8401_CityofAlbemarleMSWLF_ASDMetalsRpt_DIN27404_20161123

ALTERNATE SOURCE DEMONSTRATION REPORT
INORGANICS

CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL

ACTIVE C&D AND CLOSED MSWLF
SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
DSWM PERMIT NO. 84-01

Prepared for:

City of Albemarle – Public Works Department
Stanly County, North Carolina

November 22, 2016
Shield Project 1110192

ALTERNATE SOURCE DEMONSTRATION REPORT
INORGANICS

CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL

ACTIVE C&D AND CLOSED MSWLF
SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF

DSWM PERMIT NO. 84-01

Prepared for:

City of Albemarle – Public Works Department
Stanly County, North Carolina

Prepared by:

Shield Engineering, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina

November 22, 2016
Shield Project 1110192

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Active C&D Closed MSWLF ........................................................................... 1-2
1.1.2 Subtitle D Lined MSWLF ................................................................................. 1-3
1.2 SAMPLING RESULTS ................................................................................................ 1-3
1.3 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 1-4
2.0 SITE DATA AND BACKGROUND DATA FOR AREA.................................................... 2-1
2.1 SITE DATA .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Data Graphs ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Source of Inorganic Exceedances ...................................................................... 2-2
2.2 BACKGROUND DATA ............................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1 Local Hydrogeology .......................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.2 Background Data ............................................................................................... 2-6
3.0 COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS ........................... 3-1
3.1 REVIEW OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................. 3-1
3.2 DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS ............................................................................ 3-2
4.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSES ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 QUARTILES AND BOX PLOTS ................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 OUTLIER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 4-2
4.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 4-3
4.4 STATISTICAL RESULTS ........................................................................................... 4-4
4.4.1 Active C&D Closed MSWLF ........................................................................... 4-4
4.4.2 Subtitle D Lined MSWLF ................................................................................. 4-5
4.4.3 Summary............................................................................................................ 4-7
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

iii
FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Groundwater Contour Map – City of Albemarle Landfill

TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Inorganic Analyses for 2000-2016 and Exceedances
Table 2 Summary of Inorganic Analyses Exceedances per Well for 2000-2016
Table 3 Background Groundwater Data for Carolina Slate Belt
Table 4 Background Groundwater Concentrations for Inorganics in Piedmont
Table 5 Background Data for Carolina Slate Belt
Table 6 Background Geochemical and Hydrogeochemical Data for Stanly County
Table 7 Background Groundwater Concentrations for Inorganics in Stanly County
Table 8 Soil Types Present at Site
Table 9 Analytical Results for Inorganic Constituents (Total and Dissolved) – July 2016,
Active C&D and Closed MSWLF
Table 10 Analytical Results for Inorganic Constituents (Total and Dissolved) – July 2016,
Subtitle D Lined MSWLF
Table 11 Summary of Inorganic Analyses for 2000-2016 and Exceedances without Outliers
Table 12 Statistical Result Summary, Active C&D and Closed MSWLF
Table 13 Statistical Result Summary, Subtitle D Lined MSWLF
Table 14 Summary of Statistical Evaluation
Table 15 Report Summary for Inorganic Concentrations

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Analytical Results
Appendix B: Graphs
Appendix C: Quartiles, Box Plots and Outlier Analyses
Appendix D: Statistical Analyses

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Albemarle Landfill (DSWM [Division of Solid Waste Management] Permit #84-01) is
located on Stony Gap Road (SR 1720), in Stanly County, North Carolina (see Figure 1). Prior to
operating as a C&D Landfill, the site formerly operated as an unlined Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) that consisted of two units. The first unit (Unit #1) was closed prior to October 1991 with a
24-inch thick final soil cover. The second unit (Unit #2) was closed with an 18-inch thick cohesive soil
cap with a permeability of 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/sec) and an 18-inch thick soil erosive layer
prior to June 1999 in accordance with the Transition Plan. The C&D Landfill is constructed and
operating on top of the Unit #1 MSWLF.

Adjacent to the C&D Landfill, across the unnamed tributary of Jacobs Creek, on the same contiguous
property is the active Subtitle D lined MSWLF. The lined MSWLF is comprised of two contiguous
phases (Phase 1 and 2) which are combined and treated as a single unit for continuity of the reporting to
the SWS. This active MSWLF also operates under DSWM Permit #84-01.

A groundwater monitoring system for both the Active C&D and the closed MSWLF and the Subtitle D
MSWLF has been installed in accordance with Solid Waste Management Rules as per Title 15A,
Subchapter 13B, Rules .1631 of the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 13B.1631).

Prior to 2015, there were two Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) for the City of Albemarle Landfill,
now there is only one document (i.e., WMP dated May 15, 2015) detailing the sampling and analyses
procedures for this site. In May 2015 Shield Engineering, Inc. (Shield) completed an updated site-
specific Water Monitoring Plan (WMP) for both landfills as specified within Solid Waste Management
Rules 15A NCAC 13B.1630. The WMP was dated May 15, 2015 and was submitted to the SWS. This
WMP updates the former Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the Active C&D and closed MSWLF
which was contained in the Corrective Action Effectiveness Report (CAER) dated July 1, 2011 for this
site; and, follows the SWS Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling dated April
2008. This WMP also updates the former Sampling and Analysis Plan dated March 2, 2009 for the
Subtitle D lined MSWLF.

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

1-2
The WMP provides details of the sampling procedures. Whereas the semi-annual groundwater monitoring
reports provide details of the field measurements, laboratory analytical results, characterization of the
groundwater and surface water, and findings from the each of the sampling events.

Groundwater and surface water samples have been collected at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF site
on a semi-annual basis since 1994, in accordance with Solid Waste Management Rule 15A NCAC
13B.1633(b). Groundwater and surface water samples have been collected at the Subtitle D lined
MSWLF site on a semi-annual basis since this MSWLF commenced operations in 1999. The
groundwater and surface water sampling has been conducted in accordance with Solid Waste
Management Rule .1633(b) [15A NCAC 13B.1633(b)]. As a condition of the water quality monitoring
program, semi-annual reports have been submitted to the North Carolina Solid Waste Section (SWS).
1.1.1 Active C&D and Closed MSWLF
The semi-annual groundwater sampling at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF typically consists of the
following:
 Appendix I list constituents, required regulatory constituents for C&D, and turbidity for
Monitoring Wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4R, MW-5R, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8D, MW-9,
MW-10, MW-11, MW-24 (annual sampling), MW-25 (annual sampling), and MW-29.
 Appendix II list constituents and turbidity for Monitoring Wells MW-12, MW-13, and MW-23.

The locations of these monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2. The site-specific WMP contains a
combination of detection, assessment and corrective action monitoring for the Active C&D and closed
MSWLF site. Detection monitoring is required on five monitoring wells (MW-4R, MW-5R, MW-8D,
MW-11, and MW-29); and, background monitoring well (MW-1). At a meeting with SWS on June 26,
2013 it was agreed that detection Monitoring Wells MW-24 and MW-25 would be sampled on an annual
basis. Corrective action monitoring is required on nine monitoring wells (MW-2, MW-3, MW-6, MW-7,
MW-9, MW-10, MW-24, MW-25, and MW-29).

Also, at the June 26, 2013 meeting with SWS, it was also agreed to perform monitored natural attenuation
(MNA) monitoring on Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-9, and MW-10 on a biannual cycle.

An area downgradient of the Phase 1 Subtitle D lined MSWLF; and, between the unnamed tributary of
Jacobs Creek and the Active C&D and closed MSWLF around the Leachate Lagoon has been under
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

1-3
assessment since July 2009. At a meeting with SWS on July 14, 2009 a subset of monitoring wells were
selected for assessment monitoring in this area. Therefore, assessment monitoring was performed on
Monitoring Wells MW-12, MW-13 and MW-23 around the Leachate Lagoon. These three monitoring
well locations are also shown on Figure 2.

SWS Rule 15A NCAC 13B.0544(b)(1)(D) requires that detection monitoring at all C&D landfills
includes Appendix I of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 258 (40 CFR Part 258), in addition to
mercury, chloride, manganese, sulfate, iron, alkalinity, and total dissolved solids. In addition to the
Appendix I inorganics, this report also includes mercury, iron and manganese for the evaluation of
inorganics for the Active C&D closed MSWLF Site only.
1.1.2 Subtitle D Lined MSWLF
The semi-annual groundwater sampling at the Subtitle D lined MSWLF typically consists of the
following:
 Appendix I list constituents for Monitoring Wells MW-14, MW-15, MW-16S, MW-16D, MW-
17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-22, MW-26, and MW-27.

Based on both the site-specific WMP and interaction with the SWS, the water quality monitoring program
for this site consists of detection monitoring. Detection monitoring is typically performed on nine
monitoring wells (MW-14, MW-15, MW-16S, MW-16D, MW-17, MW-18, MW-22, MW-26, and MW-
27); and background monitoring well (MW-19).
1.2 SAMPLING RESULTS
Since analytical data was first collected at this site in 1994 a significant volume of data has been gathered
over the years. During that time the water quality data for both sites at this landfill (i.e., Active C&D and
closed MSWLF Site, and the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site) have occasionally exhibited inorganic
concentrations exceeding either the NC 2L Groundwater Standards or the Interim Maximum Allowable
Concentrations (IMAC). These exceedances were also often observed in either the background
monitoring well or upgradient monitoring wells from the landfill cells. Due to the ongoing nature of
these exceedances, they have typically been considered to exhibit natural conditions expected to be
encountered within the underlying groundwater and not considered to be a consequence of the material
deposited within either the closed unlined landfill cell or the currently used lined landfill cell.

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

1-4
The occurrence of these exceedances have to date been rationalized to be due to natural conditions within
the hydrogeologic regime underlying the City of Albemarle Landfill, rather than being caused by the
presence of the landfill operations. However, this rationalization has not been technically shown to be the
case for the City of Albemarle Landfill.
1.3 PURPOSE
The purpose of the this report is to demonstrate that these inorganic exceedances above the NC 2L
Groundwater Standards or the IMAC are a result of natural conditions and not the result of the landfill
cells located at both sites located at the City of Albemarle Landfill. This demonstration is designed to
utilize several approaches to show that these exceedances are natural occurrences within the groundwater
underlying the site. These approaches are as follows:

1. Review of background concentrations of inorganics for the area in order to ascertain the range of
inorganic concentrations for the local hydrogeologic system (see Section 2);
2. Comparing the dissolved concentrations of metals with the total concentrations of the metals to
ascertain the “true” concentration of inorganics within the groundwater (see Section 3); and
3. Applying statistics to compare the inorganic concentrations with those detected within the
upgradient monitoring wells (see Section 4).

Together these different approaches provide a means to better understand the presence of these inorganic
exceedances and their causes within the quality of the groundwater recovered from the monitoring wells
located at the site.

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-1

2.0 SITE DATA AND BACKGROUND DATA FOR AREA
2.1 SITE DATA
The first approach presented for the technical evaluation of the inorganic exceedances is to review the
available background data for the area. In so doing, a review of the existing site data would assist in
assessing the nature of the presence of inorganics at the City of Albemarle Landfill. The analytical data
cumulated over the years from 1994 through to July 2016 from the groundwater sampling at the City of
Albemarle Landfill are included in Appendix A. Data for those wells that have been abandoned and not
replaced are not included within this database (e.g., MW-20, MW-21R). During that time the water
quality data for both sites at this landfill (i.e., Active C&D and closed MSWLF Site, and the Subtitle D
lined MSWLF Site) have occasionally exhibited inorganic concentrations exceeding either the NC 2L
Groundwater Standards or the Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations (IMAC). The occurrence of
these exceedances have to date been rationalized to be due to natural conditions within the hydrogeologic
regime underlying the City of Albemarle Landfill.

