3404_TownKernersville_CAER_DIN27097_20161017

PREPARED FOR:
TOWN OF KERNERSVILLE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 728
KERNERSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27285-0728

TOWN OF KERNERSVILLE LANDFILL
PERMIT NO. 34-04

CORRECTIVE ACTION EVALUATION REPORT

OCTOBER 2016

PREPARED BY:

2211 WEST MEADOWVIEW ROAD, SUITE 101
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27407
NC LICENSE NUMBER C-0782
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
JOYCE PROJECT NO. 838.1601.12

CORRECTIVE ACTION EVALUATION REPORT
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of the Town of Kernersville, North Carolina, Joyce Engineering (JOYCE) prepared
this Corrective Action Evaluation Report (CAER) for the Town of Kernersville Landfill. The
Kernersville Landfill is regulated under §.0500 of the NCSWMR. This CAER has been
prepared in accordance with the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules (NCSWMR) in
response to the Groundwater Protection Standard (GPS) exceedances of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in groundwater monitoring wells at the facility.

In November 2012, the Town received notification from then North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), now the Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ), that the Town needed to submit a Phased Groundwater Assessment Plan and
complete groundwater assessment. A Groundwater Assessment Plan was submitted in January
2013 and a Groundwater Assessment Report was submitted in May 2013. In a letter dated July
16, 2013, the NCDEQ called for the Town to select a remedy and submit a Corrective Action
Application. In July 2014, the Town submitted the Corrective Action Application, selecting
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) plus Phytoremediation as the remedy. The remedy was
approved by DEQ in a letter dated July 23, 2014. The Town submitted a Corrective Action Plan
(CAP) in October 2014 and NCDEQ approved the CAP in a letter dated November 4, 2014.

The constituents of concern (COCs) for the facility include the following VOCs: benzene, 1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,2-dichlorethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-DCP),
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. This CAER presents plume maps,
cross section, and trend charts for each of the COCs. There is no evidence that the plume is
expanding horizontally or vertically, and constituent concentrations are generally decreasing.
This CAER recommends that cis-1,2-dichloroethylene be removed from the COC list since it has
not been detected in exceedance of its GPS since November 2012.

In accordance with the CAP, MNA baseline sampling was initiated with the November 2014
sampling event; therefore, the June 2016 sampling event was the fourth baseline sampling event
for MNA. The MNA baseline data are presented in this CAER, and recommendation are made
for eliminating or reducing the frequency for several of the MNA parameters.

Tree surveys to evaluate phytoremediation at the facility were conducted in June 2015 and April
2016, and they determined that the existing flora was healthy and sufficient to sustain
phytoremediation. This CAER concludes that the current remedy is sufficient for remediating
the groundwater at the Kernersville Landfill facility and recommends no changes to the CAP or
the active remedy.

CORRECTIVE ACTION EVALUATION REPORT
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i 
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 
1.1 Site Background .............................................................................................................. 1 
1.2 Aquifer Characteristics ................................................................................................... 2 
1.2.1 Groundwater Flow .................................................................................................. 3 
1.2.2 Vertical Gradient ..................................................................................................... 3 
1.3 Contaminant Distribution................................................................................................ 4 
1.4 Site Conceptual Model .................................................................................................... 6 
1.4.1 Site Geology............................................................................................................ 6 
1.4.2 Site Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 6 
1.5 Regulatory Status ............................................................................................................ 7 
2.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION SUMMARY .............................................................................. 7 
2.1 Physical and Chemical Changes in Aquifer Conditions ................................................. 7 
2.2 Physical and Chemical Changes in Plume Characteristics ............................................. 8 
2.3 Refining the Site Conceptual Model ............................................................................... 8 
2.4 Evaluation of the Impact of Corrective Actions ............................................................. 9 
2.4.1 Contaminant Levels ................................................................................................ 9 
2.4.2 Evaluation of MNA Parameters .............................................................................. 9 
2.4.3 MNA Matrix Evaluation ....................................................................................... 14 
2.4.4 Evaluation of Phytoremediation ........................................................................... 14 
2.4.5 Impacts on Hydraulic Gradients ........................................................................... 16 
2.4.6 Contaminant Removal Efficiencies and Mass of Contaminants Removed .......... 17 
2.5  Migration of the Contaminant Plume ........................................................................... 17 
2.5.1 Status of Impacts at the Compliance Boundary .................................................... 17 
2.5.2 Off-Site Migration Concerns ................................................................................ 18 
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 18 
3.1 Changes to the COC List .............................................................................................. 18 
3.2 Assessment of MNA Indicator Parameters ................................................................... 18 
3.3 Modifications Needed to Selected Remedy .................................................................. 19 
3.4 Contingency Plan .......................................................................................................... 20 
3.5 Land Use Restrictions ................................................................................................... 20 
4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 20 
5.0 ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 22 

CORRECTIVE ACTION EVALUATION REPORT
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
iii

TABLES
Table 1 Monitoring Well Construction Data
Table 2 Historical Groundwater Elevations
Table 3 Estimated Hydraulic Gradient and Groundwater Flow Velocity
Table 4 Exceedances of Groundwater Standards for Organic Constituents
Table 5 Exceedances of Groundwater Standards for Inorganic Constituents
Table 6 Recent and Historical MNA Parameters
Table 7 MNA Biodegradation Screening Matrix

CHARTS
Chart 1 Benzene Concentration vs. Time
Chart 2 1,1-Dichloroethane Concentration vs. Time
Chart 3 1,2-Dichloroethane Concentration vs. Time
Chart 4 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Concentrations vs. Time
Chart 5 1,2-Dichloropropane Concentrations vs. Time
Chart 6 Tetrachloroethene Concentrations vs. Time
Chart 7 Trichloroethene Concentrations vs. Time
Chart 8 Vinyl Chloride Concentrations vs. Time
Chart 9 Total VOC Concentrations vs. Time

FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Geologic Map

DRAWINGS
Drawing 1 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Map (June 2016)
Drawing 2 Benzene Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 3 1,1-Dichloroethane Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 4 1,2-Dichloroethane Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 5 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 6 1,2-Dichloropropane Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 7 Tetrachloroethene Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 8 Trichloroethene Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 9 Vinyl Chloride Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 10 Total VOCs Isoconcentration Map (June 2016)
Drawing 11 Total VOCs Cross-Section (June 2016)
Drawing 12 Tree Survey (June 2015)
Drawing 13 Tree Survey (April 2016)
CORRECTIVE ACTION EVALUATION REPORT
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
iv

APPENDICES
Appendix A Historical Detected Groundwater Constituents
Appendix B Historical Detected Surface Water Constituents
Appendix C BIOCHLOR Modeling Input & Output

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the Town of Kernersville, Joyce Engineering (JOYCE) prepared this Corrective
Action Evaluation Report (CAER) for the Town of Kernersville Landfill (facility). This CAER
has been prepared in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B.1636 of the North Carolina Solid Waste
Management Rules (NCSWMR) and in response to the Groundwater Protection Standard (GPS)
exceedances of several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater monitoring wells at
the facility.
1.1 Site Background
The Town of Kernersville Landfill is a closed, unlined municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill
located on approximately 58.2 acres in Forsyth and Guilford Counties, NC, approximately 10
miles north of the City of Kernersville. The waste disposal area comprises approximately 13.8
acres. The property boundary is indicated on an excerpt from the 7.5 minutes USGS topographic
map for Belews Creek, North Carolina (Figure 1). The facility was issued a Permit to Operate
on May 15, 1985, and a letter of closure was issued on December 10, 1991.

The area surrounding the landfill is zoned residential/agricultural and contains open fields and
woodlands. The landfill is separated to the North from the Waste Management Piedmont
Landfill and Recycling Center Facility by Freeman Road. The landfill is bounded to the south
by an unnamed tributary of East Belews Creek. Groundwater at the site flows to the southwest
toward the unnamed tributary. Drawing 1 presents a site map showing the layout of the facility.

The Town of Kernersville Landfill is currently monitoring groundwater in accordance with
criteria set forth in Title 15A Subchapter 13B .0500 of the North Carolina Solid Waste
Management Rules (NCSWMR) for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) closed prior to
October 9, 1993. The current groundwater compliance monitoring network includes six
monitoring wells, including one upgradient well and five downgradient wells. Existing
monitoring well MW-6 serves as the background well for the facility. Monitoring well MW-6
replaced MW-1 as the facility’s background well due to infrequent opportunities to sample the
well as a result of low well volumes or the well-being dry; however, MW-6 has also been dry
during the last several sampling events. Downgradient monitoring wells MW-2, MW-3S,
MW-3D, MW-4, and MW-5 are monitored as part of the compliance network for the facility.
MW-1 is monitored for water levels only, as conditions permit. Monitoring well construction
details are summarized in Table 1, and the well locations are shown on Drawing 1. These wells
are summarized below, along with their current monitoring program status.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
2

Monitoring Well Classification Monitoring Program Total Depth from
TOC (feet)
MW-1 Former Background Water Levels Only 34.69
MW-2 Compliance/MNA Detection (.0500)/CAP 13.18
MW-3S Compliance/MNA Detection (.0500)/CAP 24.00
MW-3D Compliance/MNA Detection (.0500)/CAP 56.96
MW-4 Compliance/MNA Detection (.0500)/CAP 14.40
MW-5 Compliance Detection (.0500)11.36
MW-6 Background/MNA Detection (.0500)/CAP 20.46
TOC = Top of casing. CAP = Corrective Action Plan.

Groundwater samples are collected semiannually during the second and fourth quarters. Samples
are analyzed for all constituents in the NCSWMR Appendix I list. As a condition of the CAP,
monitoring wells MW-2, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4 and MW-6 are also monitored for MNA
laboratory constituents, including nitrate, sulfate, chloride, alkalinity, total organic carbon,
methane, ethane, ethene, volatile fatty acids, dissolved hydrogen, biological oxygen demand, and
chemical oxygen demand, as well several MNA field parameters, during both the first and
second semiannual events.

Based on the presence of constituents aboveNC2L standards that could potentially be crossing
the facility boundary, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), now known as the Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), requested that
Kernersville submit a Groundwater Assessment Plan to evaluate site conditions as they relate to
groundwater quality. The Groundwater Assessment Report was submitted to NCDENR on May
13, 2013. The Groundwater Assessment Report concluded that, based on site hydrogeology, it is
unlikely that the site impacts aboveNC2L standards are crossing the boundary.

In a July 16, 2013, response to the Groundwater Assessment Report, NCDEQ determined that
the detection of VOCs at concentrations that exceedNC2L standards constitutes a violation of
Solid Waste Section regulations. As required by NCDEQ, JOYCE submitted a Corrective
Action Plan (CAP) on behalf of the Town of Kernersville Landfill in October 2014. NCDENR
approved the Corrective Action Plan in a letter dated November 4, 2014.

This report represents the first CAER for the facility and is being submitted in accordance with
the reporting schedule presented in the CAP. Subsequent CAERs will be submitted to NCDEQ
every five years.

1.2 Aquifer Characteristics
The water table under the area of investigation was encountered in the unconfined aquifer that is
mostly in saprolite, but is believed to grade into highly fractured bedrock with depth.
Groundwater in the saprolite feeds the fractures in the bedrock and is discharged into creeks
south and southwest of the landfill. Groundwater flow at deeper levels within the fractured

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
3

bedrock is controlled by fracture orientation and connectivity. This unconfined aquifer is
pervasive across the site and the water table generally mimics the surface topography.

Depth to groundwater at the site ranges from approximately 2-5 feet below ground surface
(ft-bgs) on the downgradient (southwest) side of the site, to about 28-33 ft-bgs near the northeast
corner of the waste unit. Groundwater elevation ranges from approximately 785 feet above
mean sea level (ft-amsl) on the upgradient side of the site to approximately 755 ft-amsl on the
down gradient side of the site. Groundwater flow direction at the site is from the northeast to the
southwest. Historical groundwater elevation data for the facility are presented in Table 2. The
groundwater elevations and flow direction based on the June 28, 2016, water level data are
shown on Drawing 1.

1.2.1 Groundwater Flow
Aquifer hydraulic properties and groundwater flow velocity calculations are included in Table 3.
The horizontal gradient for the flow path shown on Drawing 1 was 0.0311 ft/ft. This value is
consistent with previous estimates.

The linear groundwater flow velocities were computed using the modified Darcy equation:
V = Ki/ne, where V = average linear velocity (feet/day), K = hydraulic conductivity (feet/day),
i = horizontal hydraulic gradient, and ne = effective porosity. The hydraulic conductivity (K =
1.73 feet/day) from slug-tests conducted by JOYCE in April 2013 was used in this calculation
(see Table 3). The effective porosity (ne = 30%) was estimated based on typical values for
saprolite in the North Carolina Piedmont. Although the regolith and bedrock are hydraulically
connected, the effective porosity generally decreases with depth into the underlying fractured
bedrock. The calculated linear groundwater velocity is approximately 65 feet/year.

Because of our conservative estimate of effective porosity, actual groundwater velocities may be
significantly less than those calculated. Also, the modified Darcy equation makes the simplified
assumptions of a homogeneous and isotropic aquifer. Actual velocities may vary significantly in
the heterogeneous, anisotropic conditions believed to exist at this site.

1.2.2 Vertical Gradient
Monitoring wells MW-3S and MW-3D represent a nested pair of wells with different screened
intervals. The estimated vertical gradient based on the water levels measured during the June 28,
2016, sampling event is calculated below. The calculated upward gradient is -0.025 feet/foot
between these two wells, indicating a weak upward component to groundwater flow. Since these
wells are located near the creek southwest of the landfill, these data support the contention that
the creek is a groundwater discharge feature.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
4

Vertical Gradient Calculation
Ground TOC Screened Interval Groundwater Vertical
Well ID Surface Elevation (Ft-AMSL) Elevation Gradient
(Ft-AMSL) (Ft-AMSL) Top Bottom Midpoint (Ft-AMSL) (Feet/Foot)
MW-3S 761.98 764.57 748.0 738.0 743.0 750.32 -0.025 MW-3D 762.02 764.56 725.1 705.1 715.1 751.01
Ft-AMSL = Feet above mean sea level. TOC = Top of PVC well casing.

1.3 Contaminant Distribution
Based on recent groundwater sampling at the facility, there appears to be one VOC plume and
associated area of concern (AOC) for the facility. The AOC is located hydraulically
downgradient of the waste disposal area in the vicinity of MW-2, MW-3S, MW-3D, and MW-4.
The groundwater surface contours shown on Drawing 1 indicate that groundwater flow is
generally from the northeast to the southeast towards the creek, which is an unnamed tributary to
East Belews Creek. This is consistent with the observed plume. The creek, which flows toward
the northwest, is believed to be a groundwater discharge features and therefore should exert
some hydraulic control over the migration of the VOC plume. There have been no quantified
detections of VOCs in the surface water and there have been no exceedances of NC2B surface
water standards.

Since 2009, several VOCs have been detected at concentrations that exceed their respective
Groundwater Standards, promulgated under 15A NCAC 2L.0202 (NC2L) or the NC Solid Waste
Section Groundwater Protection Standards (GWPS - established for constituents with no NC2L).
The constituents of concern (COCs) for the facility include the VOCs that have been detected in
exceedance ofNC2L standards in one or more downgradient well at least once in the 3 years
preceding submittal of the CAP. These COCs include benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,2-dichlorethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-DCP), tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. Monitoring wells impacted by VOCs include MW-2,
MW-3S, MW-3D and MW-4, which are located southwest of the waste unit approximately 130
feet to 450 feet from the western boundary of the facility.

Tables 4 and 5 present summaries of NC Appendix I and II organic and inorganic constituents
that have been detected above the NC2L or the GWPS. Complete historical data for detected
constituents in groundwater and surface water are presented in Appendices A and B,
respectively. The laboratory analytical reports and field data logs have been submitted in the
corresponding Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Reports (WQMRs) for the facility. The
laboratory reports and field logs for the June 2016 sampling event are presented in the First
Semiannual WQMR of 2016, which was submitted in August 2016.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
5

Seven VOCs (all of the COCs except cis-1,2-dichloroethylene) have been detected at
concentrations greater than the regulatory Groundwater Protection Standard (GPS) as defined in
NCSWMR §.1634.g in the last several years. For the COCs, the GPS are theNC2L standards.
Since 2009, the GPS for benzene; 1,1-dichloroethane; tetrachloroethene; and trichloroethene
have been exceeded only in monitoring well MW-2. The GPS for 1,2-dichloroethane is
sporadically exceeded only in MW-3D. Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene is considered to be a COC at
this facility; however, it has exceeded the GPS only one time in one monitoring well (MW-3D in
November 2012). The GPS for 1,2-dichloropropane has historically been exceeded in MW-2
and MW-3D. The GPS for vinyl chloride has historically been exceeded in each of the
downgradient compliance wells except MW-5. Table 4 presents the historical data for these
constituents. Drawings 2 through 10 present isoconcentration maps for the individual COC
plumes and for total VOCs using the June 2016 sample event data. Based on the lack of
detections of any COCs in the surface water samples SW-2 and SW-3, immediately
downgradient of the impacted monitoring wells, the plume appears to be limited and contained
within the facility boundary.

Drawing 11 shows a cross-section through the total VOC plume. The downgradient horizontal
extent of the plume is controlled by the surface water monitoring points, which have exhibited
only sporadic detections of cis-1,2-dichloroethene at estimated concentrations at least an order of
magnitude below theNC2L groundwater standard. As previously discussed, nested wells
MW-3S and MW-3D, which are located adjacent to the creek, exhibit a slight upward hydraulic
gradient, indicating that the creek is a groundwater discharge feature. The deep-screened well
MW-3D has higher concentrations of VOCs than the shallower MW-3S, indicating that the
vertical extent of the total VOC plume is not delineated.

Charts 1 through 9 present plots of the COCs and total VOCs versus time in all monitoring wells
where they have been detected (MW-2R, MW-3R, and MW-4). The concentrations of most of
the COCs in most wells show downward or stable trends. 1,1-dichlorothane concentrations have
shown sporadic variations with no clear trend. Vinyl chloride concentrations show slightly
increasing trends in MW-2 and MW-3D, which could be related to degradation of the higher-
order chlorinated VOCs. A review of Chart 9 appears to show a downward trend in total VOCs
in all of the wells, although the trend in MW-3D is less clear than the others. The trends indicate
that the geometric distribution of the plume and the concentrations in the plume are generally
stable or decreasing.

In addition to the VOCs, there have been isolated occurrences of inorganic constituents (metals)
detected above theNC2L or the groundwater protection standards (GWPS) in both upgradient
and downgradient monitoring wells at the site; however, in the last three years the only metal
with consistent exceedances has been cobalt in MW-5. MW-5 is located on the east side of the
landfill, in a cross-gradient location relative to waste and is unlikely to have been impacted by
the landfill. The metals exceedances do not appear to coincide with the VOC plume; therefore,
they do not appear to be related to a release from the landfill. The metals are believed to
represent naturally occurring variations in groundwater chemistry due to the site geology;

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
6

therefore, they are not considered COCs. The historic exceedances of inorganic constituents are
summarized in Table 5.

