HomeMy WebLinkAbout5002_JacksonCounty_GWMR_DIN27893_20160405
February 2017
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring
Report
Prepared for Jackson County Solid Waste Department
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report i February 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2 Semiannual Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate Sampling ......................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Monitoring Well Purging and Sampling Methods ................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Surface Water Sampling Methods ................................................................................................ 4
2.1.3 Leachate Sampling Methods .......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Sample Handling, Documentation, and Analysis .................................................................................... 4
3 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Analytical Results ................................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................................ 9
3.1.3 Leachate ............................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Groundwater Flow Direction ........................................................................................................................ 11
4 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Groundwater Quality....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1 Metals.................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 VOCs & SVOCs .................................................................................................................................. 12
4.1.3 Other Constituents ........................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Surface Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Leachate Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 13
5 Future Activities ....................................................................................................................... 14
6 References ................................................................................................................................. 15
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Laboratory Analyses Performed on Samples
Table 2 Summary of Analytical Results
Table 3 Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Detected in
the Leachate Sample (LT-01)
Table 4 Well Construction Details and Corresponding Elevations
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report ii February 2017
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Layout Map
Figure 3 Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction
Figure 4 Hydrograph and 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Concentration vs. Time
(Monitoring Well MW-01)
Figure 5 Hydrograph and Benzene Concentration vs. Time
(Monitoring Well MW-01)
Figure 6 Hydrograph and Tetrachloroethene Concentration vs. Time
(Monitoring Well MW-01)
Figure 7 Hydrograph and Vinyl Chloride Concentration vs. Time
(Monitoring Well MW-05R)
APPENDICES
Appendix A Well Sampling Logs and Equipment Documentation & Instrument Calibration
Data Sheets
Appendix B Reports of Laboratory Analysis, Chain-of-Custody Documentation, and
Certificates of Analysis
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 1 February 2017
1 Introduction
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC (Anchor QEA) is pleased to present this Semiannual Water
Quality Monitoring Report for Fall 2016.
The Jackson County Solid Waste Department maintains a closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) located approximately 0.75 miles west of Dillsboro, North Carolina, on the northeast side of
Old Dillsboro Road (Old U.S. Highway 74; Figure 1). Water quality monitoring at the landfill is
governed by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Waste
Management (DWM), Solid Waste Section (SWS), under Permit No. 50-02 issued to Jackson County.
The landfill permit requires semiannual monitoring of groundwater and surface water quality.
Over time, groundwater quality monitoring indicated persistent low-level concentrations of
constituents that exceed groundwater standards. In response to the continued exceedances of
analyzed constituents, an Assessment of Corrective Measures (ACM) was completed and a Corrective
Action Plan (CAP) was implemented. The implemented remedy includes the extraction of leachate
through dedicated submersible pumps installed within the landfill gas extraction wells and disposal
of the leachate into the Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority (TWSA) collection system. In addition
to leachate extraction, groundwater natural attenuation parameters are monitored and natural
attenuation processes are evaluated. The remedy was implemented in a phased approach with full
implementation occurring on September 6, 2013.
This report serves as the second semiannual water quality monitoring report for 2016 and as the
eleventh report following approval of the CAP. This report provides an evaluation of groundwater
and surface water quality. The water quality monitoring network is presented on Figure 2. The
generalized groundwater flow direction in the upper parts of the underlying aquifer system (Figure 3)
is also provided in this report.
In addition to groundwater and surface water monitoring, this report includes volatile organic
compound (VOC) analysis of the extracted leachate.
The water samples are collected from selected monitoring points during the spring and fall of each
year and are analyzed for the following (Table 1):
Appendix II VOCs
Appendix II SVOCs
Appendix II Metals
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Appendix II Herbicides
Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) parameters: alkalinity, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride, carbon dioxide, cyanide, ethane, ethene,
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 February 2017
hydrogen, ferrous iron, methane, nitrate, sulfate, sulfide, total organic carbon (TOC), and
volatile fatty acids.
