-Custody Program .................................................... 18 3.2.3.3.1 Sample Labels.......................................................... 19 3.2.3.3.2 Sample Seal ............................................................. 19
3.2.3.3.3 Field Logbook.......................................................... 19 3.2.3.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record ........................................ 19 3.2.3.4 Analytical Procedures ............................................................ 20 3.2.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program ................. 21
3.3 Leachate Monitoring ....................................................................................... 22 3.3.1 Sampling Location .............................................................................. 22 3.3.2 Monitoring Frequency ....................................................................... 22 3.3.3 Leachate Sampling Methodology and Analytical Procedures ........ 22 3.4 Reporting ................................................................................................. 23
3.4.1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment Reports ................................................................................................ 23 3.4.2 Water Quality Reports ....................................................................... 23
4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 24
TABLES Table 1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction and Groundwater Elevation Data
Table 2 Sampling Matrix Table 3 Sampling and Preservation Procedures Table 4 Surface Water and Leachate Sampling Point Data
FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Water Quality Environmental Monitoring System Figure 3 Groundwater Monitoring Well Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Monitoring Well Construction Records
Appendix B North Carolina Appendix I and Appendix II Constituent Lists Appendix C NCDEQ Memoranda and Reporting Limits and Standards Appendix D Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form
Appendix E Low-Flow Groundwater Purging and Sampling Guidance
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County – White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The White Oak Landfill site is located in Haywood County, North Carolina, approximately twelve miles north of the city of Waynesville on White Oak Road at exit 15 of Interstate 40 (Figure 1). Haywood County owns an active Subtitle D municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill and a construction
and demolition (C&D) landfill on the subject site. An existing land clearing inert debris (LCID) disposal area is also present on the site. We understand that a contract for the operation and management of the subject landfill has been awarded to Santek Waste Services (Santek) by Haywood
County.
The water quality monitoring system for the Subtitle D lined MSW landfill currently consists of
eleven groundwater monitoring wells including two upgradient (MW-11S and MW-11D) and nine downgradient wells (MW-1A, MW-2, MW-2D, MW-3r, MW-3Dr, MW-4A, MW-8, MW-16, and
MW-17). Additionally, there are four surface water monitoring points (SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, and
SW-5), and a leachate lagoon sampling point (Leachate).
The C&D landfill, which is located on the same property, is monitored by one upgradient well (MW-14), one downgradient well (MW-15), and two locations for surface water monitoring (SW-6 and SW-7).
Santek intends to expand the existing MSW landfill facility by constructing future waste units in expansion areas designated as Phases 4 and 5. Garrett & Moore has been retained by Santek to prepare
a permit to construct the future waste units. BLE has been retained by Santek to conduct a design hydrogeologic investigation required under North Carolina’s Solid Waste Management Rules, Title 15A Section 13B .1623(b)(1-3) for a Design Hydrogeologic Report (DHR).
Santek has requested that BLE prepare a comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP)
for submittal to the North Carolina Division of Waste Management (NCDWM) which consolidates
the monitoring plans for the existing facility with those required future expansions in Phases 4 and 5. We understand that this WQMP will be included as part of the application for a permit to construct
prepared by Garrett & Moore.
The objective of this project is to prepare a WQMP which will include procedures and locations for
groundwater, surface water, and leachate monitoring as required by the following North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Solid Waste Management Rules (Rules):
• Groundwater – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rules .0601, and .1630 through .1637.

• Surface Water – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule .0602.
• Lechate – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1626(12)(c).

The WQMP herein is designed to detect and quantify contamination, as well as to measure the effectiveness of engineered disposal systems. The groundwater and surface water monitoring networks
for this site will be designed to provide an early warning of a potential disposal system failure. The
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
2
locations of the groundwater, surface water, and leachate monitoring points are indicated on the
attached Figure 2 titled Water Quality Environmental Monitoring System.
2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The subject site is located within the Blue Ridge Belt. The crystalline rocks of the Blue Ridge occur in generally northeast-southwest trending geologic belts in the Carolinas and Virginia. Precambrian-
age (Proterozoic) basement complexes of metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rocks underlie the region (Hadley and Goldsmith, 1963; Horton and Zullo, 1991). The site is underlain by the
Middle to Late Proterozoic-aged Spring Creek Granitoid Gneiss, which are metamorphosed-igneous
rocks. The multiple metamorphic deformations of the igneous rocks have resulted in biotite granitic gneiss interlayered with biotite granodiorite gneiss, tonalitic gneiss, quartz monzodiorite gneiss,
amphibolite, biotite gneiss, and biotite schist (Carter and Weiner, 1999). Late Proterozoic-aged
Great Smoky Group has been mapped southeast of the facility boundary, which are metamorphosed-sedimentary rocks. The multiple metamorphic deformations of the sedimentary rocks have resulted
in metagraywacke, with lesser amounts of locally interbedded kyanite-garnet-mica schist, garnet-mica schist, and calc-silicate granofels (Carter and Weiner, 1999). In the vicinity of the site, bedding and foliation generally strike northeast-southwest and dips moderately to the southeast. Structurally,
the contact between the Spring Creek Granitoid Gneiss and the Great Smoky Greywacke is mapped
as a thrust fault in which the Great Smokey formation overlies the Spring Creek formation (Carter and Weiner, 1999).
Holocene and younger age faults were not indicated on site or within 200 feet of the site from the literature review or from the field reconnaissance.
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. Residual soil zones develop by the in situ
chemical weathering of bedrock, and are commonly referred to as “saprolite.” Saprolite usually consists of silt with lessor amounts of sand, clay, and large rock fragments. The thickness of the
saprolite in the Piedmont ranges from a few feet to more than 100 feet. The boundary between soil
and rock is not sharply defined.
A transitional zone of partially weathered rock is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration resistance in excess of 100 blows per foot (bpf). Fractures, joints, and the presence of
less resistant rock types facilitate weathering. Consequently, the profile of the 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. Often during construction, this material can be excavated using conventional earth moving equipment.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
3
3.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN
This Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) will serve as a guidance document for collecting and analyzing groundwater, surface water, and leachate samples, evaluating the associated analytical
results, and for monitoring existing and potential releases from the Haywood County Landfill.
This WQMP complies with Title 15A, Subchapter 13B Rules .0601, and .1630 through .1637
pertaining to groundwater monitoring, Rule .0602 for surface water monitoring, and Rule .1626 for leachate monitoring.
3.1 Groundwater Monitoring 3.1.1 Monitoring Well Network
The proposed groundwater monitoring network for the White Oak Landfill is designed to monitor for potential releases to the water table aquifer at the site (Table 1). The proposed network will
consist of three (3) upgradient (background) wells (MW-11S, MW-11D, and MW-14) and fifteen (15) downgradient (compliance) wells (MW-1A, MW-2, MW-2D, MW-3r, MW-3Dr, MW-4A,
MW-8, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-20, MW-21, and MW-22) [Table 2]. All
monitoring locations currently exist except for MW-18, MW-19, MW-20, MW-21, and MW-22, which will be installed in conjunction with Phase 4 and 5 development. The location of each well is
indicated on the Water Quality Environmental Monitoring System (Figure 2). A description of each
groundwater monitoring point in the network and the proposed sequence of installation is provided below.

Monitoring Location Existing and Proposed Locations and Justification
MW-11S and
MW-11D
(existing)
Existing upgradient (background) monitoring wells presumed to be installed above and in the bedrock south of Phases 1 through 5. See Table 1 and Appendix
A for additional information. These 2 wells have been established as the
background wells for the MSW waste units and are proposed as background wells for Phases 4 and 5.
MW-14
(existing)
Existing upgradient (background) monitoring well installed in unknown strata
southwest of the C&D waste unit. See Table 1 for additional information. This
well has been established as the background well for the C&D waste unit.
MW-1A,
MW-2, MW-2D,
MW-3r,
MW-3Dr, MW-4A,
MW-8, MW-15, and MW-16,
(existing)
Existing downgradient (compliance) monitoring well locations set to intercept
north flowing groundwater from the Phase 1, 2, and 3 MSW waste units and from Phase 1 C&D waste unit. These wells are set in varying strata including deep
saprolite, partially weathered rock, bedrock, and some unknown strata. See Table 1 and Appendix A for additional information.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
4
Monitoring
Location
Existing and Proposed Locations and Justification
MW-17
(exiting)
Existing downgradient (compliance) monitoring well set to intercept north
flowing groundwater from the Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4 MSW waste units. This well is set in bedrock. See Table 1 and Appendix A for additional information.
MW-18 (proposed) Proposed downgradient (compliance) monitoring well set to intersect the water table in deep saprolite north-northwest of the leachate sump for MSW Phase 4.
MW-19 (proposed) Proposed downgradient (compliance) monitoring well set to intersect the water table in deep saprolite near the top of bedrock northwest of MSW Phase 5.
MW-20 (proposed) Proposed downgradient (compliance) monitoring well set to intersect the water table in deep saprolite and PWR south-southwest of MSW Phase 5.
MW-21 (proposed) Proposed downgradient (compliance) monitoring well set to intersect the water table in PWR south-southwest of MSW Phase 5.
MW-22 (proposed) Proposed downgradient (compliance) monitoring well set to intersect the water table in deep saprolite and PWR south of MSW Phase 5.
The existing and proposed well locations are selected to yield groundwater samples representative
of the conditions in the water table aquifer underlying the facility, and to monitor for potential
releases from the landfill unit. Well placement, well construction methods, well development, well maintenance, and well abandonment procedures are discussed in the following sections.
Groundwater monitoring wells shall be sampled during the active life of the landfill as well as the post-closure period, in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1630 of the Rules.
3.1.2 Changes in Groundwater Elevations
After each sampling event, groundwater surface elevations will be evaluated to determine whether
the monitoring system remains adequate, and to determine the rate and direction of groundwater flow.
The direction of groundwater flow will be determined semiannually by comparing the groundwater surface elevations among the monitoring wells, and constructing a groundwater surface elevation
contour map. The groundwater flow rate shall be determined using the following modified Darcy
equation:
en
KiV=
where V = the groundwater flow rate (feet/day)
K = the hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
i = the hydraulic gradient, ∆h/∆l (foot/foot)
ne = the effective porosity of the host medium (unit less)
∆h = the change in groundwater elevation between two wells or groundwater contours (feet)
∆l = the distance between the same two wells or groundwater contours (feet)
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
5
If the evaluation shows that the groundwater monitoring system does not satisfy the requirements of
the Rules, the monitoring system will be modified accordingly. These modifications may include a
change in the number, location, and/or depth of the monitoring wells.
3.1.3 Monitoring Well Construction
The well completion information for the existing groundwater monitoring wells are included on
Table 1. Completed boring and well construction logs for seven (7) of the existing wells are included in the Appendix A. Please note that records for several existing monitoring wells are not available and well construction details are unknown. Boring logs/well construction records for proposed
monitoring wells will be submitted to the Solid Waste Section (SWS) following installation. Drilling and installation of any new monitoring wells will be performed in accordance with the
specifications outlined in 15A NCAC Subchapter 2C, Section .0100. Further guidance is provided in the Draft North Carolina Water Quality Monitoring Guidance Document for Solid Waste Facilities; Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management; Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources (March 1995).
Each groundwater monitoring well will consist of 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC,
Schedule 40 ASTM 480, NSF-rated) casing with flush-threaded joints installed in a 6.0-inch (or larger) nominal diameter borehole in soil or bedrock. The bottom 15-foot section of each well will
be a manufactured well screen with 0.010-inch wide machined slots with a 0.20-foot long sediment
trap threaded onto the bottom of the screen section. The screen section of each well will be set to intersect the water table in the residual soil or the water-producing fractures in the bedrock. Silica
filter sand will be placed around the outside of the pipe up to approximately 2-feet above the top of the well screen. A hydrated bentonite seal will be installed on top of the filter sand backfill to seal the monitoring well at the desired level. The borehole will then be grouted with a bentonite-cement
grout mixture up to the ground surface. The surface completion of each well will consist of a PVC cap and a lockable 4" x 4" x 5’ standup protective steel cover, with a 3-foot by 3-foot concrete pad at the base of the steel cover. Each well will be constructed with a vent hole in the PVC casing near
the top of the well and a weep hole near the base of the outer protective steel cover. An identification plate will be fastened to the protective steel cover that specifies the well identification number, drilling contractor, date installed, total depth, and construction details. A typical groundwater
monitoring well construction detail is attached as Figure 3.
A geologist or engineer will oversee drilling activities and prepare boring and well construction logs
for each newly installed well. As-built locations of new wells will be located by a surveyor licensed in North Carolina to within +0.1 foot on the horizontal plane and +0.01 foot vertically in reference
to existing survey points. A boring log, well construction log, groundwater monitoring network map,
and well installation certification will be submitted to the SWS upon completion.
3.1.4 Monitoring Well Development
Newly constructed wells will be developed to remove particulates that are present in the well due to
construction activities, and to interconnect the well with the aquifer. Development of new monitoring wells will be performed no sooner than 24 hours after well construction. Wells may be developed with disposable bailers, a mechanical well developer, or other approved method. A surge
block may be used as a means of assessing the integrity of the well screen and riser. In the event a
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
6
pump is employed, the design of the pump will be such that any groundwater that has come into
contact with air is not allowed to drain back into the well. Each well will be developed until
sediment-free water with stabilized field parameters (i.e., temperature, pH, and specific conductance) is obtained.

Well development equipment (bailers, pumps, surge blocks) and any additional equipment that contacts subsurface formations will be decontaminated prior to on-site use, between consecutive on-
site uses, and/or between consecutive well installations. The purge water will be disposed on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of the
monitoring well being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the water will need to be otherwise disposed. If field characteristics suggest, the purge water will be containerized and disposed in the facility’s leachate collection system, or by other approved disposal means.
Samples withdrawn from the facility’s monitoring wells should be clay- and silt-free; therefore, existing wells may require redevelopment from time to time based upon observed turbidity levels
during sampling activities. If redevelopment of an existing monitoring well is required, it will be performed in a manner similar to that used for a new well.

3.1.5 Maintenance and Recordkeeping
The existing monitoring wells will be used and maintained in accordance with design specifications
throughout the life of the monitoring program. Routine well maintenance will include inspection and correction/repair, as necessary, of identification labels, concrete aprons, locking caps and locks,
and access to the wells. Should it be determined that background or compliance monitoring wells no longer provide samples representative of the quality of groundwater passing the relevant point of compliance, the SWS will be notified. The owner will re-evaluate the monitoring network, and
provide recommendations to the SWS for modifying, rehabilitating, abandoning, or installing replacement or additional monitoring wells, as appropriate.
Laboratory analytical results will be submitted to the SWS semiannually, along with sample collection field logs, statistical analyses (if used), groundwater flow rate and direction calculations, and groundwater contour map(s) as described in the following sections. Analytical data, calculations,
and other relevant groundwater monitoring records will be kept throughout the active life of the facility and the post-closure care period, including notices and reports of any groundwater quality
standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202) exceedances, re-sampling notifications, and re-sampling results.
3.1.6 Monitoring Well Abandonment
Piezometers and wells installed within the proposed landfill footprint will be properly abandoned in accordance with the procedures for permanent abandonment, as described in 15A NCAC 2C Rule
.0113(b). The piezometers and wells will be progressively abandoned as necessary to complete construction activities. The piezometers and wells that are within the proposed footprint will be over-drilled to remove well construction materials, and then grouted with a cement-bentonite grout.
Other piezometers and wells that will potentially interfere with clearing and construction activities will be grouted in place without over-drilling by grouting the well in place with a cement-bentonite grout and removing all surface features, such as concrete aprons, protective casings, and stickups. In
each case, the bentonite content of the cement-bentonite grout shall be approximately 5%, and a
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
7
tremie pipe will be used to ensure that grout is continuously placed from the bottom of the
borehole/monitoring well upward.
If a monitoring well becomes unusable during the monitoring period of the landfill, the well will be
abandoned in accordance with the procedures described above. Approval from the SWS will be
obtained prior to abandoning any monitoring well.
For each monitoring well abandoned, the following information will be provided to the SWS in a report sealed by a licensed geologist in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1623 of the Rules: the monitoring well name, a description of the procedure by which the monitoring well was
abandoned, the date when the monitoring well was considered to be taken out of service, and the date when the monitoring well was abandoned.
3.1.7 Detection Monitoring Program Groundwater samples will be obtained and analyzed semiannually for the NC Appendix I list of
constituents (Appendix B), as defined in the Detection Monitoring Program (15A NCAC 13B .1633), during the life of the facility and the post-closure care period (Table 2).

The SWS has issued four (4) memoranda concerning guidelines for electronic submittal of monitoring data and environmental reporting limits and standards for constituents. Those
memoranda include: 1) New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data (dated October 27, 2006), 2) Addendum to the October 27, 2006 North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data (dated February 23, 2007), 3) Environmental Monitoring Data for North Carolina Solid Waste Facilities (dated October 16, 2007), and 4) Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal (dated November 5, 2014). The SWS has also
issued a Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Reporting Limits and Standards – Constituent List (dated June 13, 2011) which consolidates reporting standards and limits for each required constituent. Copies of the memoranda and constituent list are included in Appendix C.
The results of the groundwater data (and statistical analysis, if the owner so chooses to perform) will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in accordance with the documents in Appendix C. Sampling
reports will be submitted on a CD (or other materials/method suitable for transfer of electronic data) with analytical data submitted in the required format, and be accompanied by the required
Environmental Monitoring Form, which will be signed and sealed by a licensed geologist in the State
of North Carolina. A copy of this form is also included in Appendix D for reference.
3.1.7.1 Sampling Frequency
Groundwater samples will be collected semiannually and analyzed for NC Appendix I Detection
Monitoring constituents (Table 2 and Appendix B) plus required field parameters, which may include, pH, turbidity, conductivity, and temperature. New monitoring wells will be sampled four times during the first semiannual sampling period, and then one time during each semiannual period
thereafter. If the facility’s groundwater monitoring program must progress to Assessment Monitoring, notification and sampling will be conducted according to the schedule specified in 15A
NCAC 13B Rule .1634.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
8
3.1.7.2 Establishment of Background Data
During future phases of facility development, a minimum of four independent groundwater samples will be collected within the first semiannual sampling period from the newly installed monitoring
wells as specified in the Permit to Construct, once issued. The first of these four sampling events
should be conducted prior to waste placement in any newly constructed cells. Samples collected from these wells will be analyzed for the NC Appendix I constituents. The intent of background
sampling is to collect data to more accurately reflect the natural fluctuations that may occur with these constituents. The data will be submitted to the SWS after completing the fourth background sampling event.
3.1.7.3 Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data
If the owner or operator determines that there is an exceedance of the groundwater protection standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202) for one or more of the constituents in the NC Appendix I list of
constituents (Appendix B) at any monitoring well at the relevant point of compliance, the following procedures will be performed:

1) Notify SWS within 14 days of the finding and place a notice in the site operating record indicating which constituents have exceeded groundwater protection standards.

2) Within 90 days, establish an Assessment Monitoring Program meeting the requirements of 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1634, except as discussed below.
The data may be re-evaluated within 90 days to determine that a source other than a landfill unit caused the exceedance, or the exceedance resulted from an error in sampling, analysis, or natural
variation in groundwater quality. If it can be demonstrated that one of these factors occurred, a report (Alternate Source Demonstration) certified by a North Carolina licensed geologist or engineer will be submitted to the SWS within 90 days. A copy of this report will be placed in the operating record.
If the SWS approves the demonstration, the Detection Monitoring Program will be resumed with the required semiannual sampling and analysis. If the SWS does not accept the demonstration within 90 days, the Assessment Monitoring Program will be initiated.
3.1.8 Assessment Monitoring Program
Assessment Monitoring (15A NCAC 13B .1634) is required whenever a violation of the groundwater quality standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202) has occurred, and no source of error, alternate source, or
naturally occurring condition can be identified.
Within 90 days of triggering the Assessment Monitoring Program, and annually thereafter,
groundwater will be sampled for analysis of the NC Appendix II list of constituents (Appendix B). A minimum of one groundwater sample will be collected from each well and submitted for analysis during each Assessment Monitoring sampling event. However, the Rules allow for petitions to the
SWS for an appropriate subset of wells or a reduction in the NC Appendix II sampling list.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
9
If any NC Appendix II constituents are detected in groundwater from the downgradient wells, a
minimum of four independent samples will be collected from each background and downgradient
well to establish background concentrations for the detected Appendix II constituents.
Within 14 days after receipt of the initial or subsequent sampling analytical data, a report identifying
the detected NC Appendix II constituents will be submitted to the SWS, and a notice will be placed in the operating record. Background concentrations of any detected NC Appendix II constituents
will be established and reported to the SWS. Within 90 days, and on at least a semiannual basis thereafter, the wells will be sampled and analyzed
for the NC Appendix I list plus any additional detected Appendix II constituents. An analytical results report of each sampling event will be submitted to the SWS and placed in the facility operational record.
The SWS will determine whether Groundwater Protection Standards must be established for the facility (15 NCAC 13B .1634(g) and (h)), and may specify a more appropriate alternate sampling
frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for the full set of NC Appendix II constituents. Groundwater monitoring will continue in one of two ways, based on the results of the water quality
analyses:
1) If the NC Appendix II constituent concentrations are equal to or less than the approved
Groundwater Protection Standards for two consecutive sampling events, the facility may
resume Detection Monitoring with the approval of SWS.
2) If one or more NC Appendix II constituents are detected in excess of the approved Groundwater Protection Standards, and no source of error can be identified, within 14 days the SWS will be notified, a notice will be placed in the operating record, and appropriate
local government officials will be notified. The facility operator will proceed to characterize the nature and extent of the release (15A NCAC 13B .1634(f)(1)). Next, the operator will initiate an assessment of corrective measures and corrective action plan, and proceed
according to 15A NCAC 13B .1635 through.1637. If the facility proceeds to corrective action, a revised WQMP will be submitted to the SWS with the Corrective Action Plan.
The results of the groundwater data will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in accordance with the documents in Appendix C. Reports will be submitted on a CD (or other materials/method
suitable for transfer of electronic data) with analytical data submitted in the required format, and be
accompanied by the required Environmental Monitoring Form, which will be signed and sealed by a licensed geologist or engineer in the State of North Carolina. A copy of this form is also included
in Appendix D.
3.1.9 Groundwater Sampling Methodology Groundwater samples will be collected in general accordance with Solid Waste Management Rules 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1632 and guidance provided in the Solid Waste Section Guidelines for
Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling (April 2008). Procedures for well purging, sample withdrawal, and decontamination methods as well as chain-of-custody procedures are outlined
below. Field parameter measurements will be submitted electronically to the SWS in accordance
with the documents in Appendix C.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
10
3.1.9.1 Sample Collection
The procedures for collecting groundwater samples are presented below. The background wells (MW-11S, MW-11D, and MW-14) will be sampled first, followed by the downgradient compliance
wells (MW-1A, MW-2, MW-2D, MW-3r, MW-3Dr, MW-4A, MW-8, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17,
MW-18, MW-19, MW-20, MW-21, and MW-22). The downgradient wells will be sampled so that the most contaminated well, if one is identified from the previous sampling event, is sampled last.
3.1.9.1.1 Sampling Frequency
The above-mentioned samples will be collected on a semiannual basis during the Detection and/or Assessment Monitoring programs.
3.1.9.1.2 Static Water Elevations The static water level and total well depth will be measured with an electronic water level indicator,
to the nearest 0.01 foot, in each well prior to sampling. Static water elevations will be calculated from water depth measurements and top of casing elevations. A reference point will be marked on
the top of casing of each well to ensure the same measuring point is used each time static water levels
are measured.
If a monitoring well contains a dedicated pump, the depth to water shall be measured without
removing the pump. Depth to bottom measurements should be taken from the well construction data and updated when pumps are removed for maintenance.
3.1.9.1.3 Well Evacuation
The preferred well evacuation and sampling procedure for the site is conventional bailed well technology (standard evacuation) which is presented below.
3.1.9.1.3.1 Standard Evacuation Procedures Monitoring wells will be evacuated with a laboratory cleaned bailer, disposable bailer, or submersible
pump. If a pump or bailer is used for multiple wells, it and any other non-dedicated equipment will be decontaminated before use and between each well.