1.4 Site Conceptual Model
1.4.1 Site Geology
The Town of Kernersville Landfill is located in the Piedmont physiographic providence of North
Carolina and is underlain by intrusive granitic rocks of Pennsylvanian to Permian age which are
part of the Charlotte Belt Geologic Unit. A geologic map of the area has been included as Figure
2 (Espenshade, et al, 1975). The geologic map shows that rock underlying the site is primarily
quartz monzonite and granodiorite, typically containing large microcline phenocrysts as well as
biotite, muscovite, epidote, and hornblende. It is generally nonfoliated, and may contain thin
layers of mafic rock. Just south of the site is an area mapped as a mafic intrusive body, mainly
composed of gneissic metagabbro and metadiorite. The geologic map does not show any diabase
dikes mapped near the site location.

There is relatively limited geological data available for the Kernersville landfill. JOYCE could
not locate drilling records or boring logs for wells on the property through a review of both the
Town of Kernersville records and NCDEQ records. In 2012, JOYCE installed a number of gas
probes at the site and boring records were prepared for those probe installations. In most cases,
the borings for the gas probes encountered uniform red clayey sands that appeared saprolitic.
Depths of borings for the probes ranged from 8 feet to 34 ft-bgs. Bedrock was not encountered
in any of those borings.

1.4.2 Site Hydrogeology
The uppermost aquifer is unconfined and includes both saprolite and the uppermost fractured
bedrock, which are well connected and act as a single aquifer. Typically in the Piedmont, the
saprolite grades into weathered bedrock which grades into fractured competent bedrock,
resulting in an aquifer in which porosity and permeability decrease significantly with depth.
Groundwater can occur in substantial volumes where soils and saprolite are very thick; but
typically, groundwater is found in minimal volumes in bedrock, primarily restricted to fractures.
Groundwater in the saprolite feeds the fractures in the bedrock and is discharged into creeks
south and southwest of the landfill. Although the regolith and bedrock are hydraulically
connected, the effective porosity generally decreases with depth into the underlying fractured
bedrock. Groundwater flow at deeper levels within the fractured bedrock is controlled by
fracture orientation and connectivity. This unconfined aquifer is pervasive across the site.

Historical water level data are presented in Table 2, and aquifer hydraulic properties and
groundwater flow velocity calculations are presented in Table 3. A groundwater potentiometric
surface map based on water levels obtained during the June 2016 sampling event is presented in
Drawing 1. The water table beneath the facility generally mimics the surface topography,
ranging in depth from 3 to 30 ft-bgs. Groundwater flow is to the southwest, and discharges to

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
7

the creeks south and southwest of the landfill. The creeks form a hydrologic divide, so that
groundwater from the site is not expected to migrate beyond them. The calculated linear
groundwater velocity is approximately 65 feet/year (see Section 1.2 for a more detailed
discussion).

Based on the above-described geologic and hydrogeologic information, the groundwater flow
regime on this site is well-constrained and predictable. Migration of groundwater contaminants
are expected to follow the general groundwater flow paths shown on Drawing 1. The unnamed
tributary present along the south and southwestern border of the waste unit, downgradient of the
plume, is a groundwater discharge feature and, therefore, a hydrologic divide that should prevent
migration of the plume beyond it. There are no known preferred pathways that could
significantly affect plume migration or the effectiveness of the groundwater/surface water
monitoring network to monitoring plume migration.

1.5 Regulatory Status
The Kernersville Landfill is regulated under §.0500 of the NCSWMR, and is monitored in
accordance with the requirements of §.0600 of the NCSWMR. On November 1, 2012, the Town of
Kernersville received notification from NCDEQ that because of the detection of groundwater
impacts at the site that could potentially be crossing the property boundary, the Town needed to
submit a Phased Groundwater Assessment Plan and complete the described groundwater assessment.
In January 2013, JOYCE, on behalf of the Town, submitted a Groundwater Assessment Plan, which
was approved by DEQ on February 14, 2013. In May 2013, JOYCE submitted a Groundwater
Assessment Report for the facility. In a letter dated July 16, 2013, DEQ approved the Groundwater
Assessment Report and called for the Town to select a remedy and submit a Corrective Action
Application within 1 year of the date of that letter. In July 2014, on behalf of the Town, JOYCE
submitted the Corrective Action Application selecting Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) plus
Phytoremediation as the remedy. The remedy was approved by DEQ in a letter dated July 23, 2014.
As required by NCDEQ, JOYCE submitted a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) on behalf of the Town of
Kernersville Landfill in October 2014. NCDEQ approved the CAP in a letter dated November 4,
2014.

2.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION SUMMARY
2.1 Physical and Chemical Changes in Aquifer Conditions
Data obtained from the June 2016 semiannual sampling event, including groundwater elevation
and flow, groundwater field parameters, MNA parameters, and constituent concentrations have
been evaluated with regard to the physical and chemical conditions in the uppermost aquifer at
the site. Table 6 presents the recent and historical MNA data for the facility. The laboratory
analytical reports for the MNA data have been submitted in the corresponding Semiannual
WQMRs for the facility. The laboratory report for the June 2016 MNA data are presented in the
First Semiannual WQMR of 2016, which was submitted in August 2016.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
8

Temperature, pH, conductivity, ORP, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, dissolved carbon dioxide, and
ferrous iron fluctuate within normal ranges for groundwater in saprolite of the Piedmont
physiographic province. Conductivity, ORP, alkalinity and chloride concentrations are
significantly higher and sulfate concentrations are lower in the vicinity of the plume than in the
upgradient well. These differences are attributed to the presence of the plume and the natural
attenuation process. Although some MNA parameters have fluctuated or had sporadic results,
we see no major or systematic differences in groundwater chemistry between June 2014 and June
2016. In addition, we have observed no significant change or variation in groundwater elevation
and flow or constituent concentrations since the CAP was implemented. These data do not
indicate any significant changes in the physical or chemical characteristics of the aquifer since
the ACM and CAP.

2.2 Physical and Chemical Changes in Plume Characteristics
Table 4 presents the historical data for the constituents of concern. Drawings 2 through 10
present isoconcentration maps for the individual COC plumes and for total VOCs using the June
2016 sample event data. Based on the lack of detections of any COCs in the surface water
samples SW-2 and SW-3, immediately downgradient of the impacted monitoring wells, the
plume appears to be limited and contained within the facility boundary. There is no evidence of
the plume either increasing or decreasing in horizontal or vertical extent since the CAP was
prepared in 2014.

Charts 1 through 9 present plots of the COCs and total VOCs versus time in monitoring wells
MW-2R, MW-3R, and MW-4. The concentrations of most of the COCs in most wells show
downward or stable trends. 1,1-dichlorothane concentrations have shown sporadic variations
with no clear trend. Vinyl chloride concentrations show slightly increasing trends in MW-2 and
MW-3D, which could be related to degradation of the higher-order chlorinated VOCs. A review
of Chart 9 appears to show a downward trend in total VOCs in all of the wells, although the trend
in MW-3D is less clear than the others. The trends indicate that the geometric distribution of the
plume and the concentrations in the plume are generally stable or decreasing. These data
indicate that there have been no significant changes in the chemical or physical characteristics of
the contaminant plume since 2014.

2.3 Refining the Site Conceptual Model
Any new information that comes to the attention of the facility, either from the data collected on
site or other sources, which impact the site conceptual model will be reported and evaluated.
This includes data on site or regional geology, hydrogeology, or other aspects of the site
conceptual model. The site conceptual model will be refined in response to the new information
as needed and appropriate.

The landfill is bound to the south and southwest by an unnamed tributary of East Belews Creek,
and to the east by a drainage feature that flows south into the unnamed tributary. The unnamed

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
9

tributary flows to a confluence with East Belews Creek more than 2000 feet northwest of the
facility property.

Historically, three surface water points [SW-1 (upstream), SW-2 (downstream), and SW-3
(midpoint)] have been sampled semiannually in conjunction with the groundwater sampling at
the facility. Historical surface water sampling data indicate that groundwater discharge into the
creek has not impacted the surface water; therefore, the surface water does not constitute a
sensitive receptor pathway risk. If the plume migrated to impact the surface water, dilution
would likely reduce the concentrations to below detectable levels with a short distance
downstream.

Flora and fauna on or above the ground surface are at minimal risk, because there have been no
confirmed detections of the COCs in the downstream surface water samples. Organisms
suspected to be living in the subsurface at the site are at potential risk; however, soil
microorganisms are known to use the organic acids and by-products of the degradation process
of the groundwater plumes as a food source; therefore, the potential risk to the environment from
the impacted groundwater is considered to be low. JOYCE conducted a tree surveys in June
2015 and April 2016 and no evidence of distressed vegetation or obvious impacts to wildlife
were observed as a result of exposure to the contaminant plume.

As noted above, the VOC plume remains relatively unchanged, and there is no data indicating a
need to modify the site conceptual model at this time.

2.4 Evaluation of the Impact of Corrective Actions
2.4.1 Contaminant Levels
Charts 1 through 9 present plots of the COCs and total VOCs versus time in monitoring wells
MW-2R, MW-3R, and MW-4. The concentrations of most of the COCs in most wells show
downward or stable trends. 1,1-dichlorothane concentrations have shown sporadic variations
with no clear trend. Vinyl chloride concentrations show slightly increasing trends in MW-2 and
MW-3D, which could be related to degradation of the higher-order chlorinated VOCs. A review
of Chart 9 appears to show a downward trend in total VOCs in all of the wells, although the trend
in MW-3D is less clear than the others. The trends indicate that the concentrations in the plume
are generally stable or decreasing.

2.4.2 Evaluation of MNA Parameters
In accordance with the CAP for the facility, MNA baseline sampling was initiated with the
November 2014 sampling event; therefore, the June 2016 sampling event was the fourth and
final baseline sampling event for MNA; however, we also have MNA data from June 2014, so
we have data from five events to evaluate. During the June 2016 sampling event, the full list of
MNA parameters, except for sulfide, were obtained for the following wells: MW-2, MW-3S,
MW-3D, and MW-4. Monitoring well MW-6 has been dry and has not been sampled since June

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
10

2014, so data that needs to be compared to background values will be comparted to the June
2014 results from MW-6.

The MNA performance parameters provide insight into the microbial and biogeochemical
reactions and processes that are occurring within the subsurface. In accordance with the CAP,
the baseline sampling has included the following MNA performance parameters. Some of these
parameters will be analyzed in the field at the time of sampling while others will be collected for
laboratory analysis, as indicated in parentheses below.

• Nitrate (lab) • pH (field)
• Sulfate (lab) • Temperature (field)
• Sulfide (lab) • Conductivity (field)
• Methane (lab) • Turbidity (field)
• Ethene, Ethane (lab) • ORP (field)
• TOC (lab) • Ferrous Iron (field)
• Alkalinity (lab) • Dissolved CO2 (field)
• Chloride (lab) • Dissolved Oxygen (field)
• Dissolved Hydrogen (lab)
• Volatile Fatty Acids (lab)

In addition, the MNA samples have been analyzed for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). Table 6 presents a summary of all MNA parameter results
between June 2014 and June 2016.

Standard MNA Parameters:

 Temperature of groundwater is used to help assess the representativeness of water samples,
and to correct temperature sensitive parameters/measuring devices. Microorganisms are
active over a wide temperature range, although some may become more active with
increasing temperature. Temperature measurements for groundwater samples have
fluctuated between 12.6 ºC and 18.7 ºC.

 pH is an indication of the suitability of environment to support wide range of microbial
species. Activity tends to be reduced outside of pH range of 5 to 9, and anaerobic
microorganisms are typically more sensitive to pH extremes. pH is also used to help assess
the representativeness of the water sample taken during purging of wells. All pH
measurements of groundwater at the site have been between 5.5 and 6.5.

 Conductivity of groundwater is a measure of its ability to conduct electricity. The standard
unit of conductivity is micro-Siemens per centimeter (µS/cm). Conductivity measurements
are used in environmental applications as a way of measuring the ionic content in water.
Conductivity in downgradient wells has been fairly consistent with time, ranging from 235.5
to 347.5 µS/cm. These values are significantly higher than the 43.9 µS/cm observed in the

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
11

background well, MW-6, in June 2014. This is an indication on increased ionic content in
the vicinity of the plume.

 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP), also referred at as redox potential or Eh, measures
whether the environment is reducing or oxidizing. Ranges from 0 to +500 mV indicate
oxidizing (aerobic) environments, and ranges from -500 mV to 0 indicate reducing
(anaerobic) environments. The ORP measurements have fluctuated between 18.1 and 100.3
mV in downgradient wells, and have been generally lower than the 99.1 mV observed in
MW-6 in June 2014. The ORP data indicate a weakly aerobic environment in the plume, but
less aerobic than the upgradient environment. Biological activity associated with natural
attenuation is expected to reduce the ORP, so these data indicate ongoing biodegradation.

 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is an indicator of aerobic versus anaerobic environments. The
availability of oxygen is essential for aerobic microbes to metabolize organic contaminants,
but DO > 5 mg/L is detrimental to the ability of anaerobic microbes to metabolize organic
contaminants. Groundwater from downgradient wells showed fluctuations in DO
concentrations over time, ranging from 0.81 to 3.92 mg/l; however, the DO concentrations
were generally lower than the 3.04 mg/l observed in MW-6 in June 2014. The key
observation is that there is sufficient oxygen in the plume area to facilitate biodegradation of
constituents like benzene which require an anaerobic environment, but not too much oxygen
to shut down anaerobic biodegradation required for most chlorinated VOCs. The deceased
DO in the plume indicates ongoing aerobic biodegradation.

 Chloride is an ultimate daughter product of reductive dehalogenation, and is usually an
indicator of anaerobic degradation of chlorinated hydrocarbons; however, chloride
production has been documented to occur also in association with biodegradation of benzene.
Chloride concentrations within the plume have consistently been an order of magnitude
greater than in background well MW-6 (2.22 mg/l in June 2014), with concentrations ranging
from 10-30 mg/l during this CAER period. This is a strong indication that natural
attenuation is occurring.

 Nitrate and Sulfate compounds can be used as electron acceptors by reducing bacteria.
Changes in concentrations may provide evidence of biological activity. At high
concentrations, they may interfere with reductive pathways. In general, one would expect
concentrations of nitrate and sulfate to decrease if active biodegradation is occurring.
Concentrations of sulfate have been consistently lower in the wells within the plume than in
the upgradient well, ranging from 1190-1870 µg/l. Concentrations of nitrate have generally
been slightly lower in the wells within the plume than in the upgradient well, ranging from
below the detection limit to 75 µg/l.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
12

Extended MNA Parameters:

 Dissolved Hydrogen (DH) concentrations in anaerobic environments can be correlated with
types of anaerobic activities. DH may be the limiting factor for complete dechlorination of
chlorinated hydrocarbons. A concentration greater than 1 nM in considered necessary for
effective reductive dehalogenation. Concentrations of DH have little impact on the aerobic
degradation, such is expected for benzene. In general, the measured DH concentrations have
been between 1.1-15.0 nM in most wells; however, there have been a few anomalously high
concentrations (120-320 nM). The 3600 nM detected in MW-3D in June 2016 is suspected
to be erroneous. The primary conclusion is that there is more than sufficient hydrogen to
support anaerobic dehalogenation of chlorinated VOCs.

 Sulfide presence may provide evidence of sulfate reduction; however, it may not be detected
even if sulfate-reducing bacteria are active because it can react with various oxygenated
chemical species and metals. We have no sulfide data from this site at this time.

 Alkalinity level increase may be indicative of carbon dioxide production and mineralization
of organic compounds. Alkalinity has ranged from 134 to 186 mg/l in the wells within the
plume, compared to only 4.6 mg/l in the upgradient well MW-6 in June 2014. This is a
strong sign that natural attenuation is occurring.

 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in significant concentrations indicates the availability of
general growth substrates for microorganisms. One would expect TOC to also be higher
inside the plume than outside of it. The TOC concentrations inside the plume have ranged
from 0.81-10.6 mg/l, with significant fluctuations. The fluctuations make it hard to compare
the results to the one datum we have for TOC in MW-6 (3.1 mg/l in June 2014); however,
these data indicate that there is less organic matter in the plume area than is considered
conducive to sustain biological activity.

 BTEX (the sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) in significant concentrations
indicate the availability of general growth substrates for microorganisms. There have been no
detections of toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes in any well in recent years, so the BTEX is
simply the benzene concentration, which has ranged from ND to 6.4 µg/l. This is lower than
the concentrations considered conducive to sustain biological activity.

 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is based on the activities of bacteria and aerobic
microorganisms which feed on organic matter in presence of oxygen. The result of a BOD
test indicates the amount of water-dissolved oxygen (mg/l) consumed by microbes. In
general, the higher the BOD, the higher the amount of pollution in the test sample. Typical
values for pristine rivers will have BOD below 1 mg/L. Moderately polluted rivers may have
a BOD value in the range of 2 to 8 mg/L. The BOD value in the background well, MW-6,
was below the detection limit (ND) in June 2014. In MW-2, the BOD values ranged from
ND to 5.67 mg/L; and in MW-3S, the BOD values ranged from ND to 2.00 mg/L. The BOD

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
13

values in MW-3D and MW-4 have been consistently ND. The higher values indicate
heightened biological activity within the plume, which implies significant biodegradation of
the BOD is occurring; however, these results have not been consistent.

 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) tells how much oxygen is needed to fully oxidize
compounds containing carbon, hydrogen or both. As an indicator of the amount of organic
pollutants found in groundwater, COD indicates the mass of oxygen consumed per liter
(mg/l). The COD was ND in MW-6, and has been ND in most of the samples from within
the plume; however, there have been a few higher detections (16-431 mg/l). The higher
values indicate heightened biological activity within the plume, which implies significant
biodegradation of the COD is occurring; however, these results have not been consistent.

 Dissolved Methane, Ethane, Ethene in groundwater can provide evidence of dechlorination
of chlorinated hydrocarbons; however, methane may also indicate activity of methanogenic
bacteria. Methane produced by methanogenic bacteria decomposing organic waste is
common and expected in an MSW landfill. Dissolved methane has been detected
consistently in MW-2 at 3.19-6.01 mg/l, and at lower concentrations (0.1-0.5 mg/l) in
MW-3S, MW-3D, and MW-4. We have no methane data from the upgradient well MW-6.
The higher methane in MW-2 probably indicates impact by landfill gas. Low but detectable
concentrations of ethane and ethene have been detected in the plume area sporadically, but
most have been ND.

 Volatile Fatty Acids (VFAs) include pyruvic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, and
butyric acid. Analysis of VFAs can provide insight into the types of microbial activity that
are occurring. VFAs can also serve as electron donors. A few low-concentration VFAs have
been detected sporadically, but they have not been consistent enough to evaluate natural
attenuation processes at the facility.

 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an ultimate oxidative daughter product of the biodegradation of
hydrocarbons; however, carbon dioxide is also a principal constituent of landfill gas, and
when landfill gas is in contact with the water table CO2 will partition into the groundwater.
CO2 concentrations have been ranged between 35 and 125 mg/l within the plume, compared
to 60 mg/l in MW-6 in June 2014. The lack of a significant difference between upgradient
concentrations and concentrations in the plume indicate that this parameter is a poor indicator
of natural attenuation at this site.