The fall 2016 sampling event was performed on October 11 and 12, 2016, and is being reported in
accordance with requirements stipulated in the DEQ Solid Waste Management Rules codified under
Title 15A Subchapter 13B of the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A North Carolina
Administrative Code [NCAC] 13B).
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 3 February 2017
2 Semiannual Monitoring
2.1 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Leachate Sampling
The closed MSWLF monitoring wells (MW-01, MW-02, MW-03, MW-04, MW-05R, MW-06, and MW-
07), surface water sample locations (SW-01 and SW-02), one leachate sample location (LT-01), and
one domestic water well (DW-01) were sampled on October 11 and 12, 2016 by Altamont
Environmental, Inc. (Altamont), which became Anchor QEA on December 29, 2016. Static
groundwater level measurements and all field parameter data are included on the well sampling logs
presented in Appendix A. The full suite of groundwater and surface water laboratory analytical results
is presented in the laboratory analysis reports in Appendix B.
Domestic well DW-02 could not be sampled during this event. Power to the well’s pump was turned
off and the homeowner was not available.
The monitoring wells, surface water sample locations, domestic wells, and leachate sample locations
are depicted on Figure 2.
2.1.1 Monitoring Well Purging and Sampling Methods
Prior to sampling the monitoring wells, the static water level was gauged in each well and an initial
round of field parameters consisting of pH, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity,
temperature, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) were measured.
Altamont personnel used either low-flow techniques or disposable bailers to purge the monitoring
wells and collect groundwater samples. Total depth, condition of the casing, and the groundwater
recharge rate determined the purging and sample collection method employed at each monitoring
well.
2.1.1.1 Monitoring Wells
Monitoring wells MW-03, MW-04, MW-06, and MW-07 were purged using low-flow techniques in
accordance with the procedures described in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures (EPA 1996). During
purging, the pH, specific conductivity, DO, ORP, turbidity, and temperature (field parameters) were
measured and recorded approximately every 3 minutes. Well purging continued until these
parameters generally stabilized for three consecutive readings. The required stabilization criteria
were as follows:
pH values within +/- 0.1 Standard Unit (SU)
Specific conductivity values within +/- 5 percent
Temperature, DO, and turbidity values within +/- 10 percent
ORP values within +/- 10 millivolts
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 4 February 2017
Once the parameters had stabilized, a groundwater sample was collected by a technician wearing a
new pair of nitrile gloves using laboratory-supplied sample containers.
Monitoring well MW-01 was purged and sampled using a new, disposable polyethylene bailer. The
well was purged of three successive well volumes prior to sample collection. During purging, a round
of field parameters was measured and recorded at the start of purging and after each consecutive
well volume was purged. After the third consecutive well volume was purged, a groundwater sample
was collected. MW-02 and MW-05R were purged dry with a disposable bailer on October 11, 2016
and the groundwater sample was collected on the following day after the well had recharged. All
field parameter data are shown on the well sampling logs, included in Appendix A.
2.1.2 Surface Water Sampling Methods
Surface water samples SW-01 and SW-02 were collected on October 12, 2016, at designated
locations from the Tuckasegee River, which is adjacent to and southwest of the landfill. Surface water
sampling location SW-01 is representative of surface water quality upstream of the landfill; surface
water sampling location SW-02 is representative of surface water quality downstream from the
landfill. One round of field parameters was measured and recorded at each surface-water sampling
location prior to collecting the sample (Appendix A). The surface water samples were collected in
laboratory-provided sample containers by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves.
2.1.3 Leachate Sampling Methods
Dedicated bottom-loading, air-powered pumps, air pressure lines, and a leachate force main
collection system are installed at the landfill. Pumps are installed in landfill gas extraction wells
EW-1R, EW-2R, EW-3R, EW-4, EW-5, EW-6, EW-7, EW-8, EW-9, and EW-10. The gas extraction well
locations are presented on Figure 2. The leachate is pumped from the wells into a flow equalization
tank, which is connected to the TWSA wastewater collection system.