A low-yield well (one that yields less than 0.5 gallon per minute) will be purged so that water is removed from the bottom of the screened interval. Low-yield wells will be evacuated to dryness
once. However, at no time will a well be evacuated to dryness if the recharge rate causes the
formation water to vigorously cascade down the sides of the screen and cause an accelerated loss of volatiles. Upon recharging of the well and no longer than a time period of 24 hours, the first sample
may be field-tested for pH, temperature, turbidity, and specific conductivity. Samples will then be collected and containerized in the order of the volatilization sensitivity of the target constituents.
A high-yield well (one that yields 0.5 gallon per minute or more) will be purged so that water is drawn down from above the screen in the uppermost part of the water column to ensure that fresh water from the formation will move upward in the screen. If a pump is used for purging, a high-
yield well should be purged at less than 4 gallons per minute to prevent further well development.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
11

A minimum of three casing volumes will be evacuated from each well prior to sampling. An
alternative purge will be considered complete if the monitoring well goes dry before removing the calculated minimum purge volume. The well casing volume for a 2-inch well will be calculated
using the following formula:
Vc (gallons) = 0.163 x hw
where: Vc = volume in the well casing = (dc2/4) x 3.14 x hw x 7.48 gallons/cubic foot)
dc = casing diameter in feet (dc = 0.167) hw = height of the water column (i.e., well depth minus depth to water)
The purge water will be disposed by pouring on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of the monitoring well being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the purge water may be contaminated. In that case, the purged water will be containerized and disposed in the facility’s
leachate collection system (or by other approved disposal means).
The monitoring wells will be sampled using laboratory cleaned or disposable bailers within 24 hours
of completing the purge. The bailers will be equipped with a check valve and bottom-emptying device. The bailer will be lowered gently into the well to minimize the possibility of degassing the
water.
Field measurements of temperature, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity will be made before and
after sample collection as a check on the stability of the groundwater sampled over time. The direct-
reading equipment used at each well will be calibrated in the field according to the manufacturer’s specifications prior to each day’s use. Calibration information should be documented in the
instrument’s calibration logbook and the field book. 3.1.9.1.3.2 Low-Flow Procedures
Under normal conditions, monitoring wells will be purged and sampled using the Standard Evacuation Procedures specified above. However, at the discretion of the owner/operator a low-flow
sampling method in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Sampling Procedures (EPA, April 1996), may be implemented as
allowed under the Rules. A summary of these procedures is listed below, and a copy of the
procedures is presented in Appendix E.
Depth-to-water measurements will be obtained using an electronic water level indicator capable of
recording the depth to an accuracy of 0.01 foot. A determination of whether or not the water table is located within the screened interval of the well will be made. If the water table is not within the
screened interval, the amount of drawdown that can be achieved before the screen is intersected will be calculated. If the water table is within the screened interval, total drawdown should not exceed 1 foot so as to minimize the amount of aeration and turbidity. If the water table is above the top of
the screened interval, the amount of drawdown should be minimized to keep the screen from being exposed.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
12
If the purging equipment is non-dedicated, the equipment will be lowered into the well, taking care
to minimize the disturbance to the water column. If conditions (i.e., water column height and well
yield) allow, the pump will be placed in the uppermost portion of the water column (minimum of 18 inches of pump submergence is recommended).

The minimum volume/time period for obtaining independent Water Quality Parameter Measurements (WQPM) will be determined. The minimum volume/time period is determined based
on the stabilized flow rate and the amount of volume in the pump and the discharge tubing (alternatively, the volume of the flow cell can be used, provided it is greater than the volume of the pump and discharge tubing). Volume of the bladder pump should be obtained from the manufacturer.
Volume of the discharge tubing is as follows: 3/8-inch inside diameter tubing: 20 milliliters per foot
1/4-inch inside diameter tubing: 10 milliliters per foot 3/16-inch inside diameter tubing: 5 milliliters per foot
Once the volume of the flow-cell or the pump and the discharge tubing has been calculated, the well purge will begin. The flow rate should be based on historical data for that well (if available) and
should not exceed 500 milliliters per minute. The initial round of WQPM should be recorded and
the flow rate adjusted until drawdown in the well stabilizes. Water levels should be measured periodically to maintain a stabilized water level. The water level should not fall within 1 foot of the
top of the well screen. If the purge rate has been reduced to 100 milliliters or less and the head level
in the well continues to decline, the required water samples should be collected following stabilization of the WQPM, based on the criteria presented below.
If neither the head level nor the WQPM stabilize, a passive sample should be collected. Passive sampling is defined as sampling before WQPM have stabilized if the well yield is low enough that
the well will purge dry at the lowest possible purge rate (generally 100 milliliters per minute or less). WQPM stabilization is defined as follows:
• pH (+/- 0.2 S.U.);
• conductance (+/- 5% of reading);
• temperature (+/- 10% of reading or 0.2 C);
• dissolved oxygen [+/- 10% of reading or 0.2 mg/L (whichever is greater)]; and
• oxidation reduction potential (ORP) may also be measured and ideally should also fall within
+/- 10% of reading; however, this is not a required field parameter.
Stabilization of the WQPM should occur in most wells within five to six rounds of measurements.
If stabilization does not occur following the removal of a purge volume equal to three well volumes,
a passive sample will be collected.
At a minimum, turbidity measurements should also be recorded at the beginning of purging,
following the stabilization of the WQPM, and following the collection of the samples. The optimal turbidity range for micropurging is 25 NTU or less. Turbidity measurements above 25 NTU are
generally indicative of an excessive purge rate or natural conditions related to excessive fines in the aquifer matrix.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
13
The direct-reading equipment used at each well will be calibrated in the field according to the
manufacturer’s specifications prior to each day’s use and checked at a minimum at the end of each
sampling day. Calibration information should be documented in the instrument’s calibration logbook and the field book.

Each well is to be sampled immediately following stabilization of the WQPM. The sampling flow rate must be maintained at a rate that is less than or equal to the purging rate. For volatile organic
compounds, lower sampling rates (100 - 200 milliliters/minute) should be used. Final field parameter readings should be recorded prior to and after sampling.
3.1.9.1.4 Sample Collection Samples will be collected and containerized in the order described below.

• Volatile Organic Compounds (SW- 846 Method 8260);
• Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SW- 846 Method 8270);
• Herbicides (SW-846 Method 8151);
• Pesticides (SW- 846 Method 8081);
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs; SW-846 Method 8082);
• Cyanide and Sulfide; and
• Total Metals.
Total metals samples may be collected out of sequence if the turbidity increases during sample
collection. Samples will be transferred directly from field sampling equipment into pre-preserved, laboratory-supplied containers. Containers for volatile organic analyses will be filled in such a manner that no headspace remains after filling.
3.1.9.1.5 Decontamination

Non-dedicated field equipment that is used for purging or sample collection shall be cleaned with a phosphate-free detergent, and triple-rinsed with distilled water. Any disposable polyethylene tubing
used with non-dedicated pumps should be discarded after use at each well. Clean, chemical-resistant
nitrile gloves will be worn by sampling personnel during well evacuation and sample collection. Measures will be taken to prevent surface soils, which could introduce contaminants into the well
being sampled, from coming in contact with the purging and sampling equipment.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
14
3.1.9.2 Sample Preservation and Handling
Upon containerizing the water samples, the samples will be packed into pre-chilled, ice-filled coolers and either hand-delivered or shipped overnight by a commercial carrier to the laboratory for analysis.
Sample preservation methods will be used to retard biological action and hydrolysis, as well as to
reduce sorption effects. These methods will include chemical preservation, cooling/refrigeration at 4º C, and protection from light. The type of sample container, minimum volume, chemical
preservative, and holding times for each analysis type are provided in Table 3. 3.1.9.3 Chain-of-Custody Program The chain-of-custody program will allow for tracing sample possession and handling from the time of field collection through laboratory analysis. The chain-of-custody program includes sample
labels, sample seal, field logbook, and chain-of-custody record. 3.1.9.3.1 Sample Labels
Legible labels sufficiently durable to remain legible when wet will contain the following information:

• Site identification;
• Monitoring well number or other location;
• Date and time of collection;
• Name of collector;
• Parameters to be analyzed; and
• Preservative, if applicable. 3.1.9.3.2 Sample Seal The shipping container will be sealed to ensure that the samples have not been disturbed during
transport to the laboratory. The tape used to seal the shipping container will be labeled with
instructions to notify the shipper if the seal is broken prior to receipt at the laboratory.
3.1.9.3.3 Field Logbook The field logbook will contain sheets documenting the following information:

• Identification of the well;
• Well depth;
• Field meter calibration information;
• Static water level depth and measurement technique;
• Purge volume (given in gallons);
• Time well was purged;
• Date and time of collection;
• Well sampling sequence;
• Types of sample containers used and sample identification numbers;
• Preservative used;
• Field analysis data and methods;
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
15
• Field observations on sampling event;
• Name of collector(s); and
• Climatic conditions including air temperatures and precipitation.
3.1.9.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record

The chain-of-custody record is required for tracing sample possession from time of collection to time of receipt at the laboratory. A chain-of-custody record will accompany each individual shipment.
The record will contain the following information:
• Sample destination and transporter;
• Sample identification numbers;
• Signature of collector;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sample type;
• Identification of well;
• Number of sample containers in shipping container;
• Parameters requested for analysis;
• Signature of person(s) involved in the chain of possession;
• Inclusive dates of possession; and
• Internal temperature of shipping container upon opening in laboratory (noted by the
laboratory).
A copy of the completed chain-of-custody form will accompany the shipment and will be returned
to the shipper after the shipping container reaches its destination. The chain-of-custody record will
also be used as the analysis request sheet.
3.1.9.4 Analytical Procedures
A laboratory certified by the DEQ will be utilized for analysis of groundwater and surface water
samples from the facility. Analyses will be performed in accordance with U.S. EPA SW-846 methods in accordance with the EPA guidance document (EPA, June 1997). For Detection Monitoring, method numbers and reporting limits to be used will be those listed in accordance with
the documents in Appendix C. Alternate SW-846 methods may be used if they have the same or lower reporting limit. The laboratory must report any detection of any constituent even if it is
detected below the solid waste section limit (Appendix C).
The laboratory certificates-of-analyses shall, at a minimum, include the following information:

• Narrative: Must include a brief description of the sample group (number and type of
samples, field and associated lab sample identification numbers, preparation and analytical
methods used). The data reviewer shall also include a statement that all holding times and Quality Control (QC) criteria were met, samples were received intact and properly preserved,
with a brief discussion of any deviations potentially affecting data usability. This includes,
but is not limited to, test method deviation(s), holding time violations, out-of-control incidents occurring during the processing of QC or field samples and corrective actions
taken, and repeated analyses and reasons for the reanalyses (including, for example,
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
16
contamination, failing surrogate recoveries, matrix effects, or dilutions). The narrative shall
be signed by the laboratory director or authorized laboratory representative, signifying that
all statements are true to the best of the reviewer's knowledge, and that the data meet the data quality objectives as described in this plan (except as noted). One narrative is required for
each sample group.

• Original Chain-of Custody Form.

• Target Analyte List (TAL)/Target Compound List (TCL): The laboratory shall list all
compounds for which the samples were analyzed. The TAL/TCL is typically included as part of the analytical reporting forms.

• Dilution factors with a narrative of the sample results, including the reasons for the dilution (if any).

• Blank Data: For organic analyses, the laboratory shall report the results of any method
blanks, reagent blanks, trip blanks, field blanks, and any other blanks associated with the sample group. For inorganic analyses, the laboratory shall provide the results of any preparation or initial calibration blanks associated with the sample group.

• QC Summary: The laboratory will provide summary forms detailing laboratory QC sample
results, which include individual recoveries and relative percent differences (if appropriate)
for the following Quality Assurance (QA)/QC criteria: surrogates, MS analyses, MSD analyses, LCS, and sample duplicate analyses. QC control limits shall also be reported; if
any QC limits are exceeded, a flag or footnote shall be placed to indicate the affected samples.
Additional QA data and/or other pertinent data may be reported as requested by the owner/operator of the facility.

3.1.9.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program Trip and field blanks will be collected and analyzed during each monitoring event to verify that the
sample collection and handling process has not affected the quality of the samples. The trip blank will be prepared in the laboratory each time a group of bottles is prepared for use in the field. The
appropriate number of bottles for VOA analysis will be filled with Type II reagent grade water,
transported to the site, handled like the samples, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. The field blank will be prepared in the field and exposed to the sampling environment. As with all other
samples, the time of the blank exposure will be recorded so that the sampling sequence is
documented. The field blank will be analyzed for the same list of constituents as the groundwater samples. The trip blank will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds only.
The assessment of blank analysis results will be in general accordance with EPA guidance documents (EPA, 1993 and 1994). No positive sample results will be relied upon unless the concentration of
the compound in the sample exceeds 10 times the amount in any blank for common laboratory contaminants (see next paragraph), or five times the amount for other compounds. If necessary,
resampling will be performed as necessary to confirm or refute suspect data; such resampling will
occur within the individual compliance monitoring period.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
17
Concentrations of any contaminants found in the blanks will be used to qualify the groundwater data.
Any compound (other than those listed below) detected in the sample, which was also detected in
any associated blank, will be qualified “B” when the sample concentration is less than five times the blank concentration. For common laboratory contaminants (methylene chloride, acetone, 2-
butanone, and common phthalate esters), the results will be qualified “B” when the reported sample
concentration is less than 10 times the blank concentration. The “B” qualifier designates that the reported detection is considered to represent cross-contamination and that the reported constituent is
not considered to be present in the sample at the reported concentration. 3.1.10 Statistical Methods (Optional) If the landfill owner or operator chooses, groundwater monitoring data for landfill compliance wells screened in the uppermost aquifer may be evaluated using statistical procedures. However as
specified in the Rules, this is optional (not required) under 15A NCAC 13B .1632(g). The statistical test used to evaluate the groundwater monitoring data will be the prediction interval procedure unless the test is inappropriate with the data collected. If statistical evaluation of groundwater monitoring
data is selected, it will be performed in compliance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1632 (g), (h), and (i) and the USEPA’s Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified
Guidance, Office of Solid Waste, Waste Management Division, US EPA, dated March 2009.
3.2 Surface Water Monitoring
3.2.1 Sampling Locations
In accordance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .0602 of the Rules, seven (7) surface water monitoring locations have been established for the facility to monitor water quality surrounding the proposed and existing waste footprint (Table 4). The proposed surface water locations will consist of one (1)
upstream (background) point (SW-6) and six (6) downstream (compliance) points (SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-5, SW-7, and SW-8). All surface water sampling locations currently exist except for SW-8 which will be added after development of Phase 5. The location of each surface water sampling
point is indicated on the Water Quality Environmental Monitoring System (Figure 2). 3.2.2 Monitoring Frequency
The surface water sampling locations will be sampled semiannually (Table 2) for analysis of the NC
Appendix I list of constituents (Appendix B) and required water quality parameters (pH, specific
conductivity, temperature, and turbidity). The results of the analysis of the surface water data will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in conjunction with the groundwater data.

3.2.3 Surface Water Sampling Methodology
The surface water samples should be collected using the Dipper Method or the Direct Method
described below. In surface water sampling, extreme care must be used to obtain a representative sample. The greatest potential source of inadvertent sample contamination is incorrect handling by
field personnel. Therefore, extreme care should be used during sample collection to minimize the potential for inadvertent contamination.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
18
3.2.3.1 Sample Collection
Surface water samples will be obtained from areas of minimal turbulence and aeration. Samples will only be collected if flowing water is observed during the sampling event.
3.2.3.1.1 Dipper Method
A dip sampler is useful for situations where a sample is to be recovered from an outfall pipe or where direct access is limited. The long handle on such a device allows sample collection from a discrete location. Sampling procedures are as follows:
1. Assemble the dip sampler device in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 2. Extend the device to the sample location and collect the sample.
3. Retrieve the sampler and transfer the sample to the appropriate sample container. 3.2.3.1.2 Direct Method
The sampler should face upstream and collect the sample without disturbing the sediment. The
collector submerses the closed sample container, opens the bottle to collect the sample and then caps
the bottle while sub-surface. The collection bottle may be rinsed two times by the sample water. The sample will be collected under the water surface avoiding surface debris. When using the direct
method, pre-preserved sample bottles should not be used because the collection method may dilute
the concentration of preservative necessary for proper sample preservation. Samples will be collected using dedicated, clean, laboratory-provided bottles, and then the samples are carefully
transferred into the pre-preserved bottles for transport to the laboratory.
3.2.3.1.3 Decontamination
Non-dedicated field equipment that is used for sample collection shall be cleaned with a phosphate-free detergent, and triple-rinsed with distilled water. Clean, chemical-resistant nitrile gloves will be
worn by sampling personnel during sample collection. Measures will be taken to prevent surface soils, which could introduce contaminants into the location being sampled, from coming in contact with the sampling equipment.
3.2.3.2 Sample Preservation and Handling
Upon containerizing the water samples, the samples will be packed into pre-chilled, ice-filled coolers and either hand-delivered or shipped overnight by a commercial carrier to the laboratory for analysis.
Sample preservation methods will be used to retard biological action and hydrolysis, as well as to
reduce sorption effects. These methods will include chemical preservation, cooling/refrigeration at 4º C, and protection from light. The type of sample container, minimum volume, chemical
preservative, and holding times for each analysis type are provided in Table 3.
3.2.3.3 Chain-of-Custody Program The chain-of-custody program will allow for tracing sample possession and handling from the time of field collection through laboratory analysis. The chain-of-custody program includes sample
labels, sample seal, field logbook, and chain-of-custody record.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
19

3.2.3.3.1 Sample Labels
Legible labels sufficiently durable to remain legible when wet will contain the following information:

• Site identification;
• Sampling location identifier;
• Date and time of collection;
• Name of collector;
• Parameters to be analyzed; and
• Preservative, if applicable. 3.2.3.3.2 Sample Seal
The shipping container will be sealed to ensure that the samples have not been disturbed during
transport to the laboratory. The tape used to seal the shipping container will be labeled with instructions to notify the shipper if the seal is broken prior to receipt at the laboratory.
3.2.3.3.3 Field Logbook
The field logbook will contain sheets documenting the following information:

• Sampling location identifier;
• Flow conditions observations;
• Field meter calibration information;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sequence of sampling locations;
• Types of sample containers used and sample identification numbers;
• Preservative used;
• Field analysis data and methods;
• Field observations on sampling event;
• Name of collector(s); and
• Climatic conditions including air temperatures and precipitation.

3.2.3.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record
The chain-of-custody record is required for tracing sample possession from time of collection to time
of receipt at the laboratory. A chain-of-custody record will accompany each individual shipment. The record will contain the following information:

• Sample destination and transporter;
• Sample identification numbers;
• Signature of collector;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sample type;
• Number of sample containers in shipping container;
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
20
• Parameters requested for analysis;
• Signature of person(s) involved in the chain of possession;
• Inclusive dates of possession; and
• Internal temperature of shipping container upon opening in laboratory (noted by the
laboratory).
A copy of the completed chain-of-custody form will accompany the shipment and will be returned to the shipper after the shipping container reaches its destination. The chain-of-custody record will
also be used as the analysis request sheet.
3.2.3.4 Analytical Procedures
A laboratory certified by the DEQ will be utilized for analysis of groundwater and surface water
samples from the facility. Analyses will be performed in accordance with U.S. EPA SW-846
methods in accordance with the EPA guidance document (EPA, 1997). For Detection Monitoring, method numbers and reporting limits to be used will be those listed in accordance with the documents
in Appendix C. The monitoring parameters are also included in Appendix C, along with the proposed analytical methods and reporting limits. Alternate SW-846 methods may be used if they have the same or lower reporting limit. The laboratory must report any detection of any constituent
even if it is detected below the solid waste reporting limit (Appendix C).
The laboratory certificates-of-analyses shall, at a minimum, include the following information:

• Narrative: Must include a brief description of the sample group (number and type of
samples, field and associated lab sample identification numbers, preparation and analytical methods used). The data reviewer shall also include a statement that all holding times and Quality Control (QC) criteria were met, samples were received intact and properly preserved,
with a brief discussion of any deviations potentially affecting data usability. This includes, but is not limited to, test method deviation(s), holding time violations, out-of-control
incidents occurring during the processing of QC or field samples and corrective actions
taken, and repeated analyses and reasons for the reanalyzes (including, for example, contamination, failing surrogate recoveries, matrix effects, or dilutions). The narrative shall
be signed by the laboratory director or authorized laboratory representative, signifying that
all statements are true to the best of the reviewer's knowledge, and that the data meet the data quality objectives as described in this plan (except as noted). One narrative is required for
each sample group.