 Ferrous Iron (Fe2+) (the soluble reduced form of iron) is a nutrient and indicates the activity
of iron reducing bacteria. Fe2+ is used as electron acceptor. Fe2+ has been detected in the
range of ND to 0.90 mg/l during the CAER period, but was not detected in the background
well MW-6 in June 2014. The weaknesses of these data show that this parameter is a poor
indicator of natural attenuation at this site.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
14

2.4.3 MNA Matrix Evaluation
The MNA parameter data were evaluated in general accordance with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Technical Protocol Manual (EPA, 1998) to
determine whether the conditions are conducive to, or whether there is evidence for anaerobic
degradation of the chlorinated hydrocarbons. Specifically, the results were evaluated according
to the weighted system presented in Table 2.3 of the Technical Protocol Manual, referred to
hereafter as the Biodegradation Screening Matrix. According to this manual, a score less than 5
indicates that there is inadequate evidence for anaerobic natural attenuation, a score of 6 to 14
indicates that there is limited evidence for anaerobic natural attenuation, a score of 15 to 20
indicates that there is adequate evidence for anaerobic natural attenuation, and a score greater
than 20 indicates that there is strong evidence that anaerobic natural attenuation is occurring.

The MNA evaluation was performed based on the results from the June 2016 sampling event for
downgradient wells within the contaminant plume, compared where appropriate to the
background well (MW-6). The Biodegradation Screening Matrix is presented in Table 7 of this
report.

One difficulty in evaluation of the Screening Matrix is that the matrix assumes some compounds
(such as, but not limited to methane and vinyl chloride) are daughter products of biodegradation
within the plume; however, at a landfill we cannot eliminate the possibility that they may be
contaminants released directly from the landfill. If we include the scores for these potential
daughter products, our total score could be artificially high; on the other hand, if we exclude
them, the score might be artificially low. Table 7 presents scoring results both with and without
the questionable daughter product scores. The following table summarizes the scoring results
from Table 7 for both options for interpreting the data.

DP = Points for possible daughter products.

The scores ranged from 15 (adequate evidence of natural attenuation) to 24 (strong evidence of
natural attenuation). In reality, the best score is probably in the middle of this range, indicating
good evidence of natural attenuation.

2.4.4 Evaluation of Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is the use of plants to remove, transfer or stabilize contaminants in soil or
groundwater. Plants may remove contaminants from groundwater through either direct plant
uptake and metabolization or by microbial degradation in the root zone. Contaminants in
groundwater can be removed when plant-produced enzymes break down contaminants that enter
the plant during transpiration (phytodegredation). Another method by which plants can enhance
Points Awarded
including DP
Points Awarded
excluding DP
Points Awarded
excluding HD 24 15

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
15

groundwater quality is by phytoaccumulation, which is the process of uptake and storage of
contaminants in the root systems. Plants may also uptake contaminants and transpire them
through the leaves (phytovolatization). Finally, plants can provide secretions that enhance
microbial activity in the root zone that aid in the breakdown of contaminants (ITRC, 1999).
Phytoremediation via direct uptake of groundwater contaminants has been demonstrated to be a
very efficient removal mechanism for aromatic and chlorinated VOCs, such as those observed at
the site.

Generally the octanol-water partition coefficient (log Kow) of organic contaminants must be
between 1.0 and 3.5 (moderately hydrophobic organic chemicals) to be susceptible to uptake by
plants. Hydrophobic chemicals (log Kow > 3.5) are bound too strongly to roots and soil to be
translocated within the plants. Water-soluble chemicals (log Kow < 1.0) are neither sufficiently
sorbed to roots nor actively transported through plant membranes (Briggs, et. al., 1982). The log
Kow of the facility’s COCs are summarized below. They are all within the range to be
susceptible to phytoremediation.

Constituent of Concern LogKow
Benzene 2.13
1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 1.79
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 1.47
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (c-1,2-DCE) 1.86
1,2-Dichloropropane 1.97
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 2.67
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 2.17
Vinyl chloride 1.50
(Compounds with Log(Kow) < 1.0 are considered very hydrophilic; and
compounds with Log(Kow) > 3.5 are considered very hydrophobic.)

Root contact is a primary limitation on phytoremediation applicability. Remediation via plants
requires that the contaminants be in contact with the root zone of the plants. Either the plants
must be able to extend roots to the contaminants, or the contaminated media must be moved to
within range of the plants. Rhizodegradation, which is the breakdown of an organic contaminant
in soil through microbial activity that is enhanced by the presence of the root zone, is the most
effective mode of phytoremediation for petroleum hydrocarbons (US-EPA, 2000).

The groundwater is extremely shallow in the vicinity of the plume, ranging from an average of 1-
2 feet below ground surface in MW-2 to 8-10 feet below ground surface in MW-3S. This puts
most of the plume within reach of the root systems of large trees, like poplars and sweet gums,
and the shallower parts of the plume will be within reach of even the shallower root systems of
small trees and shrubs. Typically, phytoremediation as a remedial technology includes selection
of a plant species, planting the selected species, and possibly harvesting the plants at some time
in the future; however, at this site, we believe that phytoremediation is already taking place with
existing flora and site conditions.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
16

A survey of tree species, health, and maturity present within the plume area has been conducted
annually since the CAP was approved. The most recent tree surveys were conducted on June 18,
2015, and April 15, 2016. Drawings 12 and 13 show the results of the 2015 and 2016 tree
surveys, respectively.

The tree surveys covered the western, southern, and eastern sides of the landfill from the edge of
waste to about 20-50 feet beyond the creek. The tree surveys were divided into three areas based
on similar flora assemblages. Area 1 was the east side of the landfill, Area 2 was the south side
from the eastern corner to a point between MW-2 and MW-3S&D, and Area 3 was from that
point westward, and partly up the west side of the landfill. All three areas are heavily wooded
with abundant mature trees, young trees, and undergrowth. Area 1 is predominantly sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). There also were several areas of apparent wetlands observed in Area 1. Area 2 is
predominantly American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), with lesser amounts of tulip poplar,
black willow, and sweetgum. Area 3 is predominantly tulip poplar with smaller amounts of
sweetgum and black maple.

The trees and other plants present on site are expected to effectively metabolize and/or transpire
observed groundwater contamination, and rhizodegradation in the root zone is expected to
further remediate the groundwater. Poplars have been well-studied in phytoremediation
applications (Landmeyer, 2001; Gordon, et al, 1997; Ferro, et al, 1999), and are one of the most
commonly recommended trees for phytoremediation of VOCs, metals, and radionuclides.
American sycamore, sweetgum, and willows have less documentation; however, they have also
been used successfully in similar phytoremediation applications (McCutcheon and Schnoor,
2004; Negri and Hinchman, 2000). Other trees and herbaceous plants in and downgradient of
the plume are also likely to contribute to phytoremediation. Furthermore, wetlands are among
the most biologically active ecosystems, and are considered to have high potential for
phytoremediation of VOCs and other contaminants (Williams, 2002). The presence of wetlands
downgradient of the plume is expected to enhance phytoremediation at this site. No changes or
augmentation to the phytoremediation remedy are needed at this time.

2.4.5 Impacts on Hydraulic Gradients
Based on historic groundwater elevations at this site, the average hydraulic gradient is 0.0311
ft/ft toward the southwest, with an estimated horizontal flow velocity of approximately 65 feet
per year. The most recent estimate of hydraulic gradients and groundwater flow velocities are
provided in Table 3 of this report and are discussed in Section 1.2.1. There is no pumping or
injection associated with the corrective action at this facility; therefore, there is no impact on
hydraulic gradients.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
17

2.4.6 Contaminant Removal Efficiencies and Mass of Contaminants Removed
The CAP specifies that the EPA’s BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System
(Version 2.2) will be used as a screening model to evaluate MNA at the Town of Kernersville
Landfill facility. BIOCHLOR is an easy-to-use screening model which simulates remediation by
natural attenuation of dissolved solvents at chlorinated solvent release sites (USEPA, 2002).
BIOCHLOR includes three different model types:

 Solute transport without decay;
 Solute transport with biotransformation modeled as a sequential first-order decay process;
and
 Solute transport with biotransformation modeled as a sequential first-order decay process
with two different reaction zones (i.e., each zone has a different set of rate coefficient
values).

The software, programmed in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet environment and based on the
Domenico analytical solute transport model, has the ability to simulate one-dimensional
advection, three-dimensional dispersion, linear adsorption, and biotransformation via reductive
dechlorination (the dominant biotransformation process at most chlorinated solvent sites).
Reductive dechlorination is assumed to occur under anaerobic conditions and dissolved solvent
degradation is assumed to follow a sequential first-order decay process.

BIOCHLOR modeling was run for the Town of Kernersville Landfill for the chlorinated
ethylenes (PCE, TCE, DCE, & VC) based on the June 2016 concentrations in MW-2 for a
simulated 10 years of biodegradation. The input and output of the BIOCHLOR modeling are
presented in Appendix C and the results of the modeling are summarized below.

Constituent Mass Removed % Biotransformed % Change in
Mass Rate
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.043 Kg 70.9% 98.0%
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.198 Kg 63.3% 96.6%
Dichloroethylenes (DCE) 1.424 Kg 55.1% 90.7%
Vinyl Chloride (VC) -1.065 Kg -380% -375.8%

2.5 Migration of the Contaminant Plume
2.5.1 Status of Impacts at the Compliance Boundary
No quantified detections of VOCs have been recorded in the surface water samples collected
from the monitoring point SW-3, which is immediately downgradient of MW-2, nor in the
upstream or downstream surface water samples (SW-1 and SW-2, respectively). Since this creek
is believed to be a groundwater discharge feature, this indicates that the plume in the uppermost
aquifer has not migrated beyond the creek, nor has it migrated beyond the facility boundary west
of the plume. Since there are GPS exceedances in the deep well, MW-3D, the vertical extent of
the plume is not fully delineated; therefore, it is possible that the plume extends into the fractured

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
18

bedrock. Groundwater flow in fractured bedrock is less predictable than in the unconsolidated
regolith and saprolite, therefore, we cannot determine whether or not the plume may have
migrated farther at depth in the bedrock fractures.

2.5.2 Off-Site Migration Concerns
The nearest property boundary to the plume is located approximately 135 feet west of MW-4;
however, the direction of groundwater flow and therefore, plume migration is to the southwest,
and the creek lies between MW-4 and the property boundary in this direction. The only COC
with GPS exceedances in MW-4 is vinyl chloride, and vinyl chloride has never been detected in
surface water samples from SW-2, which is near the property boundary west of MW-4.
Furthermore, there have never been any quantified detections of VOCs in SW-2. This supports
the contention that the plume has not migrated off site. As discussed above, we cannot
determine whether or not the plume may have migrated farther at depth in the fractured bedrock;
however, since there are no receptors for the bedrock aquifer, there is no significant risk. Since
there is no evidence that the plume is expanding, there is no reason to expect the plume to
migrate off site in the foreseeable future.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Changes to the COC List
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene has not been detected in exceedance of its GPS in any monitoring well
since November 2012, and the concentrations of cis-1,2-dichloroethylene appear to be stable or
decreasing in all wells. On behalf of the Town of Kernersville, JOYCE recommends that cis-
1,2-dichloroethylene be removed from the facility’s COC list. No other changes to the COC list
are recommended at this time.

3.2 Assessment of MNA Indicator Parameters
Several of the extended MNA parameters described above show limited usefulness in evaluating
natural attenuation at this site. On behalf of the Town of Kernersville, JOYCE recommends and
requests that the following parameters be removed from the MNA analytical requirements for
this facility:
 BOD and COD – These parameters were not required by the CAP for the facility, and
the results have been too inconsistent to draw any significant conclusions regarding
natural attenuation at the facility. We recommend discontinuing BOD and COD
analyses.
 Methane, ethane, and ethene – Dissolved ethane and ethene have been detected only
sporadically. Methane has been detected consistently, but is likely from landfill gas
migration rather than biodegradation of the VOCs in the groundwater. We
recommend reducing the frequency of monitoring for dissolve methane, ethane, and

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
19

ethene to twice per CAER period, during the two semiannual events immediately
prior to the next and subsequent CAERs.
 Dissolved CO2 – The lack of a significant difference between upgradient and
downgradient CO2 concentrations indicate that this parameter is a poor indicator of
natural attenuation at this site. Also, the CO2 is likely from landfill gas migration
rather than biodegradation of the VOCs in the groundwater. We recommend
reducing the frequency of monitoring for dissolve CO2 to twice per CAER period,
during the two semiannual events immediately prior to the next and subsequent
CAERs.
 Volatile Fatty Acids – There have been a few sporadic detections of volatile fatty
acids, insufficient to assess natural attenuation. We recommend reducing the
frequency of monitoring for volatile fatty acids to twice per CAER period, during the
two semiannual events immediately prior to the next and subsequent CAERs.
 Ferrous Iron (Fe2+) – The low, infrequent detections of ferrous iron show that this
parameter is a poor indicator of natural attenuation at this site. We recommend
reducing the frequency of monitoring for ferrous iron to twice per CAER period,
during the two semiannual events immediately prior to the next and subsequent
CAERs.

For the parameters that we are recommending a reduction in frequency to twice per CAER
period, the next time these parameters will be sampled for will be the fourth quarter of 2020 and
the second quarter of 2021 and the result will be reported in the 2021 CAER. Subsequently, they
will be sampled for during the corresponding two semiannual events in fiscal years 2025-2026,
2030-2031, and so forth, to be reported in the corresponding CAERs.

3.3 Modifications Needed to Selected Remedy
Natural attenuation and phytoremediation will not prevent further releases of COCs from the
waste unit; however, natural attenuation and phytoremediation appear to be occurring beneath
the facility at a rate sufficient to keep up with migration of the plume. Evaluation of indicator
parameter data and historical observations of the plume indicate that biodegradation is occurring
beneath the facility at a rate that will prevent migration of contaminants beyond the property line
and will reduce concentrations of constituents-of-concern within the delineated plume with time.

An evaluation of the risks posed to human health and the environment suggests that there is low
risk due to the fact that groundwater contamination is contained within the facility property
boundary, the adjoining property downgradient of the plume is undeveloped land, and there are
no known human receptors. We conclude that MNA plus phytoremediation remains an
appropriate and effective remedy for the Town of Kernersville Landfill. No changes to the CAP
are recommended.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
20

3.4 Contingency Plan
The CAP included a contingency plan in the event that MNA plus phytoremediation is shown to
be ineffective at controlling migration of the contaminant plume. The contingency plan includes
implementation of one of two contingency remedies:

1. Control of landfill gas through installation of passive or active gas vents or an intercept
trench; or
2. Installation of a reactive barrier trench to intercept and filter the shallow groundwater
plume.

At this time, MNA plus phytoremediation remains an appropriate and effective remedy for the
Town of Kernersville Landfill. No contingency remedies are recommended.

3.5 Land Use Restrictions
Groundwater beneath the landfill property appears to have been impacted by leachate that
originates from the unlined landfill and/or by the migration of landfill gas as evidenced by the
fact that several VOCs have been detected in downgradient wells in exceedance of their
respective GPS. There is no evidence that the contaminant plume has impacted the surface water
in the creek or that the plume has migrated off site. The current COC plume is stable and
concentrations of most COCs appear to be decreasing. Based on the data presented and
discussed in this CAER, there is no need to impose land use restrictions on the landfill or
adjoining property at this time.

4.0 REFERENCES
The references cited herein were used to prepare this document and may or may not be cited in
the text of this report.

Briggs, G.C., Browmilow, R.H., and Evans, A.A., “Relationship between Lipophicity and Root
Uptake and Translocation of Non-ionized Chemicals by Barley”, Pesticide Science,
Volume 13, 1982.

Espenshade, G.H., D.W. Rankin, K.Weir Shaw, and R.B. Newman, 1975. Geologic Map of the
East Half of the Winston-Salem Quadrangle, North Carolina-Virginia. Dept. of the
Interior, United States Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-
7090B. 1975.

Ferro, A., Kennedy, J., Kjelgren, R., Rieder, J., and S. Perrin. 1999. “Toxicity Assessment of
Volatile Organic Compounds in Poplar Trees”. International Journal of
Phytoremediation. 1(1): 9-17.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
21

Fritsche, Wolfgang, and Hofrichter, Martin, 2008. Aerobic Degradation by Microorganisms, in
Biotechnology: Environmental Processes II, Volume 11b, Second Edition, H. J. Rehm &
G. Reed, eds. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH. Published Online: 20 MAR 2008.

Gordon, M., N. Choe, J. Duffy, G. Ekuan, P. Heilman, I. Muiznieks, L. Newman, M. Ruszaj,
B.B. Shurtleff, S. Strand, and J. Wilmoth. 1997. Phytoremediation of Trichloroethylene
with Hybrid Poplars. p. 177-185. In E.L. Kruger etg al. (ed.) Phytoremediation of Soil
and Water Contaminants. ACS symposium series 664. American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC.

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group (ITRC). Phytoremediation
Decision Tree. Prepared by: ITRC Phytoremediation Work Team. November 1999.
Available at http://www.itrcweb.org.

Jindrová, E., M. Chocová, K. Demnerová, and V. Brenner, 2002. Bacterial Aerobic
Degradation of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene. Folia Microbiologica,
Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 83-93, April 2002.

Joyce Engineering, Inc. (JOYCE), 2010. Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Town of Kernersville
Landfill, Permit No. 34-04. December 2010.

JOYCE, 2013a. Groundwater Assessment Plan, Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit #34-04.
January 2013.

JOYCE, 2013b. Groundwater Assessment Report, Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit #34-04.
May 2013.

JOYCE, 2013c. Landfill Gas Corrective Action Plan, Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit
#34-04. September 2013.

JOYCE, 2014. Corrective Action Plan, Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit #34-04. October
2014.

Miller, R. Phytoremediation, Technology Overview Report. Ground-Water Remediation
Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), available at http://ww.gwrtac.org

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2011.
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules. 15 NCAC 13B. Amended April 2011.

NCDENR, 2007. North Carolina Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Corrective Action at Solid
Waste Management Facilities. March 2007.

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
22

NRC, 2000. Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. pp. 108-111.

Schnoor, J. Phytoremediation, Technology Evaluation Report. GWRTAC. Available at
http://ww.gwrtac.org.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA), 1992. Statistical Analysis of
Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Addendum to Interim Final
Guidance. July 1992.

US-EPA, 1998. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents
in Groundwater. ORD, EPA/600/R-98/128. September 1998.

USEPA and U.S. Air Force (USAF), 1993. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
Reference Guide, Version I. Joint Project of OSWER and Environics Directorate, PB93-
2118212. July 1993.

USEPA, 1999. Phytoremediation Resource Guide, EPA 542-B-99-003. June 1999. Available
at http://www.epa.gov/tio.

USEPA, 2000. Introduction to Phytoremediation, EPA 600-R-99-107. February 2000.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/tio.

USEPA, 2002. BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System, Version 2.2, User’s
Manual. (Carol E. Aziz, Charles J. Newell, and James R. Gonzales.) March 2002.

USEPA, 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities,
Unified Guidance. March 2009.

Williams, John B., 2002. Phytoremediation in Wetland Ecosystems: Progress, Problems, and
Potential. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, Volume 21, Issue 6, 2002.