The flow equalization tank is situated to the northeast of the landfill adjacent to the existing landfill
gas flare. A grab sample of leachate (LT-01) was collected by taking a sample as the leachate entered
the flow equalization tank. One round of field parameters was measured and recorded after
collecting the sample (Appendix A).
2.2 Sample Handling, Documentation, and Analysis
Field parameters and additional observations pertaining to the closed MSWLF sampling locations are
provided on sampling logs (Appendix A). Following sample collection, each groundwater, surface
water, and leachate sample was immediately placed on ice in a sample cooler for transport to Prism
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 5 February 2017
Laboratory, a North Carolina-certified laboratory located in Charlotte, NC. The groundwater samples
collected from the monitoring wells were analyzed for the following parameters:
Appendix II Metals using EPA Approved Methods (EPA Method) 6020B and 7470A
Appendix II VOCs using EPA Method 8260B
Appendix II semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) using EPA Method 8270D
Appendix II Herbicides using EPA Method 8151A
PCBs using EPA Method 8082A
MNA Parameters:
‒ Alkalinity using Standard Method (SM) 2320B
‒ BOD (5-Day) using SM 5210B
‒ Carbon dioxide, hydrogen, ethane, ethene, and methane using Analytical Method (AM)
AM20GAX
‒ COD using SM 5220D
‒ Chloride, nitrate, and sulfate using EPA Approved Method 9056A
‒ Cyanide using SM 4500-CN E
‒ Ferrous iron using SM 3500-Fe D
‒ Sulfide using SM 4500-S F
‒ TOC using SM 9060A
‒ Volatile fatty acids using AM23G
The surface water samples were analyzed for Appendix II parameters and PCBs (as listed above). The
leachate sample was analyzed for Appendix I VOC parameters only. The domestic well sample
(DW-01) was analyzed for Appendix I VOCs by EPA Method 524.2.
Proper chain-of-custody documentation procedures were followed during collection and
transportation of each sample (Appendix B). Four trip blank samples for quality control/quality
assurance purposes were included in the sample coolers and analyzed for Appendix I VOCs. The
reports of laboratory analysis are provided in Appendix B. Laboratory analyses performed on the
samples are summarized in Table 1.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 6 February 2017
3 Findings
3.1 Analytical Results
The laboratory analytical results and field parameter data for the groundwater samples (from
monitoring wells MW-01 through MW-07), surface water samples (SW-01 and SW-02), and leachate
sample (LT-01) collected at the landfill are included in Appendices A and B in hard copy and also
submitted separately to the DEQ DWM SWS in in the Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) format per
their guidelines (most recently updated on May 5, 2010).
As stipulated in the SWS documents referenced above, all laboratory analytical results were reported
and appropriately qualified as follows:
Non-detections: Non-detections (non-detects), are values reported by the laboratory as
below method detection limits (MDLs). They are tabulated on Table 2 and are qualified with
the “U” qualifier. The MDL is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured
and reported by a laboratory with 99 percent confidence that the constituent concentration is
greater than zero.
Solid Waste Section Limits: All detections (values above the MDL) were compared to
constituent-specific Solid Waste Section Limits (SWSLs) established by DEQ. The SWSL is
defined as the lowest concentration of a constituent in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with suitable precision and accuracy. A “J” qualifier is used by the laboratory for
parameters that are detected at estimated concentrations greater than the MDL but less than
the laboratory’s method reporting limit (MRL). The MRL is the minimum concentration of a
target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.
Estimated or “J” Qualified: If the reported concentration is greater than the laboratory MDL
and MRL but less than the SWSL, the analytical result is qualified as estimated, and is flagged
with a “J” qualifier (italicized J-flag) by Anchor QEA, per SWS reporting requirements. In
addition to non-detects, detected concentrations of constituents below the applicable SWSLs
are included in Table 2.