• Original Chain-of Custody Form.

• Target Analyte List (TAL)/Target Compound List (TCL): The laboratory shall list all
compounds for which the samples were analyzed. The TAL/TCL is typically included as part of the analytical reporting forms.
• Dilution factors with a narrative of the sample results, including the reasons for the dilution (if any).

• Blank Data: For organic analyses, the laboratory shall report the results of any method
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
21
blanks, reagent blanks, trip blanks, field blanks, and any other blanks associated with the
sample group. For inorganic analyses, the laboratory shall provide the results of any
preparation or initial calibration blanks associated with the sample group.
• QC Summary: The laboratory will provide summary forms detailing laboratory QC sample results, which include individual recoveries and relative percent differences (if appropriate) for the following Quality Assurance (QA)/QC criteria: surrogates, MS analyses, MSD
analyses, LCS, and sample duplicate analyses. QC control limits shall also be reported; if any QC limits are exceeded, a flag or footnote shall be placed to indicate the affected
samples.
Additional QA data and/or other pertinent data may be reported as requested by the owner/operator
of the facility.
3.2.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program Trip and field blanks will be collected and analyzed during each monitoring event to verify that the sample collection and handling process has not affected the quality of the samples. The trip blank
will be prepared in the laboratory each time a group of bottles is prepared for use in the field. The appropriate number of bottles for VOA analysis will be filled with Type II reagent grade water,
transported to the site, handled like the samples, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. The field
blank will be prepared in the field and exposed to the sampling environment. As with all other samples, the time of the blank exposure will be recorded so that the sampling sequence is documented. The field blank will be analyzed for the same list of constituents as the groundwater
samples. The trip blank will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds only.
The assessment of blank analysis results will be in general accordance with EPA guidance documents
(EPA, 1993 and 1994). No positive sample results will be relied upon unless the concentration of the compound in the sample exceeds 10 times the amount in any blank for common laboratory
contaminants (see next paragraph), or five times the amount for other compounds. If necessary,
resampling will be performed as necessary to confirm or refute suspect data; such resampling will occur within the individual compliance monitoring period.
Concentrations of any contaminants found in the blanks will be used to qualify the groundwater data. Any compound (other than those listed below) detected in the sample, which was also detected in
any associated blank, will be qualified “B” when the sample concentration is less than five times the blank concentration. For common laboratory contaminants (methylene chloride, acetone, 2-
butanone, and common phthalate esters), the results will be qualified “B” when the reported sample
concentration is less than 10 times the blank concentration. The “B” qualifier designates that the reported detection is considered to represent cross-contamination and that the reported constituent is
not considered to be present in the sample at the reported concentration.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
22
3.3 Leachate Monitoring
3.3.1 Sampling Location
In accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .1626(12)(c) of the Rules, one leachate sampling location
(leachate pond) has been established for the facility which is located north of the Phase 1 MSW area. The leachate generated from Phase 4 and 5 waste units will be piped into the existing leachate pond.
The leachate pond location is shown on the attached Figure 2 titled Water Quality Environmental Monitoring System.
3.3.2 Monitoring Frequency The leachate pond will be sampled semiannually (Table 2) for analysis of the NC required leachate
parameters. The results of the analysis of the leachate will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in conjunction with the groundwater and surface water data.
3.3.3 Leachate Sampling Methodology and Analytical Procedures
The leachate sampling methodology including sample collection, sample preservation and handling,
chain-of-custody program, and quality assurance and quality control program will be in general accordance with those specified herein for surface water. The NC required leachate parameters
include the Appendix I list of constituents plus the following required additional parameters: 1)
biological oxygen demand (BOD), 2) chemical oxygen demand (COD), 3) phosphate, 4) nitrate, 5) sulfate, and 6) pH.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
23
3.4 Reporting
3.4.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment Reports
Groundwater monitoring well installation and abandonment reports will be prepared upon
completion of well installation or abandonment prior to waste disposal into a new cell in accordance with the phased landfill construction for Phases 4 and 5. The monitoring well installation reports
will include documentation of boring logs, well diagrams, development results, and field procedures. The abandonment reports will include documentation of abandonment logs and field procedures. Monitoring well installation and abandonment reports will be submitted in electronic format in
accordance with the procedures in Appendix C and if physical copies are required to the SWS at the following mailing address:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management -- Solid Waste Section 1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Additionally, copies of all installation and abandonment reports will be kept at the landfill as part of
the facility’s operating record.
3.4.2 Water Quality Reports
Copies of all laboratory analytical data will be forwarded to the SWS within 120 calendar days of
the sampling event. The analytical data submitted will specify the date of sample collection, the
sampling point identification and include a map of sampling locations. Should a significant concentration of contaminants be detected in ground and surface water, as defined in North Carolina
Solid Waste Management Rules, Groundwater Quality Standards, or Surface Water Quality Standards, the owner/operator of the landfill shall notify the SWS and will place a notice in the landfill records as to which constituents were detected. All monitoring reports will be submitted
with the following: 1. An evaluation of potentiometric surface;
2. Analytical laboratory reports and summary tables; 3. A Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Data Form (included in Appendix D); and
4. Laboratory Data submitted in accordance with the Electronic Data Deliverable Template.
Monitoring reports will be submitted electronically by e-mail, CD, or FTP and in paper copy form if
requested. Copies of all laboratory results and water quality reports for the White Oak Landfill will
be kept at the landfill office as part of the facility’s operating record. Reports summarizing all groundwater quality results and data evaluation will be submitted in electronic form in accordance
with the procedures in Appendix C and if physical copies are required to the SWS at their current mailing address.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan September 13, 2016
Haywood County White Oak Landfill BLE Project Number J15-1957-51
24
4.0 REFERENCES
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc., 2016. Design Hydrogeologic Report, Phase 4 & 5, Haywood County White Oak Landfill (in progress).

Carter, M.W., and Weiner, L.S., 1999, Bedrock Geologic Map of the Fines Creek 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, North Carolina, North Carolina Geological Survey, Geologic Map Series 8.
Hadley, J.B., and Goldsmith, R.E., 1983, Geology of the Eastern Great Smoky Mountains, North Carolina-Tennessee: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 349-B.
Horton, J.W. and Zullo, V.A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolinas: Carolina Geological Society fifteenth anniversary volume: The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2006. N.C. New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data.
North Carolina Dept. Environmental and Natural Resources. 2007. N.C. Addendum to October 27,
2006, North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). April 2008. Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2014. Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section, Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal.
USEPA. September 1986. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD).
USEPA. 1996. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures. Puls, Robert W. and Barcelona, Michael J.
USEPA. 1993. Region III Modifications to Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for
Evaluating Inorganic Analyses, EPA 540/R-01-008. April.
USEPA, 1994. Region III Modifications to National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review
Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (OLMO1.0-OLMO0.9), EPA 540/R-99-008. September.
USEPA. June 1997. SW-846 Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,
Final Update III. USEPA. March 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities –
Unified Guidance. EPA/530-R-09-007. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.

TABLES
Table 1
Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction and Groundwater Elevation Data
White Oak Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-07
BLE Project No. J16-1957-51
October 26 & 29, 2015
Northing Easting Waste Unit Well Meas. Pt. Gnd. Surface *Depth to Depth to Water Total Borehole Screen Well Well Top of Rock Top of
Well (feet) (feet) Monitored Status/Purpose Elevation Elevation Water (bgs) Water (bmp) Elevation Depth (bgs) Depth (bgs)Type Monitors Depth (bgs) Rock Elev.
MW-1A 721,096.30 812,481.47 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,520.02 2,517.97 19.95 22.00 2498.02 UK 10.4 - 25.4 2507.6 - 2492.6 UK Deep Residuum UK UK
MW-2 721,460.76 812,309.44 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,496.71 2,494.43 28.40 30.68 2466.03 UK 19.9 - 34.9 2474.5 - 2459.5 UK Deep Residuum/PWR UK UK
MW-2D 721,456.01 812,311.87 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,496.89 2,494.69 28.40 30.60 2466.29 UK 44.6 - 54.6 2450.1 - 2440.1 UK Bedrock 36.9 2457.8
MW-3r 721,943.38 812,063.70 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,462.61 2,459.53 30.37 33.45 2429.16 41.5 26.3 - 41.3 2433.2 - 2418.2 II Deep Residuum NE NE
MW-3Dr 721,940.67 812,082.82 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,461.89 2,458.42 34.03 37.50 2424.39 65.0 49.8 - 64.8 2408.6 - 2393.6 IIIs Bedrock 44.0 2414.4
MW-4A 721,693.04 811,976.64 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,493.85 2,491.60 42.03 44.28 2449.57 UK 80.6 - 95.6 2411.0 - 2396.0 UK Bedrock 23.3 2468.3
MW-8 721,704.50 812,155.03 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,477.33 2,474.84 28.58 31.07 2446.26 UK 31.0 - 41.0 2443.8 - 2433.8 UK Deep Residuum UK UK
MW-11S 719,905.88 811,642.89 Facility Background 2,674.58 UK UK 81.00 2593.58 UK UK - UK UK - UK UK UK UK UK
MW-11D 719,909.34 811,651.55 Facility Background 2,674.89 2,672.01 79.12 82.00 2592.89 UK 118.0 - 127.6 2554.0 - 2544.4 UK Bedrock 97.0 2575.0
MW-14 UK UK Facility Background 2,711.69 UK UK 101.30 2610.39 UK UK - UK UK - UK UK UK UK UK
MW-15 UK UK C&D Compliance 2,547.41 UK UK 9.69 2537.72 UK UK - UK UK - UK UK UK UK UK
MW-16 721,821.98 811,660.70 Phases 1-3 Compliance 2,519.35 2,516.07 31.88 35.16 2484.19 41.0 25.8 - 40.8 2490.3 - 2475.3 II Fill / Residuum 40.0 2476.1
MW-17 721,783.47 811,219.93 Phases 1-4 Compliance 2,542.55 2,539.13 53.53 56.95 2485.60 63.0 43.0 - 58.0 2496.1 - 2481.1 II Bedrock 40.0 2499.1
MW-18 Phase 4 Proposed
MW-19 Phase 5 Proposed
MW-20 Phase 5 Proposed
MW-21 Phase 5 Proposed
MW-22 Phase 5 Proposed
Notes:
All survey data provided by McGill Associates, all units in feet. Data for MW-14 & MW-15 sourced from historical Municipal Engineering reports.Measuring Point Elevation is top of casing.
*DTW from bgs values have been calculated from survey data provided by McGill Associates.II = Type II well
All values shown to the nearest 0.1-ft have been rounded.IIIs = Type III screened well
Water levels were measured on 10/26/15 by Pace.NE = Not encountered
Water levels were measured on 10/29/15 by BLE.NE = Not encountered
MW-4A was lowered 4.59 feet by Haywood County. All bgs referenced depths for MW-4A have been adjusted accordingly on this table.UK = Unknown, information is not available
Screen
Elevation
Table 1 GWM of WOLF WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP
Table 2
Sampling Matrix
White Oak Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-07
BLE Project No. J16-1957-51
April October
Waste Areas Station ID Full Appendix I List Full Appendix I List
MW-11S X X
MW-11D X X
C&D MW-14 X X
MW-1A X X
MW-2 X X
MW-2D X X
MW-3r X X
MW-3Dr X X
MW-4A X X
MW-8 X X
C&D MW-15 X X
Phases 1-3 MW-16 X X
Phases 1-4 MW-17 X X
Phase 4 MW-18 X X
MW-19 X X
MW-20 X X
MW-21 X X
MW-22 X X
SW-1 X X
SW-2 X X
SW-3 X X
Phases 1-4 SW-5 X X
SW-6 X X
SW-7 X X
Phase 5 SW-8 X X
Leachate X*X*
Notes:
* = Plus NCDEQ SWS Leachate Parameters
Leachate sample is collected from the Leachate Lagoon
Stations in blue highlight are proposed for Phases 4 and/or 5
Su
r
f
a
c
e
Wa
t
e
r
C&D
Le
a
c
h
a
t
e
Phases 1-5
Phases 1-3
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

We
l
l
s
Phases 1-5
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
We
l
l
s
Phases 1-3
Phase 5
T2 Sampling Matrix of WOLF WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP
Table 3
Sampling and Preservation Procedures
White Oak Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-07
BLE Project No. J16-1957-51
Parameter Container & Volume Preservative Maximum Holding Time
Cyanide P,G; 500 mL 4°C NaOH to pH>12, add Sodium Arsenite 14 days
Sulfide P,G; 500 mL 4°C, add Zinc Acetate 7 days
Mercury (total)P; 500 mL HNO3 to pH<2 28 days
Metals (total) except mercury P; 500 mL HNO3 to pH<2 6 months
Base Neutrals & Acids G, Teflon-lined cap; 1000 mL 4°C 7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Chlorinated Pesticides/PCBs G, Teflon-lined cap; 1000 mL 4°C 7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Chlorinated Acids G, Teflon-lined cap; 1000 mL 4°C 7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Purgeables 2-40 mL VOA w/G, Teflon-lined septum 4°C; HCl to pH<2 14 days
BOD P; 1000 mL 6°C 48 hours
COD P; 250 mL 6°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days
Sulfate P; 250 mL 4°C 28 days
Nitrate P; 250 mL 4°C 48 hours
ortho-Phosphate P; 250 mL 4°C 48 hours
Notes: P - Plastic, G - Glass, T - Fluorocarbon Resin (PTFE, Teflon®, FEP, etc.)
No headspace should be allowed in the volatile organic compound containers.
Table 3 Pres and Handle of WOLF WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP/MPH
Table 4
Surface Water & Lechate Sampling Point Data
White Oak Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-07
BLE Project No. J16-1957-51
Monitoring Point Water Body Monitored
1
Existing Waste Unit
Monitored
Current
Status/Purpose
Proposed Waste Unit
Monitored
Proposed
Status/Purpose
SW-1 Unnamed Tributary Phases 1-3 Downstream Phases 1-3 Downstream
SW-2 Unnamed Tributary Phases 1-3 Downstream Phases 1-3 Downstream
SW-3 Unnamed Tributary Phases 1-3 Downstream Phases 1-3 Downstream
SW-5 Unnamed Tributary Phases 1-3 Downstream Phases 1-4 Downstream
SW-6 Unnamed Tributary C&D Upstream C&D Upstream
SW-7 Unnamed Tributary C&D Downstream C&D Downstream
SW-8 Unnamed Tributary Proposed Proposed Phase 5 Downstream
Lechate Lechate Pond Phases 1-3 Downstream Phases 1-5 Downstream
1 - There are 2 unnamed tributaries at the facility which discharge into the Pigeon River
SW - Surface Water Location
T4 SW Points of WOLF WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP

FIGURES
MANUFACTURED SCREEN (NOT TO EXCEED
NEAT CEMENT GROUT, CEMENT/BENTONITE
BENTONITE LAYER
(1.0 FEET MIN.)
WELL INSTALLATION.)
15 FEET WITHOUT AMPLE JUSTIFICATION
SCREENED INTERVAL 0.010 INCH SLOT
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
SILICA FILTER PACK SAND
ZO
N
E
SA
T
U
R
A
T
E
D
(NOMINAL DIMENSION)
BOREHOLE DIAMETER
6 INCHES MINIMUM
GROUND SURFACE
1/4" GAS VENT
3 FEET MIN.
WELL DIAMETER 2" PVC THREADED
AND WELL APRON
CONTINUOUS POUR CONCRETE CAP
SURVEYOR'S PIN (FLUSH MOUNT)
STEEL PROTECTOR CAP
WELL CAP
ZO
N
E
FR
O
S
T
WELL CAP WITH LOCK
3' x 3' x 4" CONCRETE PAD - SLOPE TO DRAIN
DRAIN/WEEP HOLE
NOTES:
1. IF THE WELL IS SET IN SOIL, THE SCREEN WILL BE SET TO BRACKET THE 24-HOUR
WATER LEVEL WITH APPROXIMATELY 12-FT OF WATER IN THE WELL. IF THE WELL
IS SET INTO BEDROCK, THE SCREEN WILL BE SET TO ENCOUNTER
WATER-PRODUCING FRACTURES.
2. PLACE PEA GRAVEL IN ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN PVC STICK UP AND STEEL
PROTECTIVE CASING.
BOTTOM CAP
GROUT, OR HIGH SOLIDS SODIUM BENTONITE
GROUT
WELL ID PLATE

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORDS
2-inches of GRASS/TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND - (fill)
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (partially
weathered rock with layers of soil) - (residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as brown,
micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
SURFACE COMPLETION
3.47-foot stick-up with 4" x 4" x 5'
long steel protective cover installed
ina 3' x 3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,458.42 feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,461.89
feet
Northing = 721,940.67'
Easting = 812,082.82'
6-inch diameter casing set to 46 feet
Neat cement, 0 to 45.2 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2455
2450
2445
2440
2435
2430
2425
2420
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3Dr
Sheet 1 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
43.20
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch and 10-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 24 HOURS:34.65
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3Dr
START: 9-17-10
2458.42ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as brown,
micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
BEDROCK which sampled as brown, micaceous, silty, fine
to medium SAND
Fracture at 54 feet
BEDROCK which sampled as gray, micaceous, silty, fine to
medium SAND
Fracture at 59 feet
Boring terminated at 65 feet. Groundwater encountered at
43.20 feet at time of drilling and at 34.65 feet after 24 hours.
Neat cement, 0 to 45.2 feet
Bentonite seal, 45.2 to 47.65 feet
Filter pack, sand 47.65 to 65 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 49.8 to
64.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 65 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2415
2410
2405
2400
2395
2390
2385
2380
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3Dr
Sheet 2 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
43.20
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch and 10-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 24 HOURS:34.65
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3Dr
START: 9-17-10
2458.42ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
2-inches of GRASS/TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND - (fill)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as tan and
brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
SURFACE COMPLETION
3.08-foot stick-up with 4" x 4" x 5'
long steel protective cover installed
in a 3' x 3' x 4" thick concrete pad
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and the
protective cover, respectively
Top of casing elev. = 2,462.61 feet
Ground surface elev. = 2,459.53 feet
Northing = 721,943.38'
Easting = 812,063.70'
Neat cement, 0 to 15.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 15.5 to 22.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 22.0 to 41.5 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 26.3 to
41.3 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2455
2450
2445
2440
2435
2430
2425
2420
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3r
Sheet 1 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
34.60
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 22 HOURS:31.70
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3r
START: 9-15-10
2459.53ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
Tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
(partially weathered rock) with layers of soil - (residuum)
Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. Groundwater encountered
at 34.60 feet at time of drilling and at 31.70 feet after 22
hours.
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 41.5 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2415
2410
2405
2400
2395
2390
2385
2380
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3r
Sheet 2 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
34.60
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 22 HOURS:31.70
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-3r
START: 9-15-10
2459.53ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
6-inches of GRAVEL
Tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND with
boulders of partially weathered rock - (fill)
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND - (fill)
SURFACE COMPLETION
3.28-foot stick-up with 4" x 4" x 5'
long steel protective cover installed
in a 3' x 3' x 4" thick concrete pad
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and the
protective cover, respectively
Top of casing elev. = 2,519.35 feet
Ground surface elev. = 2,516.07 feet
Northing = 721,821.98'
Easting = 811,660.70'
Neat cement, 0 to 19.4 feet
Bentonite seal, 19.4 to 23.2 feet
Filter pack, sand 23.2 to 41.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 25.8 to
40.8 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2515
2510
2505
2500
2495
2490
2485
2480
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16
Sheet 1 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
36.0
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 18 HOURS:32.75
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16
START: 9-15-10
2516.07ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
BEDROCK
Boring terminated at 41 feet. Groundwater encountered at
36.0 feet at time of drilling and at 32.75 feet after 18 hours.
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 41.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2475
2470
2465
2460
2455
2450
2445
2440
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16
Sheet 2 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
36.0
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 18 HOURS:32.75
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16
START: 9-15-10
2516.07ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
3-inches of GRAVEL
Tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(fill)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as gray
and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as tan and
brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
SURFACE COMPLETION
3.42-foot stick-up with 4" x 4" x 5'
long steel protective cover installed
in a 3' x 3' x 4" thick concrete pad
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and the
protective cover, respectively
Top of casing elev. = 2,542.55 feet
Ground surface elev. = 2,539.13 feet
Northing = 721,783.47'
Easting = 811,219.93'
Neat cement, 0 to 34.0 feet
Bentonite seal, 34.0 to 38.7 feet
Filter pack, sand 38.7 to 63.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2535
2530
2525
2520
2515
2510
2505
2500
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17
Sheet 1 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
60.0
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 23 HOURS:48.65
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17
START: 9-15-10
2539.13ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
BEDROCK which sampled as gray, slightly micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
BEDROCK which sampled as tan and brown, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
Soil seam from 43 to 45 feet
BEDROCK which sampled as gray, slightly micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 51 feet
Boring terminated at 63.0 feet. Groundwater encountered
at 60.0 feet at time of drilling and at 48.65 feet after 23
hours.
Filter pack, sand 38.7 to 63.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 43.0 to
58.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 58.2 feet
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2495
2490
2485
2480
2475
2470
2465
2460
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17
Sheet 2 of 2
9-20-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
60.0
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch diameter air rotary hammer
J10-1957-17
AFTER 23 HOURS:48.65
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17
START: 9-15-10
2539.13ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill
GE
O
T
_
W
E
L
L
N
B