5.0 ACRONYMS
ACM Assessment of Corrective Measures (report)
AOC Area of Concern
C&D Construction and Demolition Waste
CAP Corrective Action Plan (report)
CAER Corrective Action Evaluation Report (report)
COC Contaminant of Concern
DENR See NCDENR
DEQ See NCDEQ
DL Detection Limit (for laboratory data)

Corrective Action Evaluation Report Joyce Engineering
Town of Kernersville Landfill, Permit No. 34-04 October 2016
23

DO Dissolved Oxygen
EPA (or USEPA) United States Environmental Protection Agency
GPS Groundwater Protection Standards (per 15A NCAC 13B.1634.g)
GWPS SWS Groundwater protection Standards (for constituents with noNC2L)
HASP Site-specific Health and Safety Plan
JOYCE Joyce Engineering, Inc.
LFG Landfill Gas
LEL Lower Explosive Limit
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Monitoring Well
NC2B North Carolina Surface Water Standards found in 15A NCAC 2B.0101
NC2L North Carolina Groundwater Standards found in 15A NCAC 2L.0202
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (now NCDEQ)
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly NCDENR)
NCSWMR North Carolina Solid Waste Management Regulations (15A NCAC 13B.1600)
ND Not detected (for laboratory data)
NES Nature and Extent Study (report)
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Association
PVC Poly Vinyl Chloride
QL Quantitation Limit (for laboratory data)
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment (report)
RA Risk Assessment (report)
RL Reporting Limit (for laboratory data)
SWQS Surface Water Quality Standards
SWS NCDENR/NCDEQ Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
SWSL North Carolina Solid Waste Section Reporting Limits (for laboratory data)
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WQMP Water Quality Monitoring Plan (report)

TABLES

TA
B
L
E

1
:

M
o
n
i
t
o
i
r
n
g

W
e
l
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

D
a
t
a
CA
S
I
N
G

G
R
O
U
N
D
DI
A
M
E
T
E
R

S
U
R
F
A
C
E
Fe
e
t
-

F
e
e
t
-
in
c
h
e
s
BG
S

B
T
O
C
fr
o
m

t
o

f
r
o
m

t
o
MW
-
1
2

8
0
3
.
8
9

8
0
6
.
4
2

3
2
.
1
6

3
4
.
6
9

2
4
.
6
9

3
4
.
6
9

7
7
9
.
2

7
6
9
.
2
SAPROLITE
MW
-
2
2

7
6
0
.
0
7

7
6
2
.
1
9

1
1
.
0
6

1
3
.
1
8

3
.
1
8

1
3
.
1
8

7
5
6
.
9

7
4
6
.
9
SAPROLITE
MW
-
3
S
2

7
6
1
.
9
8

7
6
4
.
5
7

2
1
.
4
1

2
4
.
0
0

1
4
.
0
0

2
4
.
0
0

7
4
8
.
0

7
3
8
.
0
SAPROLITE
MW
-
3
D
2

7
6
2
.
0
2

7
6
4
.
5
6

5
4
.
4
2

5
6
.
9
6

3
6
.
9
6

5
6
.
9
6

7
2
5
.
1

7
0
5
.
1
SAPROLITE
MW
-
4
2

7
5
7
.
0
0

7
6
0
.
2
6

1
1
.
1
4

1
4
.
4
0

4
.
4
0

1
4
.
4
0

7
5
2
.
6

7
4
2
.
6
SAPROLITE
MW
-
5
2

7
7
1
.
0
0

7
7
3
.
3
2

9
.
0
4

1
1
.
3
6

6
.
3
6

1
1
.
3
6

7
6
4
.
6

7
5
9
.
6
SAPROLITE
MW
-
6
2

8
0
1
.
7
7

8
0
4
.
8
7

1
7
.
3
6

2
0
.
4
6

1
0
.
4
6

2
0
.
4
6

7
9
1
.
3

7
8
1
.
3
SAPROLITE
NO
T
E
S
:
TO
C

T
o
p

o
f

P
V
C

W
e
l
l

C
a
s
i
n
g
Fe
e
t
-
B
G
S

F
e
e
t

B
e
l
o
w

G
r
o
u
n
d

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Fe
e
t
-
T
O
C

F
e
e
t

B
e
l
o
w

T
o
p

o
f

C
a
s
i
n
g
Fe
e
t
-
A
M
S
L

F
e
e
t

A
b
o
v
e

M
e
a
n

S
e
a

L
e
v
e
l
*

D
u
e

t
o

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

t
h
i
s

d
a
t
a

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
i
e
l
d

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
TO
T
A
L

D
E
P
T
H
WE
L
L

I
D
LITHOLOGY OF SCREENED INTERVAL*
TO
C
WE
L
L

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
Fe
e
t
-
A
M
S
L
SC
R
E
E
N
E
D

I
N
T
E
R
V
A
L
*
DE
P
T
H

(F
e
e
t
-
B
T
O
C
)
EL
E
V
.

(
F
e
e
t
-
A
M
S
L
)
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#
3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering
TA
B
L
E

2
:

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
MW
-
1

M
W
-
6

M
W
-
2

M
W
-
3
S

M
W
-
3
D

M
W
-
4

M
W
-
5
TO
C

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
80
6
.
4
2

8
0
4
.
8
7

7
6
2
.
1
9

7
6
4
.
5
7

7
6
4
.
5
6

7
6
0
.
2
6

7
7
3
.
3
2
We
l
l

D
e
p th
:
34
.
6
9

2
0
.
4
6

1
3
.
1
8

2
4
.
0
0

5
6
.
9
6

1
4
.
4
0

1
1
.
3
6
30
-
D
e
c
-
0
9

7
7
2
.
4
5

7
8
6
.
6
6

7
5
9
.
1
6

7
5
1
.
5
4

7
5
2
.
7
9

7
5
4
.
3
3

7
6
9
.
2
1
01
-
J
u
n
-
1
0

7
7
3
.
4
5

7
8
8
.
3
2

7
5
8
.
9
0

7
5
0
.
7
6

7
5
2
.
6
3

7
5
3
.
9
0

7
6
9
.
6
9
16
-
N
o
v
-
1
0

7
7
3
.
5
5

7
8
7
.
9
3

7
5
9
.
1
4

7
5
0
.
9
8

7
5
2
.
5
9

7
5
3
.
7
4

7
6
9
.
8
1
29
-
D
e
c
-
1
0

7
7
3
.
2
9

7
8
7
.
3
7

7
5
8
.
8
3

7
4
9
.
8
2

7
5
2
.
4
5

7
5
3
.
6
8

7
6
9
.
5
6
29
-
J
u
n
-
1
1

7
7
3
.
1
0

7
8
6
.
8
1

7
5
8
.
3
8

7
5
0
.
5
4

7
5
2
.
1
6

7
5
3
.
4
1

7
6
9
.
7
3
01
-
N
o
v
-
1
1

7
7
1
.
9
2

7
8
5
.
1
0

7
5
8
.
4
9

7
5
4
.
7
3

7
5
1
.
9
0

7
5
3
.
0
8

7
6
9
.
6
3
01
-
M
a
y
-
1
2

7
7
1
.
8
8

7
8
5
.
3
2

7
5
8
.
5
4

7
5
0
.
8
6

7
5
2
.
3
4

7
5
3
.
5
5

7
6
9
.
5
5
07
-
N
o
v
-
1
2

7
7
1
.
6
5

D
R
Y

7
5
8
.
2
0

7
5
0
.
3
0

7
5
1
.
6
1

7
5
2
.
8
7

7
6
8
.
5
7
09
-
M
a
y
-
1
3

7
6
9
.
9
5

7
8
7
.
5
6

7
5
9
.
2
0

7
5
2
.
5
2

7
5
3
.
2
4

7
5
4
.
4
4

-
07
-
N
o
v
-
1
3

7
7
1
.
4
6

D
R
Y

7
5
8
.
0
9

7
5
0
.
1
2

7
5
1
.
5
0

7
5
2
.
7
9

7
6
8
.
1
3
05
-
J
u
n
-
1
4

7
7
2
.
2
2

7
8
5
.
8
4

7
5
8
.
4
5

7
5
0
.
6
7

7
5
2
.
1
4

7
5
3
.
3
6

7
6
8
.
5
7
20
-
N
o
v
-
1
4

7
7
1
.
7
3

7
8
4
.
4
1

7
5
8
.
0
8

7
5
0
.
2
4

7
5
1
.
5
3

7
5
2
.
8
1

7
6
9
.
2
3
27
-
A
p
r
-
1
5

-

7
8
4
.
6
6

7
5
8
.
4
9

7
5
1
.
1
1

7
5
2
.
3
4

7
5
3
.
6
1

7
6
9
.
6
2
19
-
N
o
v
-
1
5

-

7
8
4
.
6
2

7
5
7
.
1
8

7
4
7
.
6
0

7
5
0
.
5
3

7
5
0
.
6
6

7
6
8
.
6
9
28
-
J
u
n
-
1
6

-

7
8
4
.
5
5

7
5
7
.
3
4

7
5
0
.
3
2

7
5
1
.
0
1

7
5
3
.
3
3

7
6
8
.
6
9
No
t
e
s
:
TO
C

=

T
o
p o
f

P
V
C

w
e
l
l

c
a
s
i
n
g .
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

f
e
e
t

a
b
o
v
e

m
e
a
n

s
e
a

l
e
v
e
l
.

W
e
l
l

d
e
p th
s

i
n

f
e
e
t

b
e
l
o
w

T
O
C
.
We
l
l

I
D
:
Do
w
n
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

N
o
.

3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering
TA
B
L
E

3
:

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

a
n
d

F
l
o
w

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
Da
t
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

T
a
b
l
e

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:

J
u
n
e

2
8
,

2
0
1
6
SE
G
M
E
N
T

H
O
R
I
Z
.

H
Y
D
R
A
U
L
I
C

E
F
F
E
C
T
I
V
E

L
I
N
E
A
R
FL
O
W

B
E
G
I
N

&

E
N
D

G
R
A
D
I
E
N
T

C
O
N
D
U
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y

P
O
R
O
S
I
T
Y

V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y
DI
R
E
C
T
I
O
N

G
W

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
iK
n e V
(f
e
e
t
-
A
M
S
L
)

(
f
t
/
f
t
)

(
f
t
/
d
a
y
)

(
f
t
/
y
e
a
r
)
78
5
76
0
No
t
e
s
:
Fo
r

F
l
o
w

L
i
n
e

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
,

s
e
e

D
r
a
w
i
n
g

1
.
Li
n
e
a
r

f
l
o
w

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
:

V

=

K
i
/
n
e

(
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d

D
a
r
c
y

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

(K
)
w
a
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

s
l
u
g

t
e
s
t
s

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

b
y

J
O
Y
C
E

i
n

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
3
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

p
o
r
i
s
i
t
y

(
n e
)
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
y
p
i
c
a
l

v
a
l
u
e
s

f
o
r

s
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e

i
n

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

P
i
e
d
m
o
n
t
.
As
s
u
m
e
s

a

h
o
m
o
g
e
n
e
o
u
s
,

i
s
o
t
r
o
p
i
c
,

p
o
r
o
u
s

a
q
u
i
f
e
r
0.30 65.4
1.
7
3
E
+
0
0
FL
O
W

L
I
N
E

SE
G
M
E
N
T
SE
G
M
E
N
T

LE
N
G
T
H

(f
e
e
t
)
i
1
80
5
SW
0.
0
3
1
1
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

N
o
.