Exceeds a 2L Standard: Detected concentrations of constituents in groundwater samples
were compared to applicable North Carolina groundwater quality standards. For most
constituents, this standard is the 2L standard, defined in 15A NCAC 2L.0202. Detected
concentrations of analytes in groundwater with no established 2L standard were compared
either to the interim maximum allowable concentrations (IMACs) for Class GA and GSA
groundwater (in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0202 [c]) or Groundwater Protection
Standards (GWPS), pursuant to 15A NCAC 13B.1634.
Exceeds a 2B Standard: Detections of analytes in surface-water samples were compared to
the surface-water quality standards described in 15A NCAC 2B (2B standards).
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 7 February 2017
Table 2 presents the summary of detected constituents and outlines concentrations of analytes that
were above applicable SWSLs, as well as detected analytes that exceeded their respective 2L
standard, IMAC, GWPS, or 2B standard.
3.1.1 Groundwater
Measured field parameters and analytical results of groundwater samples collected from the
monitoring wells are discussed in the following sections.
3.1.1.1 Field Parameters
During groundwater sampling on October 11 and 12, 2016, pH readings were obtained. The pH
readings obtained from samples collected from wells MW-01, MW-03, MW-04, MW-05R, MW-06,
and MW-07 were below 6.5 SU, thus outside the acceptable pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 SU specified in
15A NCAC 02L .0202[c] (Table 2). The recorded pH readings are consistent with historical data.
The highest turbidity (recorded as out of range of the turbidimeter) was measured in the
groundwater sample collected from well MW-05R. The lowest turbidity was measured (3.42 NTU) in
the groundwater sample collected from well MW-04.
3.1.1.2 Appendix II Metals
Five metals (cadmium, chromium, cobalt, thallium, and vanadium) were detected at concentrations
above their respective water quality standards in the groundwater samples collected from one or
more of the monitoring wells during the fall 2016 water quality monitoring event. Cadmium and
chromium exceeded their respective 2L standard, the other three metals exceeded their IMACs.
Cadmium was detected in monitoring well MW-01 at a concentration of 2.2 micrograms per liter
(µg/L), which exceeded its 2L standard of 2 µg/L. Cadmium concentrations in the samples collected
from MW-01 have exceeded the 2L standard during several prior sampling events, according to
historical data. Cadmium has historically been detected in all of the monitoring wells on-Site, but
below the 2L standard.
Chromium was detected in monitoring well MW-05R at a concentration of 14 µg/L, which exceeded
its 2L standard of 10 µg/L. According to historical data, chromium concentrations have exceeded the
2L standard in the samples collected from this monitoring well during several prior sampling events.
Cobalt was detected above its IMAC in all seven collected groundwater samples. Concentrations of
cobalt in these samples ranged from 1.2 J µg/L (MW-07) to 160 µg/L (MW-01). Historically, cobalt
has been present above its water quality standard in groundwater samples from all seven monitoring
wells.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 8 February 2017
Thallium was detected in all of the groundwater samples collected from the landfill. Three of the
groundwater samples contained concentrations that were above the IMAC water quality standard of
0.2 µg/L. Concentrations of thallium in these samples ranged from 0.40 J µg/L (MW-05R) to 1.7 J
µg/L (MW-01). Historically, thallium has been present above its water quality standard in the samples
collected from groundwater monitoring wells MW-01, MW-05R, and MW-06.
Vanadium was detected in the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-02 and
MW-05R at concentrations of 2.8 J µg/L and 22 J µg/L, respectively. Historically, vanadium has been
present above its water quality standard in the samples collected from multiple groundwater
monitoring wells.
3.1.1.3 Appendix II VOCs
Four VOCs (1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, tetrachloroethene, and vinyl chloride) were detected at
concentrations above their respective 2L standards in the groundwater samples collected from one
or more monitoring wells during the fall 2016 water quality monitoring event. Concentration-versus-
time graphs were created for samples from those monitoring wells that had VOC concentrations over
their 2L standards during the fall 2016 sampling event. The graphs are provided as Figure 4 through
Figure 7.