2.1.1 Data Graphs
The first step in reviewing these analytical data was to graph these data against time for each of the
inorganic parameters. Most of the monitoring wells were grouped together for the purposes of graphing
these data. The graphical plots for these data are shown in Appendix B and this appendix is subdivided as
per the following bullets:
Active C&D and closed MSWLF Site
 Background wells (MW-1 and MW-8D);
 West wells (MW-2, MW-6, and MW-7);
 South wells (MW-4R and MW-5R);
 Northeast wells (MW-3, MW-9, and MW-10); and
 Southeast wells (MW-12, MW-13, and MW-23).
Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site
 Background well (MW-19);
 North wells (MW-17 and MW-18);
 South wells (MW-22, MW-26, MW-27); and
 West wells (MW-14, MW-15, MW-16S, and MW-16D).

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-2

A review of these graphs does indicate that there are numerous spikes (i.e., large data values compared to
the majority of the data) within the data set for various inorganics. Issues that may cause such spikes may
be related to poor well development, sampling techniques, fine soil infiltrating into the well due to well
construction, etc. One notable point that can be observed from these graphs is that more of these spikes
occur within the older data values, than in the more recent data. Sometimes this can be a reflection of
such occurrences as the lowering of the method detection limits used by the analytical laboratory or the
gradual removal of the fine soil particles from the near well formations due to the ongoing well sampling.
The latter case is particularly evident upon a review of the graphs for the monitoring wells around the
Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site.

Numerous of those graphs exhibit elevated values of the inorganics for the initial results that then
subsequently declined over time. Overall the general trend exhibited by these graphs for both sites is for
a slight downward trend, however, this trend is more likely a reflection of lowered method detection
limits in the analytical laboratory rather than groundwater “cleanup”. Therefore the key point from these
graphs is that there are no upward trends being exhibited by any wells for these inorganic constituents.
This point is important in the assessment of the cause for the presence of the inorganics within the
monitoring wells. The lack of an upward trend for constituent concentrations in these graphs does
suggest that the cause of the presence of the inorganics is not due to either of the MSWLFs (see Section
2.2.2: [Harden, 2009]). If either of the MSWLFs were contaminating the groundwater the expectation
would be to observe an upward trend of the inorganic concentrations in these graphs, particularly in the
area around the closed unlined MSWLF units.

2.1.2 Source of Inorganic Exceedances
For the purposes of further summarization and discussion of these data, only those data since the
beginning of 2000 are reviewed in this section. The reason for this cutoff date is due to the fact that most
of those data spikes occur prior to 2000 (see Section 4.2), and the declining trend of the method detection
limits for these inorganics. A summary of the groundwater sampling results for inorganics since 2000
through to 2016 is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 shows the number of samples collected and analyzed at the site for each of nineteen inorganic
constituents (see second column of Table 1). The number of samples collected for each inorganic
constituent ranges from a high of 793 down to 65. Fifteen of the inorganic constituents had about 789
analyses completed over the period 2000-16. The analysis for tin was only completed whenever the
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-3

Appendix II metal analyses were requested, hence the lower number of analyses since the Appendix II
analyses were only performed in a few monitoring wells (e.g., MW-12, MW-13, and MW-23). Similarly,
mercury and iron and manganese were only analyzed for the monitoring wells around the active C&D
Landfill on top of the closed MSWLF and these analyses have only been completed in the latter part of
the 17-year period.

The total number of exceedances is shown in the fourth column of Table 1 and the percentage of the
analytical results that exceeded the North Carolina Groundwater Standards or the IMACs is shown for
each inorganic in the fifth column of Table 1. The most prevalent number of exceedances was exhibited
for manganese, iron, cobalt, vanadium, arsenic, and then chromium (i.e., those inorganics with greater
than 10% of analyses exhibiting exceedances). However, no exceedances were exhibited for barium, tin,
and zinc. Additionally, those exceedances exhibited for beryllium, copper, mercury, selenium, and silver
are likely outliers (see Section 4.2).

Of the 27 monitoring wells routinely sampled at the City of Albemarle Landfill the number of wells in
which exceedances have been recorded are shown in the sixth column of Table 1. Only two inorganics
have exhibited at least one exceedance in every one of the 27 monitoring wells located at the site (i.e.,
cobalt and vanadium). The monitoring wells that exhibit the most exceedances are Monitoring Well
MW-2 (antimony, beryllium, cobalt, lead, manganese, and nickel), MW-3 (manganese, mercury, and
selenium), followed by MW-1 (antimony and mercury), MW-9 (iron and vanadium), MW-12 (cadmium
and nickel), MW-13 (arsenic and thallium), and MW-16D chromium and copper). Monitoring Well MW-
1 is a background monitoring well for the Active C&D and closed MSWLF site. In terms of the total
number of exceedances per well, the above results suggest that Monitoring Well MW-2 exhibited the
most exceedances of any well (i.e., 113 or 12.9% of the inorganic analyses completed for this well: see
last line in Table 1). The total number of exceedances for each inorganic (except for barium, tin and zinc,
each of which exhibited no exceedances) at each of the 27 monitoring wells are shown in Table 2. After
Monitoring Well MW-2, the next four wells are as follows: MW-16D, MW-12, MW-13, and MW-1 (see
highlighted values in last column of Table 2).

A secondary point of note from Table 2 is that the upgradient (i.e., background) monitoring wells for both
sites (MW-1, MW-8D, and MW-19) at the City of Albemarle Landfill also exhibit a significant number of
inorganic exceedances. The average number of exceedances per well across the site is about 58 inorganic
exceedances per well (1577 divided by 27 wells). Both Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-19 exceed this
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-4

average number of exceedances (85 and 60, respectively). Also Monitoring Well MW-8D, with only 33
inorganic exceedances, is located upgradient from the Active C&D and closed MSWLF site, but the
monitoring interval is significantly deeper (i.e., mid-point of monitoring interval is at 67-foot depth) than
all of the other monitoring wells (i.e., average depth to monitoring interval mid-point is 17.3 feet) across
the site.

Therefore, the depth to the monitoring interval may be a factor with the number of inorganic exceedances
for each of the monitoring wells (Briel, 1997). The deeper the mid-point of the monitoring interval, the
more likely the monitoring interval of the well is in bedrock, lessening the potential for fine particles
being present within the groundwater samples.

Together Tables 1 and 2 encapsulate the results for the inorganic constituents from the analyses of the
groundwater samples collected from the City of Albemarle Landfill from 2000 through to 2016.
Additionally these tables assist to better understand in which wells these exceedances are occurring and
which inorganic constituents are more likely to exhibit exceedances.
2.2 BACKGROUND DATA
In evaluating background data for inorganic concentrations the hydrogeology for both the source of the
background data and the area of the City of Albemarle Landfill should be similar.

2.2.1 Local Hydrogeology

The Site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Piedmont), an area underlain by ancient
igneous and metamorphic rocks. These rocks commonly have a mantle of residual soil (also known as
residuum) overlying the bedrock (LeGrand, 1988). The Piedmont is a generally northeast-trending
physiographic province. This province is primarily underlain by several geologic zones or belts of
plutonic rocks and low-grade to high-grade metamorphic rocks. Geologists have subdivided the
Piedmont into four parallel geologic belts from east to west: Carolina Slate, Charlotte, King’s Mountain,
and Inner Piedmont. The site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt, a northeast trending band of volcanic,
sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks that extend from central Virginia, across North and South Carolina
and into eastern Georgia within the eastern and central Piedmont (Floyd, 1965). The group of related
formations within this belt comprises the Carolina Terrane, which consists of low-grade meta-igneous and
associated meta-sedimentary rocks.
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-5

The Carolina Terrane is comprised of four meta-volcanic-dominated sequences: the Albemarle sequence
in North Carolina; the South Carolina sequence in South Carolina and southeast Georgia; and the Cary
sequence in eastern North Carolina. The area of the site is within the Albemarle sequence that is
interpreted to have formed above the continental crust during the Neoproterozoic through the Cambrian
Eras. Within this sequence is the Albemarle Group consisting of interbedded meta-mudstones and meta-
siltstones (argillites) with lenses of felsic tuff. The Cid Formation portion of this group underlies the site
proper and is characterized by thicker-bedded versions of these rocks containing more felsic and mafic
volcanic members than underlying formations of the Albemarle Group (Tillery and Uwharrie) (Brown
and Parker, 1985).

Structurally the Carolina Terrane rock series have been folded in a series of northeastern-trending major
and minor synclines and anticlines that show several minor faults and displacements. The Troy
anticlinorium, extending from central Randolph County through Union County into South Carolina, is a
major structural feature defining the regional geology in the vicinity of the site. These larger structures
have wavelengths of ten to fifteen miles, and within them are sub-series of smaller synclines / anticlines
(defining the anticlinorium term) all created from the same deformational compressive forces that created
the major structures. There are two major faults in the area (Brown and Parker, 1985; Floyd, 1965); ten
miles to the west is the Gold Hill Fault and 18 miles to the east is the Jonesboro Fault.

The virgin soils encountered in this area are the residual product of in-place chemical weathering of rock,
which was similar to the rock presently underlying the Site. In areas not altered by erosion or disturbed
by human activities, the typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface, where soil
weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands. The boundary between soil and
rock is gradational. These residual soils retain a relic structure within their cross-section and can be
identified in soil borings. This gradational zone is termed “partially weathered rock” and is normally
found overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as
residual material with standard penetration resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot. Weathering is
facilitated by fractures, joints and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile
of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal
distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially weathered
rock within the soil mantle, above the general bedrock surface. The uppermost soils within the flood
plains of streams often are alluvial (water-deposited) materials.
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-6

A potentiometric contours for the contiguous property (i.e., includes both sites) are shown in Figure 2.
The groundwater flow directions based on both the potentiometric map and the aquifer characteristics for
the monitoring system in July 2016, are also presented in Figure 2. The estimated average groundwater
flow velocity for the Active C&D closed MSWLF Site is approximately 40 feet per year (Shield, 2016).
The estimated groundwater flow velocity for the Subtitle D MSWLF Site is approximately 126 feet per
year (Shield, 2016).

2.2.2 Background Data

The United States Geological Survey have published a number of reports covering the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (Piedmont) of North Carolina, some of which provide groundwater quality data
general to the Piedmont (e.g., Briel, 1997; and Chapman et al., 2013) and a few (more recent report is
Harden et al., 2009) provide groundwater quality data more specific to the Carolina Slate Belt. Tables 3
and 4 provide groundwater data for the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The data presented in Table 3
is solely focused on iron and manganese (Briel, 1997). The groundwater quality data presented in Table 3
are for both total and dissolved analyses of iron and manganese for the same samples. The data does
indicate that the results for the dissolved groundwater analyses are lower for the most part compared to
the results for the total groundwater analyses.

The groundwater quality data presented in Table 4 covers a broader range of inorganics. A total of 17
inorganics are shown in Table 4 (Chapman et al., 2013). Even though the number of samples used for
both data sets (i.e., Tables 3 and 4) are extensive, it should be noted that these two tables provide data
encompassing the Piedmont region. Additionally, both tables (i.e., Tables 3 and 4) do indicate that iron
and manganese routinely exhibit exceedances within the Piedmont. Also, in Table 4 arsenic does exhibit
exceedances of the groundwater standards.

Table 5 presents groundwater quality data for the Carolina Slate Belt region (see Section 2.2.1) of the
Piedmont. These data are for dissolved and total groundwater analyses. Unlike Table 3, these dissolved
analyses were for the most part completed on different wells from those used to analyze the total
groundwater analyses. Similar to the groundwater quality data shown in Tables 3 and 4, some of the iron
and manganese analytical results again exhibit exceedances of the NC 2L Groundwater Standards or the
IMACs. In addition to these two inorganics, arsenic and zinc also exhibit exceedances of these
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-7

groundwater standards.