3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering
TABLE 4: Historical Exceedances of Groundwater Standards for Organic Constituents
Sample
Analyte Date MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5
Benzene 30-Dec-09 ND 8.4 0.3 J 0.4 J 0.3 J ---
NC 2L = 1 µg/L (10/23/07) 01-Jun-10 ND 2.9 ND ND ND ---
29-Dec-10 ND 8.1 ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 ND 7.2 0.38 J 0.45 J 0.42 J ND
01-Nov-11 ND 8.6 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 ND 6.7 0.36 J 0.45 J 0.42 J ND
07-Nov-12 ---8.63 0.430 J 0.504 J 0.478 J ---
09-May-13 ND 5.2 0.27 J 0.32 J 0.30 J ---
07-Nov-13 ---6.9 0.33 J 0.38 J 0.39 J ---
05-Jun-14 ND 6.0 ND 0.42 J 0.40 J ND
20-Nov-14 ---6.2 0.30 J ND 0.32 J ND
27-Apr-15 ---6.4 0.38 J 0.48 J 0.45 J ND
19-Nov-15 ---6.0 ND 0.37 J ND ND
28-Jun-16 ---4.9 ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 30-Dec-09 ND 22.8 1.9 J 4.0 J 2.4 J ---
NC 2L = 6 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 ND 11.0 1.1 J ND 1.2 J ---
29-Dec-10 ND 28.2 2.4 J 4.1 J 2.6 J ND
29-Jun-11 ND 25.0 2.5 J 3.9 J 2.6 J ND
01-Nov-11 ND 27.2 2.3 J 4.0 J 2.3 J ND
01-May-12 ND 22.6 2.0 J 3.8 J 2.0 J ND
07-Nov-12 ---28.1 2.06 J 4.08 J ND ---
09-May-13 ND 18.7 1.4 J 3.0 J 1.6 J ---
07-Nov-13 ---26.6 1.7 J 4.2 J 2.2 J ---
05-Jun-14 ND 21.9 1.4 J 3.9 J 1.9 J ND
20-Nov-14 ---21.5 1.3 J 3.2 J 1.8 J ND
27-Apr-15 ---24.2 1.4 J 4.3 J 2.4 J ND
19-Nov-15 ---20.7 0.82 J 3.1 J 1.8 J ND
28-Jun-16 ---19.1 0.90 J 3.3 J 1.9 J ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 30-Dec-09 ND 1.2 0.7 J 1.2 ND ---
NC 2L = 0.4 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 ND ND ND ND ND ---
29-Dec-10 ND ND 0.82 J 1.1 ND ND
29-Jun-11 ND 0.76 J 0.86 J 1.3 ND ND
01-Nov-11 ND 0.95 J ND 1.3 ND ND
01-May-12 ND 0.71 J 0.70 J 1.1 ND ND
07-Nov-12 ---ND ND ND ND ---
09-May-13 ND 0.50 J 0.49 J 0.81 J ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---0.93 J 0.66 J 1.3 ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND 0.76 J 0.52 J 0.99 J ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---0.68 J 0.47 J 0.81 J ND ND
27-Apr-15 ---ND 0.56 J 1.2 0.15 J ND
19-Nov-15 ---0.86 J 0.40 J 1.1 ND ND
28-Jun-16 ---0.76 J 0.29 J 0.89 J ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 30-Dec-09 ND 68.2 11.0 51.0 21.8 ---
NC 2L = 70 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 ND 23.0 7.6 ND 10.2 ---
29-Dec-10 ND 66.7 16.8 56.7 24.1 ND
29-Jun-11 ND 55.1 16.5 62.7 25.1 ND
01-Nov-11 ND 59.4 15.2 59.3 23.2 ND
01-May-12 ND {48.7} 14.2 59.5 22.1 ND
07-Nov-12 ---59.7 13.6 71.3 26.4 ---
09-May-13 ND 39.9 10.9 49.7 17.4 ---
07-Nov-13 ---53.9 10.7 67.1 21.8 ---
05-Jun-14 ND 47.0 11.2 58.1 20.0 ND
20-Nov-14 ---44.9 9.6 55.4 19.3 ND
27-Apr-15 ---51.8 9.7 65.3 24.0 ND
19-Nov-15 ---44.4 5.6 51.2 18.8 ND
28-Jun-16 ---42.4 7.5 53.2 19.5 ND
Background Downgradient
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit # 34-04 Page 1 of 2
Joyce Engineering
October 2016
TABLE 4: Historical Exceedances of Groundwater Standards for Organic Constituents
1,2-Dichloropropane 30-Dec-09 ND 5.7 0.6 J 1.1 0.7 J ---
NC 2L = 0.6 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 ND 1.9 ND ND ND ---
29-Dec-10 ND 5.3 ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 ND 4.8 0.90 J 1.3 0.73 J ND
01-Nov-11 ND 4.9 0.76 J 1.3 ND ND
01-May-12 ND 4.4 0.76 J 1.4 0.62 J ND
07-Nov-12 ---4.93 ND 1.66 ND ---
09-May-13 ND 3.3 0.51 J 0.96 J 0.45 J ---
07-Nov-13 ---4.4 0.63 J 1.3 0.57 J ---
05-Jun-14 ND 4.0 0.51 J ND 0.41 J ND
20-Nov-14 ---4.1 0.56 J 1.2 0.36 J ND
27-Apr-15 ---4.8 0.59 J 1.6 0.57 J ND
19-Nov-15 ---4.3 ND 1.1 ND ND
28-Jun-16 ---4.3 ND 1.2 ND ND
Tetrachloroethene 30-Dec-09 ND 1.2 ND ND ND ---
NC 2L = 0.7 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 ND 1.4 ND ND ND ---
29-Dec-10 ND 2.8 ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 ND 3.6 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 ND 2.9 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 ND 3.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 ---2.52 ND ND ND ---
09-May-13 ND 1.9 ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---1.8 ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND 2.3 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---1.1 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 ---1.4 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 ---0.90 J ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 ---1.0 ND ND ND ND
Trichloroethene 30-Dec-09 ND 8.0 ND ND 0.2 J ---
NC 2L = 3 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 ND 6.4 ND ND ND ---
29-Dec-10 ND 10.1 ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 ND 14.6 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 ND 10.2 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 ND 11.6 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 ---9.97 ND ND ND ---
09-May-13 ND 8.4 ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---8.0 ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND 8.9 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---5.1 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 ---7.1 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 ---4.7 ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 ---4.9 ND ND ND ND
Vinyl chloride 30-Dec-09 ND 4.0 2.8 4.1 26.2 ---
NC 2L = 0.03 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 ND 2.2 3.0 ND 26.7 ---
29-Dec-10 ND 3.5 2.4 4.7 25.6 ND
29-Jun-11 ND 2.8 2.8 4.6 28.7 ND
01-Nov-11 ND 5.1 2.6 6.9 24.0 ND
01-May-12 ND 3.5 2.0 4.8 21.8 ND
07-Nov-12 ---7.94 2.73 6.99 29.9 ---
09-May-13 ND 2.8 1.9 4.2 18.6 ---
07-Nov-13 ---6.3 2.1 6.0 21.9 ---
05-Jun-14 ND 7.1 5.6 8.9 21.9 ND
20-Nov-14 ---5.2 2.1 5.3 16.2 ND
27-Apr-15 ---5.3 2.4 7.1 21.4 ND
19-Nov-15 ---7.7 2.0 6.7 17.3 ND
28-Jun-16 ---4.6 2.3 6.1 17.0 ND
Notes:
All concentrations are in micrograms per liter (µg/l)
NC 2L Standard is the groundwater quality standard established under 15A NCAC 2L
GWPS = Groundwater Protection Standard (GWPS is used when the NC 2L Standard has not been established.
ND = Not detected at the laboratory's detection limit
J = Estimated value - concentration is less than the reporting limit but greater than the detection limi
B = Blank-qualified data - the concentration is within five times the concentration reported in associated quality control blank
--- = Monitoring well was not sampled
Bold values are greater than the NC 2L Standard or GWPS
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit # 34-04 Page 2 of 2
Joyce Engineering
October 2016
TABLE 5: Histroic GPS Exceedancnes for Inorganic Constituents
Sample
Analyte Date MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5
Cadmium 30-Dec-09 ND 0.5 J 5.6 ND ND ---
NC 2L = 2 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 2.9 1.0 B 5.3 0.4 B 0.4 B ---
29-Dec-10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 ---0.15 J ND ND 0.043 J ---
09-May-13 ND ND ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---ND ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 ---ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 ---ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 ---ND 2.6 ND ND ND
Chromium 30-Dec-09 ND 2.7 J 9.7 J ND 3.1 J ---
NC 2L = 10 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 3.5 J 1.6 J 12.4 1.2 J 3.2 J ---
29-Dec-10 0.48 J 1.3 J 0.57 J ND 5.5 J 3.8 J
29-Jun-11 ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 ND ND ND ND 10.3 ND
01-May-12 ND ND ND ND 5.8 J ND
07-Nov-12 ---0.71 J 0.12 B 0.094 B 7.31 J ---
09-May-13 ND ND ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---ND ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 ---ND ND ND 7.2 J ND
19-Nov-15 ---ND ND ND 3.0 J ND
28-Jun-16 ---ND 11.9 ND 5.0 J ND
Cobalt 30-Dec-09 ND 6.4 J 11.2 ND 1.8 J ---
GWPS = 70 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 1.8 J 2.5 J 8.5 J ND 1.7 J ---
GWPS = 1 µg/L (10/1/10)29-Dec-10 ND 4.9 J 1.7 J ND 1.6 J 10.2
29-Jun-11 ND ND ND ND ND 9.9 J
01-Nov-11 ND ND ND ND ND 5.2 J
01-May-12 ND ND ND ND ND 13.9
07-Nov-12 ---1.98 J 3.89 J 0.43 B 2.02 J ---
09-May-13 ND ND ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---ND ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND ND ND ND ND 12.0
20-Nov-14 ---ND 2.5 J ND ND 10.2
27-Apr-15 ---ND 2.7 J ND ND 10.7
19-Nov-15 ---ND 3.9 J ND ND 3.5 J
28-Jun-16 ---ND 8.7 J ND 2.6 J 23.0
Lead 30-Dec-09 ND ND 10.2 ND ND ---
NC 2L = 15 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 9.1 B 8.2 B 8.7 B 3.0 B 3.9 B ---
29-Dec-10 ND ND ND ND ND 6.5 J
29-Jun-11 ND ND ND ND ND 19.9
01-Nov-11 5.5 J ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 ---1.00 B 0.091 B 0.066 B 1.12 B ---
09-May-13 ND ND ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---ND ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---ND ND ND ND 4.2 J
27-Apr-15 ---ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 ---ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 ---ND 6.3 J ND 3.7 J ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit 34-04 Page 1 or 2
Joyce Engineering
October 2016
TABLE 5: Histroic GPS Exceedancnes for Inorganic Constituents
Sample
Analyte Date MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5
Thallium 30-Dec-09 ND ND ND ND ND ---
GWPS = 0.28 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 ND ND ND ND ND ---
GWPS = 0.2 µg/L (10/1/10)29-Dec-10 ND 3.2 J ND ND 4.8 J ND
29-Jun-11 ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 ---0.16 J ND ND 0.76 J ---
09-May-13 ND ND ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---ND ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 ---ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 ---ND ND 8.8 8.8 ND
28-Jun-16 ---ND ND ND ND ND
Vanadium 30-Dec-09 ND 1.4 J 37.4 1.5 J 4.3 J ---
GWPS = 3.5 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 1.2 J 3.4 J 84.2 1.4 J 4.8 J ---
GWPS = 0.3 µg/L (10/1/10)29-Dec-10 1.2 B 2.8 J 2.3 J 1.6 J 5.5 J 14.5 J
29-Jun-11 ND ND ND ND ND 22.0 J
01-Nov-11 7.2 J ND ND ND 12.0 J 7.2 J
01-May-12 ND ND ND ND 7.2 J 7.6 J
07-Nov-12 ---2.48 J 2.02 J 2.35 J 4.55 J ---
09-May-13 ND ND ND ND ND ---
07-Nov-13 ---ND ND ND ND ---
05-Jun-14 ND ND 11.4 J ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 ---ND 3.2 J ND ND 9.4 J
27-Apr-15 ---ND ND ND 8.9 J 5.6 J
19-Nov-15 ---3.1 J 4.3 J ND 6.5 J 3.9 J
28-Jun-16 ---ND 45.2 ND 6.8 J 7.6 J
Notes:
All concentrations are in micrograms per liter (µg/l).
NC 2L Standard is the groundwater quality standard established under 15A NCAC 2L.
GWPS = Groundwater Protection Standard (GWPS is used when the NC 2L Standard has not been established.)
ND = Not detected at the laboratory's detection limit.
J = Estimated value - concentration is less than the reporting limit but greater than the detection limit.
B = Blank-qualified data - the concentration is within five times the concentration reported in associated quality control blanks.
--- = Monitoring well was not sampled.
Bold values are greater than the NC 2L Standard or GWPS.
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit 34-04 Page 2 or 2
Joyce Engineering
October 2016
TABLE 6: Recent and Historical MNA Parameters
Analyte Sample Date DL RL MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4
Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 5-Jun-14 1,000 5,000 4,600 J 148,000 147,000 160,000 186,000
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 1,000 5,000 --- 159,000 151,000 159,000 181,000
15-Apr-15 1,000 5,000 --- 141,000 134,000 146,000 166,000
19-Nov-15 1,000 5,000 --- 158,000 147,000 158,000 185,000
29-Jun-16 1,000 5,000 --- 135,000 142,000 148,000 165,000
Sulfate 5-Jun-14 2,000 250,000 6,500 J ND ND ND ND
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 1,000 250,000 ---1760 J 1730 J 1870 J 1560 J
15-Apr-15 1,000 250,000 ---ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 1,000 250,000 ---1190 J 1360 J 1520 J 1240 J
29-Jun-16 1,000 250,000 ---1390 J 1750 J 1740 J 1400 J
Nitrogen, Nitrate 5-Jun-14 20.0 1,000 72.0 J 56 J ND ND ND
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 10.0 1,000 ---45 J ND ND ND
15-Apr-15 10.0 1,000 ---ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 10.0 1,000 ---69.4 J 15.8 J 13.1 J 19.1 J
29-Jun-16 10.0 10,000 ---74.9 J ND ND ND
Ethene 14-Jun-14 0.47 10 ND ND ND ND ND
(µg/l)14-Nov-14 0.47 10 ---ND ND ND ND
15-Apr-15 0.47 10 ---ND ND ND 4.1 J
15-Nov-15 0.47 10 ---ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-16 0.77 10 ---ND ND ND 2.6 J
Ethane 14-Jun-14 5.0 10 ND ND ND ND ND
(µg/l)14-Nov-14 5.0 10 ---ND ND ND ND
15-Apr-15 5.0 10 ---ND ND ND ND
15-Nov-15 5.0 10 ---ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-16 0.87 10 ---ND 1.7 J ND ND
Methane 5-Jun-14 3.3 6.6 ND 5,530 254 242 515
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 3.3 6.6 ---4,980 159 182 186
15-Apr-15 3.3 6.6 ---4,160 178 188 536
19-Nov-15 3.3 6.0 ---6,010 220 160 3 J
29-Jun-16 0.5 10 ---3,190 164 128 376
Chloride 5-Jun-14 1,000 1,000 2,220 11,200 25,900 16,800 15,600
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 500 1,000 --- 17,100 27,900 17,300 17,100
15-Apr-15 500 1,000 --- 12,200 26,900 17,200 17,000
19-Nov-15 500 1,000 --- 16,300 27,800 17,400 16,900
29-Jun-16 500 1,000 --- 10,600 30,700 18,900 18,400
Total Organic Carbon 5-Jun-14 1,000 1,000 3,100 10,600 8,300 1,500 8,200
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 500 1,000 ---2,150 1,750 1,370 1,100
15-Apr-15 500 1,000 ---1,510 1,720 1,380 1,630
19-Nov-15 500 1,000 ---889 J 1,210 ND 1,900
29-Jun-16 500 1,000 ---1,080 2,870 810 J 1,480
BTEX 5-Jun-14 --- --- ND 6.0 ND 0.42 0.40
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 --- --- ---6.2 0.30 ND 0.32
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---6.4 0.38 0.48 0.45
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---6.0 ND 0.37 ND29-Jun-16 --- --- ---4.9 ND ND ND
Dissolved Hydrogen 5-Jun-14 0.13 0.6 ---1.5 1.2 120 3.5
(nM)20-Nov-14 0.13 0.6 ---2.0 1.1 4.4 1.4
15-Apr-15 0.13 0.6 ---2.3 1.4 320 4.4
19-Nov-15 0.13 0.6 ---1.9 1.4 7.4 1.4
29-Jun-16 0.08 0.6 ---8.8 280 3,600 15
Background Downgradient
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 1 of 3
Joyce Engineering
TABLE 6: Recent and Historical MNA Parameters
Analyte Sample Date DL RL MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4
Background Downgradient
Biological Oxygen Demand 5-Jun-14 2,000 2,000 ND ND ND ND ND
(BOD, 5 day)20-Nov-14 2,000 2,000 ---4,900 ND ND ND
(µg/l)15-Apr-15 2,000 2,000 ---5,670 ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2,000 2,000 ---5,000 ND ND ND
29-Jun-16 2,000 2,000 ---ND 2,000 ND ND
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 5-Jun-14 12,500 25,000 ND ND ND ND ND
(µg/l)20-Nov-14 12,500 25,000 ---ND ND 431,000 ND
15-Apr-15 12,500 25,000 ---ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 12,500 25,000 ---ND ND ND 16,000 J
29-Jun-16 12,500 25,000 ---ND 17,000 J ND 17,000 J
Acetic Acid 14-Jun-14 890 5,000 ND ND ND ND ND
(µg/l)14-Nov-14 890 5,000 ---ND ND ND ND
15-Apr-15 890 5,000 ---2,500 J ND 1,700 J ND
19-Nov-15 160 200 ---ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-16 330 5,000 ---ND ND ND 500 J
Propionic Acid 14-Jun-14 730 5,000 ND ND ND ND ND
(µg/l)14-Nov-14 730 5,000 ---ND ND ND ND
15-Apr-15 730 5,000 ---750 J ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 65 100 ---ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-16 52 5,000 ---ND ND ND ND
Total Volatile Fatty Acids 14-Jun-14 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND
(µg/l)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---ND ND ND ND
(Sum of above two acids)15-Apr-15 --- --- ---3,250 J ND 1,700 J ND
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-16 --- --- ---ND ND ND 500 J
Ferrous Iron 14-Jun-14 --- --- ND ---ND ND 0.90
(mg/l)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---0.50 ND ND 0.50
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---0.50 0.20 ND 0.70
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---0.50 ND ND 0.50
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---ND ND ND 0.50
Oxidation Reduction Potential 14-Jun-14 --- --- 99.1 92.6 65.7 15.4 38.3
(mV)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---53.2 18.1 65.7 59.1
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---55.9 31.3 43.9 41.5
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---100.3 57.6 29.4 34.5
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---51.6 43.4 17.9 38.5
pH 14-Jun-14 --- --- 6.46 5.56 6.62 6.05 6.41
(S.U.)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---6.26 6.37 6.34 6.42
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---6.12 6.35 6.29 6.46
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---6.03 6.15 6.06 6.45
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---5.54 5.80 5.81 5.84
Temperature 14-Jun-14 --- --- 18.1 15.2 18.7 16.5 17.4
(ºC)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---15.9 15.0 14.0 14.3
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---13.6 14.7 15.9 12.6
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---17.1 16.0 15.8 16.0
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---16.4 15.4 15.8 15.0
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 2 of 3
Joyce Engineering
TABLE 6: Recent and Historical MNA Parameters
Analyte Sample Date DL RL MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4
Background Downgradient
Turbidity 14-Jun-14 --- --- 103.8 13.05 11.5 8.01 4.35
(NTU)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---9.78 30.1 20.1 6.71
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---14.85 6.88 9.55 15.0
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---4.4 20.7 7.00 7.72
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---3.23 15.8 5.17 9.68
Conductivity 14-Jun-14 --- --- 43.9 268.7 335.4 315.4 347.5
(µS/cm)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---296.5 309.6 235.5 315.1
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---252.1 288.5 289.7 292.2
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---293.1 301.5 294.7 320.4
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---256.1 321.4 298.1 319.2
Dissolved Oxygen 14-Jun-14 --- --- 3.04 2.11 1.89 1.31 1.84
(mg/l)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---2.91 1.79 3.35 2.35
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---2.40 1.38 1.64 2.04
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---1.85 2.49 0.81 3.92
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---2.20 2.41 2.81 2.75
Dissolved Carbon Dioxide 14-Jun-14 --- --- 60 --- 55 80 115
(mg/l)14-Nov-14 --- --- ---65 45 90 35
15-Apr-15 --- --- ---55 50 85 80
19-Nov-15 --- --- ---125 115 90 70
28-Jun-16 --- --- ---100 65 90 85
Notes:
DL = Detection limit.
RL = Reporting Limit (NC SWSL).
ND = Not detected at the laboratory's detection limit.
J = Estimated value - concentration is less than the reporting limit but greater than the detection limit.
B = Blank-qualified detection - concentration is within five times the concentration reported in the associated quality control blanks.
--- = Monitoring well was not sampled for this parameter.
µg/l = micrograms per liter.
mg/l = milligrams per liter.
mV = milliVolts.
S.U. = Standard Units.
nM = nanomolars.
µS/cm = microSeimens per centimeter.
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 3 of 3
Joyce Engineering
TABLE 7:
EPA Biodegradation Screening Matrix
Parameter Concentration Interpretation Possible Points Awarded Points Awarded
in Plume Points with DP points without DP points
Oxygen < 0.5 mg/L Tolerated, suppresses the reductive pathway at higher 3
concentrations 0 0
> 5 mg/L Not tolerated; however, vinyl chloride may be oxidized -3
aerobically
Nitrate < 1 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 2 2 2
pathway
Iron II (Ferrous Iron)> 1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible; vinyl chloride may be 3 0 0
oxidized under Fe (III) - reducing conditions
Sulfate < 20 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 2 2 2
pathway
Sulfide > 1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible 3
Methane < 0.5 mg/L Vinyl chloride oxidizes 0
> 0.5 mg/L Ultimate reductive daughter product, vinyl chloride 3 3 0
accumulates
Oxidation Reduction < 50 mV Reductive pathway possible 1 1 1
Potential < -100 mV Reductive pathway likely 2
pH 5 < pH < 9 Optimal range for reductive pathway 0 0 0
5 > pH > 9 Outside optimal range for reductive pathway -2
TOC > 20 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination; can 2 0 0
be natural or anthropogenic
Temperature >20o C At T > 20
oC biochemical process is accelerated 10 0
Carbon Dioxide > 2x background Ultimate oxidative daughter product 1 0 0
Alkalinity > 2x background Results from interaction between CO2 and 1 1 1
aquifer minerals
Chloride > 2x background Daughter product of organic chlorine 2 2 2
Hydrogen > 1 nM Reductive pathway possible 3 3 3
< 1 nM Vinyl chloride oxidizes 0
Volatile Fatty Acids > 0.1 mg/L Intermediates resulting from biodegradation of more 2 0 0
complex compounds; carbon and energy source
BTEX > 0.1 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination 2 0 0
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) --- Material released 0 0 0
Trichloroethene (TCE) --- Material released 0 2
--- Daughter product of PCE 2 2
Dichloroethenes (DCE) --- Material released 0 0
Daughter product of TCE 2 2
Dichloroethene, cis-1,2, --- Material released 0 2
--- Daughter product of trichlorethene 2 2
Vinyl Chloride (VC) --- Material released 0 0
--- Daughter product of DCE 2 2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) --- Material released 0 0 0
1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA) --- Material released 0 0
Daughter product of TCA 2 2
Chloroethane --- Daughter product of dichloroethane or vinyl chloride
under reducing conditions 2 0 0
Ethene/Ethane > 0.01 mg/L Daughter products of vinyl chloride/ethene 2 0 0
> 0.1 mg/L 3
Chloroform --- Material released 0 0
--- Daughter product of carbon tetrachloride 2 0
Dichloromethane (MC) --- Material released 0 0
(Methylene Chloride) --- Daughter product of chloroform 2 0
Based primarily on data collected on June 29, 2016. Total Points Awarded : 24 15
mg/L = miligrams per liter NOTE: Chloroethane, Methane, TCE, DCE, cis-1,2-DCE, MC, VC, DCA, and CO2 may be present in the plume; however,
mV = millivolts it is uncertain whether these are primary leachate constituents or daughter products (DPs); therefore, we
nM = Nanometer have two calculation columns. The first column assumes all of these are daughter products, and the
C = Celcius second column assumes none of them are. The true score is probably between the two.
NA = Not Analyzed
BTEX = Sum of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Total Xylenes SCORE: Evid. of Nat. Atten.
This screening matrix is prepared in general accordance with the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency's < 5 inadequate
(EPA's) Table 2.3 Analytical Parameters and Weighted for Preliminary Screening for Anaerobic Biodegradation 6-14 limited
Process presented in the EPA's Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents 15-19 adequate
in Groundwater, September 1988.> 20 strong
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit # 34-04
Joyce Engineering
October 2016

CHARTS

To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
1.
0
2.
0
3.
0
4.
0
5.
0
6.
0
7.
0
8.
0
9.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
B
e
n
z
e
n
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 1:

Be
n
z
e
n
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 1  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
5.
0
10
.
0
15
.
0
20
.
0
25
.
0
30
.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
1
,
1
‐
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 2:

1,
1
‐Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 6  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
0.
2
0.
4
0.
6
0.
8
1.
0
1.
2
1.
4
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
1
,
2
‐
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 3:

1,
2
‐Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 0.4  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
10
.
0
20
.
0
30
.
0
40
.
0
50
.
0
60
.
0
70
.
0
80
.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
c
i
s
‐
1
,
2
‐
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 4:

ci
s
‐1,
2
‐Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 70  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
1.
0
2.
0
3.
0
4.
0
5.
0
6.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
1
,
2
‐
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 5:

1,
2
‐Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
a
n
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 0.6  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
0.
5
1.
0
1.
5
2.
0
2.
5
3.
0
3.
5
4.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 6:

Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 0.7  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
2.
0
4.
0
6.
0
8.
0
10
.
0
12
.
0
14
.
0
16
.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 7:

Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 3  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
5.
0
10
.
0
15
.
0
20
.
0
25
.
0
30
.
0
35
.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
V
i
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 8:

Vi
n
y
l
 Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4 NC  2L  = 0.03  µg/L
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
.
0
4
Joyce Engineering
0.
0
20
.
0
40
.
0
60
.
0
80
.
0
10
0
.
0
12
0
.
0
14
0
.
0
D
e
c
‐
0
9
J
u
n
‐
1
0
D
e
c
‐
1
0
J
u
n
‐
1
1
D
e
c
‐
1
1
J
u
n
‐
1
2
D
e
c
‐
1
2
J
u
n
‐
1
3
D
e
c
‐
1
3
J
u
n
‐
1
4
D
e
c
‐
1
4
J
u
n
‐
1
5
D
e
c
‐
1
5
Jun‐16
T
o
t
a
l

V
O
C

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Da
t
e
CH
A
R
T
 9:

To
t
a
l
 VO
C
 Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
 vs
.
 Ti
m
e
MW ‐2 MW ‐3S MW ‐3D MW ‐4

FIGURES

Fi
g
u
r
e

2
:

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

M
a
p

(E
x
c
e
r
p
t

f
r
o
m

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

M
a
p

o
f

t
h
e

E
a
s
t

Ha
l
f

o
f

t
h
e

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m

Q
u
a
d
r
a
n
g
l
e
)

Kernersville Landfill

DRAWINGS

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Historical Detected Groundwater Constituents