1
9
5
7
-
1
7
.
G
P
J

8
/
1
7
/
1
6
SOIL
TYPE
WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS

APPENDIX B NORTH CAROLINA APPENDIX I AND APPENDIX II CONSTITUENT LISTS
Constituents for Detection Monitoring
(40 CFR 258, Appendix I)
Common name CAS RN
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Barium (Total)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Cobalt (Total)
Copper (Total)
Lead (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Vanadium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
Acetone 67-64-1
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
Benzene 71-43-2
Bromochloromethane 74-97-5
Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4
Bromoform; Tribromomethane 75-25-2
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 75-00-3
Chloroform; Trichloromethane 67-66-3
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlorpropane; DBCP 96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB 106-93-4
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 110-57-6
1,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene chloride 75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethlyene dichloride 107-06-2
1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1-1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene
chloride
75-35-4
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5
1,2-Dichlorpropane; Propylene dichloride 78-87-5
cis-1,3-Dichlorpropene 10061-01-5
trans-1,3-Dichlorpropene 10061-02-6
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4
2-hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 591-78-6
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane 74-83-9
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 74-87-3
Methylene bromide Dibromomethane 74-95-3
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane 75-09-2
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone 78-93-3
Methyl iodide; Iodomethane 74-88-4
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl isobutyl
ketone
108-10-1
Styrene 100-42-5
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5
Tetrachloroethylene; Tetracholorethene;
Perchloroethylene
127-18-4
Toluene 108-88-3
1,1,1-Trochlorethane; Methylchloroform 71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5
Trichloroethylene; Trichlorethene 79-01-6
Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-11 75-69-4
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4
Vinyl acetate 108-05-4
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4
Xylenes 1330-20-7
Common Name CAS RN
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Acenaphthylene 208-96-8
Acetone 67-64-1
Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide 75-05-8
Acetophenone 98-86-2
2-Acetylaminofluorene; 2-AAF 53-96-3
Acrolein 107-02-8
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
Aldrin 309-00-2
Allyl chloride 107-05-1
4-Aminobiphenyl 92-67-1
Anthracene 120-12-7
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Barium (Total)
Benzene 71-43-2
Benzo[a]anthracene; Benzanthracene 56-55-3
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205-99-2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207-08-9
Benzo[ghi]perylene 191-24-2
Benzo[a]pyrene 50-32-8
Benyl alcohol 100-51-5
Beryllium (Total)
alpha-BHC 319-84-6
beta-BHC 319-85-7
delta-BHC 319-86-8
gamma-BHC; Lindane 58-89-9
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether; Dichloroethyl ether 111-44-4
Bis-(2-chlor-1-methyl) ether; 2, 2-Dichloro-
diisopropyl ether; DCIP, See note 6
108-60-1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7
Bromochloromethane; Chlorobromomethane 74-97-5
Bromodichloromethane; Dibromochloromethane 75-27-4
Bromoform; Tribromomethane 75-25-2
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3
Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate 85-68-7
Cadmium (Total)
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5
Chlordane See NOTE 1
p-Chloroaniline 106-47-8
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6
p-Chloro-m-cresol; 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7
Constituents for Assessment Monitoring
(40 CFR 258, Appendix II)
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 75-00-3
Chloroform; Trichloromethane 67-66-3
2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7
2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005-72-3
Chloroprene 126-99-8
Chromium (Total)
Chrysene 218-01-9
Cobalt 218-01-9
Copper (Total)
m-Cresol; 3-methylphenol 108-39-4
o-Cresol; 2-methlphenol 95-48-7
p-Cresol; 4-methylphenol 106-44-5
Cyanide 57-12-5
2,4-D; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 94-75-7
4,4-DDD 72-54-8
4,4-DDE 72-55-9
4,4-DDT 50-29-3
Diallate 2303-16-4
aDibenz[a,h]anthracene 53-70-3
Dibenzofuran 132-64-9
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1
1,2-Dibromo-30chloropropane; DBCP 96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB 106-93-4
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
m-Dichlorobenzene; 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1
p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 110-57-6
Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12;75-71-8
1,1-Dichloroethane chloride 75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride 107-06-2
1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethane;
Vinylidene
75-35-4
chloride (Total)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5
2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2
2,6-Dichlorophenol 87-65-0
1,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride 78-87-5
1,3-Dichloropropane; Trimethylene dichloride 142-28-9
2,2-Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene chloride 594-20-7
1,1-Dichloropropene 563-58-6
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6
Dieldrin 60-57-1
Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2
0,0-Diethyl 0-2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate;
thionazin
297-97-2
Dimethoate 60-51-5
p-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene 60-11-7
7,12-Dimethylbenxz[a]anthracene 57-97-6
3,3-Dimethylbenzidine 119-93-7
2,4-Dimethlphenol; m-Xylenol 105-67-9
Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3
m-Dinitrobenzene 99-65-0
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2
Dinoseb; DNBP; 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 88-85-7
Di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0
Diphenylamine 122-39-4
Disulfoton 298-04-4
Endosulfan I 959-98-8
Endosulfan II 33213-65-9
Endodulfan sulfate 1031-07-8
Endrin 72-20-8
Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4
Ethyl methacrylate 97-63-2
Ethyl methanesulfonate 62-50-0
Famphur 52-85-7
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
Fluorene 86-73-7
Heptachlor 76-44-8
Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1
Hexachloropropene 188-71-7
2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 591-78-6
Indenol(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5
Isopbutyl alcohol 78-83-1
Isodrin 465-73-6
Isophorone 78-59-1
Isosafrole 120-58-1
Kepone 143-50-0
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Methacrylonitrile 126-98-7
Methapyrilene 91-80-5
Methoxychlor 72-43-5
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane 74-83-9
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 74-87-3
3-Methylcholanthrene 56-49-5
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone 78-93-3
Methyl iodide; lodomethane 74-88-4
Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6
Methyl methanesulfonate 66-27-3
2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6
Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl 298-00-0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1
Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane 74-95-3
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane 75-09-2
Naphthalene 91-20-3
1,4-Naphthoquinone 130-15-4
1-Naphthylamine 134-32-7
2-Naphthylamine 91-59-8
Nickel (Total)
o-Nitroaniline; 2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4
m-Nitroaniline; 3-Nitroanile 99-09-2
p-Nitroaniline; 4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6
Nitrobenzene 98-95-3
o-Nitrophenol; 2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5
p-Nitrophenol; 4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 924-16-3
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-Nitroso-N-Di-n-
propylnitrosamine
86-30-6
N-Nitrosodipropylamine; dipropylamine; 621-64-7
N-Nitrosomethylethalamine 10595-95-6
N-Nitrosopiperidine 100-75-4
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2
5-Nitro-o-toluidine 99-55-8
Parathion 56-38-2
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5
Pentachloronitrobenzene 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5
Phenacetin 62-44-2
Phenanthrene 85-01-8
Phenol 108-95-2
p-Phenylenediamine 106-50-3
Phorate 298-02-2
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); Aroclors see NOTE 2
Pronamide 23950-58-5
Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide 107-12-0
Pyrene 129-00-0
Safrole 94-59-7
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Silvex; 2,4,5-TP 93-72-1
Styrene 100-42-5
Sulfide 18496-25-8
2,4,5-T; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 93-76-5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5
Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene;
Perchloroethylene
127-18-4
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 58-90-2
Thallium (Total)
Tin (Total)
Toluene 108-88-3
o-Toluidine 95-53-4
Toxaphene See NOTE 3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform 71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5
Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene 79-01-6
Trichlorrofluoromethane; CFC-11 75-69-4
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4
0,0,0-Triethyl phosphorothioate 126-68-1
sym-Trinitrobenzene 99-35-4
Vanadium (Total)
Vinyl acetate 108-05-4
Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene 75-01-4
Xylene (total)See NOTE 4
Zinc (Total)
1. Chlordane: This entry includes alpha-chlordane (CAS RN 5103-71-9), beta-chlordane
(CAS RN 5103-74-2), gamma-chlordane (CAS RN 5566-34-7), and constituents of chlordane
(CAS RN 57-74-9 and CAS RN 12789-03-6)
2. Polychlorinated biphenyls (CAS RN 1336-36-3); this category contains congener chemicals, including
constituents of Aroclor-1016 (CAS RN 12674-11-2), Aroclor-1221 (CAS RN 11104-28-2),
Aroclor-1232 (CAS RN 11141-16-5), Aroclor-1242 (CAS RN 53469-21-9), Aroclor-1248
(CAS RN 12672-29-6), Aroclor-1254 (CAS RN 11097-69-1), and Aroclor-1260
(CAS RN 11096-82-5)
3. Toxaphene: This entry includes congener chemicals contained in technical toxaphene
(CAS RN 8001-35-2), ie, chlorinated camphene
4. Xylene (total): This entry includes o-xylene (CAS RN 96-47-6), m- xylene (CAS RN 108-38-3),
p-xylene (CAS RN 106-42-3), and unspecified xylenes (dimethylbenzenes) (CAS RN 1330-20-7)

APPENDIX C NCDEQ MEMORANDA AND REPORTING LIMITS AND STANDARDS

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
October 27, 2006

To: SW Director/County Manager/Consultant/Laboratory
From: NC DENR-DWM, Solid Waste Section

Re: New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data

The Solid Waste Section receives and reviews a wide variety of environmental monitoring data from permitted solid waste management facilities, including the results from groundwater and surface water analyses, leachate
samples, methane gas readings, potentiometric measurements, and corrective action data. We are in the process
of developing a database to capture the large volume of data submitted by facilities.

To maintain the integrity of the database, it is critical that facilities, consultants, and laboratories work with the Solid Waste Section to ensure that environmental samples are collected and analyzed properly with the resulting
data transferred to the Solid Waste Section in an accurate manner.

In order to better serve the public and to expedite our review process, the Solid Waste Section is requesting
specific formatting for environmental monitoring data submittals for all solid waste management facilities.
Effective, December 1, 2006, please submit a Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Data Form in
addition to your environmental monitoring data report. This form will be sent in lieu of your current cover
letter to the Solid Waste Section. The Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Data Form must be filled out
completely, signed, and stamped with a Board Certified North Carolina Geologist License Seal.
The solid waste environmental monitoring data form will include the following:
1. Contact Information
2. Facility Name
3. Facility Permit Number 4. Facility Address
5. Monitoring Event Date (MM/DD/YYYY)
6. Water Quality Status: Monitoring, Detection Monitoring, or Assessment Monitoring
7. Type of Data Submitted: Groundwater Monitoring Wells, Groundwater Potable Wells, Leachate,
Methane Gas, or Corrective Action Data 8. Notification of Exceedance of Groundwater, Surface Water, or Methane Gas (in table form)
9. Signature
10. North Carolina Geologist Seal
Page 2 of 2

Most of these criteria are already being included or can be added with little effort. The Solid Waste
Environmental Monitoring Data Form can be downloaded from our website: http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp.

The Solid Waste Section is also requesting a new format for monitoring wells, potable wells, surface water
sampling locations, and methane probes. This format is essential in the development and maintenance of the
database. The Solid Waste Section is requesting that each sampling location at all North Carolina solid waste management facilities have its own unique identification number. We are simply asking for the permit number
to be placed directly in front of the sampling location number (example: 9901-MW1 = Permit Number 99-01
and Monitoring Well MW-1). No changes will need to be made to the well tags, etc. This unique identification
system will enable us to accurately report data not only to NCDENR, but to the public as well. We understand
that this new identification system will take some time to implement, but we feel that this will be beneficial to everyone involved in the long term.

Additionally, effective December 1, 2006, the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) established in 1994 will change. The Solid Waste Section is requiring that all solid waste management facilities use the new Solid
Waste Reporting Limits (SWRL) for all groundwater analyses by a North Carolina Certified Laboratory. Laboratories must also report any detection of a constituent even it is detected below the new SWRL (e.g., J
values where the constituent was detected above the detection limit, but below the quantitation limit).

PQLs are technology-based analytical levels that are considered achievable using the referenced analytical
method. The PQL is considered the lowest concentration of a contaminant that the lab can accurately detect and quantify. PQLs provided consistency and available numbers that were achievable by the given analytical
method. However, PQLs are not health-based, and analytical instruments have improved over the years
resulting in lower achievable PQLs for many of the constituents. As a result, the Solid Waste Section has
established the SWRLs as the new reporting limits eliminating the use of the PQLs.
We would also like to take this opportunity to encourage electronic submittal of the reports. This option is
intended to save resources for both the public and private sectors. The Solid Waste Section will accept the
entire report including narrative text, figures, tables, and maps on CD-ROM. The CD-ROM submittal shall
contain a CD-ROM case and both CD-ROM and the case shall be labeled with the site name, site address,
permit number, and the monitoring event date (MM/DD/YYYY). The files may be a .pdf, .txt, .csv, .xls, or .doc type. Also, analytical lab data should be reported in an .xls file. We have a template for analytical lab data
available on the web at the address listed above.

If you have any questions or concerns, please call [phone]. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter.

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
1

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary February 23, 2007
EMORANDUM M
o: Solid Waste Directors, Landfill Operators, North Carolina Certified Laboratories, and Consultants
rom: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: ste Section Memorandum Regarding New
Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data.

arolina Solid Waste Section memo titled, “New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data.”
adily available laboratory analytical methodology and current health-based groundwater protection standards.
efinitions

T

F Addendum to October 27, 2006, North Carolina Solid Wa

The purpose of this addendum memorandum is to provide further clarification to the October 27, 2006, North
C
The updated guidelines is in large part due to questions and concerns from laboratories, consultants, and the
regulated community regarding the detection of constituents in groundwater at levels below the previous
practical quantitation limits (PQLs). The North Carolina Solid Waste Section solicited feedback from the
regulated community, and, in conjunction with the regulated community, developed new limits. The primary purpose of these changes was to improve the protection of public health and the environment. The North
Carolina Solid Waste Section is concerned about analytical data at these low levels because the earliest possible
detection of toxic or potentially carcinogenic chemicals in the environment is paramount in the North Carolina
Solid Waste Section’s mission to protect human health and the environment. Low level analytical data are
critical for making the correct choices when designing site remediation strategies, alerting the public to health threats, and protecting the environment from toxic contaminants. The revised limits were updated based on
re

D
s are also an attempt to clarify the meaning of these
rms as used by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section.
e that can be measured and
ported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
is the minimum concentration of a target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.
Many definitions relating to detection limits and quantitation limits are used in the literature and by government
agencies, and commonly accepted procedures for calculating these limits exist. Except for the Solid Waste
Section Limit and the North Carolina 2L Standards, the definitions listed below are referenced from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The definition
te
Method Detection Limit (MDL) is the minimum concentration of a substanc
re
Method Reporting Limit or Method Quantitation Limit (MRL or MQL)
Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) is a quantitation limit that represents a practical and routinely achievable
quantitation limit with a high degree of certainty (>99.9% confidence) in the results. Per EPA Publication
Number SW-846, the PQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy for a specific laboratory analytical method during routine laboratory operating
conditions in accordance with "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods. The
PQL appears in
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
2
older NCDENR literature; however, it is no longer being used by the North Carolina Solid
aste Section.
n. The nomenclature of the SWRL described in the October
7, 2006, memorandum has changed to the SWSL.
C 2L .0200, Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the
roundwaters of North Carolina.
ethod Detection Limits (MDLs)
W

Solid Waste Section Limit (SWSL) is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with suitable precision and accuracy. The SWSL is the concentration below which reported analytical results must be qualified as estimated. The SWSL is the updated version of the PQL that appears in
older North Carolina Solid Waste Section literature. The SWSL is the limit established by the laboratory survey
conducted by the North Carolina Solid Waste Sectio
2
North Carolina 2L Standards (2L) are water quality standards for the protection of groundwaters of North
Carolina as specified in 15A NCA
G

M
he North Carolina Solid Waste Section is now
quiring laboratories to report to the method detection limit.
atories generally report the highest method detection limit for all the instruments
sed for a specific method.
ata below unspecified or non-statistical reporting limits severely biases data sets and restricts their usefulness.
olid Waste Section Limits (SWSLs)

Clarification of detection limits referenced in the October 27, 2006, memorandum needed to be addressed
because of concerns raised by the regulated community. T
re
Method detection limits are statistically determined values that define the concentration at which measurements
of a substance by a specific analytical protocol can be distinguished from measurements of a blank (background
noise). Method detection limits are matrix-specific and require a well defined analytical method. In the course
of routine operations, labor
u
In many instances, the North Carolina Solid Waste Section gathers data from many sources prior to evaluating
the data or making a compliance decision. Standardization in data reporting significantly enhances the ability to
interpret and review data because the reporting formats are comparable. Reporting a method detection limit
alerts data users of the known uncertainties and limitations associated with using the data. Data users must understand these limitations in order to minimize the risk of making poor environmental decisions. Censoring
d

S
nd surface water data reported to the North Carolina Solid Waste ection. The PQLs will no longer be used.

Due to comments from the regulated community, the North Carolina Solid Waste Section has changed the
nomenclature of the new limits referenced on Page 2 of the October 27, 2006, memorandum, from the North
Carolina Solid Waste Reporting Limits (SWRL) to the Solid Waste Section Limits (SWSL). Data must be
reported to the laboratory specific method detection limits and must be quantifiable at or below the SWSL. The
SWSLs must be used for both groundwater aS
The North Carolina Solid Waste Section has considered further feedback from laboratories and the regulated
community and ha
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
3
s made some additional changes to the values of the SWSLs. These changes may be viewed
ttp://www.wastenotnc.org/sw/swenvmonitoringlist.asp
nalytical Data Reporting Requirements
on our webpage: h

A
al boratory method detection limit with all analytical laboratory results along with the following requirements:
oncentration, compliance action may not be taken unless it is statistically significant
crease over background.
hese analytical results may require additional confirmation.
he possibility that a constituent concentration may exceed the North Carolina 2L Standards in the
ture.
hese analytical results may be used for compliance without further confirmation.
will be returned and deemed unacceptable. Submittal of unacceptable data may lead to

lectronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Submittal

The strategy for implementing the new analytical data reporting requirements involves reporting the actula

1) Any analyte detected at a concentration greater than the MDL but less than the SWSL is known to be present,
but the uncertainty in the value is higher than a value reported above the SWSL. As a result, the actual
concentration is estimated. The estimated concentration is reported along with a qualifier (“J” flag) to alert data users that the result is between the MDL and the SWSL. Any analytical data below quantifiable levels should
be examined closely to evaluate whether the analytical data should be included in any statistical analysis. A
statistician should make this determination. If an analyte is detected below the North Carolina 2L Standards,
even if it is a quantifiable c
in
T

2) Any analyte detected at a concentration greater than the SWSL is present, and the quantitated value can be
reported with a high degree of confidence. These analytes are reported without estimated qualification. The laboratory’s MDL and SWSL must be included in the analytical laboratory report. Any reported concentration
of an organic or inorganic constituent at or above the North Carolina 2L Standards will be used for compliance
purposes, unless the inorganic constituent is not statistically significant). Exceedance of the North Carolina 2L
Standards or a statistically significant increase over background concentrations define when a violation has
occurred. Any reported concentration of an organic or inorganic constituent at or above the SWSL that is not above an North Carolina 2L Standard will be used as a tool to assess the integrity of the landfill system and
predict t
fu

T

Failure to comply with the requirements described in the October 27, 2006, memorandum and this addendum to
the October 27, 2006, memorandum will constitute a violation of 15A NCAC 13B .0601, .0602, or .1632(b),
and the analytical data
enforcement action.
E
he analytical laboratory data. This option is intended to save resources r both the public and private sectors.

The North Carolina Solid Waste Section would also like to take this opportunity to encourage electronic
submittal of the reports in addition to tfo

The North Carolina Solid Waste Section will accept the entire report including narrative text, figures, tables,
and maps on CD-ROM. Please separate the figures and tables from the report when saving in order to keep the
size of the files smaller. The CD-ROM submittal shall contain a CD-ROM case and both CD
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
4
-ROM and the
ase shall be labeled with the site name, site address, permit number, and the monitoring event date
ab data and field data. This template is available on our webpage:
ttp://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp. Methane monitoring data may also be submitted
ry or exceeds 25% of the LEL
facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery system components), include the exceedance(s) on the
you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-8500) or Ervin
Thank you for your continued cooperation with this matter.

c
(MM/DD/YYYY). The reporting files may be submitted as a .pdf, .txt, .csv, .xls,. or .doc type.
Also, analytical lab data and field data should be reported in .xls files. The North Carolina Solid Waste Section
has a template for analytical l
h
electronically in this format.
Pursuant to the October 27, 2006, memorandum, please remember to submit a Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form in addition to your environmental monitoring data report. This
form should be sealed by a geologist or engineer licensed in North Carolina if hydrogeologic or geologic
calculations, maps, or interpretations are included with the report. Otherwise, any representative that the facility owner chooses may sign and submit the form. Also, if the concentration of methane generated by the
facility exceeds 100% of the lower explosive limits (LEL) at the property bounda
in
North Carolina Solid Waste Section Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form.
If
Lane (919-508-8520).