Two sources for background data for the presence of inorganics within groundwater and sediment in
North Carolina are the Geochemical Atlas of North Carolina (Reid, 1993a) and the Hydrogeochemical
Atlas of North Carolina (Reid, 1993b). The data for Stanly County from these two references are
summarized in Table 6. Unfortunately not many inorganics in groundwater (only manganese and
vanadium) were analyzed for the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) project data presented
within the hydrogeochemical atlas (Reid, 1993b).

The data in Table 6 does show elevated concentrations for most inorganics within the stream sediments
for Stanly County. The presence of inorganics within the stream sediments is an indicator of the presence
of these same inorganics within the areawide soils. The finer particles of these same soils make up the
sediments that can be extracted from the monitoring wells during the collection of the groundwater
samples. These data do support the potential for obtaining elevated analytical results for the inorganics
from the analysis of groundwater samples with fine soil particles present in the sample.

The Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
publishes health based and “protection of groundwater remediation goals” for hazardous waste sites
located in North Carolina. A “protection of groundwater goal” for a constituent is basically the maximum
concentration within the soil above which the constituent could potentially leach into the groundwater and
result in constituent concentrations above the IMAC. Though this site is not a hazardous waste site, these
goals are a useful tool in evaluating the concentrations of inorganics within the soil medium that may
impact groundwater. These protection of groundwater goals are determined specifically for North
Carolina. Since there are limited data for cobalt these protection of groundwater goals are used to better
understand the natural concentrations of cobalt present within groundwater in Stanly County.

Since the IMAC for cobalt in groundwater is 1 microgram per liter (µg/L) the protection of groundwater
concentration for cobalt in soil is 0.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (IHSB, October 2016). A review
of Table 6 shows that 100% of the soil samples collected within Stanly County (minimum cobalt
concentration was 2.5 mg/kg: see Table 6) for the NURE project exceeded this concentration of 0.9
mg/kg (Plate 33: Reid, 1993a). In fact 80% of the sediment analyses exhibited cobalt at or above 10
mg/kg (see Table 6), which is more than ten times the IHSB protection of groundwater value of 0.9
mg/kg. Hence, the presence of cobalt within the sediments, and by inference Stanly County soils, is a
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-8

strong indicator of the likely presence of cobalt in groundwater above 10 µg/L (i.e., 10 times the IMAC of
1 µg/L for cobalt).

The average cobalt concentration for all the analyses completed during the period 2000-2016, without the
outliers as per Section 4.2, was 24.9 µg/L (i.e., calculated using half of the Minimum Detection Limit for
each of the non-detect results). The average total cobalt concentration for the July 2016 sampling event
was 24 µg/L. Therefore, there is no significant difference between these two averages. Also, the average
cobalt concentration for the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site is 29.3 µg/L for July 2016, and 21.8 µg/L for
the period 2000-2016. The average cobalt concentration for the Active C&D closed MSWLF Site is 18.5
µg/L for July 2016, and 26.7 µg/L for the period 2000-2016. The highest annual average cobalt
concentration for the Active C&D closed MSWLF Site was 37.3 µg/L in 2002, and for the Subtitle D
lined MSWLF Site was 49.5 µg/L in 2000. The lowest annual average cobalt concentration for the
Active C&D closed MSWLF Site was 18.2 µg/L in 2009, and for the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site was
11.9 µg/L in 2011. The average cobalt concentration for all of the cobalt analyses in 2016 is 20.5 µg/L.
Therefore, the overall trend of the annual average cobalt concentration is downward, as the amount of fine
soil particles removed from the monitoring wells declines during subsequent sampling events.

The two groundwater data sets from Reid (1993b) for groundwater also exhibit elevated ranges for both
manganese and vanadium in the groundwater samples collected from Stanly County. The analytical
results for manganese in Table 6 indicate that in Stanly County 55.9% of the groundwater samples have
exhibited manganese above the IMAC for manganese of 50 µg/L. Similarly, the analytical results for
vanadium in Table 6 indicate that for Stanly County 17% of the groundwater samples have exhibited
vanadium above the IMAC for vanadium of 0.3 µg/L.

Another resource from which specific data can be obtained for Stanly County is the University of North
Carolina (UNC) Gillings School of Public Health. The data available from this data base are shown in
Table 7. These data repeat the pattern observed in previous data, with elevated results for the nine
inorganic constituents shown on Table 7. More than half of the analytical results for both iron and
manganese exceed the NC 2L Groundwater Standards or the IMACs (i.e., average concentrations exceed
these groundwater standards). Almost half of the analyses for arsenic exceed the NC 2L Groundwater
Standard. Column 6 in Table 7 shows the percentage of the available data that exceeds either the NC 2L
groundwater standards or the IMACs. The three inorganics that exhibit large percentages of data
exceeding these standards (i.e., manganese, iron and arsenic: see Table 7) are also significant at the City
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

2-9

of Albemarle Landfill (see Table 1).

Various factors impact the groundwater quality within bedrock aquifers as follows (Harden, 2009):
 Chemical characteristics of the water from the recharge areas;
 Lithologic composition of the crystalline bedrock and overlying regolith;
 Rate of groundwater flow, which controls the residence time between water and aquifer materials;
and
 Redox conditions (i.e., measure of the tendency of a chemical species to acquire electrons and
thereby be reduced) which influence the distribution of natural and anthropogenic constituents
within the groundwater regime.
Impact of human activities can often lead to changes of groundwater quality within an aquifer over time
(Harden, 2009). In his assessment of the Appalachian Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge and the Piedmont
Physiographic Provinces Briel (1997) found that both iron and manganese exhibited their highest
concentrations within the groundwater found within the Piedmont.

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

3-1

3.0 COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS

The second approach presented in Section 1.3 consists of a comparison of the dissolved and total
inorganic concentrations for selected inorganics. This comparison is particularly important at sites
located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina.
3.1 REVIEW OF SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
The soils within this region consist of an appreciable percentage of fines (i.e., silts and clays). Based on
the soil survey for the City of Albemarle Landfill site, the soil types encountered at the Landfill are listed
on Table 8. These soils do exhibit significant percentages for the clay fraction. Therefore the installation
of monitoring wells in areas with such fine soils is problematic at best, in terms of eliminating the
presence of fine particles in the groundwater samples collected from these wells.

Shield has worked at several sites located within the same geologic framework (i.e., Carolina Slate Belt)
as that underlying the City of Albemarle Landfill. One of these sites was a hazardous waste site also with
metal constituents present within the groundwater. This site had been undergoing remediation of these
inorganic constituents for a number of years. Shield completed an investigation into the feasibility of
using low-flow purging techniques to resolve the issue of sediment/soil particles being extracted with the
groundwater samples. The result of this investigation indicated that because of the presence of fine soils
(i.e., silts and clays) around the well screens on these monitoring wells, their inability to recharge
groundwater to the well, even to meet the minimal flow rates used during low-flow sampling, precluded
the effective application of low-flow purging. Hence, the application of low-flow purging did not exhibit
any perceptible impact on the reduction of the concentrations for the inorganic constituents. The presence
of the elevated concentrations for the inorganics during the first few sampling events (i.e., baseline
sampling conducted for the Subtitle D lined MSWLF in 1999 – see Section 4.2), within the monitoring
wells around the Subtitle D MSWLF Site (see graphs – Appendix B) is most likely due to initially large
amount of fine soil particles being extracted within the groundwater samples.

Analytical methods to determine the dissolved metal concentrations have historically used the 0.45-
micron filters to separate dissolved and particulate phases within the samples. As a result, the optimal
solution for this site was to collect two groundwater samples, one sample for routine inorganic analysis
for total concentration and the second sample for filtering at the laboratory within a controlled
environment, prior to the same analysis for dissolved concentration. Hence, during the July 2016
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

3-2

groundwater sampling event dual samples were collected; one for the routine inorganic analyses, and a
second sample for laboratory filtering prior to the same inorganic analyses. The laboratory reports for
these analytical data were submitted to the SWS with the groundwater sampling report for July 2016
sampling event (Shield, 2016).
3.2 DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS
These inorganics were selected based on previous occurrences of exceedances for either the NC 2L
Groundwater Standards or the IMAC over the past few years. In order to acquire the data in preparation
for this report the dissolved concentrations for selected inorganic constituents were analyzed from
groundwater samples collected during the previous sampling event completed in July 2016. The results
of the total and dissolved analyses for the Active C&D and closed MSWLF are shown in Table 9, and for
the Subtitle D lined MSWLF they are shown in Table 10.

Of all the 354 (i.e., 15 inorganics at each of 24 monitoring wells, less 6 at MW-3, MW-9 and MW-10)
sets (i.e., dissolved and total analytical results) of inorganic results shown in Table 9, only 169 of these
data sets exhibited at least one numeric value (either for the dissolved or the total analysis). Only these
169 data sets of results, with at least one numeric value, could be evaluated as to whether the dissolved
concentration was lower or higher than the total concentration. About 91% of these 169 sets of results
exhibited lower concentrations for the dissolved inorganic analysis compared to the total inorganic
concentration. The remaining sixteen of these 169 data sets shown in Table 4 (i.e., 9%) exhibited higher
dissolved concentrations for the inorganic analysis compared to the total concentrations.

Three of these 16 concentrations were for manganese. Another six of these data sets occurred with
thallium, with an equal number (3) occurring at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF site, and three at the
Subtitle D lined MSWLF. Together manganese and thallium accounted for over half (9) of those 16 data
sets where the dissolved concentrations were higher than the total concentrations (see Table 9).
Therefore, for the most part (91%) the dissolved analytical concentrations were less than the total
inorganic concentrations.

A review of Tables 9 and 10 for the two sites does indicate that based on the total inorganic
concentrations nine inorganics (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, manganese, thallium,
and vanadium: see Table 9) exhibited exceedances at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF site and five
inorganics (i.e., arsenic, chromium, cobalt, thallium, and vanadium: see Table 10) exhibited exceedances
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

3-3

at the Subtitle D lined MSWLF site. Cadmium and lead only had one exceedance each at the Active
C&D and closed MSWLF site (MW-7 and MW-1: see Table 9). Hence, for the most part both sites
exhibited similar number of exceedances for this July 2016 groundwater sampling event. This
characteristic of the July 2016 data for these two sites does suggest that inorganics are present no matter
whether the landfill cell is lined or not.

Since iron and manganese were analyzed only for the Active C&D and closed MSWLF Site, a
comparison between the two sites required the exclusion of these two inorganics. The total number of
inorganic exceedances (i.e., without Fe and Mn) at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF site in July 2016
was 33 (14 wells: see Table 9) and at the Subtitle D lined MSWLF site was 25 (10 wells: see Table 10).
The ratio of inorganic exceedances per well was 2.4 at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF site and 2.5
at the Subtitle D lined MSWLF site. The data does not indicate any significant difference for occurrence
of inorganic exceedances between the two sites for those inorganic data available for both sites.

A review of the data in Table 2 indicates that the average number of inorganic exceedances at the Active
C&D and closed MSWLF site for the same common set of inorganic constituents (less iron, manganese,
mercury and tin) from 2000 through to 2016 was 52 per monitoring well. Whereas for the Subtitle D
lined MSWLF site there were 55 inorganic exceedances per monitoring well during the same period.
Therefore for both the July 2016 groundwater sampling event and for the whole data set for 2000 through
to 2016 the data does indicate slightly higher number of exceedances per monitoring well at the Subtitle
D lined MSWLF site.