APPENDIX A:
HISTORICAL DETECTED GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL RL MW-1 MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5 Blanks
Inorganic Compounds
Antimony 30-Dec-09 1.2 6.0 --- ND 5.4 B ND ND 4.5 B --- 1.4 J
GWPS = 1.4 µg/L (10/23/07) 01-Jun-10 1.2 6.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- 3.9 J
GWPS = 1 µg/L (8/1/10) 29-Dec-10 2.6 6.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 6.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 6.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 6.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.48 6.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
09-May-13 5.0 6.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 6.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 6.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 3.8 6.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 3.8 6.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 3.8 6.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 3.8 6.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
Arsenic 29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND 6.2 J ND
NC 2L = 10 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.094 10.0 --- --- 1.43 B 1.42 B 0.87 B 1.04 B --- 1 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 --- --- ND 2.5 J ND ND 2.7 J ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND 2.7 J ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND 3.7 J ND
Barium 30-Dec-09 1.1 100 --- 74.1 J 496 178 18.2 J 89.0 J --- 3.6 J
NC 2L = 700 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 1.1 100 --- 58.1 J 326 187 22.2 J 94.9 J --- 2.0 J
29-Dec-10 0.20 100 --- 46.3 B 430 112 38.0 B 92.1 J 72.6 J 11.3 J
29-Jun-11 5.0 100 --- 77.7 J 370 128 41.2 J 98.4 J 113 ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 100 --- 125 413 132 41.7 J 111 72.1 J ND
01-May-12 5.0 100 --- 78.8 J 323 121 40.0 J 99.7 J 66.1 J ND
07-Nov-12 0.39 100 --- --- 369 127 41.0 B 98.7 J --- 12.2 J
09-May-13 5.0 100 --- 78.6 J 307 112 40.0 J 85.6 J --- ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 100 --- --- 302 113 38.0 J 89.6 J --- ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 100 --- 60.3 J 285 117 39.2 J 80.3 J 75.0 J ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 100 --- --- 301 113 39.5 J 83.3 J 108 ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 100 --- --- 268 104 39.0 J 94.8 J 67.4 J ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 100 --- --- 294 108 42.2 J 101 60.3 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 100 --- --- 253 155 37.9 J 90.1 J 70.6 J ND
Beryllium 30-Dec-09 0.2 1.0 --- ND 0.5 J ND ND ND --- ND
GWPS = 4 µg/L (10/23/07) 01-Jun-10 0.2 1.0 --- 0.6 J 0.7 J ND ND ND --- ND
29-Dec-10 0.10 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND 0.48 J ND
29-Jun-11 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.049 1.00 --- --- 0.34 J ND ND 0.099 J --- ND
09-May-13 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
07-Nov-13 1.0 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.5 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.5 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.5 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.5 1.0 --- --- 0.60 J 0.74 J ND 0.52 J 0.54 J ND
Cadmium 30-Dec-09 0.2 1.0 --- ND 0.5 J 5.6 ND ND --- ND
NC 2L = 2 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 0.2 1.0 ---2.9 1.0 B 5.3 0.4 B 0.4 B --- 0.4 J
29-Dec-10 0.50 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.026 1.00 --- --- 0.15 J ND ND 0.043 J --- ND
09-May-13 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
07-Nov-13 1.0 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 1.0 1.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.5 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.5 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.5 1.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.5 1.0 --- --- ND 2.6 ND ND ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 1 of 7
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX A:
HISTORICAL DETECTED GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL RL MW-1 MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5 Blanks
Chromium 30-Dec-09 0.7 10.0 ---ND 2.7 J 9.7 J ND 3.1 J ---ND
NC 2L = 10 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 0.7 10.0 ---3.5 J 1.6 J 12.4 1.2 J 3.2 J ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.40 10.0 --- 0.48 J 1.3 J 0.57 J ND 5.5 J 3.8 J ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND 10.3 ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND 5.8 J ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.030 10.0 ------ 0.71 J 0.12 B 0.094 B 7.31 J ---0.099 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND 7.2 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND 3.0 J ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ------ND 11.9 ND 5.0 J ND ND
Cobalt 30-Dec-09 0.7 10.0 ---ND 6.4 J 11.2 ND 1.8 J ---ND
GWPS = 70 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 0.7 10.0 ---1.8 J 2.5 J 8.5 J ND 1.7 J ---ND
GWPS = 1 µg/L (10/1/10)29-Dec-10 0.60 10.0 ---ND 4.9 J 1.7 J ND 1.6 J 10.2 ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 9.9 J ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 5.2 J ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 13.9 ND
07-Nov-12 0.053 10.0 ------ 1.98 J 3.89 J 0.43 B 2.02 J ---0.24 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 12.0 ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ------ND 2.5 J ND ND 10.2 ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND 2.7 J ND ND 10.7 ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND 3.9 J ND ND 3.5 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ------ND 8.7 J ND 2.6 J 23.0 ND
Copper 30-Dec-09 2.0 10.0 ---ND ND 10.6 ND 1.5 J ---ND
NC 2L = 1,000 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 2.0 10.0 --- 12.2 B 3.3 B 33.2 3.9 B 6.8 B ---4.8 J
29-Dec-10 0.30 10.0 ---ND ND 0.49 J 0.59 J 1.5 J 7.9 J ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 16.6 ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND 5.4 J ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.093 10.0 ------ 3.56 B 0.54 B 0.98 B 1.83 B ---1.23 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 6.1 J ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND 5.3 J ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND 3.5 B 3.6 B 3.2 J
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND 2.6 J 5.1 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ------ND 17.6 ND 2.7 J 2.5 J ND
Lead 30-Dec-09 2.0 10.0 ---ND ND 10.2 ND ND ---ND
NC 2L = 15 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 2.0 10.0 ---9.1 B 8.2 B 8.7 B 3.0 B 3.9 B ---3.2 J
29-Dec-10 4.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 6.5 J ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 19.9 ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ---5.5 J ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.025 10.0 ------ 1.00 B 0.091 B 0.066 B 1.12 B ---0.58 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND 4.2 J ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ------ND 6.3 J ND 3.7 J ND ND
Nickel 30-Dec-09 0.6 50.0 ---ND ND 8.1 J 1.8 J 1.6 J ---ND
NC 2L = 100 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 0.6 50.0 ---ND ND 6.0 J ND 0.9 J ---ND
29-Dec-10 1.7 50.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 2.0 B 3.1 J
29-Jun-11 5.0 50.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 50.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 50.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.26 50.0 ------ 0.73 B 1.19 B 0.65 B 5.57 J ---0.84 J
09-May-13 5.0 50.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 50.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 50.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 50.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 50.0 ------ND ND ND 3.4 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 50.0 ------ND ND ND 2.6 J ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 50.0 ------ND 6.2 J ND 2.6 J ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 2 of 7
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX A:
HISTORICAL DETECTED GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL RL MW-1 MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5 Blanks
Selenium 30-Dec-09 6.3 10.0 ---ND ND 8.4 J ND ND ---ND
NC 2L = 20 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 6.3 10.0 ---ND ND 6.3 J ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 3.8 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.11 10.0 ------ 0.16 J 0.38 J 0.20 J 0.25 J ---ND
09-May-13 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 10.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
Silver 30-Dec-09 1.1 10.0 ---ND 1.7 B 2.2 B ND ND ---1.9 J
NC 2L = 20 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 1.1 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.10 10.0 ---ND 1.8 J 0.36 J 0.19 J 0.23 J ND ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.017 10.0 ------ 0.18 J ND ND 0.078 J ---ND
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
Thallium 30-Dec-09 2.7 5.5 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---3.7 J
GWPS = 0.28 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 2.7 5.5 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
GWPS = 0.2 µg/L (10/1/10)29-Dec-10 3.0 5.5 ---ND 3.2 J ND ND 4.8 J ND ND
29-Jun-11 5.4 5.5 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.4 5.5 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.4 5.5 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.060 5.50 ------ 0.16 J ND ND 0.76 J ---ND
09-May-13 5.4 5.5 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.4 5.5 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.4 5.5 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 5.0 5.5 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 5.0 5.5 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 5.0 5.5 ------ND ND 8.8 8.8 ND ND
28-Jun-16 5.0 5.5 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
Vanadium 30-Dec-09 0.4 25.0 ---ND 1.4 J 37.4 1.5 J 4.3 J ---ND
GWPS = 3.5 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 0.4 25.0 ---1.2 J 3.4 J 84.2 1.4 J 4.8 J ---ND
GWPS = 0.3 µg/L (10/1/10)29-Dec-10 0.20 25.0 ---1.2 B 2.8 J 2.3 J 1.6 J 5.5 J 14.5 J 0.26 J
29-Jun-11 5.0 25.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 22.0 J ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 25.0 ---7.2 J ND ND ND 12.0 J 7.2 J ND
01-May-12 5.0 25.0 ---ND ND ND ND 7.2 J 7.6 J ND
07-Nov-12 0.085 25.0 ------ 2.48 J 2.02 J 2.35 J 4.55 J ---ND
09-May-13 5.0 25.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 25.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 25.0 ---ND ND 11.4 J ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 25.0 ------ND 3.2 J ND ND 9.4 J ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 25.0 ------ND ND ND 8.9 J 5.6 J ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 25.0 ------3.1 J 4.3 J ND 6.5 J 3.9 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 25.0 ------ND 45.2 ND 6.8 J 7.6 J ND
Zinc 30-Dec-09 2.7 10.0 ---ND 10.1 B 204 15.9 B 24.8 B ---5.8 J
NC 2L = 1,000 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 2.7 10.0 --- 16.2 13.5 415 8.5 J 22.2 ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.40 10.0 --- 12.2 B 15.8 B 8.9 B ND 4.6 B 38.1 B 12.5
29-Jun-11 10.0 10.0 ---ND 23.6 B 22.3 B ND 15.5 B 91.2 10.5
01-Nov-11 10.0 10.0 --- 16.6 ND 40.0 ND 16.2 31.4 ND
01-May-12 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND 13.5 ND 10.2 12.0 ND
07-Nov-12 1.31 10.0 ------ 8.61 J 5.20 J 3.98 J 4.65 J ---ND
09-May-13 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 10.0 10.0 ------ 13.8 10.4 ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 10.0 10.0 ---ND ND 89.0 ND ND 19.4 ND
20-Nov-14 5.0 10.0 ------ND 20.9 ND ND 55.0 ND
27-Apr-15 5.0 10.0 ------7.3 B 11.5 B 8 B 14.1 B 10.3 B 7.5 J
19-Nov-15 5.0 10.0 ------ND 23.1 7.3 J 10.7 16.3 ND
28-Jun-16 5.0 10.0 ------ND 404 ND 6.5 J 5.7 J ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 3 of 7
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX A:
HISTORICAL DETECTED GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL RL MW-1 MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5 Blanks
Organic Compounds
Acetone 29-Jun-11 2.2 100 --- ND 2.3 B 2.4 B 3.9 B ND 3.8 B 5.3 J
NC 2L = 6,000 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Nov-11 2.2 100 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND 14.6 J
01-May-12 2.2 100 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.193 100 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
09-May-13 10.0 100 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- 12.0 J
07-Nov-13 10.0 100 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 10.0 100 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 10.0 100 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 10.0 100 --- --- ND 14.8 B ND 21.3 B 14.1 B 20.7 J
19-Nov-15 10.0 100 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 10.0 100 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benzene 30-Dec-09 0.1 1.0 --- ND 8.4 0.3 J 0.4 J 0.3 J --- ND
NC 2L = 1 µg/L (10/23/07) 01-Jun-10 0.1 1.0 --- ND 2.9 ND ND ND --- ND
29-Dec-10 0.25 1.0 --- ND 8.1 ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.25 1.0 --- ND 7.2 0.38 J 0.45 J 0.42 J ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.25 1.0 --- ND 8.6 ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.25 1.0 --- ND 6.7 0.36 J 0.45 J 0.42 J ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.111 1.0 --- ---8.63 0.430 J 0.504 J 0.478 J --- ND
09-May-13 0.25 1.0 --- ND 5.2 0.27 J 0.32 J 0.30 J --- ND
07-Nov-13 0.25 1.0 --- ---6.9 0.33 J 0.38 J 0.39 J --- ND
05-Jun-14 0.25 1.0 --- ND 6.0 ND 0.42 J 0.40 J ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.25 1.0 --- ---6.2 0.30 J ND 0.32 J ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.25 1.0 --- ---6.4 0.38 J 0.48 J 0.45 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.25 1.0 --- ---6.0 ND 0.37 J ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.25 1.0 --- ---4.9 ND ND ND ND ND
Bromoform 09-May-13 0.26 3.0 --- ND ND 0.37 B ND ND --- 0.37 J
NC 2L = µg/L 4 (10/23/07) 07-Nov-13 0.26 3.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 0.26 3.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.26 3.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.26 3.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.26 3.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.26 3.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene 30-Dec-09 0.1 3.0 --- ND 0.5 J 0.6 J ND ND --- ND
NC 2L = 50 µg/L (10/23/07) 01-Jun-10 0.1 3.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
29-Dec-10 0.23 3.0 --- ND 0.61 J ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.23 3.0 --- ND 0.46 J 1.0 J 0.37 J ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.23 3.0 --- ND 0.59 J 1.1 J 0.37 J ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.23 3.0 --- ND {0.42} J 0.94 B 0.38 B ND ND 0.30 {ND} J
07-Nov-12 0.083 3.00 --- --- 0.468 J 1.30 J 0.476 J ND --- ND
09-May-13 0.23 3.0 --- ND 0.27 J 0.72 J 0.27 J ND --- ND
07-Nov-13 0.23 3.0 --- --- 0.42 J 0.97 J 0.38 J ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 0.23 3.0 --- ND 0.30 J 0.78 J 0.33 J ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.23 3.0 --- --- 0.37 J 0.95 J 0.36 J ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.23 3.0 --- --- 0.27 J 1.0 J 0.40 J ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.23 3.0 --- --- 0.31 J 0.81 J 0.33 J ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.23 3.0 --- --- 0.26 J 1.1 J 0.34 J ND ND ND
Chloroethane 30-Dec-09 0.1 10.0 --- ND ND 0.5 J 0.5 J ND --- 0.1 J
NC 2L = 3,000 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 0.1 10.0 --- ND ND 0.4 J ND ND --- ND
29-Dec-10 0.54 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.54 10.0 --- ND ND 0.77 J ND 0.57 J ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.54 10.0 --- ND ND 0.79 J ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.54 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.235 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
09-May-13 0.54 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
07-Nov-13 0.54 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 0.54 10.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.54 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.54 10.0 --- --- ND 0.95 J 0.65 J 0.57 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.54 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.54 10.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 30-Dec-09 0.1 1.0 --- ND 3.8 2.2 2.3 3.1 --- ND
NC 2L = 6 µg/L (1/11/10) 01-Jun-10 0.1 1.0 --- ND 1.2 0.9 J ND 1.2 --- ND
29-Dec-10 0.33 1.0 --- ND 3.9 1.1 2.3 1.9 ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.33 1.0 --- ND 3.8 2.8 3.6 3.2 ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.33 1.0 --- ND 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.5 ND ND
01-May-12 0.33 1.0 --- ND 4.0 2.7 4.1 3.2 ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.083 1.00 --- --- 5.12 2.93 4.08 3.64 --- ND
09-May-13 0.33 1.0 --- ND 3.6 2.0 3.1 2.3 --- ND
07-Nov-13 0.33 1.0 --- --- 5.4 2.5 4.2 3.2 --- ND
05-Jun-14 0.33 1.0 --- ND 5.0 1.9 4.0 2.7 ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.33 1.0 ------4.7 1.9 3.8 2.6 ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.33 1.0 ------4.7 2.1 4.2 2.7 ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.33 1.0 ------4.8 1.4 3.5 2.5 ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.33 1.0 ------4.8 1.7 3.9 2.4 ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 4 of 7
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX A:
HISTORICAL DETECTED GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL RL MW-1 MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5 Blanks
1,1-Dichloroethane 30-Dec-09 0.2 5.0 ---ND 22.8 1.9 J 4.0 J 2.4 J ---ND
NC 2L = 6 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 0.2 5.0 ---ND 11.0 1.1 J ND 1.2 J ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.32 5.0 ---ND 28.2 2.4 J 4.1 J 2.6 J ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.32 5.0 ---ND 25.0 2.5 J 3.9 J 2.6 J ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.32 5.0 ---ND 27.2 2.3 J 4.0 J 2.3 J ND ND
01-May-12 0.32 5.0 ---ND 22.6 2.0 J 3.8 J 2.0 J ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.208 5.0 ------28.1 2.06 J 4.08 J ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.32 5.0 ---ND 18.7 1.4 J 3.0 J 1.6 J ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.32 5.0 ------26.6 1.7 J 4.2 J 2.2 J ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.32 5.0 ---ND 21.9 1.4 J 3.9 J 1.9 J ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.32 5.0 ------21.5 1.3 J 3.2 J 1.8 J ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.32 5.0 ------24.2 1.4 J 4.3 J 2.4 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.32 5.0 ------20.7 0.82 J 3.1 J 1.8 J ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.32 5.0 ------19.1 0.90 J 3.3 J 1.9 J ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 30-Dec-09 0.1 1.0 ---ND 1.2 0.7 J 1.2 ND ---ND
NC 2L = 0.4 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 0.1 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.12 1.0 ---ND ND 0.82 J 1.1 ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.12 1.0 ---ND 0.76 J 0.86 J 1.3 ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.12 1.0 ---ND 0.95 J ND 1.3 ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.12 1.0 ---ND 0.71 J 0.70 J 1.1 ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.171 1.00 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.12 1.0 ---ND 0.50 J 0.49 J 0.81 J ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.12 1.0 ------ 0.93 J 0.66 J 1.3 ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.12 1.0 ---ND 0.76 J 0.52 J 0.99 J ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.12 1.0 ------ 0.68 J 0.47 J 0.81 J ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.12 1.0 ------ND 0.56 J 1.2 0.15 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.24 1.0 ------0.86 J 0.40 J 1.1 ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.24 1.0 ------0.76 J 0.29 J 0.89 J ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 30-Dec-09 0.1 5.0 --- ND 0.4 J ND ND ND --- ND
NC 2L = 7 µg/L (10/23/07) 01-Jun-10 0.1 5.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
29-Dec-10 0.56 5.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.56 5.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.56 5.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.56 5.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.208 5.00 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
NC 2L = 350 µg/L (04/01/2013) 09-May-13 0.56 5.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND --- ND
07-Nov-13 0.56 5.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND --- ND
05-Jun-14 0.56 5.0 --- ND 4.7 J ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.56 5.0 --- ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.56 5.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.56 5.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.56 5.0 --- --- ND ND ND ND ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 30-Dec-09 0.1 5.0 ---ND 68.2 11.0 51.0 21.8 ---ND
NC 2L = 70 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 0.1 5.0 ---ND 23.0 7.6 ND 10.2 ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.19 5.0 ---ND 66.7 16.8 56.7 24.1 ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.19 5.0 ---ND 55.1 16.5 62.7 25.1 ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.19 5.0 ---ND 59.4 15.2 59.3 23.2 ND ND
01-May-12 0.19 5.0 ---ND {48.7} 14.2 59.5 22.1 ND 0.21 {ND} J
07-Nov-12 0.103 5.00 ------ 59.7 13.6 71.3 26.4 ---ND
09-May-13 0.19 5.0 ---ND 39.9 10.9 49.7 17.4 ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.19 5.0 ------ 53.9 10.7 67.1 21.8 ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.19 5.0 ---ND 47.0 11.2 58.1 20.0 ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.19 5.0 ------ 44.9 9.6 55.4 19.3 ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.19 5.0 ------ 51.8 9.7 65.3 24.0 ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.19 5.0 ------ 44.4 5.6 51.2 18.8 ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.19 5.0 ------ 42.4 7.5 53.2 19.5 ND ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 30-Dec-09 0.1 5.0 ---ND 1.4 J ND 0.2 J 0.2 J ---ND
NC 2L = 100 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 0.1 5.0 ---ND 0.6 J ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.49 5.0 ---ND 1.7 J ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.49 5.0 ---ND 1.5 J ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.49 5.0 ---ND 1.6 J ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.49 5.0 ---ND 1.4 J ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.077 5.00 ------ 1.59 J ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.49 5.0 ---ND 1.1 J ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.49 5.0 ------1.6 J ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.49 5.0 ---ND 1.4 J ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.49 5.0 ------1.4 J ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.49 5.0 ------1.6 J ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.49 5.0 ------1.5 J ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.49 5.0 ------1.4 J ND ND ND ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 5 of 7
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX A:
HISTORICAL DETECTED GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL RL MW-1 MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5 Blanks
1,2-Dichloropropane 30-Dec-09 0.1 1.0 ---ND 5.7 0.6 J 1.1 0.7 J ---ND
NC 2L = 0.6 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 0.1 1.0 ---ND 1.9 ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.27 1.0 ---ND 5.3 ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.27 1.0 ---ND 4.8 0.90 J 1.3 0.73 J ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.27 1.0 ---ND 4.9 0.76 J 1.3 ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.27 1.0 ---ND 4.4 0.76 J 1.4 0.62 J ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.150 1.0 ------4.93 ND 1.66 ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.27 1.0 ---ND 3.3 0.51 J 0.96 J 0.45 J ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.27 1.0 ------4.4 0.63 J 1.3 0.57 J ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.27 1.0 ---ND 4.0 0.51 J ND 0.41 J ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.27 1.0 ------4.1 0.56 J 1.2 0.36 J ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.27 1.0 ------4.8 0.59 J 1.6 0.57 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.27 1.0 ------4.3 ND 1.1 ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.27 1.0 ------4.3 ND 1.2 ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene 30-Dec-09 0.1 1.0 ---ND ND ND 0.4 J ND ---ND
NC 2L = 600 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 0.1 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.30 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.30 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.30 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.30 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.109 1.00 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.30 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.30 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.30 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.30 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.30 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.30 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.30 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene 30-Dec-09 0.2 1.0 ---ND 1.2 ND ND ND ---ND
NC 2L = 0.7 µg/L (10/23/07)01-Jun-10 0.2 1.0 ---ND 1.4 ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.46 1.0 ---ND 2.8 ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.46 1.0 ---ND 3.6 ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.46 1.0 ---ND 2.9 ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.46 1.0 ---ND 3.0 ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.193 1.00 ------2.52 ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.46 1.0 ---ND 1.9 ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.46 1.0 ------1.8 ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.46 1.0 ---ND 2.3 ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.46 1.0 ------1.1 ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.46 1.0 ------1.4 ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.46 1.0 ------ 0.90 J ND ND ND ND ---
28-Jun-16 0.46 1.0 ------1.0 ND ND ND ND ND
Toluene 29-Jun-11 0.26 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND 0.76 J ND
NC 2L = 600 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Nov-11 0.26 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.26 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.122 1.00 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.26 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.26 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.26 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.26 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.26 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.26 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.26 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
Trichloroethene 30-Dec-09 0.1 1.0 ---ND 8.0 ND ND 0.2 J ---ND
NC 2L = 3 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 0.1 1.0 ---ND 6.4 ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.47 1.0 ---ND 10.1 ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.47 1.0 ---ND 14.6 ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.47 1.0 ---ND 10.2 ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.47 1.0 ---ND 11.6 ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.161 1.00 ------9.97 ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.47 1.0 ---ND 8.4 ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.47 1.0 ------8.0 ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.47 1.0 ---ND 8.9 ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.47 1.0 ------5.1 ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.47 1.0 ------7.1 ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.47 1.0 ------4.7 ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.47 1.0 ------4.9 ND ND ND ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 6 of 7
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX A:
HISTORICAL DETECTED GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL RL MW-1 MW-6 MW-2 MW-3S MW-3D MW-4 MW-5 Blanks
Trichlorofluoromethane 29-Jun-11 0.20 1.0 ---ND 0.95 J ND ND ND ND ND
NC 2L = 2000 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Nov-11 0.20 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.20 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.157 1.00 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.20 1.0 ---ND 0.66 J ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.20 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.20 1.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.20 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.20 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.20 1.0 ------ 0.41 J ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.20 1.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
Vinyl chloride 30-Dec-09 0.1 1.0 ---ND 4.0 2.8 4.1 26.2 ---ND
NC 2L = 0.03 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 0.1 1.0 ---ND 2.2 3.0 ND 26.7 ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.62 1.0 ---ND 3.5 2.4 4.7 25.6 ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.62 1.0 ---ND 2.8 2.8 4.6 28.7 ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.62 1.0 ---ND 5.1 2.6 6.9 24.0 ND ND
01-May-12 0.62 1.0 ---ND 3.5 2.0 4.8 21.8 ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.127 1.00 ------7.94 2.73 6.99 29.9 ---ND
09-May-13 0.62 1.0 ---ND 2.8 1.9 4.2 18.6 ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.62 1.0 ------6.3 2.1 6.0 21.9 ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.62 1.0 ---ND 7.1 5.6 8.9 21.9 ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.62 1.0 ------5.2 2.1 5.3 16.2 ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.62 1.0 ------5.3 2.4 7.1 21.4 ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.62 1.0 ------7.7 2.0 6.7 17.3 ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.62 1.0 ------4.6 2.3 6.1 17.0 ND ND
Xylene (Total)30-Dec-09 0.3 4.0 ---ND ND ND 3.5 J ND ---ND
NC 2L = 500 µg/L (1/11/10)01-Jun-10 0.3 4.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
29-Dec-10 0.66 2.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.66 2.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 0.66 2.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.66 2.0 ---ND 0.89 J ND ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.179 5.00 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
09-May-13 0.66 5.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ---ND
07-Nov-13 0.66 5.0 ------ND ND ND ND ---ND
05-Jun-14 0.66 5.0 ---ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.66 5.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.66 5.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.66 5.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.66 5.0 ------ND ND ND ND ND ND
Notes:
DL = Detection limit.
RL = Reporting limit (NC SWSL).
All concentrations are in micrograms per liter (µg/l).
NC 2L Standard is the groundwater quality standard established under 15A NCAC 2L.
GWPS = Groundwater Protection Standard (GWPS is used when the NC 2L Standard has not been established.)
Blanks = Quality control blanks, including trip, field, and laboratory blanks. The listed concentration is the highest value reported in all blanks associated with the samples.
ND = Not detected at the laboratory's detection limit.
J = Estimated value - concentration is less than the reporting limit but greater than the detection limit.
B = Blank-qualified data - the concentration is within five times the concentration reported in associated quality control blanks.
--- = Monitoring well was not sampled.
Bold values are greater than the NC 2L Standard or GWPS.
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 7 of 7
Joyce Engineering

