4403_FrancisFarm_ACMReport_DIN27533_20170316

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

ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT NUMBER 44-03
PREPARED FOR:
HAYWOOD COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
CLYDE, NORTH CAROLINA

PREPARED BY: BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 16, 2017

BLE NORTH CAROLINA BUSINESS LICENSE C-1538
BLE PROJECT NUMBER J16-1957-61
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS
6004 PONDERS COURT PHONE [phone] GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29615 FAX [phone]
March 16, 2017

Haywood County Solid Waste Management Department 157 Paragon Parkway, Suite 200
Clyde, NC 28721
Attention: Mr. David B. Francis
Solid Waste and Tax Administrator Subject: Assessment of Corrective Measures Report
Francis Farm Landfill Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Permit Number 44-03 Dear Mr. Francis:
Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE) is pleased to present this Assessment of Corrective
Measures (ACM) report for the Francis Farm Landfill located in Haywood County, North Carolina.
The ACM is being submitted in general accordance with North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, [Rules] T15A NCAC 13B .1635(c)(1-4). The report contained herein includes content
required by the cited rule and includes information and technical data germane to the subject site as
outlined in the NC Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Corrective Action at Solid Waste Management Facilities (dated 3/07).
We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geological consultant on this project and look forward to continue working with you at the Francis Farm Landfill. If you have any questions, please contact
us at [phone]. Sincerely,
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.

Andrew W. Alexander, P.G., RSM Mark S. Preddy, P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist
Registered, NC No. 1475 Registered, NC No. 1043
Attachments: Table of Contents Tables Figures Appendices s:\02 awa projects\mcgill\haywood county lf\1957-61 acm fy17\acm report\final fflf acm 1957-61.docx

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017 Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background Information ................................................................................ 1 1.2 Groundwater Assessment Narrative .............................................................. 2
1.3 Assessment Results and Contaminant Distribution ..................................... 3 1.4 Geologic Conditions ........................................................................................ 5 1.5 Regional Hydrogeology ................................................................................... 5
1.6 Site Physiography and Topography ............................................................... 6 1.7 Subsurface Geologic Conditions .................................................................... 6 1.7.1 Residual Soil (Saprolite) and Alluvial Soil ....................................... 6
1.7.2 Partially Weathered Rock ................................................................. 7 1.7.3 Fractured Bedrock ............................................................................. 7 1.8 Hydrogeologic Conditions............................................................................... 7
1.8.1 Description of Aquifer ........................................................................ 7 1.8.2 Depth to Groundwater and Flow Directions .................................... 7 1.8.3 Hydraulic Conductivity ..................................................................... 8
1.8.4 Hydraulic Gradient ............................................................................ 8 1.8.5 Effective Porosity and Specific Yield ................................................ 8 1.8.6 Groundwater Flow Velocity .............................................................. 8 1.8.7 Vertical Flow Gradients ..................................................................... 9
2.0 CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................... 9
2.1 Environmental Monitoring Systems .............................................................. 9
2.1.1 Water Quality and Landfill Gas Monitoring Plans ......................... 9 2.2 Contaminants of Concern ............................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds ............................................................ 10
2.2.2 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide ................................................. 14 2.2.3 Total Metals ........................................................................................ 14 2.3 Evaluation and Control of Contaminant Sources ........................................ 15
2.3.1 Landfill Gas ........................................................................................ 15 2.3.2 Leachate .............................................................................................. 16 2.3.3 Evaluation of the Existing Landfill Cap ........................................... 17
2.3.4 Placement and Testing of an Interim Soil Cap ................................ 18 2.4 Receptor Survey and Pathways ...................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Groundwater Supply Wells ............................................................... 18 2.4.2 Surface Water ..................................................................................... 19 3.0 CORRECTIVE MEASURES SCREENING AND EVALUATION .................... 20
3.1 Waste (Source) Removal ................................................................................. 20
3.1.1 Waste Removal – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation .... 21 3.1.2 Waste Removal – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements 21 3.1.3 Waste Removal – Remedy Costs ....................................................... 22
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
ii
3.2 Landfill Gas (LFG) Mitigation ....................................................................... 22 3.2.1 LFG Mitigation – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation ... 22
3.2.2 LFG Mitigation – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements 23 3.2.3 LFG Mitigation – Remedy Costs....................................................... 23 3.3 Leachate Recovery .......................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Leachate Recovery – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation 24 3.3.2 Leachate Recovery – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements 24 3.3.3 Leachate Recovery – Remedy Costs ................................................. 25
3.4 Restrictive Covers (Landfill Caps) ................................................................. 25 3.4.1 Landfill Caps – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation ....... 26 3.4.1.1 Cap Maintenance ................................................................... 26 3.4.1.2 Cap Alternative A ................................................................... 26 3.4.1.3 Cap Alternative B ................................................................... 27
3.4.1.4 Cap Alternative C ................................................................... 28 3.4.2 Landfill Caps – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements 28 3.4.3 Landfill Caps – Remedy Costs .......................................................... 29
3.5 Phytoremediation ............................................................................................ 30 3.5.1 Phytoremediation – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation 30 3.5.2 Phytoremediation – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements 31
3.5.3 Phytoremediation – Remedy Costs ................................................... 31 3.6 Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB) .............................................................. 31 3.6.1 PRB – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation....................... 31
3.6.2 PRB – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements ............. 32 3.6.3 PRB – Remedy Costs .......................................................................... 32 3.7 Pump & Treat (P&T) ...................................................................................... 32
3.7.1 P&T – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation ...................... 33 3.7.2 P&T – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements ............ 34 3.7.3 P&T – Remedy Costs ......................................................................... 34 3.8 Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) ........................................................ 35 3.8.1 MNA – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation ..................... 35 3.8.2 MNA – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements ........... 36
3.8.3 MNA – Remedy Costs ........................................................................ 37 3.9 Enhanced Bioremediation (EBR) ................................................................... 37
3.9.1 EBR – Performance, Reliability, & Implementation ...................... 37 3.9.2 EBR – Remedy Timeframe & Institutional Requirements ............ 38 3.9.3 EBR – Remedy Costs ......................................................................... 38
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 39
4.1 Recommended Remedies ................................................................................ 39 4.2 Regulatory Approval and Public Meeting..................................................... 40 4.3 Financial Assurance ........................................................................................ 40
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 41

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
iii
TABLES Table 1 Groundwater Elevations and Monitoring Well Data
Table 2A to 2L VOC Data – Feb. 2011 to Aug. 2016 Table 3A to 3F Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide Data – Feb. 2011 to Aug. 2016 Table 4A to 4F Metals Data – Feb. 2011 to Aug. 2016
Table 5 Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates Table 6 Groundwater Flow Velocity Calculations Table 7 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients & Flow Directions
Table 8 Landfill Gas Monitoring Well and Point Data Table 9 Groundwater Monitoring Well Data Table 10 Sampling Matrix – Water Quality Table 11 Landfill Gas Extraction Well Construction Data Table 12 VOCs in Landfill Gas and Groundwater
Table 13 VOCs in Leachate and Groundwater FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map – February 19, 2014 Figure 3 Detected Compounds – February 20-26, 2014
Figure 4 Total VOC Isopleth Map – February 20-26, 2014 Figure 5 Site Map with Transects Figure 6 Subsurface Geologic Profile A-A’
Figure 7 Subsurface Geologic Profile B-B’ Figure 8 Subsurface Geologic Profile C-C’ Figure 9 Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems
APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs and Monitoring Well Construction Logs Appendix B Slug Test Results/Plots Appendix C Plots of Historical VOC Concentrations Appendix D 2011 Leachate Laboratory Analysis Data
Appendix E Quarterly Precipitation and Leachate Production Table and Plot Appendix F Report of Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap and Potential Borrow Area (BLE
Project No. J14-1957-42) Appendix G Compendium of Observation and Testing of the DOT Soils for the Francis Farm Landfill (BLE Project No. J14-1957-46)
Appendix H Report of Water Supply Well Sampling – August 2011 (BLE Project No. J11-1957-24) Appendix I Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) for Francis Farm
Landfill by McGill
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 17, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information
The following project information was obtained from documents provided by Haywood County and
from site data (in BLE’s project records) from our current services with Haywood County.
Haywood County owns and maintains the Francis Farm Landfill which is currently closed (Figure 1).
The facility was operational prior to the promulgation of the Subtitle D rules. The facility includes eight (8) parcels with approximate total acreage of 75.76. This total includes three (3) properties (44.09
acres) acquired by Haywood County in 2015 to expand the facility boundary. The Haywood County Consolidated School District owns and operates an office and bus garage (2.86-acre parcel) on the property and utilizes additional areas of the facility for bus parking.
McGill Associates, P.A. (McGill) has been retained by Haywood County to provide engineering services related to the post-closure care of the landfill. BLE has been retained by Haywood County
(since 2007) to provide semi-annual statistical analysis and reporting services for groundwater and surface water sampling conducted by others. The facility is currently in assessment monitoring and BLE was retained to assess the nature and extent of the groundwater impacts and to prepare an ACM.
We understand that Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA [(MESCO), former consultant for
Haywood County]; submitted a Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Plan (dated August 11, 2004) to
the North Carolina Division of Waste Management (DWM) Solid Waste Section (SWS) on behalf of Haywood County. The plan was requested by the SWS in general accordance with Rule .1634
(e)(1)(A) as the result of contaminants detected in the facility’s groundwater. The plan included the
installation of several additional groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers.
The SWS reviewed the plan and Mr. Larry Rose issued a letter (dated August 23, 2004) to Haywood County requesting additional information and a proposed schedule for implementation of the plan. Haywood County responded with a letter to the SWS on October 14, 2004 requesting additional time
to “negotiate with the property owner of the adjacent property before we commit to a schedule.” No further correspondence is present in the records until September 11, 2009 when the SWS issued a letter to Haywood County requesting a response and schedule (due by approximately November 16, 2009).
Haywood County retained McGill to assist with the preparation of a letter responding to the SWS request. McGill subsequently retained BLE to evaluate the 2004 groundwater assessment plan and
provide technical information to be used in future correspondence between Haywood County and the SWS.

As part of our assigned task, BLE issued a letter to McGill titled Comments on the Proposed 2004 Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Plan, Closed Francis Farm Landfill dated November 9, 2009
(BLE Project Number J09-1957-11). The letter stated that “Based on the limited data available in the
MESCO plan we are unable to provide a technical rationale for the proposed well locations. We believe that some modification of the plan is necessary based on our evaluation of recently collected data.” A
date of December 31, 2009 was proposed as the due date for a submittal of a revised groundwater elevation contour map and proposed well location plan (with a proposed well depth table) to the SWS.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
2
BLE submitted the aforementioned information to the SWS on December 30, 2009. The SWS
subsequently issued a letter to Haywood County dated February 19, 2010 which conditionally approved
the proposed well locations, depths, and assessment plan revisions. As part of the approval, the SWS requested that Haywood County prepare and submit a milestone schedule to the SWS for completion of
the assessment.
Our Mr. Alexander, P.G. and Mr. Jeff Bishop, P.E. of McGill attended a meeting with Mr. David Cotton
and Mr. Marty Stamey of Haywood County on February 23, 2010. Haywood County requested that we submit a proposal to McGill to prepare the milestone schedule letter and to install and sample ten (10) proposed groundwater monitoring wells designated MW-6 through MW-15. These activities were the
first phase of the required groundwater assessment for the subject site. BLE prepared a proposal (BLE Proposal Number P09-0817, dated March 2, 2010) for the required work
which was subsequently approved by McGill on behalf of Haywood County. As part of the work, BLE prepared a letter titled Milestone Schedule for the Groundwater Assessment -- Closed Francis Farm Landfill dated May 26, 2010. The schedule was subsequently approved by the SWS.
1.2 Groundwater Assessment Narrative
BLE began the groundwater assessment in 2010 in general accordance with the SWS approved plan and schedule. The assessment proceeded in phases with reporting and decision making between
phases. The following narrative describes each step of the assessment and includes findings on the
contaminant distribution (nature and extent of the release).
The approved plan and schedule for the first phase of assessment of the facility included the installation of the 10 wells (MW-6 through MW-15) in the summer of 2010 with sampling and analysis in February 2011. The subject services were performed and a data submittal of the findings was prepared and
submitted to the SWS (Groundwater Assessment Data Submittal dated May 12, 2011) in accordance with the notification requirements of Rule .1634 (g).
On June 10, 2011, BLE submitted a document to the SWS titled Proposed Groundwater Sampling Matrix for August 2011 (BLE Project Number J10-1957-14). The document provided an evaluation of the laboratory data from the February 2011 sampling event and provided a recommended sampling
matrix for the August 2011 groundwater sampling event. The matrix was subsequently approved by the SWS in a letter dated June 27, 2011 (Doc ID No. 14252).

BLE prepared and submitted a report to Haywood County titled Report of Groundwater Assessment: Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-6 through MW-15 dated July 20, 2011 (BLE Project Number
J10-1957-14) to document the installation of the new wells and assessment results. The report
included a recommendation for the installation of six (6) additional groundwater monitoring wells to be designated MW-16 through MW-21. The SWS responded with a letter dated August 29, 2011
(Doc ID No. 15046) which approved the proposed well locations. On November 23, 2011 BLE submitted a document to the SWS titled Proposed Groundwater
Sampling Matrix for February 2012 (BLE Project Number J11-1957-24). The document provided an evaluation of the laboratory data from the August 2011 sampling event and provided a recommended sampling matrix for the February 2012 groundwater sampling event. The matrix was
subsequently approved by the SWS in a letter dated December 5, 2011 (Doc ID No. 15707). The
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
3
approved matrix included the entire monitoring well system including monitoring wells MW-16
through MW-21.
Monitoring wells MW-16 through MW-21 were installed in October of 2011 and were sampled as
part of the approved sampling matrix in February and August of 2012. These tasks were the second
phase of assessment at the facility. BLE prepared and submitted a report to Haywood County titled Report of Groundwater Assessment: Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-16 through MW-21 dated
September 10, 2012 (BLE Project Number J11-1957-25) to document the installation of the new wells and assessment results. The report included a recommendation for the installation of eight (8) additional groundwater monitoring wells to be designated MW-14D, MW-16D, MW-19D, MW-
20D, MW-22 through MW-25. The SWS responded with a letter dated September 21, 2012 (Doc ID No. 17288) which approved the proposed well locations and assessment plan.
Monitoring wells MW-14D, MW-16D, MW-19D, MW-20D, MW-22 through MW-25 were installed in December 2012 and were sampled as part of the approved sampling matrix in February 2013. These tasks were the third phase of assessment at the facility. BLE prepared and submitted a report
to Haywood County titled Report of Groundwater Assessment: Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-14D, MW-16D, MW-19D, MW-20D, MW-22 through MW-25 dated July 10, 2013 (BLE Project
Number J12-1957-34) to document the installation of the new wells and assessment results. The
report included a recommendation for the installation of one (1) additional groundwater monitoring well to be designated MW-23D. The SWS responded with a letter dated August 15, 2013 (Doc ID
No. 19536) which approved the proposed well location and assessment plan.
As part of the fourth phase of assessment, one additional monitoring well MW-23D was installed in
September/October 2013, and was sampled in February 2014. Additionally, the surface water monitoring locations for the subject site were relocated and sampled in accordance with the approved assessment plan. BLE prepared and submitted a report to Haywood County titled Report of
Groundwater Assessment: Groundwater Monitoring Well MW-23D dated June 30, 2014 (BLE Project Number J13-1957-39) to document the installation of the new well and assessment results. The report included a recommendation for a sampling matrix starting with the August 2014
groundwater sampling event. The results indicated that the extent of the plume had been significantly defined and that it appeared that additional assessment was not necessary to characterize the nature and extent of the release as required in Rule .1634 (g)(1)(A). Additionally, it was concluded that an
ACM in accordance with Rule .1635 could be initiated after receiving SWS approval. The SWS responded with a letter dated August 5, 2014 (Doc ID No. 21525) which agreed that the delineation
of the contaminant plume was complete and that the next step was to initiate and submit an
assessment of corrective measures.
1.3 Assessment Results and Contaminant Distribution
As of February 2014, the existing groundwater monitoring network at the Francis Farm Landfill
(Table 1) consisted of one (1) upgradient (background) well (MW-12) and twenty-nine (29) downgradient (compliance) wells (MW-1A, MW-2A, MW-3A, MW-4 through MW-11, MW-13, MW-14, MW-14D, MW-15, MW-16, MW-16D, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-19D, MW-20, MW-
20D, MW-21, MW-23D and MW-22 through MW-25). Monitoring well MW-1 was also present on the facility but was not used for compliance because it was installed (by others) above the elevation
of groundwater and is dry. The location of each well is indicated on the Groundwater Elevation
Contour Map – February 19, 2014 (Figure 2). Groundwater monitoring well boring and well
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
4
construction logs are included in Appendix A.

Sampling and analysis of the groundwater monitoring well network was conducted each February and August from February 2011 through February 2014 as part of the phased assessment plan. Analysis
parameters initially included Appendix I for previously existing wells at the site and the entire
Appendix II compound list for the new wells. The sampling matrix was refined after each assessment phase adjusting for contaminants which were confirmed not to be present in the groundwater in
accordance with Rule .1634 (b). Please note that PCBs and sulfide were removed from the sampling matrix after February 2011 as these compounds were confirmed not to be present in the groundwater. As previously mentioned each revised sampling and analysis matrix was approved by the SWS.
Sampling and analysis has continued since February 2014 using the final approval matrix. A summary of the laboratory analysis results from February 2011 through August 2016 is provided on
the following tables.
Table ID Events Data Type
Table 2A February 2011 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2B August 2011 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2C February 2012 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2D August 2012 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2E February 2013 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2F August 2013 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2G February 2014 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2H August 2014 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2I February 2015 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2J August 2015 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2K February 2016 Volatile Organic Compounds
Table 2L August 2016 Volatile Organic Compounds

Table 3A February 2011 & August 2011 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide
Table 3B February 2012 & August 2012 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide
Table 3C February 2013 & August 2013 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide
Table 3D February 2014 & August 2014 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide
Table 3E February 2015 & August 2015 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide
Table 3F February 2016 & August 2016 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide

Table 4A February 2011 & August 2011 Metals
Table 4B February 2012 & August 2012 Metals
Table 4C February 2013 & August 2013 Metals
Table 4D February 2014 & August 2014 Metals
Table 4E February 2015 & August 2015 Metals
Table 4F February 2016 & August 2016 Metals

The distribution of detected contaminants (in February 2014) is illustrated on Figure 3. A total VOC
isopleth map (plume map) for February 2014 is shown on Figure 4. Based on the plume map, three
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
5
transects were selected (Figure 5) for preparation of geologic profiles to illustrate the vertical extent of
the plume. Geologic profiles are shown on Figures 6 through 8. The plume map and geologic profiles
show that the contaminant plume mass is primarily beneath the landfill waste unit and is present in the soil, partially weathered rock, and bedrock aquifers. The plume has been substantially defined, is
limited in horizontal extent, and is bounded by the surface water features consisting of Racoon Creek
to the west and Ratcliffe Cove Branch to the east and north (Figures 3 and 4).
1.4 Geologic Conditions The subject site is located within the Blue Ridge geologic belt. The geology of the Blue Ridge Belt
consists of metamorphic Precambrian basement rock overlain with unconformable younger Precambrian metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks. The Blue Ridge belt is bordered to the southeast by the Brevard belt and to the northwest by the Valley and Ridge. The Precambrian
basement has undergone several episodes of uplift, deformation, faulting, intrusion, metamorphism and erosion.
Locally, the site is geologically underlain by the lower portion of the Middle/Late Proterozoic Coweeta Group known as the Persimmon Creek Gneiss, which overlies the Tallulah Falls Formation
(Hatcher, 1979; Rhodes and Conrad, 1985; Horton and Zullo, 1991). The Persimmon Creek Gneiss
consists of migmatitic feldspar-quartz-biotite gneiss interlayered and gradational with biotite-garnet gneiss and amphibolite. The original protolith of the gneiss bedrock is most likely highly
metamorphosed clastic sediments.
The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey and silty soils near the surface, where soil
weathering is more advanced, underlain by micaceous sandy silts and silty sands. Residual soil zones develop by the in situ chemical weathering of bedrock, and are commonly referred to as “saprolite.” Saprolite usually consists of micaceous sand with large rock fragments and lesser amounts of clay
and silt. The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. Alluvial soils are also present in the stream valleys which consist of silty sands and sandy silts with some streambed gravels. These sediments are deposited by fluvial processes and are primarily derived from the erosion of the
saprolite and weathered rock. A transitional zone of partially weathered rock (PWR) is normally found overlying the parent
bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration resistance (ASTM D 1586) in excess of 100 blows per foot (bpf). Fractures,
joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types facilitate weathering. Consequently, the profile
of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially
weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.
1.5 Regional Hydrogeology Groundwater in the Blue Ridge usually occurs as unconfined, water table aquifers in three primary geologic zones: 1) soil [saprolite and alluvium]; 2) partially weathered rock; and 3) fractured
bedrock. These zones are typically interconnected through open fractures and pore spaces. The configuration of the water table aquifer generally resembles the local topography.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
6
In the soil and partially weathered rock zone, groundwater is stored within the pore spaces and is
released to the underlying bedrock through gravity drainage. Groundwater within the bedrock zone
occurs primarily in fracture voids. Generally, fractures within the bedrock are very small but may extend to several hundred feet.

Infiltration of precipitation to recharge the water table aquifer is primarily affected by rainfall intensity and duration, pre-existing soil moisture conditions, temperature (evaporation), and plant
uptake (transpiration). Seasonal high-water tables are typically observed during the late winter and early spring months of the year when maximum infiltration efficiency occurs due to lower temperatures and less plant uptake (i.e., many plants are dormant). Seasonal low-water tables are
typically observed during the summer and fall months when minimum infiltration efficiency occurs due to higher temperatures and greater plant uptake of water.
1.6 Site Physiography and Topography The site is in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The province is characterized by steep
mountain ridges with intermontane basin and valleys. The area consists of rugged mountain terrane of the southern Appalachian Mountain system.

The site is in a rural setting surrounded primarily by woodlands and pastureland with single-family houses and mobile homes. Topographically, the site is characterized by a single dome shaped ridge
with steeply dipping flanks in all directions toward the surrounding stream valleys. Elevations range
from approximately 2,800 feet above means sea level (MSL) in the southern portion of the site, to approximately 2,602 feet MSL along Ratcliff Cove Branch in the western portion of the site (Figure
2). Relief across the site is about 200 feet. Surface drainage at the site occurs in every direction except due south (behind the Maintenance
Storage Building). A small component of surface water flow to the west goes to Racoon Creek and flow in all other directions goes to Ratcliffe Cove Branch (Figure 2). From the site, Ratcliffe Cove Branch flows westward into Racoon Creek which flows north-northwestward to its confluence with
Richland Creek and ultimately Lake Junaluska. 1.7 Subsurface Geologic Conditions
The geologic conditions encountered while drilling were often variable with seams of partially
weathered rock occurring throughout the subsurface soil overburden profile. In general, three zones
were encountered: 1) the residual soils from weathered gneiss and alluvial soils in stream valleys, 2) the partially weathered rock, and 3) the poorly fractured gneiss bedrock. Subsurface bedrock at the
site is shown on three profiles designated A-A', B-B', and C-C’, and D-D’ (Figures 6 through 8).
Boring logs showing visual descriptions of the soil and rock strata encountered are included in Appendix A. A description of the subsurface materials encountered is provided below.

1.7.1 Residual Soil (Saprolite) and Alluvial Soil
The residual soils are the result of in-place weathering of the metamorphic bedrock. The residual soil profile below the topsoil consists of two identifiable components based on the USCS. The upper soil component consists of reddish-brown silty clay and sandy clayey silt. The upper soil component
grades with depth into a coarser grained, less plastic, gray and brown micaceous sandy silt and silty
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
7
sand which extends to the depth of the partially weathered rock and/or auger refusal. Zones of
weathered rock are common in the soil overburden profile.
Alluvial soils were present in the stream valleys of Racoon Creek and Ratcliffe Cove Branch. Those soils consist of silts and sands near the surface with deeper sediments consisting of fluvial sands and
gravels (cobble layers).
1.7.2 Partially Weathered Rock The transition between soil and rock at the site is irregular and consists of partially weathered rock overlying the parent bedrock. This zone was found to be similar to the deeper residual soil zone.
Typically, occurrences of partially weathered rock may represent competent bedrock or possibly boulders of hard rock within the residual soil and partially weathered rock units. The depth to partially weathered rock can vary even over short horizontal distances due to boulders, fractures,
joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types. Therefore, the actual depth to continuous bedrock varies across the site.
1.7.3 Fractured Bedrock
The rock type on site is a biotite gneiss. Limited information about the rock is available in the
historical project records as boring logs from only two wells (MW-2A and MW-5) are present. Both borings encountered bedrock listed as “rock” or “rock gray.” It does not appear that rock coring was
performed in either boring. Borings performed by BLE which encountered bedrock were performed
using an air-hammer. Detailed descriptions of the rock cuttings are shown on the boring logs (Appendix A). In general, the bedrock was poorly fractured with limited water bearing fractures
encountered, especially at depth. 1.8 Hydrogeologic Conditions 1.8.1 Description of Aquifer
Groundwater is present near or below the bedrock surface in the higher elevations in the south and western portions of the site. Groundwater is present above the bedrock surface in the stream valleys and beneath eastern boundaries of the waste mass (Figures 5 through 8). Therefore, the water-table
aquifer occurs in the residual saprolitic and alluvial soils, partially weathered rock, and fractured bedrock. These three units are hydraulically connected and thus comprise a single unconfined
aquifer, although recharge rates, flow rates and storativity differ between the units based on their
unique geologic conditions. Groundwater flow occurs through the soil matrix, weathered fracture openings, and bedrock fractures. The configuration of the water table surface is a subdued replica
of the ground surface topography. Recharge to the unconfined aquifer occurs at the higher elevations
via precipitation. Shallow groundwater discharges to the nearby perennial streams that border the site, primarily Ratcliffe Cove Branch (to the west and north) and Raccoon Creek (to the west).

1.8.2 Depth to Groundwater and Flow Directions
Groundwater flow at the site is generally in all directions except directly to the south. Flow to the east, north, and northwest discharges to Ratcliffe Cove Branch that borders most the site and flow to the west discharges to Raccoon Creek (Figure 2).

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
8
Depths to groundwater on February 19, 2014 (Table 1) range from less than 2 feet in the lowland
locations (e.g. MW-9) near Ratcliffe Cove Branch, to greater than 65 feet in the upland recharge
areas (e.g. MW-5, MW-12, and MW-13).
1.8.3 Hydraulic Conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity is defined as the ability of the aquifer material to conduct water under a
hydraulic gradient. Eight slug tests were performed at the site to measure the in situ hydraulic conductivity of the different zones of the water-table aquifer. Slug test results were evaluated using the Bouwer and Rice Method for partially-penetrating wells in an unconfined aquifer.
Three slug tests were performed in wells installed in the soil zone (MW-10, MW-19, and MW-21); three slug tests were performed in wells installed in the PWR zone (MW-5, MW-17, and MW-19D);
and two slug tests were performed in wells installed in the bedrock zone (MW-11 and MW-16D). The hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 1.7 x 10-5 cm/sec in well MW-16D (bedrock), to 2.1
x 10-3 cm/sec in well MW-19 (alluvium/residuum). The geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of all media is approximately 3.6 x 10-4 cm/sec. The results of the tests are provided in Appendix B
and summarized on Table 5.
1.8.4 Hydraulic Gradient
The hydraulic gradient is determined by dividing the difference in groundwater elevations at two locations by the horizontal distance between those locations along the direction of groundwater flow.
Hydraulic gradients were measured from the February 19, 2014 water table contour map (Figure 2).
The steepest hydraulic gradient at the site is about 0.167, which is located between MW-13 and MW-16. The shallowest gradient at the site is about 0.063, which is located beneath the highest elevations
of the upland waste mass. 1.8.5 Effective Porosity and Specific Yield Effective porosity is the volume of void spaces through which water or other fluids can travel in a rock or sediment divided by the total volume of the rock or sediment. Effective porosity can be
assumed to be approximately equal to specific yield for unconfined (water-table) aquifers. Specific yield is defined as the ratio of the volume of water that drains from a saturated rock owing to the attraction of gravity to the total volume of rock. The effective porosity at the site is assumed to be
18 percent in the saprolite aquifer and 5 percent in the bedrock aquifer (Table 6).
1.8.6 Groundwater Flow Velocity
The velocity of groundwater movement (V) is a function of existing hydraulic gradient (i), the
hydraulic conductivity (K) and the effective porosity (ne), in the equation V = Ki/ne.
Based on these parameters and the data provided above, the range of horizontal movement of
groundwater is approximately 102 to 956 feet/year. Table 6 summarizes the groundwater flow velocity calculations.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
9
1.8.7 Vertical Flow Gradients
Vertical flow gradients and directions were evaluated at five (5) locations. The well pairs included MW-14/MW-14D, MW-16/MW-16D, MW-19/MW-19D, MW-20/MW-20D, and MW-23/MW-
23D. Based on groundwater level measurements on February 19, 2014 from the monitoring wells
the vertical gradients and flow directions were calculated as shown on Table 7. The vertical gradients and flow directions observed at the site are typical for unconfined aquifers in the Blue
Ridge. A strong recharge gradient (downward flow) occurs in the upland areas (MW-14/MW-14D and MW-16/MW-16D). Weak discharge gradients (upward flow) occurs in the lowlands along Ratcliffe Cove Branch (MW-19/MW-19D and MW-20/MW-20D). It is noted that a weak recharge
gradient is present at the MW-23/MW-23D well pair which is on the opposite side of Ratcliffe Cove Branch from the landfill and located on the edge stream valley.
2.0 CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION

2.1 Environmental Monitoring Systems
Environmental monitoring is required at the site as part of routine post-closure care. A water quality
monitoring system and landfill gas monitoring system are present at the facility. The following sections
of this report discusses each system and modifications thereto which were approved by the SWS.
2.1.1 Water Quality and Landfill Gas Monitoring Plans The landfill requires semi-annual groundwater and surface water monitoring and reporting as part of
post closure care. In March 2015, the facility had 30 groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1A, MW-2A, MW-3A, MW-4 through MW-14, MW-14D, MW-15, MW-16, MW-16D, MW-17, MW-18, MW-
19, MW-19D, MW-20, MW-20D, MW-21, MW-23D and MW-22 through MW-25) and 4 surface
water monitoring points (US-1, DS-1, DS-2, & DS-3) which are sampled every February and August.
The landfill requires landfill gas monitoring and reporting as part of post closure care. The facility
includes a network of landfill gas monitoring wells and structures which are monitored quarterly in accordance with the facility permit. In March 2015, the existing monitoring network included thirteen
(13) landfill gas monitoring wells (MM-1 through MM-13) and 5 structure monitoring points (SM-1a, SM-1b, SM-1c, SM-2, & SM-3).
In March 2015, McGill submitted a document titled Francis Farm Landfill – Cap Maintenance Plan (DIN 24050) to the SWS for review and approval. The submittal included numerous plan drawings detailing the work necessary to add soil to an approximate six-acre area within the closed disposal unit
to reduce the impacts of subsidence. The SWS authorized the landfill cap maintenance plan on March 26, 2015 (DIN 24051).
As part of the plans for the cap maintenance, several of the existing groundwater and landfill gas monitoring wells were identified by McGill that were close to the waste mass and/or would be in the
way of future cap improvements. BLE submitted a conceptual well abandonment and installation plan
to the SWS as part of the project on March 30, 2015. The SWS granted preliminary approval of the conceptual plan on March 31, 2015. Final approval by the SWS was contingent upon submittal and
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
10
approval of a new Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) and Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan
(LFGMP).
A new WQMP and a new LFGMP were prepared and submitted to the SWS in October 2015 by BLE
to document planned changes to the facility’s monitoring infrastructure. The SWS approved the
WQMP and LFGMP on November 25, 2015 (DIN 25331). Each plan included specifications for well abandonment and installation.
Ten (10) landfill gas monitoring wells (MM-1 through MM-6 and MM-10 through MM-13) and eight (8) groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-1A, MW-2A, MW-3A, MW-4, MW-13, MW-14, and
MW-14D) and were permanently abandoned at the subject site from December 9 through 17, 2015 (Tables 8 and 9). BLE prepared and submitted a report to Haywood County titled Report of Monitoring Well Abandonment and Installation dated June 30, 2016 (BLE Project Number J15-
1957-54) to document the well abandonment and installation. The revised monitoring systems are illustrated on the Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems (Figure 9) which references the prior existence of the abandoned wells in the Historical Well Disposition section of the
figure.
A summary table of the revised landfill gas monitoring system which includes 13 landfill gas monitoring
wells and 5 structure monitoring points is provided on Table 8. A summary table of the revised groundwater monitoring system which includes the 23 remaining groundwater monitoring wells is
provided on Table 9. A revised sampling matrix for water quality is provided on Table 10.
2.2 Contaminants of Concern Prior to February 2011 semi-annual sampling at the site was conducted for the Appendix I detection monitoring parameters. Beginning in February 2011 semi-annual sampling at the site was conducted
for a combination of the Appendix I detection monitoring and Appendix II assessment monitoring parameters. The parameter list has been modified from February 2011 through August 2014 as constituents have been confirmed not to be present at the site. A summary of the detection history from
February 2011 through August 2016 is included in Tables 2, 3, and 4, subclassis et seq. The detected constituents have been grouped into three (3) classes:
1. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
2. Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide
3. Total Metals
2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
Primary impacts to the groundwater from releases at the landfill appear to be VOCs (Table 2A through
Table 2L). The extent of the total VOC plume is shown on Figures 4 and Figures 6 through 8. The VOCs and been sub classified into three (3) groups for evaluation:
• Chlorinated Ethanes
• Chlorinated Ethenes
• Other VOCs

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
11
A detailed trend evaluation is typically performed as part of an attenuation remedy. Degradation of
non-chlorinated VOCs are typically evaluated by regression analysis of a trend line. Degradation of
chlorinated compounds is typically reflected in the historical trends where the concentrations of parent compounds decrease while the concentrations of daughter products increase. The two major
transformation pathways are shown below:
1. Tetrachloroethene (PCE)  Trichloroethene (TCE)  (isomers) Dichloroethene (DCE)
 Vinyl Chloride  Ethene  Ethane
2. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)  1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)  Chloroethane  Ethane Other VOCs detected at the site include:
Benzene, Chlorobenzene, 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (1,2-DCB), 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-DCB), 1,2-Dichloropropane (1,2-DCP), Dichloromethane (DCM) and total Xylenes
Plots of historical trends of each VOC class for selected wells with a detection history and assumed to
have measurable concentration trends have been prepared for evaluation (Appendix C). The selected
wells included MW-2A, MW-4, MW-5, MW-7, MW-10, MW-13, MW-14, MW-19, MW-19D, MW-20D, and MW-25. This evaluation is a preliminary estimate of contaminant trends via visual
observation of the plots. A detailed description of trend evaluations required for an attenuation remedy
are described in Section 3.8 of this report.
MW-2A (Abandoned December 2015)
PCE and TCE concentrations have not been detected in the well. Cis-1,2-DCE concentrations peaked in August 2003 and then show a substantial consistent decreasing trend decreased through August
2015. Vinyl chloride has been intermittently detected a low concentrations and therefore no trend is established.
No concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA have been detected in the well. Concentrations of 1,1-DCA show a general decreasing trend. The chloroethane overall concentration trend appears to be decreasing.
Concentrations of 1,4-DCB peaked in August 2003 but now appear stable. Benzene, 1,2-DCB, chlorobenzene, and 1,2-DCP appeared in the well starting from August 2007 through August 2010
at concentrations below 3 µg/L. These concentration trends appear stable.
MW-4 (Abandoned December 2015) PCE and TCE concentrations peaked in February 2005 then both compounds show substantial
decreasing trends through August 2015. Cis-1,2-DCE concentrations have shown a continued general increasing trend from February 1999 through August 2015. 1,2-DCA first appeared in
August 2006 and appears stable at concentrations below 2 µg/L. A trend of vinyl chloride has not been established as it has been detected only 3 times over the well’s history.

1,1,1-TCA concentrations has only been detected once in August 2001. Chloroethene and 1,1-DCA concentrations both show substantial consistent decreasing trends.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
12
Concentrations of benzene, xylenes, and DCM peaked between February 2010 and August 2011 and
all three compounds currently show declining trends. Trace level concentrations (less than 1 µg/L) of chlorobenzene and 1,2-DCP are present but no concentration trends have been observed. Concentrations of 1,4-DCB first appeared in August 2006 and show an increasing concentration
trend since that time. MW-5
PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations peaked in August 2003 then all three compounds show decreasing trends through August 2016. Concentrations of 1,2-DCA and vinyl chloride have been
intermittently detected at low concentrations and no trends exist.
1,1,1-TCA has never been detected in the well’s history (1999 through 2016). Chloroethene and 1,1-
DCA concentrations both show substantial consistent decreasing trends.
Concentrations of all the Other VOC’s have been detected in MW-5 except 1,2-DCP. All compounds
show a general declining trend. MW-7 PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride concentrations have never been detected in the well’s history (2011
through 2016). Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE and 1,2-DCA both show overall decreasing trends.
1,1,1-TCA has never been detected in the well’s history. Chloroethene concentrations decreased to non-detect in February 2015. 1,1-DCA concentrations show a substantial consistent decreasing trend.
Concentrations of all the Other VOC’s have been detected in MW-7 except xylenes. Concentrations
of chlorobenzene, 1,2-DCB, and 1,4-DCB show increasing trends, however, detections are less than
3.0 µg/L. Benzene and 1,2-DCP show a general declining trend.
MW-10
PCE and TCE concentrations show a declining trend, however, detections are less than 1.0 µg/L.
Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE show a stable trend. Concentrations of 1,2-DCA and vinyl chloride
have never been detected in the well’s history (2011 through 2016).
Concentrations of chloroethene and 1,1,1-TCA have never been detected in the well’s history. 1,1-
DCA concentrations show a consistent decreasing trend.
No Other VOCs except 1,2-DCB have been detected in MW-10. A trend of 1,2-DCB has not been established as it has been detected only 3 times over the well’s history.
MW-13 (Abandoned December 2015) PCE, TCE, 1,2-DCA, and vinyl chloride concentrations all show a decreasing trend, however,
detections are less than 3.0 µg/L. Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE show a strong decreasing trend.
Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA have never been detected in the well’s history (2011 to 2015).
Chloroethene concentrations show a decreasing trend, however, detections are less than 1.5 µg/L. 1,1-DCA concentrations show a consistent decreasing trend.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
13
All Other VOCs have been detected in MW-13. Trace level concentrations (less than 1.5 µg/L) of
DCM, 1,2-DCB, chlorobenzene, and 1,2-DCP are present but no concentration trends have been observed. Concentrations of benzene and xylenes show a decreasing concentration trend. Concentrations of 1,4-DCB show an increasing concentration trend.
MW-14 (Abandoned December 2015)
PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride concentrations have never been detected in the well’s history (2011 through 2015). 1,2-DCA has only been detected once in the well’s history at a concentration less
than 1.5 µg/L. Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE show a strongly decreasing trend. Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA have never been detected in the well’s history. Chloroethene
concentrations do not conclusively show a trend, however, detections are less than 2.0 µg/L. 1,1-DCA concentrations show a consistent decreasing trend.

All Other VOCs except 1,2-DCP, DCM, and xylenes have been detected in MW-14. Concentrations
of benzene and chlorobenzene (detections less than 2.0 µg/L) appear stable. Concentrations of 1,2-
DCB and 1,4-DCB both show decreasing trends.
MW-19
PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride concentrations have never been detected in the well’s history (2011 through 2016). Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE and 1,2-DCA show a stable to weakly decreasing
trend.
Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA have never been detected in the well’s history. Chloroethene has only
been detected once at 1.7 µg/L and does not show a trend. 1,1-DCA concentrations show a consistent decreasing trend.

All Other VOCs except xylenes have been detected in MW-19. Concentrations of the compounds appear stable.

MW-19D TCE and vinyl chloride concentrations have never been detected in the well’s history (2013 through
2016). PCE has only been detected once in the well’s history at a concentration less than 3.5 µg/L and concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE has only been detected three times in the well’s history at
concentrations less than 1.5 µg/L (ND the last 5 events). Concentrations of 1,2-DCA shows a decreasing trend.
Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA have never been detected in the well’s history. Chloroethene and 1,1-DCA concentrations show a decreasing trend.
All Other VOCs except xylenes have been detected in MW-19D. Concentrations of the compounds appear stable.