The net result for a comparison of the dissolved and total inorganic concentrations from the July 2016
groundwater sampling event does indicate that all of the inorganics with exceedances are explained by the
traces of sediment within the samples, except for cobalt, manganese, thallium and vanadium (see Tables 9
and 10). Detectable concentrations for the dissolved analyses of these four constituents are shown in
Tables 9 and 10. These detectable concentrations may be due to one of two things:
1. Either, the results for the dissolved analyses for these four constituents does indicate that these
constituents may be present within the groundwater; or
2. The pore size of the filter used to filter the groundwater samples permitted fine particles to pass
through during the filtering process.
The concentrations for the dissolved inorganics exceeded the IMACs only in Monitoring Wells MW-7
and MW-16S for vanadium; and, in Monitoring Wells MW-16D and MW-17 for thallium. However, of
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

3-4

the total of 23 cobalt exceedances, the dissolved cobalt concentrations were reduced below the IMAC for
only five of the monitoring wells (i.e., MW-6, MW-9, MW-18, MW-19, and MW-26). Also, of the total
of 12 manganese exceedances, the dissolved manganese concentrations were reduced below the IMAC
for only one of the monitoring wells (i.e., MW-6). The remaining 18 monitoring wells still exhibited
cobalt concentrations above the IMAC (see Tables 9 and 10). Two of those 18 monitoring wells are
upgradient wells (MW-1 and MW-8D).

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-1

4.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The third approach presented in Section 1.3 consists of a statistical analysis of the data set by comparing
the analytical data for the background wells against the analytical data from the downgradient wells at the
two sites located at the City of Albemarle Landfill.

Prior to the completion of a statistical evaluation of the dataset for the two sites (i.e., Active C&D and
closed MSWLF Site, and the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site) at the City of Albemarle Landfill, a review
of these data was completed first as a basis of providing a preliminary understanding of the available data.
This review consisted of quartiles and a set of box plots for the full data set for each well and for each
inorganic. Subsequently statistical analyses for background comparison of inorganics (metals) were
performed utilizing established EPA protocol.
4.1 QUARTILES AND BOX PLOTS
Quartiles were produced for the complete data set. These quartiles are included in Appendix C. One set
of quartiles were completed for the Active C&D closed MSWLF Site and another set was completed for
the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site. A review the maximum values for a set of quartiles typically will
show some elevated concentrations for a number of the wells for several inorganics. For example the
quartiles for the antimony results for the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site show a maximum value of 230
micrograms per liter (µg/L), whereas the remaining maxima are all at 30 µg/L or below. Similar elevated
data (i.e., above the other wells) are scattered throughout the quartile results. These quartiles are also
exhibited in the form of box plots. The first and third quartiles define the box on the box plot and the
minimum and the maximum define the tails of the box plot.

Two sets of box plots were prepared for each of the two sites. These box plots are shown in Appendix C.
A comparative review of these box plots does show a number of obviously higher values for some the
constituents. For example the box plots for antimony at the monitoring wells around the Subtitle D lined
MSWLF Site show an unusually high antimony concentration at Monitoring Well MW-19 (i.e., the
background well) compared to the box plots shown for the other monitoring wells at this site. Continuing
a review of the box plots for the other inorganics for both sites these type of unusually high
concentrations are scattered throughout the data set. Some sets of these box plots do not appear to exhibit
such elevated concentrations (e.g., antimony for the Active C&D closed MSWLF Site). However, these
elevated concentrations are likely outliers for the dataset. For a proper and meaningful statistical
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-2

evaluation of these data these outliers were evaluated further.
4.2 OUTLIER ANALYSIS
A review of the potential for outliers was performed using Rosner’s Test for outliers (EPA, 2009). The
results for the Rosner’s Test are included in Appendix C. The results were completed for the monitoring
wells located around each of the two sites. Each of these two sets of results (i.e., one for each site) were
compared. These results list the top ten outliers for each inorganic for each group of wells at each site.

Care has to be exercised in deciding which data are likely true outliers and which are not. Not all data
shown in these results should necessarily be excluded from statistical analyses discussed below.
Therefore these results from the Rosner’s Test were individually compared to the box plots (see Section
4.1) and to the graphs discussed in Section 2.1.1. Based on these reviews those data highlighted in the
results shown in Appendix C were removed from the data set.

The data considered to be outliers was further evaluated in terms of which wells these samples were taken
from and when these samples were collected. A total of 134 outlier values were considered for removal
from the data set. Fifty-five of these outliers were data collected during the initial baseline quarterly
sampling performed in 1999 for the new monitoring wells located around the Subtitle D lined MSWLF
Site. The fact that these were collected during the initial sampling of these wells highlights the issue with
excessive sediment being withdrawn with the initial groundwater samples from new monitoring wells.
These four sampling events with these new wells together produced 41% of the outliers.

A total of 72 outliers were identified from the 17 monitoring wells located around the Active C&D closed
MSWLF Site over the period 1994 through 2016. Whereas 62 outliers were identified from the ten
monitoring wells around the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site between 1999 and 2016. Together these
outliers represent 0.9% of the total data set of 14,864 analytical results for the inorganics at the City of
Albemarle Landfill.

For the analytical data cumulated from the beginning of 2000 through to the present, 44 outliers were
identified (see Appendix C). Outliers can be the cause of many different factors ranging from the field
during the sample collection to the laboratory and the sample preparation for the analysis. In each of
these situations, outliers in a statistical context represent values that are inconsistent with the distribution
of the remaining measurements (EPA, 2009). Tests for outliers thus attempt to infer whether the
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-3

suspected outlier could have reasonably been drawn from the same population as the other measurements,
based on the sample data observed up to that point. In each of these situations, outliers in a statistical
context represent values that are inconsistent with the distribution of the remaining measurements. Tests
for outliers thus attempt to infer whether the suspected outlier could have reasonably been drawn from the
same population as the other measurements, based on the sample data observed up to that point (EPA,
2009).

Due to the ability of outliers to skew results of statistical analyses, these outliers were removed from the
2000-2016 data set and a revised Table 1 is shown in Table 11. Included in Table 11 are the current
maximum concentrations for each of the inorganics. The analytical data set used to conduct the statistical
analyses discussed in the next section does not have any of the 44 outliers identified within the data set
for the period 2000-2016.

4.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The distribution of data was taken into account to determine the required type of statistical analyses.
Analytical data that consists of a significant percentage of non-detects is not normally distributed (EPA,
2009) due to the skew within analytical datasets caused by the non-detects. Such is typically the case
with groundwater datasets from monitoring wells. Hence these datasets cannot be analyzed using
methodologies based on normal distributions. Therefore, the approach toward a statistical analysis should
take into account the non-normalized dataset, when statistical methodologies are considered.

An added issue are the number of non-detects present within a dataset. The EPA (1992) states that when
90 percent or more of the data values are non-detect, the detected values can often be modeled as "rare
events" by using the Poisson distribution. For those data sets with percentages of non-detects greater than
90% (i.e., mercury, selenium and thallium at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF Site; and, silver and
thallium at the Subtitle D MSWLF Site). The lack of normality evident from the analytical data collected
at this site, resulted in the use of either the Kruskal-Wallis Test or Non-Parametric Tolerance Limits.
Hence, non-parametric tolerance limits were used as an alternative to the Kruskal-Wallis Test (EPA,
2009) for those instances where the non-detects are greater than 90%.

The Kruskal-Wallis Test is a non-parametric ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). Within each well, the
observations are ordered from least to greatest and assigned a rank. Tied observations are assigned the
average of the ranks of those observations. Then, the ranks are used for the statistical analysis, rather than
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-4

the actual values. This test requires a minimum of three well groups with at least four observations per
group; the data base for the City of Albemarle Landfill satisfies these two criteria.

For those analytical data from 2000 through to July 2016, the Kruskal-Wallis statistical analysis was run
for the inorganics that were analyzed in the downgradient compliance wells. At the Active C&D and
closed MSWLF Site, Monitoring Well MW-1 is the background monitoring well. However, MW-8D is
also located in an upgradient area from the Active C&D and closed MSWLF Site. The key difference
between these two upgradient monitoring wells are the monitoring depths.

Hence, groundwater data collected from both Monitoring Wells MW-1 and MW-8D were used as the
background monitoring wells for statistical analyses at the Active C&D and closed MSWLF Site. The
downgradient compliance monitoring wells for this site used for the statistical analysis for those inorganic
constituents consist of Monitoring Wells MW-2, MW-3, MW-4R, MW-5R, MW-6, MW-7, MW-9
through MW-13, MW-23 through MW-25, and MW-29.

The background monitoring well for the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site is Monitoring Well MW-19. The
downgradient compliance monitoring wells for this site used for the statistical analysis for those inorganic
constituents consist of Monitoring Wells MW-14, MW-15, MW-16D, MW-16S, MW-17, MW-18, MW-
22, MW-26, and MW-27.
4.4 STATISTICAL RESULTS
The results of the statistical analyses are presented in Appendix D. The statistical results for the Active
C&D closed MSWLF Site are summarized in Table 12, and for the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site are
summarized in Table 13. The results of the statistical analysis are also summarized for each inorganic
constituent sampled at each of the two sites in the following subsections.
4.4.1 Active C&D closed MSWLF Site
The statistical results for this site are as follows:
* Antimony – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.
* Arsenic - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 5%
significance level in Monitoring Wells MW-3, MW-5R and MW-13 above the upgradient
background wells (MW-1/MW-8D).

* Barium - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-13 above the upgradient background wells
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-5

(MW-1/MW-8D).

* Beryllium – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Cadmium – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Chromium - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the
5% significance level in Monitoring Wells MW-9, MW-11, and MW-25 above the
upgradient background wells (MW-1/MW-8D).

* Cobalt - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 5%
significance level in Monitoring Wells MW-2, MW-12, MW-13, and MW-23 above the
upgradient background wells (MW-1/MW-8D).

* Copper - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-25 above the upgradient background wells
(MW-1/MW-8D).

* Iron – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were significantly
impacted.

* Lead - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-2 above the upgradient background wells
(MW-1/MW-8D).

* Manganese - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the
1% significance level in Monitoring Wells MW-2 and MW-23 above the upgradient
background wells (MW-1/MW-8D).

* Mercury – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Nickel - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Wells MW-23 and MW-25; and, at the 5% significance
level in Monitoring Wells MW-2, MW-11 and MW-12 above the upgradient background
wells (MW-1/MW-8D).

* Selenium - Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Silver – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were significantly
impacted.

* Thallium - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a significant impact for one
sampling event at Monitoring Well 2; two sampling events at Monitoring Well MW-12
above the upgradient background wells (MW-1/MW-8D).

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-6

* Vanadium - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-24; and, at the 5% significance level in
Monitoring Wells MW-9, MW-11, and MW-25 above the upgradient background wells
(MW-1/MW-8D).

* Zinc – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were significantly
impacted.

4.4.2 Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site
The statistical results for this site are as follows:
* Antimony – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Arsenic - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 5%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-16D above the upgradient background well
(MW-19).

* Barium - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-22; and, at the 5% significance level in
Monitoring Wells MW-16D and MW-27 above the upgradient background well (MW-
19).

* Beryllium – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Cadmium – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Chromium – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Cobalt - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 5%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-16D above the upgradient background well
(MW-19).

* Copper - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-16S; and, at the 5% significance level in
Monitoring Well MW-16D above the upgradient background well (MW-19).

* Lead – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were significantly
impacted.

* Nickel - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 5%
significance level in Monitoring Wells MW-14, MW-16D, and MW-27 above the
upgradient background well (MW-19).

* Selenium – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-7

significantly impacted.

* Silver – Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were significantly
impacted.

* Thallium - Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were
significantly impacted.

* Vanadium - Statistical analyses indicated that there was a statistical exceedence at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Well MW-16D above the upgradient background well
(MW-19)

* Zinc - Statistical analysis indicated that none of the compliance wells were significantly
impacted.
4.4.3 Summary
In Tables 1 and 11 the inorganics are listed with the total number of analyses that exceeded the NC 2L
Groundwater Standards or the IMACs. The most significant inorganic constituent in terms of the
percentage of exceedances was manganese, followed by iron, cobalt, vanadium, arsenic, and chromium.