Appendix B

Historical Detected Surface Water Constituents

APPENDIX B:
HISTORICAL DETECTED SURFACE WATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL QL SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 Blanks
Inorganic Compounds
Antimony 30-Dec-09 1.2 6.0 1.5 B 6.4 B NS 1.4 J
NC 2B = NE µg/L (05/01/07) 01-Jun-10 1.2 6.0 6.7 B 2.5 B NS 3.9 J
29-Dec-10 2.6 6.0 ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 6.0 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 6.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 6.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.48 6.0 ND ND ND ND
09-May-13 5.0 6.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 6.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 6.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 3.8 6.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 3.8 6.0 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 3.8 6.0 ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 3.8 6.0 ND ND ND ND
Arsenic 07-Nov-12 0.094 10.0 0.17 B 0.26 B 0.24 B 1.0 J
NC 2B = 50 µg/L (05/01/07) 09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 3.0 J ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
Barium 30-Dec-09 1.1 100 25.1 J 34 J NS 3.4 J
NC 2B = NE µg/L (05/01/07) 01-Jun-10 1.1 100 28.8 J 31.5 J NS 2.0 J
29-Dec-10 0.20 100 22.3 B 27.8 B 27.9 B 11.3 J
29-Jun-11 5.0 100 40.0 J 39.4 J 39.3 J ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 100 30.1 J 35.2 J 34.3 J ND
01-May-12 5.0 100 66.1 J 35.4 J 33.3 J ND
07-Nov-12 0.39 100 27.6 B 31.5 B 29.9 B 12.2 J
09-May-13 5.0 100 33.6 J 33.8 J 32.6 J ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 100 36.6 J 32.0 J 29.8 J ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 100 31.2 J 35.8 J 33.6 J ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 100 26.6 J 31.2 J 29.4 J ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 100 28.9 J 33.7 J 36.0 J ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 100 45.8 J 44.1 J 43.6 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 100 30.8 J 34.8 J 32.5 J ND
Cadmium 30-Dec-09 0.2 1.0 ND ND NS ND
NC 2B = 2 µg/L (05/01/07) 01-Jun-10 0.2 1.0 0.9 B 0.4 B NS 0.4 J
29-Dec-10 0.50 1.0 ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.026 1.000 ND ND ND ND
09-May-13 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 1.0 1.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.5 1.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.5 1.0 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 0.5 1.0 ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.5 1.0 ND ND ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 1 of 4
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX B:
HISTORICAL DETECTED SURFACE WATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL QL SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 Blanks
Chromium 30-Dec-09 0.7 10.0 ND ND NS ND
NC 2B = 50 µg/L (05/01/07)01-Jun-10 0.7 10.0 1.7 J 1.2 J NS ND
29-Dec-10 0.40 10.0 0.69 J 0.53 J 0.41 J ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.030 10.0 0.29 B 0.13 B 0.11 B 0.099 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ND ND 2.7 J ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 6.3 J 8.6 J 5.7 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
Cobalt 30-Dec-09 0.7 10.0 ND ND NS ND
NC 2B = NE µg/L (05/01/07)01-Jun-10 0.7 10.0 ND ND NS ND
29-Dec-10 0.60 10.0 ND 1.8 J 1.9 J ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.053 10.0 0.34 B 0.76 B 0.76 B 0.24 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
Copper 30-Dec-09 2.0 10.0 ND ND NS ND
NC 2B = 7 µg/L (05/01/07)01-Jun-10 2.0 10.0 6.9 B 5.8 B NS 4.8 J
29-Dec-10 0.30 10.0 0.38 J ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.093 10.0 0.27 B 0.38 B 0.38 B 1.23 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 3.5 B 7.2 B ND 3.2 J
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 5.2 J 6.5 J 5.9 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 2 of 4
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX B:
HISTORICAL DETECTED SURFACE WATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL QL SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 Blanks
Lead 30-Dec-09 2.0 10.0 ND ND NS ND
NC 2B = 25 µg/L (05/01/07)01-Jun-10 2.0 10.0 2.7 B 2.8 B NS 3.2 J
29-Dec-10 4.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
29-Jun-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.025 10.0 0.071 B 0.049 B 0.060 B 0.58 J
09-May-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 10.0 4.7 J 2.6 J 5.0 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 10.0 ND ND ND ND
Nickel 07-Nov-12 0.26 50.0 0.46 B 0.39 B 0.35 B 0.84 J
NC 2B = 88 µg/L (05/01/07)09-May-13 5.0 50.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 50.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 50.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 50.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 50.0 ND ND ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 50.0 ND 3.0 J ND ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 50.0 ND ND ND ND
Vanadium 30-Dec-09 0.4 25.0 2.0 J 0.8 J NS ND
NC 2B = NE µg/L (05/01/07)01-Jun-10 0.4 25.0 2.2 J 2.4 J NS ND
29-Dec-10 0.20 25.0 0.67 B 0.37 B 0.62 B 0.26 J
29-Jun-11 5.0 25.0 ND ND ND ND
01-Nov-11 5.0 25.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 5.0 25.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.085 25.0 0.63 J 0.44 J 0.52 J ND
09-May-13 5.0 25.0 7.8 J 9.1 J 9.4 J ND
07-Nov-13 5.0 25.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 5.0 25.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 2.5 25.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 2.5 25.0 ND 2.80 J ND ND
19-Nov-15 2.5 25.0 13.9 J 18.8 J 14.4 J ND
28-Jun-16 2.5 25.0 ND ND ND ND
Zinc 30-Dec-09 2.7 10.0 6.7 B ND NS 4.7 J
NC 2B = 50 µg/L (05/01/07)01-Jun-10 2.7 10.0 6.7 J 8.7 J NS ND
29-Dec-10 0.40 10.0 ND 1.2 B 1.2 B 12.5
29-Jun-11 10.0 10.0 ND ND ND 10.5
01-Nov-11 10.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 10.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 1.31 10.0 ND ND 1.56 J ND
09-May-13 10.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 10.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 10.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 5.0 10.0 8.9 B 10.5 B 9.3 B 7.5 J
19-Nov-15 5.0 10.0 7.5 J 9.2 J 10.1 ND
28-Jun-16 5.0 10.0 ND ND ND ND
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 3 of 4
Joyce Engineering
APPENDIX B:
HISTORICAL DETECTED SURFACE WATER CONSTITUENTS
Sample
Analyte Date DL QL SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 Blanks
Organic Compounds
Acetone 29-Jun-11 2.2 100 2.8 B 3.3 B 4.4 B 5.3 J
NC 2B = NE µg/L (05/01/07)01-Nov-11 2.2 100 ND ND ND 14.6 J
01-May-12 2.2 100 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-12 0.193 100 ND ND ND ND
09-May-13 10.0 100 ND ND ND 12.0 J
07-Nov-13 10.0 100 ND ND ND ND
05-Jun-14 10.0 100 ND ND ND ND
20-Nov-14 10.0 100 ND ND ND ND
27-Apr-15 10.0 100 12.4 B 10.6 B 13.8 B 20.7 J
19-Nov-15 10.0 100 ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 10.0 100 ND ND ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 30-Dec-09 0.1 5.0 ND ND NS ND
NC 2B = NE µg/L (05/01/07)01-Jun-10 0.1 5.0 ND ND NS ND
29-Dec-10 0.19 5.0 ND 0.39 J ND ND
29-Jun-11 0.19 5.0 0.26 J 0.30 J 0.33 J ND
01-Nov-11 0.19 5.0 ND ND ND ND
01-May-12 0.19 5.0 0.31 B ND ND 0.21 (ND) J
07-Nov-12 0.103 5.00 ND ND ND ND
09-May-13 0.19 5.0 ND ND ND ND
07-Nov-13 0.19 5.0 ND 0.38 J ND ND
05-Jun-14 0.19 5.0 ND 0.33 J ND ND
20-Nov-14 0.19 5.0 ND 0.49 J ND ND
27-Apr-15 0.19 5.0 ND ND 0.39 J ND
19-Nov-15 0.19 5.0 ND ND ND ND
28-Jun-16 0.19 5.0 ND ND ND ND

Notes:
DL = Detection limit.
RL = Reporting limit (NC SWSL).
All concentrations are in micrograms per liter (µg/l).
Blanks = Quality control blanks, including trip, field, and laboratory blanks. The listed concentration is the highest reported in all blanks.
NC 2B = Surface Water Quality Standard from 15A NCAC 2B. (Freshwater Aquatic Life or Human Health Standard, whichever is lower.)
NE = Not established.
ND = Not detected at the laboratory's detection limit.
J = Estimated value - concentration is less than the reporting limit but greater than the detection limit.
B = Blank-qualified data, concnetration within five times the concentration reported in the associated quality control blanks.
--- = Monitoring point was not sampled.
Bold values are greater than the NC 2B Standard.
Town of Kernersville Landfill
Permit No. 34-04 Page 4 of 4
Joyce Engineering

Appendix C

BIOCHLOR Modeling Input & Output

BI
O
C
H
L
O
R

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

S
y
s
t
e
m
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
Da
t
a

I
n
p
u
t

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
Ve
r
s
i
o
n

2
.
2
La
n
d
f
i
l
l
11
5

1
.

E
n
t
e
r

v
a
l
u
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
.
.
.
.
o
r
Ex
c
e
l

2
0
0
0
Ru
n

N
a
m
e

2
.

C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e

b
y

f
i
l
l
i
n
g

i
n

g
r
a
y

T
Y
P
E

O
F

C
H
L
O
R
I
N
A
T
E
D

S
O
L
V
E
N
T
:
Et
h
e
n
e
s
5.

G
E
N
E
R
A
L

0.
0
2

c
e
l
l
s
.

P
r
e
s
s

E
n
t
e
r
,

t
h
e
n

Et
h
a
n
e
s

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

T
i
m
e
*

1
0

(
y
r
)
(T
o

r
e
s
t
o
r
e

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
s
,

h
i
t

"
R
e
s
t
o
r
e

F
o
r
m
u
l
a
s
"

b
u
t
t
o
n

)
1.

A
D
V
E
C
T
I
O
N
Mo
d
e
l
e
d

A
r
e
a

W
i
d
t
h
*

7
0
0

(
f
t
)

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
*

D
a
t
a

u
s
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

i
n

m
o
d
e
l
.

Se
e
p
a
g
e

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
*
Vs
61
.
0
(f
t
/
y
r
)
Mo
d
e
l
e
d

A
r
e
a

L
e
n
g
t
h
*

2
0
0

(
f
t
)
Te
s
t

i
f
or
Zo
n
e

1

L
e
n
g
t
h
*
15
0

(
f
t
)
Bi
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
K
1.
2
E
-
0
6
(c
m
/
s
e
c
)
Zo
n
e

2

L
e
n
g
t
h
*
50

(
f
t
)
is

O
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
i
0.
0
5
(f
t
/
f
t
)
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
n
0.
2
(-
)
6.

S
O
U
R
C
E

D
A
T
A

TY
P
E
:

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
2.

D
I
S
P
E
R
S
I
O
N

Si
n
g
l
e

P
l
a
n
a
r
Al
p
h
a

x
*

5
0

(
f
t
)
(A
l
p
h
a

y
)

/

(
A
l
p
h
a

x
)
*

0
.
3
3

(
-
)

S
o
u
r
c
e

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

i
n

S
a
t
.

Z
o
n
e
*

3
0

(
f
t
)
(A
l
p
h
a

z
)

/

(
A
l
p
h
a

x
)
*

1
.
E
-
9
9

(
-
)
Y1
3.

A
D
S
O
R
P
T
I
O
N

Wi
d
t
h
*

(
f
t
)
70
0
Re
t
a
r
d
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
*

R
k s *
or
Co
n
c
.

(
m
g
/
L
)
*
C1
(1
/
y
r
)
So
i
l

B
u
l
k

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

r
h
o
1.
6

(
k
g
/
L
)
PC
E
0.
0
0
1
0
0
Fr
a
c
t
i
o
n
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
C
a
r
b
o
n
,

f
o
c
1.
8
E
-
3
(-
)
TC
E
0.
0
0
4
9
0
Vi
e
w

o
f

P
l
u
m
e

L
o
o
k
i
n
g

D
o
w
n
Pa
r
t
i
t
i
o
n

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Ko
c
DC
E
0.
0
4
2
4
0
PC
E
42
6

(
L
/
k
g
)

7
.
1
3

(
-
)

V
C
0.
0
0
4
6
0
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d

C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
c
.

a
t

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
s

TC
E
13
0

(
L
/
k
g
)

2
.
8
7

(
-
)

E
T
H
0.
0
0
0
0
0
DC
E
12
5

(
L
/
k
g
)

2
.
8
0

(
-
)

VC
30

(
L
/
k
g
)
(-
)
7.

F
I
E
L
D

D
A
T
A

F
O
R

C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
ET
H
30
2

(
L
/
k
g
)
(-
)
PC
E

C
o
n
c
.