MW-20D TCE, vinyl chloride, and 1,2-DCA concentrations have never been detected in the well’s history
(2013 through 2016). PCE has only been detected once in the well’s history at a concentration less
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
14
than 1.0 µg/L. Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE have been detected a low levels near the detection
limit, a trend cannot be established for PCE or for cis-1,2-DCE. Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA and chloroethane have never been detected in the well’s history. 1,1-
DCA concentrations show a stable trend. None of the Other VOCs have been detected in MW-19D.
MW-25 PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE concentrations all show a decreasing trend. Trace level concentrations
(less than 1.5 µg/L) of 1,2-DCA are present but no concentration trend can be established. Concentrations of vinyl chloride have never been detected in the well’s history (2013 to 2016).
Concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA have never been detected in the well’s history. Chloroethene has only
been detected once in the well’s history at a concentration less than 3.0 µg/L. 1,1-DCA
concentrations show a stable trend.
All Other VOCs except 1,2-DCP have been detected in MW-25. Trace level concentrations (less
than 1.0 µg/L) of DCM, 1,2-DCB, and chlorobenzene are present but no concentration trends have
been observed. Concentrations of benzene, 1,4-DCB, and xylenes show a decreasing concentration
trend.
Visual Trend Evaluation Results Summary and Conclusions
The results of this evaluation indicate that chlorinated daughter product is present and pervasive across the entire site. Parent products (e.g. PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-TCA) concentrations are not increasing in the
monitoring wells evaluated and in some cases the parent product has completely degraded and is no longer present. Daughter products are increasing, stable, or decreasing as expected along the naturally occurring transformational pathway. We conclude that naturally occurring degradation of chlorinated
solvents in groundwater is active and is a viable remedy for the subject site. The results herein indicate that a majority of the monitoring wells impacted by the other detected VOC
class show stable trends at low levels or significant decreasing trends. One exception is the trends of chlorobenzene, 1,2-DCB, and 1,4-DCB in MW-7 which show increasing trends. It should be noted that this well is downgradient of an non-engineered waste area (see Section 3.4 of this report) which
lacks adequate cover. Additionally, sentinel wells (MW-19 and MW-19D) are present directly downgradient of MW-7 and two more sentinel wells (MW-23 and MW-23D) are present on the
opposite side of Ratcliffe Cove Branch. It is important to note that surface water has not been impacted
by the groundwater contaminants. Based on the monitoring results documented herein we conclude that naturally occurring degradation of the other VOCs is active and consequently a viable remedy for
the site.
2.2.2 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Cyanide Detections of pesticides, herbicides, and cyanide are present in the site’s records (Table 3A through Table 3F). The detections of all these compounds are both spatially and temporally erratic. There is
no consistent detection of any constituent in any well which would conclusively validate their presence as a landfill sourced contaminant. We conclude that these compounds are not currently contaminants of concern and do not require corrective action at this time. We have recommended (and the SWS has
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
15
agreed) that semi-annual sampling for these compounds should continue until sufficient data is present
to refine the sampling matrix (Table 10).
2.2.3 Total Metals
Detections of total metals are present in the site’s records (Table 4A through Table 4F). Every Appendix II metal has been detected at the site except mercury. Note that the SWS approved a
sampling matrix (Table 10) reduced to Appendix I metals starting with the August 2014 event since mercury was shown not to be present in the site’s groundwater. A special sampling event was conducted in August 2011 (Table 4A) to include both total and dissolved metals. Detected metals are
typically related to sample turbidity (sediment in the groundwater sample) and are not an indication of a release of metals contamination by the landfill. Detected metals are typically naturally occurring and are sourced from the native soil. Concentrations of metals have been observed in the background well
(MW-12) and in wells (MW-23, MW-23D and MW-24) located on property across Ratcliffe Cove Creek and unaffected by the landfill (Figure 3). There is no detection of any total metal which could be conclusively validated as a landfill sourced contaminant. If required by the SWS; an alternate source
demonstration may be performed in the future to determine if the detected metals are from an alternate source (naturally occurring). We conclude that the total metals are not currently contaminants of
concern and do not require corrective action at this time.
2.3 Evaluation and Control of Contaminant Sources
Groundwater impacts from landfill waste units are typically derived from long-term releases sourced from either landfill gas, landfill leachate, or both. Evaluations of both landfill gas and landfill leachate
as potential sources for groundwater contamination have been performed as part of the assessment work and to facilitate control of each media.
2.3.1 Landfill Gas Prior to 2009, the landfill gas was vented via shallow passive landfill gas vents installed into the soil
cap of the waste unit and monitored by the aforementioned gas monitoring systems. Landfill gas concentrations exceeding compliance limits were observed at several monitoring system compliance points. In 2009, the county began planning to address landfill gas compliance issues by constructing a
landfill gas mitigation system which would include abandonment of the passive vents, installation of new landfill gas extraction wells, a gas flare, and a landfill gas-to-energy system. This infrastructure
is deemed the gas collection, combustion, and energy generation system (GCCS).
The installation of the GCCS was performed in phases with the installation of 21 landfill gas extraction
wells designated EW-1 through EW-21 in 2010 (Figure 9 and Table 11). An assessment of the landfill
gas quality was performed by BLE as part of this project. The tasks for this assessment included the collection of gas samples from five (5) locations designated by McGill. The locations included landfill
gas extraction wells EW-9, EW-14, and EW-19, and landfill gas monitoring wells MM-3 and MM-12. We understand that these locations were selected based on historical landfill gas data obtained by McGill.
BLE collected grab landfill gas samples (5 total) from the designated locations on February 22, 2011. The samples were collected from the well heads via manually operated SUMMA canisters. The landfill
gas samples were submitted to Pace for analysis of VOCs by EPA Method TO-15. The landfill gas
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
16
sampling was performed contemporaneous to the semi-annual groundwater sampling event (VOCs by
EPA Method 8260).
The data and results were submitted to Haywood County in a report titled Report of Landfill Gas
Sampling and Analysis: February 2011 dated September 28, 2011 (BLE Project Number J10-1957-
14). The results indicated that concentrations of VOCs were detected in the landfill gas and groundwater samples (Table 12). The compound / analyte list on the table includes all compounds
which are on the target analyte list of both methods (TO-15 and 8260) and which were detected by either method. The results show that 23 compounds on the shared analyte list were detected in either the landfill gas or groundwater. Thirteen (13) of the 23 compounds were detected in both the landfill
gas and groundwater. Based on the results of the assessment we concluded that landfill gas is a probable source of VOCs
which may continue to impact the groundwater and that the planned installation and operation of a landfill gas to energy system at the subject site will likely reduce the mass of VOCs available to impact groundwater. We recommended that the landfill gas to energy system be proposed and evaluated as a
potential corrective measure at the time at which an assessment of corrective measures is required. The completion and operation of the GCCS is discussed in detail in the corrective measures section of this
report.
2.3.2 Leachate
A leachate collection system was not installed nor in operation when the landfill was active. Combination leachate/landfill gas extraction wells were installed at the facility by McGill in 2010 as
part of construction of a landfill gas to energy system (Figure 9 – EW-1 through EW-21). On June 22, 2010, the Town of Waynesville submitted a Flow Tracking/Acceptance for a Sewer Extension Permit Application to the NCDWQ for Haywood County to discharge leachate to the town’s
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP Facility Permit No. NC0025321). Leachate levels were measured (Table 11) and samples of leachate were collected from three
extraction wells (EW-12, -16, & -19) in February 2011. A single composite sample prepared from the three grab samples and was analyzed for parameters selected by the wastewater treatment plant. Based on the results of the sampling and analysis the Town of Waynesville agreed to accept the
leachate without pre-treatment. On July 1, 2011 McGill applied for a permit to construct a wastewater collection system extension (leachate collection system) to the NCDWQ on behalf of
Haywood County. The permit (No. WQ0035486) was issued by the NCDWQ on July 29, 2011. The
leachate collection system was constructed and a leachate pump station / wet well is the designated leachate sampling location, if required. The leachate wet well location is shown on the attached
Figure 9 titled Water Quality Environmental Monitoring System.
The results of the 2011 leachate sampling are provided in Appendix D. The data indicates that
concentrations of VOCs were detected in the landfill leachate and groundwater samples (Table 13). The results show that 23 compounds on the shared analyte list were detected in either the leachate or groundwater. Twelve (12) of the 23 compounds were detected in both the leachate and groundwater.
Based on the results of the assessment we conclude that the leachate is a probable source of VOCs
which may continue to impact the groundwater and that the installation and operation of the leachate
recovery system will likely reduce the mass of VOCs available to impact groundwater. We recommend
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
17
that the leachate recovery system be evaluated as a potential corrective measure. The installation and
operation of the leachate recovery system is discussed in detail in the corrective measures section of
this report (Section 3.3). 2.3.3 Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap
The existing soil cap was installed at the time of closure and became ineffective due to settlement which
resulted in ponding of stormwater and infiltration through the waste mass. Cap improvements were performed in 2011-2012 and 2014-2015 to address drainage issues. Two tasks were performed to evaluate the existing soil cap. The first was an evaluation of leachate production and the second was
an evaluation of the thicknesses and physical properties of the soil. The first evaluation compared quarterly leachate production to local precipitation. Data on leachate
production was collected by Haywood County from the leachate recovery system described above. Please note that the leachate production volumes are affected by pump operation (manual) and pump down time, therefore leachate totals may be delayed when the pumping system is off-line for repairs,
etc. Evaluation of the quarterly data minimizes but does not eliminate the effects of system down time. Leachate production totals from the 1st Quarter 2012 through the 4th Quarter 2014 were collected by
Haywood County (Appendix E). Precipitation data for the site was obtained from the WAYN
(Waynesville) weather station measurements in the online CRONOS database operated by the State Climate Office of North Carolina. The weather station is approximately 1.2 miles south-southwest of
the landfill. The data is shown graphically in Appendix E. The data shows a strong correlation
between precipitation and leachate production. This indicates that the existing soil cap was insufficient to reduce stormwater infiltration and that cap maintenance was recommended to reduce leachate
production.
The second task was an evaluation of the thicknesses and physical properties of the existing soil cap.
In early 2014 Haywood County began plans to maintain/repair/upgrade the existing soil cap. As part of those plans Haywood County requested that BLE evaluate the existing soil cap so that McGill could use the data to develop a plan/design to meet project objectives. BLE was retained by Haywood County
to collect continuous soil macrocore samples from 74 borings (designated CAP-1 through CAP-74) using a track-mounted Geoprobe 6620 DT drilling rig. Borings and soil sampling was performed in July 2014. The borings were advanced into the soil cap and the depth to trash (waste) was identified if
encountered. Representative samples of the soils were obtained for confirming the field classification by our professional staff and for laboratory testing. Bulk soil samples were collected from auger cuttings
from seven borings from depths of 0 to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Undisturbed (UD) soil
samples were collected from six borings from various depths to evaluate in-situ soil conditions.
Based on the field exploration and laboratory testing, BLE identified some in place low permeability
silty soils which were suited for use to construct a low permeability closure layer having a permeability
meeting the requirement of k ≤ 1 x 10-5 cm/s when properly processed, wetted, and compacted.
Additionally, no significant volumes of existing cover soils were encountered which would require excavation and removal (except for topsoil, gravel, and limited rocks, etc.) prior to using the in-place soils to construct a low permeability closure layer. However, we concluded that the existing cap soils
in their current state did not meet the permeability requirement of k ≤ 1 x 10-5 cm/s.
The thickness of suitable soil on the existing landfill cap was somewhat variable. After removing organic materials (e.g. topsoil) and working around infrastructure for regrading; it may be difficult or
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
18
not cost effective to rework the soils to meet the desired permeability or required thickness.
Additionally, earthwork may expose buried waste in some areas due to thin overlying soils.
We recommended that a source of additional cover soils be identified to supplement the existing soil
cover and achieve desired grades for surface drainage. We further recommended that based on a cost-
analysis by the design engineer and the availability of suitable supplemental cover soils, a geosynthetic liner system may be more cost-effective than a soil cover. The data and results were submitted to
Haywood County in a report titled Report of Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap & Potential Borrow Area dated September 26, 2014 (BLE Project Number J14-1957-42). A copy of the report is provided in Appendix F.
2.3.4 Placement and Testing of an Interim Soil Cap
In 2014, McGill and Haywood County identified soil from the nearby North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed NC 209 / U.S. 23 / S.R. 1523 interchange construction project which could be used as a cost-effective source of soil for cap improvements. McGill assisted the county in
executing a contract for the soil to be transported to and stockpiled at the site (former Shelton parcel) by the DOT contractor (NHM Constructors, LLC). Haywood County received approval from the SWS
to perform landfill cap maintenance on March 26, 2015.
BLE was retained to conduct periodic testing of the DOT project soils both at the DOT site and at the
landfill stockpile to determine compliance with project objectives. It is our understanding that
Haywood County personnel performed monitoring of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of borrow soil selection, excavation, and stockpiling over the duration of the 18-month highway project. Testing
indicated that the soils met project objectives and some of the soil was placed over the existing cap by the DOT contractor as part of an interim cap maintenance project to improve drainage and to reduce infiltration.
BLE conducted periodic inspection and testing of the DOT soils in the DOT project area, in the soil stockpiling area, and at the landfill site and during soil placement for cap improvements from
approximately November 2014 through February 2016. In summary, the results indicated that the soils placed on the landfill cap were compacted in accordance with project specifications. The data and results were submitted to Haywood County in a report titled Compendium of Observation and Testing of the DOT Soils for the Francis Farm Landfill dated June 30, 2016 (BLE Project Number J14-1957-46). A copy of the report is provided in Appendix G.

2.4 Receptor Survey and Pathways
There are two potential receptors which have been identified during the assessment. They include local
private groundwater supply wells and the surface waters surrounding the site. Each protentional receptor in discussed below.

2.4.1 Groundwater Supply Wells
In February 2011, it appeared (and was later confirmed) that the VOCs plume had not migrated a substantial distance from the site. Haywood County began a water supply well survey within 1,500 feet of the landfill as a pro-active measure and in compliance with the requirements of Rule .1634
(g) and Rule .1635 (c). Plans for these activities were described in a report titled Report of
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
19
Groundwater Assessment: Monitoring Wells MW-6 through MW-15 dated July 20, 2011 (BLE
Project Number J10-1957-14 & Doc ID #14935). The plans included identification and sampling of
water supply wells within the specified search radius as part of the August 2011 sampling event. Preliminary survey results identified 56 properties within the search radius. Approximately 5 of
these properties were believed to be serviced by private groundwater supply wells. It should be noted
that municipal water is supplied to the Haywood County School District facilities located on the landfill property and to a majority of the properties in the search area.
On August 16, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Haywood County conducted a public meeting to discuss the status of the groundwater assessment and to identify property owners and residents near the landfill which
have or had water supply wells on their properties. Prior to the meeting; all property owners within approximately 1,500 feet of the landfill were notified by letter (sent by the county and delivered by the USPS) which invited them to the meeting and asked for water supply information.
Approximately nine private water supply wells were identified although not all were within 1,500 feet of the site or were operational. Six property owners signed an authorization form which allowed access to their wells for sampling.
Pace Analytical Services, Inc. (Pace) conducted sampling of operational wells on August 24, 2011; if
authorization was granted by the property owner. The water supply wells were sampled for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260. The results show that VOCs were not detected in any of the wells except for concentrations of bromodichloromethane and chloroform in two of the wells.
The two detected VOCs do not appear to be sourced from the landfill nor were they detected in the
groundwater beneath the landfill in August 2011. These chemicals are typical by-products of adding chlorine [bleach] to a well as a disinfectant and are assumed to be sourced from those activities. In
summary, the releases of VOC beneath the landfill property had not impacted any private water supply wells. The data and results were submitted to the SWS in a report titled Report of Water Supply Well Sampling – August 2011 dated September 21, 2011 (BLE Project Number J11-1957-24). A copy of the
report is provided in Appendix H. 2.4.2 Surface Water
Prior to August 2013; there were three surface water sampling locations consisting of one point designated as “upgradient” (SW-1) and two points designated as “downgradient” (SW-2 and Blanton
Branch). All three surface water sampling locations were located on properties outside the Francis Farm Landfill facility property boundary. The surface water samples were analyzed in the laboratory
for North Carolina’s Appendix II list of VOCs and metals, and in the field for pH, specific conductance,
and temperature through February 2013.
Based on the results of the groundwater assessment through February 2013 (3rd assessment phase), it
appeared that the surface water sampling locations were not properly located for monitoring surface water quality. Four new surface water sampling locations designated US-1, DS-1, DS-2, and DS-3
were proposed to the SWS in July 2013 to replace the former sampling locations (Figure 9).
The new locations DS-1 and DS-2 were positioned to detect potential contaminants discharging into
surface water from the defined groundwater plume. The DS-3 location was positioned prior to the confluence of Raccoon Creek with Ratcliffe Cove Branch. The US-1 location was positioned upstream of potential impacts from groundwater affected by releases from the landfill.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
20
We recommended the discontinuation of surface water monitoring at former locations (SW-1, SW-2,
and Blanton Branch) and that they be replaced with the new proposed locations during the August 2013
sampling event. The SWS approved the new locations and surface water monitoring began in August 2013 at the new locations.

The laboratory results of surface water sampling are presented in each semi-annual report. The historical record shows that concentrations of VOCs have not been detected at any of the new surface
water sampling locations. The only consistently detected Appendix I constituent is total barium which is a naturally occurring metal. We conclude from the data that the releases from the landfill have not impacted surface water quality.
3.0 CORRECTIVE MEASURES SCREENING AND EVALUATION
The purpose of an ACM is to document the extent and environmental impact of a release of contaminants in groundwater and to select an appropriate remedy (corrective measure) to return the
site to compliance. The ACM is required to include data and analysis of many factors which may influence the selection and implementation of potential remedies. These factors include (but are not
limited to): estimated remedy performance, compliance schedule, costs, environmental or public health
impact, and permit requirements. The extent and environmental impact of the release has been evaluated, however, an appropriate remedy must be selected and evaluated for feasibility.

Once prepared and submitted, the ACM must be approved by the SWS in conjunction with the public (via public meeting). Once approved, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) must be prepared, submitted,
and subsequently approved (by the SWS) before the selected remedy can be enacted.
Several remedial alternatives were evaluated based on the site-specific information, including the
geologic and hydrogeologic properties of the site (Section 1.0 of this report), and the nature and extent of contamination (Section 2.0 of this report). The remedial alternatives evaluated include waste (source) removal, landfill gas mitigation, leachate recovery, restrictive covers (landfill caps), and five
(5) additional remedies for groundwater remediation (nine total remedies). We have prepared an opinion of cost for each of the remedies described herein. Please note that an
opinion of cost is not a cost estimate or a proposal. Opinions of cost are prepared to provide a realistic cost for remediation based on our efforts and experience on similar projects. The data used to develop
an opinion of cost is most times speculative and conservative in nature and therefore the costs provided
are not intended for firm budgeting.
3.1 Waste (Source) Removal
Based on historical records, we understand that the site operated as a municipal dump in its initial years
of operation. Originally, waste was placed north of the current access road in a topographic draw. That
area is now covered in pine trees and is hereinafter referred to as the non-engineered area. In subsequent years, (circa 1970’s) prior to Subtitle D regulations, the facility placed controlled waste in engineered
unlined waste units which now comprise the upland areas of the site. That area is hereinafter referred to as the engineered area. The removal and relocation of wastes from both areas have been evaluated as a potential source control remedy.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
21
3.1.1 Waste Removal -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation
The removal and relocation of wastes from FFLF to a Subtitle D Landfill would remove contaminant source waste materials from the landfill. Accurate records from the early stages of the FFLF in the
1970’s are not available and the total volume of waste is not known; however, a reasonable estimate of
the total volume of buried waste and soil at the FFLF can be calculated by assuming a 20‐30 foot
average depth over the 20‐acre site. Using these assumptions, it is estimated that 650,000 cubic yards (CY) to 1,000,000 CY of buried waste/soil are present, which translates to approximately 390,000 to
600,000 tons of waste/soil (assuming a 0.6 tons/CY waste/soil density ratio). We estimate that 20% of
the waste tonnage is present in the non-engineered area.
The waste removal would be accomplished by excavating the waste material and loading into over-the-
road tractor trailers. The waste would then be transported to an available permitted disposal landfill. There is one nearby Subtitle D landfill located within Haywood County that is a candidate for receiving
wastes removed from FFLF. The Haywood County White Oak MSW Landfill (WOLF) is operated by
Santek Environmental and is located at exit 15 of Interstate I-40 on Fines Creek Road.
Removal of the waste (source) materials would not remediate contaminants which have already impacted the groundwater but would reduce the potential release of future contamination into the subsurface below the landfill footprint. The performance of this remedy could potentially shorten
remedial timeframes for groundwater compliance. Removal of the waste mass would be reliable as source materials could be visually identified and complete removal could be confirmed and verified. Waste removal would include concerns of leachate management, landfill gas management, stormwater
management, staging and loading of waste materials, and safety of personnel due to exposure to waste materials and landfill gas during the removal process.

3.1.2 Waste Removal -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
Implementing a waste removal strategy would require an extensive period for design and permitting
and negotiating with the receiving Subtitle D landfill. Permitting through several State agencies would be required, including Waste Management, Air Quality, and Land Resources. We estimate that the
time required for planning, design, permitting, would require a minimum of 1 year. The following
permits would be required:
• Waste Management Permit – permitting for the waste removal plan and a new closure plan.
• Air Quality Permit – permitting for the waste removal plan.
• Stormwater Permit – permitting for handling stormwater during and after waste removal operation.
• Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan – permitting for land disturbance activities before and after waste removal.

Implementing the Waste Removal plan would require preparation of construction bid documents, advertising for competitive bids, and the actual waste removal. We estimate that the implementation
process would take a minimum of 3 years to complete. The total estimated timeframe from start to finish for waste removal is 4 years.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
22
3.1.3 Waste Removal -- Remedy Costs
Components of estimating removal costs would include: 1) preparation of project plans and permitting, 2) preparation of bid packages and contractor selection, 3) the installation of stormwater and erosion
control measures, 4) the removal of existing infrastructure and excavation/loading of wastes, 5) the
transportation of wastes to a Subtitle D landfill, 6) a tipping fee at the receiving landfill (note: although the county owns WOLF, the county currently has a lease arrangement with a third‐party for the airspace, which means that the county would be required to pay a tipping fee), and 7) restoration of
surfaces at FFLF, including road repair and revegetation at the site. Another cost component would be the construction of a new access road to the adjacent Haywood County Schools bus maintenance facility, which is located in close proximity to FFLF, prior to the beginning of the waste removal
project. Our opinion of total cost for waste removal is $30 to $40 million.
3.2 Landfill Gas (LFG) Mitigation
The county has experienced LFG exceedances at the gas monitoring wells in the past. Controlling
landfill gas migration is challenging because the waste limits were in close proximity to the landfill
property boundaries, as was typical for landfills of this era. The county has worked to control LFG migration and expand compliance limits as a proactive measure in accordance with the solid waste
rules. As stated in Section 2.3.1 of this report, LFG is a probable source of VOC’s that have impacted the groundwater at the site. The county has implemented several landfill gas mitigation remedies as part of normal post-closure care. These remedies are discussed below.
3.2.1 LFG Mitigation -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation
Prior to 2009, the landfill gas was vented via approximately 45 shallow passive landfill gas vents installed into the soil cap of the waste unit during the closure of the landfill. Landfill gas concentrations exceeding compliance limits were observed at several monitoring wells/ compliance points. In 2009,
the county began planning to address landfill gas compliance issues by constructing a landfill gas mitigation system which would include abandonment of the passive vents, installation of new active
landfill gas extraction wells, a gas flare, and a landfill gas-to-energy system.
The Gas Collection, Combustion, and Energy Generation System (GCCS) was completed at the Francis
Farm Landfill in 2012. Twenty‐one gas extraction wells and HDPE collection piping were installed to
collect and transfer LFG to the flare station. The county began to operate the flare system on February 15, 2012, while the work on the electrical generation system was being finalized. The electrical generating system was connected to the grid in June 2012. The county is currently running the
generator as much as possible. If the generator is shut down, then the flare system operates solely. The
GCCS provided 259,150 kWhr to the electrical grid from the start‐up of the generator through December 31, 2013.

In the months after the flare start‐up, the county went through the anticipated period of becoming familiar with the well field, learning where and how to operate the valves that would control the flow of gas. During this period, the flare was shut down periodically if oxygen levels were too high to locate
the source of the oxygen inflow and repair as necessary. With the operation of the gas collection system, the county observed an almost immediate impact on the LFG monitoring well MM-10 at the southern perimeter of the waste mass. While the GCCS system is operating, the methane levels in
MM-10 were reduced to the compliance limits allowed by the Solid Waste Rules, 5% methane, when
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
23
previously 60% methane was observed. Although the GCCS system was very effective at the southern
margin of the landfill, it became apparent over time that even with the vacuum operating, LFG
migration at the northern and western margins of the landfill could not be controlled, since the waste mass was close to the landfill property boundary.

An important facet of the GCCS is the operation of dewatering pumps within the gas extraction wells. The county installed 6 pumps during the initial construction of the project and began to pump leachate
to the Town of Waynesville’s treatment works in mid‐December 2011. In 2012, the county added 6
additional dewatering pumps to remove leachate and can now pump from 12 locations within the gas extraction well field. Prior to installation of the dewatering pumps, leachate would fill the gas collection wells and reduce the effectiveness of the wells and system. The removal of leachate from the gas
collection wells allows the gas collection system to function more effectively to remove landfill gas from the wells.

In 2014, the county acquired three adjacent properties that completely surrounded the FFLF. The LFG monitoring network has been expanded to all three of these properties, and the FFLF is now in
compliance with the rules requirements for LFG control.
The county intends to continue to operate and maintain the LFG collection system at the landfill. The
implementation of any of the cap improvements may necessitate modifications to the landfill gas collection system. For instance, the installation of a synthetic cap will require extensive modifications to the landfill gas collection piping system to allow for the operation and maintenance of the pipes in
conjunction with the installation of a synthetic liner. 3.2.2 LFG Mitigation -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
The development of the GCCS occurred over a 3.5-year period from June 2009 until December 2012. The county applied for and received a grant from the North Carolina State Energy Office in January
2010. This grant allowed the county to develop the entire GCCS project. The project was permitted through several State agencies, including Waste Management, Air Quality, Water Quality and Land
Resources. To facilitate the plan and meet grant scheduling requirements, the GCCS project was
permitted as one project; but the construction was completed in three (3) phases.
• Phase 1 – included the installation of 21 gas extraction wells;
• Phase 2 – included the installation of the gas and leachate collection piping, flare station,
and leachate pumping station;
• Phase 3 – included the construction of the generator and connection to the electrical grid.
The implementation of this remedy required 3.5 years. This timeframe does not include the time necessary for groundwater to reach compliance limits.

3.2.3 LFG Mitigation -- Remedy Costs
The total cost for all three phases of the GCCS project was approximately $1.4 million. In addition to the infrastructure costs the county purchased 3 adjacent properties surrounding the
landfill to expand the facility compliance limits and to provide area for future corrective measures. The cost for the facility expansion was approximately $1.2 million.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
24

The total cost for this remedy was $2.6 million, however the costs were offset by a $1 million grant
from the North Carolina State Energy Office for the GCCS installation.
The county will continue to perform maintenance on the existing landfill gas system and upgrade the
system as necessary with the implementation of a cap remedy. Estimated costs for improving the landfill gas system in conjunction with the selected cap improvement range from $60,000 to $120,000.

3.3 Leachate Recovery
Landfill leachate is generated when stormwater (precipitation) infiltrates through a landfill waste unit’s protective cover (typically soil) and percolates through the buried waste. This water leaches pollutants from the waste and the resulting liquid (leachate) migrates through the subsurface until it reaches an
impermeable layer or if none is present, directly into the groundwater. Since leachate typically contains contaminants, modern solid waste facilities are required to be constructed with leachate collection systems. These systems have an impermeable layer beneath the waste to prevent a release to the
environment and extraction infrastructure to remove, treat, and dispose of the leachate. The FFLF was constructed before rules were in place that required a leachate collection system, and therefore, a
leachate collection system was not installed nor in operation when the landfill was active. This remedy
is discussed below.
3.3.1 Leachate Recovery -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation
The FFLF began operation in 1973 and stopped receiving waste in late 1993. Final closure certification
was completed in December 1995. The modern Federal Subtitle D rules regarding landfills were not in place at the time of the FFLF operation. As such, a leachate collection system was not installed. As stated in Section 2.3.2 of this report, leachate is a probable source of VOC’s that have impacted the
groundwater at the site. In conjunction with the implementation of the GCCS project in 2012, the county included leachate
extraction pumps at 6 of the LFG extraction wells that were installed. The electric pumps remove
leachate from the bottom of the landfill and discharge to on‐site gravity piping which leads to an on‐site leachate pumping station. Leachate is then pumped from the pumping station through a 2-inch
diameter force main to the Town of Waynesville sewer system, where it is then treated at the Town of
Waynesville Wastewater Treatment Facility prior to discharge into the Pigeon River. Since the initial installation of the 6 leachate extraction pumps, 6 additional pumps have been installed throughout the
landfill at LFG extraction wells. The county has removed and treated approximately 2,000,000 gallons of leachate from 2012 through 2016.
The county intends to continue to operate and maintain the leachate collection system at the landfill. The implementation of any of the cap improvements may necessitate modifications to the leachate collection system. For instance, the installation of a synthetic cap will require extensive modifications
to the leachate collection piping system to allow for the operation and maintenance of the pipes in
conjunction with the synthetic liner. A soils‐only cap system will require fewer modifications since existing pipes can be easily accessed for maintenance or replacement in the future as necessary. The
county will continue to monitor leachate removal at the LFG extraction wells and where possible, will
relocate leachate pumps to the LFG extraction wells that generate the greatest leachate volume collection.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
25

3.3.2 Leachate Recovery -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
The leachate recovery system was installed as part of the GCCS described in Section 3.2. The same
remedy timeframe and institutional requirements apply.
3.3.3 Leachate Recovery -- Remedy Costs As part of the GCCS project the county spent approximately $350,000 on the installation of the leachate removal pumps, leachate system pump station and force main connection to the Town of Waynesville’s
sewer system. The county will continue to perform maintenance on the existing leachate removal system and upgrade
the system as necessary with the implementation of a cap remedy. Estimated costs for improving the leachate collection system in conjunction with the selected cap improvement range from $60,000 to $120,000.
3.4 Restrictive Covers (Landfill Caps)
Landfill caps limit surface water infiltration and provide a barrier for gas movement both into and out
of the waste mass. It has been shown in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this report that landfill leachate
and LFG are sources of contaminants which have impacted the groundwater. Installation and proper maintenance of a landfill cap is important to control the mobilization of contaminants in the waste.
Restricting water infiltration into the waste mass serves two functions. First, it limits the production of leachate and second, it keeps the subsurface waste and soil dry so that LFG can be properly vented.
LFG venting can be accomplished via passive or active vents. In the case of active vents, a vacuum is applied to the subsurface to mechanically remove the gas which is typically routed to a gas flare or as fuel for beneficial reuse (heating, energy production, etc.). In cases where a landfill cap not properly
designed, installed, or maintained, vacuum leaks can occur which limit the influence of a vacuum recovery system and degrade the landfill gas quality by infiltration of ambient air at the ground surface.
Two main waste areas are present at FFLF. They include the non-engineered waste area north of the access road and the engineered waste area which is the upland portion of the site and the main disposal
area. The non-engineered waste area was capped (in the 1980’s) with a soil cover and vegetation
(primarily pine trees) were grown on the surface. The engineered waste area was also capped (in the 1990’s) with a soil cover with a vegetated (grass) surface.

Two tasks were performed by BLE to evaluate the existing soil cap. The first was an evaluation of leachate production and the second was an evaluation of the thicknesses and physical properties of the
soil. The first evaluation concluded that there was a strong correlation between precipitation and leachate production indicating that existing soil cap was insufficient to significantly reduce stormwater infiltration. Cap maintenance was recommended to reduce leachate production. The second evaluation
concluded that the existing cover soils did not meet the typical permeability requirement for a landfill cap. It was recommended that a source of additional cover soils be identified to supplement the existing
soil cover and achieve desired grades for surface drainage. Those assessments are discussed in Section 2.3.3 of this report and a copy of BLE’s report is included in Appendix F.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
26
As a result of the evaluation findings, the county implemented improvements to the restrictive covers
as part of normal post-closure care. Those cover improvements included the identification and
stockpiling of cost-effective borrow soils and placement of an interim soil cap in the engineered waste area. The placement of the interim soil cap was performed in 2014 through 2016 and was documented
in Section 2.3.4 of this report. No improvements were performed in the non-engineered waste area
where several maintenance issues are present including erosion, settlement, and increased stormwater infiltration due to tree rooting.
Several options for additional cap maintenance and improvements are presented below as potential remedies. The EPA’s Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) computer model was
used to determine the projected infiltration rate for each cap option (Appendix I). 3.4.1 Landfill Caps -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation

3.4.1.1 Cap Maintenance
The county has aggressively addressed cap integrity issues at the FFLF over the past several years. Spot repairs have been made in the pine woods area north of the access road and at wet areas in the
southern portion of the landfill. Existing storm drainage pipes from the cap drainage terraces have been
replaced as necessary during the course of the cap maintenance projects. As part of the installation of the GCCS in 2011-2012, the top of the landfill was raised approximately 4 to 8 feet with soil fill to
provide positive drainage. However, even with the additional soils added at the top of the cap,
subsidence at the top of the landfill continued. Therefore, in 2014-2015, the county contracted with a local grading contractor to place approximately 40,000 CY of soil directly to the top of the landfill cap,
in an approximate 5-acre area of the cap, where the greatest subsidence has been observed. The height of the cap at the top of the landfill was increased by approximately 14 to 16 feet. In addition to the 40,000 CY of soil for the top of the landfill, the contractor transported an additional 100,000 CY of
soils to a county-owned tract (former Shelton tract) adjacent to the landfill. These soils will be used in the future for any cap improvements that are selected.
The pine trees north of the access road and the pine/hardwoods south of the access road need to be removed as part of any cap improvement project. The trees continue to allow stormwater infiltration into the waste mass and hinder the operation of the LFG collection system. The removal of the trees
will provide for more efficient cap inspection and maintenance in the future.
The projected infiltration rate of the existing cap is approximately 74,600 cubic feet/ acre/ year. This
mass flux equates to approximately 11.1 million gallons per year of surface water filtering into the waste mass. The continued Cap Maintenance only option will improve the existing cap but will not
provide any significant reductions to the surface water infiltration rate.
3.4.1.2 Cap Alternative A Cap Alternative A is a low permeability soil with high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner and vegetative layer. The Cap Alternative A cross-section consists of: 1) a minimum of 18-inches of
compacted soil with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec; 2) 40-mil HDPE textured geomembrane liner; 3) an 8-oz double-sided geocomposite; and 4) a minimum 2 feet 6 inches of protective cover soils with the upper most 6-inch layer being suitable for vegetative growth. It is
anticipated that there will be an average of approximately 4 feet of soil added to the 20-acre cap, or a
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
27
total of approximately 130,000 CY of soil. Additionally, as mentioned under the Cap Maintenance
option, the vegetation located on the landfill must be removed.
According to the HELP analysis, the projected infiltration rate of Cap Alternative A is approximately
38 cubic feet/ acre/ year. This mass flux equates to approximately 5,684 gallons per year of surface
water infiltrating the waste mass. Cap Alternative A would provide a significant reduction in the amount of surface water infiltration into the landfill. This reduction would reduce the volume of
leachate generated that has been identified as a contributing source of VOCs to the groundwater. To implement the Cap Alternative A remedy, the county must contract with a specialty contractor for
the installation. This will require the preparation of construction bid documents and receiving construction bids through a formal bidding process. The implementation of any of the cap improvements may necessitate modifications to the leachate collection and landfill gas collection
systems to allow for future gas system operation and access and maintenance of the system. For instance, the installation of a synthetic cap will require extensive modifications to the piping systems to allow for the operation and maintenance of the pipes in conjunction with the synthetic liner. Once
the Cap Alternative A remedy has been installed, the county must maintain the installed cap. This would include monthly inspections of the vegetative cover and minor repairs to any eroded areas.

3.4.1.3 Cap Alternative B
Cap Alternative B is a compacted in-situ soil cap and/or additional soil cap with HDPE liner and
vegetative cover. The Cap Alternative B crossection consists of: 1) compacted in-place soil or additional soil (no maximum permeability requirement) to provide a minimum 4-foot of soil above
existing waste; 2) 40-mil HDPE textured geomembrane liner; 3) an 8-oz double-sided geocomposite; and 4) a minimum 2 feet 6 inches of protective cover soils with the upper most 6-inch layer being suitable for vegetative growth. It is anticipated that there will be an average of approximately 4 feet of
soil added to the 20-acre cap, or a total of approximately 130,000 CY of soil. Additionally, as mentioned under the Cap Maintenance option, the vegetation currently existing on the landfill cap must be removed.
According to the HELP analysis, the projected infiltration rate of Cap Alternative B is approximately 44 cubic feet/ acre/ year. This mass flux would equate to approximately 6,582 gallons per year of
surface water filtering into the waste mass. Cap Alternative B would provide a significant reduction in the amount of surface water infiltration into the landfill. This reduction would reduce the volume of
leachate generated, that has been identified as a contributing source of VOCs to the groundwater.
To implement the Cap Alternative B remedy, the county must contract with a specialty contractor for
the installation. This will require the preparation of construction bid documents and receiving
construction bids through a formal bidding process. The implementation of any of the cap improvements may necessitate modifications to the leachate collection and landfill gas collection
systems. For instance, the installation of a synthetic cap will require extensive modifications to the piping systems to allow for future gas system operation and access and maintenance of the pipes in conjunction with the synthetic liner. Once the Cap Alternative B remedy has been installed, the county
must maintain the installed cap. This would include monthly inspections of the vegetative cover and minor repairs to any eroded areas.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
28
3.4.1.4 Cap Alternative C Cap Alternative C is a compacted soil cap. The Cap Alternative C crossection consists of compacted soils to provide a minimum 6-foot of soil above existing waste. It is anticipated that there will be an
average of approximately 6 feet of soil added to the 20-acre cap, or a total of approximately 195,000
CY of soil.
According to the HELP Model analysis, the projected infiltration rate of Cap Alternative C is approximately 67,800 cubic feet/ acre/ year. This mass flux would equate to approximately 10.1 million gallons per year of surface water infiltrating the waste mass. The Cap Alternative C remedy
would not significantly reduce the infiltration of surface water into the landfill relative to the performance of the existing cap.
To implement the Cap Alternative C remedy, the county must contract with a contractor for the installation. This will require the preparation of construction bid documents and receiving construction bids through a formal bidding process. Once the Cap Alternative C remedy has been installed, the
county must maintain the installed cap. This would include monthly inspections of the vegetative cover and minor repairs to any eroded areas.

3.4.2 Landfill Caps -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
A Permit to Construct will be required from the SWS for any type of cap improvement method selected
as a remedy. The SWS will review the submittal documents and the approved permit documents will be used as the basis for creating construction bid documents. After construction bid documents are
prepared, a bidding and award process will be conducted prior to a contractor being selected. The construction process will begin after the Haywood County Board of Commissioners approves the bid proposal.

It is estimated that the SWS authorization to construct process will require 6 months, followed by a 6‐month period to prepare bid documents and conduct the bidding and award. In addition to the SWS
approval, it will be necessary to obtain an approval for an Erosion Control Plan from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality – Land Quality Section (NCDEQ‐LQS). After the contract is
awarded, it would require approximately 6 months to 1 year to implement the cap improvements, depending on the complexity of the final cap selected. The soils‐only cap improvement would be at the shorter end of the estimated construction timeframe, while the construction of a synthetic liner and
the associated modifications to the existing gas and leachate collection systems could add 6 months to the timeframe for implementing the cap improvement. The Construction Quality Assurance requirements for a geomembrane capping option is also much more extensive.
The implementation of this remedy would require 2.5 to 3.0 years. This timeframe does not include
the time necessary for groundwater to reach compliance limits.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
29
3.4.3 Landfill Caps -- Remedy Costs
The cost of each proposed remedy is shown in the Table below

Cap Alternative A
Design and Permitting $225,000
Construction $3,500,000 Construction Testing $300,000
Construction Administration $200,000 Estimated Total $4,225,000
Cap Alternative B
Design and Permitting $225,000
Construction $3,200,000 Construction Testing $280,000
Construction Administration $200,000
Estimated Total $3,905,000
Cap Alternative C

Design and Permitting $150,000
Construction $2,300,000
Construction Testing $100,000 Construction Administration $100,000
Estimated Total $2,650,000
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
30
3.5 Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is the general use of plants to remediate environmental media in situ. These processes include: 1) rhizofiltration (absorption, concentration, and precipitation of heavy metals by
plant roots); 2) phytovolatilization (removal and dispersal via transpiration); 3) phytoextraction
(extraction and accumulation of contaminants in harvestable plant tissues such as roots and shoots); 4) phytotransformation (degradation of complex organic molecules to simple molecules which are
incorporated into plant tissues); 5) phytostimulation or plant-assisted bioremediation (stimulation of microbial and fungal degradation by release of exudates/enzymes into the root zone); 6) and phytostabilization (absorption and precipitation of contaminants, principally metals, by plants). These
processes may or may not involve periodic harvesting of plants, depending upon method utilized. The approach is applicable to a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants and is most appropriate for sites where large volumes of groundwater with relatively low concentrations of contaminants must
be remediated to strict standards. The technology is most effective where groundwater is within ten feet of the ground surface.
3.5.1 Phytoremediation -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation
Phytoremediation has been documented as an effective remedy for many sites impacted by
contaminants of many types including but not limited to VOCs and metals (Landmeyer, 2012). The technology is highly cost-effective and has a low-risk of negative environmental impact and/or
increased risk of exposure. Phytoremediation is highly effective for sites with shallow groundwater
where the plant roots can directly access the groundwater and intercept a contaminant plume. A shallow groundwater table is present at the site on the former Betty Lewis properties where the VOC
plume migrates from the waste units towards Ratcliffe Cove Creek. Performance of phytoremediation on other areas of the site would be less effective due to deep depths to groundwater and the existence of landfill caps whose integrity would be jeopardized by rooting of the required flora.
The remediation of VOC plumes by phytovolatilization processes have been shown to be very reliable, requiring very little maintenance or post-installation care after the flora are established. In many cases,
high-water use flora are selected which depress the water table during water uptake and transfer residual VOCs to the atmosphere through transpiration. Phytoremediation would be reliable as plant uptake can be observed by measuring groundwater level variation and contaminant concentrations in plant
tissues.
Implementation of phytoremediation requires assessment and design which includes such factors as:
soil conditions, groundwater chemistry, flora selection (concentrating on potential native species), planting density, biomass growth rates, irrigation and fertilization requirements, potential rates of
remediation, contaminant accumulation, and disease and pest control.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
31
3.5.2 Phytoremediation -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
Phytoremediation would not remediate contaminants in the source area but would act as a living barrier to limit the transport of contaminants already present in the groundwater. The performance of this
remedy would not shorten remedial timeframes for groundwater compliance but would control
migration of the plume to potential receptors. Phytoremediation used in conjunction with source control measures would shorten times to compliance. Additionally, the type of flora used and their
efficiency have not been determined at this time. We estimate that the time required for planning, site characterization, design, and implementation would require a minimum of 1 year. This timeframe does not include the time necessary for groundwater to reach compliance limits. Except for the approval of
a phytoremediation remedy by the SWS as part of a CAP (Rule .1637), no other permitting is required.
3.5.3 Phytoremediation -- Remedy Costs Components of estimating phytoremediation costs would include: 1) an assessment of soil conditions
and groundwater chemistry; 2) preparation of design plans; 3) preparation of bid packages and contractor selection; 4) procurement of selected flora; 5) the installation of flora and irrigation (if
required); and 6) ongoing monitoring and maintenance (inspection, testing, and normal horticultural
practices). Our opinion of total cost for phytoremediation is $70,000 to $90,000 with annual monitoring, maintenance, and reporting costs of $4,000 to $8,000.

3.6 Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB)
These technologies encompass passive barriers, passive treatment walls, treatment walls, or trenches. An in-ground trench is backfilled with reactive media to provide passive treatment of contaminated groundwater passing through the trench. The treatment wall is placed at a strategic location to intercept
the contaminant plume and is backfilled with media such as zero-valent iron, microorganisms, zeolite, activated carbon, peat, bentonite, limestone, or saw dust. The treatment processes that occur within the treatment wall are typically contaminant degradation, sorption, or precipitation. Treatment walls are
applicable to a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants. The choice of media for treatment walls is based on a specific contaminant. Hydrogeologic setting is critical to application; geologic materials must be relatively conductive and a relatively shallow aquitard must be present to provide a
“basement” to the system. Groundwater flow should have a high degree of preference, and groundwater quality must support the desired reaction without imposing additional loading of the
reactive media or creating undesirable by-products.
3.6.1 PRB -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation
PRB technology has been used to effectively treat in-situ groundwater without mechanical equipment and or energy consumption required for active groundwater remedies. The technology has a high
initial cost for due to requirements for testing, engineering and capital for installation and for reactive media. However, PRBs have been shown to perform well for both chlorinated VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbon VOCs which are the primary contaminants of concern at the subject site. Once installed,
the technology is cost-effective and has a low-risk of negative environmental impact and/or increased risk of exposure. PRB’s do not require ongoing maintenance once installed however, a performance monitoring program is required to determine efficiency of the reactive media and to determine media
regeneration timeframes.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
32
PRBs are effective for sites with shallow groundwater where the installed treatment wall can reach the
basement aquitard to intercept a contaminant plume. A shallow groundwater table is present at the site
on the former Betty Lewis properties where the VOC plume migrates from the waste units towards Ratcliffe Cove Creek. This area from approximately MW-6 to MW-21 (Figure 4) is accessible for
PRB installation and sufficient groundwater monitoring wells are in place for monitoring. Installation
of a PRB in this area would require routing and positioning to avoid existing monitoring infrastructure and potential future infrastructure such as stormwater controls and soil caps. Soils in these areas include
some alluvial sands and gravels so PRB installation would require a geotechnical engineering plan to overcome potential soil sloughing and PRB media contamination with native soils. Additionally, the basement bedrock may not provide a sufficient hydraulic barrier to prevent bypass flow. Performance
and implementation of a PRB on other areas of the site are not technically feasible do to deep depths to groundwater and the presence of competent bedrock.
3.6.2 PRB -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements PRB would not remediate contaminants in the source area or downgradient of the PRB but would act
as a barrier to limit the transport of contaminants already present in the groundwater. The performance of this remedy would not shorten remedial timeframes for groundwater compliance but would control
migration of the plume to potential receptors. A PRB used in conjunction with source control measures
would shorten times to compliance. The type of reactive media and its efficiency have not been determined at this time. We estimate that the time required for planning, site characterization, design,
and implementation would require a minimum of 2 years. This timeframe does not include the time
necessary for groundwater to reach compliance limits. Except for the approval of a PRB remedy by the SWS as part of a CAP (Rule .1637), no other permitting is required.

3.6.3 PRB -- Remedy Costs
Components of estimating PRB costs would include: 1) an assessment of soil and groundwater chemistry; 2) a laboratory-scale pilot study; 3) preparation of engineering plans; 4) preparation of bid packages and contractor selection; 5) procurement of selected reactive media; 6) the installation of the
PRB; 7) ongoing O&M and reporting; and 8) future regeneration and/or reinstallation of reactive media (if necessary). Our opinion of total cost for a PRB is $800,000 to $1,350,000 with annual monitoring, maintenance, and reporting costs of $10,000 to $15,000. Capital costs for future replacement of
reactive media cannot be determined at this time. It should be noted that PRB costs are highly variable and an opinion of cost is highly speculative (compared to other remedies) until assessment and design
data can be obtained and evaluated.
3.7 Pump & Treat (P&T)
Various documented technologies can remove VOCs, contained in groundwater extracted from the subsurface. Ex-situ groundwater treatment programs contain three major elements and together are
called “pump and treat” (P&T) systems: 1) Groundwater extraction/removal system; 2) Groundwater treatment system or treatment train; and 3) Treated water discharge, disposal or permitted groundwater re-infiltration/re-injection systems.
Traditional P&T systems are primarily used to prevent plume migration and reduce contaminant concentrations in the source areas. Unfortunately, subsurface heterogeneities limit the ability to move
water through many contaminated zones and mass transfer restrictions due to matrix diffusion limit the
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
33
ability of a P&T system to cleanse a site. However, when used in conjunction with other remediation
techniques, P&T systems may prevent the exacerbation of groundwater problems by capturing,
substantially containing, and removing aqueous-phase contaminants. In addition, where control of groundwater flow direction is necessary to prevent impacts to environmental receptors, P&T
approaches can be useful.
Often, when low concentrations of VOCs are present, extracted groundwater can be directly discharged
to surface water or to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). However, if groundwater treatment is necessary, the best demonstrated available technology should be selected to achieve the respective treatment standards. The most common groundwater treatment technologies for removal of VOCs, are
aeration (air stripping) and granular activated carbon (GAC). The installation of groundwater recovery wells or pumping wells is a common method used to bring
contaminated groundwater to the surface for treatment and disposal. A line or ring of recovery wells installed at a predetermined spacing with overlapping cones of depression may restrict or limit the flow of contaminated groundwater from an affected area to an unaffected area. A P&T system using
multiple recovery wells and an ex-situ groundwater treatment system or direct discharge to the POTW could act as a viable treatment technology for the site.

3.7.1 P&T -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation
The use of P&T systems for migration control and treatment of dissolved phase VOCs in groundwater
has been well documented. These systems have proven to be both effective and reliable. There are several components of operation of P&T systems which are critical to reliability. Those include the
proper depth and spacing of recovery wells, a reliable power service, effective treatment technologies for effluent, and a focused maintenance program. Several effluent treatment/disposal options are discussed below.
Air stripping treatment technology removes dissolved VOCs from a water stream by aeration. Air stripping is a proven technology that may utilize diffused aeration, tray aeration, spray basins, or packed
towers to continually replenish fresh air to the contaminated water stream. The possibility of producing air pollution impacts from the gaseous effluent is a concern. By performing air dispersion screen models, the impacts from these emissions can be estimated. Local or regional air permitting agencies
are responsible for issuing air emission permits prior to approving a treatment system start up.
Limitations for this remedial process include: 1) the types of chemicals to be removed; 2) possible air
pollution impacts; 3) high natural metals concentrations in groundwater; and 4) high suspended solids in the influent water. Air stripping is only applicable to the removal of volatile compounds.

Activated carbon adsorption treatment technology uses granulated activated carbon (GAC) which adsorbs organic and non-organic constituents by a surface attraction phenomenon in which molecules
are attracted to the carbon granule matrix. Adsorption depends on the strength of the molecular attraction between adsorbent and adsorbate, molecular weight, type and characteristic of adsorbent, electrokinetic charge, pH and available surface area of the carbon matrix.
When the micropore surfaces become saturated with contaminants, the carbon is “spent” and must either be replaced with clean carbon or be thermally regenerated and returned to service. The time it
takes to reach “breakthrough” or exhaustion is the single-most critical operating parameter.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
34
Limitations for this remedial process include the absorbability of the various organic compounds, high
metals concentrations and solids content of the water, and disposal/regenration of the exhausted carbon.
Regardless of effluent treatment technology used (if any), the wastewaters require disposal. Disposal
options include reinjection of treated water into the subsurface (injection wells), discharge to the
POTW, or discharge to surface waters via NPDES permit.
Performance of a P&T system can be gauged by measuring groundwater drawdown for effective capture and removal efficiency of contaminants via the applicable treatment technology. A P&T system would remediate contaminants which have already impacted the groundwater but would not
reduce the potential release of future contaminant mass into the environment. A P&T system would include concerns of wastewater management, power consumption costs, and personnel resources for operation and maintenance.
3.7.2 P&T -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
A P&T system would remediate contaminants in the source area and areas downgradient. Additionally, a P&T system could act as a barrier to limit the transport of contaminants already present in the
groundwater. The performance of this remedy could shorten remedial timeframes for groundwater
compliance and could control migration of the plume to potential receptors. A P&T system used in conjunction with source control measures would shorten times to compliance.