In Table 14 these inorganic constituents are listed in that same order with those monitoring wells that are
statistically significant for each of the two sites at the City of Albemarle Landfill. The data in the first
three columns of Table 14, following the identification of the inorganics, are from Tables 1 and 11.
Based on the results of the statistical analyses the inorganic constituent that exhibited the largest
percentage of exceedances at this site (i.e., manganese) was statistically significant only at the 1%
significance level in Monitoring Wells MW-2 and MW-23 (see Tables 12 and 14) compared to the two
upgradient monitoring wells (i.e., MW-1 and MW-8D).

The second highest percentage of exceedances was exhibited by iron (see Table 14). Statistically this
inorganic constituent was insignificant within the monitoring wells at the Active C&D closed MSWLF
Site compared to the background monitoring wells. Neither iron nor manganese were analyzed in the
groundwater samples collected from the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site. Cobalt had the third highest
percentage of exceedances above the IMAC and was also statistically significant in Monitoring Wells
MW-2, MW-12, MW-13, and MW-23 at the 5% significance level at the Active C&D closed MSWLF
Site and in Monitoring Well MW-16D at the 5% significance level at the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site
(see Table 14).

Vanadium had exhibited exceedances in 45.9% of the analytical data from 2000 through 2016, but was
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

4-8

statistically significant compared to the background well in Monitoring Wells MW-9, MW-11, and MW-
25 at the 5% significance level and in Monitoring Well MW-24 at the 1% significance level at the Active
C&D closed MSWLF Site, and in Monitoring Well MW-16D at the 1% significance level at the Subtitle
D lined MSWLF Site. Several monitoring wells are repeated within Table 14 (e.g., MW-2 [four times],
MW-16D [three times], MW-9, MW-11, MW-12, MW-13, MW-23, and MW-25 [two times each for
these last 6 wells]).
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

5-1

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 14 provides a good basis upon which the statistical findings of this report can be summarized. This
table summarizes the findings for the statistical evaluations described in Section 4. In addition to these
findings, the background data cumulated within Section 2 showed that manganese, iron, vanadium, and
arsenic are all present within groundwater encountered in both Stanly County, and beyond, within the
Carolina Slate Belt (see Table 15). Not only one background data source, but multiple sources
consistently show that these constituents are ubiquitous for the area, and are present at concentrations
commensurate with those encountered at the City of Albemarle Landfill (see Table 15).

There is a lack of background cobalt analyses for groundwater in the area. However, 80% of the sediment
analyses on samples from Stanly County exhibited cobalt at or above 10 mg/kg (see Table 6). The
presence of cobalt within these fine soil particles that have been washed into the streams of Stanly County
is also indicative of its presence within soils around the area (i.e., the source for the sediments). The
inherent presence of cobalt in the soils is considered to be a significant factor in the presence of cobalt
within the groundwater samples collected from the City of Albemarle Landfill. Based on the IHSB
protection of groundwater concentration for cobalt (0.9 mg/kg) and the IMAC for cobalt in groundwater
(1 µg/L), these background concentrations for sediment by correlation imply that 80% of the groundwater
cobalt concentrations in Stanly County exceed 10 µg/L. The average cobalt concentration at the site in
2016 was 20.5 µg/L. Additionally, the trend for cobalt concentrations at this site has been declining from
an average concentration of 38 µg/L in 2001 through to 20.5 µg/L in 2016. This trend is contrary to a
rising trend that would be expected from contamination due to a landfill. The continued presence of
cobalt within the analytical results for the dissolved samples (see Tables 9 and 10) does suggest that the
cobalt is dissolved within the groundwater and natural to the area.

Similarly, there are no available background analytical data for thallium. Unlike cobalt, most of the
analyses completed on the filtered groundwater samples for thallium, did exhibit a decline in the
concentrations to below the IMAC for thallium (except for MW-16D and MW-17). Therefore despite the
limited available background data available for either cobalt or thallium, neither of these constituents is
considered to be present due to the landfill operations at this site. More importantly, for thallium the
statistical analyses do show that neither of the thallium concentrations for these same two monitoring
wells (i.e., MW-16D and MW-17) exhibited any statistical significance.
City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

5-2

Graphical plots of the inorganic constituent concentrations over time do not exhibit any upward trends,
rather more graphs show a downward trend due to lowering of laboratory detection limits, and a reduction
of fine particle size material being extracted from the monitoring wells due to ongoing sampling of these
wells. The absence of any upward trends in these graphs does support the position that the presence of
these inorganics is not due to operations conducted at the site.

An additional characteristic of these data is that the number of exceedances recorded on a per monitoring
well basis is similar between the Active C&D closed MSWLF Site and the Subtitle D lined MSWLF Site.
The former site contains several unlined closed landfill cells, whereas at the latter site the landfill cells are
lined. If inorganic constituents were emanating from these unlined cells, the expectation would be for
significant differences for the number of exceedances for these inorganics between the two sites. The
data does not support that expectation. Because the groundwater underlying the Subtitle D lined MSWLF
exhibits inorganic exceedances and the cells are lined; that is, theoretically there should be no leakage
from these cells, the contention is that these inorganic exceedances are natural for the groundwater in this
area of the Piedmont.

The last point is that if the inorganic constituents are emanating from the landfill cells, the statistical
evaluation for both sites would exhibit a consistent pattern of the compliance wells being statistical
significant from the upgradient background wells. Rather a review of Tables 12 and 13 shows that those
wells that are statistically significant are not the same from constituent to constituent. This variation of
the well groups that are statistically significant is also evident for each inorganic constituent (i.e., those
that exhibit significant percentage of exceedances) listed in Table 14.

In conclusion the presence of the inorganic constituents within the groundwater samples collected from
the monitoring wells at this site and listed in Table 15 are either natural within the groundwater or present
within the soils present in the area. Therefore, other than the continued semi-annual groundwater
monitoring, no further action is considered to be justified at this site in regard to the presence of these
inorganics. Additionally, the monitoring networks currently in place and sampled around each of the two
landfill sites owned and operated by City of Albemarle are capable of detecting the migration of inorganic
constituents for the landfill cells in future groundwater sampling events.

City of Albemarle Landfill November 22, 2016
Alternate Source Demonstration Report
Shield Project 1110192

6-1

6.0 REFERENCES

Briel, L. I., 1997; Water Quality in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge, and the Piedmont
Physiographic Provinces, Eastern United States – Regional Aquifer-System Analysis-
Appalachian Valley and Piedmont, United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1422-D,
Washington, DC

Brown, Phillip M., and John M. Parker, 1985; Geologic Map of North Carolina, North Carolina Geologic
Survey, Division of Land Resources, Raleigh, NC.

Chapman, Melinda J.; Charles A. Crovotta III, Zoltan Szabo, and Bruce D. Lindsey, 2013; Naturally
Occurring Contaminants in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline-Rock Aquifers and
Piedmont Early Mesozoic Basin Siliclastic-Rock Aquifers, Eastern United States, 1994-2008,
United States Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5072, Washington, DC

Environmental Protection Agency, 1992; Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA
Facilities – Addendum to Interim Final Guidance, US EPA Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
DC.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009; Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA
Facilities – Unified Guidance, US EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Program
Implementation and Information Division, US EPA, EPA 530-R-09-007, Washington, DC.

Floyd, Edwin O., 1965; Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Monroe Area, North Carolina,
North Carolina Department of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC.

Harden, Stephen L.; Melinda J. Chapman, and Douglas A. Harned, 2009; Characterization of
Groundwater Quality Based on Regional Geologic Setting in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge
Physiographic Provinces, North Carolina, United States Geological Survey, Scientific
Investigations Report 2009-5149, Washington, DC

Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB), 2016; Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table,
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, October 2016, Raleigh, NC

LeGrand, Harry E., 1988; Region 21, Piedmont and Blue Ridge, in Back, W., Rosenhein, J.S. and P.R.
Seaber, (Editors), Hydrogeology – The Geology of North America, Volume O-2, The Geological
Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Reid, Jeffrey C., 1993a; A Geochemical Atlas of North Carolina, North Carolina Geological Survey,
Bulletin 93, Raleigh, NC.

Reid, Jeffrey C., 1993b; A Hydrogeochemical Atlas of North Carolina, North Carolina Geological
Survey, Bulletin 94, Raleigh, NC.

Shield Engineering, Inc, 2016; Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, City of Albemarle
Landfill, Charlotte – DSWM Permit No. 84-01, North Carolina, 2016.

TABLES
Inorganic
Constituent
Total Number
of Analyses
NC 2L or
IMAC (µg/L)
Total Number of
Exceedances
Percentage of
Analyses
exceeding
Standard
No. of Wells in
which
Exceedances
Occur
Well with most
exceedances (No. of
exceedances)
Antimony 789 1 17 2.2% 8
MW-1, MW-2 and
MW-15 (3 each)
Arsenic 789 10 194 24.6% 20 MW-13 (30)
Barium 789 700 -- 0% -- --
Beryllium 789 4 4 0.5% 3 MW-2 (2)
Cadmium 789 2 33 4.2% 15 MW-12 (7)
Chromium 789 10 122 15.5% 21
MW-11 and MW-16D
(11 each)
Cobalt 789 1 577 73.1% 27 MW-2 (36)
Copper 789 1000 1 0.1% 1 MW-16D
Iron 119 300 92 77.3% 16 MW-9 (12)
Lead 789 15 56 7.1% 13 MW-2 (11)
Manganese 71 50 55 77.5% 15
MW-2, MW-3, and
MW-7 (6 each)
Mercury 120 1 2 1.7% 2 MW-1 and MW-3
Nickel 789 100 19 2.4% 7
MW-2 and MW-12
(6 each)
Selenium 793 20 6 0.8% 4
MW-3 and MW-10
(2 each)
Silver 789 20 1 0.1% 1 MW-19
Thallium 789 0.2 36 4.6% 17 MW-13 (5)
Tin 65 2000 -- 0% -- --
Vanadium 789 0.3 362 45.9% 27 MW-9 (23)
Zinc 789 1000 -- 0% -- --
TOTAL 12214 -- 1577 12.9% -- MW-2 (113)
NOTE:NC 2L - Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, Rules .0202 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code (North Carolina Groundwater Standards)
IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations
µg/L - Microgram per liter
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYSES FOR 2000-2016 AND EXCEEDANCES
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
A
n
t
i
m
o
n
y
A
r
s
e
n
i
c
B
e
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
C
a
d
m
i
u
m
C
h
r
o
m
i
u
m
C
o
b
a
l
t
C
o
p
p
e
r
I
r
o
n
L
e
a
d
M
a
n
g
a
n
e
s
e
M
e
r
c
u
r
y
N
i
c
k
e
l
S
e
l
e
n
i
u
m
S
i
l
v
e
r
T
h
a
l
l
i
u
m
V
a
n
a
d
i
u
m
Total
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