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
1

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

October 16, 2007
EMORANDUM
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Wa e Management st Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

M
To: Operators, North Carolina Certified
Laboratories, and Consultants
rom: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: ring Data for North Carolina Solid Waste Management Facilities
and provide a reminder of formats for environmental monitoring data
bmittals.
ese changes was to improve the protection of public health and the nvironment.
reported to the North Carolina Solid Waste Section. The PQLs will no nger be used.
ted can be directed to the North Carolina Department of Health
nd Human Services.
Solid Waste Directors, Landfill

F Environmental Monito

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a reiteration of the use of the Solid Waste
Section Limits (SWSLs), provide new information on the Groundwater Protection Standards,
su

The updated guidelines are in large part due to questions and concerns from laboratories,
consultants, and the regulated community regarding the detection of constituents in groundwater at levels below the previous Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs). The
North Carolina Solid Waste Section solicited feedback from the regulated community,
and, in conjunction with the regulated community, developed new limits. The primary
purpose of the
Data must be reported to the laboratory specific method detection limits and must be
quantifiable at or below the SWSLs. The SWSLs must be used for both groundwater and
surface water datalo
In June 2007, we received new information regarding changes to the Groundwater
Protection Standards. If a North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standard does not exist, then
a designated Groundwater Protection Standard is used pursuant to 15A NCAC 13B .1634. Toxicologists with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services calculated these new Groundwater Protection Standards. Questions regarding how the
standards were calcula
a

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
2
every year or sooner if new scientific and toxicological data become available.
lease review our website periodically for any changes to the 2L NC Standards,
ic updates will be noted on our ebsite.
wastenotnc.org/sw/swenvmonitoringlist.asp

We have reviewed the new results from the North Carolina Department of Public Health and have updated our webpage accordingly. The list of Groundwater Protection
Standards, North Carolina 2L Standards and SWSLs are subject to change and will be
reviewed
P
Groundwater Protection Standards, or SWSLs. Specifw

http://www.

ental monitoring data

In addition, the following should be included with environmsubmittals:
1. Environmental Monitoring Data Form as a cover sheet:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/NCEnvMonRptForm.pdf
2. Copy of original laboratory results.
3. Table of detections and discussion of 2L exceedances. 4. Electronic files on CD or sent by email. These files should include the written report as
Portable Document Format (PDF) file and the laboratory data as an excel file following a
the format of the updated Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) template on our website:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Donald Herndon (919-
08-8502), Ervin Lane (919-508-8520) or Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-8500).
Thank you for your continued cooperation with these matters.

5

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2090 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-82111 Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

1
November 5, 2014

MEMORANDUM

To: Solid Waste Directors, Public Works Directors, Landfill Operators, and Landfill Owners

From: Solid Waste Section

Re: Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal

The Solid Waste Section is continuing its efforts to improve efficiencies in document management. All
groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, and landfill gas documents submitted to the Solid Waste Section are
stored electronically and are made readily available for the public to view on our webpage. Please remember that
hard copies/paper copies are not required, and should not be submitted. The submittal of these electronic
documents following a consistent electronic document protocol will also assist us in our review. Please follow
these procedures when submitting all groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, and landfill gas documents to the
Solid Waste Section.

Submittal Method and Formatting
 All files must be in portable document format (pdf) except for Electronic Data Deliverables (EDDs)
unless otherwise specified by the Solid Waste Section. All pdf files should meet these requirements:
o Optical Characteristic Recognition (OCR) applied;
o Minimum of 300 dpi;
o Free of password protections and/or encryptions (applies to EDDs as well);
o Optimized to reduce file size; and
o Please begin using the following naming convention when submitting all electronic files: Permit
Number (00-00)_Date of Document (YYYYMMDD). For example: 00-00_20140101.
 Please submit all files via email or by file transfer protocol (FTP) via email to the appropriate
Hydrogeologist unless otherwise specified by the Solid Waste Section. If the electronic file is greater
than 20 MB, please submit the file via FTP or on a CD. If submitting a CD, please mail the CD to the
appropriate Hydrogeologist. The CD should be labeled with the facility name, permit number, county,
name of document, date of monitoring event (if applicable), and the date of document.
 Please be sure a signed Environmental Monitoring Data Form is submitted as part of the electronic file for
all water quality and landfill gas documents (monitoring, alternate source demonstration, assessment,
investigation, corrective action). This completed form should be the first page of the document before the
cover/title page and should not be submitted as an individual file. Blank forms can be downloaded at
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/NCEnvMonRptForm.pdf

Monitoring Data
Monitoring data documents may include any or all of the following: 1) groundwater and surface water monitoring;
2) soil and sediment, and 3) landfill gas monitoring. In addition to the above procedures, at a minimum, please
include the following:

Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
 A copy of the laboratory report(s).
 A copy of the sampling log(s).
 A separate table of detections and exceedances for each monitoring location.

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2090 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-82111 Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

2
o All analytical results should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L) except for field
parameters and specific Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) parameters.
o Please also include the laboratory’s method detection limit (MDL) in ug/L, the Solid Waste
Section Limit (SWSL) in ug/L, the appropriate NC regulatory standard in ug/L (2L, 2B,
GWPS, IMAC), and the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in ug/L.
o Please BOLD each exceedance result.
 A separate table of field parameters for each monitoring location.
 An Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) spreadsheet for each monitoring event submitted in the correct
format. All analytical results should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L) except for field
parameters and specific Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) parameters. The blank EDD template
can be downloaded at http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp. Please pay
attention to the formats within the spreadsheet. Any EDD received that is not formatted correctly will
be emailed back to be resubmitted via email within five (5) days.
 A separate groundwater monitoring well construction table.
o Please also include the date the well was drilled, well diameter, total well depth, depth to top
of screened interval (in feet), screened interval (in feet), geology of screened interval, TOC
elevation, ground elevation, groundwater elevation, GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude),
and depth to water (in feet).
 A separate groundwater table with groundwater flow rate(s).
 A recent facility figure that includes labeled groundwater and surface water monitoring locations.
 A groundwater flow map with an arrow(s) indicating flow direction(s), including date the
measurements were taken.

Soil and Sediment Sampling
 A copy of the laboratory report(s).
 A copy of the sampling log(s).
 A separate table of detections and exceedances for each sampling location.
o Please also include the results in micrograms per liter (ug/L), the laboratory’s method
detection limit (MDL) in ug/L, and the appropriate NC regulatory standard (PSRG) in ug/L.
o Please BOLD each exceedance result.
 A separate table of soil and/or sediment characteristics.
 A recent facility figure that includes labeled sampling locations.

Landfill Gas Monitoring
 A blank Landfill Gas Monitoring Data Form can be found within the Landfill Gas Monitoring
Guidance document and can be downloaded at
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=da699f7e-8c13-4249-9012-
16af8aefdc7b&groupId=38361.
 A separate table of landfill gas detections and exceedances for each monitoring location. Please
BOLD each exceedance result.
 A recent facility figure that includes labeled landfill gas monitoring locations (both permanent and
temporary).

If you have any questions or concerns regarding electronic submittals, please feel free to contact the
Hydrogeologist overseeing your facility. The Solid Waste Section greatly appreciates your assistance on
this matter. Working together, we can continue to provide excellent customer service to you and to the
public.
 Jackie Drummond, Asheville Regional Office, 828-296-4706, [e-mail]
 Ervin Lane, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8288, [e-mail]
 Elizabeth Werner, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8253, [e-mail]
 Christine Ritter, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8254, [e-mail]
 Perry Sugg, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8258, [e-mail]