The number of recovery wells, effluent disposal options, and required treatment technology have not been determined at this time. We estimate that the time required for planning, testing, design,
permitting, equipment selection and purchase, installation, and equipment startup would require a minimum of 2 years. This timeframe does not include the time necessary for groundwater to reach compliance limits. In addition to approval of a P&T remedy by the SWS as part of a CAP (Rule .1637),
several permits are required or may be required including: 1) permits for installation of recovery wells and a groundwater recovery system; 2) permits of the installation of injection wells (if necessary); 3) permits for discharge of effluent to the POTW; 4) permits for discharge of effluent to surface water
(NPDES); 5) permits for discharge of effluent into groundwater (UIC); and 6) permits for discharge of contaminants into the air.
3.7.3 P&T -- Remedy Costs
Components of estimating P&T costs would include: 1) installation of pilot test wells and the
performance of aquifer tests; 2) treatability tests of potential effluent; 3) engineering design and permitting costs; 4) purchase of capital equipment [pumps, controls, power systems, piping and wiring,
tanks, treatment equipment, and system enclosures]; 5) preparation of bid packages and contractor
selection; 6) recovery well installation; 7) trenching, wiring, and pipe installation; 8) construction oversight and as-built reporting; 9) system startup and balancing; and 10) operation and maintenance
(power, effluent disposal, sampling & reporting, system adjustments, replacement parts [filters, switches, floats, valves, etc.]). Our opinion of total cost for a P&T remedy is $750,000 to $1,500,000 with annual power, monitoring, maintenance, and reporting costs of $45,000 to $85,000. It should be
noted that P&T costs are highly variable and dependent on the quantity of recovery wells required, system flow rates, treatability of effluent, and effluent disposal options. These data for costing would not be available until after pilot testing was performed.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
35
3.8 Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
Intrinsic bioremediation is the natural, non-enhanced microbial degradation of organic constituents by which complex organic compounds are broken down to simpler, usually less toxic compounds through
aerobic or anaerobic processes. For environmental application, documentation that current
biodegradation rates are sufficient to control or degrade a contaminant plume or zone without creation of unacceptable risk to human health or the environment must be demonstrated. The processes of
bioremediation are described in many references (EPA, 1998; Aziz, et al, 2000, and Wiedemeier, et al., 1999). Intrinsic bioremediation is equally effective for both petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents which are the primary contaminants detected at the site.
It is noted in the literature that the natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents is most often accomplished by biotransformational degradation processes known as reductive dechlorination. This process in its
most basic form involves the replacement of the chlorine atoms on a molecule of a chlorinated solvent with a hydrogen atom under anaerobic conditions. These processes require the presence of both electron donors (e.g. hydrogen) and acceptors (e.g. chlorinated solvents). These reactions occur as a
first order decay process where a parent compound (e.g. perchloroethene) is sequentially degraded to various daughter compounds until the process terminates in the creation of non-toxic compounds (e.g.,
water, carbon dioxide, chloride, etc). These processes require: 1) parent solvents; 2) electron donating
mater; 3) the establishment of population of compound specific microbes; and 4) the proper geochemical conditions for the reaction to occur.

The degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons is a biologically mediated oxidation/reduction (redox) reaction. This process involves the transfer of electrons from a contaminant to an electron acceptor.
The net result of the process is the degradation of the contaminants to harmless end products such as water, carbon dioxide, and metabolic byproducts. This process does not produce measurable daughter products, and therefore degradation of the hydrocarbon compounds are typically evaluated
by measuring the contaminant concentration trends directly. A linear regression or other approved statistical technique is typically used to evaluate trends for each contaminant which has an observed measurable concentration trend. In some cases, it is necessary to identify terminal electron-accepting
processes (TEAPs) which result in contaminant degradation. Predominant TEAPs include oxidation, denitrification, iron reduction, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis. Sampling for several geochemical parameters which are indicators of the microbial respiration patterns of specific TEAPs
is part of this evaluative process, when necessary. Those parameters include dissolved oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, and methane. Sampling is performed so that concentrations of upgradient
geochemical conditions can be compared to downgradient geochemical conditions. These data
provide evidence to determine which TEAPs are “active” at the site and may be favorable for decay processes and may contribute to natural attenuation.

3.8.1 MNA -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation
MNA is the physical, chemical, or biological processes that act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants. These include biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, and chemical or biological stabilization or destruction of
contaminants. The EPA prefers those processes that degrade contaminants and expects that MNA will be most appropriate where plumes are stable.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
36
Some processes have undesirable results, such as formation of toxic daughter products, or, transfer of
contaminants to other media. Site-specific, risk-based decisions are essential. MNA is an active choice
although it is a passive remediation technology. To demonstrate that MNA is the appropriate option one of the following three types of site-specific information may be required.

1. History of groundwater contaminant data demonstrating a declining contaminant concentration trend (stable plume) or potential for a stable plume.
2. Hydrogeologic and geochemical data that demonstrate MNA processes and rates. 3. Field-based microcosm studies.
Unless #1 is of sufficient quality and duration, #2 is generally required. MNA has been used to effectively reach groundwater compliance limits without equipment or energy
consumption required for active groundwater remedies. The technology has a low initial cost and has been shown to perform well for both chlorinated VOCs petroleum hydrocarbon VOCs which are the primary contaminants of concern at the subject site. Once confirmed as a viable remedial strategy,
MNA is cost-effective and has a low-risk of negative environmental impact and/or increased risk of exposure. MNA requires a performance monitoring program to determine the times to compliance and
suitable conditions. The existing groundwater monitoring network at the subject site has monitoring
wells in place to act as sentinel wells and to gauge MNA effectiveness. Additionally, there is a sufficient history of water quality data at the site for decision making.

3.8.2 MNA -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
An MNA remedy is a long-term remedial strategy. MNA is appropriate as remedial approach only where it can be demonstrated to achieve remedial objectives within reasonable time frame, and meets the applicable remedy selection criteria for the particular regulatory program. MNA can be used in
conjunction with active remediation measures (e.g., source control) or as follow-up to such measures. MNA should be used where such an approach would not result in significant contamination migration or unacceptable impacts to receptors. Time frame should not be excessive compared to that required
for other remedies. Some factors that impact “reasonableness” of time frame include:
• Current and potential future uses of affected groundwater,
• Relative time frame in which aquifer may be needed,
• Public acceptance of extended time for remediation, • Reliability of monitoring and institutional controls,
• Adequate funding over time required to reach cleanup objectives, and
• Regional resource issues.
We estimate that the time required for planning, testing, and evaluation would require a minimum of 1 year. This timeframe does not include the time necessary for groundwater to reach compliance limits. Except for the approval of a MNA remedy by the SWS as part of a CAP (Rule .1637), no other
permitting is required.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
37
3.8.3 MNA -- Remedy Costs
Components of estimating MNA costs would include: 1) a complete trend evaluation to assess current contaminant fate; 2) a baseline assessment of site geochemical conditions to determine if site conditions
are conducive for natural attenuation [if necessary]; 3) field-based microcosm studies [if necessary];
and 4) ongoing assessments and reporting of groundwater conditions and contaminant fate as part of remedy implementation [typically every 3rd year; triennial].
Our opinion of total cost for a MNA remedy is $25,000 to $35,000 with triennial sampling, analysis, evaluation, and reporting costs of $25,000 to $45,000. It should be noted that the requirement for
baseline and triennial geochemical testing is dependent upon the results of the initial trend evaluation and the potential effects of other remedies (such a soil cap improvements).
3.9 Enhanced Bioremediation (EBR) Enhanced Bioremediation (EBR) is an in situ active treatment method that introduces chemicals and/or
microbes to the contaminated media to enhance the biodegradation process (Cunningham et al, 2001 and Hinchee et al., 1994). Bioremediation is a process in which indigenous or inoculated
microorganisms degrade contaminants by metabolizing organic constituents in groundwater. The rate
of bioremediation can be enhanced by increasing the concentration of electron acceptors and/or nutrients in the groundwater. Most organic compounds are degraded by microbial bacteria, if the
contaminants are present at non-toxic concentrations. Groundwater naturally typically contains low
concentrations of oxygen because of the minimal aeration resulting from flow beneath the surface; however, the subsurface is typically nutrient deficient. Other factors affecting biological treatment of
impacted groundwater include groundwater temperature, pH, and geochemistry. 3.9.1 EBR -- Performance, Reliability, & Implementation The performance and reliability of EBR is identical to MNA except that remediation may be accelerated due to the addition of biologic or chemical supplements designed to enhance or improve conditions for
bioremediation. EBR is a proven technology capable of reaching groundwater compliance limits and has been shown to perform well for both chlorinated VOCs petroleum hydrocarbon VOCs which are the primary contaminants of concern at the subject site. The technology may have a high initial cost
due to required engineering and testing. EBR can be cost-effective and has a low-risk of negative environmental impact and/or increased risk of exposure. However, EBR may result in the generation
of regulated metabolic byproducts which require additional treatment and/or time to reach compliance
limits. Additionally, repeated treatment of an area or areas is sometimes necessary and can be costly depending on the delivery mechanism and costs of injected substances. EBR requires a performance
monitoring program to determine the times to compliance and suitable conditions. The existing
groundwater monitoring network at the subject site has monitoring wells in place to act as sentinel wells and to gauge EBR effectiveness. Additionally, there is a sufficient history of water quality data
at the site for decision making. However, the potential treatment areas are very large and therefore this technology may only be cost-effective for implementation in limited areal extent.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
38
3.9.2 EBR -- Remedy Timeframe and Institutional Requirements
An EBR remedy is similar to MNA; is a long-term remedial strategy and therefore the same remedy timeframe conditions apply (Section 3.8.2). EBR technology could remediate contaminants in the
source area and areas downgradient at a faster rate than MNA alone. Additionally, a EBR technology
could act as a barrier to limit the transport of contaminants already present in the groundwater. The performance of this remedy could shorten remedial timeframes for groundwater compliance and could
control migration of the plume to potential receptors. EBR used in conjunction with source control measures would shorten times to compliance.
The existing geochemical conditions, target treatment area, type of injectant, number of injection wells and type of delivery system, and the rate of contaminant degradation have not been determined at this time. We estimate that the time required for planning, testing, design, permitting, equipment selection
and purchase, installation, and equipment startup would require a minimum of 2.5 years. This timeframe does not include the time necessary for groundwater to reach compliance limits. In addition to approval of a EBR remedy by the SWS as part of a CAP (Rule .1637), several permits are required
including: 1) permits for installation of injection wells or direct injection (UIC), and 2) permits and approval for an injectable substance if not already listed by the Occupational and Environmental
Epidemiology Section (OEES).
3.9.3 EBR -- Remedy Costs
Components of estimating EBR costs would include: 1) a complete trend evaluation to assess current contaminant fate; 2) a baseline assessment of site geochemical conditions to determine if site conditions
are conducive for bioremediation; 3) a bioassay to determine if the appropriate microbes are present [if necessary]; 4) lab-scale microcosm treatability studies; 5) engineering design and permitting costs for field-scale pilot testing; 6) installation of pilot test injection wells and the performance of aquifer
injection tests; 7) engineering design and permitting costs for full scale injection; 8) purchase of capital equipment for a full-scale system [pumps, controls, power systems, piping and wiring, tanks, treatment equipment, as required]; 9) preparation of bid packages and contractor selection; 10) injection well
installation [if necessary]; 11) performance of injections of required material either by direct injection during drilling or into injection wells; 12) construction oversight and as-built reporting [for a permanent injection system, if necessary]; and 13) ongoing assessments and reporting of groundwater conditions
and contaminant fate as part of remedy implementation [typically annually].
Our opinion of total cost for a EBR remedy is $750,000 to $1,500,000 with annual sampling, analysis,
evaluation, and reporting costs of $35,000 to $55,000. Typically follow up injections are required with EBR and our opinion of those costs including injection materials, expendable supplies, subcontract
drilling (if needed), reporting, and oversight is $25,000 to $150,000 per event. It should be noted that
EBR costs are highly variable and dependent on the required delivery mechanism (quantity of injection wells or borings), required injection materials, treatability of groundwater, size of treatment area, and
requirements for follow up injections. These data for costing would not be available until after lab-scale and field-scale pilot testing was performed.
Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
39
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Assessment monitoring began at the site in 2011 in accordance with Rule .1634 (b). Several Appendix II constituents have been removed from the monitoring matrix since they were not
detected in the groundwater and therefore reasonably expected not to be in or derived from the
waste unit. The current monitoring matrix requires semi-annual groundwater sampling for Appendix II VOCs and Appendix I total metals for all wells at the site and for pesticides and cyanide
for a subset of wells (Table 10). It has been demonstrated that the primary contaminants of concern are VOCs.
Haywood County has characterized the nature and extent of the release in accordance with Rule .1634 (f)(1)(A). The VOC plume has been substantially defined and the contaminant mass is located primarily beneath the landfill property (Figures 4, 6, 7, and 8). Potential receptors including private
water supply wells and surface waters have not been impacted by the releases at the landfill. Nine potential remedies have been presented herein and evaluated. Four potential remedies are source
control and the remaining five remedies are groundwater remedial technologies. Based on the remedy evaluation requirements in Rules .1635, .1636, and .1637, Haywood County has identified four of the
nine remedies which are viable for possible selection and inclusion in a Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
for the facility. Those remedies are recommended below.

4.1 Recommended Remedies
The nine potential remedies herein have been evaluated based on their effectiveness in the protection of human health and the environment, attaining approved groundwater protection standards, controlling sources to reduce or eliminate future releases, compliance with promulgated standards for waste
management, and for cost-effectiveness. Landfill gas mitigation, leachate recovery, restrictive cover improvements, and MNA are considered
the most appropriate and cost effective primary remedies for this facility at this time. Landfill gas mitigation and leachate recovery systems are already in place at the facility. Both landfill gas and leachate have been shown to be sources of the VOC contaminants in groundwater. It has been shown
that there was a direct correlation between leachate production and precipitation due to settlement and the physical nature of the former soil cap. Some improvements to the existing soil cap have already
been implemented in the engineered waste area as part of the cap maintenance activities documented
herein. Supplemental soils have already been stockpiled at the site for future cap maintenance and/or cap construction. Additional improvements are necessary to limit stormwater infiltration and improve
the gas system efficiency. There have been no restrictive cover improvements in the non-engineered
waste area north of the access road. Restrictive cover improvements in that area will require clearing of the trees and additional stormwater management infrastructure.
MNA is appropriate because the existing data (Section 2.2.1) support the assumption that natural attenuation is actively occurring on the site. Additionally, the VOC plume has not impacted any
potential receptors, the plume is limited in horizontal extent, and sentinel wells are in place to effectively monitor contaminant fate and transport. Phytoremediation is considered the best secondary remedy if the primary remedies are not effective.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
40
4.2 Regulatory Approval and Public Meeting
After review and preliminary approval of this ACM report by the SWS, the ACM and findings herein will be discussed with interested and affected parties in a public meeting to be held by Haywood
County in accordance with Rule .1635 (d). Public notice of the meeting shall be complaint with
Rule .1635 (a)(1 & 2). Meeting minutes will be prepared by Haywood County and submitted to the SWS for their review and consideration prior to final approval of this ACM report.

4.3 Financial Assurance
Haywood County maintains financial assurance for their active solid waste operations pursuant to Rule .1628 (d). The implementation of the selected remedies for the Francis Farm Landfill will be funded from the Haywood County solid waste availability fee.

Assessment of Corrective Measures Report March 16, 2017
Francis Farm Landfill – Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
41
5.0 REFERENCES
Aziz, Carol E., et al., BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System, User’s Manual Version 1.0, 2000, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R00/008, January 2000.

Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE), 2014, Report of Groundwater Assessment: Monitoring Well MW-23D, Closed Francis Farm Landfill, Haywood County, North Carolina. BLE Project No.
J13-1957-39. Cunningham, Jeffrey A., Halla Rahme, Gary D. Hopkins, Carmen Lebron, and Martin Reinhard,
2001, Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of BTEX-Contaminated Groundwater by Combined Injection of Nitrate and Sulfate. Environmental Science & Technol. 2001, v35, 1663-1670
Hatcher, R.D., Jr., December 1979, The Coweeta Group and Coweeta Syncline: Major Features of the North Carolina – Georgia Blue Ridge: Southeastern Geology, Volume 21, No. 1.
Hinchee, R.E., A. Leeson, L. Semprini, and S.K. Ong, 1994, Bioremediation of Chlorinated and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Horton, J.W. and Zullo, V.A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolinas: Carolina Geological Society fifteenth anniversary volume: The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

Landmeyer, James E., 2012, Introduction to Phytoremediation of Contaminated Groundwater, Historic Foundation, Hydrologic Control, and Contaminant Remediation, Springer Science+Business Media,
B.V., New York, NY. Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A. (MESCO), 2004, Groundwater Assessment
Monitoring Plan – MESCO Project No. G04002.0 North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 2007, N.C. Solid Waste
Section Guidelines for Corrective Action at Solid Waste Facilities. Raleigh, North Carolina. Rhodes, Thomas S., and Conrad, Stephen G., 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the NC Geological Survey, 1:500,000-scale, compiled by Brown, Philip M., et al, and Parker, John M. III,
and in association with the State Geologic Map Advisory Committee.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of
Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and Field Applications, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Technology Innovation Office. EPA/542/R00/008, July 2000 (revised).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater, EPA/600/R98/128, September 1998.
Wiedemeier et al., 1999, Natural Attenuation of Fuels and Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface, Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

TABLES
TABLE 1
Groundwater Elevations and Monitoring Well Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Well Northing Easting Lat. North Long. West Meas. Pt.Gnd. Surface Total Borehole Depth to GW Groundwater Screen Well Well Top of Rock Top of
Well Location (feet)(feet)(dd)(dd)Elevation Elevation Depth (bgs)02-19-2014 Elevation Depth (bgs)Type Monitors Depth (bgs)Rock Elev.
MW-1 On-Site 662,529.13 822,317.14 35.505892476 82.958166600 2,666.59 2,663.72 UK >36 <2630.59 UK -UK UK -UK UK UK UK UK
MW-1A On-Site 662,590.73 822,083.15 35.506035959 82.958960455 2,690.88 2,687.97 UK 44.9 2645.99 UK -UK UK -UK UK UK UK UK
MW-2A On-Site 662,347.08 822,814.69 35.505447169 82.956471743 2,643.78 2,640.98 27.0 22.8 2620.98 12.0 -27.0 2,629.0 -2,614.0 II PWR/BR 18.0 2,623.0
MW-3A On-Site 661,921.62 823,026.22 35.504302294 82.955704601 2,674.29 2,671.59 UK 35.8 2638.49 UK -UK UK -UK UK UK UK UK
MW-4 On-Site 661,420.29 822,245.39 35.502840483 82.958258973 2,789.47 2,786.88 UK 68.6 2720.92 UK -UK UK -UK UK UK UK UK
MW-5 On-Site 661,286.31 822,167.91 35.502464177 82.958501150 2,797.08 2,797.37 94.0 71.4 73.1 -88.1 2,724.3 -2,709.3 II PWR 89.0 2,708.4
Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-6 through MW-25 Installed by BLE
MW-6 Off-Site 662,941.12 822,167.78 35.507007166 82.958723254 2,612.63 2,613.03 12.5 5.7 2606.96 2.3 -12.3 2,610.7 -2,600.7 II Res/Collv 12.5 2,600.5
MW-7 Off-Site 662,800.72 822,584.39 35.506667347 82.957305699 2,621.33 2,621.48 24.0 6.3 2615.05 4.0 -19.0 2,617.5 -2,602.5 II Collv/Allv NE NE
MW-8 Off-Site 662,619.60 822,989.68 35.506214483 82.955920712 2,620.05 2,620.25 19.0 3.8 2616.29 3.0 -13.0 2,617.3 -2,607.3 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-9 Off-Site 662,309.84 823,295.25 35.505397531 82.954853325 2,618.67 2,619.19 19.0 1.4 2617.30 2.0 -12.0 2,617.2 -2,607.2 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-10 Off-Site 661,947.33 823,365.59 35.504410017 82.954568656 2,623.60 2,623.96 15.0 1.7 2621.88 2.0 -12.0 2,622.0 -2,612.0 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-11 On-Site 661,509.39 822,572.73 35.503120939 82.957171928 2,756.22 2,756.46 100.0 76.9 2679.33 70.8 -85.8 2,685.7 -2,670.7 II BR 71.0 2,685.5
MW-12 Off-Site 661,078.94 822,142.39 35.501892082 82.958559051 2,803.11 2,800.28 90.0 70.0 2733.16 64.8 -79.8 2,735.5 -2,720.5 II BR 64.0 2,736.3
MW-13 On-Site 661,377.43 821,791.88 35.502673138 82.959775795 2,799.14 2,799.51 127.0 81.2 2717.92 74.0 -89.0 2,725.5 -2,710.5 II PWR/BR 81.0 2,718.5
MW-14 On-Site 661,894.81 821,755.37 35.504089518 82.959967696 2,770.34 2,770.64 120.0 84.7 2685.64 93.8 -108.8 2,676.8 -2,661.8 II BR 33.0 2,737.6
MW-14D On-Site 661,878.59 821,754.85 35.504044931 82.959967268 2,771.63 2,772.05 250.5 144.7 2626.90 202.0 -212.0 2,570.0 -2,560.0 II BR 41.0 2,731.0
MW-15 On-Site 662,338.59 821,896.86 35.505323343 82.959552125 2,719.57 2,716.89 163.0 81.8 2637.75 75.8 -90.8 2,641.1 -2,626.1 II BR 19.0 2,697.9
MW-16 Off-Site 661,203.62 821,457.75 35.502159358 82.960874268 2,716.16 2,716.29 70.0 52.7 2663.47 54.8 -69.8 2,661.5 -2,646.5 II PWR/BR 63.0 2,653.3
MW-16D Off-Site 661,192.49 821,467.73 35.502129896 82.960839270 2,716.28 2,716.57 150.0 72.0 2644.31 116.0 -126.0 2,600.6 -2,590.6 II BR 81.0 2,635.6
MW-17 Off-Site 661,739.15 821,178.09 35.503598911 82.961884951 2,664.77 2,665.07 73.0 47.9 2616.85 49.8 -64.8 2,615.3 -2,600.3 II PWR/BR 63.0 2,602.1
MW-18 Off-Site 662,150.91 821,256.31 35.504737902 82.961677540 2,620.91 2,620.93 41.0 24.3 2596.63 25.8 -40.8 2,595.1 -2,580.1 II BR 22.0 2,598.9
MW-19 Off-Site 662,965.29 822,624.55 35.507123544 82.957192901 2,615.08 2,615.29 21.0 6.3 2608.75 5.5 -20.5 2,609.8 -2,594.8 II Allv/Res NE NE
MW-19D Off-Site 662,952.84 822,617.92 35.507088639 82.957213494 2,615.33 2,615.62 59.0 5.9 2609.48 53.9 -58.9 2,561.7 -2,556.7 II PWR NE NE
MW-20 Off-Site 661,973.29 823,503.41 35.504496365 82.954109418 2,621.94 2,622.13 15.5 1.4 2620.52 5.3 -15.3 2,616.8 -2,606.8 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-20D Off-Site 661,973.43 823,494.68 35.504495795 82.954138746 2,621.94 2,622.12 69.0 0.1 2621.84 60.0 -65.0 2,562.1 -2,557.1 II PWR NE NE
MW-21 Off-Site 661,424.40 823,203.28 35.502956636 82.955043604 2,658.37 2,658.72 36.0 19.8 2638.58 18.8 -33.8 2,639.9 -2,624.9 II Residuum NE NE
MW-22 Off-Site 661,046.30 820,724.07 35.501647029 82.963316321 2,599.86 2,600.00 25.0 1.1 2598.78 4.0 -24.0 2,596.0 -2,576.0 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-23 Off-Site 663,169.77 822,719.36 35.507695290 82.956901959 2,611.43 2,611.63 24.0 0.7 2610.71 3.8 -23.8 2,607.8 -2,587.8 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-23D Off-Site 663,182.53 822,725.71 35.507731029 82.956882336 2,611.52 2,611.75 62.0 2.1 2609.47 53.0 -58.0 2,558.8 -2,553.8 III BR 37.0 2,574.8
MW-24 Off-Site 662,019.81 823,641.42 35.504639177 82.953652291 2,625.80 2,626.04 35.0 3.2 2622.60 7.5 -27.5 2,618.5 -2,598.5 II Collv/PWR/BR 15.0 2,611.0
MW-25 Off-Site 661,488.76 822,382.32 35.503043453 82.957808429 2,756.31 2,756.67 259.5 48.3 2708.02 249.3 -259.3 2,507.4 -2,497.4 II BR 62.0 2,694.7
Notes:
All survey data provided by McGill Associates, all units in feet.BR & PWR = Bedrock & Partially Weathered Rock
All values shown to the nearest 0.1-ft have been rounded.Res = Residuum
MW-1, -1A, -2A, -3A, -4, -5 installed by others. MW-6 through MW-25 installed by BLE.Collv = Colluvium
Wells abandoned in December 2015 as part of future cap improvements.Allv = Alluvium
Screen
Elevation
Table 1 GWM of Tables 1 and 10 ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: IAI/MSP
Table 2A
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) February 2011 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 22, 2011 (Pace Projects 9288391 & 9288386)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15
Acetone mg/l 2.2 25 6000 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 2.3 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1 1 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 15.5 5.1 <0.25 0.72 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 5.3 1.3 0.42
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1 4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 1.2
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1 50 1.8 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.93 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.61 1.6 <0.23
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1 3000 1.5 <0.54 7.3 3.1 4 <0.54 1.3 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 1.3 1.3 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1 70 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1 3 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 0.26
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.5 5 0.04 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.3 1 20 <0.3 <0.3 1.1 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.4 <0.3 <0.3 0.33 4.2 <0.3 <0.3 104 3.3
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1 6 <0.33 7 1.2 4.7 1.3 <0.33 1.7 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.4 <0.33 5.9 21.4 0.8
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1 6 1.2 1.4 17.5 31.9 12.9 <0.32 4.4 <0.32 0.34 3.1 7.5 <0.32 4.8 1.5 1
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1 0.4 <0.12 <0.12 2.8 2 <0.12 <0.12 3 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1 7 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1 70 1 5.6 1.6 34.6 14.4 <0.19 2.7 <0.19 0.55 2.3 10.9 <0.19 17.3 32.5 8.9
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1 0.6 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.58 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.46 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l 0.12 1 70 NT NT NT NT NT <0.12 0.31 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.31 <0.12 0.67 0.34 0.24
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1 600 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.7 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 2 5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 46.6 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1 70 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.4 1 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 6.7 5.6 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.85 0.53 <0.46 2.2 <0.46 <0.46
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 11.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1 3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 7 4.8 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 0.55 0.53 <0.47 1.7 <0.47 <0.47
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.2 1 2000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1 0.03 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 0.79 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 8.4 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 4.2 2.3 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 8.8 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 1 1000 NT NT NT NT NT <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 5.5 14.0 31.5 177.8 50.4 ND 19.3 ND 0.9 7.1 25.8 ND 49.4 163.9 16.1
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on February 22, 2011
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2A Feb 11 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MLT/TZS
Table 2B
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) August 2011 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on August 23, 2011 (Pace Project 92100967)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15
Acetone mg/l 2.2 25 6000 <2.2 4.4 4.1 7.9 3.7 <2.2 2.5 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 2.6 2.5 <2.2
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1 1 0.28 0.61 0.3 16.9 4.2 <0.25 0.79 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 4.4 1.2 0.39
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1 4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1 50 2.6 0.59 0.73 0.61 <0.23 <0.23 0.93 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.45 1.7 <0.23
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1 3000 2.2 2.5 <0.54 2.7 2.9 <0.54 1.2 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 1.2 1.6 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1 70 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1 3 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.5 5 0.04 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.3 1 20 0.43 1.3 0.7 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.5 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 4 <0.3 <0.3 97.1 2.8
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1 6 0.37 7.3 0.96 5.1 1.1 <0.33 1.6 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.5 <0.33 5.6 21.7 0.69
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1 6 1.4 1.7 14.7 33.2 9.6 <0.32 4.6 <0.32 1.5 2.8 9.6 <0.32 4.3 1.3 0.82
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1 0.4 0.97 <0.12 2.1 2 0.23 <0.12 3.2 <0.12 0.12 <0.12 0.27 <0.12 0.36 <0.12 <0.12
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1 7 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 0.64 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1 70 1 4 2.4 36.7 11.5 <0.19 3.6 0.2 2.3 2.1 10.1 <0.19 15.8 31.1 7.7
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1 0.6 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.57 <0.27 <0.27 0.58 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.42 <0.27 0.38 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l 0.12 1 70 0.13 0.44 0.43 1.7 0.17 <0.12 0.29 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.12 <0.12 0.61 0.42 0.25
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1 600 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 2 5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 48.5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1 70 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.4 1 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 7.5 4.6 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 1.2 0.85 1 <0.46 1.7 <0.46 <0.46
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1 3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 7.9 3.7 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 0.51 0.86 <0.47 1.5 <0.47 <0.47
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.2 1 2000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1 0.03 <0.62 <0.62 0.66 0.96 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 4.9 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 2.8 1.9 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 7.7 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 1 1000 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 0.99 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 9.7 23.2 27.4 181.6 44.0 ND 20.8 0.2 5.1 6.3 27.9 ND 46.6 158.6 12.7
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on August 23, 2011
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2B Aug 11 2B VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MLT/TZS
Table 2C
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) February 2012 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 21-22, 2012 (Pace Projects 92112617 & 92112760)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15 MW-16 MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-20 MW-21
Acetone mg/l 2.2 25 6000 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1 1 <0.25 0.65 <0.25 16.9 3.9 <0.25 0.68 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 5.0 1.3 0.43 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.39 <0.25 <0.25
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1 4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1 50 2.5 0.27 0.44 0.53 <0.23 <0.23 0.88 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.55 1.5 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.5 <0.23 <0.23
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1 3000 1.7 <0.54 3.7 1.7 2.3 <0.54 0.87 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 1.2 1.2 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1 70 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1 3 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.5 5 0.04 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.3 1 20 0.48 <0.3 0.56 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.6 <0.3 <0.3 0.65 5 <0.3 <0.3 75.9 4.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.94 <0.3 <0.3
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1 6 0.42 3.1 0.61 4.9 0.99 <0.33 1.6 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.6 <0.33 6.0 18.7 0.79 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 0.99 <0.33 <0.33
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1 6 1.2 0.63 8.4 30.1 8.1 <0.32 3.0 <0.32 <0.32 2.1 8.5 <0.32 4.7 0.88 0.88 1.8 <0.32 <0.32 3.4 0.46 <0.32
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1 0.4 0.86 <0.12 0.71 1.7 <0.12 <0.12 2.2 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.15 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 3.2 <0.12 <0.12
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1 7 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 0.57 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1 70 0.78 4.6 0.8 33.1 10.2 <0.19 2.4 <0.19 <0.19 1.7 10.6 <0.19 18.4 20.7 9.0 1.5 <0.19 <0.19 1.3 <0.19 <0.19
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1 0.6 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.47 <0.27 <0.27 0.42 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.51 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l 0.12 1 70 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1 600 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 2 5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 32.6 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1 70 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.4 1 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 5.9 3.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.89 0.93 <0.46 1.6 <0.46 <0.46 0.82 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1 3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 7.3 3.6 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 0.50 <0.47 <0.47 1.6 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.2 1 2000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 3.8 3.8
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1 0.03 <0.62 0.65 <0.62 0.78 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 0.74 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 4.9 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.7 0.52 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 7.7 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 1 1000 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 0.7 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 7.9 9.9 15.2 143.9 33.3 ND 13.7 ND ND 5.8 26.8 ND 47.5 120.2 15.1 4.1 ND ND 11.2 4.3 3.8
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on February 21-22, 2012
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2C Feb 12 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MLT/TZS
Table 2D
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) August 2012 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on August 27-29, 2012 (Pace Project #92129364)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15 MW-16 MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-20 MW-21
Acetone mg/l 2.2 25 6000 <2.2 2.6 <2.2 4.1 <2.2 <2.2 2.9 3.7 3.5 <2.2 2.2 <2.2 2.4 <2.2 3.8 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 <2.2
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1 1 0.32 0.65 <0.25 15.6 3.3 <0.25 0.64 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.36 <0.25 4.4 1.1 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.33 <0.25 <0.25
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1 4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1 50 2.3 0.66 0.64 0.53 <0.23 <0.23 0.82 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.44 1.4 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.57 <0.23 <0.23
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1 3000 0.73 <0.54 1.8 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1 70 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1 3 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.5 5 0.04 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.3 1 20 0.57 1.8 0.62 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.6 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 5.9 <0.3 <0.3 70.7 4.4 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.2 <0.3 <0.3
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1 6 <0.33 8.6 0.88 5 0.87 <0.33 1.4 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.8 <0.33 5.6 17.5 0.74 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.3 <0.33 <0.33
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1 6 1.3 1.5 15.2 26.5 7.4 <0.32 2.6 <0.32 0.91 1.8 6.8 <0.32 3.3 0.76 0.68 1.6 <0.32 <0.32 4.5 0.42 <0.32
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1 0.4 0.96 0.36 2.1 1.4 <0.12 <0.12 1.7 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.26 <0.12 0.23 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 3.9 <0.12 <0.12
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1 7 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1 70 0.99 2.8 2.6 30.5 8 <0.19 2.2 <0.19 1.6 1.3 15.1 <0.19 13.9 22.8 5.3 1.2 <0.19 <0.19 1.3 <0.19 <0.19
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1 0.6 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.58 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l 0.12 1 70 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1 600 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 1 5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 16.8 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1 70 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.4 1 0.2 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 5.8 3.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.86 0.66 0.98 <0.46 1.5 <0.46 <0.46 0.75 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1 600 <0.26 <0.26 0.38 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1 3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 7 3.4 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 1.1 <0.47 1.3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.2 1 2000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1 0.03 <0.62 <0.62 0.78 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 4.2 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.1 0.29 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 6.7 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 1 1000 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 7.2 19.0 25.0 118.5 27.0 ND 13.9 3.7 6.9 3.8 34.5 ND 39.8 114.3 14.9 3.6 ND ND 13.7 0.4 ND
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on August 27-29, 2012
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2D Aug 12 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MLT/TZS
Table 2E
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) February 2013 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 18-21, 2013 (Pace Projects #92148500 & 92148504)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 10.0 25 6000 <10.0 14.6 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1 1 <0.25 0.45 0.39 17.1 4.1 <0.25 0.65 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.46 <0.25 3.5 1.2 <0.25 0.84 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1 4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 9.5 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 3.9
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1 50 3.1 <0.23 0.34 0.56 <0.23 <0.23 1.1 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.36 1.5 <0.23 0.28 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.53 2.3 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1 3000 2.1 <0.54 2.7 1.3 2.4 <0.54 1.3 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 2.1 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1 70 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1 3 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.5 5 0.04 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.30 1 20 0.76 0.33 0.53 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 2.2 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 5.9 <0.30 <0.30 76.7 5.9 9.2 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 1.1 3.2 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.24 1 200 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 0.40 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1 6 0.53 2.2 0.49 5.6 1.1 <0.33 1.9 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.6 <0.33 5.2 18.1 1.1 1.6 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.1 2.7 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1.0 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1 6 1.4 0.52 7.0 27.5 7.9 <0.32 2.9 <0.32 0.52 1.8 5.7 <0.32 2.7 0.76 <0.32 0.76 0.58 1.1 <0.32 <0.32 3.6 3.4 <0.32 0.97 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 3.1
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1 0.4 <0.12 <0.12 0.63 1.6 <0.12 <0.12 2.2 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 3.0 3.7 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1 7 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1 70 0.5 1.6 <0.19 31.4 10.4 <0.19 2.6 <0.19 0.81 1.6 17.3 <0.19 14.2 20.6 1.5 10.6 0.39 0.63 <0.19 <0.19 1.1 0.78 <0.19 0.86 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 2.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1 0.6 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.86 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1 600 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 0.46 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 1 5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 21.4 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 2.4
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Naphthalene mg/l 0.24 1 6 0.91 <0.24 <0.24 5.2 0.82 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1 70 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.40 1 0.2 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 5.8 4.4 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.60 0.69 <0.46 0.78 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 1.3 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 0.32 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1 3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 6.1 3.3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 0.82 <0.47 0.67 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.20 1 2000 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1 0.03 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 5.6 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.9 0.76 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 2.8 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 1 1000 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 9.3 19.7 12.1 132.8 35.2 ND 14.9 ND 1.3 4.0 32.5 ND 30.2 119.3 18.3 23.3 1.0 1.7 ND ND 10.4 19.0 ND 1.8 ND ND ND ND 11.4
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on February 18-21, 2013
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2E Feb 13 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MLT/TZS
Table 2F
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) August 2013 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on August 20-26, 2013 (Pace Project #92169299)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 10.0 25 6000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 13.7 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 20.6
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1 1 0.45 0.93 0.50 15.7 3.7 <0.25 0.64 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 3.8 1.0 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.37 0.52 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 8.6
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1 4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 4.3 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 5.8
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1 50 3.8 0.40 0.42 0.65 <0.23 <0.23 1.2 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.72 1.8 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.67 2.3 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.46
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1 3000 2.3 <0.54 5.7 <0.54 2.1 <0.54 1.5 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 2.8 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 2.4
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1 70 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 2.3 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1 3 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.5 5 0.04 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.30 1 20 0.97 0.47 0.57 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 2.6 <0.30 <0.30 0.33 4.2 <0.30 <0.30 78.6 2.3 8.2 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 1.2 3.4 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 0.33
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.24 1 200 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 0.43 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1 6 0.65 5.7 0.82 6.2 1.1 <0.33 2.2 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.5 <0.33 6.4 20.7 0.49 1.1 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.2 3.0 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 3.9
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1.0 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1 6 1.3 0.56 7.9 20.8 7.8 <0.32 2.6 <0.32 0.80 1.5 6.6 <0.32 2.1 0.71 <0.32 0.58 <0.32 1.1 <0.32 <0.32 2.8 2.7 0.68 0.99 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 16.3
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1 0.4 1.2 <0.12 0.77 1.5 <0.12 <0.12 1.9 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.29 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 2.5 3.0 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.99
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1 7 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1 70 0.38 5.1 2.0 25.8 8.6 <0.19 1.8 <0.19 1.1 1.4 17.2 <0.19 11.3 18.1 0.76 4.5 <0.19 0.77 <0.19 <0.19 1.1 0.55 0.32 0.89 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 23.2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1 0.6 0.31 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.64 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1 600 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 1 5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 40.6 2.9 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 28.3
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Naphthalene mg/l 0.24 1 6 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 5.8 0.56 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 0.48 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 7.7
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1 70 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.40 1 0.2 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 5.9 4.4 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.70 0.68 1.0 <0.46 0.97 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 3.3
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 0.43
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1 3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 6.0 3.8 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 1.1 <0.47 0.94 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 3.7
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.20 1 2000 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1 0.03 <0.62 0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 5.7 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.9 0.60 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 4.7 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.55
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 1 1000 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 11.4 13.8 18.7 136.6 49.3 ND 14.4 ND 2.6 3.9 31.9 ND 31.4 121.3 7.9 14.4 2.3 1.9 ND ND 9.8 18.9 1.0 1.9 ND ND ND ND 126.6
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on August 20-26, 2013
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2F Aug 13 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MLT/TZS
Table 2G
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) February 2014 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 20-26, 2014 (Pace Project 92190605, 92190677, 92191006 & 92191140)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 10.0 25 6000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.10 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1 1 0.36 0.86 0.34 16.5 4.4 <0.25 0.72 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.28 <0.25 3.6 1.3 <0.25 0.26 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.73 0.54 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 5.7
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1 4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.3 <1.2 1.2
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1 50 2.5 0.29 <0.23 0.61 <0.23 <0.23 1.2 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.57 1.5 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.8 2.0 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.39
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1 3000 1.2 0.94 1.1 0.78 1.4 <0.54 1.2 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 0.57 1.0 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 1.7 1.6 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1 70 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 1.4 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1 3 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1 0.4 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.5 5 0.04 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.6 <2.5 <2.5
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.30 1 20 1.0 0.43 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 2.8 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 3.3 <0.30 <0.30 70.5 1.6 7.2 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 3.1 3.3 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.24 1 200 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 0.42 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1 6 0.49 4.0 <0.33 6.1 1.4 <0.33 2.3 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.0 <0.33 7.3 18.0 0.36 0.72 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 2.8 2.5 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 2.8
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1.0 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.1 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1 6 1.2 0.46 3.2 21.2 6.8 <0.32 2.3 <0.32 0.72 1.1 5.2 <0.32 1.7 0.68 <0.32 0.54 <0.32 1.2 <0.32 <0.32 3.4 2.3 0.67 1.1 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 8.7
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1 0.4 0.99 <0.12 <0.12 1.7 0.25 <0.12 1.7 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.25 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 3.0 2.6 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.87
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1 7 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1 70 0.67 2.8 0.59 27.6 10.2 <0.19 1.6 <0.19 1.0 1.2 14.8 <0.19 10.9 15.1 0.68 3.7 <0.19 0.82 <0.19 <0.19 1.9 0.58 0.35 0.96 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 14.1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1 0.6 0.31 <0.27 <0.27 0.48 <0.27 <0.27 0.53 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.31 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.79 0.71 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1 600 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 1 5 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 34.1 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Naphthalene mg/l 0.24 1 6 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 6.5 0.80 1.6 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 1.0 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 8.9
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1 70 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.40 1 0.2 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 6.0 5.1 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.65 0.54 1.1 <0.46 1.2 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.62 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.52 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 1.3
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1 3 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 6.0 4.1 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 1.2 <0.47 0.98 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 1.9
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.20 1 2000 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1 0.03 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 4.6 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.8 0.52 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 1 1000 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 0.58 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 8.7 9.8 5.2 134.6 35.0 1.6 14.4 ND 2.4 2.8 27.2 ND 28.1 108.5 2.6 12.4 1.4 2.6 ND ND 19.2 16.1 1.0 3.8 ND ND ND ND ND 45.9
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on August 20-26, 2013
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2G Feb 14 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA/MJS
Checked by: MLT/TZS/AWA
Table 2H
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) August 2014 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on August 24-28, 2014 (Pace Project 92214653 & 92214654)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 10.0 25.0 6000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 10.0 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1.0 1.0 <0.25 1.2 <0.25 15.9 3.2 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 1.9 1.6 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 1.0
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1.0 NE <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1.0 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1.0 4.0 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2.0 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2.0 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1.0 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1.0 50.0 1.8 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.3 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.5 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 2.3 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1.0 3000 1.5 3.9 3.0 <0.54 1.8 <0.54 1.8 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 1.2 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 2.6 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1.0 70.0 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1.0 3.0 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1.0 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.0 2.0 0.04 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1.0 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1.0 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.30 1.0 20.0 <0.30 2 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 2.6 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 2.5 <0.30 <0.30 60.5 1.4 6.3 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 1.5 3.4 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l NT NT 200.0 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1.0 6.0 <0.33 11.5 <0.33 6 <0.33 <0.33 2.3 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 6.6 16.0 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.8 3.0 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.4
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1.0 6.0 <0.32 1.4 9.7 21.8 8.1 <0.32 3.0 <0.32 1.10 1.6 6.0 <0.32 1.8 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 1.4 <0.32 <0.32 3.9 2.9 <0.32 1.2 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 14.7
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1.0 0.4 <0.12 <0.12 1.0 2.0 <0.12 <0.12 2.0 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 3.0 3.0 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1.0 7.0 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1.0 70.0 <0.19 4.4 1.4 32.7 7.9 <0.19 2.4 <0.19 1.5 1.6 17.4 <0.19 12.1 16.5 <0.19 3.0 <0.19 1.0 <0.19 <0.19 1.7 <0.19 <0.19 1.1 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 14.8
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1.0 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1.0 0.6 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1.0 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1.0 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70.0 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1.0 600 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5.0 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5.0 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 2.0 5.0 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 4.0 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 5.5
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5.0 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5.0 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Naphthalene mg/l 0.24 1.0 6.0 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1.0 70.0 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1.0 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.40 1.0 NE <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1.0 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 5.8 4.2 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 1.0 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 1.6
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1.0 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1.0 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1.0 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1.0 3.0 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 6.0 3.6 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 1.1 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 2.2
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.20 1.0 2000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1.0 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2.0 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1.0 0.03 <0.62 1.3 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2.0 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 1.7 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1.0 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.1 0.54 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l NT NT 1000 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 3.3 25.7 15.1 97.0 29.3 ND 15.4 ND 2.6 3.2 27.0 ND 23.4 97.3 1.4 9.3 ND 2.4 ND ND 11.9 17.2 ND 2.3 ND ND ND ND ND 41.2
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on August 22-28, 2014
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2H Aug 14 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
Table 2I
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) February 2015 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on Feburaury 25- March 20 2015 (Pace Project 92238381 & 92238730)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 10.0 25.0 6000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 16.6 <10.0 <10.0
Acrylonitrile mg/l 1.9 50.0 NE <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9
Benzene mg/l 0.25 1.0 1.0 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 13.1 1.4 <0.25 <0.25 0.59 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 1.3 1.0 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.92
Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.17 1.0 NE <0.17 0.53 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.18 1.0 0.6 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 0.26 1.0 4.0 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.2 2.0 700 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 <1.2
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 0.29 2.0 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.25 1.0 0.3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 0.23 1.0 50.0 0.84 0.47 <0.23 0.89 <0.23 <0.23 1.1 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.24 1.3 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 0.50 2.1 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Chloroethane mg/l 0.54 1.0 3000 <0.54 2.1 1.7 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 0.94 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 2.0 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54 <0.54
Chloroform mg/l 0.14 1.0 70.0 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 0.25 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 0.11 1.0 3.0 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0.11
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.21 1.0 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 2.0 2.0 0.04 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 0.27 1.0 0.02 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
Dibromomethane mg/l 0.21 1.0 NE <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.30 1.0 20.0 0.42 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.9 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.9 <0.3 <0.3 58.6 1.8 5.7 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1.1 3.2 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.24 1.0 200 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.33 1.0 6.0 <0.33 6.4 0.46 6.1 0.51 <0.33 2 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 0.69 <0.33 5.8 15.4 0.45 0.50 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.3 2.8 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 1.2
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.32 1.0 6.0 0.45 0.86 3.2 14.1 4.3 <0.32 2.4 <0.32 <0.32 1.6 5.0 <0.32 1.4 0.56 <0.32 <0.32 0.40 1.2 <0.32 <0.32 3.0 2.4 0.77 1.0 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 10.9
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.12 1.0 0.4 0.33 <0.12 0.16 1.2 <0.12 <0.12 1.8 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.31 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 2.6 3.0 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 0.63
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.56 1.0 7.0 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 0.45 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56 <0.56
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.19 1.0 70.0 0.36 2.7 <0.19 18.9 2.9 <0.19 1.8 <0.19 <0.19 1.4 12.2 <0.19 8.0 12 0.66 1.8 0.29 0.78 <0.19 <0.19 1.3 <0.19 <0.19 0.74 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 <0.19 9.2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 0.49 1.0 100 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49 <0.49
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 0.27 1.0 0.6 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 0.50 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27 <0.27
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.13 1.0 0.4 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 0.26 1.0 0.4 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70.0 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.3 1.0 600 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3
2-Hexanone mg/l 0.46 5.0 NE <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46
Iodomethane mg/l 0.32 5.0 NE <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32 <0.32
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 0.97 1.0 5.0 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 12.2 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 <0.97 4.9
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 0.96 5.0 4000 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96 <0.96
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 0.33 5.0 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
Naphthalene mg/l 0.24 1.0 6.0 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 2.1 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24 <0.24
Styrene mg/l 0.26 1.0 70.0 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.33 1.0 NE <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33 <0.33
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.40 1.0 NE <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.46 1.0 0.7 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 4.2 3.0 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 0.47 0.79 <0.46 0.58 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 <0.46 1.0
Toluene mg/l 0.26 1.0 600 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 0.27 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.48 1.0 200 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48 <0.48
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 0.29 1.0 NE <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29 <0.29
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 0.47 1.0 3.0 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 4.0 2.0 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 0.90 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 <0.47 1.3
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.20 1.0 2000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 0.41 1.0 0.005 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 0.35 2.0 NE <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35 <0.35
Vinyl chloride mg/l 0.62 1.0 0.03 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 0.66 2.0 500 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 1.8 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66 <0.66
O Xylene mg/l 0.23 1.0 500 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 1.1 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.21 NT 1000 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21 <0.21
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 2.4 13.1 5.5 79.7 14.1 ND 11.0 0.6 ND 3.5 21.8 ND 17.3 89.8 3.2 8.5 0.9 2.0 ND ND 10.3 15.5 0.8 1.7 ND ND ND 16.6 ND 30.1
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on Feburaury 25 - March 20, 2015
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2I Feb 15 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
Table 2J
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) August 2015 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on August 24-26, 2015 (Shealy Project QH26056)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 20.0 20.0 6000 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Acrylonitrile mg/l 20.0 20.0 NE <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Benzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 16.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bromochloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bromoform mg/l 1.0 1.0 4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 1.0 1.0 700 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 2.0 2.0 NE <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 1.0 1.0 50.0 2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloroethane mg/l 2.0 2.0 3000 <2.0 3.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Chloroform mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 1.0 1.0 3.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.04 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.02 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dibromomethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 20.0 1.1 2.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 42 1.9 7.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.6 3.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 200 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 6.0 <1.0 11.0 <1.0 8.2 <1.0 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.0 9.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.6 3.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 6.0 <1.0 1.3 3.9 17 4.1 <1.0 2.8 <1.0 1.10 1.5 6.8 <1.0 1.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 3.8 2.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.1
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.7 2.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 7.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 <1.0 2.7 <1.0 23 2.4 <1.0 2.6 <1.0 1.3 1.3 12 <1.0 9.5 12.0 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 5.2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 100 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70.0 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 600 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
2-Hexanone mg/l 10.0 10.0 NE <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Iodomethane mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 1.0 1.0 5.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 10.0 10.0 4000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 10.0 10.0 NE <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Naphthalene mg/l NT NT 6.0 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Styrene mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 5.5 2.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Toluene mg/l 1.0 1.0 600 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 200 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 3.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.9 1.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 2000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Vinyl acetate mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Vinyl chloride mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.03 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
M&P Xylene mg/l 2.0 2.0 500 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 3.9 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
O Xylene mg/l 1.0 1.0 500 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 2.0 2.0 1000 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE 3.1 20.4 3.9 87.9 11.9 ND 11.5 ND 2.4 2.8 21.0 ND 19.8 63.0 1.9 9.8 ND 1.5 ND ND 11.6 14.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 14.3
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Shealy on August 24 - 26, 2015
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2J Aug 15 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
Table 2K
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) February 2016 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on March 16-18, 2016 (Shealy Project RC18024)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 20.0 20.0 6000 AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Acrylonitrile mg/l 20.0 20.0 NE AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Benzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 1.0 AB AB AB AB 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.7
Bromochloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.6 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 <0.18
Bromoform mg/l 1.0 1.0 4.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 2.0 2.0 700 AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 2.0 2.0 NE AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.3 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 1.0 1.0 50.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 3000 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloroform mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 1.0 1.0 3.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.04 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.02 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dibromomethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 20.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 3.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3.6 <1.0 AB AB AB 8.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 200 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 6.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 2.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 AB AB AB 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 2.0 2.0 NE AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 6.0 AB AB AB AB 4.7 <1.0 2.8 <1.0 1.60 1.8 6.8 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 1.1 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11.0
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 1.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 7.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 AB AB AB AB 2.8 <1.0 1.9 <1.0 1.7 1.8 16 <1.0 AB AB AB 4.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 8.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 100 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.6 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70.0 AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 600 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
2-Hexanone mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Iodomethane mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 1.0 1.0 5.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 10.0 10.0 4000 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Naphthalene mg/l NT NT 6.0 AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Styrene mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.7 AB AB AB AB 3.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5
Toluene mg/l 1.0 1.0 600 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 200 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 3.0 AB AB AB AB 1.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.7
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 2000 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.20
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.005 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.41
Vinyl acetate mg/l 2.0 2.0 NE AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Vinyl chloride mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.03 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.62
M&P Xylene mg/l 2.0 2.0 500 AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
O Xylene mg/l 1.0 1.0 500 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 1000 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE AB AB AB AB 14.0 ND 13.3 ND 3.3 3.6 28.6 ND AB AB AB 14.7 ND 1.5 ND ND 3.5 ND 1.1 2.4 ND ND ND ND ND 25.3
Notes:
AB = Abandonded well NT = Not Tested
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
RL = Laboratory Report Limit Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Samples collected by Shealy on March 16-18, 2016
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2K Feb 16 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
Table 2L
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) August 2016 Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on August 22-24, 2016 (Shealy Project RH24003)
COMPOUND UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Acetone mg/l 20.0 20.0 6000 AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Acrylonitrile mg/l 20.0 20.0 NE AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Benzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 1.0 AB AB AB AB 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4
Bromochloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bromodichloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.6 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bromoform mg/l 1.0 1.0 4.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Carbon Disulfide mg/l 2.0 2.0 700 AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Bromomethane (Methylbromide)mg/l 2.0 2.0 NE AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.3 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chlorobenzene (mono)mg/l 1.0 1.0 50.0 AB AB AB AB <0.23 <0.23 1.2 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 3000 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloroform mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)mg/l 1.0 1.0 3.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dibromochloromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.04 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.02 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dibromomethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 20.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 3.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.9 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 200 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 6.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/l 2.0 2.0 NE AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 6.0 AB AB AB AB 4.8 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 1.5 1.6 5.4 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 3.1 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 9.4
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 1.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 7.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 AB AB AB AB 4.2 <1.0 1.8 <1.0 1.8 1.6 11.0 <1.0 AB AB AB 2.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 100 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2-Dichloropropane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.6 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene (-propylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.4 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)mg/l NT NT 70.0 AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Ethylbenzene mg/l 1.0 1.0 600 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
2-Hexanone mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Iodomethane mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)mg/l 1.0 1.0 5.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)mg/l 10.0 10.0 4000 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Naphthalene mg/l NT NT 6.0 AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Styrene mg/l 1.0 1.0 70.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.7 AB AB AB AB 2.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Toluene mg/l 1.0 1.0 600 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 200 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 NE AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)mg/l 1.0 1.0 3.0 AB AB AB AB 2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 2000 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.005 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Vinyl acetate mg/l 2.0 2.0 NE AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Vinyl chloride mg/l 1.0 1.0 0.0 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
M&P Xylene mg/l 2.0 2.0 500 AB AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 AB AB AB <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
O Xylene mg/l 1.0 1.0 500 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 1.0 1.0 1000 AB AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 AB AB AB <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total VOCs mg/l NE NE NE AB AB AB AB 15.4 ND 12.1 ND 3.3 3.2 18.3 ND AB AB AB 2.1 ND 1.2 ND ND 9.1 ND ND 1.2 ND ND ND ND ND 17.9
Notes:
AB = Abandonded well NT = Not Tested
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
RL = Laboratory Report Limit Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Samples collected by Shealy on August 22-24, 2016
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Table 2L Aug 16 VOCs of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
Table 3A (2011)
Pesticides, Herbicides, & Cyanide
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 22, 2011 (Pace Project 9288391)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.0015 0.01 0.008 NT NT NT NT NT <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 0.079 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 NP <0.0015 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l *V*0.01 40 NT NT NT NT NT <0.0071 <0.0072 <0.0072 <0.0071 <0.0072 <0.0071 <0.0072 <0.0071 <0.0070 NP <0.0071 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l *V*0.01 40 NT NT NT NT NT <0.00061 <0.00061 <0.00062 <0.00061 <0.00061 <0.00061 <0.00061 <0.00061 <0.00060 NP <0.00061 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l *V*0.01 0.02 NT NT NT NT NT <0.00051 <0.00051 <0.00052 <0.00051 <0.00051 <0.00051 <0.00051 <0.00051 <0.00050 NP <0.00050 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.0002 0.01 0.03 NT NT NT NT NT <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.027 NP <0.0002 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA NT NT NT NT NT ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NP ND NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l 0.049 2 50 NT NT NT NT NT <0.049 0.078 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 NP <0.049 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NA NA NA NT NT NT NT NT ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NP ND NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.005 0.005 0.07 NT NT NT NT NT <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0067 NP 0.0086 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Sampled by Pace on August 23, 2011 (Pace Project 92100967)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-21 MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-21
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*0.008 <0.054 <0.052 <0.056 <0.054 <0.053 <0.054 <0.057 <0.057 <0.059 <0.062 <0.054 <0.053 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.057 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*40 <0.16 <0.16 <0.17 <0.16 <0.16 <0.16 <0.17 <0.17 <0.18 <0.19 <0.16 <0.16 <0.15 0.15 NP <0.17 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*40 <0.054 <0.052 <0.056 <0.054 <0.053 <0.054 <0.057 <0.057 <0.059 <0.062 <0.054 <0.053 <0.050 0.062 NP <0.057 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*0.02 <0.054 0.13 <0.056 <0.054 <0.053 <0.054 <0.057 <0.057 <0.059 <0.062 <0.054 <0.053 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.057 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*0.03 <0.054 <0.052 <0.056 <0.054 <0.053 <0.054 <0.057 <0.057 <0.059 <0.062 0.27 <0.053 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.057 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NP ND NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l 0.049 0.19 50 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 <0.049 NP <0.049 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NP ND NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.005 0.005 0.07 <0.005 0.0092 0.0052 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NP <0.005 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit *V* = The laboratory report varies the MDL and RL from sample to sample
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NA = Not Applicable
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.NT = Not Tested
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).ND = Not Detected
Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
Table 3A PestHerbs (2011) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: TZS
Table 3B (2012)
Pesticides, Herbicides, & Cyanide
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 21-22, 2012 (Pace Projects 92112617 & 92112760)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l <0.050 <0.050 0.1 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.072 0.054 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l <0.050 <0.050 0.008 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l <0.15 <0.15 40 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NP <0.15 <0.15 NP <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NP <0.15 NP <0.15 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l <0.050 <0.050 40 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 0.061 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l <0.050 <0.050 0.02 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l <0.050 <0.050 0.03 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.28 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 0.056 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NP ND ND NP ND ND ND NP ND NP ND NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NP NT NT NP NT NT NT NP NT NP NT NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NP NT NT NP NT NT NT NP NT NP NT NP NP NP NP
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.005 0.005 0.07 <0.005 0.0057 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NP <0.005 <0.005 NP <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NP <0.005 NP <0.005 NP NP NP NP
Sampled by Pace on August 27-29, 2012 (Pace Project #92129364)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*0.1 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*0.008 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*40 <0.15 <0.6 <0.15 <0.6 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.6 <0.15 NP <0.15 <0.15 NP <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 NP <0.15 NP <0.15 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*40 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*0.02 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l *V**V*0.03 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.2 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 NP <0.050 <0.050 0.084 NP <0.050 NP <0.050 NP NP NP NP
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.056 ND ND ND ND ND NP ND ND NP ND ND 0.15 NP ND NP ND NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NP NT NT NP NT NT NT NP NT NP NT NP NP NP NP
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NP NT NT NP NT NT NT NP NT NP NT NP NP NP NP
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.005 0.005 0.07 0.0053 0.0057 <0.005 <0.005 0.0057 0.0052 0.0055 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NP <0.005 <0.005 NP <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NP <0.005 NP <0.005 NP NP NP NP
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit *V* = The laboratory report varies the MDL and RL from sample to sample
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NA = Not Applicable
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.NT = Not Tested
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).ND = Not Detected
Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
Table 3B PestHerbs (2012) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA/BPN
Checked by: TZS/PJVH
Table 3C (2013)
Pesticides, Herbicides, & Cyanide
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 18-21, 2013 (Pace Project 92148500 & 92148504)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.1 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.008 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.15 0.15 40 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 40 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- alpha-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.02 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.054 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.02 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.03 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.051 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.21 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.061 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.005 0.005 0.07 <0.005 0.0064 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0053 <0.005 0.0056 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Sampled by Pace on August 20-26, 2013 (Pace Project #92169299)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.1 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.008 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.15 0.15 40 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 40 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.02 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.03 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.10
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.0050 0.0050 0.07 <0.005 0.0060 0.0063 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0057 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NA = Not Applicable
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NT = Not Tested
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.ND = Not Detected
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).
Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
Table 3C PestHerbs (2013) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: PJVH
Checked by: RAD
Table 3D (2014)
Pesticides, Herbicides, & Cyanide
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03