Ex
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
s

pe
r

w
e
l
l
MW
-
1

3

3

7

2
8

9

1
0

4

1

1

2

1
7

8
5
MW
-
1
0

2

1

2
5

6

6

2

1

8

5
1
MW
-
1
1

2

1
1

1
9

3

2

1
9

5
6
MW
-
1
2

1
4

7

8

3
2

4

4

6

3

1
3

9
1
MW
-
1
3

3
0

6

3
3

3

3

5

8

8
8
MW
-
1
4

1
3

3

8

2
4

1

1
8

6
7
MW
-
1
5

3

1
3

4

1
5

3

1
7

5
5
MW
-
1
6
D

2
4

1
1

3
3

1

5

1

1

2

2
2

1
0
0
MW
-
1
6
S

8

2

2
9

3

2

1
1

5
5
MW
-
1
7

1

8

1

2
7

1

3

1
0

5
1
MW
-
1
8

2

2

5

1
6

1

1
9

4
5
MW
-
1
9
24
1
2
6
2
4

5

2
1
1
2
1
0

6
0
MW
-
2

3

7

2

9

3
6

1
1

1
1

6

6

1

2
1

1
1
3
MW
-
2
2

3

2

7

2
7

1

2
2

6
2
MW
-
2
3

6

1

3

3
2

3

2

3

2

8

6
0
MW
-
2
4

3

3

1
3

7

1

2

1
5

4
4
MW
-
2
5

3

1

1

1
0

1
4

7

7

3

1

1
4

6
1
MW
-
2
6

2

2

1
1

1

1
3

2
9
MW
-
2
7

2

1
6

8

2
6
MW
-
2
9

5

2

5

1
2
MW
-
3

2
8

1

2
7

7

6

1

2

2

7

8
1
MW
-
4
R

2

1
3

3

1

1
0

2
9
MW
-
5
R

1
3

1

8

2
8

2

8

2

2

1
9

8
3
MW
-
6

1

1

1
0

9

1

2

6

3
0
MW
-
7

3

4

1
5

4

6

1
1

4
3
MW
-
8
D

2

3

1
7

3

8

3
3
MW
-
9

6

1

9

8

1
2

1

5

2

2
3

6
7
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

W
e
l
l
s

wi
t
h

E
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
s
82
0
3
1
5
2
1
2
7
1
1
6
1
3
1
5
2
7
4
1
1
7
2
7

-
-
To
t
a
l

o
f

Ex
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
s
17

1
9
4

4

3
3

1
2
2

5
7
7

1

9
2

5
6

5
5

2

1
9

6

1

3
6

3
6
2

1
5
7
7
TA
B
L
E

2
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

I
N
O
R
G
A
N
I
C

A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S

E
X
C
E
E
D
A
N
C
E
S

P
E
R

W
E
L
L

F
O
R

2
0
0
0
-
2
0
1
6
CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
5t
h

2
5
t
h

5
0
t
h

7
5
t
h

9
5
t
h
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

4
.
0

1
2
.
0

5
0
.
0

1
9
0
.
0

3
2
0
1
.
0

3
,
4
7
8
To
t
a
l

1
7
.
0

1
0
0
.
0

2
0
0
.
0

1
0
0
0
.
0

1
2
0
0
0
.
0

3
,
1
0
9
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

2
.
0

1
0
.
0

3
8
.
0

1
7
0
.
0

1
4
0
0
.
0

2
,
8
6
9
To
t
a
l

0
.
1

5
0
.
0

5
0
.
0

2
0
0
.
0

3
9
5
8
.
0

2
,
1
7
5
SO
U
R
C
E
:
T
a
b
l
e

5

(
B
r
i
e
l
,

1
9
9
7
)
NO
T
E
:
Al
l

D
a
t
a

a
r
e

i
n

u
n
i
t
s

o
f

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

L
i
t
e
r

(
µ
g
/
L
)

Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t

-

D
a
t
a

e
x
c
e
e
d
s

t
h
e

N
C

2
L

o
r

t
h
e

I
M
A
C
NC

2
L

-

T
i
t
l
e

1
5
A
,

S
u
b
c
h
a
p
t
e
r

2
L
,

R
u
l
e
s

.
0
2
0
2

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
d
e

(
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
IM
A
C

-

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Number of Analyses
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

D
A
T
A

F
O
R

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

S
L
A
T
E

B
E
L
T
TA
B
L
E

3
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
s
:

Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

D
a
t
a

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Ir
o
n

Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC

2
L

o
r

IM
A
C
30
0
50
Number of Samples Number of
Detections
Number of
Detections greater
than HHB value
Antimony 6 1 202 11 1
Arsenic 10 10 206 59 5
Barium 2,000 700 206 204 0
Beryllium 4 4 202 48 0
Cadmium 5 2 206 33 0
Chromium 100 10 206 122 0
Cobalt -- 1 202 88 0
Copper 1,300 1,000 206 163 0
Iron 300 300 249 160 46
Lead 15 15 206 88 0
Manganese 300 50 264 225 22
Nickel 100 100 202 134 0
Selenium 50 20 206 56 0
Silver 100 20 206 1 0
Thallium 2 0.2 102 13 0
Vanadium -- 0.3 102 89 0
Zinc 2,000 1,000 206 194 1
SOURCE: Chapman et alia, 2013
NOTE:All Data are in units of Micrograms per Liter (µg/L) for groundwater data
Highlight - Data exceeds the NC 2L or the IMAC
NC 2L - Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, Rules .0202 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code (North Carolina Groundwater Standards)
IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL
FOR INORGANICS IN PIEDMONT
TABLE 4
BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS
Constituent
Human-
Health
Benchmark
(HHB)
Crystalline Lithologies (Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Early
Mesozoic Basins Provinces)NC 2L or
IMAC
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent NC 2L or
IMAC Minimum Maximum
Antimony 1 Dissolved <0.06 2
Dissolved <0.12 38.3
Total <5.0 <5.0
Dissolved <10 245
Total <10 24
Beryllium 4 Dissolved <0.01 <1
Dissolved <0.04 <1
Total <1 <1
Dissolved <0.12 4
Total <10.0 <10.0
Cobalt 1 Dissolved <0.04 0.33
Dissolved <0.4 11.6
Total <2.0 <2.0
Dissolved <6 9860
Total <50 240
Dissolved <0.12 <10
Total <10.0 <10.0
Dissolved 0.1J 1490
Total 45 440
Dissolved <0.2 <10.0
Total <10.0 <10.0
Dissolved <0.08 7.5
Total <5 <5
Dissolved <0.10 <5
Total <5 <5
Dissolved 1.4 4770
Total 310 4200
SOURCE: Harden, Stephen L.; Melinda J. Chapman and Douglas A. Harned, 2009
NOTE:NC 2L - Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, Rules .0202 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code (North Carolina Groundwater Standards)
IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations
All Data are in units of Micrograms per Liter (µg/L)
µg/L - Microgram per liter
Highlight - Analytical result exceeds the NC 2L or the IMAC
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
100
20
20
1000
10
700
2
10
1000
300
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE 5
BACKGROUND DATA FOR CAROLINA SLATE BELT
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL
15
50
Lead
Manganese
Constituent
Total Number of
Sampling Locations
in Stanly County
Range 1 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 88 89 - 3,758
Percent 20.6 23.5 14.7 41.2
Range -- -- 0.05 - 0.2 0.3 - 42.9
Percent -- -- 82.9 17.1
Range 0.2 - 0.25 0.5 - 0.9 1 - 1.4 1.5 - 84
Percent 2.3 13.6 36.4 47.7
Range < 0.25 5 - 6 7 - 11 12 - 3010
Percent 13.3 17.8 28.9 40
Range -- 2.5 - 6 7 - 9 > 10
Percent -- 15.6 4.4 80
Range 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 8 9 - 215
Percent 0 2.3 20.5 77.2
Range -- < 5 10 - 12 13 - 2,597
Percent -- 0 31.1 68.9
Range -- 2.5 - 3 5 - 9 10 - 422
Percent -- 15.9 27.3 56.8
Range 0.05 - 0.1 0.2 0.3 - 0.7 0.8 - 2.5
Percent 0 0 93.3 6.7
Range 10 - 20 30 - 40 50 - 80 90 - 1570
Percent 2.6 18.4 52.7 26.3
NOTE:All Data are in units of Micrograms per Liter (µg/L) for groundwater data
and milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) for sediment data.
Highlight - The larger percentage of values for that constituent with the corresponding data range.
Groundwater Data (µg/L)
Beryllium
TABLE 6
BACKGROUND GEOCHEMICAL AND HYDROGEOCHEMICAL DATA
FOR STANLY COUNTY
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILLSTANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
44
Silver
Vanadium
44
45
44
45
38
Lead
Nickel
Copper
45
45
Sediment Data (mg/Kg)
Sources: "A Geochemical Atlas of North Carolina" (Reid, 1993a) and
"A Hydrogeochemical Atlas of North Carolina" (Reid, 1993b)
Manganese 34
Chromium
Cobalt
Vanadium 41
Mi
n
i
m
u
m

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

M
a
x
i
m
u
m
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

we
l
l
s

a
b
o
v
e

NC

2
L

o
r

I
M
A
C
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

1
0

0
.
5

9
.
7

8
0
6

2
0
.
2

9
3
3

Ca
d
m
i
u
m

2

0
.
5

0
.
6

5

N
A

2
3
4
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

1
0

0
.
5

5

1
0

0
.
0

2
3
4
Co
p
p
e
r

1
0
0
0

2
5

5
1
.
9

2
,
6
7
0

0
.
5

8
9
0
Ir
o
n

3
0
0

2
5

4
1
2
.
6

4
1
,
4
4
0

2
2
.
4

8
6
9
Le
a
d

1
5

2
.
5

3
.
5

1
8
3

1
.
4

9
0
0
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

5
0

1
5

1
6
8
.
1

1
2
,
1
8
0

3
2
.
2

8
7
6
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

2
0

2
.
5

2
.
7

1
2

0
.
0

2
3
4
Zi
n
c

1
0
0
0

2
5

7
7
.
2

1
,
9
4
0

N
A

8
8
0
NO
T
E
:
Co
u
n
t
y
-
l
e
v
e
l

a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

o
n

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

w
e
l
l

t
e
s
t
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

S
t
a
t
e

L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

o
f

P
u
b
l
i
c

H
e
a
l
t
h

f
r
o
m

1
9
9
8
-
2
0
1
0
.
NA

-

N
o
t

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

(
U
N
C

G
i
l
l
i
n
g
s

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

P
u
b
l
i
c

H
e
a
l
t
h

u
s
e
d

E
P
A

M
C
L

f
o
r

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
)
Al
l

D
a
t
a

a
r
e

i
n

u
n
i
t
s

o
f

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

L
i
t
e
r

(
µ
g
/
L
)

FO
R

I
N
O
R
G
A
N
I
C
S

I
N

S
T
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
To
t
a
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

We
l
l
s

T
e
s
t
e
d

i
n

St
a
n
l
y

C
o
u
n
t
y
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC

2
L

o
r

IM
A
C

(µ
g
/
L
)
TA
B
L
E

7
BA
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

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

CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
So
u
r
c
e
:

U
N
C

G
i
l
l
i
n
g
s

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

P
u
b
l
i
c

H
e
a
l
t
h

So
i
l

T
y
p
e

N
a
m
e

A
c
r
e
s
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

S
o
i
l

Ty
p
e

a
t

S
i
t
e
Cl
a
y

(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
)
Ba
d
i
n

-

C
h
a
n
n
e
r
y

s
i
l
t

l
o
a
m

(
2

t
o

8
%

s
l
o
p
e
s
)

5
0
.
2

1
7
.
8
%

3
5

-

5
5
%
Ba
d
i
n

-

C
h
a
n
n
e
r
y

s
i
l
t

l
o
a
m

(
8

t
o

1
5
%

s
l
o
p
e
s
)

3
2
.
6

1
1
.
6
%

3
5

-

5
5
%
En
o
n

c
o
b
b
l
y

l
o
a
m

(
8

t
o

1
5
%

s
l
o
p
e
s
)

8
.
4

3
.
0
%

3
5

-

6
0
%
En
o
n

v
e
r
y

c
o
b
b
l
y

l
o
a
m

(
4

t
o

1
5
%

s
l
o
p
e
s
)