(
m
g
/
L
)
0.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
8

0
.
0
0
0
5

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
0
Co
m
m
o
n

R

(
u
s
e
d

i
n

m
o
d
e
l
)
*

=

2
.
8
7
TC
E

C
o
n
c
.

(
m
g
/
L
)
0.
0
0
4
9

0
.
0
0
4
0

0
.
0
3
0
0

0
.
0
0
2
0

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
4.

B
I
O
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
-1
s
t

O
r
d
e
r

D
e
c
a
y

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
*

D
C
E

C
o
n
c
.

(
m
g
/
L
)
0.
0
4
2
4

0
.
0
4
0
0

0
.
0
3
0
0

0
.
0
2
0
0

0
.
0
1
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
Zo
n
e

1

(
1
/
y
r
)
ha
l
f
-
l
i
f
e

(
y
r
s
)

Y
i
e
l
d
VC

C
o
n
c
.

(
m
g
/
L
)
0.
0
0
4
6

0
.
0
0
4
0

0
.
0
3
0
0

0
.
0
0
2
0

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
PC
E

T
C
E
2.
3
0
0
0.
7
9
ET
H

C
o
n
c
.

(
m
g
/
L
)
0.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
TC
E

D
C
E
2.
1
0
0
0.
7
4
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
)
20

4
0

6
0

8
0

1
0
0

1
2
0
DC
E

V
C
1.
2
0
0
0.
6
4
Da
t
e

D
a
t
a

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
20
1
4
-
0
6
VC

E
T
H
0.
0
0
0
0.
4
5
8.

C
H
O
O
S
E

T
Y
P
E

O
F

O
U
T
P
U
T

T
O

S
E
E
:
Zo
n
e

2

(
1
/
y
r
)
ha
l
f
-
l
i
f
e

(
y
r
s
)

PC
E

T
C
E
2.
3
0
0
TC
E

D
C
E
2.
1
0
0
DC
E

V
C
1.
2
0
0
VC

E
T
H
0.
0
0
0
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l

P
l
a
n
e

S
o
u
r
c
e
:

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

S
o
u
r
c
e

W
e
l
l

Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
p
u
t

S
o
l
v
e
n
t

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
L
W
or
Zo
n
e

2
=
L
-

Z
o
n
e

1

HE
L
P
Paste Restore
RU
N

CE
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E

He
l
p
Natural Attenuation
RU
N

A
R
R
A
Y
C RESE
So
u
r
c
e

O
p
t
i
o
n
s
SE
E

Ca
l
c
.
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
ne
r
s
v
i
l
l
e
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#
3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering September 2016
DI
S
S
O
L
V
E
D

C
H
L
O
R
I
N
A
T
E
D

S
O
L
V
E
N
T

C
O
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
S

A
L
O
N
G

P
L
U
M
E

C
E
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E

Ti
m
e
:
10

Y
e
a
r
s
0.
0
0
0

3
0
.
0
0
0

6
0
.
0
0
0

9
0
.
0
0
0

1
2
0
.
0
0
0
Zo
n
e

1
<
-
-
-
|
-
-
-
>

Z
o
n
e

2
16
0
.
0
0
0
1
7
0
.
0
0
0
1
8
0
.
0
0
0
1
9
0
.
0
0
0
2
0
0
.
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
1
0
0.
1
0
0
0
50

1
0
0

1
5
0

2
0
0

2
5
0
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

F
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
)
No

D
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

T
o
t
a
l

E
t
h
e
n
e
s
PC
E

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
TC
E

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
DC
E

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
VC

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
ET
H

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
PC
E

F
i
e
l
d

D
a
t
a
TC
E

F
i
e
l
d

D
a
t
a
DC
E

F
i
e
l
d

D
a
t
a
VC

F
i
e
l
d

D
a
t
a
ET
H

F
i
e
l
d

D
a
t
a
Lo
g

L
i
n
e
a
r

To

I
n
p
u
t
To

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

Co
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
n
i
t

#

3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering September 2016
St
a
r
t

H
e
r
e
PCE
DI
S
S
O
L
V
E
D

S
O
L
V
E
N
T

C
O
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
S

I
N

P
L
U
M
E
TCE
Tr
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
DCE
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
)
VC
0

3
0

6
0

9
0

1
2
0

1
5
0

1
6
0

1
7
0

1
8
0

1
9
0

2
0
0
ETH
28
0

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
14
0

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
-1
4
0

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
-2
8
0

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0

0
.
0
0
0
0
98
.
5
0
0
MA
S
S
2.
0
E
+
1

1
.
1
E
+
1

6
.
1
E
+
0

3
.
4
E
+
0

1
.
9
E
+
0

1
.
0
E
+0

8
.
6
E
-
1

7
.
1
E
-
1

5
.
8
E
-
1

4
.
8
E
-
1

3
.
9
E
-
1
RA
T
E
Displayed Compound
(m
g
/
d
a
y
)
Ti
m
e
:
10

y
r

T
a
r
g
e
t

L
e
v
e
l
:

0.
0
0
5
mg
/
L

D
i
s
p
l
a
y
e
d

M
o
d
e
l
:

Bi
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

P
C
E
Pl
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

(
O
r
d
e
r
-
o
f
-
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
)

P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

N
o

D
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
0.061 (Kg)

-
P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
/
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

0.018 (Kg)

M
a
s
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

0.043 (Kg)
%
B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
d

=
+70.9%
 %

C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

M
a
s
s

R
a
t
e

=

98.0 %
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

V
o
l
u
m
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
n
d

W
a
t
e
r

i
n

P
l
u
m
e
0.000000 MGal
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

T
h
r
o
u
g
h

S
o
u
r
c
e

A
r
e
a
0.0053 MGD
Pu
m
p
i
n
g

R
a
t
e
(gpm)
#
P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

P
e
r

Y
r
.

#
D
I
V
/
0
!
#

P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

t
o

C
l
e
a
n
-
U
p

Cl
e
a
n
-
U
p

T
i
m
e
(yr)
If

"
C
a
n
'
t

C
a
l
c
.
"
,

ma
k
e

m
o
d
e
l

a
r
e
a

lo
n
g
e
r
28
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
1
-2
8
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
1
0.
0
0
0
2
0.
0
0
0
3
0.
0
0
0
4
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
0
6
0.
0
0
0
7
0.
0
0
0
8
0.
0
0
0
9
0.
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
6
0
9
0
1
2
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
1
9
0
2
0
0
ft
.
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
.
)
Co
m
p
a
r
e

t
o

P
u
m
p

a
n
d

T
r
e
a
t
(source to ed g e )
Se
e

ac
r
e
-
f
t
Return to Input
Pl
o
t

A
l
l

D
a
t
a
Plo
t

D
a
t
a

>

T
a
r
g
e
t
Ma
s
s

H
E
L
P
Se
e

Ga
l
l
o
n
Show No Show
To

C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering September 2016
St
a
r
t

H
e
r
e
PCE
DI
S
S
O
L
V
E
D

S
O
L
V
E
N
T

C
O
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
S

I
N

P
L
U
M
E
TCE
Tr
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
DCE
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
)
VC
0

3
0

6
0

9
0

1
2
0

1
5
0

1
6
0

1
7
0

1
8
0

1
9
0

2
0
0
ETH
28
0

0
.
0
0
4
9

0
.
0
0
3
0

0
.
0
0
1
8

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1
14
0

0
.
0
0
4
9

0
.
0
0
3
0

0
.
0
0
1
9

0
.
0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
0
7

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
2
0

0
.
0
0
4
9

0
.
0
0
3
0

0
.
0
0
1
9

0
.
0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
0
7

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
2
-1
4
0

0
.
0
0
4
9

0
.
0
0
3
0

0
.
0
0
1
9

0
.
0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
0
7

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
2
-2
8
0

0
.
0
0
4
9

0
.
0
0
3
0

0
.
0
0
1
8

0
.
0
0
1
0

0
.
0
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
0
4

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
1
98
.
5
0
0
MA
S
S
9.
7
E
+
1

6
.
0
E
+
1

3
.
6
E
+
1

2
.
2
E
+
1

1
.
3
E
+
1

7
.
8
E
+0

6
.
6
E
+
0

5
.
6
E
+
0

4
.
7
E
+
0

4
.
0
E
+
0

3
.
3
E
+
0
RA
T
E
Displayed Compound
(m
g
/
d
a
y
)
Ti
m
e
:
10

y
r

T
a
r
g
e
t

L
e
v
e
l
:

0.
0
0
5
mg
/
L

D
i
s
p
l
a
y
e
d

M
o
d
e
l
:

Bi
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

T
C
E
Pl
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

(
O
r
d
e
r
-
o
f
-
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
)

P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

N
o

D
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
0.299 (Kg)

-
P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
/
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

0.101 (Kg)

M
a
s
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

0.198 (Kg)
%
B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
d

=
+66.3%
 %

C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

M
a
s
s

R
a
t
e

=

96.6 %
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

V
o
l
u
m
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
n
d

W
a
t
e
r

i
n

P
l
u
m
e
0.000000 MGal
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

T
h
r
o
u
g
h

S
o
u
r
c
e

A
r
e
a
0.0053 MGD
Pu
m
p
i
n
g

R
a
t
e
(gpm)
#
P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

P
e
r

Y
r
.

#
D
I
V
/
0
!
#

P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

t
o

C
l
e
a
n
-
U
p

Cl
e
a
n
-
U
p

T
i
m
e
(yr)
If

"
C
a
n
'
t

C
a
l
c
.
"
,

ma
k
e

m
o
d
e
l

a
r
e
a

lo
n
g
e
r
28
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
1
-2
8
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
1
0
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
2
0
0.
0
0
2
5
0.
0
0
3
0
0.
0
0
3
5
0.
0
0
4
0
0.
0
0
4
5
0.
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
6
0
9
0
1
2
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
1
9
0
2
0
0
ft
.
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
.
)
Co
m
p
a
r
e

t
o

P
u
m
p

a
n
d

T
r
e
a
t
(source to ed g e )
Se
e

ac
r
e
-
f
t
Return to Input
Pl
o
t

A
l
l

D
a
t
a
Plo
t

D
a
t
a

>

T
a
r
g
e
t
Ma
s
s

H
E
L
P
Se
e

Ga
l
l
o
n
Show No Show
To

C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering September 2016
St
a
r
t

H
e
r
e
PCE
DI
S
S
O
L
V
E
D

S
O
L
V
E
N
T

C
O
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
S

I
N

P
L
U
M
E
TCE
Tr
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
DCE
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
)
VC
0

3
0

6
0

9
0

1
2
0

1
5
0

1
6
0

1
7
0

1
8
0

1
9
0

2
0
0
ETH
28
0

0
.
0
4
2
4

0
.
0
3
0
0

0
.
0
2
0
4

0
.
0
1
3
9

0
.
0
0
9
4

0
.
0
0
6
4

0
.
0
0
5
7

0
.
0
0
5
1

0
.
0
0
4
5

0
.
0
0
3
9

0
.
0
0
3
5
14
0

0
.
0
4
2
4

0
.
0
3
0
4

0
.
0
2
1
7

0
.
0
1
5
4

0
.
0
1
0
9

0
.
0
0
7
7

0
.
0
0
6
8

0
.
0
0
6
1

0
.
0
0
5
4

0
.
0
0
4
8

0
.
0
0
4
2
0

0
.
0
4
2
4

0
.
0
3
0
4

0
.
0
2
1
7

0
.
0
1
5
4

0
.
0
1
0
9

0
.
0
0
7
7

0
.
0
0
6
8

0
.
0
0
6
1

0
.
0
0
5
4

0
.
0
0
4
8

0
.
0
0
4
3
-1
4
0

0
.
0
4
2
4

0
.
0
3
0
4

0
.
0
2
1
7

0
.
0
1
5
4

0
.
0
1
0
9

0
.
0
0
7
7

0
.
0
0
6
8

0
.
0
0
6
1

0
.
0
0
5
4

0
.
0
0
4
8

0
.
0
0
4
2
-2
8
0

0
.
0
4
2
4

0
.
0
3
0
0

0
.
0
2
0
4

0
.
0
1
3
9

0
.
0
0
9
4

0
.
0
0
6
4

0
.
0
0
5
7

0
.
0
0
5
1

0
.
0
0
4
5

0
.
0
0
3
9

0
.
0
0
3
5
98
.
5
0
0
MA
S
S
8.
4
E
+
2

6
.
0
E
+
2

4
.
2
E
+
2

2
.
9
E
+
2

2
.
0
E
+
2

1
.
4
E
+2

1
.
3
E
+
2

1
.
1
E
+
2

1
.
0
E
+
2

8
.
8
E
+
1

7
.
8
E
+
1
RA
T
E
Displayed Compound
(m
g
/
d
a
y
)
Ti
m
e
:
10

y
r

T
a
r
g
e
t

L
e
v
e
l
:

0.
0
7
0
mg
/
L

D
i
s
p
l
a
y
e
d

M
o
d
e
l
:

Bi
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

D
C
E
Pl
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

(
O
r
d
e
r
-
o
f
-
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
)

P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

N
o

D
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
2.584 (Kg)

-
P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
/
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

1.160 (Kg)

M
a
s
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

1.424 (Kg)
%
B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
d

=
+55.1%
 %

C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

M
a
s
s

R
a
t
e

=

90.7 %
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

V
o
l
u
m
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
n
d

W
a
t
e
r

i
n

P
l
u
m
e
6.471696 MGal
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

T
h
r
o
u
g
h

S
o
u
r
c
e

A
r
e
a
0.0053 MGD
Pu
m
p
i
n
g

R
a
t
e
(gpm)
#
P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

P
e
r

Y
r
.

0
.
0
0
#

P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

t
o

C
l
e
a
n
-
U
p

Cl
e
a
n
-
U
p

T
i
m
e
(yr)
If

"
C
a
n
'
t

C
a
l
c
.
"
,

ma
k
e

m
o
d
e
l

a
r
e
a

lo
n
g
e
r
28
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
1
-2
8
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
5
0
0.
0
1
0
0
0.
0
1
5
0
0.
0
2
0
0
0.
0
2
5
0
0.
0
3
0
0
0.
0
3
5
0
0.
0
4
0
0
0.
0
4
5
0
0
3
0
6
0
9
0
1
2
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
1
9
0
2
0
0
ft
.
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
.
)
Co
m
p
a
r
e

t
o

P
u
m
p

a
n
d

T
r
e
a
t
(source to ed g e )
Se
e

ac
r
e
-
f
t
Return to Input
Pl
o
t

A
l
l

D
a
t
a
Plo
t

D
a
t
a

>

T
a
r
g
e
t
Ma
s
s

H
E
L
P
Se
e

Ga
l
l
o
n
Show No Show
To

C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering September 2016
St
a
r
t

H
e
r
e
PCE
DI
S
S
O
L
V
E
D

S
O
L
V
E
N
T

C
O
N
C
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
S

I
N

P
L
U
M
E
TCE
Tr
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
DCE
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
)
VC
0

3
0

6
0

9
0

1
2
0

1
5
0

1
6
0

1
7
0

1
8
0

1
9
0

2
0
0
ETH
28
0

0
.
0
0
4
6

0
.
0
1
2
6

0
.
0
1
7
0

0
.
0
1
9
0

0
.
0
1
9
5

0
.
0
1
8
8

0
.
0
1
9
2

0
.
0
1
9
4

0
.
0
1
9
5

0
.
0
1
9
4

0
.
0
1
9
3
14
0

0
.
0
0
4
6

0
.
0
1
2
8

0
.
0
1
8
1

0
.
0
2
1
2

0
.
0
2
2
5

0
.
0
2
2
4

0
.
0
2
2
8

0
.
0
2
3
2

0
.
0
2
3
4

0
.
0
2
3
5

0
.
0
2
3
6
0

0
.
0
0
4
6

0
.
0
1
2
8

0
.
0
1
8
1

0
.
0
2
1
2

0
.
0
2
2
5

0
.
0
2
2
4

0
.
0
2
2
9

0
.
0
2
3
2

0
.
0
2
3
5

0
.
0
2
3
7

0
.
0
2
3
8
-1
4
0

0
.
0
0
4
6

0
.
0
1
2
8

0
.
0
1
8
1

0
.
0
2
1
2

0
.
0
2
2
5

0
.
0
2
2
4

0
.
0
2
2
8

0
.
0
2
3
2

0
.
0
2
3
4

0
.
0
2
3
5

0
.
0
2
3
6
-2
8
0

0
.
0
0
4
6

0
.
0
1
2
6

0
.
0
1
7
0

0
.
0
1
9
0

0
.
0
1
9
5

0
.
0
1
8
8

0
.
0
1
9
2

0
.
0
1
9
4

0
.
0
1
9
5

0
.
0
1
9
4

0
.
0
1
9
3
98
.
5
0
0
MA
S
S
9.
1
E
+
1

2
.
5
E
+
2

3
.
5
E
+
2

4
.
0
E
+
2

4
.
2
E
+
2

4
.
2
E
+2

4
.
2
E
+
2

4
.
3
E
+
2

4
.
3
E
+
2

4
.
4
E
+
2

4
.
3
E
+
2
RA
T
E
Displayed Compound
(m
g
/
d
a
y
)
Ti
m
e
:
10

y
r

T
a
r
g
e
t

L
e
v
e
l
:

0.
0
0
2
mg
/
L

D
i
s
p
l
a
y
e
d

M
o
d
e
l
:

Bi
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

V
C
Pl
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

(
O
r
d
e
r
-
o
f
-
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
)

P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

N
o

D
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
0.280 (Kg)

-
P
l
u
m
e

M
a
s
s

I
f

B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
/
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

1.345 (Kg)

M
a
s
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

-1.065 (Kg)
%
B
i
o
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
e
d

=
-380.0 %
 %

C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

M
a
s
s

R
a
t
e

=

-375.8 %
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

V
o
l
u
m
e

o
f

G
r
o
u
n
d

W
a
t
e
r

i
n

P
l
u
m
e
Can't Calc.MGal
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

T
h
r
o
u
g
h

S
o
u
r
c
e

A
r
e
a
0.0053 MGD
Pu
m
p
i
n
g

R
a
t
e
(gpm)
#
P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

R
e
m
o
v
e
d

P
e
r

Y
r
.
#

P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

t
o

C
l
e
a
n
-
U
p

Cl
e
a
n
-
U
p

T
i
m
e
(yr)
If

"
C
a
n
'
t

C
a
l
c
.
"
,

ma
k
e

m
o
d
e
l

a
r
e
a

lo
n
g
e
r
28
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
1
-2
8
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
5
0
0.
0
1
0
0
0.
0
1
5
0
0.
0
2
0
0
0.
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
6
0
9
0
1
2
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
1
9
0
2
0
0
ft
.
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
g
/
L
)
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
o
u
r
c
e

(
f
t
.
)
Co
m
p
a
r
e

t
o

P
u
m
p

a
n
d

T
r
e
a
t
(source to ed g e )
Se
e

ac
r
e
-
f
t
Return to Input
Pl
o
t

A
l
l

D
a
t
a
Plo
t

D
a
t
a

>

T
a
r
g
e
t
Ma
s
s

H
E
L
P
Se
e

Ga
l
l
o
n
Show No Show
To

C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
To
w
n

o
f

K
e
r
n
e
r
s
v
i
l
l
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Pe
r
m
i
t

#

3
4
-
0
4
Joyce Engineering September 2016