Sampled by Pace on February 20-26, 2014 (Pace Project 92190605, 92190677, 92191006 & 92191140)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.1 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.008 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.07
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.15 0.15 40 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 40 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- alpha-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.02 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.02 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.03 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.13 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.22
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.005 0.005 0.07 <0.005 <0.005 0.0084 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0052 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.006 <0.005 <0.005
Sampled by Pace on August 24-28, 2014 (Pace Project 92214653 & 92214654)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.1 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.008 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.15 0.15 40 NT <0.15 NT <0.15 NT NT <0.15 NT <0.15 NT <0.15 NT <0.15 <0.15 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.15 <0.15 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.15
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 40 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.02 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.03 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA NT ND NT ND NT NT 0.13*NT ND NT ND NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT NT ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.0025 0.0050 0.07 0.0041 0.0028 0.0046 NT 0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 <0.0025 NT NT 0.0030 NT 0.0029 <.0025 NT <.0025 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Notes:
AB = Abandoned
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NA = Not Applicable
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NT = Not Tested
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.ND = Not Detected
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).* 4,4-DCE
Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
Table 3D PestHerbs (2014) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: AWA
Table 3E (2015)
Pesticides, Herbicides, & Cyanide
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03

Sampled by Pace on February 25 -March 20, 2015 (Pace Project 92238381 & 92238730)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.1 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.062 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.008 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.062 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.15 0.15 40 NT <0.15 NT <0.15 NT NT <0.19 NT <0.15 NT <0.15 NT <0.15 <0.15 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.15 <0.15 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.15
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 40 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.062 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.02 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.062 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.03 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT NT <0.062 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050 <0.050 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.050
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA NT ND NT ND NT NT ND NT ND NT ND NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT NT ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.0040 0.0080 0.07 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 NT <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 NT NT <0.0040 NT <0.0040 <0.0040 NT <0.0040 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on August 24- 26, 2015 (Shealy Project QH26056)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.1 NT <0.40 NT <0.40 NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT <0.040 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.008 NT <0.40 NT <0.40 NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT <0.040 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 1.6 1.6 40 NT <1.6 NT <1.6 NT NT <1.6 NT <0.16 NT <1.6 NT <0.16 <1.6 NT NT NT NT NT NT <1.6 <1.6 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <1.6
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 40 NT <0.40 NT <0.40 NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT <0.040 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.02 NT <0.40 NT 1.9 NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT <0.040 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 1.5
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.03 NT <0.40 NT <0.40 NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT <0.040 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA NT ND NT ND NT NT ND NT ND NT ND NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT NT ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.010 0.010 0.07 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 NT <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 NT NT <0.010 NT <0.010 <0.010 NT <0.010 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Notes:
AB = Abandoned
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NA = Not Applicable
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NT = Not Tested
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.ND = Not Detected
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).
Table 3E PestHerbs (2015) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: AWA
Table 3F (2016)
Pesticides, Herbicides, & Cyanide
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03

Sampled by Shealy Environmental on March 16-18, 2016 (Shealy Project RC18024)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.1 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.008 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 1.6 1.6 40 AB AB AB AB NT NT <1.6 NT <0.16 NT <1.6 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <1.6 <1.6 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <1.6
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 40 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.02 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.03 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA AB AB AB AB NT NT ND NT ND NT ND NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT NT ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.010 0.010 0.07 AB AB AB AB <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 NT NT <0.010 NT AB AB AB <0.010 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on August 22-24, 2016 (Shealy Project RH24003)
CLASS -- COMPOUND Method UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Pesticides -- 4,4'-DDT EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.1 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- Heptachlor EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.008 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- Methoxychlor EPA 8081 mg/l 1.6 1.6 40 AB AB AB AB NT NT <1.6 NT <0.16 NT <1.6 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <1.6 <1.6 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <1.6
Pesticides -- Endosulfan sulfate EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 40 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- beta-BHC EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.02 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- gamma-BHC (Lindane)EPA 8081 mg/l 0.40 0.40 0.03 AB AB AB AB NT NT <0.40 NT <0.040 NT <0.40 NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT <0.40 <0.40 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <0.40
Pesticides -- All Other EPA 8081 mg/l NA NA NA AB AB AB AB NT NT ND NT ND NT ND NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT NT NT ND
Herbicides -- Silvex EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Herbicides -- All Other EPA 8151 mg/l NT NT NT AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Cyanide SM 4500-CN-E mg/l 0.010 0.010 0.07 AB AB AB AB <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 NT NT <0.010 NT AB AB AB <0.010 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Notes:
AB = Abandoned
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NA = Not Applicable
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NT = Not Tested
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.ND = Not Detected
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.DP = Data Pending
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).
Table 3F PestHerbs (2016) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: AWA
Table 4A (2011)
Total & Dissolved Metals Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 22, 2011 (Pace Projects 9288391 & 9288386)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.8 <5.0 5.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP 3.9 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.2 5 700 171 191 241 163 237 54 213 72.8 1190 193 138 197 977 309 NP 68.7 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.19 <1.0 3.6 0.51 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.5 1 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.4 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 2.5 3.7 6.3 161 17.6 1.7 8.1 1.8 3.7 NP 2.4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.6 5 NE 10.5 55.5 110 13.5 16.8 1.3 5.4 <5.0 40.5 5.2 9.4 9.8 3.2 6.1 NP 2.6 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.3 5 1,000 <5.0 <5.0 5.1 <5.0 155 1.1 2.4 2.3 64.3 10.7 <5.0 3.2 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4 5 15 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 16.2 6.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.1 0.2 1 NT NT NT NT NT <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 NP <0.20 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5 100 <5.0 <5.0 39 5 5.4 8 <5.0 4.2 97.3 8.4 <5.0 7.6 15.9 7.5 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 3.8 10 20 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 NP <10.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.1 5 20 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.11 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.34 <5.0 0.37 0.12 NP 0.45 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 4.3 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.2 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.1 <5.0 2.6 4.3 5.6 205 22.8 <5.0 7.8 <5.0 0.38 NP 0.73 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.4 10 1,000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 30.7 90.4 5.1 19.8 7.7 162 36.7 10.3 26.5 0.71 16 NP 5.6 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Sampled by Pace on August 23, 2011 (Pace Project 92100967)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.6 <5.0 5.5 6.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.2 5 700 189 189 214 133 280 66.8 1640 76.4 202 71.9 104 191 972 284 NP 57.7 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.2 5 700 174 150 132 120 208 33.9 161 62.2 47.4 51.6 88.1 136 902 240 NP 49.9 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.5 1 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.5 1 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.4 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 105 <5.0 19.3 <5.0 <5.0 8.3 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.4 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.6 5 NE 8.9 45.4 51.9 6.8 9.7 <5.0 43.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.6 5 NE 8.3 44.4 44.1 5.6 7.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.3 5 1,000 <5.0 <5.0 7.9 <5.0 7.3 <5.0 125 <5.0 7.9 <5.0 7.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.3 5 1,000 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4 5 15 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 37.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Lead (Pb)mg/l 4 5 15 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.1 0.2 1 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NP NT NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.1 0.2 1 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NP NT NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5 100 <5.0 5.7 11.6 8.2 7.4 5.5 62.1 <5.0 10.9 <5.0 5.2 7.7 20.1 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5 100 <5.0 6.4 7.9 8.7 6.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 21.1 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 0.1 10 20 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 NP <10.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Selenium (Se)mg/l 3.8 10 20 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 NP <10.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.1 5 20 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.1 5 20 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3 10 NE <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 NP <10.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.2 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 185 <5.0 23.1 <5.0 <5.0 8.1 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.2 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.4 10 1,000 <10.0 <10.0 59.2 <10.0 16.9 <10.0 283 <10.0 15.9 <10.0 50.6 <10.0 <10.0 21.0 NP <10.0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Dissolved Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.4 10 1,000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 15.8 <10.0 <10.0 17.8 NP 52.7 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NT = Not Tested
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.Analysis by EPA Methods 6010 & 7470
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).
Table 4A Metals (2011) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: TZS
Table 4B (2012)
Total Metals Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 21-22, 2012 (Pace Projects 92112617 & 92112760)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 3.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.2 5 700 222 266 175 134 214 48.7 207 62.7 126 102 90.2 196 970 237 NP 49.9 249 NP 93.5 135 141 NP 80.3 NP 56.3 NP NP NP NP
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.1 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.20 0.25 0.28 <1.0 0.18 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.5 1 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.4 5 10 2.5 1.2 1.8 1.2 0.91 3.7 5.2 6.9 10.6 6.2 0.85 11.1 3.3 2.5 NP 0.78 5.7 NP <5.0 7.3 <5.0 NP 6.4 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.6 5 NE 10.1 30.9 54.0 5.7 5.8 0.90 1.6 1.6 <5.0 <5.0 2.3 2.1 5.5 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.3 5 1,000 4.0 1.1 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.3 3.9 5.7 6.9 4.2 1.5 8.3 2.0 2.7 NP 1.4 6.8 NP <5.0 5.4 <5.0 NP 7.4 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4 5 15 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.1 0.2 1 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 NP <0.20 <0.20 NP <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 NP <0.20 NP <0.20 NP NP NP NP
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5 100 <5.0 <5.0 11.0 9.2 4.8 3.3 <5.0 2.1 5.0 2.0 3.2 9.6 24.6 5.2 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 6.2 <5.0 NP 5.9 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 3.8 10 20 <10.0 4.5 2.8 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 0.18 1.5 2.6 <10.0 0.66 NP <10.0 <10.0 NP <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 NP <10.0 NP <10.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.1 5 20 1.9 2.0 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.28 0.24 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 NP 1.8 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 4.3 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 NP <5.4 NP NP NP NP
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.2 5 NE 0.84 <5.0 <5.0 1.5 1.4 3.9 4.9 8.8 12.5 8.6 1.2 14.1 5.0 1.1 NP 1.2 11.0 NP <5.0 9.8 6.1 NP 7.6 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.4 10 1,000 16.7 8.7 10.5 9.2 8.2 10.4 16.7 16.8 23.1 31.8 8.2 10.9 11.0 143 NP 5.0 21.4 NP 12.4 17.2 24.3 NP 26.9 NP 15.3 NP NP NP NP
Sampled by Pace on August 27-29, 2012 (Pace Project #92129364)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 5 10 3.1 3.5 5.3 4.5 2.8 <5.0 3.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP 11.2 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.2 5 700 174 283 232 151 289 42.8 224 67.4 106 110 106 335 931 237 NP 64 184 NP 96.2 83.7 137 NP 615 NP 51 NP NP NP NP
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.1 1 NE <1.0 0.13 0.19 <1.0 0.37 <1.0 0.15 <1.0 0.22 0.25 <1.0 0.56 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 0.12 NP 0.14 0.18 0.11 NP 1.1 NP 0.18 NP NP NP NP
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.5 1 2 <1.0 <1.0 0.72 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 <1.0 NP <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 NP 0.88 NP <1.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.4 5 10 <5.0 6.2 5.5 0.56 7.1 6.1 9.7 3.4 7.9 6.5 0.55 40.2 0.48 <5.0 NP <5.0 0.92 NP 2.3 0.81 2.2 NP 56.3 0.4 2.4 NP NP NP NP
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.6 5 NE 8.5 40.0 104.0 9.6 17.3 1.40 5.1 1.1 1.6 1.6 4.1 11.7 15.8 2.8 NP 0.91 1.6 NP 1.2 1.4 2.2 NP 21.4 NP 1.4 NP NP NP NP
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.3 5 1,000 0.92 5.6 9.2 1.6 16.2 0.65 5.6 1.4 3.9 5 1.5 17.3 0.86 0.74 NP 1.2 2.7 NP 1.7 1.2 2.5 NP 78.5 NP 1.6 NP NP NP NP
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4 5 15 <5.0 <5.0 5.4 <5.0 4.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 9.2 <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 NP 13.3 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.1 0.2 1 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 NP <0.20 <0.20 NP <0.20 <0.20 0.11 NP <0.20 NP <0.20 NP NP NP NP
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5 100 <5.0 13.3 23.0 10.3 9.2 3.9 5.5 <5.0 5.0 3.1 4.0 22.3 34.9 2.5 NP <5.0 <5.0 NP <5.0 1.9 <5.0 NP 60.8 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 0.1 10 20 0.33 1.1 0.93 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 1.9 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 1.5 <10.0 <10.0 NP <10.0 <10.0 NP 0.97 <10.0 <10.0 NP 2.8 NP <10.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.1 5 20 0.67 0.98 0.86 0.34 0.44 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.45 0.18 0.56 0.27 NP 0.65 0.32 NP 0.24 0.23 0.2 NP 0.11 NP <5.0 NP NP NP NP
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 3.8 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 NP <5.4 NP <5.4 NP NP NP NP
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.2 5 NE <5.0 8.1 5.9 2.4 14.7 1.2 9.9 3.4 10.6 10 1.7 49.0 1.1 0.2 NP 1.3 5.5 NP 4.2 2.7 3.4 NP 86.2 NP 2.7 NP NP NP NP
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.4 10 1,000 7.0 28.0 194 1.7 12.7 37.8 20.3 14.5 10.4 19.5 2.0 21.0 10.8 12.4 NP <10.0 2.2 NP 2.3 <10.0 13.6 NP 198 NP 11.7 NP NP NP NP
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NT = Not Tested
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.Analysis by EPA Methods 6010 & 7470
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).
Table 4B Metals (2012) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA/BPN
Checked by: TZS/PJVH
Table 4C (2013)
Total Metals Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 18-21, 2013 (Pace Projects 92148500 & 92148504)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 10 10 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 3.2 <10.0 3.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 7.2 <10.0 <10.0
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.20 5 700 267 221 172 128 229 16.2 200 41.3 75.7 86.0 95.5 216 815 238 34.6 42.6 118 56.1 65.6 91.5 131 265 100 54.5 45.6 103 1470 31.6 64.6
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.10 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 0.12 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.14 <1.0 0.12 <1.0 2.5 <1.0 <1.0
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.50 1 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.4 <1.0 <1.0
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.40 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 1.5 0.44 3.9 4.9 2.9 3.6 <5.0 16.0 0.51 1.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.0 1.7 2.6 3.0 <1.0 7.0 <1.0 1.9 <1.0 292 <1.0 51.4
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.60 5 NE 26.1 49.7 84.3 6.0 14.8 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.61 4.3 7.0 20.7 6.2 <5.0 0.97 0.72 <5.0 0.61 2.1 1.0 <5.0 3.2 <5.0 1.6 <5.0 72.7 <5.0 <5.0
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.30 5 1,000 1.6 3.8 12.8 1.4 7.3 <5.0 <5.0 0.89 0.64 1.9 1.7 9.0 0.96 2.4 <5.0 1.4 1.5 <5.0 1.8 2.7 <5.0 <5.0 8.8 <5.0 0.5 <5.0 207 <5.0 12.3
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4.0 5 15 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.4 <5.0 <5.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.10 0.2 1 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5 100 2.4 2.6 11.9 <5.0 6.0 <5.0 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.7 11.3 36.5 2.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 2.8 2.7 6.6 8.4 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 104 <5.0 18.5
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 0.10 10 20 1.4 4.2 6.8 2.5 1.3 <10.0 3.5 2.3 3.4 <10.0 <10.0 0.84 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 3.1 <10.0 2.5 4.7 1.1 <10.0 2.2 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.10 5 20 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.52 0.59 <5.0 0.63 0.39 <5.0 0.45 0.68 0.44 0.68 0.71 <5.0 0.70 0.55 <5.0 0.63 0.57 0.59 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3.0 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.20 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 4.1 0.55 2.7 5.3 3.0 4.9 <5.0 20.8 0.85 0.61 6.2 <5.0 0.88 <5.0 1.0 2.9 3.5 <5.0 10.6 5.1 1.3 <5.0 393 <5.0 24.5
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.40 10 1,000 123 25.7 14.2 24.0 11.5 19.5 9.2 20.2 5.9 7.8 9.9 13.6 5.6 13.7 <10.0 3.3 7.1 <10.0 4.9 12.4 5.6 <10.0 24.8 21.4 7.6 <10.0 195 <10.0 39.2
Sampled by Pace on August 20-26, 2013 (Pace Project #92169299)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5.0 NE <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 10.0 10 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 2.8 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 3.8 <2.7 3.2 3.1 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 3.2 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 <2.7 4.2
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.20 5.0 700 264 259 149 163 255 23.7 204 50.7 79.8 77.5 111 207 854 281 30.9 45.1 97.1 36.4 48.8 135 112 264 58.9 253 49.6 96.6 283 42.0 106
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.10 1.0 NE <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.45 0.40 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.34 0.44 0.38 0.44 1.1 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.39 <0.10
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.50 1.0 2 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.40 5.0 10 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 1.3 2.8 0.64 3.7 3.5 3.7 2.0 <0.40 6.0 1.4 9.9 0.76 <0.40 0.58 2.1 2.9 6.6 0.95 3.9 3.1 23.8 2.8 3.5 40.6 2.1 151
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.60 5.0 NE 52.6 155 90.7 11.9 26.6 0.80 3.0 1.4 2.8 1.8 5.3 5.8 16.9 19.5 <0.6 1.6 1.2 1.7 0.7 7.4 2.5 13.3 4.6 23.7 2.8 5.4 22.0 2.1 <0.6
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.30 5.0 1,000 2.4 0.44 0.99 1.0 8.4 <0.3 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.1 6.3 0.88 8.1 0.36 0.59 <0.3 1.4 <0.3 5.6 0.36 1.9 3.8 28.0 1.7 0.77 25.9 1.1 3.3
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4.0 5.0 15 <4.0 4.1 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 5.7 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.10 0.2 1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.70 5.0 100 <1.7 <1.7 4.4 10.1 8.1 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 2.5 5.1 32.2 7.9 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 6.3 <1.7 6.2 3.3 11.7 <1.7 2.6 14.3 <1.7 <1.7
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 0.10 10.0 20 3.1 4.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.43 <0.1 3.7 3.4 <0.1 <0.1 5.2 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.44 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.54 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.4
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.10 5.0 20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.21 0.61 0.85 0.38 0.62 0.67 0.31 0.12 0.40 0.54 0.23 0.15 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.56 1.4 0.47 0.54 0.51 0.51 0.62 0.41 1.8
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3.0 5.4 NE <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 5.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 3.6 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.20 5.0 NE <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 1.1 2.7 1.3 3.6 3.3 6.0 3.7 <0.20 6.8 6.6 14.8 2.1 0.37 1.6 1.8 1.4 8.8 2.0 4.0 5.8 37.2 4.4 4.0 67.9 3.3 <0.20
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.40 10.0 1,000 14.8 5.4 7.3 7.3 29.0 34.3 10.8 14.1 11.6 17.1 7.0 11.0 12.8 37.6 5.8 3.6 6.5 5.9 5.1 21.8 22.1 102 45.0 129 11.4 25.5 102 34.7 12.1
Notes:
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NT = Not Tested
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.Analysis by EPA Methods 6010 & 7470
Refer to the laboratory data sheets for detected concentrations which are J values (estimated values above MDL but below RL).
Table 4C Metals (2013) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: PJVH
Checked by: RAD
Table 4D (2014)
Total Metals Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 20-26, 2014 (Pace Project 92190605, 92190677, 92191006 & 92191140)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 10 10 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.20 5 700 215 253 159 149 210 16.8 214 13.0 92.5 97.3 85.3 185 823 240 42.4 40.1 176 38.6 48.8 80.1 183 278 32.5 109 122 74.7 86.9 70.8 42.8 19.2
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.10 1 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.50 1 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.40 5 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 10.8 11.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.60 5 NE 18.3 36.6 48.8 8.5 6.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 11.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 10.2 13.9 <5.0 <5.0 6.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.30 5 1,000 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 10.8 8.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4.0 5 15 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l 0.10 0.2 1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5 100 <5.0 <5.0 6.2 8.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.0 28.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 0.10 10 20 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.10 5 20 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3.0 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 6.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.20 5 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.5 7.6 <5.0 7.4 6.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 12.8 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 15.8 16.5 <5.0 5.3 <5.0 <5.0 9.2
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.40 10 1,000 <10.0 <10.0 19.2 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 54.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 14.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 12.5 <10.0 <10.0 42.2 22.2 35.2 <10.0 <10.0 13.8 <10.0
Sampled by Pace on August 24-28, 2014 (Pace Project 92214653 & 92214654)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5.0 NE 8.6 <5.0 5.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 10.0 10 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.20 5.0 700 224 145 185 160 199 39.2 183 34.2 54.4 67.6 82.3 339 906 223 53.6 38 134 32.5 60 92.8 136 272 46.3 119 28.5 80 107 69.2 22.7 30.8
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.10 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.50 1.0 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.40 5.0 10 5.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 20.4 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 11.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.8
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.60 5.0 NE 18.6 47.4 48.0 <5.0 8.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 11.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.30 5.0 1,000 <5.0 12.4 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 13.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4.0 5.0 15 <5.0 6.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l NT NT 1 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.70 5.0 100 <5.0 7.4 5.6 <5.0 5.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 17.3 30.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 11.2 <5.0 6.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 0.10 10.0 20 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 15 <10.0 15 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 12
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.10 5.0 20 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3.0 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.20 5.0 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 24.8 13.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 17.3 <5.0 <5.0 15.4 <5.0 <5.0 5.3
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.40 10.0 1,000 <10.0 <10.0 27.2 <10.0 <10.0 83 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 20.7 12 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 11.8 <10.0 <10.0 10.4 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 28 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Notes:
AB = Abandoned NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Analysis by EPA Methods 6010 & 7470
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
Table 4D Metals (2014) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
Table 4E (2015)
Total Metals Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on March 20-26, 2015 (Pace Project 92238381 & 92238730)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 2.6 5.0 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 2.7 10.0 10 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 0.20 5.0 700 161 182 162 134 171 60.5 181 25.8 137 87.2 55.4 138 831 262 44.8 46.9 171 32.7 45.1 68 136 271 68.3 187 32.3 67.1 198 73.5 27.2 32.9
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 0.10 1.0 NE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 0.50 1.0 2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 0.40 5.0 10 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.9 <5.0 6.2 12.4 <5.0 <5.0 5.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.0 17.3 <5.0 <5.0 24.7 <5.0 <5.0 12
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 0.60 5.0 NE 7.2 55 84.3 9.6 5.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 9.4 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 12.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 0.30 5.0 1,000 <5.0 5.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.8 21.2 <5.0 <5.0 16.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 4.0 5.0 15 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l NT NT 1 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 1.7 5.0 100 <5.0 <5.0 15.4 13.9 5.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.5 <5.0 <5.0 13.2 13.1 9.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 13 <5.0 10.7 <5.0 <5.0 10.2 <5.0 <5.0 8.8
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 0.10 10.0 20 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 0.10 5.0 20 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 3.0 5.4 NE <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4 <5.4
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 0.20 5.0 NE 10.1 13.4 15 <5.0 <5.0 8.9 <5.0 <5.0 14.3 5.2 <5.0 5.2 <5.0 7.7 <5.0 <5.0 10.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.1 27.2 <5.0 <5.0 42.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 0.40 10.0 1,000 <10.0 21.4 44.7 20.4 <10.0 39.4 <10.0 <10.0 14.5 <10.0 19.6 21.2 39.6 122 105 <10.0 61.5 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 57.3 18.8 26.7 48.1 <10.0 16.7 112 <10.0 <10.0 15
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on August 26-28, 2015 (Shealy Project QH26056)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 20.0 20.0 NE <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 15.0 15.0 10 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 25.0 25.0 700 170 130 ND 140 160 64 170 91 68 97 52 150 920 300 110 53 200 62 72 92 140 270 54 66 50 120 110 66 63.0 45
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 5.0 5.0 2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 10.0 10.0 10 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 16 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 35 14 <10.0 <10.0 25 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 11 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 25.0 25.0 NE ND 25 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 10.0 10.0 1,000 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 11.0 <10.0 <10.0 12 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 10.0 10.0 15 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l NT NT 1 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 40.0 40.0 100 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 20.0 20.0 20 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 10.0 10.0 20 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 50.0 50.0 NE <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 50.0 50.0 NE <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 20.0 20.0 1,000 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 27 <20.0 67 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 20 60 440 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Notes:
AB = Abandoned NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Analysis by EPA Methods 6010 & 7470
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
Table 4E Metals (2015) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
Table 4F (2016)
Total Metals Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on March 16-18, 2016 (Shealy Project RC18024)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 20.0 20.0 NE AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 15.0 15.0 10 AB AB AB AB <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 AB AB AB <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 25.0 25.0 700 AB AB AB AB <25.0 <25.0 260 25 69 72 54 160 AB AB AB 38 150 40 170 81 110 290 25 88 43 69 97 68 33 32
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 5.0 5.0 2 AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 10.0 10.0 10 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 15 25 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 25.0 25.0 NE AB AB AB AB <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 AB AB AB <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 10.0 10.0 1,000 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 12 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 10.0 10.0 15 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l NT NT 1 AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 40.0 40.0 100 AB AB AB AB <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 AB AB AB <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 20.0 20.0 20 AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 10.0 10.0 20 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 50.0 50.0 NE AB AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 50.0 50.0 NE AB AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 20.0 20.0 1,000 AB AB AB AB <20.0 50 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <20.0 26 26 22 <20.0 72 45 <20.0 34 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 47
Sampled by Shealy Environmental on August 22-24, 2016 (Shealy Project RH24003)
TEST UNITS MDL RL MCL MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-14D MW-15 MW-16 MW-16D MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-19D MW-20 MW-20D MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-23D MW-24 MW-25
Total Antimony (Sb)mg/l 20.0 20.0 NE AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Total Arsenic (As)mg/l 15.0 15.0 10 AB AB AB AB <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 AB AB AB <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0 <15.0
Total Barium (Ba)mg/l 25.0 25.0 700 AB AB AB AB 190 48 220 42 64 93 25 210 AB AB AB 41 100 40 94 75 140 280 36 86 33 92 130 72 <25.0 34
Total Beryllium (Be)mg/l 5.0 5.0 NE AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Cadmium (Cd)mg/l 5.0 5.0 2 AB AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 AB AB AB <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0
Total Chromium (Cr)mg/l 10.0 10.0 10 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 30 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 17 <10.0 <10.0 10 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Cobalt (Co)mg/l 25.0 25.0 NE AB AB AB AB <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 AB AB AB <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0
Total Copper (Cu)mg/l 10.0 10.0 1,000 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Lead (Pb)mg/l 10.0 10.0 15 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Mercury (Hg)mg/l NT NT 1 AB AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT AB AB AB NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
Total Nickel (Ni)mg/l 40.0 40.0 100 AB AB AB AB <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 AB AB AB <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0 <40.0
Total Selenium (Se)mg/l 20.0 20.0 20 AB AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 AB AB AB <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Total Silver (Ag)mg/l 10.0 10.0 20 AB AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 AB AB AB <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0
Total Thallium (Tl)mg/l 50.0 50.0 NE AB AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0
Total Vanadium (V)mg/l 50.0 50.0 NE AB AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 AB AB AB <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0
Total Zinc (Zn)mg/l 20.0 20.0 1,000 AB AB AB AB <20.0 74 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 11 AB AB AB <20.0 29 31 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0 20 29 <20.0 <20.0 21 <20.0 <20.0 <20.0
Notes:
AB = Abandoned NP = Not Present at the time of sampling
MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limit NT = Not Tested
RL = Laboratory Report Limit NE = Not Established; North Carolina has not established a MCL
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, as established in the NCDENR Classifications of Water Quality Standards Applicable Samples collected by Pace on dates specifed above
to Groundwaters of North Carolina, Section 15A NCAC 2L.202.Analysis by EPA Methods 6010 & 7470
Shaded cells indicate exceedance of MCL.
Table 4F Metals (2016) of Tables 2 to 4 FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: MJS
Checked by: IAI
TABLE 5
Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Well Method Data Type Aquifer K(cm/sec)K(ft/min)K(ft/day)K(ft/year)
Unit
MW-5 Bouwer-Rice Falling Head PWR 1.7E-04 3.3E-04 4.8E-01 1.8E+02
MW-10 Bouwer-Rice Rising Head Alluvium 8.5E-04 1.7E-03 2.4E+00 8.8E+02
MW-11 Bouwer-Rice Rising Head Bedrock 3.5E-04 7.0E-04 1.0E+00 3.7E+02
MW-16D Bouwer-Rice Falling Head Bedrock 1.7E-05 3.4E-05 4.9E-02 1.8E+01
MW-17 Bouwer-Rice Rising Head PWR/Bedrock 1.1E-04 2.2E-04 3.2E-01 1.2E+02
MW-19 Bouwer-Rice Rising Head Alluvium/Residuum 4.1E-03 8.1E-03 1.2E+01 4.3E+03
MW-19D Bouwer-Rice Falling Head PWR 2.6E-03 5.2E-03 7.5E+00 2.7E+03
MW-21 Bouwer-Rice Rising Head Residuum 2.8E-04 5.6E-04 8.1E-01 2.9E+02
Alluvium / Residuum Maximum Hydraulic Conductivity 4.1E-03 8.1E-03 1.2E+01 4.3E+03
(MW-10, MW-19, MW-21)Median Hydraulic Conductivity 8.5E-04 1.7E-03 2.4E+00 8.8E+02
Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 1.8E-03 3.4E-03 5.0E+00 1.8E+03
Geometric Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 1.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.8E+00 1.0E+03
Minimum Hydraulic Conductivity 2.8E-04 5.6E-04 8.1E-01 2.9E+02
Partially Weathered Rock Maximum Hydraulic Conductivity 2.6E-03 5.2E-03 7.5E+00 2.7E+03
(MW-5, MW-17, MW-19D)Median Hydraulic Conductivity 1.7E-04 3.3E-04 4.8E-01 1.8E+02
Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 9.7E-04 1.9E-03 2.8E+00 1.0E+03
Geometric Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 3.7E-04 7.3E-04 1.1E+00 3.8E+02
Minimum Hydraulic Conductivity 1.1E-04 2.2E-04 3.2E-01 1.2E+02
Bedrock Maximum Hydraulic Conductivity 3.5E-04 7.0E-04 1.0E+00 3.7E+02
(MW-11, MW-16D)Median Hydraulic Conductivity 1.9E-04 3.7E-04 5.3E-01 1.9E+02
Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 1.9E-04 3.7E-04 5.3E-01 1.9E+02
Geometric Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 7.8E-05 1.5E-04 2.2E-01 8.1E+01
Minimum Hydraulic Conductivity 1.7E-05 3.4E-05 4.9E-02 1.8E+01
All Media Maximum Hydraulic Conductivity 4.1E-03 8.1E-03 1.2E+01 4.3E+03
Median Hydraulic Conductivity 3.2E-04 6.3E-04 9.1E-01 3.3E+02
Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 1.1E-03 2.1E-03 3.0E+00 1.1E+03
Geometric Mean Hydraulic Conductivity 3.6E-04 7.2E-04 1.0E+00 3.8E+02
Minimum Hydraulic Conductivity 1.7E-05 3.4E-05 4.9E-02 1.8E+01
NOTES:
K = Hydraulic Conductivity
PWR = Partially Weathered Rock
The data was reduced and the hydraulic conductivities calculated using Super Slug v. 3.2
Slug test plots are presented in Appendix B
Tables 5, 6, and 7, K FV and V 1957-61.xlsx
Table 5 K Values
Prepared By RAD
Checked By: AWA/MJS
TABLE 6
Groundwater Flow Velocity Calculations
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Given:
K=2.0E-03 ft/min equal to 1.0E-03 cm/sec (geometeric mean alluvium/residuum hydraulic conductivity)
K=7.3E-04 ft/min equal to 3.7E-04 cm/sec (geometeric mean partially weathered rock hydraulic conductivity)
K=1.5E-04 ft/min equal to 7.8E-05 cm/sec (geometeric mean bedrock hydraulic conductivity)
n=18%(assumed for Alluv./Res., PWR*)5%(assumed for bedrock**)
i=1.67E-01 (highest gradient from February 2014 water table map -- between MW-13 and MW-16)
i=6.30E-02 (lowest gradient from February 2014 water table map -- top of the controlled waste area)
Calculate (alluvium/residuum aquifer):Calculate (bedrock aquifer):
V=1.8E-03 ft/min (highest velocity)V=5.1E-04 ft/min (highest velocity)
956 ft/year (highest velocity)269 ft/year (highest velocity)
V=6.9E-04 ft/min (lowest velocity)V=1.9E-04 ft/min (lowest velocity)
362 ft/year (lowest velocity)102 ft/year (lowest velocity)
Calculate (partially weathered rock aquifer):
V=6.8E-04 ft/min (highest velocity)
355 ft/year (highest velocity)
V=2.6E-04 ft/min (lowest velocity)
134 ft/year (lowest velocity)
Notes:
K = hydraulic conductivity
n = porosity
i = hydraulic gradient
V = flow velocity
* Fetter, 1988
** Freeze and Cherry, 1979
K values are shown on Table 5
Table 6 FV (2) of Tables 5, 6, and 7, K FV and V 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: RAD
Checked by: AWA
TABLE 7
Vertical Hydraulic Gradients & Flow Directions
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Ground Horizontal Midpoint Vertical 2/19/2014
Well Ground TOC Elevation Distance SI Separation Between Water Head Vertical Hydraulic
Pairs Elev. (ft)Elev. (ft)Difference (ft)Between Wells (ft)Elev. (ft)SI Midpoints (ft)Elev. (ft)Difference (ft)Gradient (i)Direction
MW-14 2770.64 2770.34 2668.14 2685.64
MW-14D 2772.05 2771.63 2547.30 2626.90
MW-16 2716.29 2716.16 2654.88 2663.47
MW-16D 2716.57 2716.28 2585.57 2644.31
MW-19 2615.29 2615.08 2601.52 2608.75
MW-19D 2615.62 2615.33 2560.07 2609.48
MW-20 2622.13 2621.94 2612.88 2620.52
MW-20D 2622.12 2621.94 2559.12 2621.84
MW-23 2611.63 2611.43 2598.63 2610.71
MW-23D 2611.75 2611.52 2555.50 2609.47
Notes:
1. Water level elevations measured on February 19, 2014.
2. Negitive (-) gradients and velocities indicate an upward flow direction.
3. Positive (+) gradients and velocities indicate a downward flow direction.
4. SI = Saturated Interval.
16.2
15.0
14.1
8.7
14.3
1.41
0.28
0.33
0.01
0.12
58.7
19.2
-0.7
-1.3
1.2
120.8
69.3
41.5
53.8
43.1
Recharge
Recharge
Discharge
Discharge
Recharge
0.49
0.28
-0.02
-0.02
0.03
Tables 5, 6, and 7, K FV and V 1957-61.xlsx
Table 7 Vertical Gradients
Prepared By: RAD
Checked By: AWA
TABLE 8
Landfill Gas Monitoring Well and Point Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Monitoring Point
Installation
Date
Well
Status/Purpose
Well Diameter
(in)Northing (feet)
Easting
(feet)
Lat. North
(dd)
Long. West
(dd)
Measureing Point
Elevation
Ground Surface
Elevation
Total Borehole
Depth (bgs)
MM-1 Oct-10 Abandoned December 2015
MM-2 Nov-10 Abandoned December 2015
MM-3 UK Abandoned December 2015
MM-4 UK Abandoned December 2015
MM-5 UK Abandoned December 2015
MM-6 UK Abandoned December 2015
MM-7 UK Compliance 1.0 661,595.86 822,699.27 UK UK 2740.61 2737.63 UK UK -UK UK -UK
MM-8 Sep-10 Compliance 2.0 661,342.80 822,426.37 UK UK 2756.58 2753.35 10.5 5.0 -10.0 2748.4 -2743.4
MM-9 UK Compliance 1.0 661,245.11 822,091.01 UK UK 2806.93 2803.88 UK UK -UK UK -UK
MM-10 Sep-10 Abandoned December 2015
MM-11 Sep-10 Abandoned December 2015
MM-12 Sep-10 Abandoned December 2015
MM-13 Sep-10 Abandoned December 2015
MM-14 Dec-15 Compliance 1.0 662,434.14 821,892.87 35.50558521 -82.95957833 2715.49 2712.50 20.2 5.0 -20.0 2707.5 -2692.5
MM-15 Dec-15 Compliance 1/4-inch 662,922.51 822,149.55 35.50695406 -82.95878198 *MPT*2615.89 2.6 2.0 -2.6 2613.9 -2613.3
MM-16 Dec-15 Compliance 1/4-inch 662,793.85 822,578.65 35.50664785 -82.95732404 *MPT*2622.16 2.3 1.7 -2.3 2620.5 -2619.9
MM-17 Dec-15 Compliance 1/4-inch 662,617.67 822,982.81 35.50620842 -82.95594352 *MPT*2620.57 2.0 1.4 -2.0 2619.2 -2618.6
MM-18 Dec-15 Compliance 1/4-inch 662,244.80 823,124.16 35.50520024 -82.95541905 *MPT*2624.31 2.0 1.4 -2.0 2622.9 -2622.3
MM-19 Dec-15 Compliance 1/4-inch 661,911.87 823,322.89 35.50430799 -82.95470727 *MPT*2631.05 2.0 1.4 -2.0 2629.6 -2629.0
MM-20 Dec-15 Compliance 1.0 661,425.06 823,191.48 35.50295716 -82.95508332 2664.47 2661.19 10.2 5.0 -10.0 2656.2 -2651.2
MM-21 Dec-15 Compliance 1.0 661,184.57 821,470.06 35.50210840 -82.96083038 2716.33 2716.64 45.2 5.0 -45.0 2711.6 -2671.6
MM-22 Dec-15 Compliance 1.0 661,587.71 821,238.61 35.50318980 -82.96166148 2679.16 2679.53 25.2 5.0 -25.0 2674.5 -2654.5
MM-23 Dec-15 Compliance 1.0 662,009.48 821,364.14 35.50436145 -82.96129655 2639.68 2639.83 20.2 5.0 -20.0 2634.8 -2619.8
SM-1a (Bus Garage)NA Compliance Structure UK UK UK UK NA NA NA NA -NA NA -NA
SM-1b (Bus Garage)NA Compliance Structure UK UK UK UK NA NA NA NA -NA NA -NA
SM-1c (Bus Garage)NA Compliance Structure UK UK UK UK NA NA NA NA -NA NA -NA
SM-2 (Equipment Storage)NA Compliance Structure UK UK UK UK NA NA NA NA -NA NA -NA
SM-3 (Maintenance Storage)NA Compliance Structure UK UK UK UK NA NA NA NA -NA NA -NA
Notes:
All survey data provided by McGill Associates, all units in feet.MM-1 through MM-7 & MM-9 installed by others.*MPT* - 1/4-inch tubing with quick connector coiled in well head vault.
All values shown to the nearest 0.1-ft have been rounded.MM-8 & MM-10 through MM-13 installed by BLE NA - Not applicable.
Measuring Point Elevation is top of casing.UK = Unknown, information is not available.Wells abandoned as part of cap improvements.
Screen Elevation
Screen
Depth (bgs)
S:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Haywood County LF\1957-61 ACM FY17\ACM Report\Tables\Tables 8 and 9 FFLF Well Inst and Abn 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: IAI
TABLE 9
Groundwater Monitoring Well Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Well Northing Easting Lat. North Long. West Meas. Pt.Gnd. Surface Total Borehole Screen Well Well Top of Rock Top of
Well Location (feet)(feet)(dd)(dd)Elevation Elevation Depth (bgs)Depth (bgs)Type Monitors Depth (bgs)Rock Elev.
MW-1 Abandoned December 2015
MW-1A Abandoned December 2015
MW-2A Abandoned December 2015
MW-3A Abandoned December 2015
MW-4 Abandoned December 2015
MW-5 On-Site 661,286.31 822,167.91 35.502464177 82.958501150 2,797.08 2,797.37 94.0 73.1 -88.1 2,724.3 -2,709.3 II PWR 89.0 2,708.4
Groundwater Monitoring Wells MW-6 through MW-25 Installed by BLE
MW-6 Off-Site 662,941.12 822,167.78 35.507007166 82.958723254 2,612.63 2,613.03 12.5 2.3 -12.3 2,610.7 -2,600.7 II Res/Collv 12.5 2,600.5
MW-7 Off-Site 662,800.72 822,584.39 35.506667347 82.957305699 2,621.33 2,621.48 24.0 4.0 -19.0 2,617.5 -2,602.5 II Collv/Allv NE NE
MW-8 Off-Site 662,619.60 822,989.68 35.506214483 82.955920712 2,620.05 2,620.25 19.0 3.0 -13.0 2,617.3 -2,607.3 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-9 Off-Site 662,309.84 823,295.25 35.505397531 82.954853325 2,618.67 2,619.19 19.0 2.0 -12.0 2,617.2 -2,607.2 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-10 Off-Site 661,947.33 823,365.59 35.504410017 82.954568656 2,623.60 2,623.96 15.0 2.0 -12.0 2,622.0 -2,612.0 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-11 On-Site 661,509.39 822,572.73 35.503120939 82.957171928 2,756.22 2,756.46 100.0 70.8 -85.8 2,685.7 -2,670.7 II BR 71.0 2,685.5
MW-12 Off-Site 661,078.94 822,142.39 35.501892082 82.958559051 2,803.11 2,800.28 90.0 64.8 -79.8 2,735.5 -2,720.5 II BR 64.0 2,736.3
MW-13 Abandoned December 2015
MW-14 Abandoned December 2015
MW-14D Abandoned December 2015
MW-15 On-Site 662,338.59 821,896.86 35.505323343 82.959552125 2,719.57 2,716.89 163.0 75.8 -90.8 2,641.1 -2,626.1 II BR 19.0 2,697.9
MW-16 Off-Site 661,203.62 821,457.75 35.502159358 82.960874268 2,716.16 2,716.29 70.0 54.8 -69.8 2,661.5 -2,646.5 II PWR/BR 63.0 2,653.3
MW-16D Off-Site 661,192.49 821,467.73 35.502129896 82.960839270 2,716.28 2,716.57 150.0 116.0 -126.0 2,600.6 -2,590.6 II BR 81.0 2,635.6
MW-17 Off-Site 661,739.15 821,178.09 35.503598911 82.961884951 2,664.77 2,665.07 73.0 49.8 -64.8 2,615.3 -2,600.3 II PWR/BR 63.0 2,602.1
MW-18 Off-Site 662,150.91 821,256.31 35.504737902 82.961677540 2,620.91 2,620.93 41.0 25.8 -40.8 2,595.1 -2,580.1 II BR 22.0 2,598.9
MW-19 Off-Site 662,965.29 822,624.55 35.507123544 82.957192901 2,615.08 2,615.29 21.0 5.5 -20.5 2,609.8 -2,594.8 II Allv/Res NE NE
MW-19D Off-Site 662,952.84 822,617.92 35.507088639 82.957213494 2,615.33 2,615.62 59.0 53.9 -58.9 2,561.7 -2,556.7 II PWR NE NE
MW-20 Off-Site 661,973.29 823,503.41 35.504496365 82.954109418 2,621.94 2,622.13 15.5 5.3 -15.3 2,616.8 -2,606.8 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-20D Off-Site 661,973.43 823,494.68 35.504495795 82.954138746 2,621.94 2,622.12 69.0 60.0 -65.0 2,562.1 -2,557.1 II PWR NE NE
MW-21 Off-Site 661,424.40 823,203.28 35.502956636 82.955043604 2,658.37 2,658.72 36.0 18.8 -33.8 2,639.9 -2,624.9 II Residuum NE NE
MW-22 Off-Site 661,046.30 820,724.07 35.501647029 82.963316321 2,599.86 2,600.00 25.0 4.0 -24.0 2,596.0 -2,576.0 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-23 Off-Site 663,169.77 822,719.36 35.507695290 82.956901959 2,611.43 2,611.63 24.0 3.8 -23.8 2,607.8 -2,587.8 II Alluvial NE NE
MW-23D Off-Site 663,182.53 822,725.71 35.507731029 82.956882336 2,611.52 2,611.75 62.0 53.0 -58.0 2,558.8 -2,553.8 III BR 37.0 2,574.8
MW-24 Off-Site 662,019.81 823,641.42 35.504639177 82.953652291 2,625.80 2,626.04 35.0 7.5 -27.5 2,618.5 -2,598.5 II Collv/PWR/BR 15.0 2,611.0
MW-25 Off-Site 661,488.76 822,382.32 35.503043453 82.957808429 2,756.31 2,756.67 259.5 249.3 -259.3 2,507.4 -2,497.4 II BR 62.0 2,694.7
Notes:
All survey data provided by McGill Associates, all units in feet.NE = Not Encoutered BR & PWR = Bedrock & Partially Weathered Rock
All values shown to the nearest 0.1-ft have been rounded.Res = Residuum
MW-1, -1A, -2A, -3A, -4, -5 installed by others. MW-6 through MW-25 installed by BLE.Collv = Colluvium
Wells abandoned as part of cap improvements.Allv = Alluvium
Screen
Elevation
S:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Haywood County LF\1957-61 ACM FY17\ACM Report\Tables\Tables 8 and 9 FFLF Well Inst and Abn 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: IAI
TABLE 10
Sampling Matrix -- Water Quality
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
February & August
Station ID
App II VOCs
EPA 8260
App I Total
Metals
EPA 6010
Pesticides
EPA 8081
Cyanide
SM 4500-CN-E
pH
Field
Sp. Cond.
Field
Temp.
Field
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