5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 1/11
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Waste Management ‐ Constituent List
Sections and Programs » Solid Waste Section » Environmental Monitoring » List
Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Reporting Limits and Standards
All units are in (ug/L) unless noted.
NE = Not Established
CAS numbers that begin with "SW" are not real CAS numbers, instead this represents the Solid Waste Section's ID
number.
CAS Number Name Other Names 2L Std. GWP* Std. SWSL** SW ID App I
630‐20‐6 1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane Ethane, 1,1,1,2‐tetrachloro‐NE 1 5 190 I
71‐55‐6 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane;Ethane, 1,1,1‐trichloro‐200 ‐‐ 1 200 I
79‐34‐5 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane Ethane, 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloro‐0.2 0.18 3 191 I
79‐00‐5 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane Ethane, 1,1,2‐trichloro‐NE 0.6 1 202 I
76‐13‐1 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane CFC‐113 200000 NE NE 398  
92‐52‐4 1,1‐biphenyl 1,1‐biphenyl 400 ‐‐ 10 421  
75‐34‐3 1,1‐Dichloroethane; Ethyldidene Ethane, 1,1‐dichloro‐6 ‐‐ 5 75 I
75‐35‐4 1,1‐Dichloroethylene; 1,1‐Ethene, 1,1‐dichloro‐7 ‐‐ 5 77 I
563‐58‐6 1,1‐Dichloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,1‐dichloro‐NE NE 5 85  
96‐18‐4 1,2,3‐Trichloropropane Propane, 1,2,3‐trichloro‐0.005 ‐‐ 1 206 I
95‐94‐3 1,2,4,5‐Tetrachlorobenzene Benzene, 1,2,4,5‐tetrachloro‐NE 2 10 189  
120‐82‐1 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene Benzene, 1,2,4‐trichloro‐70 70 10 199  
95‐63‐6 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene Pseudocumene 400 NE NE 372  
226‐36‐8 1,2,5,6‐Dibenzacridine  NE NE NE 385  
96‐12‐8 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane; DBCP Propane, 1,2‐dibromo‐3‐chloro‐0.04 ‐‐ 13 67 I
106‐93‐4 1,2‐Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; Ethane, 1,2‐dibromo‐0.02 ‐‐ 1 68 I
107‐06‐2 1,2‐Dichloroethane; Ethylene Ethane, 1,2‐dichloro‐0.4 ‐‐ 1 76 I
540‐59‐0 1,2‐Dichloroethylene mixed isomers Mixed Isomers NE 60 NE 481  
78‐87‐5 1,2‐Dichloropropane Propane, 1,2‐dichloro‐0.6 ‐‐ 1 82 I
122‐66‐7 1,2‐Diphenylhydrazine  NE NE NE 394  
108‐67‐8 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene)Mesitylene 400 NE NE 373  
142‐28‐9 1,3‐Dichloropropane; Trimethylene Propane, 1,3‐dichloro‐NE NE 1 83  
106‐37‐6 1,4‐Dibromobenzene p‐Dibromobenzene, p‐Bromobenzene   70   471  
123‐91‐1 1,4‐dioxane 1,4‐dioxane 3 ‐‐ 10 422  
130‐15‐4 1,4‐Naphthoquinone 1,4‐Naphthalenedione NE NE 10 149  
87‐61‐6 1‐2‐3‐Trichlorobenzene  NE NE NE 371  
90‐12‐0 1‐Methylnaphthalene α‐methylnaphthalene NE 1 NE 503  
134‐32‐7 1‐Naphthylamine 1‐Naphthalenamine NE NE 10 150  
120‐36‐5 2‐(2‐4‐dichlorophenoxy)propionic  NE NE NE 352  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 2/11
594‐20‐7 2,2‐Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene Propane, 2,2‐dichloro‐NE NE 15 84  
58‐90‐2 2,3,4,6‐Tetrachlorophenol Phenol, 2,3,4,6‐tetrachloro‐200 ‐‐ 10 193  
93‐76‐5 2,4,5‐T; 2,4,5‐Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acetic acid, (2,4,5‐trichlorophenoxy)‐ NE NE 2 188  
93‐72‐1 2,4,5‐TP Acid Silvex 50 NE NE 452  
95‐95‐4 2,4,5‐Trichlorophenol Phenol, 2,4,5‐trichloro‐NE 63 10 204  
88‐06‐2 2,4,6‐Trichlorophenol Phenol, 2,4,6‐trichloro‐NE 4 10 205  
94‐75‐7 2,4‐D; 2,4‐Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acetic acid, (2,4‐dichlorophenoxy)‐ 70 ‐‐ 2 59  
120‐83‐2 2,4‐Dichlorophenol Phenol, 2,4‐dichloro‐NE 0.98 10 80  
105‐67‐9 2,4‐Dimethylphenol; m‐Xylenol Phenol, 2,4‐dimethyl‐100 ‐‐ 10 95  
51‐28‐5 2,4‐Dinitrophenol Phenol, 2,4‐dinitro‐NE NE 50 99  
121‐14‐2 2,4‐Dinitrotoluene Benzene, 1‐methyl‐2,4‐dinitro‐NE 0.1 10 100  
87‐65‐0 2,6‐Dichlorophenol Phenol, 2,6‐dichloro‐NE NE 10 81  
606‐20‐2 2,6‐Dinitrotoluene Benzene, 2‐methyl‐1,3‐dinitro‐NE NE 10 101  
94‐82‐6 2‐4 DB  NE NE NE 350  
53‐96‐3 2‐Acetylaminofluorene; 2‐AAF Acetamide, N‐9H‐fluoren‐2‐yl‐NE NE 20 6  
110‐75‐8 2‐Chloroethylvinyl ether  NE NE NE 358  
91‐58‐7 2‐Chloronaphthalene Naphthalene, 2‐chloro‐NE NE 10 47  
95‐57‐8 2‐Chlorophenol Phenol, 2‐chloro‐0.4 ‐‐ 10 48  
591‐78‐6 2‐Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 2‐Hexanone NE 40 50 124 I
91‐57‐6 2‐Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene, 2‐methyl‐30 ‐‐ 10 145  
91‐59‐8 2‐Naphthylamine 2‐Naphthalenamine NE NE 10 151  
109‐06‐8 2‐Picoline  NE NE NE 390  
91‐94‐1 3,3'‐Dichlorobenzidine [1,1'‐Biphenyl]‐4,4'‐diamine,3,3'‐NE NE 20 72  
119‐93‐7 3,3'‐Dimethylbenzidine [1,1'‐Biphenyl]‐4,4'‐diamine,3,3'‐NE NE 10 94  
56‐49‐5 3‐Methylcholanthrene Benz[j]aceanthrylene,1,2‐dihydro‐3‐ NE NE 10 138  
72‐54‐8 4,4'‐DDD Benzene 1,1'‐(2,2‐0.1 ‐‐ 0.1 60  
72‐55‐9 4,4'‐DDE Benzene, 1,1'‐NE NE 0.1 61  
50‐29‐3 4,4'‐DDT Benzene, 1,1'‐(2,2,2‐0.1 ‐‐ 0.1 62  
534‐52‐1 4,6‐Dinitro‐o‐cresol; 4,6‐Dinitro‐2‐Phenol, 2‐methyl‐4,6‐dinitro‐NE NE 50 98  
92‐67‐1 4‐Aminobiphenyl [1,1'‐Biphenyl]‐4‐amine NE NE 20 11  
460‐00‐4 4‐Bromofluorobenzene  NE NE NE 463  
101‐55‐3 4‐Bromophenyl phenyl ether Benzene, 1‐bromo‐4‐phenoxy‐NE NE 10 31  
7005‐72‐3 4‐Chlorophenyl phenyl ether Benzene, 1‐chloro‐4‐phenoxy‐NE NE 10 49  
108‐10‐1 4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone; Methyl isobutyl 2‐Pentanone, 4‐methyl‐NE 560 100 147 I
56‐57‐5 4‐nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide  NE NE NE 388  
99‐55‐8 5‐Nitro‐o‐toluidine Benzenamine, 2‐methyl‐5‐nitro‐NE NE 10 157  
57‐97‐6 7,12‐Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene Benz[a]anthracene, 7,12‐dimethyl‐ NE NE 10 93  
83‐32‐9 Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene, 1,2‐dihydro‐80 ‐‐ 10 1  
208‐96‐8 Acenaphthylene Acenaphthylene 200 ‐‐ 10 2  
SW416 Acetic Acid Acetic Acid NE NE NE 416  
34256‐82‐1 Acetochlor    100   490  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 3/11
187022‐11‐3 Acetochlor ESA    1000   491  
184992‐44‐4 Acetochlor OXA    1000   492  
67‐64‐1 Acetone 2‐Propanone 6000 ‐‐ 100 3 I
75‐05‐8 Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide Acetonitrile NE 42 55 4  
98‐86‐2 Acetophenone Ethanone, 1‐phenyl‐NE 700 10 5  
50594‐66‐6 Acifluorofen Acifluorofen      453  
107‐02‐8 Acrolein 2‐Propenal NE 4 53 7  
79‐06‐1 Acrylamide Acrylamide 0.008 ‐‐ NE 429  
107‐13‐1 Acrylonitrile 2‐Propenenitrile NE NE 200 8 I
15972‐60‐8 Alachlor    0.4   469  
309‐00‐2 Aldrin 1,4:5,8‐NE 0.002 0.05 9  
SW337 Alkalinity  NE NE NE 337  
107‐05‐1 Allyl chloride 1‐Propene, 3‐chloro‐NE NE 10 10  
319‐84‐6 alpha‐BHC Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐ NE 0.006 0.05 24  
319‐84‐6 alpha‐Hexachlorocyclohexane α‐Benzenehexachloride NE 0.006 NE 501  
‐‐Aluminum Aluminum NE 3500 NE 454  
7429‐90‐5 Aluminum  NE 3500 NE 438  
7664‐41‐7 Ammonia Ammonia NE 1500 NE 435  
62‐53‐3 Aniline  NE NE NE 381  
120‐12‐7 Anthracene Anthracene 2000 ‐‐ 10 12  
7440‐36‐0 Antimony Antimony NE 1 6 13 I
140‐57‐8 Aramite  NE NE NE 382  
12674‐11‐2 Aroclor 1016 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 401  
11104‐28‐2 Aroclor 1221 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 402  
11141‐16‐5 Aroclor 1232 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 403  
53469‐21‐9 Aroclor 1242 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 404  
12672‐29‐6 Aroclor 1248 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 405  
11097‐69‐1 Aroclor 1254 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 406  
11096‐82‐5 Aroclor 1260 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 407  
7440‐38‐2 Arsenic Arsenic 10 ‐‐ 10 14 I
7440‐39‐3 Barium Barium 700 ‐‐ 100 15 I
25057‐89‐0 Bentazon  NE NE NE 462  
100‐52‐7 Benzaldehyde Phenylmethanal,NE 700 NE 496  
71‐43‐2 Benzene Benzene 1 ‐‐ 1 16 I
122‐09‐8 Benzeneethanamine, alpha,alpha‐  NE NE NE 386  
92‐87‐5 Benzidine  NE NE NE 383  
56‐55‐3 Benzo[a]anthracene;Benz[a]anthracene 0.05 ‐‐ 10 17  
50‐32‐8 Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[a]pyrene 0.005 ‐‐ 10 21  
205‐99‐2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benz[e]acephenanthrylene 0.05 ‐‐ 10 18  
191‐24‐2 Benzo[ghi]perylene Benzo[ghi]perylene 200 ‐‐ 10 20  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 4/11
207‐08‐9 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.5 ‐‐ 10 19  
65‐85‐0 Benzoic Acid  30000 28000 NE 395  
100‐51‐6 Benzyl alcohol Benzenemethanol NE 700 20 22  
7440‐41‐7 Beryllium Beryllium NE 4 1 23 I
319‐85‐7 beta‐BHC Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐ NE 0.019 0.05 25  
319‐85‐7 beta‐Hexachlorocyclohexane β‐Benzenehexachloride NE 0.02 NE 502  
SW347 Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) NE NE NE 347  
SW316 Biological Oxygen Demand BOD NE NE NE 316  
101‐84‐8 biphenyl ether biphenyl ether NE NE 10 423  
108‐60‐1 Bis(2‐chloro‐1‐methylethyl) ether; 2,2'‐ Propane, 2,2'‐oxybis[1‐chloro‐NE NE 10 46  
111‐91‐1 Bis(2‐chloroethoxy)methane Ethane, 1,1'‐[methylenebis(oxy)]bis [2‐ NE NE 10 42  
111‐44‐4 Bis(2‐chloroethyl)ether; Dichloroethyl Ethane, 1,1'‐oxybis[2‐chloro‐NE 0.031 10 43  
39638‐32‐9 Bis(2‐chloroisopropyl) ether  0.03 NE NE 384  
117‐81‐7 Bis(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2‐ 3 NE 15 111  
7440‐42‐8 Boron Boron 700 ‐‐ NE 428  
108‐86‐1 Bromobenzene  NE NE NE 360  
74‐97‐5 Bromochloromethane;Methane, bromochloro‐NE 0.6 3 28 I
75‐27‐4 Bromodichloromethane;Methane, bromodichloro‐0.6 ‐‐ 1 29 I
75‐25‐2 Bromoform; Tribromomethane Methane, tribromo‐4 ‐‐ 3 30 I
71‐36‐3 Butanol n n‐Butyl Alcohol NE 700   470  
78‐92‐2 Butanol sec sec‐Butyl Alcohol NE 10000   483  
85‐68‐7 Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, butyl 1000 ‐‐ 10 32  
SW418 Butyric Acid Butyric Acid NE NE NE 418  
7440‐43‐9 Cadmium Cadmium 2 ‐‐ 1 34 I
7440‐70‐2 Calcium  NE NE NE 375  
471‐34‐1 Calcium carbonate  NE NE NE 464  
105‐60‐2 Caprolactam  4000 NE NE 440  
86‐74‐8 Carbazole dibenzopyrrole, diphenylenimine, NE 2 NE 497  
1563‐66‐2 Carbofuran Carbofuran 40 NE NE 430  
124‐38‐9 Carbon Dioxide  NE NE NE 459  
SW413 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)CO2 Gas NE NE NE 413  
75‐15‐0 Carbon disulfide Carbon disulfide 700 ‐‐ 100 35 I
56‐23‐5 Carbon tetrachloride Methane, tetrachloro‐0.3 ‐‐ 1 36 I
SW348 Carbonate (as CaCO3) NE NE NE 348  
7440‐44‐0 Charcoal  NE NE NE 466  
SW317 Chemical Oxygen Demand COD NE NE NE 317  
57‐74‐9 Chlordane 4,7‐Methano‐1H‐indene,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8‐ 0.1 ‐‐ 0.5 339  
12789‐03‐6 Chlordane (constituents) NE NE NE 400  
5103‐71‐9 Chlordane, alpha cis‐Chlordane NE NE NE 379  
5103‐74‐2 Chlordane, beta trans‐Chlordane NE NE NE 378  
5566‐34‐7 Chlordane, gamma  NE NE NE 399  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 5/11
16887‐00‐6 Chloride Chloride      455  
SW301 Chloride  250000 ‐‐ NE 301  
108‐90‐7 Chlorobenzene Benzene, chloro‐50 ‐‐ 3 39 I
510‐15‐6 Chlorobenzilate Benzeneacetic acid, 4‐chloro‐(4‐NE NE 10 40  
75‐00‐3 Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride Ethane, chloro‐3000 ‐‐ 10 41 I
67‐66‐3 Chloroform; Trichloromethane Methane, trichloro‐70 ‐‐ 5 44 I
126‐99‐8 Chloroprene 1,3‐Butadiene, 2‐chloro‐NE NE 20 50  
7440‐47‐3 Chromium Chromium 10 ‐‐ 10 51 I
218‐01‐9 Chrysene Chrysene 5 ‐‐ 10 52  
156‐59‐2 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethylene; cis‐1,2‐Ethene, 1,2‐dichloro‐,(Z)‐70 ‐‐ 5 78 I
10061‐01‐5 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,3‐dichloro‐, (Z)‐0.4 ‐‐ 1 86 I
7440‐48‐4 Cobalt Cobalt NE 1 10 53 I
SW309 Coliform (total) 1 NE NE 309  
SW310 Color (color units) 15 NE NE 310  
7440‐50‐8 Copper Copper 1000 ‐‐ 10 54 I
57‐12‐5 Cyanide Cyanide 70 ‐‐ 10 58  
75‐99‐0 Dalapon  NE 200 NE 355  
3424‐82‐6 DDE o,p‐DDE   0.1   472  
319‐86‐8 delta‐BHC Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐ NE 0.019 0.05 26  
SW318 Depth To Water (ft)DTW NE NE NE 318  
117‐81‐7 Di(2‐ethylhexyl)phthalate Di(2‐ethylhexyl)phthalate, DEHP 2.5 ‐‐ NE 431  
2303‐16‐4 Diallate Carbamothioic acid,bis(1‐methylethyl)‐, NE NE 10 63  
53‐70‐3 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.005 ‐‐ 10 64  
132‐64‐9 Dibenzofuran Dibenzofuran NE 28 10 65  
124‐48‐1 Dibromochloromethane;Methane, dibromochloro‐0.4 0.41 3 66 I
1918‐00‐9 Dicamba  NE NE NE 353  
79‐43‐6 Dichloroacetic Acid  NE 0.7 NE 480  
75‐71‐8 Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12 Methane,dichlorodifluoro‐1000 ‐‐ 5 74  
60‐57‐1 Dieldrin 2,7:3,6‐Dimethanonaphth[2,3‐0.002 ‐‐ 0.075 88  
84‐66‐2 Diethyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, diethyl 6000 ‐‐ 10 90  
60‐51‐5 Dimethoate Phosphorodithioic acid,O,O‐dimethyl S‐ NE NE 20 91  
131‐11‐3 Dimethyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, dimethyl NE NE 10 96  
84‐74‐2 Di‐n‐butyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl 700 ‐‐ 10 33  
117‐84‐0 Di‐n‐octyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, dioctyl 100 ‐‐ 10 168  
88‐85‐7 Dinoseb; DNBP; 2‐sec‐Butyl‐4,6‐Phenol, 2‐(1‐methylpropyl)‐4,6‐dinitro‐ NE 7 1 102  
1746‐01‐6 Dioxin 2,3,7,8‐TCDD 0.2 NE NE 441  
101‐84‐8 Diphenyl ether Diphenyl oxide; 1,1'‐Oxybisbenzene; NE 100 NE 498  
122‐39‐4 Diphenylamine Benzenamine, N‐phenyl‐NE NE 10 103  
85‐00‐7 Diquat    20   473  
74‐82‐8 Dissolved Methane Dissolved Methane      456  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 6/11
7782‐44‐7 Dissolved Oxygen  NE NE NE 356  
298‐04‐4 Disulfoton Phosphorodithioic acid,O,O‐diethyl S‐[2‐ 0.3 ‐‐ 10 104  
3648‐20‐2 Diundecyl phthalate Santicizer 711 100 NE NE 442  
959‐98‐8 Endosulfan I 6,9‐Methano‐2,4,3‐benzodiox‐40 NE 0.1 105  
33213‐65‐9 Endosulfan II 6,9‐Methano‐2,4,3‐‐‐ 42 0.1 106  
1031‐07‐8 Endosulfan sulfate 6,9‐Methano‐2,4,3‐NE 40 0.1 107  
145‐73‐3 Endothall    100   474  
72‐20‐8 Endrin 2,7:3,6‐Dimethanonaphth[2,3‐b]oxirene, 2 ‐‐ 0.1 108  
7421‐93‐4 Endrin aldehyde 1,2,4‐Methenocyclo‐penta[cd]pentalene‐ 2 ‐‐ 0.1 109  
106‐89‐8 Epichlorohydrin  4 NE NE 443  
74‐84‐0 Ethane‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 331  
64‐17‐5 Ethanol Ethyl alcohol, Ethyl hydrate,NE 4000 NE 499  
74‐85‐1 Ethene‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 332  
141‐78‐6 Ethyl acetate  3000 NE NE 444  
97‐63‐2 Ethyl methacrylate 2‐Propenoic acid, 2‐methyl‐, ethyl NE NE 10 112  
62‐50‐0 Ethyl methanesulfonate Methanesulfonic acid,ethyl ester NE NE 20 113  
637‐92‐3 Ethyl tert‐butyl ether ETBE, Ethyl tertiary butyl ether NE 47 NE 500  
100‐41‐4 Ethylbenzene Benzene, ethyl‐600 ‐‐ 1 110 I
107‐21‐1 ethylene glycol ethylene glycol 10000 ‐‐ 10,000 424  
52‐85‐7 Famphur Phosphorothioic acid, O‐[4‐NE NE 20 114  
SW334 Ferrous Iron‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 334  
206‐44‐0 Fluoranthene Fluoranthene 300 ‐‐ 10 115  
86‐73‐7 Fluorene 9H‐Fluorene 300 ‐‐ 10 116  
16984‐48‐8 Fluoride  2000 ‐‐ 2000 312  
SW313 Foaming Agents  500 ‐‐ NE 313  
50‐00‐0 Formaldehyde  600 NE NE 445  
59‐89‐9 gamma‐BHC (Lindane)gamma‐BHC (Lindane)     457  
58‐89‐9 gamma‐BHC; Lindane Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐ 0.03 ‐‐ 0.05 27  
SW314 Gross Alpha  15 NE NE 314  
SW427 Groundwater Elevation (feet)GW Elevation (feet)NE NE NE 427  
SW319 Head (ft mean sea level) NE NE NE 319  
76‐44‐8 Heptachlor 4,7‐Methano‐1H‐indene,1,4,5,6,7,8,8‐ 0.008 ‐‐ 0.05 117  
1024‐57‐3 Heptachlor epoxide 2,5‐Methano‐2H‐indeno[1,2‐0.004 ‐‐ 0.075 118  
142‐82‐5 Heptane Heptane 400 ‐‐ NE 432  
118‐74‐1 Hexachlorobenzene Benzene, hexachloro‐0.02 ‐‐ 10 119  
87‐68‐3 Hexachlorobutadiene 1,3‐Butadiene,1,1,2,3,4,4‐hexachloro‐ 0.4 0.44 10 120  
608‐73‐1 Hexachlorocyclohexane isomers  0.02 NE NE 446  
77‐47‐4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1,3‐Cyclopentadiene,1,2,3,4,5,5‐NE 50 10 121  
67‐72‐1 Hexachloroethane Ethane, hexachloro‐NE 2.5 10 122  
70‐30‐4 Hexachlorophene  NE NE NE 387  
1888‐71‐7 Hexachloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3‐hexachloro‐ NE NE 10 123  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 7/11
142‐62‐1 Hexanoic Acid  NE NE NE 485  
133‐74‐0 Hydrogen Gas Dissolved Hydrogen Gas NE NE NE 420  
SW338 Hydrogen Sulfide  NE NE NE 338  
646‐07‐1 i‐Hexonic Acid  NE NE NE 486  
193‐39‐5 Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene Indeno[1,2,3‐cd]pyrene 0.05 ‐‐ 10 125  
503‐74‐2 i‐Pentanoic Acid  NE NE NE 488  
7439‐89‐6 Iron  300 ‐‐ 300 340  
78‐83‐1 Isobutyl alcohol 1‐Propanol, 2‐methyl‐NE NE 100 126  
465‐73‐6 Isodrin 1,4,5,8‐Dimethanonaphthalene,1,2,3,4,1 NE NE 20 127  
78‐59‐1 Isophorone 2‐Cyclohexen‐1‐one,3,5,5‐trimethyl‐ 40 ‐‐ 10 128  
108‐20‐3 Isopropyl ether  70 ‐‐ NE 366  
98‐82‐8 Isopropylbenzene  70 ‐‐ NE 367  
120‐58‐1 Isosafrole 1,3‐Benzodioxole, 5‐(1‐propenyl)‐ NE NE 10 129  
143‐50‐0 Kepone 1,3,4‐Metheno‐2H‐cyclobuta‐NE NE 20 130  
SW415 Lactic Acid Lactic Acid NE NE NE 415  
SW329 Landfill Gas LFG NE NE NE 329  
7439‐92‐1 Lead Lead 15 ‐‐ 10 131 I
SW374 m‐&p‐Cresol (combined) NE NE NE 374  
SW359 m‐&p‐Xylene (combined) NE NE NE 359  
7439‐95‐4 Magnesium  NE NE NE 376  
7439‐96‐5 Manganese  50 ‐‐ 50 342  
SW335 Manganese‐ Dissolved  50 ‐‐ 50 335  
94‐74‐6 MCPA  NE NE NE 351  
108‐39‐4 m‐Cresol; 3‐Methylphenol Phenol, 3‐methyl‐400 ‐‐ 10 345  
541‐73‐1 m‐Dichlorobenzene; 1,3‐Benzene, 1,3‐dichloro‐200 ‐‐ 5 70  
99‐65‐0 m‐Dinitrobenzene Benzene, 1,3‐dinitro‐NE NE 20 97  
93‐65‐2 Mecopop, MCPP  NE NE NE 354  
7439‐97‐6 Mercury Mercury 1 ‐‐ 0.2 132  
126‐98‐7 Methacrylonitrile 2‐Propenenitrile, 2‐methyl‐NE NE 100 133  
SW333 Methane‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 333  
67‐56‐1 Methanol  4000 NE NE 448  
91‐80‐5 Methapyrilene 1,2,Ethanediamine, N,N‐dimethyl‐N'‐2‐ NE NE 100 134  
72‐43‐5 Methoxychlor Benzene, 1,1'‐40 ‐‐ 1 135  
72‐43‐5 Methoxychlor  40 NE NE 449  
74‐83‐9 Methyl bromide; Bromomethane Methane, bromo‐NE 10 10 136 I
74‐87‐3 Methyl chloride; Chloromethane Methane, chloro‐3 ‐‐ 1 137 I
78‐93‐3 Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2‐2‐Butanone 4000 ‐‐ 100 141 I
74‐88‐4 Methyl iodide; Iodomethane Methane, iodo‐NE NE 10 142 I
108‐10‐1 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone    100   493  
80‐62‐6 Methyl methacrylate 2‐Propenoic acid, 2‐methyl‐, methyl NE 25 30 143  
66‐27‐3 Methyl methanesulfonate Methanesulfonic acid,methyl ester NE NE 10 144  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 8/11
298‐00‐0 Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl Phosphorothioic acid,O,O‐dimethyl NE NE 10 146  
2037‐26‐5 Methylbenzene  NE NE NE 461  
74‐95‐3 Methylene bromide;Methane, dibromo‐NE 70 10 139 I
75‐09‐2 Methylene chloride;Methane, dichloro‐5 ‐‐ 1 140 I
1634‐04‐4 Methyl‐tert‐butyl ether (MTBE) 20 ‐‐ NE 369  
99‐09‐2 m‐Nitroaniline; 3‐Nitroaniline Benzenamine, 3‐nitro‐NE NE 50 153  
7439‐98‐7 Molybdenum  NE NE NE 397  
108‐38‐3 m‐Xylene  NE NE NE 409  
91‐20‐3 Naphthalene Naphthalene 6 ‐‐ 10 148  
104‐51‐8 n‐Butylbenzene  70 ‐‐ NE 361  
110‐54‐3 n‐Hexane  400 NE NE 447  
7440‐02‐0 Nickel Nickel 100 ‐‐ 50 152 I
14797‐55‐8 Nitrate (as N) 10000 ‐‐ 10000 303  
14797‐65‐0 Nitrite (as N) 1000 ‐‐ 1000 304  
98‐95‐3 Nitrobenzene Benzene, nitro‐NE NE 10 156  
7727‐37‐9 Nitrogen  NE NE NE 467  
55‐18‐5 N‐Nitrosodiethylamine Ethanamine, N‐ethyl‐N‐nitroso‐NE NE 20 160  
62‐75‐9 N‐Nitrosodimethylamine Methanamine, N‐methyl‐N‐nitroso‐ 0.0007 ‐‐ 10 161  
924‐16‐3 N‐Nitrosodi‐n‐butylamine 1‐Butanamine, N‐butyl‐N‐nitroso‐ NE NE 10 162  
86‐30‐6 N‐Nitrosodiphenylamine Benzenamine, N‐nitroso‐N‐phenyl‐ NE NE 10 163  
SW426 N‐N‐NE NE 10 426  
SW439 N‐ NE NE NE 439  
621‐64‐7 N‐Nitrosodipropylamine; N‐Nitroso‐N‐ 1‐Propanamine, N‐nitroso‐N‐propyl‐ NE NE 10 164  
10595‐95‐6 N‐Nitrosomethylethalamine Ethanamine, N‐methyl‐N‐nitroso‐ NE NE 10 165  
59‐89‐2 N‐Nitrosomorpholine  NE NE NE 389  
100‐75‐4 N‐Nitrosopiperidine Piperidine, 1‐nitroso‐NE NE 20 166  
930‐55‐2 N‐Nitrosopyrrolidine Pyrrolidine, 1‐nitroso‐NE NE 10 167  
SW419 No2/No3 (nitrate & nitrite reported NOX NE NE NE 419  
103‐65‐1 n‐Propylbenzene  70 NE NE 370  
126‐68‐1 O,O,O‐Triethyl phosphorothioate Phosphorothioic acid,O,O,O‐triethyl NE NE 10 207  
297‐97‐2 O,O‐Diethyl O‐2‐pyrazinyl Phosphorothioic acid,O,O‐diethyl O‐ NE NE 20 89  
136777‐61‐2 o,p‐Xylene  NE NE NE 460  
95‐49‐8 o‐Chlorotoluene 2‐chlorotoluene 100 NE NE 364  
95‐48‐7 o‐Cresol; 2‐Methylphenol Phenol, 2‐methyl‐NE 400 10 56  
95‐50‐1 o‐Dichlorobenzene; 1,2‐Benzene, 1,2‐dichloro‐20 ‐‐ 5 69 I
88‐74‐4 o‐Nitroaniline; 2‐Nitroaniline Benzenamine, 2‐nitro‐NE NE 50 154  
88‐75‐5 o‐Nitrophenol; 2‐Nitrophenol Phenol, 2‐nitro‐NE NE 10 158  
SW437 Orthophosphate Phosphorus  NE NE NE 437  
95‐53‐4 o‐Toluidine Benzenamine, 2‐methyl‐NE NE 10 197  
23135‐22‐0 Oxamyl  200 NE NE 450  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 9/11
SW336 Oxygen Reduction Potential (mV)ORP NE NE NE 336  
96‐47‐6 o‐Xylene  NE NE NE 408  
60‐11‐7 p‐(Dimethylamino)azobenzene Benzenamine, N,N‐dimethyl‐4‐NE NE 10 92  
56‐38‐2 Parathion Phosphorothioic acid,O,O‐diethyl‐O‐(4‐ NE NE 10 169  
106‐47‐8 p‐Chloroaniline Benzenamine, 4‐chloro‐NE NE 20 38  
59‐50‐7 p‐Chloro‐m‐cresol; 4‐Chloro‐3‐Phenol, 4‐chloro‐3‐methyl‐NE NE 20 45  
106‐43‐4 p‐Chlorotoluene  NE 24 NE 365  
106‐44‐5 p‐Cresol; 4‐Methylphenol Phenol, 4‐methyl‐40 NE‐‐ 10 344  
99‐87‐6 p‐Cymene  NE 25 NE 368  
106‐46‐7 p‐Dichlorobenzene; 1,4‐Benzene, 1,4‐dichloro‐6 ‐‐ 1 71 I
608‐93‐5 Pentachlorobenzene Benzene, pentachloro‐NE NE 10 171  
76‐01‐7 Pentachloroethane  NE NE NE 380  
82‐68‐8 Pentachloronitrobenzene Benzene,pentachloronitro‐NE NE 20 172  
87‐86‐5 Pentachlorophenol Phenol, pentachloro‐0.3 ‐‐ 25 173  
109‐52‐4 Pentanoic Acid  NE NE NE 487  
7790‐98‐9 Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts    2   494  
335‐67‐1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA, C8   2   484  
SW307 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class  10000 ‐‐ NE 307  
SW305 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class  400 ‐‐ NE 305  
SW306 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class  700 ‐‐ NE 306  
SW308 petroleum aromatics carbon fraction  200 ‐‐ NE 308  
SW320 pH (field) NE NE NE 320  
SW321 pH (lab) NE NE NE 321  
62‐44‐2 Phenacetin Acetamide, N‐(4‐ethoxyphenyl)NE NE 20 174  
85‐01‐8 Phenanthrene Phenanthrene 200 ‐‐ 10 175  
108‐95‐2 Phenol Phenol 30 ‐‐ 10 177  
298‐02‐2 Phorate Phosphorodithioic acid,O,O‐diethyl S‐ 1 ‐‐ 10 178  
96‐91‐3 Picramic Acid 2‐amino‐4,6‐dinitiphenol NE 0.7 NE 482  
100‐01‐6 p‐Nitroaniline; 4‐Nitroaniline Benzenamine, 4‐nitro‐NE NE 20 155  
100‐02‐7 p‐Nitrophenol; 4‐Nitrophenol Phenol, 4‐nitro‐NE NE 50 159  
1336‐36‐3 Polychlorinated biphenyls; PCBs 1,1'‐Biphenyl,chloro derivatives Method NE 0.09 2 434  
7440‐09‐7 Potassium  NE NE NE 377  
106‐50‐3 p‐Phenylenediamine 1,4‐Benzenediamine NE NE 10 176  
23950‐58‐5 Pronamide Benzamide, 3,5‐dichloro‐N‐(1,1‐NE NE 10 179  
SW417 Propionic Acid Propionic Acid NE NE NE 417  
107‐12‐0 Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide Propanenitrile NE NE 150 180  
57‐55‐6 Propylene Glycol  NE 140,000 NE 507  
106‐42‐3 p‐Xylene  NE NE NE 410  
129‐00‐0 Pyrene Pyrene 200 ‐‐ 10 181  

110‐86‐1 Pyridine  NE 7 NE 391  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 10/11
SW414 Pyruvic Acid Pyruvic Acid NE NE NE 414  
94‐59‐7 Safrole 1,3‐Benzodioxole, 5‐(2‐propenyl)‐ NE NE 10 182  
135‐98‐8 sec‐Butylbenzene  70 ‐‐ NE 362  
7782‐49‐2 Selenium Selenium 20 ‐‐ 10 183 I
7440‐22‐4 Silver Silver 20 ‐‐ 10 184 I
93‐72‐1 Silvex; 2,4,5‐TP Propanoic acid, 2‐(2,4,5‐50 ‐‐ 2 185  
122‐34‐9 Simazine  4 NE NE 451  
7440‐23‐5 Sodium  NE 20000 NE 322  
SW323 SpecCond (field) NE NE NE 323  
SW324 SpecCond (lab) NE NE NE 324  
7440‐24‐6 Strontium  NE NE NE 465  
100‐42‐5 Styrene Benzene, ethenyl‐70 ‐‐ 1 186 I
14808‐79‐8 Sulfate  250000 ‐‐ 250000 315  
18496‐25‐8 Sulfide Sulfide NE NE 1000 187  
3689‐24‐5 Sulfotep  NE NE NE 392  
99‐35‐4 sym‐Trinitrobenzene Benzene, 1,3,5‐trinitro‐NE NE 10 208  
SW325 Temp (oC) NE NE NE 325  
994‐05‐8 tert‐Amyl methyl ether TAME, 2‐methoxy‐2‐methylbutane NE 128 NE 504  
98‐06‐6 tert‐Butylbenzene  70 ‐‐ NE 363  
75‐65‐0 Tertiary Butyl Alcohol tert‐butanol NE 10 NE 505  
127‐18‐4 Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; Ethene, tetrachloro‐0.7 ‐‐ 1 192 I
109‐99‐9 Tetrahydrofuran  NE NE NE 458  
7440‐28‐0 Thallium Thallium NE 0.28 5.5 194 I
7440‐31‐5 Tin Tin NE 2000 100 195  
108‐88‐3 Toluene Benzene, methyl‐600 ‐‐ 1 196 I
SW328 Top Of Casing (ft mean sea level) TOC NE NE NE 328  
SW425 Total BHC  NE 0.019 NE 425  
SW311 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 500000 ‐‐ NE 311  
SW436 Total Fatty Acids Total Fatty Acids NE NE NE 436  
E‐10195 Total Organic Carbon  NE NE NE 357  
SW396 Total Organic Halides  NE NE NE 396  
7723‐14‐0 Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus NE NE NE 412  
SW343 Total Suspended Solids  NE NE NE 343  
SW411 Total Well Depth (ft)TD NE NE NE 411  
8001‐35‐2 Toxaphene Toxaphene 0.03 ‐‐ 1.5 198  
156‐60‐5 trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethylene; trans‐1,2‐ Ethene, 1,2‐dichloro‐,(E)‐100 ‐‐ 5 79 I
10061‐02‐6 trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,3‐dichloro‐, (E)‐0.4 ‐‐ 1 87 I
110‐57‐6 trans‐1,4‐Dichloro‐2‐butene 2‐Butene, 1,4‐dichloro‐, (E)‐NE NE 100 73 I
79‐01‐6 Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene Ethene, trichloro‐3 ‐‐ 1 201 I
75‐69‐4 Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC‐11 Methane,trichlorofluoro‐2000 ‐‐ 1 203 I
SW330 Turbidity  NE NE NE 330  
5/15/2015 NCDENR ­ Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 11/11
* GWP = Groundwater Protection
** SWSL = Solid Waste
Last updated: 6/13/2011 8:19:15 AM
7440‐62‐2 Vanadium Vanadium NE 0.3 25 209 I
108‐05‐4 Vinyl acetate Acetic acid, ethenylester NE 88 50 210 I
75‐01‐4 Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene Ethene, chloro‐0.03 ‐‐ 1 211 I
1330‐20‐7 Xylene (total)(o‐,m‐,and p‐, Benzene, dimethyl 500 ‐‐ 5 346 I
7440‐66‐6 Zinc Zinc 1000 ‐‐ 10 213 I
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC  27699‐1601
Headquarters (Environment and Natural Resources Building): 217 W. Jones St.
Archdale Building: 512 N. Salisbury St.
Toll Free:  (877) 623‐6748

APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORTING FORM
DENR USE ONLY: Paper Report Electronic Data - Email CD (data loaded: Yes / No ) Doc/Event #:
NC DENR
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste
Environmental Monitoring
Reporting Form
Notice: This form and any information attached to it are "Public Records" as defined in NC General Statute 132-1. As such, these documents are
available for inspection and examination by any person upon request (NC General Statute 132-6).
Instructions:
 Prepare one form for each individually monitored unit.
 Please type or print legibly.
 Attach a notification table with values that attain or exceed NC 2L groundwater standards or NC 2B surface water standards. The notification
must include a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of each value. (e.g. naturally occurring, off-site source, pre-existing
condition, etc.).
 Attach a notification table of any groundwater or surface water values that equal or exceed the reporting limits.
 Attach a notification table of any methane gas values that attain or exceed explosive gas levels. This includes any structures on or nearby the
facility (NCAC 13B .1629 (4)(a)(i).
 Send the original signed and sealed form, any tables, and Electronic Data Deliverable to: Compliance Unit, NCDENR-DWM, Solid Waste
Section, 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646.
Solid Waste Monitoring Data Submittal Information
Name of entity submitting data (laboratory, consultant, facility owner):
Contact for questions about data formatting. Include data preparer's name, telephone number and E-mail address:
Name: Phone:
E-mail:
Facility name: Facility Address: Facility Permit #
NC Landfill Rule:
(.0500 or .1600)
Actual sampling dates (e.g.,
October 20-24, 2006)
Environmental Status: (Check all that apply)
Initial/Background Monitoring Detection Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action
Type of data submitted: (Check all that apply)
Groundwater monitoring data from monitoring wells Methane gas monitoring data
Groundwater monitoring data from private water supply wells Corrective action data (specify)
Leachate monitoring data Other(specify) Surface water monitoring data
Notification attached?
No. No groundwater or surface water standards were exceeded.
Yes, a notification of values exceeding a groundwater or surface water standard is attached. It includes a list of groundwater and surface water
monitoring points, dates, analytical values, NC 2L groundwater standard, NC 2B surface water standard or NC Solid Waste GWPS and
preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of any concentration.
Yes, a notification of values exceeding an explosive methane gas limit is attached. It includes the methane monitoring points, dates, sample
values and explosive methane gas limits.
Certification
To the best of my knowledge, the information reported and statements made on this data submittal and attachments are true and correct.
Furthermore, I have attached complete notification of any sampling values meeting or exceeding groundwater standards or explosive gas
levels, and a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of concentrations exceeding groundwater standards. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for making any false statement, representation, or certification including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.


Affix NC Licensed/ Professional Geologist Seal
Revised 6/2009
Date
Facility Representative Address
NC PE Firm License Number (if applicable effective May 1, 2009