1
3

4
.
6
%

3
5

-

6
0
%
Go
l
d
s
t
o
n

v
e
r
y

C
h
a
n
n
e
r
y

s
i
l
t

l
o
a
m

(
4

t
o

1
5
%

sl
o
p es
)
40
.
8

1
4
.
5
%

5

-

2
7
%
Go
l
d
s
t
o
n

v
e
r
y

C
h
a
n
n
e
r
y

s
i
l
t

l
o
a
m

(
1
5

t
o

45
%

s
l
o
p es
)
89
.
2

3
1
.
6
%

5

-

2
7
%
Oa
k
b
o
r
o

s
i
l
t

l
o
a
m

(
0

t
o

2
%

s
l
o
p
e
s
)

2
2
.
7

8
.
0
%

1
8

-

3
5
%
Di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d

S
o
i
l
s

2
5
.
2

8
.
9
%

N
o
t

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
TO
T
A
L

2
8
2
.
1

1
0
0
.
0
%
SO
U
R
C
E
S
:

Na
t
i
o
n
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

W
e
b
s
i
t
e

-

W
e
b

S
o
i
l

S
u
r
v
e
y (WS
S
)

h
t
t
p :/
/
w
e
b
s
o
i
l
s
u
r
v
e
y .s
c
.
e
g ov
.
u
s
d
a
.
g ov
/
A
pp
/W
e
b
S
o
i
l
S
u
r
v
e
y .a
s
p x

S
o
i
l

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
,

1
9
8
9
;

S
o
i
l

S
u
r
v
e
y

o
f

S
t
a
n
l
y

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
,

S
o
i
l

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
,

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

D
.
C
.
TA
B
L
E

8
SO
I
L

T
Y
P
E
S

P
R
E
S
E
N
T

A
T

S
I
T
E
CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
N C 2
L

o
r

IM
A
C

(µ
g
/
L
)
MW
-
1

M
W
-
2

M
W
-
3

M
W
-
4
R

M
W
-
5
R

M
W
-
6

M
W
-
7

M
W
-
8
D

M
W
-
9

M
W
-
1
0

M
W
-
1
1

M
W
-
1
2

M
W
-
1
3

M
W
-
2
3
To
t
a
l

0
.
4
3
J

0
.
2
6
9
J

0
.
2
7
7
J

N
D

0
.
7
0
6
J

N
D

0
.
2
6
4
J

0
.
4
0
9
J

N
D

0
.
5
6
6
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

0
.
2
4
2
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

0
.
4
6
J

N
D

N
D

0
.
4
0
3
J

N
D

0
.
2
4
1
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

8
.
7
8
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
48
.
9

1
3
.
3
ND
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

1
.
6
4

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

0
.
7
2
4
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
2.
0
4
0.3
8
1
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

0
.
3
6
1
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

1
.
8

0
.
4
7
9
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

11
.
2
3.3
5
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

7
.
4
2
J

7
.
9
J

N
D

3
.
9
8
J

N
D
10
.
1
ND

2
.
1
6
J

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

24
.
2

4
0
.
5

2
9
.
3
ND
7.
1
5
J

6
.
3
3
J

7
.
9
8
J

4
.
0
J

3
.
4
2
J

8
.
0
6
J

4
.
7
9
J

7
5
.
4

2
4
.
4

2
2
.
2
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
4.
2
7
J

3
4
.
1

2
3
.
8
ND
4.7
J
ND
2.
9
3
J

3
.
4
J
ND
8.
0
8
J

2
.
8
9
J

6
4
.
5

1
9
.
3

2
0
.
6
To
t
a
l

1
0
0

1
1
.
1

2
2
.
1

2
.
1
4
J

8
.
0
8
J

1
1
.
5

1
7

3
.
0
6
J

1
8
.
2

4
.
8
5
J

4
.
7
6
J

1
.
7
7
J

9
.
7
2
J

6
.
6
1
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

9
.
7
8
J

3
.
4
5
J

4
.
6
4
J

N
D

3
.
3
9
J

1
.
7
1
J

2
.
8
1
J

2
.
1
2
J

N
D

3
.
5
5
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

2
.
1
6
J
To
t
a
l

17
,
1
0
0

1
7
,
9
0
0
20
4
J
84
1

6
4
6

8
,
0
1
0

6
,
9
8
0
65
.
5
J
1,3
9
0

1
,
4
6
0

3
,
4
9
0

3
7
,
9
0
0

8
,
8
4
0

1
2
,
4
0
0
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

1
4
2
J
3,
8
5
0
--

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

-
-

-
-

N
D
23
,
7
0
0

2
,
5
7
0
106J
To
t
a
l

92
.
8
7.2
9
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

7
.
8
5
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

96
4

4
,
2
2
0

4
9
1
18
.
1
J
76
.
8

2
2
2

1
,
1
6
0
23
.
9
J
41
1

1
0
0
0

1
5
8

1
7
,
6
0
0

8
,
0
5
0

7
,
2
1
0
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
31
9

4
,
2
5
0
--

1
1
.
2
J
65
.
7
23
.
8
J
92
5
21
J

-
-

-
-
14
6

1
7
,
7
0
0

8
,
2
3
0

7
,
1
4
0
To
t
a
l

4
1
.
1
J

2
3
.
7
J

5
.
7
1
J

1
1
.
3
J

N
D

1
0
.
7
J

1
2
.
0
J

2
.
9
7
J

9
.
8
J

3
2
.
2
J

3
7
.
7
J

3
4
.
6
J

3
.
1
3
J

8
.
4
6
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

3
.
0
2
J

1
7
.
7
J

5
.
9
J

3
.
0
7
J

N
D

2
.
4
5
J

5
.
7
4
J

2
.
6
J

5
.
1
1
J

3
2
.
1
J

3
3
.
2
J

2
9
.
1
J

N
D

5
.
8
1
J
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

2
.
8
3
J

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

0.
2
1
7
J
0.
1
3
9
J
0.
2
J
0.
1
4
3
J

0
.
1
5
3
J

0
.
1
4
J

0
.
1
5
6
J

0
.
1
4
6
J
0.
2
8
7
J

0
.
3
3
5
J
0.1
6
6
J

0
.
1
6
7
J

0
.
1
8
3
J

0
.
1
4
5
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

0
.
1
5
6
J

0
.
1
8
J

0
.
1
3
9
J

0
.
1
3
7
J

0
.
1
3
3
J

0
.
1
3
3
J

0
.
1
5
4
J

0
.
1
4
1
J

0
.
1
2
J

0
.
1
2
6
J

0
.
1
6
J

0
.
1
6
6
J

0
.
1
4
7
J
To
t
a
l

21
.
7
J

5
.
6
2
J
ND
1.
4
8
J

2
.
0
2
J

8
.
8
J

1
9
.
8
J
ND
13
.
9
J
ND
7.
5
2
J

2
.
7
8
J

2
.
6
3
J
ND
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
2.
9
1
J
ND

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
NO
T
E
:
NC

2
L

-

T
i
t
l
e

1
5
A
,

S
u
b
c
h
a
p
t
e
r

2
L
,

R
u
l
e
s

.
0
2
0
2

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
d
e

(
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s)
IM
A
C

-

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

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

N
o

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

D
a
t
a
J

-

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

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

-

N
o
t

D
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
µg
/
L

-

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
Al
l

D
a
t
a

a
r
e

i
n

u
n
i
t
s

o
f

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

L
i
t
e
r

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Bo
l
d

-

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

r
e
s
u
l
t

e
x
c
e
e
d
s

t
h
e

N
C

2
L

o
r

t
h
e

I
M
A
C
Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t

-

T
h
o
s
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d

t
h
e

N
C

2
L

o
r

I
M
A
C

an
d
t
h
e

d
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

w
a
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

N
C

2
L

o
r

t
h
e

I
M
A
C
.
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
Ir
o
n

3
0
0
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

5
0
TA
B
L
E

9
AN
A
L
Y
T
I
C
A
L

R
E
S
U
L
T
S

F
O
R

I
N
O
R
G
A
N
I
C

C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
S

(
T
O
T
A
L

A
N
D

D
I
S
S
O
L
V
E
D
)

-

J
U
L
Y

2
0
1
6
CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
10
0
0
Ni
c
k
e
l
An
t
i
m
o
n
y

1
10 4
AC
T
I
V
E

C
&
D

A
N
D

C
L
O
S
E
D

M
S
W
L
F
20
Co
b
a
l
t
10
0
152
Le
a
d
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

1
0
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
20
Co
p
p
e
r
0.3
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
1 0.2
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Sil
v
e
r
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC

2
L

o
r

IM
A
C

(µg/
L
)
MW
-
1
4

M
W
-
1
5

M
W
-
1
6
S

M
W
-
1
6
D

M
W
-
1
7

M
W
-
1
8

M
W
-
1
9

M
W
-
2
2

M
W
-
2
6

M
W
-
2
7
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

0
.
5
9
9
J

N
D

0
.
4
7
9
J

N
D

0
.
7
5
5
J

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

0
.
3
7
6
J

0
.
2
7
5
J

0
.
4
4
4
J

N
D

0
.
5
2
8
J

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D
20
.
7
ND

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

0
.
3
8
9
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

0
.
4
9
4
J
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D
10
.
4
ND
22
.
3
ND
60
.
7
4.
1
9
J

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l
1.
4
J

1
.
8
4
J

1
7
.
3

9
9
.
2

8
9
.
5

1
3
.
9

2
.
7
9
J

4
3
.
2

1
.
2
7
J

2
2
.
5
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
1.
2
4
J

1
.
6
J

1
1
.
4

8
5
.
3

8
8
ND

N
D
30
.
3
ND
21.9
To
t
a
l

N
D

4
.
2
1
J

5
.
4
6
J

5
1
.
8

3
.
6
7
J

1
6
.
9

N
D

5
1

4
.
0
4
J

1
.
9
1
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

3
.
1
4
J

8
.
2
J

3
.
1
8
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

3
.
8
8
J

N
D

5
.
3
J

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

1
5
.
6
J

3
.
8
4
J

2
.
3
4
J

1
3
.
8
J

5
.
5
J

1
5
.
8
J

N
D

4
0
.
1
J

5
.
0
J

1
6
.
3
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

1
5
.
1
J

N
D

2
.
8
1
J

4
.
9
8
J

5
.
3
3
J

2
.
3
2
J

N
D

1
2
.
9
J

3
.
3
J

1
5
.
7
J
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

N
D

N
D

N
D

2
.
0
6
J

N
D

N
D

N
D

2
.
5
5
J

N
D

N
D
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
To
t
a
l

0
.
1
8
8
J
0.
2
J
0.
1
6
4
J

0
.
1
8
6
J
0.
2
1
9
J

0
.
2
3
8
J
0.
1
6
7
J
0.
2
1
6
J
ND

0
.
1
1
6
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

0
.
1
6
4
J

0
.
1
6
4
J

0
.
1
7
3
J
0.
2
2
8
J

0
.
2
1
3
J
0.
1
7
7
J

0
.
1
3
5
J

0
.
1
5
5
J

N
D

0
.
1
1
7
J
To
t
a
l
1.
4
8
J
ND
6.
6
7
J

2
0
.
5
J
ND
21
.
6
J
ND
66
.
1

4
.
5
9
J

1
.
5
6
J
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

N
D

N
D
2.
1
4
J
ND

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D

N
D
NO
T
E
:
NC

2
L

-

T
i
t
l
e

1
5
A
,

S
u
b
c
h
a
p
t
e
r

2
L
,

R
u
l
e
s

.
0
2
0
2

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
d
e

(
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s)
IM
A
C

-

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

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

-

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
µg
/
L

-

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
Al
l

D
a
t
a

a
r
e

i
n

u
n
i
t
s

o
f

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

L
i
t
e
r

(
µ
g
/
L
)
Bo
l
d

-

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

r
e
s
u
l
t

e
x
c
e
e
d
s

t
h
e

N
C

2
L

o
r

t
h
e

I
M
A
C
Hi
g
h
l
i
g
h
t

-

T
h
o
s
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d

t
h
e

N
C

2
L

o
r

I
M
A
C

a
n
d

t
h
e

d
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

w
a
s

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

N
C

2
L

o
r

t
h
e

I
M
A
C.
AN
A
L
Y
T
I
C
A
L

R
E
S
U
L
T
S

F
O
R

I
N
O
R
G
A
N
I
C

C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
E
N
T
S

(TO
T
A
L

A
N
D

D
I
S
S
O
L
V
E
D
) -

J
U
L
Y

2
0
1
6
1 10
CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
SU
B
T
I
T
L
E