We
l
l
MW-12 X X X X X
MW-1
MW-1A X X X X X X
MW-2A X X X X X X X
MW-3A X X X X X X
MW-4 X X X X X X
MW-5 X X X X X X
MW-6 X X X X X X
MW-7 X X X X X X X
MW-8 X X X X X X
MW-9 X X X X X X
MW-10 X X X X X
MW-11 X X X X X X X
MW-13 X X X X X X X
MW-14 X X X X X X X
MW-14D X X X X X
MW-15 X X X X X X
MW-16 X X X X X
MW-16D X X X X X
MW-17 X X X X X
MW-18 X X X X X
MW-19 X X X X X X
MW-19D X X X X X X
MW-20 X X X X X
MW-20D X X X X X
MW-21 X X X X X
MW-22 X X X X X
MW-23 X X X X X
MW-23D X X X X X
MW-24 X X X X X
MW-25 X X X X X X
US-1 X X X X X X X
DS-1 X X X X X X X
DS-2 X X X X X X X
DS-3 X X X X X X X
Leachate*Not Required Per Solid Waste Rules
Notes:
* A leachate collection system was not installed at the facility while the landfill was in operation.
* Landfill gas / leachate extraction wells were installed in 2011 as part of a landfill gas to energy system.
* Landfill leacahte is extracted on a intermitant basis and discharged to the POTW under permit.
* Landfill leacahte samples will only be collected if required by the POTW or if desired by the landfill operator.
Wells abandoned in December 2015 as part of future cap improvements.
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
We
l
l
s
Su
r
f
a
c
e
Wa
t
e
r
Le
a
c
h
a
t
e
S:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Haywood County LF\1957-61 ACM FY17\ACM Report\Tables\Tables 1 and 10 ACM 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP
TABLE 11
Landfill Gas Extraction Well Construction Data
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Depth to Leachate Leachate Estimated
Meas. Pt.Gnd. Surface Leachate from GS Elevation Column Groundwater Screen
Well Elevation Elevation (feet)(feet)(feet)Elevation Depth (bgs)
EW 1 2,803.72 2,801.56 29.07 2772.5 0.9 2712.0 10.0 -30.0 2791.6 -2771.6
EW 2 2,805.52 2,803.23 27.77 2775.5 2.2 2718.0 10.0 -30.0 2793.2 -2773.2
EW 3 2,802.37 2,800.45 32.69 2767.8 7.3 2711.0 10.0 -40.0 2790.5 -2760.5
EW 4 2,799.96 2,798.07 20.60 2777.5 19.4 2704.0 10.0 -40.0 2788.1 -2758.1
EW 5 2,807.22 2,805.08 37.05 2768.0 2.9 2709.0 10.0 -40.0 2795.1 -2765.1
EW 6 2,801.41 2,799.33 30.75 2768.6 25.3 2703.0 10.0 -56.0 2789.3 -2743.3
EW 7 2,782.66 2,780.55 17.04 2763.5 13.0 2695.0 10.0 -30.0 2770.6 -2750.6
EW 8 2,791.01 2,789.07 17.23 2771.8 32.8 2694.0 10.0 -50.0 2779.1 -2739.1
EW 9 2,801.52 2,799.37 26.00 2773.4 26.0 2700.0 10.0 -52.0 2789.4 -2747.4
EW 10 2,796.45 2,794.41 45.24 2749.2 20.8 2691.0 10.0 -66.0 2784.4 -2728.4
EW 11 2,777.83 2,775.81 16.20 2759.6 33.8 2680.0 10.0 -50.0 2765.8 -2725.8
EW 12 2,787.56 2,785.66 12.13 2773.5 32.9 2683.0 10.0 -45.0 2775.7 -2740.7
EW 13 2,787.65 2,785.99 35.86 2750.1 24.1 2680.0 10.0 -60.0 2776.0 -2726.0
EW 14 2,771.01 2,769.05 21.29 2747.8 27.7 2669.0 10.0 -49.0 2759.1 -2720.1
EW 15 2,756.87 2,755.11 18.27 2736.8 12.7 2655.0 10.0 -31.0 2745.1 -2724.1
EW 16 2,766.32 2,764.27 12.85 2751.4 37.2 2670.0 10.0 -50.0 2754.3 -2714.3
EW 17 2,731.57 2,729.67 20.19 2709.5 4.8 2646.0 10.0 -25.0 2719.7 -2704.7
EW 18 2,728.07 2,726.18 28.63 2697.6 16.4 2634.0 10.0 -45.0 2716.2 -2681.2
EW 19 2,723.86 2,721.92 25.77 2696.2 19.2 2634.0 10.0 -45.0 2711.9 -2676.9
EW 20 2,718.25 2,716.33 21.37 2695.0 13.6 2636.0 10.0 -35.0 2706.3 -2681.3
EW 21 2,713.00 2,710.32 28.35 2682.0 1.7 2640.0 10.0 -30.0 2700.3 -2680.3
Notes:
All survey data provided by McGill Associates, all units in feet.EW leachate levels from February 21, 2011.
All values shown to the nearest 0.1-ft have been rounded.Measuring Point Elevation is top of casing.
Estimated Groundwater Elevations at each EW from September 13, 2010 All EW Wells installed by others.
Screen
Elevation
Table 10 EWs of Table 11 FFLF EW Wells Summary Table 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP
TABLE 12
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Landfill Gas and Groundwater
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 21-22, 2011
Detected in Landfill Gas Sample Location Detected in Groundwater Sample Location
Compound / Analyte Detected Both EW-9 EW-14 EW-19 MM-3 MM-12 MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15
Acetone Yes Yes Yes Yes
Benzene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Carbon Disulfide Yes Yes Yes
Chlorobenzene (mono)Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chloroethane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)Yes
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,1-Dichloroethane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,2-Dichloroethane Yes Yes Yes
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,2-Dichloropropane Yes Yes
Ethylbenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)Yes Yes
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Toluene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,1,2-Trichloroethane Yes
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vinyl chloride Yes Yes Yes Yes
M&P Xylene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
O Xylene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
Detected Both = Detected in groundwater and landfill gas samples
Groundwater Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Landfill Gas Analysis by EPA Method TO-15
Analytes shown are on the target lists for both methods
Table 12 VOCs Gas of Table 12 FFLF Landfill Gas Assessment Table 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: TJB
TABLE 13
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Leachate and Groundwater
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Sampled by Pace on February 22-23, 2011
Detected in Leacahte Detected in Groundwater Sample Location
Compound / Analyte Detected Both Composite (EW-12, -16, & -19)MW-1A MW-2A MW-3A MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 MW-14 MW-15
Acetone Yes Yes Yes
Benzene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chlorobenzene (mono)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chloroethane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chloromethane (Methylchloride)Yes
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
1,1-Dichloroethane Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,2-Dichloroethane Yes Yes Yes
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (-ethylene)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1,2-Dichloropropane Yes Yes
Diisopropyl ether (Isopropyl ether)NT NT NT NT NT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ethylbenzene Yes Yes Yes
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone)Yes
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Yes
Naphthalene Yes*Yes Yes*Yes*Yes*Yes*
Tetrachloroethene (-ethylene)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Toluene Yes Yes Yes
Trichloroethene (-ethylene)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vinyl chloride Yes Yes Yes
M&P Xylene Yes Yes Yes
O Xylene Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
Detected Both = Detected in groundwater and leachate samples
Groundwater Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Leachate Analysis by EPA Method 8260
Detected analytes shown are on the target lists for both methods
* Naphthalene is an Appendix II compound that was not tested in all wells in 2011 but has been commonly detected in the wells shown after that date
NT = Not Tested
Table 13 VOC Leachate of Table 13 FFLF Lechate Assessment Table 1957-61.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: RAD

FIGURES
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
RA
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
BL
A
N
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
RATCLIFFE C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
MM-10
MM-11
MM-12
SM-1a
SM-1c
SM-1b
SM-3
MM-7
MM-9
MM-3
MM-13
MM-2
MM-5
MM-4
R
A
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
(

F
L
O
W
)
(FL
O
W

)
( FLOW)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
2621.84
MM-5
SM-1a
SM-2
MM-8
MM-1
MM-6
MW-3A
2638.49
MW-3A
MW-4
MW-5
MW-25
MW-1A
*
*
*
*
2621.88
MW-2A
MW-1
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
RA
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
BL
A
N
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H

RATCLIFFE C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
SM-2
MM-8
MM-1
MM-10
MM-11
MM-12
SM-1a
SM-1c
SM-1b
SM-3
MM-7
MM-6
MM-9
MM-3
MM-13
MM-2
MM-5
MM-4
R
A
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
(

F
L
O
W
)
(FL
O
W

)
( FLOW)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
8.7
MW-1
MW-3A
MW-4
MW-5
MM-5
SM-1a
MW-1A
MW-1
MW-2A
MW-4
MW-5
MW-25
MW-1A
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
RA
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
BL
A
N
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H

RATCLIFFE C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
SM-2
MM-8
MM-1
MM-10
MM-11
MM-12
SM-1a
SM-1c
SM-1b
SM-3
MM-7
MM-6
MM-9
MM-3
MM-13
MM-2
MM-5
MM-4
R
A
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
(

F
L
O
W
)
(FL
O
W

)
( FLOW)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
8.7
MW-1
MW-2A
MW-3A
MW-4
MW-5
MM-5
SM-1a
MW-25
MW-1A
DRY
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
RATCLI
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
BL
A
N
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H

RATCLIFFE C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
SM-2
MM-8
MM-1
MM-10
MM-11
MM-12
SM-1a
SM-1c
SM-1b
SM-3
MM-7
MM-6
MM-9
MM-3
MM-13
MM-2
MM-5
MM-4
R
A
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
(

F
L
O
W
)
(FL
O
W

)
( FLOW)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
MW-1A
MW-1
MW-3A
MW-5
MM-5
SM-1a
MW-25
MW-2A
MW-4
WA
S
T
E

L
I
M
I
T
S
WA
S
T
E

L
I
M
I
T
S
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
COVE BRANCH
RATCLIFFE
WA
S
T
E

L
I
M
I
T
S
WA
S
T
E

L
I
M
I
T
S
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
RACOON CREEK
U.S. HIGHWAY 23 BUSINESS
ASHEVILLE ROAD
RATCLIFFE COVE
BRANCH
WA
S
T
E

L
I
M
I
T
S
WA
S
T
E

L
I
M
I
T
S
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
RATCLIFFE COVE BRANCH
U.S. HIGHWAY 23 BUSINESSASHEVILLE ROAD
RACOON CREEK
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
RA
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
BL
A
N
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
RATCLIFFE C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
R
A
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
(

F
L
O
W
)
(FL
O
W

)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
MW-5
MM-5
SM-1a
SM-3
SM-2
SM-1a SM-1b
RAC
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
( FLOW)
MM-17
MM-16
MM-15
MM-23
MM-18
MM-19
MM-20
MM-22
MM-21
MM-9
SM-1c
MM-7
MM-8
MM-14
MW-25

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A BORING LOGS AND MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS
2-inches of TOPSOIL
Brown, slightly micaceous, fine to medium sandy
SILT - (collumvium)
Light brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT -
(residuum)
Dark brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT -
(residuum)
Auger refusal at 12.5 feet. No groundwater
encountered at time of drilling, but was encountered
at 7.49 feet after 96 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 0.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 0.5 to 2.0 feet.
Filter pack, sand 2.0 to 12.5 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 2.3 to 12.3 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 12.5 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,613.03
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,612.63 feet
Northing = 662,941.12'
Easting = 822,167.78'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-6
Sheet 1 of 1
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-6
PROJECT NO.:
2613.03ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-12-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 75; 4-inch ID augers
J10-1957-14
AFTER 96 HOURS:7.49
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
2-inches of TOPSOIL
Brown, slightly micaceous, fine to medium sandy
SILT - (collumvium)
COBBLE LAYER - (alluvium)
Dark gray, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT -
(alluvium)
Brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT -
(alluvium)
Boring terminated at 24 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 10.2 feet at time of drilling and at 9.50
feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 0.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 0.5 to 2.0 feet.
Filter pack, sand 2.0 to 24.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 4.0 to 19.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 19.2 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,621.48
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,621.33 feet
Northing = 662,800.72'
Easting = 822,584.39'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-7
Sheet 1 of 1
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
10.2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-7
PROJECT NO.:
2621.48ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-12-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 75; 4-inch ID augers
J10-1957-14
AFTER 24 HOURS:9.50
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
2-inches of TOPSOIL
Dark brown, fine to medium sandy SILT - (colluvium)
Very moist COBBLE LAYER - (alluvium)
Brown, very moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND with some cobbles - (alluvium)
Boring terminated at 19 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 7.50 feet at time of drilling and at 6.79
feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 0.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 0.5 to 2.0 feet.
Filter pack, sand 2.0 to 19.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 3.0 to 13.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 13.2 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,620.25
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,620.05 feet
Northing = 662,619.60'
Easting = 822,989.68'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-8
Sheet 1 of 1
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
7.50
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-8
PROJECT NO.:
2620.25ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-12-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 75; 4-inch ID augers
J10-1957-14
AFTER 24 HOURS:6.79
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
2-inches of TOPSOIL
Dark brown, fine to medium sandy SILT - (colluvium)
COBBLE LAYER - (alluvium)
Tan and brown, very moist, micaceous, fine to
medium sandy SILT - (alluvium)
Boring terminated at 19 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 4.2 feet at time of drilling and at 3.5
feet after 8 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 0.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 0.5 to 1.5 feet
Filter pack, sand 1.5 to 19.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 2.0 to 12.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 12.2 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,619.19
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,618.87 feet
Northing = 662,309.84'
Easting = 823,295.25'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
2580
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-9
Sheet 1 of 1
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
4.2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-9
PROJECT NO.:
2619.19ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-12-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 75; 4-inch ID augers
J10-1957-14
AFTER 8 HOURS:3.5
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
2-inches of TOPSOIL
Brown, fine to medium sandy SILT - (colluvium)
Small COBBLE layer - (alluvium)
Tan and brown, very moist, micaceous, fine to
medium sandy SILT - (alluvium)
Boring terminated at 15 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 2.5 feet at time of drilling and at 2.5
feet after 16 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 0.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 0.5 to 1.5 feet
Filter pack, sand 1.5 to 15.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 2.0 to 12.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 12.2 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,623.96
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,623.60 feet
Northing = 661,947.33'
Easting = 823,365.59'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-10
Sheet 1 of 1
8-18-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
2.5
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-10
PROJECT NO.:
2623.96ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-11-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 75; 4-inch ID augers
J10-1957-14
AFTER 16 HOURS:2.5
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
2-inches of TOPSOIL
Reddish-brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND - (fill)
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 64.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2755
2750
2745
2740
2735
2730
2725
2720
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-11
Sheet 1 of 3
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-11
PROJECT NO.:
2756.46ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-29-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 96 HOURS:78.0
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
tan to brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as tan and gray, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as gray, micaceous, silty, fine
to medium SAND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 64.0 feet
Bentonite seal, 64.0 to 68.4 feet
Filter pack, sand 68.4 to 100.0
feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 70.8 to 85.8 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
2690
2685
2680
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-11
Sheet 2 of 3
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-11
PROJECT NO.:
2756.46ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-29-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 96 HOURS:78.0
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as gray, micaceous, silty, fine
to medium SAND
Fracture at 95 feet
Boring terminated at 100 feet. No groundwater
encountered at time of drilling, but was encountered
at 78.0 feet after 96 hours.
ND
ND
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 86.0 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,756.46
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,756.22 feet
Northing = 661,509.39'
Easting = 822,572.73'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
2650
2645
2640
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-11
Sheet 3 of 3
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-11
PROJECT NO.:
2756.46ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-29-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 96 HOURS:78.0
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
2-inches of TOPSOIL or GRAVEL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 57.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2800
2795
2790
2785
2780
2775
2770
2765
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-12
Sheet 1 of 3
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-12
PROJECT NO.:
2800.28ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-11-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 21 HOURS:77.2
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND with
rock fragments
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND - (soil)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND
ROCK which sampled as gray and brown,
micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Fractures at 65 and 66.5 feet
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND
ROCK which sampled as light gray and tan,
micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 77 feet
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 57.0 feet
Bentonite seal, 57.0 to 61.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 61.0 to 90.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 64.8 to 79.8 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2760
2755
2750
2745
2740
2735
2730
2725
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-12
Sheet 2 of 3
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-12
PROJECT NO.:
2800.28ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-11-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 21 HOURS:77.2
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as light gray and tan,
micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 81 feet
Boring terminated at 90 feet. No groundwater
encountered at time of drilling, but was encountered
at 77.2 feet after 21 hours.
ND
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 80.0 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
2.83-foot stick-up with 4" x 4" x
5' long steel protective cover
installed in a 3' x 3' x 4" thick
concrete pad
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,800.28
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,803.11 feet
Northing = 661,078.94'
Easting = 822,142.39'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2720
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
2690
2685
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-12
Sheet 3 of 3
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-12
PROJECT NO.:
2800.28ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:8-11-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 21 HOURS:77.2
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
4-inches of GRAVEL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 67.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2795
2790
2785
2780
2775
2770
2765
2760
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
Sheet 1 of 4
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
PROJECT NO.:
2799.51ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-27-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 360 HOURS:83.5
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 67.0 feet
Bentonite seal, 67.0 to 71.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 71.0 to 127.0
feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 74.0 to 89.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2755
2750
2745
2740
2735
2730
2725
2720
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
Sheet 2 of 4
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
PROJECT NO.:
2799.51ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-27-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 360 HOURS:83.5
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND
ROCK which sampled as light tan to brown,
micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as tan and gray, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
Tan to brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
- (fracture)
ROCK which sampled as gray, micaceous, silty, fine
to medium SAND
Fracture at 108 feet
Fractures at 114 and 116 feet
ND
ND
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 74.0 to 89.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 89.2 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,799.51
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,799.14 feet
Northing = 661,377.43'
Easting = 821,791.88'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
2690
2685
2680
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
Sheet 3 of 4
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
PROJECT NO.:
2799.51ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-27-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 360 HOURS:83.5
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as gray, micaceous, silty, fine
to medium SAND
Boring terminated at 127.0 feet. No groundwater
encountered at time of drilling but was encountered
at 83.5 feet after 360 hours.
Filter pack, sand 71.0 to 127.0
feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
2650
2645
2640
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
Sheet 4 of 4
8-19-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-13
PROJECT NO.:
2799.51ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-27-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 360 HOURS:83.5
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
No topsoil
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND with
cobbles - (fill)
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND
ROCK which sampled as tan and gray, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(fracture/soil seam)
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 54.7 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2770
2765
2760
2755
2750
2745
2740
2735
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
Sheet 1 of 4
8-14-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
PROJECT NO.:
2770.64ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:101.2
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 62 feet
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 54.7 feet
Bentonite seal, 54.7 to 59.3 feet
Filter pack, sand 59.3 to 120.0
feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2730
2725
2720
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
Sheet 2 of 4
8-14-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
PROJECT NO.:
2770.64ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:101.2
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 97 feet
Fracture at 104 feet
Fracture at 116 feet
ND
ND
ND
ND
Filter pack, sand 59.3 to 120.0
feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 93.8 to 108.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 109.0 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground
surface secured with an 8-inch
diameter steel, bolted manhole
cover
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,770.64
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2690
2685
2680
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
Sheet 3 of 4
8-14-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
PROJECT NO.:
2770.64ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:101.2
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
Boring terminated at 120.0 feet. No groundwater
encountered at time of drilling, but was encountered
at 101.2 feet after 120 hours.
2,770.34 feet
Northing = 661,894.81'
Easting = 821,755.37'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2650
2645
2640
2635
2630
2625
2620
2615
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
Sheet 4 of 4
8-14-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14
PROJECT NO.:
2770.64ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:101.2
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
6-inches of GRAVEL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as light brown, micaceous, silty,fine to medium SAND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,772.05feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,771.63feet
Northing = 661,878.59'
Easting = 821,754.85'
Neat cement, 0 to 197.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2770
2765
2760
2755
2750
2745
2740
2735
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14DSheet 1 of 7
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
245
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:163
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14D
START: 12-4-12
2772.05ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light brown, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 197.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2730
2725
2720
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14DSheet 2 of 7
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
245
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:163
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14D
START: 12-4-12
2772.05ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Small fracture with water at 100 feet
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 197.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2690
2685
2680
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14DSheet 3 of 7
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
245
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:163
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14D
START: 12-4-12
2772.05ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Small fracture at 150 feet
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 197.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2650
2645
2640
2635
2630
2625
2620
2615
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14DSheet 4 of 7
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
245
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:163
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14D
START: 12-4-12
2772.05ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture from 179 to 180 feet
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 197.0 feet
Bentonite seal, 197.0 to 199.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 199.0 to 250.5 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14DSheet 5 of 7
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
245
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:163
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14D
START: 12-4-12
2772.05ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture with water at 207 feet
Small fracture at 215 feet
Small fracture at 230 feet
ND
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen,202.0 to 212.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 212.2 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
2545
2540
2535
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14DSheet 6 of 7
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
245
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:163
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14D
START: 12-4-12
2772.05ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Boring terminated at 250.5 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 245 feet 1 hour after drilling, at 221 feetafter 7.5 hours and at 163 feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
Filter pack, sand 199.0 to 250.5 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2530
2525
2520
2515
2510
2505
2500
2495
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14DSheet 7 of 7
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
245
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:163
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-14D
START: 12-4-12
2772.05ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
4-inches of TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
tan and brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 22 feet
Fracture at 28 feet
Fracture/soil seam at 30 feet
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 67.8 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
2690
2685
2680
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
Sheet 1 of 5
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
PROJECT NO.:
2716.89ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:83
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 43 feet
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 67.8 feet
Bentonite seal, 67.8 to 73.3 feet
Filter pack, sand 73.3 to 163.0
feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
2650
2645
2640
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
Sheet 2 of 5
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
PROJECT NO.:
2716.89ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:83
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Filter pack, sand 73.3 to 163.0
feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch
slotted Schedule 40 PVC well
screen, 75.8 to 90.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 91.0 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
2.68-foot stick-up with 4" x 4" x
5' long steel protective cover
installed in a 3' x 3' x 4" thick
concrete pad
1/4-inch vent and weep holes
installed in the PVC casing and
the protective cover,
respectively
Ground surface elev. = 2,716.89
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. =
2,719.57 feet
Northing = 662,338.59'
Easting = 821,896.86'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2635
2630
2625
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
Sheet 3 of 5
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
PROJECT NO.:
2716.89ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:83
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 134 feet
Fracture at 137 feet
Fracture at 151 feet
Fracture at 154 feet
Fracture at 159 feet
ND
ND
ND
ND
Filter pack, sand 73.3 to 163.0
feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
2570
2565
2560
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
Sheet 4 of 5
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
PROJECT NO.:
2716.89ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:83
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Boring terminated at 163.0 feet. No groundwater
encountered at time of drilling, but was encountered
at 83.0 feet after 120 hours.
Filter pack, sand 73.3 to 163.0
feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
Haywood County Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
DRILLING METHOD:
2555
2550
2545
2540
2535
2530
2525
2520
Haywood County
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
Sheet 5 of 5
8-4-10
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-15
PROJECT NO.:
2716.89ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
END:START:7-28-10
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J10-1957-14
AFTER 120 HOURS:83
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
1
4
.
G
P
J

1
2
/
1
5
/
1
0
3.5-inches of ASPHALT
4-inches of ABC STONE
Reddish-brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy
SILT - (residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ND
ND
ND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,716.29feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,716.16feet
Northing = 661,203.62'
Easting = 821,457.75'
Neat cement, 0 to 46.5 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
2690
2685
2680
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16Sheet 1 of 2
10-18-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
68
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:58.70
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16
START: 10-17-11
2716.29ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as grayish-brown, micaceous,silty, fine to medium SANDFracture encountered at 63.5 feet
Boring terminated at 70 feet. Groundwaterencountered at 68 feet at time of drilling and at 58.70feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 46.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 46.5 to 52 feet
Filter pack, sand 52 to 70 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 54.8to 69.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 70 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
2650
2645
2640
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16Sheet 2 of 2
10-18-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
68
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:58.70
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16
START: 10-17-11
2716.29ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
4-inches of GRAVEL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(residuum)
ND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 2' x
2' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,716.57feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,716.28feet
Northing = 661,192.49'
Easting = 821,467.73'
Neat cement, 0 to 109.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
2690
2685
2680
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16DSheet 1 of 4
12-19-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:78.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16D
START: 12-06-12
2716.57ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled aslight brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ND
ND Neat cement, 0 to 109.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
2650
2645
2640
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16DSheet 2 of 4
12-19-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:78.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16D
START: 12-06-12
2716.57ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
light brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,fine to medium SAND
ND
ND Neat cement, 0 to 109.0 feet
Bentonite seal, 109.0 to 112.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 112.0 to 150.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2635
2630
2625
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16DSheet 3 of 4
12-19-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:78.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16D
START: 12-06-12
2716.57ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SANDSmall fracture at 121 feet
Boring terminated at 150 feet. Groundwater wasencountered at 78.1 feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen,116.00 to 126.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 126.2 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
2570
2565
2560
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16DSheet 4 of 4
12-19-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:78.1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-16D
START: 12-06-12
2716.57ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
3.5-inches of ASPHALT
4-inches of ABC STONE
Brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT -
(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled aslight brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Dark brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(soil seam)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ND
ND
ND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,665.07feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,664.77feet
Northing = 661,739.15'
Easting = 821,178.09'
Neat cement, 0 to 40 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2660
2655
2650
2645
2640
2635
2630
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17Sheet 1 of 2
10-18-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
72
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:52.40
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17
START: 10-17-11
2665.07ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Dark brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(soil seam)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as grayish-brown, micaceous,silty, fine to medium SAND
Boring terminated at 73 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 72 feet at time of drilling and at 52.40feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
Bentonite seal, 40 to 45.5 feet
Filter pack, sand 45.5 to 73 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 49.8to 64.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 65 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17Sheet 2 of 2
10-18-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
72
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:52.40
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-17
START: 10-17-11
2665.07ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
3.5-inches of ASPHALT
4-inches of ABC STONE
Reddish-brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy
SILT - (residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK that sampled as grayish-brown, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
Fracture encountered at 30 feet
Water bearing fracture encountered at 35 feet
ND
ND
ND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,620.93feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,620.91feet
Northing = 662,150.91'
Easting = 821,256.31'
Neat cement, 0 to 22 feet
Bentonite seal, 22 to 23.8 feet
Filter pack, sand 23.8 to 41 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 25.8
to 40.8 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-18Sheet 1 of 2
10-20-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
28.5
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:26.7
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-18
START: 10-17-11
2620.93ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
ROCK that sampled as grayish-brown, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SANDBoring terminated at 41 feet. Groundwaterencountered at 28.5 feet at time of drilling and at 26.7
feet after 24 hours.
ND
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 41 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2580
2575
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
2545
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-18Sheet 2 of 2
10-20-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
28.5
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:26.7
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-18
START: 10-17-11
2620.93ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
4-inches of GRASS and TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(colluvium/farm soil)
Brownish-gray, very moist, micaceous, silty, fine tomedium SAND - (alluvium)
COBBLE layer (very wet) - (alluvium)
Light brownish-gray, wet, micaceous, silty, fine tomedium SAND - (alluvium)
Light brown, wet, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND - (residuum)
Boring terminated at 21 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 14 feet at time of drilling and at 7.42
feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 1 foot
Bentonite seal, 1 to 3 feet
Filter pack, sand 3 to 21 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 5.5
to 20.5 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 21 feet
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,615.29
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,615.08feet
Northing = 662,965.29'
Easting = 822,624.55'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
2580
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-19Sheet 1 of 1
10-20-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
14
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 8-inch hollow stem auger
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:7.42
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-19
START: 10-13-11
2615.29ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
4-inches of TOPSOIL/GRASS
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(colluvium/farm fill)
COBBLE layer - (alluvium)
Light brown to gray, wet, micaceous, silty, fine tomedium SAND - (alluvium)
Brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(residuum)
ND
ND
ND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,615.62feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,615.33feet
Northing = 662,952.84'
Easting = 822,617.92'
Neat cement, 0 to 49.3 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
2580
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-19DSheet 1 of 2
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 3-3/4 inch ID hollow stem auger
J12-1957-34
AFTER 18 HOURS:8.2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-19D
START: 12-11-12
2615.62ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, wet, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Boring terminated at 59 feet. Groundwater was
encountered at 8.2 feet after 18 hours.
ND
ND
ND
Bentonite seal, 49.3 to 52.1 feet
Filter pack, sand 52.1 to 59.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 53.8to 58.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 59.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2575
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
2545
2540
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-19DSheet 2 of 2
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
CME 750; 3-3/4 inch ID hollow stem auger
J12-1957-34
AFTER 18 HOURS:8.2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-19D
START: 12-11-12
2615.62ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
4-inches of GRASS and TOPSOIL
Dark brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to mediumSAND - (alluvium)
Cobbles at 3.5 feet
Brown, wet, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(alluvium)
Boring terminated at 15.5 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 3 feet at time of drilling and at 2.60 feetafter 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 1 foot
Bentonite seal, 1 to 3 feet
Filter pack, sand 3 to 15.5 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 5.3to 15.3 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 15.5 feet
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,622.13feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,621.94feet
Northing = 661,973.29'
Easting = 823,503.41'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-20Sheet 1 of 1
10-20-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
3
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 8-inch hollow stem auger
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:2.60
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-20
START: 10-12-11
2622.13ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
4-inches of TOPSOIL/GRASS
Brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(alluvium)
COBBLE layer with water - (alluvium)
Brown, very moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium
SAND
Brown, very moist, micaceous, fine to medium sandy
SILT
ND
ND
ND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,622.12feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,621.94feet
Northing = 661,973.43'
Easting = 823,494.68'
Neat cement, 0 to 54.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-20DSheet 1 of 2
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
8
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 3-3/4 inch ID hollow stem auger
J12-1957-34
AFTER 1 HOURS:5
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-20D
START: 12-12-12
2622.12ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
Brown, very moist, micaceous, fine to medium sandy
SILT
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK seam
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Boring terminated at 69 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 8 feet at time of drilling and at 5 feet
after 1 hour.
ND
ND
ND
ND
Bentonite seal, 54.0 to 57.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 57.0 to 69.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 60.0to 65.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 65.1 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2580
2575
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
2545
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-20DSheet 2 of 2
12-18-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
8
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
CME 750; 3-3/4 inch ID hollow stem auger
J12-1957-34
AFTER 1 HOURS:5
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-20D
START: 12-12-12
2622.12ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
3-inches of GRASS and TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT -(residuum)
Light brown, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILTwith some rock
Dark brown, moist, micaceous, fine to medium sandySILT
Dark brown, moist to very moist, micaceous, fine to
medium sandy SILT
Boring terminated at 36 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 36 feet at time of drilling and at 24.12
feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,658.72feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,658.37feet
Northing = 661,424.40'
Easting = 823,203.28'
Neat cement, 0 to 15 feet
Bentonite seal, 15 to 17 feet
Filter pack, sand 17 to 36 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 18.8to 33.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 34 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2655
2650
2645
2640
2635
2630
2625
2620
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-21Sheet 1 of 1
10-20-11
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
36
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 8-inch hollow stem auger
J11-1957-25
AFTER 24 HOURS:24.12
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-21
START: 10-12-11
2658.72ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
2
5
.
G
P
J

8
/
2
3
/
1
2
6-inches of TOPSOIL
Brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(alluvium)
COBBLE layer
Gray, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Brown, moist, micaceous, fine to medium sandy SILT
Boring terminated at 25 feet. Groundwaterencountered at 5 feet at time of drilling and at 2.3 feetafter 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 0.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 0.5 to 2.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 2.0 to 25.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 4.0to 24.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 24.2 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground surface
secured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,600.00feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,599.86feet
Northing = 661,046.30'
Easting = 820,724.07'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
2570
2565
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-22Sheet 1 of 1
12-14-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
5
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 3-3/4 inch ID hollow stem auger
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:2.3
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-22
START: 12-11-12
2600.00ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
4-inches of GRASS/TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(alluvium)
Very moist COBBLE layer
Brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
Boring terminated at 24 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 5 feet at time of drilling and at 1.7 feet
after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 0.5 feet
Bentonite seal, 0.5 to 2.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 2.0 to 24.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 3.8to 23.8 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 24.0 feet
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount below ground surface
secured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,611.63feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,611.43feet
Northing = 663,169.77'
Easting = 822,719.36'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-23Sheet 1 of 1
12-14-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
5
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 3-3/4 inch ID hollow stem auger
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:1.7
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-23
START: 12-11-12
2611.63ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
4-inches of TOPSOIL/GRASS
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -
(alluvium)
Very moist COBBLE layer - (alluvium)
Gray-brown, moist, very micaceous, silty, fine to
medium SAND - (alluvium)
Brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
- (alluvium)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as grayish-brown, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
ND
ND
ND
SURFACE COMPLETION
Flush-mount secured with an
8-inch diameter steel bolted
manhole cover in a 3' x 3' x 4"
concrete pad
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,611.52
feet
Ground surface elev. = 2,611.75
feet
Northing = 663,182.5348'
Easting = 822,725.7136'
6-inch outer casing set to 37.0 feet
Grout, 0 to 46.7 feet
Borehole diameter 0 to 37 feet,
8-inches
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
SOIL
TYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-23D
Sheet 1 of 2
10-1-13
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
CME 750; 8-inch OD hollow stem auger, Schramm T450S; 6-inch air hammer
J13-1957-39
AFTER 24 HOURS:2.8
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-23D
START:9-30-13
2611.75ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
9
.
G
P
J

6
/
3
0
/
1
4
ROCK which sampled as grayish-brown, micaceous,
silty, fine to medium SAND
Water bearing fracture at 55 feet
Water bearing fracture at 59 feet
Boring terminated at 62.0 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 2.8 feet after 24 hours.
Grout, 0 to 46.7 feet
Bentonite seal, 46.7 to 50.5 feet
Filter pack, sand 50.5 to 62.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen, 53.0
to 58.0 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 58.2 feet
Borehole diameter 37 to 62 feet,
6-inches
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
DETAILS
SOIL
TYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2570
2565
2560
2555
2550
2545
2540
2535
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-23D
Sheet 2 of 2
10-1-13
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
CME 750; 8-inch OD hollow stem auger, Schramm T450S; 6-inch air hammer
J13-1957-39
AFTER 24 HOURS:2.8
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-23D
START:9-30-13
2611.75ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
9
.
G
P
J