APPENDIX E LOW-FLOW GROUNDWATER PURGING AND SAMPLING GUIDANCE
1
EPA/540/S-95/504
April 1996
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
Office of
Research and
Development
LOW-FLOW (MINIMAL DRAWDOWN)
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES
by Robert W. Puls1 and Michael J. Barcelona2
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, US EPA, Washington, DC
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
Ground Water Issue
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
Ada, Oklahoma
Superfund Technology Support Center for
Ground Water
Background
The Regional Superfund Ground Water Forum is a
group of ground-water scientists, representing EPA’s
Regional Superfund Offices, organized to exchange
information related to ground-water remediation at Superfund
sites. One of the major concerns of the Forum is the
sampling of ground water to support site assessment and
remedial performance monitoring objectives. This paper is
intended to provide background information on the
development of low-flow sampling procedures and its
application under a variety of hydrogeologic settings. It is
hoped that the paper will support the production of standard
operating procedures for use by EPA Regional personnel and
other environmental professionals engaged in ground-water
sampling.
For further information contact: Robert Puls, 405-436-8543,
Subsurface Remediation and Protection Division, NRMRL,
Ada, Oklahoma.
I. Introduction
The methods and objectives of ground-water
sampling to assess water quality have evolved over time.
Initially the emphasis was on the assessment of water quality
of aquifers as sources of drinking water. Large water-bearing
units were identified and sampled in keeping with that
objective. These were highly productive aquifers that
supplied drinking water via private wells or through public
water supply systems. Gradually, with the increasing aware-
ness of subsurface pollution of these water resources, the
understanding of complex hydrogeochemical processes
which govern the fate and transport of contaminants in the
subsurface increased. This increase in understanding was
also due to advances in a number of scientific disciplines and
improvements in tools used for site characterization and
ground-water sampling. Ground-water quality investigations
where pollution was detected initially borrowed ideas,
methods, and materials for site characterization from the
water supply field and water analysis from public health
practices. This included the materials and manner in which
monitoring wells were installed and the way in which water
was brought to the surface, treated, preserved and analyzed.
The prevailing conceptual ideas included convenient generali-
zations of ground-water resources in terms of large and
relatively homogeneous hydrologic units. With time it became
apparent that conventional water supply generalizations of
homogeneity did not adequately represent field data regard-
ing pollution of these subsurface resources. The important
role of heterogeneity became increasingly clear not only in
geologic terms, but also in terms of complex physical,
1National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA
2University of Michigan
2
chemical and biological subsurface processes. With greater
appreciation of the role of heterogeneity, it became evident
that subsurface pollution was ubiquitous and encompassed
the unsaturated zone to the deep subsurface and included
unconsolidated sediments, fractured rock, and aquitards or
low-yielding or impermeable formations. Small-scale pro-
cesses and heterogeneities were shown to be important in
identifying contaminant distributions and in controlling water
and contaminant flow paths.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize all
the advances in the field of ground-water quality investiga-
tions and remediation, but two particular issues have bearing
on ground-water sampling today: aquifer heterogeneity and
colloidal transport. Aquifer heterogeneities affect contaminant
flow paths and include variations in geology, geochemistry,
hydrology and microbiology. As methods and the tools
available for subsurface investigations have become increas-
ingly sophisticated and understanding of the subsurface
environment has advanced, there is an awareness that in
most cases a primary concern for site investigations is
characterization of contaminant flow paths rather than entire
aquifers. In fact, in many cases, plume thickness can be less
than well screen lengths (e.g., 3-6 m) typically installed at
hazardous waste sites to detect and monitor plume movement
over time. Small-scale differences have increasingly been
shown to be important and there is a general trend toward
smaller diameter wells and shorter screens.
The hydrogeochemical significance of colloidal-size
particles in subsurface systems has been realized during the
past several years (Gschwend and Reynolds, 1987; McCarthy
and Zachara, 1989; Puls, 1990; Ryan and Gschwend, 1990).
This realization resulted from both field and laboratory studies
that showed faster contaminant migration over greater
distances and at higher concentrations than flow and trans-
port model predictions would suggest (Buddemeier and Hunt,
1988; Enfield and Bengtsson, 1988; Penrose et al., 1990).
Such models typically account for interaction between the
mobile aqueous and immobile solid phases, but do not allow
for a mobile, reactive solid phase. It is recognition of this third
phase as a possible means of contaminant transport that has
brought increasing attention to the manner in which samples
are collected and processed for analysis (Puls et al., 1990;
McCarthy and Degueldre, 1993; Backhus et al., 1993; U. S.
EPA, 1995). If such a phase is present in sufficient mass,
possesses high sorption reactivity, large surface area, and
remains stable in suspension, it can serve as an important
mechanism to facilitate contaminant transport in many types
of subsurface systems.
Colloids are particles that are sufficiently small so
that the surface free energy of the particle dominates the bulk
free energy. Typically, in ground water, this includes particles
with diameters between 1 and 1000 nm. The most commonly
observed mobile particles include: secondary clay minerals;
hydrous iron, aluminum, and manganese oxides; dissolved
and particulate organic materials, and viruses and bacteria.
These reactive particles have been shown to be mobile under
a variety of conditions in both field studies and laboratory
column experiments, and as such need to be included in
monitoring programs where identification of the total mobile
contaminant loading (dissolved + naturally suspended
particles) at a site is an objective. To that end, sampling
methodologies must be used which do not artificially bias
naturally suspended particle concentrations.
Currently the most common ground-water purging
and sampling methodology is to purge a well using bailers or
high speed pumps to remove 3 to 5 casing volumes followed
by sample collection. This method can cause adverse impacts
on sample quality through collection of samples with high
levels of turbidity. This results in the inclusion of otherwise
immobile artifactual particles which produce an overestima-
tion of certain analytes of interest (e.g., metals or hydrophobic
organic compounds). Numerous documented problems
associated with filtration (Danielsson, 1982; Laxen and
Chandler, 1982; Horowitz et al., 1992) make this an undesir-
able method of rectifying the turbidity problem, and include
the removal of potentially mobile (contaminant-associated)
particles during filtration, thus artificially biasing contaminant
concentrations low. Sampling-induced turbidity problems can
often be mitigated by using low-flow purging and sampling
techniques.
Current subsurface conceptual models have under-
gone considerable refinement due to the recent development
and increased use of field screening tools. So-called
hydraulic push technologies (e.g., cone penetrometer,
Geoprobe®, QED HydroPunch®) enable relatively fast
screening site characterization which can then be used to
design and install a monitoring well network. Indeed,
alternatives to conventional monitoring wells are now being
considered for some hydrogeologic settings. The ultimate
design of any monitoring system should however be based
upon adequate site characterization and be consistent with
established monitoring objectives.
If the sampling program objectives include accurate
assessment of the magnitude and extent of subsurface
contamination over time and/or accurate assessment of
subsequent remedial performance, then some information
regarding plume delineation in three-dimensional space is
necessary prior to monitoring well network design and
installation. This can be accomplished with a variety of
different tools and equipment ranging from hand-operated
augers to screening tools mentioned above and large drilling
rigs. Detailed information on ground-water flow velocity,
direction, and horizontal and vertical variability are essential
baseline data requirements. Detailed soil and geologic data
are required prior to and during the installation of sampling
points. This includes historical as well as detailed soil and
geologic logs which accumulate during the site investigation.
The use of borehole geophysical techniques is also recom-
mended. With this information (together with other site
characterization data) and a clear understanding of sampling
3
objectives, then appropriate location, screen length, well
diameter, slot size, etc. for the monitoring well network can be
decided. This is especially critical for new in situ remedial
approaches or natural attenuation assessments at hazardous
waste sites.
In general, the overall goal of any ground-water
sampling program is to collect water samples with no alter-
ation in water chemistry; analytical data thus obtained may be
used for a variety of specific monitoring programs depending
on the regulatory requirements. The sampling methodology
described in this paper assumes that the monitoring goal is to
sample monitoring wells for the presence of contaminants and
it is applicable whether mobile colloids are a concern or not
and whether the analytes of concern are metals (and metal-
loids) or organic compounds.
II. Monitoring Objectives and Design
Considerations
The following issues are important to consider prior
to the design and implementation of any ground-water
monitoring program, including those which anticipate using
low-flow purging and sampling procedures.
A. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
Monitoring objectives include four main types:
detection, assessment, corrective-action evaluation and
resource evaluation, along with hybrid variations such as site-
assessments for property transfers and water availability
investigations. Monitoring objectives may change as contami-
nation or water quality problems are discovered. However,
there are a number of common components of monitoring
programs which should be recognized as important regard-
less of initial objectives. These components include:
1) Development of a conceptual model that incorporates
elements of the regional geology to the local geologic
framework. The conceptual model development also
includes initial site characterization efforts to identify
hydrostratigraphic units and likely flow-paths using a
minimum number of borings and well completions;
2) Cost-effective and well documented collection of high
quality data utilizing simple, accurate, and reproduc-
ible techniques; and
3) Refinement of the conceptual model based on
supplementary data collection and analysis.
These fundamental components serve many types of monitor-
ing programs and provide a basis for future efforts that evolve
in complexity and level of spatial detail as purposes and
objectives expand. High quality, reproducible data collection
is a common goal regardless of program objectives.
High quality data collection implies data of sufficient
accuracy, precision, and completeness (i.e., ratio of valid
analytical results to the minimum sample number called for by
the program design) to meet the program objectives. Accu-
racy depends on the correct choice of monitoring tools and
procedures to minimize sample and subsurface disturbance
from collection to analysis. Precision depends on the
repeatability of sampling and analytical protocols. It can be
assured or improved by replication of sample analyses
including blanks, field/lab standards and reference standards.
B. Sample Representativeness
An important goal of any monitoring program is
collection of data that is truly representative of conditions at
the site. The term representativeness applies to chemical and
hydrogeologic data collected via wells, borings, piezometers,
geophysical and soil gas measurements, lysimeters, and
temporary sampling points. It involves a recognition of the
statistical variability of individual subsurface physical proper-
ties, and contaminant or major ion concentration levels, while
explaining extreme values. Subsurface temporal and spatial
variability are facts. Good professional practice seeks to
maximize representativeness by using proven accurate and
reproducible techniques to define limits on the distribution of
measurements collected at a site. However, measures of
representativeness are dynamic and are controlled by
evolving site characterization and monitoring objectives. An
evolutionary site characterization model, as shown in Fig-
ure 1, provides a systematic approach to the goal of consis-
tent data collection.
Figure 1. Evolutionary Site Characterization Model
The model emphasizes a recognition of the causes of the
variability (e.g., use of inappropriate technology such as using
bailers to purge wells; imprecise or operator-dependent
methods) and the need to control avoidable errors.
4
1) Questions of Scale
A sampling plan designed to collect representative
samples must take into account the potential scale of
changes in site conditions through space and time as well as
the chemical associations and behavior of the parameters
that are targeted for investigation. In subsurface systems,
physical (i.e., aquifer) and chemical properties over time or
space are not statistically independent. In fact, samples
taken in close proximity (i.e., within distances of a few meters)
or within short time periods (i.e., more frequently than
monthly) are highly auto-correlated. This means that designs
employing high-sampling frequency (e.g., monthly) or dense
spatial monitoring designs run the risk of redundant data
collection and misleading inferences regarding trends in
values that aren’t statistically valid. In practice, contaminant
detection and assessment monitoring programs rarely suffer
these over-sampling concerns. In corrective-action evaluation
programs, it is also possible that too little data may be
collected over space or time. In these cases, false interpreta-
tion of the spatial extent of contamination or underestimation
of temporal concentration variability may result.
2) Target Parameters
Parameter selection in monitoring program design is
most often dictated by the regulatory status of the site.
However, background water quality constituents, purging
indicator parameters, and contaminants, all represent targets
for data collection programs. The tools and procedures used
in these programs should be equally rigorous and applicable
to all categories of data, since all may be needed to deter-
mine or support regulatory action.
C. Sampling Point Design and Construction
Detailed site characterization is central to all
decision-making purposes and the basis for this characteriza-
tion resides in identification of the geologic framework and
major hydro-stratigraphic units. Fundamental data for sample
point location include: subsurface lithology, head-differences
and background geochemical conditions. Each sampling point
has a proper use or uses which should be documented at a
level which is appropriate for the program’s data quality
objectives. Individual sampling points may not always be
able to fulfill multiple monitoring objectives (e.g., detection,
assessment, corrective action).
1) Compatibility with Monitoring Program and Data
Quality Objectives
Specifics of sampling point location and design will
be dictated by the complexity of subsurface lithology and
variability in contaminant and/or geochemical conditions. It
should be noted that, regardless of the ground-water sam-
pling approach, few sampling points (e.g., wells, drive-points,
screened augers) have zones of influence in excess of a few
feet. Therefore, the spatial frequency of sampling points
should be carefully selected and designed.
2) Flexibility of Sampling Point Design
In most cases well-point diameters in excess of 1 7/8
inches will permit the use of most types of submersible
pumping devices for low-flow (minimal drawdown) sampling.
It is suggested that short (e.g., less than 1.6 m) screens be
incorporated into the monitoring design where possible so
that comparable results from one device to another might be
expected. Short, of course, is relative to the degree of vertical
water quality variability expected at a site.
3) Equilibration of Sampling Point
Time should be allowed for equilibration of the well
or sampling point with the formation after installation. Place-
ment of well or sampling points in the subsurface produces
some disturbance of ambient conditions. Drilling techniques
(e.g., auger, rotary, etc.) are generally considered to cause
more disturbance than direct-push technologies. In either
case, there may be a period (i.e., days to months) during
which water quality near the point may be distinctly different
from that in the formation. Proper development of the sam-
pling point and adjacent formation to remove fines created
during emplacement will shorten this water quality recovery
period.
III. Definition of Low-Flow Purging and Sampling
It is generally accepted that water in the well casing
is non-representative of the formation water and needs to be
purged prior to collection of ground-water samples. However,
the water in the screened interval may indeed be representa-
tive of the formation, depending upon well construction and
site hydrogeology. Wells are purged to some extent for the
following reasons: the presence of the air interface at the top
of the water column resulting in an oxygen concentration
gradient with depth, loss of volatiles up the water column,
leaching from or sorption to the casing or filter pack, chemical
changes due to clay seals or backfill, and surface infiltration.
Low-flow purging, whether using portable or dedi-
cated systems, should be done using pump-intake located in
the middle or slightly above the middle of the screened
interval. Placement of the pump too close to the bottom of the
well will cause increased entrainment of solids which have
collected in the well over time. These particles are present as
a result of well development, prior purging and sampling
events, and natural colloidal transport and deposition.
Therefore, placement of the pump in the middle or toward the
top of the screened interval is suggested. Placement of the
pump at the top of the water column for sampling is only
recommended in unconfined aquifers, screened across the
water table, where this is the desired sampling point. Low-
5
flow purging has the advantage of minimizing mixing between
the overlying stagnant casing water and water within the
screened interval.
A. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling
Low-flow refers to the velocity with which water
enters the pump intake and that is imparted to the formation
pore water in the immediate vicinity of the well screen. It
does not necessarily refer to the flow rate of water discharged
at the surface which can be affected by flow regulators or
restrictions. Water level drawdown provides the best indica-
tion of the stress imparted by a given flow-rate for a given
hydrological situation. The objective is to pump in a manner
that minimizes stress (drawdown) to the system to the extent
practical taking into account established site sampling
objectives. Typically, flow rates on the order of 0.1 - 0.5 L/min
are used, however this is dependent on site-specific
hydrogeology. Some extremely coarse-textured formations
have been successfully sampled in this manner at flow rates
to 1 L/min. The effectiveness of using low-flow purging is
intimately linked with proper screen location, screen length,
and well construction and development techniques. The
reestablishment of natural flow paths in both the vertical and
horizontal directions is important for correct interpretation of
the data. For high resolution sampling needs, screens less
than 1 m should be used. Most of the need for purging has
been found to be due to passing the sampling device through
the overlying casing water which causes mixing of these
stagnant waters and the dynamic waters within the screened
interval. Additionally, there is disturbance to suspended
sediment collected in the bottom of the casing and the
displacement of water out into the formation immediately
adjacent to the well screen. These disturbances and impacts
can be avoided using dedicated sampling equipment, which
precludes the need to insert the sampling device prior to
purging and sampling.
Isolation of the screened interval water from the
overlying stagnant casing water may be accomplished using
low-flow minimal drawdown techniques. If the pump intake is
located within the screened interval, most of the water
pumped will be drawn in directly from the formation with little
mixing of casing water or disturbance to the sampling zone.
However, if the wells are not constructed and developed
properly, zones other than those intended may be sampled.
At some sites where geologic heterogeneities are sufficiently
different within the screened interval, higher conductivity
zones may be preferentially sampled. This is another reason
to use shorter screened intervals, especially where high
spatial resolution is a sampling objective.
B. Water Quality Indicator Parameters
It is recommended that water quality indicator
parameters be used to determine purging needs prior to
sample collection in each well. Stabilization of parameters
such as pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxida-
tion-reduction potential, temperature and turbidity should be
used to determine when formation water is accessed during
purging. In general, the order of stabilization is pH, tempera-
ture, and specific conductance, followed by oxidation-
reduction potential, dissolved oxygen and turbidity. Tempera-
ture and pH, while commonly used as purging indicators, are
actually quite insensitive in distinguishing between formation
water and stagnant casing water; nevertheless, these are
important parameters for data interpretation purposes and
should also be measured. Performance criteria for determi-
nation of stabilization should be based on water-level draw-
down, pumping rate and equipment specifications for measur-
ing indicator parameters. Instruments are available which
utilize in-line flow cells to continuously measure the above
parameters.
It is important to establish specific well stabilization
criteria and then consistently follow the same methods
thereafter, particularly with respect to drawdown, flow rate
and sampling device. Generally, the time or purge volume
required for parameter stabilization is independent of well
depth or well volumes. Dependent variables are well diam-
eter, sampling device, hydrogeochemistry, pump flow rate,
and whether the devices are used in a portable or dedicated
manner. If the sampling device is already in place (i.e.,
dedicated sampling systems), then the time and purge
volume needed for stabilization is much shorter. Other
advantages of dedicated equipment include less purge water
for waste disposal, much less decontamination of equipment,
less time spent in preparation of sampling as well as time in
the field, and more consistency in the sampling approach
which probably will translate into less variability in sampling
results. The use of dedicated equipment is strongly recom-
mended at wells which will undergo routine sampling over
time.
If parameter stabilization criteria are too stringent,
then minor oscillations in indicator parameters may cause
purging operations to become unnecessarily protracted. It
should also be noted that turbidity is a very conservative
parameter in terms of stabilization. Turbidity is always the
last parameter to stabilize. Excessive purge times are
invariably related to the establishment of too stringent turbidity
stabilization criteria. It should be noted that natural turbidity
levels in ground water may exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU).
C. Advantages and Disadvantages of Low-Flow
(Minimum Drawdown) Purging
In general, the advantages of low-flow purging
include:
• samples which are representative of the mobile load of
contaminants present (dissolved and colloid-associ-
ated);
• minimal disturbance of the sampling point thereby
minimizing sampling artifacts;
• less operator variability, greater operator control;
6
sampling, it is recommended that an in-line water quality
measurement device (e.g., flow-through cell) be used to
establish the stabilization time for several parameters (e.g. ,
pH, specific conductance, redox, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)
on a well-specific basis. Data on pumping rate, drawdown,
and volume required for parameter stabilization can be used
as a guide for conducting subsequent sampling activities.
The following are recommendations to be considered
before, during and after sampling:
• use low-flow rates (<0.5 L/min), during both purging
and sampling to maintain minimal drawdown in the
well;
• maximize tubing wall thickness, minimize tubing
length;
• place the sampling device intake at the desired
sampling point;
• minimize disturbances of the stagnant water column
above the screened interval during water level
measurement and sampling device insertion;
• make proper adjustments to stabilize the flow rate as
soon as possible;
• monitor water quality indicators during purging;
• collect unfiltered samples to estimate contaminant
loading and transport potential in the subsurface
system.
B. Equipment Calibration
Prior to sampling, all sampling device and monitoring
equipment should be calibrated according to manufacturer’s
recommendations and the site Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) and Field Sampling Plan (FSP). Calibration of pH
should be performed with at least two buffers which bracket
the expected range. Dissolved oxygen calibration must be
corrected for local barometric pressure readings and eleva-
tion.
C. Water Level Measurement and Monitoring
It is recommended that a device be used which will
least disturb the water surface in the casing. Well depth
should be obtained from the well logs. Measuring to the
bottom of the well casing will only cause resuspension of
settled solids from the formation and require longer purging
times for turbidity equilibration. Measure well depth after
sampling is completed. The water level measurement should
be taken from a permanent reference point which is surveyed
relative to ground elevation.
D. Pump Type
The use of low-flow (e.g., 0.1-0.5 L/min) pumps is
suggested for purging and sampling all types of analytes. All
pumps have some limitation and these should be investigated
with respect to application at a particular site. Bailers are
inappropriate devices for low-flow sampling.
• reduced stress on the formation (minimal drawdown);
• less mixing of stagnant casing water with formation
water;
• reduced need for filtration and, therefore, less time
required for sampling;
• smaller purging volume which decreases waste
disposal costs and sampling time;
• better sample consistency; reduced artificial sample
variability.
Some disadvantages of low-flow purging are:
• higher initial capital costs,
• greater set-up time in the field,
• need to transport additional equipment to and from the
site,
• increased training needs,
• resistance to change on the part of sampling practitio-
ners,
• concern that new data will indicate a change in
conditions and trigger an action.
IV. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Sampling
Protocols
The following ground-water sampling procedure has
evolved over many years of experience in ground-water
sampling for organic and inorganic compound determinations
and as such summarizes the authors' (and others) experi-
ences to date (Barcelona et al., 1984, 1994; Barcelona and
Helfrich, 1986; Puls and Barcelona, 1989; Puls et. al. 1990,
1992; Puls and Powell, 1992; Puls and Paul, 1995). High-
quality chemical data collection is essential in ground-water
monitoring and site characterization. The primary limitations
to the collection of representative ground-water samples
include: mixing of the stagnant casing and fresh screen
waters during insertion of the sampling device or ground-
water level measurement device; disturbance and
resuspension of settled solids at the bottom of the well when
using high pumping rates or raising and lowering a pump or
bailer; introduction of atmospheric gases or degassing from
the water during sample handling and transfer, or inappropri-
ate use of vacuum sampling device, etc.
A. Sampling Recommendations
Water samples should not be taken immediately
following well development. Sufficient time should be allowed
for the ground-water flow regime in the vicinity of the monitor-
ing well to stabilize and to approach chemical equilibrium with
the well construction materials. This lag time will depend on
site conditions and methods of installation but often exceeds
one week.
Well purging is nearly always necessary to obtain
samples of water flowing through the geologic formations in
the screened interval. Rather than using a general but
arbitrary guideline of purging three casing volumes prior to
7
1) General Considerations
There are no unusual requirements for ground-water
sampling devices when using low-flow, minimal drawdown
techniques. The major concern is that the device give
consistent results and minimal disturbance of the sample
across a range of low flow rates (i.e., < 0.5 L/min). Clearly,
pumping rates that cause minimal to no drawdown in one well
could easily cause significant drawdown in another well
finished in a less transmissive formation. In this sense, the
pump should not cause undue pressure or temperature
changes or physical disturbance on the water sample over a
reasonable sampling range. Consistency in operation is
critical to meet accuracy and precision goals.
2) Advantages and Disadvantages of Sampling Devices
A variety of sampling devices are available for low-
flow (minimal drawdown) purging and sampling and include
peristaltic pumps, bladder pumps, electrical submersible
pumps, and gas-driven pumps. Devices which lend them-
selves to both dedication and consistent operation at defin-
able low-flow rates are preferred. It is desirable that the pump
be easily adjustable and operate reliably at these lower flow
rates. The peristaltic pump is limited to shallow applications
and can cause degassing resulting in alteration of pH,
alkalinity, and some volatiles loss. Gas-driven pumps should
be of a type that does not allow the gas to be in direct contact
with the sampled fluid.
Clearly, bailers and other grab type samplers are ill-
suited for low-flow sampling since they will cause repeated
disturbance and mixing of stagnant water in the casing and
the dynamic water in the screened interval. Similarly, the use
of inertial lift foot-valve type samplers may cause too much
disturbance at the point of sampling. Use of these devices
also tends to introduce uncontrolled and unacceptable
operator variability.
Summaries of advantages and disadvantages of
various sampling devices are listed in Herzog et al. (1991),
U. S. EPA (1992), Parker (1994) and Thurnblad (1994).
E. Pump Installation
Dedicated sampling devices (left in the well) capable
of pumping and sampling are preferred over any other type of
device. Any portable sampling device should be slowly and
carefully lowered to the middle of the screened interval or
slightly above the middle (e.g., 1-1.5 m below the top of a 3 m
screen). This is to minimize excessive mixing of the stagnant
water in the casing above the screen with the screened
interval zone water, and to minimize resuspension of solids
which will have collected at the bottom of the well. These two
disturbance effects have been shown to directly affect the
time required for purging. There also appears to be a direct
correlation between size of portable sampling devices relative
to the well bore and resulting purge volumes and times. The
key is to minimize disturbance of water and solids in the well
casing.
F. Filtration
Decisions to filter samples should be dictated by
sampling objectives rather than as a fix for poor sampling
practices, and field-filtering of certain constituents should not
be the default. Consideration should be given as to what the
application of field-filtration is trying to accomplish. For
assessment of truly dissolved (as opposed to operationally
dissolved [i.e., samples filtered with 0.45 µm filters]) concen-
trations of major ions and trace metals, 0.1 µm filters are
recommended although 0.45 µm filters are normally used for
most regulatory programs. Alkalinity samples must also be
filtered if significant particulate calcium carbonate is sus-
pected, since this material is likely to impact alkalinity titration
results (although filtration itself may alter the CO2 composition
of the sample and, therefore, affect the results).
Although filtration may be appropriate, filtration of a
sample may cause a number of unintended changes to occur
(e.g. oxidation, aeration) possibly leading to filtration-induced
artifacts during sample analysis and uncertainty in the results.
Some of these unintended changes may be unavoidable but
the factors leading to them must be recognized. Deleterious
effects can be minimized by consistent application of certain
filtration guidelines. Guidelines should address selection of
filter type, media, pore size, etc. in order to identify and
minimize potential sources of uncertainty when filtering
samples.
In-line filtration is recommended because it provides
better consistency through less sample handling, and
minimizes sample exposure to the atmosphere. In-line filters
are available in both disposable (barrel filters) and non-
disposable (in-line filter holder, flat membrane filters) formats
and various filter pore sizes (0.1-5.0 µm). Disposable filter
cartridges have the advantage of greater sediment handling
capacity when compared to traditional membrane filters.
Filters must be pre-rinsed following manufacturer’s recom-
mendations. If there are no recommendations for rinsing,
pass through a minimum of 1 L of ground water following
purging and prior to sampling. Once filtration has begun, a
filter cake may develop as particles larger than the pore size
accumulate on the filter membrane. The result is that the
effective pore diameter of the membrane is reduced and
particles smaller than the stated pore size are excluded from
the filtrate. Possible corrective measures include prefiltering
(with larger pore size filters), minimizing particle loads to
begin with, and reducing sample volume.
G. Monitoring of Water Level and Water Quality
Indicator Parameters
Check water level periodically to monitor drawdown
in the well as a guide to flow rate adjustment. The goal is
minimal drawdown (<0.1 m) during purging. This goal may be
difficult to achieve under some circumstances due to geologic
heterogeneities within the screened interval, and may require
adjustment based on site-specific conditions and personal
experience. In-line water quality indicator parameters should
be continuously monitored during purging. The water quality
8
introducing field contaminants into a sample bottle while
adding the preservatives.
The preservatives should be transferred from the
chemical bottle to the sample container using a disposable
polyethylene pipet and the disposable pipet should be used
only once and then discarded.
After a sample container has been filled with ground
water, a Teflon™ (or tin)-lined cap is screwed on tightly to
prevent the container from leaking. A sample label is filled
out as specified in the FSP. The samples should be stored
inverted at 4oC.
Specific decontamination protocols for sampling
devices are dependent to some extent on the type of device
used and the type of contaminants encountered. Refer to the
site QAPP and FSP for specific requirements.
I. Blanks
The following blanks should be collected:
(1) field blank: one field blank should be collected from
each source water (distilled/deionized water) used for
sampling equipment decontamination or for assisting
well development procedures.
(2) equipment blank: one equipment blank should be
taken prior to the commencement of field work, from
each set of sampling equipment to be used for that
day. Refer to site QAPP or FSP for specific require-
ments.
(3) trip blank: a trip blank is required to accompany each
volatile sample shipment. These blanks are prepared
in the laboratory by filling a 40-mL volatile organic
analysis (VOA) bottle with distilled/deionized water.
V. Low-Permeability Formations and Fractured
Rock
The overall sampling program goals or sampling
objectives will drive how the sampling points are located,
installed, and choice of sampling device. Likewise, site-
specific hydrogeologic factors will affect these decisions.
Sites with very low permeability formations or fractures
causing discrete flow channels may require a unique monitor-
ing approach. Unlike water supply wells, wells installed for
ground-water quality assessment and restoration programs
are often installed in low water-yielding settings (e.g., clays,
silts). Alternative types of sampling points and sampling
methods are often needed in these types of environments,
because low-permeability settings may require extremely low-
flow purging (<0.1 L/min) and may be technology-limited.
Where devices are not readily available to pump at such low
flow rates, the primary consideration is to avoid dewatering of
indicator parameters monitored can include pH, redox
potential, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and turbidity.
The last three parameters are often most sensitive. Pumping
rate, drawdown, and the time or volume required to obtain
stabilization of parameter readings can be used as a future
guide to purge the well. Measurements should be taken
every three to five minutes if the above suggested rates are
used. Stabilization is achieved after all parameters have
stabilized for three successive readings. In lieu of measuring
all five parameters, a minimum subset would include pH,
conductivity, and turbidity or DO. Three successive readings
should be within ± 0.1 for pH, ± 3% for conductivity, ± 10 mv
for redox potential, and ± 10% for turbidity and DO. Stabilized
purge indicator parameter trends are generally obvious and
follow either an exponential or asymptotic change to stable
values during purging. Dissolved oxygen and turbidity usually
require the longest time for stabilization. The above stabiliza-
tion guidelines are provided for rough estimates based on
experience.
H. Sampling, Sample Containers, Preservation and
Decontamination
Upon parameter stabilization, sampling can be
initiated. If an in-line device is used to monitor water quality
parameters, it should be disconnected or bypassed during
sample collection. Sampling flow rate may remain at estab-
lished purge rate or may be adjusted slightly to minimize
aeration, bubble formation, turbulent filling of sample bottles,
or loss of volatiles due to extended residence time in tubing.
Typically, flow rates less than 0.5 L/min are appropriate. The
same device should be used for sampling as was used for
purging. Sampling should occur in a progression from least to
most contaminated well, if this is known. Generally, volatile
(e.g., solvents and fuel constituents) and gas sensitive (e.g.,
Fe2+, CH4, H2S/HS-, alkalinity) parameters should be sampled
first. The sequence in which samples for most inorganic
parameters are collected is immaterial unless filtered (dis-
solved) samples are desired. Filtering should be done last
and in-line filters should be used as discussed above. During
both well purging and sampling, proper protective clothing
and equipment must be used based upon the type and level
of contaminants present.
The appropriate sample container will be prepared in
advance of actual sample collection for the analytes of
interest and include sample preservative where necessary.
Water samples should be collected directly into this container
from the pump tubing.
Immediately after a sample bottle has been filled, it
must be preserved as specified in the site (QAPP). Sample
preservation requirements are based on the analyses being
performed (use site QAPP, FSP, RCRA guidance document
[U. S. EPA, 1992] or EPA SW-846 [U. S. EPA, 1982] ). It
may be advisable to add preservatives to sample bottles in a
controlled setting prior to entering the field in order to reduce
the chances of improperly preserving sample bottles or
9
the well screen. This may require repeated recovery of the
water during purging while leaving the pump in place within
the well screen.
Use of low-flow techniques may be impractical in
these settings, depending upon the water recharge rates.
The sampler and the end-user of data collected from such
wells need to understand the limitations of the data collected;
i.e., a strong potential for underestimation of actual contami-
nant concentrations for volatile organics, potential false
negatives for filtered metals and potential false positives for
unfiltered metals. It is suggested that comparisons be made
between samples recovered using low-flow purging tech-
niques and samples recovered using passive sampling
techniques (i.e., two sets of samples). Passive sample
collection would essentially entail acquisition of the sample
with no or very little purging using a dedicated sampling
system installed within the screened interval or a passive
sample collection device.
A. Low-Permeability Formations (<0.1 L/min
recharge)
1. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling with Pumps
a. “portable or non-dedicated mode” - Lower the pump
(one capable of pumping at <0.1 L/min) to mid-screen
or slightly above and set in place for minimum of 48
hours (to lessen purge volume requirements). After 48
hours, use procedures listed in Part IV above regard-
ing monitoring water quality parameters for stabiliza-
tion, etc., but do not dewater the screen. If excessive
drawdown and slow recovery is a problem, then
alternate approaches such as those listed below may
be better.
b. “dedicated mode” - Set the pump as above at least a
week prior to sampling; that is, operate in a dedicated
pump mode. With this approach significant reductions
in purge volume should be realized. Water quality
parameters should stabilize quite rapidly due to less
disturbance of the sampling zone.
2. Passive Sample Collection
Passive sampling collection requires insertion of the
device into the screened interval for a sufficient time period to
allow flow and sample equilibration before extraction for
analysis. Conceptually, the extraction of water from low
yielding formations seems more akin to the collection of water
from the unsaturated zone and passive sampling techniques
may be more appropriate in terms of obtaining “representa-
tive” samples. Satisfying usual sample volume requirements
is typically a problem with this approach and some latitude will
be needed on the part of regulatory entities to achieve
sampling objectives.
B. Fractured Rock
In fractured rock formations, a low-flow to zero
purging approach using pumps in conjunction with packers to
isolate the sampling zone in the borehole is suggested.
Passive multi-layer sampling devices may also provide the
most “representative” samples. It is imperative in these
settings to identify flow paths or water-producing fractures
prior to sampling using tools such as borehole flowmeters
and/or other geophysical tools.
After identification of water-bearing fractures, install
packer(s) and pump assembly for sample collection using
low-flow sampling in “dedicated mode” or use a passive
sampling device which can isolate the identified water-bearing
fractures.
VI. Documentation
The usual practices for documenting the sampling
event should be used for low-flow purging and sampling
techniques. This should include, at a minimum: information
on the conduct of purging operations (flow-rate, drawdown,
water-quality parameter values, volumes extracted and times
for measurements), field instrument calibration data, water
sampling forms and chain of custody forms. See Figures 2
and 3 and “Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A Workshop
Summary” (U. S. EPA, 1995) for example forms and other
documentation suggestions and information. This information
coupled with laboratory analytical data and validation data are
needed to judge the “useability” of the sampling data.
VII. Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office
of Research and Development funded and managed the
research described herein as part of its in-house research
program and under Contract No. 68-C4-0031 to Dynamac
Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review and has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
VIII. References
Backhus, D,A., J.N. Ryan, D.M. Groher, J.K. McFarlane, and
P.M. Gschwend. 1993. Sampling Colloids and Colloid-
Associated Contaminants in Ground Water. Ground Water,
31(3):466-479.
Barcelona, M.J., J.A. Helfrich, E.E. Garske, and J.P. Gibb.
1984. A laboratory evaluation of groundwater sampling
mechanisms. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 4(2):32-41.
10
Barcelona, M.J. and J.A. Helfrich. 1986. Well construction and
purging effects on ground-water samples. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 20(11):1179-1184.
Barcelona, M.J., H.A. Wehrmann, and M.D. Varljen. 1994.
Reproducible well purging procedures and VOC stabilization
criteria for ground-water sampling. Ground Water, 32(1):12-
22.
Buddemeier, R.W. and J.R. Hunt. 1988. Transport of Colloidal
Contaminants in Ground Water: Radionuclide Migration at the
Nevada Test Site. Applied Geochemistry, 3: 535-548.
Danielsson, L.G. 1982. On the Use of Filters for Distinguish-
ing Between Dissolved and Particulate Fractions in Natural
Waters. Water Research, 16:179.
Enfield, C.G. and G. Bengtsson. 1988. Macromolecular
Transport of Hydrophobic Contaminants in Aqueous Environ-
ments. Ground Water, 26(1): 64-70.
Gschwend, P.M. and M.D. Reynolds. 1987. Monodisperse
Ferrous Phosphate Colloids in an Anoxic Groundwater
Plume, J. of Contaminant Hydrol., 1: 309-327.
Herzog, B., J. Pennino, and G. Nielsen. 1991. Ground-Water
Sampling. In Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Moni-
toring (D.M. Nielsen, ed.). Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 449-
499.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The effect
of membrane filtration artifacts on dissolved trace element
concentrations. Water Res., 26(6):753-763.
Laxen, D.P.H. and I.M. Chandler. 1982. Comparison of
Filtration Techniques for Size Distribution in Freshwaters.
Analytical Chemistry, 54(8):1350.
McCarthy, J.F. and J.M. Zachara. 1989. Subsurface Transport
of Contaminants, Environ. Sci. Technol., 5(23):496-502.
McCarthy, J.F. and C. Degueldre. 1993. Sampling and
Characterization of Colloids and Ground Water for Studying
Their Role in Contaminant Transport. In: Environmental
Particles (J. Buffle and H.P. van Leeuwen, eds.), Lewis Publ.,
Chelsea, MI, pp. 247-315.
Parker, L.V. 1994. The Effects of Ground Water Sampling
Devices on Water Quality: A Literature Review. Ground
Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(2):130-141.
Penrose, W.R., W.L. Polzer, E.H. Essington, D.M. Nelson,
and K.A. Orlandini. 1990. Mobility of Plutonium and Ameri-
cium through a Shallow Aquifer in a Semiarid Region,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 24:228-234.
Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Filtration of Ground
Water Samples for Metals Analyses. Hazardous Waste and
Hazardous Materials, 6(4):385-393.
Puls, R.W., J.H. Eychaner, and R.M. Powell. 1990. Colloidal-
Facilitated Transport of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground
Water: Part I. Sampling Considerations. EPA/600/M-90/023,
NTIS PB 91-168419.
Puls, R.W. 1990. Colloidal Considerations in Groundwater
Sampling and Contaminant Transport Predictions. Nuclear
Safety, 31(1):58-65.
Puls, R.W. and R.M. Powell. 1992. Acquisition of Representa-
tive Ground Water Quality Samples for Metals. Ground Water
Monitoring Review, 12(3):167-176.
Puls, R.W., D.A. Clark, B.Bledsoe, R.M. Powell, and C.J.
Paul. 1992. Metals in Ground Water: Sampling Artifacts and
Reproducibility. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials,
9(2): 149-162.
Puls, R.W. and C.J. Paul. 1995. Low-Flow Purging and
Sampling of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells with Dedicated
Systems. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation,
15(1):116-123.
Ryan, J.N. and P.M. Gschwend. 1990. Colloid Mobilization in
Two Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifers. Water Resour. Res., 26:
307-322.
Thurnblad, T. 1994. Ground Water Sampling Guidance:
Development of Sampling Plans, Sampling Protocols, and
Sampling Reports. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
U. S. EPA. 1992. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft
Technical Guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC
EPA/530/R-93/001, NTIS PB 93-139350.
U. S. EPA. 1995. Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A
Workshop Summary, Dallas, TX, November 30 - December 2,
1993. EPA/600/R-94/205, NTIS PB 95-193249, 126 pp.
U. S. EPA. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
11
Figure 2. Ground Water Sampling Log
Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date _________________________
Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ____________
Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level __________________
Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel __________________________________________________________________________
Type of Samples Collected
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = Br2h, Volsphere = 4/3B r3
Time pH Temp Cond.Dis.O Turb.[ ]Conc Notes2
12
Figure 3.Ground Water Sampling Log (with automatic data logging for most water quality
parameters)
Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date ________________________
Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ___________
Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level _________________
Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel _________________________________________________________________________
Type of Samples Collected
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = Br2h, Volsphere = 4/3B r3
Time Pump Rate Turbidity Alkalinity [ ] Conc Notes