D

L
I
N
E
D

M
S
W
L
F
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
10 1
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
An
t
i
m
o
n
y
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
Si
l
v
e
r
2
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
TA
B
L
E

1
0
20
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
Le
a
d
Co
b
a
l
t
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
10
0
0
Ni
c
k
e
l
4 0.
3
Co
p
p
e
r
0.
2
10
0
20
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
15
Inorganic
Constituen
t
NC 2L or
IMAC (µg/L)
Total Number of
Exceedances
(includes
outliers: Table
1)
Total Number of
Exceedances
(without
outliers)
Maximum
Concentration
(without
outliers) (µg/L)
No. of Wells in
which
Exceedances
Occur (without
outliers)
Well with most
exceedances (No.
of exceedances)
Antimony 1 17 16 5.8 8
MW-1, MW-2 and
MW-15 (3 each)
Arsenic 10 194 189 89 20 MW-13 (29)
Barium 700 -- -- 653 -- --
Beryllium 4 4 3 12 2 MW-2 (2)
Cadmium 2 33 28 6.54 14 MW-12 (5)
Chromium 10 122 121 250 21
MW-11 and MW-
16D (11 each)
Cobalt 1 577 574 380 27 MW-2 (34)
Copper 1000 1 -- 450 -- MW-16D
Iron 300 92 87 39100 16 MW-9 (12)
Lead 15 56 55 240 13 MW-2 (11)
Manganese 50 55 51 9180 15
MW-2, MW-3,
MW-7, and MW-
10 (6 each)
Mercury 1 2 2 1.23 2 MW-1 and MW-3
Nickel 100 19 16 270 6 MW-12 (6)
Selenium 20 6 2 21.1 2
MW-3 and MW-
16D
Silver 20 1 -- 1 MW-19
Thallium 0.2 36 28 14 16
MW-12, MW-15,
and MW-8D (3
each)
Tin 2000 -- -- -- --
Vanadium 0.3 362 361 260 27 MW-9 (23)
Zinc 1000 -- -- -- --
TOTAL -- 1577 1533 -- -- MW-2 (106)
NOTE:NC 2L - Title 15A, Subchapter 2L, Rules .0202 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code (North Carolina Groundwater Standards)
IMAC - Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations
µg/L - Microgram per liter
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF INORGANIC ANALYSES FOR 2000-2016 AND
EXCEEDANCES WITHOUT OUTLIERS
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

M
W
-
2

M
W
-
3

M
W
-
4
R

M
W
-
5
R

M
W
-
6

M
W
-
7

M
W
-
9

M
W
-
1
0

M
W
-
1
1

M
W
-
1
2

M
W
-
1
3

M
W
-
2
3

M
W
-
2
4

M
W
-
2
5

M
W
-
2
9
An
t
i
m
o
n
y
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
XX

X
Ba
r
i
u
m
O
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
XX

X
Co
b
a
l
t
X
XX
X
Co
p
p
e
r
O
Ir
o
n
Le
a
d
O
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e
O
O
Me
r
c
u
r
y
*
Ni
c
k
e
l
XX
X
O
O
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
*
Si
l
v
e
r
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
*
1
v
a
l
u
e
2
V
a
l
u
e
s
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
XX

O
X
Zi
n
c
NO
T
E
:
*

N
o
n
-
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

T
e
s
t

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

I
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

(
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
i
n
g

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t

a
re reported).
X
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

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

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

a
t

a

9
5
%

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e

l
e
v
e
l
O
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

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

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

a
t

a

9
9
%

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e

l
e
v
e
l
TA
B
L
E

1
2
AC
T
I
V
E

C
&
D

C
L
O
S
E
D

M
S
W
L
F

S
I
T
E
CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
ST
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
A
L

R
E
S
U
L
T

S
U
M
M
A
R
Y

Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

M
W
-
1
4

M
W
-
1
5

M
W
-
1
6
D

M
W
-
1
6
S

M
W
-
1
7

M
W
-
1
8

M
W
-
2
2

M
W
-
2
6

M
W
-
2
7
An
t
i
m
o
n
y
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
X
Ba
r
i
u
m
XO
X
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
Co
b
a
l
t
X
Co
p
p
e
r
XO
Le
a
d
Ni
c
k
e
l
XX

X
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Si
l
v
e
r
*
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
*
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
O
Zi
n
c
NO
T
E
:
*

N
o
n
-
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

T
e
s
t

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

I
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

(
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
i
n
g

s
t
a
t
i
t
s
t
i
c
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t

a
r
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
)
.

X
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

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

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

a
t

a

9
5
%

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e

l
e
v
e
l
O
St
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

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

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

a
t

a

9
9
%

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e

l
e
v
e
l
TA
B
L
E

1
3
ST
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
A
L

R
E
S
U
L
T

S
U
M
M
A
R
Y

SU
B
T
I
T
L
E

D

L
I
N
E
D

M
S
W
L
F

S
I
T
E
CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
Ac
t
i
v
e

C
&
D

c
l
o
s
e
d

M
S
W
L
F

S
i
t
e
Su
b
t
i
t
l
e

D

l
i
n
e
d

M
S
W
L
F

Site
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

7
7
.
4
6
%

5
0

5
5

M
W
-
2

&

M
W
-
2
3

(
1
%

S
i
g
)

-
-
Ir
o
n

7
7
.
3
1
%

3
0
0

9
2

N on
e

-
-
Co
b
a
l
t

7
3
.
1
3
%

1

5
7
7

MW
-
2
,

M
W
-
1
2
,

M
W
-
1
3

&

MW
-
2
3

(5%

S
i
g)
MW
-
1
6
D

(
5
%

S
i
g
)
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

4
5
.
8
8
%

0
.
3

3
6
2

MW
-
9
,

M
W
-
1
1
,

&

M
W
-
2
5

(
5
%

Si
g
)
;

a
n
d

M
W
-
2
4

(
1
%

S
i
g
)
MW
-
1
6
D

(
1
%

S
i
g
)
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

2
4
.
5
9
%

1
0

1
9
4

MW
-
3
,

M
W
-
5
R
,

&

M
W
-
1
3

(5%

S
i
g)
MW
-
1
6
D

(
5
%

S
i
g
)
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

1
5
.
4
6
%

1
0

1
2
2

MW
-
9
,

M
W
-
1
1
,

&

M
W
-
2
5

(5
%

S
i
g
)
No
n
e
Le
a
d

7
.
1
0
%

1
5

5
6

M
W
-
2

(
1
%

S
i
g
)

N
o
n
e
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m

4
.
5
6
%

0
.
2

3
6

MW
-
2
,

M
W
-
1
2

(
1

a
n
d

2

v
a
l
u
e
s
,

re
s
p .)
No
n
e
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

4
.
1
8
%

2

3
3

N
o
n
e

N
o
n
e
NO
T
E
:
N C
2
L

-

T
i
t
l
e

1
5
A
,

S
u
b
c
h
a
p
t
e
r

2
L
,

R
u
l
e
s

.
0
2
0
2

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
d
e

(
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
IM
A
C

-

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
µg
/
L

-

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
Si
g

-

S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e

L
e
v
e
l

-
-

-

N
o

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
TA
B
L
E

1
4
SU
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

S
T
A
T
I
S
T
I
C
A
L

E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N

CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

W
e
l
l
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
NC

2
L

or

IM
A
C

(µ
g
/
L
)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

An
a
l
y
s
e
s

Ex
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
In
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
To
t
a
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

of

Ex
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
s

(s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

1
)
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

7
7
.
4
6
%

5
0

5
5

1
2
,
1
8
0

T
a
b
l
e

7

9
,
1
8
0
Ir
o
n

7
7
.
3
1
%

3
0
0

9
2

4
1
,
4
4
0

T
a
b
l
e

7

3
9
,
1
0
0
Co
b
a
l
t

7
3
.
1
3
%

1

5
7
7

-
-

-
-

3
8
0

Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

4
5
.
8
8
%

0
.
3

3
6
2

4
2
.
9

T
a
b
l
e

6

2
6
0

Ar
s
e
n
i
c

2
4
.
5
9
%

1
0

1
9
4

8
0
6

T
a
b
l
e

7

8
9

Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

1
5
.
4
6
%

1
0

1
2
2

-
-

-
-

2
5
0

Le
a
d

7
.
1
0
%

1
5

5
6

1
8
3

T
a
b
l
e

7

2
4
0

Th
a
l
l
i
u
m

4
.
5
6
%

0
.
2

3
6

-
-

-
-

1
4

Ca
d
m
i
u
m

4
.
1
8
%

2

3
3

5

T
a
b
l
e

7

6
.
5
4

NO
T
E
:
N C
2
L

-

T
i
t
l
e

1
5
A
,

S
u
b
c
h
a
p
t
e
r

2
L
,

R
u
l
e
s

.
0
2
0
2

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

C
o
d
e

(
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
IM
A
C

-

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
µg
/
L

-

M
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
So
u
r
c
e
Ac
t
u
a
l

S
i
t
e

D
a
t
a

-

Ma
x
i
m
u
m

V
a
l
u
e

(s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

1
1
)
TA
B
L
E

1
5
RE
P
O
R
T

S
U
M
M
A
R
Y

F
O
R

I
N
O
R
G
A
N
I
C

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

CI
T
Y

O
F

A
L
B
E
M
A
R
L
E

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
ST
A
N
L
Y

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
In
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

An
a
l
y
s
e
s

E
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
NC

2
L

o
r

IM
A
C

(
µ
g
/
L
)
To
t
a
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

Ex
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e
s

(
s
e
e

Ta
b
l
e

1
)
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

D
a
t
a

-

Ma
x
i
m
u
m

V
a
l
u
e

FIGURES

APPENDIX A

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

APPENDIX B

GRAPHS

APPENDIX B - 1

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
GRAPHS: BACKGROUND WELLS (MW-1 & MW-8D)

APPENDIX B - 2

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
GRAPHS: WEST WELLS (MW-2, MW-6 & MW-7)

APPENDIX B - 3

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
GRAPHS: SOUTH WELLS (MW-4R & MW-5R)

APPENDIX B - 4

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
GRAPHS: NORTHEAST WELLS (MW-3, MW-9 & MW-10)

APPENDIX B - 5

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
GRAPHS: SOUTHEAST WELLS (MW-12, MW-13 & MW-23)

APPENDIX B - 6

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
GRAPHS: BACKGROUND WELL (MW-19)

APPENDIX B - 7

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
GRAPHS: NORTH WELLS (MW-17 & MW-18)

APPENDIX B - 8

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
GRAPHS: SOUTH WELLS (MW-22, MW-26 & MW-27)

APPENDIX B - 9

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
GRAPHS: WEST WELLS (MW-14, MW-15, MW-16S & MW-16D)

APPENDIX C

QUARTILES, BOX PLOTS AND OUTLIER ANALYSES

APPENDIX C - 1

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
QUARTILES

APPENDIX C - 2

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
QUARTILES

APPENDIX C - 3

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
BOX PLOTS

APPENDIX C - 4

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
BOX PLOTS

APPENDIX C - 5

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF
OUTLIER ANALYSES

APPENDIX C - 6

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF
OUTLIER ANALYSES

APPENDIX D

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

APPENDIX D

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

APPENDIX D - 1

ACTIVE C&D CLOSED MSWLF

APPENDIX D - 2

SUBTITLE D LINED MSWLF