6
/
3
0
/
1
4
4-inches of GRASS/TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(colluvium)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled as
light brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as grayish-brown, micaceous,silty, fine to medium SAND - (residuum)
ROCK and PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK whichsampled as grayish-brown, micaceous, silty, fine to
medium SAND
Fracture with water at 20 feet
Boring terminated at 35 feet. No groundwaterencountered at time of drilling, but was encounteredat 5 feet after 24 hours.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 1.0 foot
Bentonite seal, 1.0 to 5.0 feet
Filter pack, sand 5.0 to 35.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slottedSchedule 40 PVC well screen, 7.5
to 27.5 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 27.7 feet
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,626.04
feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,625.80feet
Northing = 662,019.81'
Easting = 823,641.42'
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2625
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-24Sheet 1 of 1
12-07-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
dry
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 24 HOURS:5
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-24
START: 12-05-12
2626.04ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
3-inches of GRASS/TOPSOIL
Brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND -(residuum)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK which sampled asbrown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND
ROCK with layers of PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCKwhich sampled as light brown, micaceous, silty, fineto medium SAND
SURFACE COMPLETIONFlush-mount below ground surfacesecured with an 8-inch diametersteel bolted manhole cover in a 3' x
3' x 4" thick concrete pad
Ground surface elev. = 2,756.67feet
Top of PVC casing elev. = 2,756.31feet
Northing = 661,488.76'
Easting = 822,382.32'
Neat cement, 0 to 235.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2755
2750
2745
2740
2735
2730
2725
2720
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25Sheet 1 of 7
12-20-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
219
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 13 HOURS:209
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25
START: 12-05-12
2756.67ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK with layers of PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
which sampled as light brown, micaceous, silty, fineto medium SAND
ROCK with layers of PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
which sampled as gray, micaceous, silty, fine to
medium SAND
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 235.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2715
2710
2705
2700
2695
2690
2685
2680
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25Sheet 2 of 7
12-20-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
219
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 13 HOURS:209
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25
START: 12-05-12
2756.67ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 235.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2675
2670
2665
2660
2655
2650
2645
2640
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25Sheet 3 of 7
12-20-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
219
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 13 HOURS:209
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25
START: 12-05-12
2756.67ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 150 feet
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 235.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2635
2630
2625
2620
2615
2610
2605
2600
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25Sheet 4 of 7
12-20-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
219
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 13 HOURS:209
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25
START: 12-05-12
2756.67ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 190 feet
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 235.0 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2595
2590
2585
2580
2575
2570
2565
2560
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25Sheet 5 of 7
12-20-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
219
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 13 HOURS:209
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25
START: 12-05-12
2756.67ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture at 223 feet
ND
Neat cement, 0 to 235.0 feet
Bentonite seal, 235.0 to 243.8 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2555
2550
2545
2540
2535
2530
2525
2520
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25Sheet 6 of 7
12-20-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
219
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 13 HOURS:209
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25
START: 12-05-12
2756.67ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
ROCK which sampled as light gray, micaceous, silty,
fine to medium SAND
Fracture with some water at 254 feet
Boring terminated at 262 feet. Groundwaterencountered at 219 feet at time of drilling and at 209
feet after 13 days.
ND
ND
Filter pack, sand 243.8 to 262.0 feet
2-inch diameter, 0.010-inch slotted
Schedule 40 PVC well screen,249.3 to 259.3 feet
Pipe cap
Total well depth, 259.5 feet
DESCRIPTION
PI
D

(
p
p
m
)
RE
A
D
I
N
G
MONITOR WELL INSTALLATIONDETAILSSOILTYPE
SA
M
P
L
E
S
LOCATION:
DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD:
2515
2510
2505
2500
2495
2490
2485
2480
CAVING>
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25Sheet 7 of 7
12-20-12
DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL:
CLIENT:
219
PROJECT NO.:
END:Haywood County
Waynesville, North Carolina
Landprobe, M. King
ELEVATION/DEPTH (FT)
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
PROJECT:
Schramm T450WS; 6-inch air hammer
J12-1957-34
AFTER 13 HOURS:209
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NO. MW-25
START: 12-05-12
2756.67ELEVATION:
B. NisbethLOGGED BY:
Francis Farm Landfill
EN
V
_
W
E
L
L
_
O
N
L
Y
_
P
I
D

1
9
5
7
-
3
4
.
G
P
J

6
/
2
7
/
1
3
KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS
SANDS
0 to 45 to 1011 to 2021 to 3031 to 50
over 50
Penetration Resistance*
Blows per Foot
0 to 23 to 45 to 89 to 1516 to 30
31 to 50over 50
SILTS and CLAYS
Groundwater Table 24 Hours after Completion of Drilling
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Relative
Density
NR = No reaction to HCL
NA = Not applicable
NS = No sample
Poorly Graded SandSP
*ASTM D 1586
Groundwater Table at Time of Drilling
Split Spoon Sample
Grab Sample
Very SoftSoftFirmStiffVery Stiff
HardVery Hard
Consistency
Particle Size Identification
Very LooseLooseFirmVery FirmDense
Very Dense
Boulder: Greater than 300 mmCobble: 75 to 300 mmGravel: Coarse - 19 to 75 mm Fine - 4.75 to 19 mmSand:
Coarse - 2 to 4.75 mm Medium - 0.425 to 2 mm Fine - 0.075 to 0.425 mmSilt & Clay: Less than 0.075 mm
Penetration Resistance*
Blows per Foot
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
ML
MH
MLS
SM
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
FillFILL
Trash
Clayey Silt
MUCKPEAT
Silty Sand
Partially Weathered Rock
CH
Poorly-graded Gravel
Well-graded Gravel
GP
GW
SW
SCSilt
TOPSOILTopsoil
CL-ML
High Plasticity Clay
Sandy Silt
Sand
Clayey Sand
Low Plasticity ClayCL
CLS
BLDRCBBL
Undisturbed Sample
BedrockBEDROCK LimestoneLIMESTONE

APPENDIX B SLUG TEST RESULTS / PLOTS

APPENDIX C PLOTS OF HISTORICAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS
Chart MW-2A (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-2A
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE [ND]
TCE [ND]
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA [ND]
Vinyl Chloride
Chart MW-2A (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-2A
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-2A (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-2A
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP
DCM [ND]
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-4 (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-4
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
Vinyl Chloride
Chart MW-4 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-4 (Other) (3) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-4
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB [ND]
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP
DCM
Total- Xylenes
Chart MW-5 (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-5
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
VC
Chart MW-5 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Monitoring Well MW-5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Chart MW-5 (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
7
12
/
3
0
/
1
9
9
8
12
/
3
1
/
1
9
9
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
2
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
4
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
6
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
0
7
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
8
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-5
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP [ND]
DCM
Total- Xylenes
Chart MW-7 (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-7
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE [ND]
TCE [ND]
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
VC [ND]
Chart MW-7 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
7/
6
/
2
0
0
9
11
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
0
4/
1
/
2
0
1
2
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
4
5/
1
0
/
2
0
1
6
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-7
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-7 (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-7
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP
DCM
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-10 (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-10
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA [ND]
Vinyl Chloride [ND]
Chart MW-10 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-10
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane [ND]
Chart MW-10 (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-10
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene [ND]
Chlorobenzene [ND]
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB [ND]
1,2-DCP [ND]
DCM [ND]
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-13 (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-13
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
Vinyl Chloride
Chart MW-13 (P) (2) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-13 (Rescaled)
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
Vinyl Chloride
Chart MW-13 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-13
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-13 (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-13
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP
DCM
Total- Xylenes
Chart MW-14 (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-14
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE [ND]
TCE [ND]
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
Vinyl Chloride [ND]
Chart MW-14 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-14
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-14 (Other) (2) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-14
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP [ND]
DCM [ND]
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-14 (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-14 (Rescaled)
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP [ND]
DCM [ND]
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-19 (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-19
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE [ND]
TCE [ND]
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
Vinyl Chloride [ND]
Chart MW-19 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-19
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-19 (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-19
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP
DCM
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-19D (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-19D
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE [ND]
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
Vinyl Chloride [ND]
Chart MW-19D (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-19D
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-19D (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-19D
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP
DCM
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-20D (P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-20D
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE [ND]
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA [ND]
Vinyl Chloride [ND]
Chart MW-20D (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-20D
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane [ND]
Chart MW-20D (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-20D
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene [ND]
Chlorobenzene [ND]
1,2-DCB [ND]
1,4-DCB [ND]
1,2-DCP [ND]
DCM [ND]
Total Xylenes [ND]
Chart MW-25(P) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-25
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
PCE
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
Vinyl Chloride [ND]
Chart MW-25 (T) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-25
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and its Breakdown Products
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
1,1,1-TCA [ND]
1,1-DCA
Chloroethane
Chart MW-25 (Other) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-25
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP [ND]
DCM
Total- Xylenes
Chart MW-25 (Other) (2) of Trend Plots FFLF Assessment Tables for ACM 1957-61.xlsx
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
1
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
2
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
3
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
12
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m g/
L
)
Monitoring Well MW-25 (Rescaled)
Other Detected VOCs
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J16-1957-61
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DCB
1,4-DCB
1,2-DCP [ND]
DCM
Total- Xylenes

APPENDIX D 2011 LEACHATE LABORATORY ANALYSIS DATA
March 10, 2011
LIMS USE: FR - STEPHEN KING
LIMS OBJECT ID: 9288475
9288475
Project:
Pace Project No.:
RE:
Mr. Stephen King
Haywood Co. Solid Waste
278 Recycle Rd.
Clyde, NC 28721
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Dear Mr. King:
Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the laboratory on February 23, 2011.
The results relate only to the samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the
most current NELAC standards, where applicable, unless otherwise narrated in the body of the
report.
Analyses were performed at the Pace Analytical Services location indicated on the sample analyte
page for analysis unless otherwise footnoted.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tom Williams
[e-mail]
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc:Mr. Stephen King, Haywood Co. Solid Waste
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Page 1 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
CERTIFICATIONS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Charlotte Certification IDs9800 Kincey Ave. Ste 100, Huntersville, NC 28078Louisiana/LELAP Certification #: 04034
New Jersey Certification #: NC012North Carolina Drinking Water Certification #: 37706North Carolina Field Services Certification #: 5342North Carolina Wastewater Certification #: 12Pennsylvania Certification #: 68-00784
South Carolina Certification #: 99006001
South Carolina Drinking Water Cert. #: 99006003Virginia Certification #: 00213
Connecticut Certification #: PH-0104Florida/NELAP Certification #: E87627Kentucky UST Certification #: 84Louisiana DHH Drinking Water # LA 100031West Virginia Certification #: 357
Asheville Certification IDs
2225 Riverside Dr., Asheville, NC 28804Connecticut Certification #: PH-0106Florida/NELAP Certification #: E87648
Massachusetts Certification #: M-NC030New Jersey Certification #: NC011
North Carolina Bioassay Certification #: 9North Carolina Drinking Water Certification #: 37712
North Carolina Wastewater Certification #: 40Pennsylvania Certification #: 68-03578South Carolina Bioassay Certification #: 99030002
South Carolina Certification #: 99030001Virginia Certification #: 00072
West Virginia Certification #: 356
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Page 2 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
SAMPLE ANALYTE COUNT
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Lab ID Sample ID Method
Analytes
Reported LaboratoryAnalysts
9288475001 EW-12,16,19 Composite EPA 6010 15 PASI-AJMW
EPA 8260 63 PASI-CMCK
SM 2540D 1 PASI-AJKS
SM 4500-S2D 1 PASI-ARAB
SM 5210B 1 PASI-ASDH
EPA 300.0 1 PASI-AJDA
EPA 350.1 1 PASI-ASAJ
EPA 353.2 3 PASI-ARAB
EPA 365.1 1 PASI-ALEP
SM 5220D 1 PASI-ASDH
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Page 3 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Sample:EW-12,16,19 Composite Lab ID:9288475001 Collected:02/23/11 12:50 Received:02/23/11 14:45 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
6010 ICP Groundwater Analytical Method: EPA 6010 Preparation Method: EPA 3010
Antimony ND ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-36-003/04/11 11:155.0
Arsenic 7.9 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-38-203/04/11 11:155.0
Barium 607 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-39-303/04/11 11:155.0
Beryllium ND ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-41-703/04/11 11:151.0
Cadmium ND ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-43-903/04/11 11:151.0
Chromium 8.1 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-47-303/04/11 11:155.0
Cobalt 56.4 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-48-403/04/11 11:155.0
Copper 5.8 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-50-803/04/11 11:155.0
Lead ND ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7439-92-103/04/11 11:155.0
Nickel 19.8 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-02-003/04/11 11:155.0
Selenium ND ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7782-49-203/04/11 11:1510.0
Silver ND ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-22-403/04/11 11:155.0
Thallium ND ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-28-003/04/11 11:155.4
Vanadium 8.6 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-62-203/04/11 11:155.0
Zinc 35.6 ug/L 1 03/04/11 21:07 7440-66-603/04/11 11:1510.0
8260 MSV Low Level Landfill Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone 39.9 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 67-64-125.0
Benzene 3.2 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 71-43-21.0
Bromobenzene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 108-86-11.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)12.2 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 78-93-35.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene 1.7 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane 1.2 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-00-31.0
Chloroform ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 74-87-31.0
2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 95-49-81.0
4-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 106-43-41.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 95-50-11.0
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 541-73-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4.2 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 106-46-71.0
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-71-81.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 6.1 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 78-87-51.0
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 142-28-91.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 4 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Sample:EW-12,16,19 Composite Lab ID:9288475001 Collected:02/23/11 12:50 Received:02/23/11 14:45 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Landfill Analytical Method: EPA 8260
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 594-20-71.0
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 563-58-61.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 10061-02-61.0
Diisopropyl ether ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 108-20-31.0
Ethylbenzene 22.2 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 100-41-41.0
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 87-68-31.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 591-78-65.0
p-Isopropyltoluene 2.3 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 99-87-61.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-09-21.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)6.2 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 108-10-15.0
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 1.9 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 1634-04-41.0
Naphthalene 3.4 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 91-20-31.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 127-18-41.0
Toluene 14.2 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 108-88-31.0
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 87-61-61.0
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 120-82-11.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride 1.3 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 75-01-41.0
m&p-Xylene 13.7 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene 8.7 ug/L 1 03/03/11 04:53 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)100 %1 03/03/11 04:53 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)100 %1 03/03/11 04:53 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)99 %1 03/03/11 04:53 17060-07-070-130
Toluene-d8 (S)98 %1 03/03/11 04:53 2037-26-570-130
2540D Total Suspended Solids Analytical Method: SM 2540D
Total Suspended Solids 152 mg/L 1 03/01/11 14:3625.0
4500S2D Sulfide Water Analytical Method: SM 4500-S2D
Sulfide ND mg/L 1 02/25/11 20:00 18496-25-80.10
5210B BOD, 5 day Analytical Method: SM 5210B
BOD, 5 day 25.8 mg/L 1 02/28/11 16:39 B202/23/11 20:452.0
300.0 IC Anions 28 Days Analytical Method: EPA 300.0
Sulfate ND mg/L 1 03/04/11 20:33 14808-79-85.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 5 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Sample:EW-12,16,19 Composite Lab ID:9288475001 Collected:02/23/11 12:50 Received:02/23/11 14:45 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
350.1 Ammonia Analytical Method: EPA 350.1
Nitrogen, Ammonia 192 mg/L 22 03/08/11 14:34 7664-41-72.2
353.2 Nitrogen, NO2/NO3 unpres Analytical Method: EPA 353.2
Nitrogen, Nitrate ND mg/L 1 02/24/11 21:460.10
Nitrogen, Nitrite 0.43 mg/L 1 02/24/11 21:460.10
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 ND mg/L 1 02/24/11 21:460.10
365.1 Phosphorus, Total Analytical Method: EPA 365.1
Phosphorus 0.76 mg/L 1 03/09/11 16:22 7723-14-00.10
5220D COD Analytical Method: SM 5220D
Chemical Oxygen Demand 583 mg/L 1 03/07/11 15:3025.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 6 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
MPRP/7949
EPA 3010
EPA 6010
6010 MET NC Groundwater
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:571404
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Antimony ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Arsenic ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Barium ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Beryllium ug/L ND 1.0 03/04/11 20:03
Cadmium ug/L ND 1.0 03/04/11 20:03
Chromium ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Cobalt ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Copper ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Lead ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Nickel ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Selenium ug/L ND 10.0 03/04/11 20:03
Silver ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Thallium ug/L ND 5.4 03/04/11 20:03
Vanadium ug/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 20:03
Zinc ug/L ND 10.0 03/04/11 20:03
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
571405LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Antimony ug/L 492500 98 80-120
Arsenic ug/L 485500 97 80-120
Barium ug/L 504500 101 80-120
Beryllium ug/L 508500 102 80-120
Cadmium ug/L 499500 100 80-120
Chromium ug/L 500500 100 80-120
Cobalt ug/L 505500 101 80-120
Copper ug/L 489500 98 80-120
Lead ug/L 499500 100 80-120
Nickel ug/L 498500 100 80-120
Selenium ug/L 480500 96 80-120
Silver ug/L 254250 102 80-120
Thallium ug/L 482500 96 80-120
Vanadium ug/L 493500 99 80-120
Zinc ug/L 497500 99 80-120
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
571406MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288391002
Antimony ug/L 484500 97 75-125ND
Arsenic ug/L 487500 97 75-125ND
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 7 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
571406MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288391002
Barium ug/L 690500 95 75-125213
Beryllium ug/L 493500 99 75-1250.19J
Cadmium ug/L 482500 96 75-125ND
Chromium ug/L 487500 97 75-1253.7J
Cobalt ug/L 488500 97 75-1255.4
Copper ug/L 484500 96 75-1252.4J
Lead ug/L 475500 95 75-125ND
Nickel ug/L 480500 96 75-125ND
Selenium ug/L 475500 95 75-125ND
Silver ug/L 249250 100 75-1250.11J
Thallium ug/L 462500 92 75-1254.3J
Vanadium ug/L 484500 96 75-1254.3J
Zinc ug/L 492500 94 75-12519.8
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288391003
571407SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Antimony ug/L NDND
Arsenic ug/L NDND
Barium ug/L 72.6 072.8
Beryllium ug/L NDND
Cadmium ug/L NDND
Chromium ug/L 6.2 26.3
Cobalt ug/L NDND
Copper ug/L 3.4J2.3J
Lead ug/L NDND
Nickel ug/L 3.4J4.2J
Selenium ug/L NDND
Silver ug/L NDND
Thallium ug/L NDND
Vanadium ug/L 5.4 35.6
Zinc ug/L 7.8J7.7J
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 8 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
MSV/14268
EPA 8260
EPA 8260
8260 MSV Low Level Landfill
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:571818
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,1-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/L ND 5.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,3-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
2-Butanone (MEK)ug/L ND 5.0 03/03/11 04:05
2-Chlorotoluene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
2-Hexanone ug/L ND 5.0 03/03/11 04:05
4-Chlorotoluene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ug/L ND 5.0 03/03/11 04:05
Acetone ug/L ND 25.0 03/03/11 04:05
Benzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Bromobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Bromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Bromodichloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Bromoform ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Bromomethane ug/L ND 2.0 03/03/11 04:05
Carbon tetrachloride ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Chlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Chloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Chloroform ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Chloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Dibromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Dibromomethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Diisopropyl ether ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Ethylbenzene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 9 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:571818
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
m&p-Xylene ug/L ND 2.0 03/03/11 04:05
Methyl-tert-butyl ether ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Methylene Chloride ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Naphthalene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
o-Xylene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
p-Isopropyltoluene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Styrene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Tetrachloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Toluene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Trichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Trichlorofluoromethane ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
Vinyl acetate ug/L ND 2.0 03/03/11 04:05
Vinyl chloride ug/L ND 1.0 03/03/11 04:05
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%98 70-130 03/03/11 04:05
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%96 70-130 03/03/11 04:05
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%101 70-130 03/03/11 04:05
Toluene-d8 (S)%99 70-130 03/03/11 04:05
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
571819LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 55.650 111 70-130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 53.750 107 70-130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 54.550 109 70-130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L 57.450 115 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L 53.850 108 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 50.450 101 70-132
1,1-Dichloropropene ug/L 50.950 102 70-130
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ug/L 56.250 112 70-135
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L 53.850 108 70-130
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ug/L 53.650 107 70-134
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/L 55.750 111 70-130
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ug/L 52.750 105 70-130
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 54.850 110 70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 52.250 104 70-130
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 57.150 114 70-130
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 53.650 107 70-130
1,3-Dichloropropane ug/L 54.450 109 70-130
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 53.450 107 70-130
2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 44.950 90 58-145
2-Butanone (MEK)ug/L 103100 103 70-145
2-Chlorotoluene ug/L 52.550 105 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 10 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
571819LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
2-Hexanone ug/L 107100 107 70-144
4-Chlorotoluene ug/L 55.450 111 70-130
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ug/L 113100 113 70-140
Acetone ug/L 109100 109 50-175
Benzene ug/L 53.850 108 70-130
Bromobenzene ug/L 53.950 108 70-130
Bromochloromethane ug/L 54.050 108 70-130
Bromodichloromethane ug/L 52.750 105 70-130
Bromoform ug/L 51.050 102 70-130
Bromomethane ug/L 42.650 85 54-130
Carbon tetrachloride ug/L 55.550 111 70-132
Chlorobenzene ug/L 53.650 107 70-130
Chloroethane ug/L 44.850 90 64-134
Chloroform ug/L 55.150 110 70-130
Chloromethane ug/L 35.950 72 64-130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 52.450 105 70-131
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 54.250 108 70-130
Dibromochloromethane ug/L 52.050 104 70-130
Dibromomethane ug/L 55.450 111 70-131
Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/L 30.350 61 56-130
Diisopropyl ether ug/L 50.050 100 70-130
Ethylbenzene ug/L 53.650 107 70-130
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene ug/L 53.250 106 70-130
m&p-Xylene ug/L 109100 109 70-130
Methyl-tert-butyl ether ug/L 51.250 102 70-130
Methylene Chloride ug/L 53.550 107 63-130
Naphthalene ug/L 57.050 114 70-138
o-Xylene ug/L 55.250 110 70-130
p-Isopropyltoluene ug/L 53.450 107 70-130
Styrene ug/L 55.050 110 70-130
Tetrachloroethene ug/L 52.650 105 70-130
Toluene ug/L 53.350 107 70-130
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 50.350 101 70-130
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 54.850 110 70-132
Trichloroethene ug/L 55.250 110 70-130
Trichlorofluoromethane ug/L 47.550 95 62-133
Vinyl acetate ug/L 93.7100 94 66-157
Vinyl chloride ug/L 47.050 94 69-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%97 70-130
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%101 70-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%99 70-130
Toluene-d8 (S)%101 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 11 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qual% RecConc.
571820MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE:
MSSpike
Result
9288654004
571821
MSD
Result
MSD
% Rec RPD
MSDMS
Spike
Conc.
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 50 109 70-166110 150ND54.3 54.8
Benzene ug/L 50 112 70-148113 150ND55.8 56.5
Chlorobenzene ug/L 50 110 70-146112 250ND55.1 56.2
Toluene ug/L 50 112 70-155113 150ND56.0 56.6
Trichloroethene ug/L 50 112 69-151116 450ND55.9 58.1
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%97 70-13099
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%96 70-13098
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%99 70-130101
Toluene-d8 (S)%97 70-13099
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 12 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WET/15546
SM 2540D
SM 2540D
2540D Total Suspended Solids
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:571362
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Total Suspended Solids mg/L ND 2.5 03/01/11 14:31
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
571363LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 230250 92 80-120
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288690002
571364SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 27.0 924.7
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 13 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WET/15528
SM 4500-S2D
SM 4500-S2D
4500S2D Sulfide Water
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:570008
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Sulfide mg/L ND 0.10 02/25/11 20:00
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
570009LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Sulfide mg/L 0.51.5 102 90-110
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
570390MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288507001
Sulfide mg/L 0.59.5 118 75-125ND
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288475001
570389SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Sulfide mg/L NDND
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 14 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WET/15487
SM 5210B
SM 5210B
5210B BOD, 5 day
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:568790
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
BOD, 5 day mg/L ND 2.0 02/28/11 16:39
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
568791LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
BOD, 5 day mg/L 178198 90 84-115
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288362001
568792SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
BOD, 5 day mg/L NDND
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 15 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WETA/9230
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
300.0 IC Anions
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:573405
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Sulfate mg/L ND 5.0 03/04/11 15:32
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
573406LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Sulfate mg/L 20.120 101 90-110
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
573407MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288287001
Sulfate mg/L 10120 66 90-11087.9
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
573409MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288395002
Sulfate mg/L 39.020 95 90-11020.1
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288320001
573408SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Sulfate mg/L NDND
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288395003
573410SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Sulfate mg/L 25.5 025.5
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 16 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WETA/9250
EPA 350.1
EPA 350.1
350.1 Ammonia
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:574424
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L ND 0.10 03/08/11 12:25
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
574425LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 5.45 108 90-110
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
574426MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288651001
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 15.0 M1512190-1108.9
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
574428MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288395003
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 5.35 104 90-1100.10
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288651002
574427SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.24 20.24
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288413001
574429SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.15 20.15
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 17 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WETA/9191
EPA 353.2
EPA 353.2
353.2 Nitrate + Nitrite, Unpres.
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:569580
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L ND 0.10 02/24/11 21:31
Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L ND 0.10 02/24/11 21:31
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L ND 0.10 02/24/11 21:31
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
569581LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L 5.35 107 90-110
Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L 1.01 103 90-110
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L 5.35 107 90-110
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
569582MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288455002
Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L 5.6 M1511390-110ND
Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L 1.11 108 90-110ND
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L 5.6 M1511390-110ND
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
569588MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288254009
Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L 6.0 M1511390-1100.29
Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L 1.21 110 90-110ND
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L 6.0 M1511390-1100.29
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288455002
569583SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L NDND
Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L NDND
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L NDND
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 18 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288254010
569589SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Nitrogen, Nitrate mg/L 0.96 10.95
Nitrogen, Nitrite mg/L NDND
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L 0.96 10.95
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 19 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WETA/9229
EPA 365.1
EPA 365.1
365.1 Phosphorus, Total
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:573396
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Phosphorus mg/L ND 0.10 03/09/11 16:20
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
573397LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Phosphorus mg/L 2.22.5 90 90-110
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
573398MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288475001
Phosphorus mg/L 3.42.5 106 90-1100.76
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
573403MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9288904002
Phosphorus mg/L 2.82.5 108 90-1100.13
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288896001
573402SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Phosphorus mg/L NDND
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9288904003
573404SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Phosphorus mg/L 0.16 10.16
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 20 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
WETA/9243
SM 5220D
SM 5220D
5220D COD
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:574105
Associated Lab Samples:9288475001
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L ND 25.0 03/07/11 15:30
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
574106LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 732750 98 90-110
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
574108MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLE:
MSSpike
Result
9289157001
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 1050010000 99 75-125595
Parameter Units
Dup
Result QualifiersRPDResult
9289157001
574107SAMPLE DUPLICATE:
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 347 R153595
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 21 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALIFIERS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
9288475
FFLF Gas Combust & Power Gen.
DEFINITIONS
DF - Dilution Factor, if reported, represents the factor applied to the reported data due to changes in sample preparation, dilution of
the sample aliquot, or moisture content.
ND - Not Detected at or above adjusted reporting limit.
J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
MDL - Adjusted Method Detection Limit.
S - Surrogate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (8270 listed analyte) decomposes to Azobenzene.
Consistent with EPA guidelines, unrounded data are displayed and have been used to calculate % recovery and RPD values.
LCS(D) - Laboratory Control Sample (Duplicate)
MS(D) - Matrix Spike (Duplicate)
DUP - Sample Duplicate
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
NC - Not Calculable.
SG - Silica Gel - Clean-Up
U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected.
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine decomposes and cannot be separated from Diphenylamine using Method 8270. The result reported for
each analyte is a combined concentration.
Pace Analytical is NELAP accredited. Contact your Pace PM for the current list of accredited analytes.
LABORATORIES
Pace Analytical Services - AshevillePASI-A
Pace Analytical Services - CharlottePASI-C
ANALYTE QUALIFIERS
Oxygen usage is less than 2.0 for all dilutions set. The reported value is an estimated less than value and is calculated
for the dilution using the most amount of sample.B2
Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.M1
RPD value was outside control limits.R1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 03/10/2011 03:19 PM Page 22 of 22
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]

APPENDIX E QUARTERLY PRECIPITATION AND LEACHATE PRODUCTION TABLE AND PLOT
S:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Haywood County LF\1957-61 ACM FY17\ACM Report\Appendices\Appendix E Leachate Rainfall
Comparitive Analysis.xlsx
Prepared by: RAD
Checked by: AWA
Appendix E
Quarterly Precipitation and Leachate Production
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J16-1957-61
Time Period Leachate (Gallons)Precipitation (Inches)
1st Quarter 2012 91,188 9.48
2nd Quarter 2012 135,184 9.38
3rd Quarter 2012 82,524 13.61
4th Quarter 2012 58,143 8.78
1st Quarter 2013 190,707 20.18
2nd Quarter 2013 251,110 17.04
3rd Quarter 2013 203,288 19.70
4th Quarter 2013 81,542 16.03
1st Quarter 2014 274,035 13.65
2nd Quarter 2014 164,176 13.29
3rd Quarter 2014 40,293 8.33
4th Quarter 2014 28,003 14.20
Leachate production volumes from Haywood County's database.
Precipitation data from the from the WAYN (Waynesville) weather station
CRONOS database operated by the State Climate Office of North Carolina.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
1st Quarter
2012
2nd Quarter
2012
3rd Quarter
2012
4th Quarter
2012
1st Quarter
2013
2nd Quarter
2013
3rd Quarter
2013
4th Quarter
2013
1st Quarter
2014
2nd Quarter
2014
3rd Quarter
2014
4th Quarter
2014
Le
a
c
h
a
t
e

(
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
)
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
i
o
n

(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Francis Farm Landfill
Quarterly Precipitation and Leachate Production
2012 through 2014
Leachate (Gallons)Precipitation (inches)

APPENDIX F REPORT OF EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SOIL CAP
AND POTENTIAL BORROW AREA (BLE Project No. J14-1957-42)

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

REPORT OF EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SOIL CAP
& POTENTIAL BORROW AREA

CLOSED FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

PERMIT NUMBER 44-03

PREPARED FOR:

HAYWOOD COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
CLYDE, NORTH CAROLINA

PREPARED BY:

BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA

ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014

BLE PROJECT NUMBER J14-1957-42

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

6004 PONDERS COURT PHONE [phone] GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29615 FAX [phone]

September 26, 2014

Haywood County Solid Waste Management
278 Recycle Road
Clyde, NC 28721

Attention: Mr. Stephen King, Director of Solid Waste

Subject: Report of Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap & Potential Borrow Area
Closed Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J14-1957-42
Permit Number 44-03

Dear Mr. King:

As authorized by Haywood County’s acceptance of our Proposal Number P14-0284 dated July 3,
2014, Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE) has performed the geotechnical services at the
subject site. The purpose of the scope of services is to collect, visually classify, and conduct laboratory
testing of soil samples from the existing soil cap at the subject site and from a potential borrow area on
an adjoining parcel. The enclosed report describes the work performed, documents the evaluation,
and provides recommendations for the project.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The following project information was obtained from documents provided by McGill Associates
(McGill) and by Haywood County and from site data (in BLE’s project records) from our current
services contract with Haywood County.

Haywood County owns and maintains the Francis Farm Landfill which is currently closed (Figure 1).
McGill Associates (McGill) has been retained by Haywood County to provide engineering services
related to the post-closure care of the landfill. BLE has been retained by Haywood County (since 2007)
to provide environmental and geotechnical consulting services for various post-closure related
activities.

We understand that Haywood County plans to maintain/repair/upgrade the existing soil cap. As part
of those plans Haywood County requested that BLE evaluate the existing soil cap so that McGill can
use the data to develop a plan/design to meet project objectives. Additionally, Haywood County
requested that soil borings be performed on an adjoining parcel owned by Mr. Jim Francis to evaluate
potential borrow soils present on the property.

Report of Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap & Potential Borrow Area September 26, 2014
Closed Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J14-1957-42

2
SCOPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED

Field Exploration
Mr. Ben Nisbeth, P.G. of BLE visited the site on July 3, 2014 to perform a site reconnaissance and
to select boring locations within the estimated waste limits determined by McGill (additional borings
were subsequently performed to aid in determining the limits of waste outside this initial area). The
boring locations were selected in the field by Mr. Nisbeth and Mr. Randy Siske of Haywood County.
Each boring location was approximated by referencing topographic and site features and by use of a
hand-held GPS (non-land survey quality). BLE provided a draft map and GPS coordinates for each
completed boring to McGill on July 15, 2014. McGill conducted multiple surveys to locate the
completed borings with the final survey conducted on August 19, 2014. Those data were provided
to BLE and are included on Table 1 and on Figure 2.

BLE collected continuous soil macrocore samples from 74 borings (designated CAP-1 through CAP-
74) using a track-mounted Geoprobe 6620 DT drilling rig (Figure 2). Borings and soil sampling was
performed from July 8 to July 10, 2014. The borings were advanced to the depths shown on Table 1
and the depth to trash (waste) was identified if encountered. The individual field boring logs are
presented in Appendix A.

The subsurface stratification at each boring was recorded based on visual classification of the soils
encountered. Representative samples of the soils were obtained for confirming the field classification
by our professional staff and for laboratory testing. Bulk soil samples were collected from auger cuttings
from borings CAP-6, CAP-17, CAP-26, CAP-53, CAP-57, CAP-59, and CAP-61 from depths of 0 to 5
feet below ground surface (bgs). Undisturbed (UD) soil samples were collected from borings CAP-6,
CAP-17, CAP-26, CAP-53, CAP-57, and CAP-61 from various depths shown on Table 1.

Drilling was not performed on the Jim Francis parcel (potential borrow area) due to steep topography
which restricted drill rig access. A bulk soil sample was collected from a cut area on the Francis
tract by hand via shovel. The sample was designated SBS-1 and was collected from a depth of 0 to
1 feet bgs (Table 1 & Figure 2).

Laboratory Testing
Soils collected during the drilling and sampling program were classified and selected for testing
based on their potential as low permeability soils that might provide a hydraulic conductivity of k <
1 x 10-5 cm/s. The selected samples were analyzed in our laboratory for grain size, Atterberg limits,
standard Proctor, and hydraulic conductivity (permeability). The results are included in Appendix B
and are summarized on Table 2.

Report of Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap & Potential Borrow Area September 26, 2014
Closed Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J14-1957-42

3
RESULTS

Evaluation of Field Exploration Data
The typical subsurface conditions encountered in the borings consist of a topsoil layer approximately 1
to 2 inches thick underlain by a red-brown-gray silty sands and sandy silts. The soil overlying the waste
in the landfill footprint varies in thickness from 8 inches to 8.5 feet (Table 1). The average thickness of
soil cover is approximately 3.5 feet (excluding the thin topsoil layer). Groundwater was not encountered
in the borings during the exploration.

The above descriptions provide a general summary of the subsurface conditions encountered. The field
boring logs (Appendix A) contain detailed information recorded at each location. The lines designating
the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries and the transition between strata
may be gradual. It should be noted that the soil conditions vary between the boring locations.

As directed by Haywood County, several borings were performed outside of the previously defined
waste limits. The waste limits shown on Figure 2 have been redrawn based on the subsurface materials
encountered in the borings (Appendix A and Table 1).

Evaluation of Laboratory Data
Grain size, Plasticity (Atterberg Limits), standard Proctor (ASTM D 698), and remolded constant
volume permeability (ASTM D 5084) tests were performed on representative soil samples taken
from the borings to assist in the classification and determination of potential use (Table 2). The focus
of laboratory testing was to determine the suitability of the borrow soils and the in-place cap soils
for use in the construction of a low permeability soil closure layer (k < 1 x 10-5 cm/s).

The test results indicate that the selected low permeability soils consisting of sandy silts (ML/MH)
and silty sands (SM) are suitable for use in the construction of a compacted low permeability soil
closure layer. These soils have been designated “suitable soil” and the observed thicknesses of these
soils in each boring are summarized on Table 3 and Figure 2. Percent fines (percent passing the No.
200 sieve) contents of these samples range from approximately 38 to 51%. The plasticity index for
the potential borrow area sample is 16%.

Two samples (CAP-6 and CAP-26) were selected from the borings for undisturbed permeability
testing and achieved hydraulic conductivities of k = 4.3 x 10-5 and 6.5 x 10-5 cm/s. Three additional
samples from the existing landfill cover soils (CAP-17, CAP-26, and CAP-61) were selected for
standard Proctor and remolded hydraulic conductivity testing. The selected remolded permeability
parameters of 95 to 96% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, 4.5 to 5.5% wet of the
optimum moisture content and an effective stress of 5 psi achieved hydraulic conductivities ranging
from 1.1 x 10-6 cm/s to 2.8 x 10-7 cm/s.

The potential borrow area sample (SBS-1) was selected for standard Proctor and remolded
permeability testing and achieved a hydraulic conductivity of k = 4.6 x 10-7 cm/s at approximately
96% compaction of the standard Proctor maximum dry density and a moisture content of
approximately 6% over the standard Proctor optimum moisture content.

Report of Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap & Potential Borrow Area September 26, 2014
Closed Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J14-1957-42

4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the field exploration and laboratory testing, the low permeability silty soils represented by
samples SBS-1, CAP-6, CAP-17, CAP-26, and CAP-61 are suited for use to construct a low
permeability closure having a permeability meeting the requirement of k  1 x 10-5 cm/s when properly
processed, wetted, and compacted. The soils in their current state do not meet the permeability
requirement of k  1 x 10-5 cm/s. In general, the red-brown-gray sandy silts (ML/MH) and silty sands
(SM) represented by the test results in Appendix B are suitable to be used in the k < 1 x 10-5 cm/s
constructed low permeability closure when compacted to > 95% of the standard Proctor at greater than
or equal to 4.5% wet of the optimum moisture content. No significant volumes of existing cover soils
were encountered which will require excavation and removal (except for topsoil, gravel, and limited
rocks, etc.) prior to using the in place soils to construct a low permeability closure layer.

The thickness of suitable soil on the existing landfill cap (Table 3 and Figure 2) is somewhat variable.
After removing organic materials (e.g. topsoil) and working around infrastructure for regrading it may
be difficult or not cost effective to rework the soils to meet the desired permeability or required
thickness. Additionally, earthwork may expose buried waste in some areas due to thin overlying soils.

We recommend that a source of additional cover soils be identified to supplement the existing soil
cover and achieve desired grades for surface drainage. The volume of suitable soil present on the
Francis parcel borrow area is unknown because we were not able to access the area for drilling. Based
on cost-analysis by the design engineer and the availability of suitable supplemental cover soils, a
geosynthetic liner system may be more cost-effective than a soil cover.

CLOSING

We appreciate the opportunity to work with Haywood County and McGill on this project. If Haywood
County or McGill has any questions or comments, please contact us at [phone].

Sincerely,
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.

Jeffrey C. Helvey, P.E Andrew W. Alexander, P.G., RSM
Senior Engineer Senior Hydrogeologist
Registered, NC No. 33318 Registered, NC No. 1475

cc: Mr. David Francis – Haywood County
Mr. Mark Cathey, P.E. – McGill Associates

Attachments: Tables 1 through 3
Figures 1 & 2
Appendices A & B

e:\awa projects\mcgill\haywood county lf\1957-42 fflf cap eval\report\fflf cap eval report 1957-42 ble.docx

TABLES
Table 1
Boring Location, Elevation, and Soil Sample Information
Closed Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J14-1957-42
Soil Cap Borings
Boring or Latitude (N) Longitude (W)Northing Easting Gnd. Surface MacroCore MacroCore Bulk Sample UD Sample Trash Trash
Sample ID (dd)(dd)(feet)(feet)Elevation Depth (bgs)Elevation Depth (bgs)Depth (bgs)Depth (bgs)Elevation
CAP-1 35.502922 82.959500 661,464.65 821,877.41 2,797.65 0.0 -10.0 2,797.6 -2,787.6 --4.0 2,793.6
CAP-2 35.502912 82.959030 661,455.35 822,017.13 2,801.06 0.0 -5.0 2,801.1 -2,796.1 --2.5 2,798.6
CAP-3 35.502908 82.958707 661,450.12 822,113.21 2,797.49 0.0 -5.0 2,797.5 -2,792.5 --3.5 2,794.0
CAP-4 35.503034 82.958393 661,492.22 822,208.45 2,791.13 0.0 -5.0 2,791.1 -2,786.1 --4.0 2,787.1
CAP-5 35.503257 82.959922 661,591.63 821,756.85 2,793.96 0.0 -5.0 2,794.0 -2,789.0 --1.0 2,793.0
CAP-6 35.503168 82.959471 661,553.86 821,889.57 2,799.98 0.0 -10.0 2,800.0 -2,790.0 0.0 -5.0 1.0 -3.0 5.0 2,795.0
CAP-7 35.503192 82.959041 661,557.47 822,017.81 2,801.95 0.0 -5.0 2,801.9 -2,796.9 --2.5 2,799.4
CAP-8 35.503211 82.958516 661,558.24 822,174.20 2,798.33 0.0 -5.0 2,798.3 -2,793.3 --3.5 2,794.8
CAP-9 35.503217 82.957906 661,553.18 822,355.89 2,773.86 0.0 -10.0 2,773.9 -2,763.9 -->10 NE
CAP-10 35.503398 82.959526 661,638.16 821,876.71 2,801.30 0.0 -10.0 2,801.3 -2,791.3 --3.0 2,798.3
CAP-11 35.503516 82.959007 661,675.01 822,032.80 2,802.87 0.0 -5.0 2,802.9 -2,797.9 --4.0 2,798.9
CAP-12 35.503455 82.958638 661,648.20 822,141.73 2,800.24 0.0 -5.0 2,800.2 -2,795.2 --2.5 2,797.7
CAP-13 35.503517 82.958060 661,664.11 822,314.50 2,786.15 0.0 -5.0 2,786.2 -2,781.2 --3.0 2,783.2
CAP-14 35.503732 82.959944 661,764.59 821,757.17 2,780.28 0.0 -5.0 2,780.3 -2,775.3 --2.5 2,777.8
CAP-15 35.503721 82.959560 661,755.82 821,871.25 2,793.27 0.0 -10.0 2,793.3 -2,783.3 --4.0 2,789.3
CAP-16 35.503730 82.959132 661,754.15 821,998.77 2,799.15 0.0 -5.0 2,799.1 -2,794.1 --3.0 2,796.1
CAP-17 35.503646 82.958756 661,719.23 822,109.34 2,801.55 0.0 -5.0 2,801.5 -2,796.5 0.0 -5.0 1.0 -3.0 4.0 2,797.5
CAP-18 35.503688 82.958035 661,725.73 822,324.43 2,785.68 0.0 -5.0 2,785.7 -2,780.7 --2.0 2,783.7
CAP-19 35.503745 82.957517 661,740.28 822,479.22 2,761.82 0.0 -5.0 2,761.8 -2,756.8 0.0 -5.0 1.0 -3.0 5.0 2,756.8
CAP-20 35.503952 82.959604 661,840.42 821,861.53 2,782.29 0.0 -5.0 2,782.3 -2,777.3 --4.0 2,778.3
CAP-21 35.503943 82.959253 661,833.11 821,965.71 2,795.54 0.0 -5.0 2,795.5 -2,790.5 --3.0 2,792.5
CAP-22 35.503879 82.958846 661,804.84 822,085.95 2,798.07 0.0 -5.0 2,798.1 -2,793.1 --3.5 2,794.6
CAP-23 35.503861 82.958159 661,790.42 822,289.94 2,789.77 0.0 -5.0 2,789.8 -2,784.8 --3.0 2,786.8
CAP-24 35.503869 82.957764 661,788.55 822,407.57 2,772.85 0.0 -5.0 2,772.9 -2,767.9 --3.5 2,769.4
CAP-25 35.504006 82.959881 661,863.29 821,779.86 2,769.39 0.0 -5.0 2,769.4 -2,764.4 --3.0 2,766.4
CAP-26 35.504115 82.959361 661,896.93 821,936.05 2,787.42 0.0 -5.0 2,787.4 -2,782.4 0.0 -5.0 1.0 -3.0 4.0 2,783.4
CAP-27 35.504141 82.958928 661,901.26 822,065.20 2,792.25 0.0 -5.0 2,792.2 -2,787.2 --2.0 2,790.2
CAP-28 35.504080 82.958266 661,871.10 822,261.15 2,791.20 0.0 -5.0 2,791.2 -2,786.2 --4.0 2,787.2
CAP-29 35.504161 82.957796 661,894.98 822,402.26 2,773.63 0.0 -5.0 2,773.6 -2,768.6 --2.5 2,771.1
CAP-30 35.504294 82.956839 661,932.09 822,688.63 2,731.06 0.0 -5.0 2,731.1 -2,726.1 --4.5 2,726.6
CAP-31 35.504288 82.955870 661,918.33 822,976.86 2,679.56 0.0 -10.0 2,679.6 -2,669.6 -->10 NE
CAP-32 35.504376 82.959416 661,992.51 821,923.62 2,776.99 0.0 -5.0 2,777.0 -2,772.0 --4.0 2,773.0
CAP-33 35.504364 82.959220 661,985.64 821,981.62 2,784.05 0.0 -5.0 2,784.0 -2,779.0 --3.0 2,781.0
CAP-34 35.504353 82.958966 661,978.66 822,056.99 2,788.00 0.0 -5.0 2,788.0 -2,783.0 --4.0 2,784.0
CAP-35 35.504343 82.958379 661,968.29 822,231.49 2,788.40 0.0 -5.0 2,788.4 -2,783.4 --2.5 2,785.9
CAP-36 35.504386 82.957906 661,978.01 822,372.76 2,773.15 0.0 -5.0 2,773.1 -2,768.1 --2.5 2,770.6
CAP-37 35.504377 82.957178 661,966.19 822,589.24 2,744.76 0.0 -5.0 2,744.8 -2,739.8 --3.0 2,741.8
CAP-38 35.504534 82.956595 662,016.27 822,764.79 2,726.67 0.0 -5.0 2,726.7 -2,721.7 --3.5 2,723.2
CAP-39 35.504391 82.956100 661,958.48 822,909.83 2,722.12 0.0 -5.0 2,722.1 -2,717.1 --3.5 2,718.6
CAP-40 35.504441 82.955898 661,974.22 822,970.65 2,676.22 0.0 -10.0 2,676.2 -2,666.2 --6.0 2,670.2
CAP-41 35.504171 82.959753 661,921.77 821,820.42 2,761.08 0.0 -5.0 2,761.1 -2,756.1 --0.75 2,760.3
CAP-42 35.504562 82.959488 662,060.92 821,904.96 2,761.19 0.0 -5.0 2,761.2 -2,756.2 --2.5 2,758.7
CAP-43 35.504593 82.959044 662,066.86 822,037.49 2,780.38 0.0 -5.0 2,780.4 -2,775.4 --5.0 2,775.4
CAP-44 35.504525 82.958482 662,035.45 822,203.42 2,783.50 0.0 -5.0 2,783.5 -2,778.5 --2.5 2,781.0
CAP-45 35.504559 82.958035 662,042.77 822,336.84 2,769.10 0.0 -5.0 2,769.1 -2,764.1 --4.0 2,765.1
CAP-46 35.504619 82.957554 662,058.72 822,480.70 2,751.88 0.0 -5.0 2,751.9 -2,746.9 --2.5 2,749.4
CAP-47 35.504677 82.956026 662,061.53 822,936.09 2,670.11 0.0 -10.0 2,670.1 -2,660.1 -->10 NE
CAP-48 35.504806 82.959586 662,150.97 821,879.18 2,735.93 0.0 -10.0 2,735.9 -2,725.9 -->10 NE
CAP-49 35.504838 82.959140 662,157.16 822,012.37 2,761.23 0.0 -5.0 2,761.2 -2,756.2 --4.5 2,756.7
CAP-50 35.504799 82.958623 662,136.71 822,165.58 2,772.58 0.0 -5.0 2,772.6 -2,767.6 --3.0 2,769.6
CAP-51*35.504853 82.958057 662,149.80 822,334.65 UK 0.0 -5.0 UK -UK --3.5 UK
CAP-52 35.505039 82.957595 662,212.11 822,474.61 2,720.01 0.0 -5.0 2,720.0 -2,715.0 --3.0 2,717.0
CAP-53 35.504892 82.957086 662,152.46 822,623.89 2,723.63 0.0 -5.0 2,723.6 -2,718.6 0.0 -5.0 1.0 -3.0 5.0 2,718.6
CAP-54 35.505000 82.958757 662,211.49 822,128.50 2,760.60 0.0 -5.0 2,760.6 -2,755.6 --2.5 2,758.1
CAP-55 35.505018 82.958325 662,212.87 822,257.21 2,753.39 0.0 -5.0 2,753.4 -2,748.4 --2.5 2,750.9
CAP-56 35.505188 82.957621 662,266.37 822,469.20 2,718.60 0.0 -5.0 2,718.6 -2,713.6 --2.0 2,716.6
CAP-57 35.505143 82.956341 662,235.05 822,849.12 2,659.89 0.0 -10.0 2,659.9 -2,649.9 0.0 -5.0 3.0 -4.0 8.0 2,651.9
CAP-58 35.505079 82.959431 662,248.32 821,929.36 2,723.22 0.0 -15.0 2,723.2 -2,708.2 -->15 NE
CAP-59 35.505517 82.958547 662,397.08 822,198.60 2,707.49 0.0 -10.0 2,707.5 -2,697.5 0.0 -5.0 -5.5 2,702.0
CAP-60 35.505467 82.958119 662,373.90 822,325.25 2,712.04 0.0 -5.0 2,712.0 -2,707.0 --2.0 2,710.0
CAP-61 35.505517 82.957550 662,385.19 822,495.11 2,681.60 0.0 -10.0 2,681.6 -2,671.6 0.0 -5.0 3.0 -5.0 6.0 2,675.6
CAP-62 35.505435 82.956974 662,348.45 822,665.13 2,659.34 0.0 -10.0 2,659.3 -2,649.3 --8.5 2,650.8
CAP-63 35.505455 82.956569 662,351.15 822,785.77 2,640.98 0.0 -10.0 2,641.0 -2,631.0 -->10 NE
CAP-64 35.505737 82.958439 662,475.82 822,233.74 2,703.71 0.0 -5.0 2,703.7 -2,698.7 --4.0 2,699.7
CAP-65 35.505594 82.957922 662,417.67 822,385.55 2,692.02 0.0 -10.0 2,692.0 -2,682.0 --6.5 2,685.5
CAP-66 35.505751 82.957592 662,470.89 822,486.01 2,650.17 0.0 -10.0 2,650.2 -2,640.2 -->10 NE
CAP-67 35.505578 82.957030 662,401.44 822,650.63 2,643.15 0.0 -10.0 2,643.2 -2,633.2 -->10 NE
CAP-68 35.502685 82.958826 661,370.31 822,074.54 2,794.26 0.0 -10.0 2,794.3 -2,784.3 -->10 NE
CAP-69 35.502666 82.959626 661,373.18 821,836.47 2,796.13 0.0 -10.0 2,796.1 -2,786.1 -->10 NE
CAP-70 35.503209 82.960104 661,576.04 821,702.05 2,796.80 0.0 -10.0 2,796.8 -2,786.8 -->10 NE
CAP-71 35.503770 82.960051 661,779.71 821,725.94 2,780.33 0.0 -10.0 2,780.3 -2,770.3 -->10 NE
CAP-72 35.504014 82.960018 661,867.88 821,739.43 2,772.21 0.0 -10.0 2,772.2 -2,762.2 -->10 NE
CAP-73 35.504089 82.956785 661,856.89 822,701.97 2,730.81 0.0 -10.0 2,730.8 -2,720.8 -->10 NE
CAP-74 35.504189 82.959882 661,929.91 821,782.23 2,763.62 0.0 -10.0 2,763.6 -2,753.6 -->10 NE
Soil Borrow Area Sample
SBS-1 35.504174 82.961992 661,949.68 821,154.54 2,620.98 NA -NA NA -NA 0.0 -1.0 NA -NA NA NA
Notes:
All survey data provided by McGill Associates from survey conducted on August 19, 2014 UD = Undisturbed Soil Sample UK = Unknown
*Coordinates for CAP-51 from BLE hand-held GPS unit (not surveyed by McGill)Bulk samples collected from auger cuttings bgs = below ground surface
Units in feet and/or decimal degrees (values shown to nearest 0.1-ft have been rounded)NA = Not applicable
Soil borings performed by BLE on 7/8-9/14 NE = Not encountered
SBS-1 is a bulk sample collected via shovel from a cut area of potential borrow area
Table 1 Boring Loc of FFLF Cap Eval Tables July 2014 1957-42.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: RAD
Table 2
Laboratory Analysis Results Summary of Potentially Suitable Soils for a Cap
Closed Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J14-1957-42

PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS HYDRAULIC
SAMPLE FINES LIQUID PLASTICITY MAXIMUM OPTIMUM DRY MOISTURE CONDUCTIVITY
DEPTH (<#200 seive)LIMIT INDEX DRY MOISTURE DENSITY CONTENT (ASTM D 5084)
DENSITY CONTENT (% COMPACTION)(% OVER OMC)e = 5 psi
feet (bgs)%pcf %pcf %cm/s
0.0 - 1.0 Tan silty fiine to medium
SAND (SM)49.6 53 16 101.3 19.4 97.0
(95.8)
25.1
(5.7)4.6 E-07
1.0 - 3.0 Reddish brown fine to medium
sandy SILT 50.7 ------------------4.3 E-05
0.0 - 5.0 Reddish brown fine to medium
sandy SILT 52.3 ------105.7 17.5 101.1
(95.6)
23.0
(5.5)2.8 E-07
0.0 - 5.0 Gray silty fine to medium
SAND 37.6 ------105.3 18.0 101.0
(95.9)
23.0
(5.0)5.2 E-07
1.0 - 3.0 Reddish brown silty fine to
medium SAND 38.9 ------------------6.5 E-05
0.0 - 5.0 Reddish brown silty fine to
medium SAND 38.7 ------109.3 16.5 104.0
(95.2)
21.0
(4.5 )1.1 E-06
Notes:
Suitable soil may meet NCDENR regulatory hydraulic conductivity requirements for a soil cap when prepared in accordance with the report reccomendations
UD = Undisturbed Soil Sample
Bulk samples collected from auger cuttings
e = effective stress applied to the sample in pounds per square inch
pcf = pounds per cubic foot
cm/s = centimeters per second
bgs = below ground surface
CAP-61 (Bulk)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(USCS)
PROCTOR PARAMETERS REMOLD PARAMETERS
SAMPLE NO.
(Sample Type)
SBS-1 (Bulk)
CAP-6 (UD)
CAP-17 (Bulk)
CAP-26 (Bulk)
CAP-26 (UD)
Table 2 Lab Summary of FFLF Cap Eval Tables July 2014 1957-42.xlsx
Prepared by: EW/AWA
Checked by: JCH
Table 3
Location, Interval, Elevation, and Thickness of Suitable Soil for a Cap
Closed Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
Permit Number 44-03
BLE Project No. J14-1957-42
Soil Cap Borings
Boring or Latitude (N) Longitude (W)Northing Easting Gnd. Surface Suitable Soil Suitable Soil Suitable Soil
Sample ID (dd)(dd)(feet)(feet)Elevation Depth (bgs)Elevation Thickness (ft)
CAP-1 35.502922 82.959500 661,464.65 821,877.41 2,797.65 0.16 -4.0 2,797.5 -2,793.6 3.8
CAP-2 35.502912 82.959030 661,455.35 822,017.13 2,801.06 0.08 -2.5 2,801.0 -2,798.6 2.4
CAP-3 35.502908 82.958707 661,450.12 822,113.21 2,797.49 0.08 -3.5 2,797.4 -2,794.0 3.4
CAP-4 35.503034 82.958393 661,492.22 822,208.45 2,791.13 0.16 -4.0 2,791.0 -2,787.1 3.8
CAP-5 35.503257 82.959922 661,591.63 821,756.85 2,793.96 NE -NE NE -NE NE
CAP-6 35.503168 82.959471 661,553.86 821,889.57 2,799.98 0.16 -5.0 2,799.8 -2,795.0 4.8
CAP-7 35.503192 82.959041 661,557.47 822,017.81 2,801.95 0.08 -2.5 2,801.9 -2,799.4 2.4
CAP-8 35.503211 82.958516 661,558.24 822,174.20 2,798.33 0.08 -3.5 2,798.2 -2,794.8 3.4
CAP-9 35.503217 82.957906 661,553.18 822,355.89 2,773.86 0.16 -10.0 2,773.7 -<2763.9 >9.8
CAP-10 35.503398 82.959526 661,638.16 821,876.71 2,801.30 0.16 -3.0 2,801.1 -2,798.3 2.8
CAP-11 35.503516 82.959007 661,675.01 822,032.80 2,802.87 0.16 -3.0 2,802.7 -2,799.9 2.8
CAP-12 35.503455 82.958638 661,648.20 822,141.73 2,800.24 0.08 -2.5 2,800.2 -2,797.7 2.4
CAP-13 35.503517 82.958060 661,664.11 822,314.50 2,786.15 0.08 -3.0 2,786.1 -2,783.2 2.9
CAP-14 35.503732 82.959944 661,764.59 821,757.17 2,780.28 1.50 -2.5 2,778.8 -2,777.8 1.0
CAP-15 35.503721 82.959560 661,755.82 821,871.25 2,793.27 0.08 -4.0 2,793.2 -2,789.3 3.9
CAP-16 35.503730 82.959132 661,754.15 821,998.77 2,799.15 0.08 -3.0 2,799.1 -2,796.1 2.9
CAP-17 35.503646 82.958756 661,719.23 822,109.34 2,801.55 0.08 -4.0 2,801.5 -2,797.5 3.9
CAP-18 35.503688 82.958035 661,725.73 822,324.43 2,785.68 0.08 -2.0 2,785.6 -2,783.7 1.9
CAP-19 35.503745 82.957517 661,740.28 822,479.22 2,761.82 0.16 -5.0 2,761.7 -2,756.8 4.8
CAP-20 35.503952 82.959604 661,840.42 821,861.53 2,782.29 0.08 -4.0 2,782.2 -2,778.3 3.9
CAP-21 35.503943 82.959253 661,833.11 821,965.71 2,795.54 0.08 -3.0 2,795.5 -2,792.5 2.9
CAP-22 35.503879 82.958846 661,804.84 822,085.95 2,798.07 0.08 -3.5 2,798.0 -2,794.6 3.4
CAP-23 35.503861 82.958159 661,790.42 822,289.94 2,789.77 0.08 -3.0 2,789.7 -2,786.8 2.9
CAP-24 35.503869 82.957764 661,788.55 822,407.57 2,772.85 0.16 -3.5 2,772.7 -2,769.4 3.3
CAP-25 35.504006 82.959881 661,863.29 821,779.86 2,769.39 0.50 -3.0 2,768.9 -2,766.4 2.5
CAP-26 35.504115 82.959361 661,896.93 821,936.05 2,787.42 0.08 -4.0 2,787.3 -2,783.4 3.9
CAP-27 35.504141 82.958928 661,901.26 822,065.20 2,792.25 0.08 -2.0 2,792.2 -2,790.2 1.9
CAP-28 35.504080 82.958266 661,871.10 822,261.15 2,791.20 0.16 -4.0 2,791.0 -2,787.2 3.8
CAP-29 35.504161 82.957796 661,894.98 822,402.26 2,773.63 0.16 -2.5 2,773.5 -2,771.1 2.3
CAP-30 35.504294 82.956839 661,932.09 822,688.63 2,731.06 0.16 -4.5 2,730.9 -2,726.6 4.3
CAP-31 35.504288 82.955870 661,918.33 822,976.86 2,679.56 0.08 -10.0 2,679.5 -<2,669.6 >9.9
CAP-32 35.504376 82.959416 661,992.51 821,923.62 2,776.99 0.08 -5.0 2,776.9 -2,772.0 4.9
CAP-33 35.504364 82.959220 661,985.64 821,981.62 2,784.05 0.16 -3.0 2,783.9 -2,781.0 2.8
CAP-34 35.504353 82.958966 661,978.66 822,056.99 2,788.00 0.16 -4.0 2,787.8 -2,784.0 3.8
CAP-35 35.504343 82.958379 661,968.29 822,231.49 2,788.40 0.08 -2.5 2,788.3 -2,785.9 2.4
CAP-36 35.504386 82.957906 661,978.01 822,372.76 2,773.15 0.08 -2.5 2,773.1 -2,770.6 2.4
CAP-37 35.504377 82.957178 661,966.19 822,589.24 2,744.76 0.16 -3.0 2,744.6 -2,741.8 2.8
CAP-38 35.504534 82.956595 662,016.27 822,764.79 2,726.67 0.16 -3.5 2,726.5 -2,723.2 3.3
CAP-39 35.504391 82.956100 661,958.48 822,909.83 2,722.12 0.00 -3.5 2,722.1 -2,718.6 3.5
CAP-40 35.504441 82.955898 661,974.22 822,970.65 2,676.22 0.08 -5.0 2,676.1 -2,671.2 4.9
CAP-41 35.504171 82.959753 661,921.77 821,820.42 2,761.08 NE -NE NE -NE NE
CAP-42 35.504562 82.959488 662,060.92 821,904.96 2,761.19 0.16 -2.5 2,761.0 -2,758.7 2.3
CAP-43 35.504593 82.959044 662,066.86 822,037.49 2,780.38 0.16 -5.0 2,780.2 -2,775.4 4.8
CAP-44 35.504525 82.958482 662,035.45 822,203.42 2,783.50 0.08 -2.5 2,783.4 -2,781.0 2.4
CAP-45 35.504559 82.958035 662,042.77 822,336.84 2,769.10 0.08 -4.0 2,769.0 -2,765.1 3.9
CAP-46 35.504619 82.957554 662,058.72 822,480.70 2,751.88 0.08 -2.5 2,751.8 -2,749.4 2.4
CAP-47 35.504677 82.956026 662,061.53 822,936.09 2,670.11 0.08 -10.0 2,670.0 -<2,660.1 >9.9
CAP-48 35.504806 82.959586 662,150.97 821,879.18 2,735.93 0.00 -10.0 2,735.9 -<2,725.9 >10
CAP-49 35.504838 82.959140 662,157.16 822,012.37 2,761.23 0.08 -4.5 2,761.1 -2,756.7 4.42
CAP-50 35.504799 82.958623 662,136.71 822,165.58 2,772.58 0.08 -3.0 2,772.5 -2,769.6 2.9
CAP-51*35.504853 82.958057 662,149.80 822,334.65 UK 0.08 -3.5 UK -UK 3.4
CAP-52 35.505039 82.957595 662,212.11 822,474.61 2,720.01 0.16 -3.0 2,719.9 -2,717.0 2.8
CAP-53 35.504892 82.957086 662,152.46 822,623.89 2,723.63 0.16 -5.0 2,723.5 -2,718.6 4.8
CAP-54 35.505000 82.958757 662,211.49 822,128.50 2,760.60 0.08 -2.5 2,760.5 -2,758.1 2.4
CAP-55 35.505018 82.958325 662,212.87 822,257.21 2,753.39 0.08 -2.5 2,753.3 -2,750.9 2.4
CAP-56 35.505188 82.957621 662,266.37 822,469.20 2,718.60 0.16 -2.0 2,718.4 -2,716.6 1.8
CAP-57 35.505143 82.956341 662,235.05 822,849.12 2,659.89 0.25 -8.0 2,659.6 -2,651.9 7.8
CAP-58 35.505079 82.959431 662,248.32 821,929.36 2,723.22 0.00 -15.0 2,723.2 -<2,708.2 >15
CAP-59 35.505517 82.958547 662,397.08 822,198.60 2,707.49 0.08 -5.5 2,707.4 -2,702.0 5.4
CAP-60 35.505467 82.958119 662,373.90 822,325.25 2,712.04 0.16 -2.0 2,711.9 -2,710.0 1.8
CAP-61 35.505517 82.957550 662,385.19 822,495.11 2,681.60 0.16 -6.0 2,681.4 -2,675.6 5.8
CAP-62 35.505435 82.956974 662,348.45 822,665.13 2,659.34 0.08 -8.5 2,659.3 -2,650.8 8.4
CAP-63 35.505455 82.956569 662,351.15 822,785.77 2,640.98 0.00 -10.0 2,641.0 -<2,630.9 >10
CAP-64 35.505737 82.958439 662,475.82 822,233.74 2,703.71 0.16 -4.0 2,703.6 -2,699.7 3.8
CAP-65 35.505594 82.957922 662,417.67 822,385.55 2,692.02 0.08 -6.5 2,691.9 -2,685.5 6.4
CAP-66 35.505751 82.957592 662,470.89 822,486.01 2,650.17 0.08 -10.0 2,650.1 -<2,640.2 >9.9
CAP-67 35.505578 82.957030 662,401.44 822,650.63 2,643.15 0.08 -10.0 2,643.1 -<2,633.2 >9.9
CAP-68 35.502685 82.958826 661,370.31 822,074.54 2,794.26 0.75 -10.0 2,793.5 -<2,784.3 >9.3
CAP-69 35.502666 82.959626 661,373.18 821,836.47 2,796.13 0.75 -10.0 2,795.4 -<2,786.1 >9.3
CAP-70 35.503209 82.960104 661,576.04 821,702.05 2,796.80 0.50 -10.0 2,796.3 -<2,786.8 >9.5
CAP-71 35.503770 82.960051 661,779.71 821,725.94 2,780.33 1.00 -10.0 2,779.3 -<2,770.3 >9.0
CAP-72 35.504014 82.960018 661,867.88 821,739.43 2,772.21 0.16 -10.0 2,772.1 -<2,762.2 >9.8
CAP-73 35.504089 82.956785 661,856.89 822,701.97 2,730.81 0.16 -10.0 2,730.7 -<2,720.8 >9.8
CAP-74 35.504189 82.959882 661,929.91 821,782.23 2,763.62 0.25 -10.0 2,763.4 -<2,753.6 >9.8
Soil Borrow Area Sample
SBS-1 35.504174 82.961992 661,949.68 821,154.54 2,620.98 NA -NA NA -NA NA
Notes:
All survey data provided by McGill Associates from survey conducted on August 19, 2014 UD = Undisturbed Soil Sample
*Coordinates for CAP-51 from BLE hand-held GPS unit (not surveyed by McGill)Bulk samples collected from auger cuttings
Units in feet and/or decimal degrees (values shown to nearest 0.1-ft have been rounded)NA = Not applicable
Soil borings performed by BLE on 7/8-9/14 NE = Not encountered
SBS-1 is a bulk sample collected via shovel from a cut area of potential borrow area UK = Unknown
Suitable soil may meet NCDENR regulatory hydraulic conductivity requirements for a soil cap bgs = below ground surface
= Trash not encountered in subject boring
Table 3 Suitable Soil of FFLF Cap Eval Tables July 2014 1957-42.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: RAD/JCH

FIGURES
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
R
A
C
C
O
O
N

C
R
E
E
K
RA
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
BL
A
N
T
O
N

B
R
A
N
C
H
RATCLIFFE C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
MM-10
MM-11
MM-12
SM-1a
SM-1c
SM-1b
SM-3
MM-7
MM-9
MM-3
MM-13
MM-2
MM-5
MM-4
R
A
T
C
L
I
F
F
E

C
O
V
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
(

F
L
O
W
)
(FL
O
W

)
( FLOW)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
(

F
L
O
W
)
2621.84
MM-5
SM-1a
SM-2
MM-8
MM-1
MM-6
MW-3A
2638.49
MW-3A
MW-4
MW-5
MW-25
MW-1A
*
*
*
2621.88
MW-2A
MW-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FIELD BORING LOGS

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
Cap Evaluation
J14-1957-42
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO.(ft.)
SOIL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE -mm
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 1.7 2.3 14.9 31.5 49.6
6 i
n
.
3 i
n
.
2 i
n
.
1 ½ i
n
.
1 i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8

i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Borrow SBS-1 1.0 Tan silty fi.-med. SAND SM
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
Cap Evaluation
J14-1957-42
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO.(ft.)
SOIL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE -mm
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 4.5 3.9 16.3 24.6 50.7
0.0 0.0 1.0 2.3 15.3 29.1 52.3
0.0 0.0 1.0 3.2 20.7 37.5 37.6
0.0 0.0 2.1 4.4 22.2 32.4 38.9
0.0 0.0 1.3 5.8 25.2 29.0 38.7
6 i
n
.
3 i
n
.
2 i
n
.
1 ½ i
n
.
1 i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8

i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Cap CAP-6 1.0-3.0 Reddish brown fi.-med. sandy SILT
Cap CAP-17 0.0-5.0 Reddish brown fi.-med. sandy SILT
Cap CAP-26 0.0-5.0 Grey silty fi.-med. SAND
Cap CAP-26 1.0-3.0 Reddish brown silty fi.-med. SAND
Cap CAP-61 0.0-5.0 Reddish brown silty fi.-med. SAND
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
Cap Evaluation
J14-1957-42
SYMBOL SOURCE
NATURAL
USCSSAMPLEDEPTHWATERPLASTICLIQUIDPLASTICITY
NO.CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%)(%)(%)(%)
SOIL DATA
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
X
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL o
r

O
L
CH o
r

O
H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Borrow SBS-1 1.0 37 53 16 SM
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
90
95
100
105
110
115
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
1.0 SM A-7-5(6)53 16 1.7 49.6
Tan silty fi.-med. SAND
J14-1957-42 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Borrow Sample Number: SBS-1
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 101.3 pcf
Optimum moisture = 19.4 %
Francis Farm Landfill
Cap Evaluation
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
95
100
105
110
115
120
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
0.0-5.0 1.0 52.3
Reddish brown fi.-med. sandy SILT
J14-1957-42 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Cap Sample Number: CAP-17
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 105.7 pcf
Optimum moisture = 17.5 %
Francis Farm Landfill
Cap Evaluation
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
95
100
105
110
115
120
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
0.0-5.0 1.0 37.6
Grey silty fi.-med. SAND
J14-1957-42 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Cap Sample Number: CAP-26
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 105.3 pcf
Optimum moisture = 18.0 %
Francis Farm Landfill
Cap Evaluation
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
95
100
105
110
115
120
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
0.0-5.0 1.3 38.7
Reddish brown silty fi.-med. SAND
J14-1957-42 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Cap Sample Number: CAP-61
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 109.3 pcf
Optimum moisture = 16.5 %
Francis Farm Landfill
Cap Evaluation
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:1 FOOT DEEP AT MID POINT OF THE CUT FACE
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:TAN SILTY FI.-MED. SAND
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.737
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.285
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=99.7 DW=79.7 25.1 WW=203.7 DW=157.8 29.1
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)121.3 119.4
Dry Density (pcf)97.0 92.5
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 92 96
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 7.5 1.67 20.1 10
0:03:09 6.5 1.71 20.1 8 4.6E-07 0.998 4.6E-07
0:03:29 6.4 1.72 20.1 8 4.7E-07 0.998 4.7E-07
0:03:53 6.3 1.72 20.1 8 4.6E-07 0.998 4.6E-07
0:04:16 6.2 1.72 20.1 8 4.6E-07 0.998 4.6E-07
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)4.6E-07 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.8
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):+5.7
7-30-14 1:58:40
7-30-14 1:59:03
7-30-14 1:54:47
7-30-14 1:57:56
7-30-14 1:58:16
3.000 3.046
2.850 2.868
609.4 617.0
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
CAP EVALUATION
J14-1957-42
6-17-14
SBS-1
REMOLDED
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:1.0-3.0'
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:REDDISH BROWN FI.-MED. SANDY SILT
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.617 7.623
Sample Diameter 7.216 7.168
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.06
Moisture Content (%)WW=189.8 DW=144.9 31.0 WW=249.8 DW=175.3 42.5
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)107.9 115.5
Dry Density (pcf)82.4 81.0
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 80 106
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
FALLING HEAD TEST
Confining Pressure (psi)65.2 Influent Pressure (psi)60.2 Effluent Pressure (psi)60.0 B-Value 0.95
Date Clock Time Elapsed Pipet Readings Head Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
Time Initial Final Initial Final
Start End seconds in out in out cm cm ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
4:00:00 4:01:50 110 1.0 23.0 2.0 22.0 40.092 37.726 20.8 5 4.4E-05 0.981 4.3E-05
4:01:50 4:03:45 115 2.0 22.0 3.0 21.0 37.726 35.361 20.8 5 4.5E-05 0.981 4.4E-05
4:03:45 4:05:53 128 3.0 21.0 4.0 20.0 35.361 32.995 20.8 5 4.3E-05 0.981 4.2E-05
4:05:53 4:08:11 138 4.0 20.0 5.0 19.0 32.995 30.629 20.8 5 4.3E-05 0.981 4.2E-05
Pipet Length, cm 28.390 28.390
Pipet Volume, cc 24 24
Cross-sectional Area of
Pipet, cm2 0.8454 0.8454
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)4.3E-05 cm/sec
7-22-14
7-22-14
7-22-14
7-22-14
2.999 3.001
2.841 2.822
538.4 568.9
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
CAP EVALUATION
J14-1957-42
6-17-14
CAP-6
UNDISTURBED
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:1.0-3.0'
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:REDDISH BROWN SILTY FI.-MED. SAND
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.303 7.328
Sample Diameter 7.236 7.206
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.01
Moisture Content (%)WW=96.4 DW=74.7 29.0 WW=270.5 DW=201.7 34.1
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)112.6 116.4
Dry Density (pcf)87.2 86.8
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 84 98
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
FALLING HEAD TEST
Confining Pressure (psi)65.2 Influent Pressure (psi)60.2 Effluent Pressure (psi)60.0 B-Value 0.95
Date Clock Time Elapsed Pipet Readings Head Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
Time Initial Final Initial Final
Start End seconds in out in out cm cm ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
4:22:00 4:23:09 69 1.0 23.0 2.0 22.0 40.092 37.726 20.8 5 6.7E-05 0.981 6.6E-05
4:23:09 4:24:22 73 2.0 22.0 3.0 21.0 37.726 35.361 20.8 5 6.7E-05 0.981 6.6E-05
4:24:22 4:25:42 80 3.0 21.0 4.0 20.0 35.361 32.995 20.8 5 6.6E-05 0.981 6.4E-05
4:25:42 4:27:08 86 4.0 20.0 5.0 19.0 32.995 30.629 20.8 5 6.6E-05 0.981 6.4E-05
Pipet Length, cm 28.390 28.390
Pipet Volume, cc 24 24
Cross-sectional Area of
Pipet, cm2 0.8454 0.8454
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)6.5E-05 cm/sec
7-22-14
7-22-14
7-22-14
7-22-14
2.875 2.885
2.849 2.837
541.7 557.1
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
CAP EVALUATION
J14-1957-42
6-17-14
CAP-26
UNDISTURBED
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:0.0-5.0'
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:REDDISH BROWN FI.-MED. SANDY SILT
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.650
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.287
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=164.9 DW=134.1 23.0 WW=182.1 DW=145.0 25.6
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)124.3 124.1
Dry Density (pcf)101.1 98.8
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 93 98
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 7.5 1.67 20.8 10
0:04:58 6.5 1.71 20.8 8 2.9E-07 0.981 2.9E-07
0:05:39 6.4 1.72 20.8 8 2.8E-07 0.981 2.8E-07
0:06:13 6.3 1.72 20.8 8 2.8E-07 0.981 2.8E-07
0:06:56 6.2 1.72 20.8 8 2.8E-07 0.981 2.7E-07
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)2.8E-07 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.6
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):+5.5
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
CAP EVALUATION
J14-1957-42
7-31-14
CAP-17
REMOLDED
3.000 3.012
2.850 2.869
624.3 634.4
8-5-14 2:56:14
8-5-14 2:56:57
8-5-14 2:50:01
8-5-14 2:54:59
8-5-14 2:55:40
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:0.0-5.0'
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:GREY SILTY FI.-MED. SAND
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.706
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.287
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=124.5 DW=101.2 23.0 WW=158.7 DW=126.7 25.3
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)124.3 123.5
Dry Density (pcf)101.0 98.6
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 93 96
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 7.5 1.67 20.8 10
0:04:22 6.0 1.73 20.8 7 5.3E-07 0.981 5.2E-07
0:04:43 5.9 1.74 20.8 7 5.3E-07 0.981 5.2E-07
0:05:05 5.8 1.74 20.8 7 5.3E-07 0.981 5.2E-07
0:05:28 5.7 1.74 20.8 7 5.2E-07 0.981 5.1E-07
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)5.2E-07 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.9
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):+5.0
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
CAP EVALUATION
J14-1957-42
7-31-14
CAP-26
REMOLDED
3.000 3.034
2.850 2.869
624.3 635.8
8-5-14 3:11:19
8-5-14 3:11:42
8-5-14 3:06:14
8-5-14 3:10:36
8-5-14 3:10:57
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:0.0-5.0'
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:REDDISH BROWN SILTY FI.-MED. SAND
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.640
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.290
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=127.1 DW=105.0 21.0 WW=176.5 DW=143.7 22.8
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)125.9 125.8
Dry Density (pcf)104.0 102.4
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 92 96
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 7.5 1.67 20.8 10
0:02:01 6.0 1.73 20.8 7 1.1E-06 0.981 1.1E-06
0:02:15 5.9 1.74 20.8 7 1.1E-06 0.981 1.1E-06
0:02:30 5.8 1.74 20.8 7 1.1E-06 0.981 1.0E-06
0:02:43 5.7 1.74 20.8 7 1.0E-06 0.981 1.0E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)1.1E-06 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.2
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):+4.5
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
CAP EVALUATION
J14-1957-42
7-31-14
CAP-61
REMOLDED
3.000 3.008
2.850 2.870
632.4 642.6
8-5-14 3:24:40
8-5-14 3:24:53
8-5-14 3:22:10
8-5-14 3:24:11
8-5-14 3:24:25

APPENDIX G COMPENDIUM OF OBSERVATION AND TESTING OF THE DOT SOILS
FOR THE FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL (BLE Project No. J14-1957-46)

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

COMPENDIUM OF THE OBSERVATION AND TESTING OF THE DOT
SOILS FOR THE FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL INTERIM SOIL CAP
CLOSED FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PERMIT NUMBER 44-03
PREPARED FOR:

HAYWOOD COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
CLYDE, NORTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY:
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 30, 2016 BLE PROJECT NUMBER J14-1957-46

BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS
6004 PONDERS COURT PHONE [phone] GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29615 FAX [phone]

June 30, 2016

Haywood County Solid Waste Management Department
c/o Office of the County Manager 215 N. Main Street
Waynesville, NC 28786 Attention: Mr. David B. Francis
Solid Waste and Tax Administrator Subject: Compendium of Observation and Testing of the DOT Soils for
the Francis Farm Landfill Interim Soil Cap Closed Francis Farm Landfill Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J14-1957-46 Permit Number 44-03

Dear Mr. Francis:
As authorized by Haywood County’s acceptance of our Proposal Number P14-0736 dated October
8, 2014, Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE) has performed the required observation and testing of soils sourced from a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) highway
expansion project and used for the interim soil cap placed on the subject site. The purpose of the work was to provide part-time quality assurance monitoring of potential low permeability borrow soil excavation and stockpiling and to collect, visually classify, and conduct laboratory index testing of soil
samples from the DOT construction project borrow area. Additionally, BLE was subsequently assigned to conduct periodic testing of these soils placed on the existing landfill waste footprint as an interim soil cap.
The project was active from late 2014 through early 2016. The enclosed compendium includes copies previously issued reports (for reference) and field and laboratory data from additional work
conducted through the termination of the project.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following project information was obtained from documents provided by McGill Associates
(McGill) and by Haywood County, correspondence with McGill, and from site data (in BLE’s project records) from our current services contract with Haywood County.

Haywood County owns and maintains the Francis Farm Landfill which is currently closed. McGill has been retained by Haywood County to provide engineering services related to the post-closure care of
the landfill. BLE has been retained by Haywood County (since 2007) to provide environmental and geotechnical consulting services for various post-closure related activities.

Compendium of Observation and Testing of the DOT Soils for the Interim Soil Cap June 30, 2016
Closed Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J14-1957-46
2
We understand that Haywood County plans to maintain/repair/upgrade the existing soil cap at the
closed Francis Farm Landfill. As part of those plans Haywood County requested that BLE evaluate
the existing soil cap so that McGill could use the data to develop a plan/design to meet project objectives. BLE’s evaluation of the existing soil cap was documented in our report titled Report of
Evaluation of the Existing Soil Cap & Potential Borrow Area, Closed Francis Farm Landfill dated
September 26, 2014 (BLE Project No. J14-1957-42). BLE recommended that additional borrow soils be identified to supplement the existing cover soils on site.
In 2014 McGill and Haywood County identified soil from the nearby NC DOT proposed NC 209 / U.S. 23 / S.R. 1523 interchange construction project which could be used as a cost-effective source of soil
for cap improvements. McGill assisted the County in executing a contract for the soil to be transported to and stockpiled at the site (former Shelton parcel) by the NC DOT contractor (NHM Constructors, LLC). Haywood County received approval from the NC Solid Waste Section (SWS) to perform landfill
cap maintenance on March 26, 2015. BLE was retained to conduct periodic testing of the NC DOT project soils both at the NC DOT site and
at the landfill stockpile to determine compliance with project objectives. It is our understanding that Haywood County personnel performed monitoring of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of borrow
soil selection, excavation, and stockpiling over the duration of the 18-month highway project. Testing
indicated that the soils met project objectives and some of the soil was placed over the existing cap by the NC DOT contractor as part of an interim cap maintenance project to improve drainage and to reduce
infiltration. BLE conducted periodic testing of the soil placement for compliance with project
objectives.

SCOPE OF SERVICES PERFORMED

The general scope of services are described below. Please reference the data provided in this
compendium for the specific services and testing provided by BLE.
• BLE provided the services of an engineer and geologist to review the NC DOT geotechnical report for the NC DOT project area and to prepare a summary guide which identified potentially suitable soil based on the descriptions on the boring logs and/or laboratory test data.

• BLE provided the services of an engineering technician to work with and train a representative
of Haywood County to evaluate potential low permeability borrow soils previously identified during the highway project.
• BLE provided the services of an engineering technician to provide limited oversight during the 18-month project to perform field classification of the soils collected by county personnel and
collect samples for geotechnical laboratory index testing.
• BLE collected bulk soil samples for soil index testing in order to provide a general
characterization of the stockpiled soils during the project. These bulk samples included samples collected from the stockpile or directly from the borrow area.

Compendium of Observation and Testing of the DOT Soils for the Interim Soil Cap June 30, 2016
Closed Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J14-1957-46
3
• BLE provided the services of an engineering technician to perform periodic testing of soil
placed on the landfill as an interim soil cap.
• BLE prepared summary reports with soil classifications, lab data summary, findings and
recommendations. The reports were prepared by a North Carolina licensed geologist and/or licensed engineer. The reports were submitted to McGill and to Haywood County.
Compendium of Previously Issued Reports
BLE issued a report titled Observation & Testing of NC DOT Borrow Soil NC 209 / U.S. 23 / S.R. 1523 Interchange Project dated December 2, 2014 (Appendix A). The report documented visits to
the NC DOT project site in November 2014 to collect soil samples and to visually identify suitable
soils. The report was prepared as a guide for suitable soil identification and included laboratory data from one sample designated CLBW-1.

BLE issued a report titled Observation & Testing of On-Site Soil Stockpile dated March 3, 2015 (Appendix B). The report documented visits to the landfill to observe the soil stockpile and to collect
samples for testing in February 2015. The report documented testing results of 5 soil samples
designated CLBW-2 through CLBW-6. The results indicated that the soil was suitable for use as cap material.

BLE issued a report titled Report of Borrow Soil Laboratory Test Results dated July 29, 2015 (Appendix C). The report documented the results of the prior laboratory testing of the soil stockpile
including an additional sample designated CLBW-7 and provided reconditions for placement of the soils on the landfill as an interim soil cap. Please note that placement of soils on the landfill had occurred prior to the issue date of this report.
Compendium of Field and Laboratory Testing Data and Results May 28, 2015 – BLE conducted soil sample collection of three (3) bulk soil samples from the NC DOT project area. The samples were designated SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3 and were tested in BLE’s laboratory
for Standard Proctor (D-698). The daily field report and laboratory data is included in Appendix D.
These data were used during subsequent density testing of interim cap soils.
June 25, 2015 – BLE conducted density testing and probing of soils placed on the landfill as interim cap. The results indicated that the soils were compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry density values and that compacted soils probed to our satisfaction. The daily field report, field test
results, and photographs are included in Appendix E.
August 6, 2015 – BLE conducted density testing, probing, and observation proof rolling of soils placed
on the landfill as interim cap. The results indicated that the soils were compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry density values, that compacted soils probed to our satisfaction, and that little deflection was noted observed during proof rolling. The daily field report, field test results, and
photographs are included in Appendix F. August 7, 2015 – BLE conducted density testing and probing of soils placed on the landfill as interim
cap. The results indicated that the soils were compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry
Compendium of Observation and Testing of the DOT Soils for the Interim Soil Cap June 30, 2016
Closed Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J14-1957-46
4
density values and that compacted soils probed to our satisfaction. The daily field report, field test
results, and photographs are included in Appendix G.
August 12, 2015 – BLE conducted density testing of soils placed on the landfill as interim cap. The
results indicated that the soils were compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry density values.
The daily field report and field test results are included in Appendix H.
August 14, 2015 (2 visits) – BLE observed proof rolling and conducted density testing of soils placed on the landfill as interim cap. The results indicated that the soils proof rolled successfully and were compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry density values. The daily field reports and field
test results are included in Appendix I. February 1, 2016 – BLE conducted density testing of soils placed on the landfill as interim cap at
finished subgrade elevations. Grading activities were completed and the surface areas had straw and seed in place. The results indicated that the soils were compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s maximum dry density values. The daily field report, field test results, and photographs are included in Appendix
J.

CLOSING
We appreciate the opportunity to work with Haywood County and McGill on this project. Please
contact us at [phone] with questions or comments. Sincerely,
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.

Andrew W. Alexander, P.G., RSM Mark S. Preddy, P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist Registered, NC No. 1475 Registered, NC No. 1043

cc: Mr. Jeff Helvey, P.E. – BLE Mr. Mark Cathey, P.E. – McGill Associates
Attachments: Appendices A through J
e:\awa projects\mcgill\haywood county lf\1957-46 dot borrow qa\fflf compendium of the dot soils project 1957-46.docx

APPENDIX A
OBSERVATION & TESTING OF NC DOT BORROW SOIL NC 209 / U.S. 23 / S.R. 1523 INTERCHANGE PROJECT DATED DECEMBER 2, 2014
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS
December 2, 2014
Mr. Mark Cathey, P.E.
McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Subject: Observation & Testing of NC DOT Borrow Soil from the
NC 209 / U.S. 23 / S.R. 1523 Interchange Project
Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project No. J14-1957-46
Dear Mr. Cathey:
The purpose of this letter is to document the observations associated with the borrow soils from the
NC DOT NC 209 / U.S. 23 / S.R. 1523 Interchange Project. The soils will be used for a closure project
at the Francis Farm Landfill in Haywood County, North Carolina. Soils from the NC DOT project are
currently being stockpiled on the former Shelton parcel adjacent to the landfill. The observations were
made during an on-site walk through of the portion of the NC DOT project area excavated by the
contractor on November 18, 2014.
The meeting was held on site at the Francis Farm Landfill and at the NC DOT project site. It was
attended by Mr. Mark Cathey, P.E. of McGill Associates, Mr. David Francis, Mr. Stephen King, Mr.
Randy Siske of Haywood County, Mr. Mark Stepp of NHM Constructors, LLC and Mr. Jeff Helvey,
P.E. of Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE). The purpose of the meeting was to identify
suitable soils planned for use in future landfill closure work. The meeting attendees traversed portions
of the NC DOT project area and Mr. Helvey and Mr. Siske traversed the current excavation area
reviewing visual and tactile characteristics of suitable borrow soils. The following comments are
made regarding issues related to the identification, selection, excavation, and hauling of the borrow
soils to the Francis Farm Landfill:
•Mr. Cathey noted that a few loads of rocky material would be accepted but that successive
loads of excavated rock should not be hauled to the landfill.
•Mr. Helvey noted that material appearing to be rock was actually saprolitic soil that could be
processed and meet assumed project permeability requirements of k < 1 x 10-5 cm/s (later
confirmed by laboratory testing – results attached). Mixing that occurs during excavation and
stockpiling, then re-excavation, hauling, spreading, processing and compacting during the
6004 PONDERS COURT PHONE [phone] GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29615 FAX [phone]

Francis Farm Landfill December 2, 2014
Future Closure Borrow Soil BLE Project Number J14-1957-46

2

closure construction would provide considerable mixing and should break-down saprolitic
soils into silty sands (SM).

 Mr. Cathey noted that rocky material hauled to the Francis Farm Landfill should be
segregated, as much as practical, by the contractor at the stockpile location and not mixed with
suitable soils.

 Mr. Cathey noted that rocky soils could be used at a later date by Haywood County for
beneficial use even if these soils are not suitable for use in a low permeability soil closure;
however, no more than 10% of the loads hauled in one day should be primarily composed of
this rocky soil. If necessary, selectivity of suitable soils could be increased if it becomes
apparent that an adequate volume of borrow soil is available at the NC DOT project.

Samples representative of the soils encountered at the current excavation area were obtained during
a previous visit by our Mr. Ben Nisbeth, P.G. Laboratory grainsize, Atterberg limits, standard
Proctor, and remolded permeability testing of the soils was assigned by Mr. Helvey based on the
observations made during the November 18th site visit. Site observations and test results indicate
that the red, reddish brown and brown select gravelly silty sands (SM), sandy silts (ML), and
clayey silts (MH) are suitable for use to construct a compacted soil layer having a permeability of k
< 1 x 10-5 cm/s. Representative photographs and descriptions of the observed materials are
attached. Laboratory data are attached.

CLOSING

Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. is pleased to have the opportunity to be of continued assistance to
McGill Associates and Haywood County. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this
letter.

Sincerely,

BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.

Jeffrey C. Helvey, P. E.
Senior Engineer
Licensed North Carolina # 33318

Attachments: Photographs
Laboratory Data (Sample CLBW-1)

Copy: Ben Nisbeth, P.G. Andy Alexander, P.G. Randy Siske
Francis Farm Landfill December 2, 2014 Future Closure Borrow Soil BLE Project Number J14-1957-46
Photo No. 1 Photo No. 2

Photograph No. 1 & 2: November 18, 2014 Excavation Area – NC DOT Project. Observed by Mr. Siske and Mr. Helvey. Soil sample LCBW-1 was taken in this area.

3

Francis Farm Landfill December 2, 2014 Future Closure Borrow Soil BLE Project Number J14-1957-46

Photograph No. 3: Representative Area of suitable / unsuitable borrow soils (reference descriptions
in the photograph).

4

Francis Farm Landfill December 2, 2014 Future Closure Borrow Soil BLE Project Number J14-1957-46
Photo No. 4 Photo No. 5

Photographs No. 4 & 5: Representative suitable soil samples (field and lab). Note that the soil shown in Photo No. 4 is actually reddish brown similar to Photo No. 5.

5

Francis Farm Landfill December 2, 2014 Future Closure Borrow Soil BLE Project Number J14-1957-46

Photograph No. 6: Representative suitable soil sample provided to Mr. Randy Siske as part of this
record.

6

Francis Farm Landfill December 2, 2014 Future Closure Borrow Soil BLE Project Number J14-1957-46
Photo No. 7 Photo No. 8
Photographs No. 7 & 8: The representative suitable borrow soil sample after mechanical sieving through screens (note the nickel for size reference). This soil contains rocky material but still meets the assumed permeability criterion. The purpose of Photograph Numbers 7 through 10 is to
provide examples of grain sizes within a sample similar to the sample in Photograph Numbers 4 & 5.
7
Francis Farm Landfill December 2, 2014 Future Closure Borrow Soil BLE Project Number J14-1957-46
Photo No. 9 Photo No. 10
Photographs No. 9 & 10: The representative suitable borrow soil sample after mechanical sieving through screens (note the nickel for size reference). This soil contains rocky material but still
meets the assumed permeability criterion. The purpose of Photograph Numbers 7 through 10 is to provide examples of grain sizes within a sample similar to the sample in Photographs Number 4 & 5.
8
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO.(ft.)
SOIL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE -mm
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 18.9 10.5 20.9 18.8 30.9
6 i
n
.
3 i
n
.
2 i
n
.
1 ½ i
n
.
1 i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8

i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Borrow CLBW-1 Brown and tan silty fi.-co. SAND/w grvl SM
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE
NATURAL
USCSSAMPLEDEPTHWATERPLASTICLIQUIDPLASTICITY
NO.CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%)(%)(%)(%)
SOIL DATA
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
X
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL o
r

O
L
CH o
r

O
H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Borrow CLBW-1 33 37 4 SM
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
90
95
100
105
110
115
Water content, %
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
SM A-2-4(0)37 4 18.9 30.9
Brown and tan silty fi.-co. SAND/w grvl
J14-1957-46 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI
% > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Borrow Sample Number: CLBW-1
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 108.4 pcf
Optimum moisture = 17.7 %
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:BROWN AND TAN SILTY FI.-CO. SAND/W GRVL
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.620
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.239
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=206.5 DW=170.7 21.0 WW=206.5 DW=170.7 21.0
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)124.7 124.7
Dry Density (pcf)103.1 103.1
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 89 89
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 4.6 1.79 22.2 5
0:00:28 4.0 1.81 22.2 4 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:00:39 3.8 1.82 22.2 4 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:00:51 3.6 1.83 22.2 3 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:01:06 3.4 1.84 22.2 3 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)3.8E-06 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.1
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):3.3
FRANCIS FARMS LANDFILL
DOT BORROW SOIL
J14-1957-46
11-18-14
CLBW-1
REMOLDED
3.000 3.000
2.850 2.850
626.3 626.3
11-25-14 2:03:54
11-25-14 2:04:09
11-25-14 2:03:03
11-25-14 2:03:31
11-25-14 2:03:42

APPENDIX B
OBSERVATION & TESTING OF ON-SITE SOIL STOCKPILE DATED MARCH 3, 2015
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE
NATURAL
USCSSAMPLEDEPTHWATERPLASTICLIQUIDPLASTICITY
NO.CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%)(%)(%)(%)
SOIL DATA
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
X
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL o
r

O
L
CH
o
r

O
H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Borrow CLBW-1 33 37 4 SM
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE
NATURAL
USCSSAMPLEDEPTHWATERPLASTICLIQUIDPLASTICITY
NO.CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%)(%)(%)(%)
SOIL DATA
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
X
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL o
r

O
L
CH
o
r

O
H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Borrow CLBW-2 31 42 11 ML
Borrow CLBW-3 29 38 9 SM
Borrow CLBW-4 35 48 13 SM
Borrow CLBW-5 36 42 6 ML
Borrow CLBW-6 37 44 7 SM
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO.(ft.)
SOIL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE -mm
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 18.9 10.5 20.9 18.8 30.9
6 i
n
.
3 i
n
.
2 i
n
.
1 ½ i
n
.
1 i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8

i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Borrow CLBW-1 Brown and tan silty fi.-co. SAND/w grvl SM
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO.(ft.)
SOIL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE -mm
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 1.6 3.6 14.2 22.4 58.2
0.0 0.0 25.8 14.4 18.4 16.5 24.9
0.0 4.9 13.1 6.5 15.5 20.0 40.0
0.0 0.0 4.1 3.2 13.3 26.8 52.6
0.0 0.0 3.8 4.1 17.0 27.5 47.6
6 i
n
.
3 i
n
.
2 i
n
.
1 ½ i
n
.
1 i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8

i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Borrow CLBW-2 Brown fi.-med. sandy SILT ML
Borrow CLBW-3 Brown silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel SM
Borrow CLBW-4 Brown silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel SM
Borrow CLBW-5 Brown fi.-med. sandy SILT ML
Borrow CLBW-6 Brown silty fi.-med. SAND SM
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
90
95
100
105
110
115
Water content, %
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
SM A-2-4(0)37 4 18.9 30.9
Brown and tan silty fi.-co. SAND/w grvl
J14-1957-46 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Borrow Sample Number: CLBW-1
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 108.4 pcf
Optimum moisture = 17.7 %
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:CLAY BORROW
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:BROWN AND TAN SILTY FI.-CO. SAND/W GRVL
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.620
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.239
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=206.5 DW=170.7 21.0 WW=206.5 DW=170.7 21.0
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)124.7 124.7
Dry Density (pcf)103.1 103.1
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 89 89
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 4.6 1.79 22.2 5
0:00:28 4.0 1.81 22.2 4 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:00:39 3.8 1.82 22.2 4 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:00:51 3.6 1.83 22.2 3 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:01:06 3.4 1.84 22.2 3 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)3.8E-06 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.1
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):3.3
FRANCIS FARMS LANDFILL
DOT BORROW SOIL
J14-1957-46
11-18-14
CLBW-1
REMOLDED
3.000 3.000
2.850 2.850
626.3 626.3
11-25-14 2:03:54
11-25-14 2:04:09
11-25-14 2:03:03
11-25-14 2:03:31
11-25-14 2:03:42

APPENDIX C
REPORT OF BORROW SOIL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DATED JULY 29, 2015
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:CLAY BORROW
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:BROWN AND TAN SILTY FI.-CO. SAND/W GRVL
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.620
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.239
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=206.5 DW=170.7 21.0 WW=206.5 DW=170.7 21.0
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)124.7 124.7
Dry Density (pcf)103.1 103.1
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 89 89
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 4.6 1.79 22.2 5
0:00:28 4.0 1.81 22.2 4 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:00:39 3.8 1.82 22.2 4 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:00:51 3.6 1.83 22.2 3 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
0:01:06 3.4 1.84 22.2 3 4.0E-06 0.949 3.8E-06
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)3.8E-06 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.1
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):3.3
FRANCIS FARMS LANDFILL
DOT BORROW SOIL
J14-1957-46
11-18-14
CLBW-1
REMOLDED
3.000 3.000
2.850 2.850
626.3 626.3
11-25-14 2:03:54
11-25-14 2:04:09
11-25-14 2:03:03
11-25-14 2:03:31
11-25-14 2:03:42
BLEINC.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST REPORT
CONSTANT VOLUME APPARATUS (ASTM D 5084)
PROJECT:TESTED BY:JOHN MATHEW
PROJECT NO.:CHECKED BY:PAUL YARBER
DATE RECEIVED:
SAMPLE NO.SAMPLE LOCATION:CLAY BORROW
TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:GREY & BROWN SILTY FI.-CO. SAND w/gravel
SAMPLE DIMENSIONS AND PROPERTIES
ITEM INITIAL FINAL
inches centimeters inches centimeters
Sample Length 7.620 7.587
Sample Diameter 7.239 7.277
Length/Diameter Ratio 1.05
Moisture Content (%)WW=152.7 DW=127.3 20.0 WW=178.6 DW=148.1 20.6
Sample Wet Weight (grams)
Wet Density (pcf)129.6 129.5
Dry Density (pcf)108.1 107.4
Saturation (%)ASSUMED SG=2.7 96 98
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING MEASUREMENT
(PERMOMETER)
Confining Pressure (psi)65 Influent Pressure (psi)60 Effluent Pressure (psi)60 B-Value 0.96
Reset Date Clock Time Elapsed Time HAOUT HAIN Temp Gradient K Temp K20°C
(Y/N)(cm)(cm)ºC (cm/sec)Correction (cm/sec)
Y 7.7 1.87 21.3 10
0:02:40 6.5 1.92 21.3 8 6.6E-07 0.969 6.4E-07
0:03:11 6.3 1.93 21.3 8 6.6E-07 0.969 6.4E-07
0:03:44 6.1 1.94 21.3 7 6.6E-07 0.969 6.4E-07
0:04:01 6.0 1.94 21.3 7 6.6E-07 0.969 6.4E-07
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K20°C)6.4E-07 cm/sec
% COMPACTION OF STD. PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY (ASTM D 698):95.7
% WETTER THAN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 698):+4.5
5-27-15 12:46:52
5-27-15 12:47:09
5-27-15 12:43:08
5-27-15 12:45:48
5-27-15 12:46:19
3.000 2.987
2.850 2.865
651.3 654.8
FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL
J15-1957-46
5-20-15
CLBW-7
REMOLDED
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
90
95
100
105
110
115
Water content, %
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
SM A-2-4(0)37 4 18.9 30.9
Brown and tan silty fi.-co. SAND/w grvl
J14-1957-46 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Borrow Sample Number: CLBW-1
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 108.4 pcf
Optimum moisture = 17.7 %
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
95
100
105
110
115
120
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
SM A-2-4(0)37 6 14.9 28.1
Grey & brown silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel
J14-1957-46 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Borrow Sample Number: CLBW-7
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 112.9 pcf
Optimum moisture = 15.5 %
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE
NATURAL
USCSSAMPLEDEPTHWATERPLASTICLIQUIDPLASTICITY
NO.CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%)(%)(%)(%)
SOIL DATA
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
X
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL o
r

O
L
CH
o
r

O
H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Borrow CLBW-1 33 37 4 SM
Borrow CLBW-2 31 42 11 ML
Borrow CLBW-3 29 38 9 SM
Borrow CLBW-4 35 48 13 SM
Borrow CLBW-5 36 42 6 ML
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE
NATURAL
USCSSAMPLEDEPTHWATERPLASTICLIQUIDPLASTICITY
NO.CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%)(%)(%)(%)
SOIL DATA
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y

I
N
D
E
X
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL o
r

O
L
CH
o
r

O
H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Borrow CLBW-6 37 44 7 SM
Borrow CLBW-7 31 37 6 SM
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO.(ft.)
SOIL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE -mm
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 18.9 10.5 20.9 18.8 30.9
0.0 0.0 1.6 3.6 14.2 22.4 58.2
0.0 0.0 25.8 14.4 18.4 16.5 24.9
0.0 4.9 13.1 6.5 15.5 20.0 40.0
0.0 0.0 4.1 3.2 13.3 26.8 52.6
6 i
n
.
3 i
n
.
2 i
n
.
1 ½ i
n
.
1 i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8

i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Borrow CLBW-1 Brown and tan silty fi.-co. SAND/w grvl SM
Borrow CLBW-2 Brown fi.-med. sandy SILT ML
Borrow CLBW-3 Brown silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel SM
Borrow CLBW-4 Brown silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel SM
Borrow CLBW-5 Brown fi.-med. sandy SILT ML
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC
Client:
Project:
Project No.:Figure
Haywood County
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
J14-1957-46
SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO.(ft.)
SOIL DATA
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE -mm
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 3.8 4.1 17.0 27.5 47.6
0.0 0.0 14.9 9.7 23.1 24.2 18.6 9.5
6 i
n
.
3 i
n
.
2 i
n
.
1 ½ i
n
.
1 i
n
.
¾ in
.
½ in
.
3/8

i
n
.
#4 #1
0
#2
0
#3
0
#4
0
#6
0
#1
0
0
#1
4
0
#2
0
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
Borrow CLBW-6 Brown silty fi.-med. SAND SM
Borrow CLBW-7 Grey & brown silty fi.-co. SAND w/gravel SM

APPENDIX D May 28, 2015 – FIELD REPORT & LABORATORY DATA
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
95
100
105
110
115
120
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
Brown fi.-med. sandy SILT
J14-1957-46 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Struct. Fill Sample Number: SF-1
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 107.7 pcf
Optimum moisture = 16.6 %
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
95
100
105
110
115
120
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
Brown fi.-med. sandy SILT
J14-1957-46 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Struct. Fill Sample Number: SF-2
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 106.7 pcf
Optimum moisture = 18.5 %
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Dr
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

p
c
f
95
100
105
110
115
120
Water content, %
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard
Light yellowish brown fi.-med. sandy SILT
J14-1957-46 Haywood County
Elev/Classification Nat.Sp.G.LL PI % >% <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No.Client:Remarks:
Project:
Source of Sample: Struct. Fill Sample Number: SF-3
Bunnell Lammons Engineering, Inc.
Greenville, SC Figure
Maximum dry density = 103.6 pcf
Optimum moisture = 19.5 %
Francis Farm Landfill
DOT Borrow Soil

APPENDIX E June 25, 2015 – FIELD REPORT

APPENDIX F August 6, 2015 – FIELD REPORT

APPENDIX G
August 7, 2015 – FIELD REPORT

APPENDIX H August 12, 2015 – FIELD REPORT

APPENDIX I August 14, 2015 – FIELD REPORT

APPENDIX J February 1, 2016 – FIELD REPORT

APPENDIX H
REPORT OF WATER SUPPLY WELL SAMPLING – AUGUST 2011 (BLE Project No. J11-1957-24)

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

6004 PONDERS COURT PHONE [phone] GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29615 FAX [phone]

September 21, 2011

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management – Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646

Attention: Ms. Elizabeth S. Werner
Hydrogeologist

Subject: Report of Water Supply Well Sampling – August 2011
Closed Francis Farm Landfill
Haywood County, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J11-1957-24
Permit Number 44-03

Dear Ms. Werner:

Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc. (BLE) is pleased to provide this report of water supply
well sampling to the NCDWM. This information is submitted on behalf of Haywood
County as part of the ongoing groundwater assessment as the subject facility. These
activities have been performed by the county as a pro-active measure and are in compliance
with the requirements of NCAC Title 15A 13B .1634 (g) and NCAC Title 15A 13B .1635
(c). Plans for these activities were described in a report titled Report of Groundwater
Assessment: Monitoring Wells MW-6 through MW-15 dated July 20, 2011 (BLE Project
Number J10-1957-14 & NCDWM Doc ID #14935).

On August 16, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Haywood County conducted a public meeting to discuss
the status of the groundwater assessment and to identify property owners and residents near
the landfill which have or had water supply wells on their properties. Prior to the meeting
all property owners within approximately 1,500 feet of the landfill were notified by letter
(sent by the county and delivered by the USPS) which invited them to the meeting and
asked for water supply information. Six property owners signed an authorization form
which allowed access to their wells for sampling. The property owners included the
following persons: Messers. Robert Downs, James McElroy, Wade Francis (2 sampling
locations), Larry Francis, Stan Arrington, and Dennis Francis. The Wade Francis property
includes two water supply wells, one of which supplies water to a mobile home and his
dairy barn. Please note that the well on the Downs’ property services the mobile home on
the property of Ms. Barbara Worley Douville.

Report of Water Supply Well Sampling – August 2011 September 21, 2011
Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J11-1957-24

A seventh property owner, Mr. William Phillips, submitted an authorization form after field
sampling was completed.

Mr. J.N. Hyatt attended the public meeting and indicated that he had a well which serviced
his property. However, Mr. Hyatt refused to sign an authorization form to allow the county
to sample his well.

The sampled well locations were surveyed via handheld GPS by Haywood County. Those
locations are noted on Figure 1 which was prepared by McGill Associates. The locations of
the other properties referenced above are shown on Figure 1.

Sampling was conducted by Pace Analytical Services, Inc. (Pace) on August 24, 2011. The
water supply wells were sampled for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method
8260. Pace was unable to sample the Stan Arrington well because the well pump was
inoperable. The well of Mr. William Phillips was not sampled because the authorization
form was not returned to the county until after August 24, 2011. Mr. Phillips informed the
county that his well pump has not been operational for two years and that the property is
not occupied. The county has offered to conduct sampling of the Arrington and Phillips
wells if the property owners return their pumps to operating condition.

Well sampling and survey (information) forms were completed by Haywood County, and
the property owners themselves. Those forms are included in Appendix A. Unless
otherwise noted on the forms, sampling was performed by purging the well for 15 minutes
using the existing well pump and collecting a sample directly from the well head. The
laboratory analytical results are included in Appendix B.

The results show that VOCs were not detected in any of the wells except for concentrations
of bromodichloromethane and chloroform in the wells of Wade Francis and Dennis Francis.

In each case the detected concentrations of chloroform do not exceed the NC2L
Groundwater Standard of 70 micrograms per liter. In each case the detected concentrations
of bromodichloromethane exceed the NC2L Groundwater Standard of 0.60 micrograms per
liter. Note: NC2L Groundwater Standards effective January 1, 2010.

The two detected VOCs do not appear to be sourced from the landfill nor were they
detected in the groundwater beneath the landfill in August 2011. These chemicals are
typical by-products of adding chlorine [bleach] to a well as a disinfectant and are assumed
to be sourced from those activities. A sampling summary table is presented below.

Report of Water Supply Well Sampling – August 2011 September 21, 2011
Francis Farm Landfill - Haywood County, North Carolina BLE Project Number J11-1957-24

Well Owner Signed
Authorization
Pump Operational Sampled VOCs
Detected
Robert Downs* Yes Yes Yes No
James McElroy Yes Yes Yes No
Wade Francis Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wade Francis Dairy Barn Yes Yes Yes No
Larry Francis Yes Yes Yes No
Dennis Francis Yes Yes Yes Yes
Stan Arrington Yes No No NA
William Phillips Yes No No NA
J.N. Hyatt No Unknown No NA

*Downs’ well services the property of Barbara Worley Douville

Haywood County is planning to transmit the laboratory results from each well to each
property owner. Additionally we understand that this data has been transmitted to Dr.
Kenneth Rudo (N.C. Division of Public Health) for his review and comment.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with Haywood County, McGill, and the NCDWM on
this project. If the NCDWM has any questions or comments, please contact us at (864) 288-
1265.

Sincerely,
BUNNELL-LAMMONS ENGINEERING, INC.

Andrew W. Alexander, P.G., RSM Trevor J. Benton, P.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist Project Hydrogeologist
Registered, NC No. 1475 Registered, NC No. 2025

cc: Mr. Stephen King – Haywood County Mr. G. Landon Davidson, PG – NCDWQ Asheville
Mr. Jeff Bishop, P.E. – McGill Associates Ms. Andrea Keller – NCDENR Asheville

Attachments: Figure 1
Appendix A – Well Sampling and Information Forms
Appendix B – Laboratory Analytical Results

c:\awa\active projects\mcgill\haywood county lf\1957-24 fflf aug 2011 event consult\fflf water suppy well sampling
report 1957-24 ble.doc
S.R
.

1
8
0
2
FRANCIS FAR
M

R
O
A
D
A
S
H
E
V
I
L
L
E

R
O
A
D
U
.
S
.

H
W
Y

2
3

B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
FR
A
N
C
I
S

F
A
R
M

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
HA
Y
W
O
O
D

C
O
U
N
T
Y
,

N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
HA
Y
W
O
O
D

C
O
U
N
T
Y
FIGURE
DE
S
I
G
N

R
E
V
I
E
W
:

_
_
_
_
_
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D

B
Y
:

J
R
B
JO
B

N
O
.
:

0
9
.
0
0
7
2
4
DA
T
E
:

S
E
P
T
E
M
B
E
R

2
0
1
1
CA
D
D

B
Y
:

K
S
CO
N
S
T
.

R
E
V
I
E
W
:

_
_
_
_
_
/E
)
N K
N
Q:
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
.
0
0
7
2
4
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
P
r
i
v
a
t
e

W
a
t
e
r

W
e
l
l
s
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

1

-

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

W
a
t
e
r

W
e
l
l
s
.
d
w
g
9/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1

1
0
:
4
7

A
M
DA
V
E
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
:

PR
I
V
A
T
E

W
A
T
E
R

W
E
L
L

M
A
P
Fi
g
u
r
e

1

-

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

W
a
t
e
r
We
l
l
s
.
d
w
g
PLAN
+0%*(''6)4#2*+%5%#.'



Appendix A

Well Sampling and Information Forms

Appendix B

Laboratory Analytical Results
September 06, 2011
LIMS USE: FR - STEPHEN KING
LIMS OBJECT ID: 92101063
92101063
Project:
Pace Project No.:
RE:
Mr. Stephen King
Haywood Co. Solid Waste
278 Recycle Rd.
Clyde, NC 28721
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Dear Mr. King:
Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the laboratory on August 24, 2011. The
results relate only to the samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the
most current TNI standards, where applicable, unless otherwise narrated in the body of the report.
Analyses were performed at the Pace Analytical Services location indicated on the sample analyte
page for analysis unless otherwise footnoted.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tom Williams
[e-mail]
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc:Mr. Stephen King, Haywood Co. Solid Waste
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Page 1 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
CERTIFICATIONS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Charlotte Certification IDs9800 Kincey Ave. Ste 100, Huntersville, NC 28078North Carolina Drinking Water Certification #: 37706
North Carolina Field Services Certification #: 5342North Carolina Wastewater Certification #: 12South Carolina Certification #: 99006001South Carolina Drinking Water Cert. #: 99006003Virginia Drinking Water Certification #: 00213
Connecticut Certification #: PH-0104Florida/NELAP Certification #: E87627
Kentucky UST Certification #: 84Louisiana DHH Drinking Water # LA 100031West Virginia Certification #: 357Virginia/VELAP Certification #: 460144
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Page 2 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
SAMPLE ANALYTE COUNT
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Lab ID Sample ID Method
Analytes
Reported LaboratoryAnalysts
92101063001 Robert Downs EPA 8260 53 PASI-CMCK
92101063002 James McElroy EPA 8260 53 PASI-CMCK
92101063003 Wade Francis EPA 8260 53 PASI-CMCK
92101063004 Wade Francis Dairy Barn EPA 8260 53 PASI-CMCK
92101063005 Larry Francis EPA 8260 53 PASI-CMCK
92101063007 Dennis Francis EPA 8260 53 PASI-CMCK
92101063008 Travel Blank EPA 8260 53 PASI-CMCK
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Page 3 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Robert Downs Lab ID:92101063001 Collected:08/24/11 11:42 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 67-64-125.0
Acrylonitrile ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 107-13-110.0
Benzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 71-43-21.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 78-93-35.0
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-15-02.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-00-31.0
Chloroform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 74-87-31.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 95-50-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 106-46-71.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 110-57-61.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 78-87-51.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 10061-02-61.0
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 100-41-41.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 591-78-65.0
Iodomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 74-88-45.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-09-22.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 108-10-15.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 127-18-41.0
Toluene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 108-88-31.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 75-01-41.0
Xylene (Total)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 1330-20-72.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 4 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Robert Downs Lab ID:92101063001 Collected:08/24/11 11:42 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:33 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)97 %1 08/30/11 05:33 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)107 %1 08/30/11 05:33 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)131 %1 08/30/11 05:33 17060-07-0 S370-130
Toluene-d8 (S)111 %1 08/30/11 05:33 2037-26-570-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 5 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:James McElroy Lab ID:92101063002 Collected:08/24/11 12:07 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 67-64-125.0
Acrylonitrile ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 107-13-110.0
Benzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 71-43-21.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 78-93-35.0
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-15-02.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-00-31.0
Chloroform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 74-87-31.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 95-50-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 106-46-71.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 110-57-61.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 78-87-51.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 10061-02-61.0
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 100-41-41.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 591-78-65.0
Iodomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 74-88-45.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-09-22.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 108-10-15.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 127-18-41.0
Toluene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 108-88-31.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 75-01-41.0
Xylene (Total)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 1330-20-72.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 6 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:James McElroy Lab ID:92101063002 Collected:08/24/11 12:07 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 05:57 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)100 %1 08/30/11 05:57 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)109 %1 08/30/11 05:57 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)131 %1 08/30/11 05:57 17060-07-0 S370-130
Toluene-d8 (S)111 %1 08/30/11 05:57 2037-26-570-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 7 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Wade Francis Lab ID:92101063003 Collected:08/24/11 12:30 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 67-64-125.0
Acrylonitrile ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 107-13-110.0
Benzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 71-43-21.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane 4.5 ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 78-93-35.0
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-15-02.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-00-31.0
Chloroform 44.1 ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 74-87-31.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 95-50-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 106-46-71.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 110-57-61.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 78-87-51.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 10061-02-61.0
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 100-41-41.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 591-78-65.0
Iodomethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 74-88-45.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-09-22.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 108-10-15.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 127-18-41.0
Toluene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 108-88-31.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 75-01-41.0
Xylene (Total)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 1330-20-72.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 8 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Wade Francis Lab ID:92101063003 Collected:08/24/11 12:30 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 04:55 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)97 %1 08/31/11 04:55 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)120 %1 08/31/11 04:55 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)118 %1 08/31/11 04:55 17060-07-070-130
Toluene-d8 (S)100 %1 08/31/11 04:55 2037-26-570-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 9 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Wade Francis Dairy Barn Lab ID:92101063004 Collected:08/24/11 13:30 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 67-64-125.0
Acrylonitrile ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 107-13-110.0
Benzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 71-43-21.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 78-93-35.0
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-15-02.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-00-31.0
Chloroform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 74-87-31.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 95-50-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 106-46-71.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 110-57-61.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 78-87-51.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 10061-02-61.0
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 100-41-41.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 591-78-65.0
Iodomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 74-88-45.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-09-22.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 108-10-15.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 127-18-41.0
Toluene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 108-88-31.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 75-01-41.0
Xylene (Total)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 1330-20-72.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 10 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Wade Francis Dairy Barn Lab ID:92101063004 Collected:08/24/11 13:30 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 06:46 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)100 %1 08/30/11 06:46 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)111 %1 08/30/11 06:46 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)135 %1 08/30/11 06:46 17060-07-0 S370-130
Toluene-d8 (S)112 %1 08/30/11 06:46 2037-26-570-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 11 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Larry Francis Lab ID:92101063005 Collected:08/24/11 12:56 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 67-64-125.0
Acrylonitrile ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 107-13-110.0
Benzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 71-43-21.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 78-93-35.0
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-15-02.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-00-31.0
Chloroform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 74-87-31.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 95-50-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 106-46-71.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 110-57-61.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 78-87-51.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 10061-02-61.0
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 100-41-41.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 591-78-65.0
Iodomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 74-88-45.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-09-22.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 108-10-15.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 127-18-41.0
Toluene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 108-88-31.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 75-01-41.0
Xylene (Total)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 1330-20-72.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 12 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Larry Francis Lab ID:92101063005 Collected:08/24/11 12:56 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:10 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)101 %1 08/30/11 07:10 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)110 %1 08/30/11 07:10 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)134 %1 08/30/11 07:10 17060-07-0 S370-130
Toluene-d8 (S)109 %1 08/30/11 07:10 2037-26-570-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 13 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Dennis Francis Lab ID:92101063007 Collected:08/24/11 14:10 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 67-64-125.0
Acrylonitrile ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 107-13-110.0
Benzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 71-43-21.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane 4.9 ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 78-93-35.0
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-15-02.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-00-31.0
Chloroform 49.4 ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 74-87-31.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 95-50-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 106-46-71.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 110-57-61.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 78-87-51.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 10061-02-61.0
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 100-41-41.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 591-78-65.0
Iodomethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 74-88-45.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-09-22.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 108-10-15.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 127-18-41.0
Toluene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 108-88-31.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 75-01-41.0
Xylene (Total)ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 1330-20-72.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 14 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Dennis Francis Lab ID:92101063007 Collected:08/24/11 14:10 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/31/11 05:20 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)99 %1 08/31/11 05:20 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)121 %1 08/31/11 05:20 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)119 %1 08/31/11 05:20 17060-07-070-130
Toluene-d8 (S)100 %1 08/31/11 05:20 2037-26-570-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 15 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Travel Blank Lab ID:92101063008 Collected:08/24/11 00:00 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
Acetone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 67-64-125.0
Acrylonitrile ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 107-13-110.0
Benzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 71-43-21.0
Bromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 74-97-51.0
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-27-41.0
Bromoform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-25-21.0
Bromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 74-83-92.0
2-Butanone (MEK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 78-93-35.0
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-15-02.0
Carbon tetrachloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 56-23-51.0
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 108-90-71.0
Chloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-00-31.0
Chloroform ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 67-66-31.0
Chloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 74-87-31.0
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 96-12-85.0
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 124-48-11.0
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 106-93-41.0
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 74-95-31.0
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 95-50-11.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 106-46-71.0
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 110-57-61.0
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-34-31.0
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 107-06-21.0
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-35-41.0
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 156-59-21.0
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 156-60-51.0
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 78-87-51.0
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 10061-01-51.0
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 10061-02-61.0
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 100-41-41.0
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 591-78-65.0
Iodomethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 74-88-45.0
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-09-22.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 108-10-15.0
Styrene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 100-42-51.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 630-20-61.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 79-34-51.0
Tetrachloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 127-18-41.0
Toluene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 108-88-31.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 71-55-61.0
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 79-00-51.0
Trichloroethene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 79-01-61.0
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-69-41.0
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 96-18-41.0
Vinyl acetate ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 108-05-42.0
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 75-01-41.0
Xylene (Total)ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 1330-20-72.0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 16 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Sample:Travel Blank Lab ID:92101063008 Collected:08/24/11 00:00 Received:08/24/11 16:59 Matrix:Water
Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No.QualReport Limit
8260 MSV Low Level Analytical Method: EPA 8260
m&p-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 179601-23-12.0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 1 08/30/11 07:59 95-47-61.0
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)102 %1 08/30/11 07:59 460-00-470-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)106 %1 08/30/11 07:59 1868-53-770-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)133 %1 08/30/11 07:59 17060-07-0 S370-130
Toluene-d8 (S)109 %1 08/30/11 07:59 2037-26-570-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 17 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
MSV/16515
EPA 8260
EPA 8260
8260 MSV Low Level
Associated Lab Samples:92101063001, 92101063002, 92101063004, 92101063005, 92101063008
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:653728
Associated Lab Samples:92101063001, 92101063002, 92101063004, 92101063005, 92101063008
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/L ND 5.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
2-Butanone (MEK)ug/L ND 5.0 08/29/11 23:53
2-Hexanone ug/L ND 5.0 08/29/11 23:53
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ug/L ND 5.0 08/29/11 23:53
Acetone ug/L ND 25.0 08/29/11 23:53
Acrylonitrile ug/L ND 10.0 08/29/11 23:53
Benzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Bromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Bromodichloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Bromoform ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Bromomethane ug/L ND 2.0 08/29/11 23:53
Carbon disulfide ug/L ND 2.0 08/29/11 23:53
Carbon tetrachloride ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Chlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Chloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Chloroform ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Chloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Dibromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Dibromomethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Ethylbenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Iodomethane ug/L ND 5.0 08/29/11 23:53
m&p-Xylene ug/L ND 2.0 08/29/11 23:53
Methylene Chloride ug/L ND 2.0 08/29/11 23:53
o-Xylene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Styrene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Tetrachloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Toluene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 18 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:653728
Associated Lab Samples:92101063001, 92101063002, 92101063004, 92101063005, 92101063008
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Trichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Trichlorofluoromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Vinyl acetate ug/L ND 2.0 08/29/11 23:53
Vinyl chloride ug/L ND 1.0 08/29/11 23:53
Xylene (Total)ug/L ND 2.0 08/29/11 23:53
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%139 70-130 S308/29/11 23:53
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%99 70-130 08/29/11 23:53
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%109 70-130 08/29/11 23:53
Toluene-d8 (S)%110 70-130 08/29/11 23:53
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
653729LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 53.250 106 70-130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 50.550 101 70-130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 59.850 120 70-130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L 53.350 107 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L 53.850 108 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 52.550 105 70-132
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L 50.650 101 70-130
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/L 58.950 118 70-130
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ug/L 53.350 107 70-130
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 50.250 100 70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 59.850 120 70-130
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 55.550 111 70-130
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 47.850 96 70-130
2-Butanone (MEK)ug/L 122100 122 70-145
2-Hexanone ug/L 125100 125 70-144
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ug/L 118100 118 70-140
Acetone ug/L 115100 115 50-175
Acrylonitrile ug/L 292250 117 70-143
Benzene ug/L 50.750 101 70-130
Bromochloromethane ug/L 45.750 91 70-130
Bromodichloromethane ug/L 55.350 111 70-130
Bromoform ug/L 56.850 114 70-130
Bromomethane ug/L 50.250 100 54-130
Carbon disulfide ug/L 54.150 108 70-131
Carbon tetrachloride ug/L 51.550 103 70-132
Chlorobenzene ug/L 51.950 104 70-130
Chloroethane ug/L 54.250 108 64-134
Chloroform ug/L 52.150 104 70-130
Chloromethane ug/L 53.150 106 64-130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 51.650 103 70-131
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 56.450 113 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 19 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
653729LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Dibromochloromethane ug/L 49.450 99 70-130
Dibromomethane ug/L 50.650 101 70-131
Ethylbenzene ug/L 54.250 108 70-130
Iodomethane ug/L 112100 112 49-180
m&p-Xylene ug/L 111100 111 70-130
Methylene Chloride ug/L 55.850 112 63-130
o-Xylene ug/L 56.950 114 70-130
Styrene ug/L 56.650 113 70-130
Tetrachloroethene ug/L 50.750 101 70-130
Toluene ug/L 49.350 99 70-130
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 52.750 105 70-130
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 60.550 121 70-132
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ug/L 67.150 134 70-141
Trichloroethene ug/L 49.150 98 70-130
Trichlorofluoromethane ug/L 48.450 97 62-133
Vinyl acetate ug/L 130100 130 66-157
Vinyl chloride ug/L 53.950 108 69-130
Xylene (Total)ug/L 168150 112 70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%116 70-130
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%106 70-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%99 70-130
Toluene-d8 (S)%106 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 20 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
QC Batch:
QC Batch Method:
Analysis Method:
Analysis Description:
MSV/16529
EPA 8260
EPA 8260
8260 MSV Low Level
Associated Lab Samples:92101063003, 92101063007
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:654255
Associated Lab Samples:92101063003, 92101063007
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/L ND 5.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
2-Butanone (MEK)ug/L ND 5.0 08/31/11 01:07
2-Hexanone ug/L ND 5.0 08/31/11 01:07
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ug/L ND 5.0 08/31/11 01:07
Acetone ug/L ND 25.0 08/31/11 01:07
Acrylonitrile ug/L ND 10.0 08/31/11 01:07
Benzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Bromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Bromodichloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Bromoform ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Bromomethane ug/L ND 2.0 08/31/11 01:07
Carbon disulfide ug/L ND 2.0 08/31/11 01:07
Carbon tetrachloride ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Chlorobenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Chloroethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Chloroform ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Chloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Dibromochloromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Dibromomethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Ethylbenzene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Iodomethane ug/L ND 5.0 08/31/11 01:07
m&p-Xylene ug/L ND 2.0 08/31/11 01:07
Methylene Chloride ug/L ND 2.0 08/31/11 01:07
o-Xylene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Styrene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Tetrachloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Toluene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 21 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Parameter Units
Blank
Result
Reporting
Limit Qualifiers
METHOD BLANK:654255
Associated Lab Samples:92101063003, 92101063007
Matrix:Water
Analyzed
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Trichloroethene ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Trichlorofluoromethane ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Vinyl acetate ug/L ND 2.0 08/31/11 01:07
Vinyl chloride ug/L ND 1.0 08/31/11 01:07
Xylene (Total)ug/L ND 2.0 08/31/11 01:07
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%111 70-130 08/31/11 01:07
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%95 70-130 08/31/11 01:07
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%116 70-130 08/31/11 01:07
Toluene-d8 (S)%98 70-130 08/31/11 01:07
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
654256LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 53.050 106 70-130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 50.650 101 70-130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L 51.950 104 70-130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/L 54.650 109 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L 51.350 103 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 48.850 98 70-132
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/L 48.850 98 70-130
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/L 48.750 97 70-130
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)ug/L 52.650 105 70-130
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 53.350 107 70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/L 50.250 100 70-130
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/L 54.550 109 70-130
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L 50.250 100 70-130
2-Butanone (MEK)ug/L 99.2100 99 70-145
2-Hexanone ug/L 96.6100 97 70-144
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)ug/L 107100 107 70-140
Acetone ug/L 101100 101 50-175
Acrylonitrile ug/L 243250 97 70-143
Benzene ug/L 50.250 100 70-130
Bromochloromethane ug/L 49.350 99 70-130
Bromodichloromethane ug/L 54.050 108 70-130
Bromoform ug/L 49.450 99 70-130
Bromomethane ug/L 65.250 130 54-130
Carbon disulfide ug/L 58.350 117 70-131
Carbon tetrachloride ug/L 50.150 100 70-132
Chlorobenzene ug/L 52.950 106 70-130
Chloroethane ug/L 56.350 113 64-134
Chloroform ug/L 50.950 102 70-130
Chloromethane ug/L 49.350 99 64-130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 48.750 97 70-131
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 52.250 104 70-130
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 22 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
Parameter Units
LCS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qualifiers% RecConc.
654256LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
LCSSpike
Dibromochloromethane ug/L 50.450 101 70-130
Dibromomethane ug/L 51.550 103 70-131
Ethylbenzene ug/L 53.750 107 70-130
Iodomethane ug/L 121100 121 49-180
m&p-Xylene ug/L 112100 112 70-130
Methylene Chloride ug/L 51.950 104 63-130
o-Xylene ug/L 52.250 104 70-130
Styrene ug/L 52.050 104 70-130
Tetrachloroethene ug/L 51.450 103 70-130
Toluene ug/L 52.850 106 70-130
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 48.950 98 70-130
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L 52.250 104 70-132
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ug/L 59.650 119 70-141
Trichloroethene ug/L 55.050 110 70-130
Trichlorofluoromethane ug/L 49.350 99 62-133
Vinyl acetate ug/L 115100 115 66-157
Vinyl chloride ug/L 55.450 111 69-130
Xylene (Total)ug/L 164150 110 70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%93 70-130
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%102 70-130
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%96 70-130
Toluene-d8 (S)%102 70-130
Parameter Units
MS
Result
% Rec
Limits Qual% RecConc.
654257MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE:
MSSpike
Result
92101050008
654258
MSD
Result
MSD
% Rec RPD
MSDMS
Spike
Conc.
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 50 120 70-166119 150ND59.9 59.3
Benzene ug/L 50 114 70-148115 1502.5 59.4 59.9
Chlorobenzene ug/L 50 117 70-146117 0500.50J 59.2 58.9
Toluene ug/L 50 116 70-155114 250ND58.3 57.3
Trichloroethene ug/L 50 106 69-151104 150ND52.9 52.1
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)%114 70-130111
4-Bromofluorobenzene (S)%98 70-13099
Dibromofluoromethane (S)%113 70-130111
Toluene-d8 (S)%93 70-13093
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 23 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]
QUALIFIERS
Pace Project No.:
Project:
92101063
Francis Farm LF-Homesites 2011
DEFINITIONS
DF - Dilution Factor, if reported, represents the factor applied to the reported data due to changes in sample preparation, dilution of
the sample aliquot, or moisture content.
ND - Not Detected at or above adjusted reporting limit.
J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
MDL - Adjusted Method Detection Limit.
S - Surrogate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (8270 listed analyte) decomposes to Azobenzene.
Consistent with EPA guidelines, unrounded data are displayed and have been used to calculate % recovery and RPD values.
LCS(D) - Laboratory Control Sample (Duplicate)
MS(D) - Matrix Spike (Duplicate)
DUP - Sample Duplicate
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
NC - Not Calculable.
SG - Silica Gel - Clean-Up
U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected.
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine decomposes and cannot be separated from Diphenylamine using Method 8270. The result reported for
each analyte is a combined concentration.
Pace Analytical is TNI accredited. Contact your Pace PM for the current list of accredited analytes.
LABORATORIES
Pace Analytical Services - CharlottePASI-C
ANALYTE QUALIFIERS
Surrogate recovery exceeded laboratory control limits. Analyte presence below reporting limits in associated samples.
Results unaffected by high bias.S3
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..
Date: 09/06/2011 09:17 AM Page 24 of 24
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
2225 Riverside Dr.
Asheville, NC 28804
[phone]
Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
205 East Meadow Road - Suite A
Eden, NC 27288
[phone]

APPENDIX I
HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE (HELP) FOR FRANCIS FARM LANDFILL BY MCGILL
Appendix I
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)
By McGill Associates

Project: Francis Farm Landfill
The HELP Model was used to evaluate three proposed cap systems and the typical
existing cap in order to assess the performance of potential cap systems that could be
utilized to control leachate production at the landfill. A 30-year weather simulation was used to calculate flow data through the cap system. The 30-year weather period was used to create a more accurate average of the weather parameters that the HELP Model
uses to calculate various water constituents. A one-acre area with a slope of 5% was
used in the calculations. The migration of runoff through the waste mass was not
evaluated in this model. The total precipitation over the course of the 30 year simulation was 5,080,400 cubic feet. Graphs depicting the results of the weather generator are included following the definitions of the four (4) caps’ layers. An average annual
accumulated volume was calculated by dividing the total accumulated volume by the
years of the simulation (30 years.)

Design

Total Volume of Percolation After 30-year
Simulation (ft3)

Average Annual Accumulated Volume
(ft3/acre/yr.)
Cap A 1,143 38 Cap B 1,333 44
Cap C 2,035,078 67,836
Existing Cap 2,238,154 74,605
Model : HELP
An US EPA model for predicting landfill hydrologic processes and testing of effectiveness of landfill designs Author : Zach R
Client : Haywood County
Location : Haywood County (weather data from Waynesville NC)

Cap Designs
Cap A: Installing additional or remodeling existing soils to provide a minimum 1.5 feet
thick compacted soil at a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1.0x10-5; overlain with a textured 40-mil HDPE geosynthetic; overlain with a 8-oz double-sided geocomposite; overlain with 2’-6” of compacted soil protective layer with the
top most 6 inches suitable for vegetative growth. The layers will have a five (5)
percent slope.
Cap B: Installing additional soils as necessary to ensure four (4) feet minimum thickness of the existing cap; overlain with a textured 40-mil HDPE
geosynthetic; overlain with a 8-oz double-sided geocomposite; overlain with 2’-
6” of compacted soil protective layer with the top most 6 inches suitable for
vegetative growth. The layers will be have a five (5) percent slope. Cap C: Provide 6 feet of minimum compacted soil (k=1x10-5) over the entire site with
the top most 6 inches suitable for vegetative growth. No maximum hydraulic
conductivity is required. The uppermost layer will be have a five (5) percent
slope.
Existing Cap: Four (4) feet of 1x10-4 cm/sec compacted soil

1. Profile. Cap A
Model Settings
[HELP] Case Settings
Parameter Value Units
Runoff Method Model calculated (-) Initial Moisture Settings Model calculated (-)
[HELP] Surface Water Settings
Parameter Value Units
Runoff Area 100 (%%) Vegetation Class Good stand of grass (-)
Profile Structure

Layer Top ( ft) Bottom ( ft) Thickness ( ft)
Topsoil 0.0000 -0.5000 0.5000
Top Compact -0.5000 -3.0000 2.5000
Drainage Net (0.5cm) -2.9995 -3.0159 0.0164
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) -3.0154 -3.0187 0.0033
Bottom Compact -3.0172 -4.5172 1.5000
Existing Cap -4.5167 -8.5167 4.0000
Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m) -8.5167 -9.5167 1.0000
Bottom -9.5162 -9.6802 0.1640
1.1. Layer. Topsoil Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000
[HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters Parameter Value Units total porosity 0.501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 1.9E-4 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

1.2. Layer. Top Compact

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.451 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.419 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.332 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.00001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
1.3. Layer. Drainage Net (0.5cm)

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000
[HELP] Geotextiles and Geonets Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.85 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.01 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.005 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 10 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
1.4. Layer. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
Top Slope Length: 100.0000
Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Geomembrane Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units sat.hydr.conductivity 2E-13 (cm/sec) pinhole density 2 (#/ha) installation defects 2 (#/ha) placement quality 4 (-) geotextile transmissivity 0 (cm2/sec)
1.5. Layer. Bottom Compact

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000
Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.451 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.419 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.332 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.00001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
1.6. Layer. Existing Cap
Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000
[HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units total porosity 0.501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.0001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
1.7. Layer. Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000
Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
1.8. Layer. Bottom

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

2. Profile. Cap B
Model Settings
[HELP] Case Settings
Parameter Value Units
Runoff Method Model calculated (-) Initial Moisture Settings Model calculated (-)
[HELP] Surface Water Settings
Parameter Value Units
Runoff Area 100 (%%) Vegetation Class Good stand of grass (-)
Profile Structure

Layer Top ( ft) Bottom ( ft) Thickness ( ft)
Topsoil 0.0000 -0.5000 0.5000
Top Compact -0.5000 -3.0000 2.5000
Drainage Net (0.5cm) -2.9995 -3.0159 0.0164
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) -3.0154 -3.0187 0.0033
Existing Cap -3.0177 -7.0177 4.0000
Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)1 -7.0172 -8.0172 1.0000
Bottom -8.0167 -8.1807 0.1640
2.1. Layer. Topsoil Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000
[HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters Parameter Value Units total porosity 0.501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 1.9E-4 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year) 2.2. Layer. Top Compact

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000
Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.451 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.419 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.332 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.00001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

2.3. Layer. Drainage Net (0.5cm)
Top Slope Length: 100.0000
Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Geotextiles and Geonets Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.85 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.01 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.005 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 10 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
2.4. Layer. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000
Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Geomembrane Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
sat.hydr.conductivity 2E-13 (cm/sec) pinhole density 2 (#/ha) installation defects 2 (#/ha) placement quality 4 (-) geotextile transmissivity 0 (cm2/sec)
2.5. Layer. Existing Cap
Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.0001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year) 2.6. Layer. Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)1

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

2.7. Layer. Bottom
Top Slope Length: 100.0000
Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

3. Profile. Cap C

Model Settings
[HELP] Case Settings
Parameter Value Units
Runoff Method Model calculated (-) Initial Moisture Settings Model calculated (-)
[HELP] Surface Water Settings
Parameter Value Units
Runoff Area 100 (%%) Vegetation Class Good stand of grass (-)
Profile Structure

Layer Top ( ft) Bottom ( ft) Thickness ( ft)
Topsoil 0.0000 -0.5000 0.5000
Top Compact -0.4995 -6.4995 6.0000
Existing Cap -6.4990 -10.4990 4.0000
Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m) -10.4985 -11.4985 1.0000
Bottom -11.4980 -11.6620 0.1640
3.1. Layer. Topsoil

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 1.9E-4 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

3.2. Layer. Top Compact

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 1.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000
Bottom Slope : 0.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.451 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.419 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.332 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.00001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
3.3. Layer. Existing Cap
Top Slope Length: 1.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 1.0000 Top Slope: 0.0000 Bottom Slope : 0.0000
[HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units total porosity 0.501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.0001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
3.4. Layer. Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top Slope Length: 1.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 1.0000 Top Slope: 0.0000 Bottom Slope : 0.0000 [HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

3.5. Layer. Bottom
Top Slope Length: 1.0000
Bottom Slope Length: 1.0000 Top Slope: 0.0000 Bottom Slope : 0.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

4. Profile. Existing Cap

Model Settings
[HELP] Case Settings
Parameter Value Units Runoff Method Model calculated (-) Initial Moisture Settings Model calculated (-)
[HELP] Surface Water Settings
Parameter Value Units
Runoff Area 100 (%%) Vegetation Class Good stand of grass (-)
Profile Structure

Layer Top ( ft) Bottom ( ft) Thickness ( ft)
Topsoil 0.0000 -0.5000 0.5000
Existing Cap -0.4995 -4.4995 4.0000
Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)1 -4.4990 -5.4990 1.0000
Bottom -5.4985 -5.6625 0.1640
4.1. Layer. Topsoil

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000
Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 1.9E-4 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

4.2. Layer. Existing Cap
Top Slope Length: 100.0000
Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity .501 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.284 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.135 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.0001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
4.3. Layer. Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)1

Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000
Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)
4.4. Layer. Bottom
Top Slope Length: 100.0000 Bottom Slope Length: 100.0000 Top Slope: 5.0000 Bottom Slope : 5.0000 [HELP] Barrier Soil Liner Parameters
Parameter Value Units
total porosity 0.671 (vol/vol) field capacity 0.292 (vol/vol) wilting point 0.077 (vol/vol) sat.hydr.conductivity 0.001 (cm/sec) subsurface inflow 0 (mm/year)

Cap A VisualHELP Profile Cap B VisualHELP Profile

Cap A VisualHELP Profile Cap B VisualHELP Profile

Cap C VisualHELP Profile Existing Cap VisualHELP
Profil

Weather Information

e

Figure 1 – Total volume of percolate through the bottom layer of cap design A vs. time

Figure 2 - Total volume of percolate through the bottom layer of cap design B vs. time

Figure 3 - Total volume of percolate through the bottom layer of cap design C vs. time

Figure 4 - Total volume of percolate through the bottom layer of the existing cap design vs. time