1,4-dichlorobenzene was detected at 6.9 µg/L, slightly above the 2L standard of 6.0 µg/L in the
groundwater sample collected from MW-01 during the fall 2016 sampling event. This VOC was
detected in monitoring wells MW-03, MW-04, MW-05R, MW-06, and MW-07 at concentrations
above the SWSL but below the 2L standard (Table 2). Historical 1,4-dichlorobenze concentration
trends in these wells have been stable and slightly above or slightly below the 2L standard (Figure 4).
Benzene was detected at a concentration of 1.3 µg/L, just above the 2L standard of 1.0 µg/L in the
groundwater sample collected from MW-01 during the fall 2016 sampling event. Benzene was
detected in monitoring wells MW-03, MW-04, MW-05R, and MW-07 at concentrations below the
SWSL and 2L standard. Overall, historical benzene concentration trends in these wells have been
stable and slightly over the 2L standard (Figure 5).
Tetrachloroethene was only detected in the sample collected from monitoring well MW-01 at a
concentration of 1.2 µg/L (Table 2), above the 2L standard of 0.7 µg/L. Historical concentration
trends for tetrachloroethene in this monitoring well show consistent and stable detections with
occasional 2L exceedances (Figure 6).
The concentration of vinyl chloride in the sample collected from monitoring well MW-05R was below
the SWSL, but above the 2L standard during this sampling event. Vinyl chloride was not detected in
any of the other monitoring wells during this sampling event (Table 2). Historically, vinyl chloride has
regularly exceeded its 2L standard in monitoring wells MW-04, MW-05R, and MW-07 (Figure 7).
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 9 February 2017
A review of historical groundwater data indicates that three VOCs (1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene,
and vinyl chloride) have been detected at relatively consistent concentrations for the past several
years. Historical surface water samples from the Tuckasegee River, which likely receives discharge
from the saprolite groundwater-bearing zone, have consistently shown no detections of these
compounds, or any other VOCs.
3.1.1.4 SVOCs
Three SVOCs (Bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate, diethyl phthalate, and di-n-butyl phthalate) were detected
in one or more groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells during the fall 2016
sampling event (Table 2). All three SVOCs were detected at concentrations below their respective
SWSLs and groundwater standards.
3.1.1.5 PCBs
One PCB, Aroclor 1016, was detected in the groundwater sample collected from MW-03 at a
concentration of 5.2 µg/L (Table 2). This PCB detection exceeded the IMAC established for all PCBs
(0.09 µg/L). Samples were analyzed for PCBs during the fall 2010, fall 2012, and fall 2014 sampling
events. This PCB detection is the first detection of a PCB at the Site. As such, the detection at this
concentration is an outlier and future monitoring will determine its significance.
3.1.1.6 Natural Attenuation Parameters
Groundwater samples collected from all monitoring wells were analyzed for additional parameters as
follows: alkalinity, BOD, COD, carbon dioxide, chloride, cyanide, ethane, ethene, hydrogen, methane,
iron (ferrous), nitrate, sulfate, sulfide, TOC, and volatile fatty acids (Table 2). These parameters were
detected in one or more groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells. Many of these
parameters do not have established groundwater standards. Of the parameters that do have
established groundwater standards, none of the parameters exceeded their respective standard.
3.1.2 Surface Water
The following sections summarize measured field parameters and analytical results associated with
the two surface water samples collected during the fall 2016 sampling event.
3.1.2.1 Field Parameters
The pH readings for the upstream and downstream surface water samples collected during the fall
2016 sampling event were recorded at 7.70 SU and 7.25 SU, respectively. The measured pH reading
for both surface water samples was within the 2B standard range of 6.0 to 9.0 SU.
Turbidity measured in SW-01 and SW-02 was below the 2B standard, which is established at 25 NTU
for the receiving water in streams not designated as trout waters.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 10 February 2017
DO was measured at a concentration of 8.05 mg/L in SW-01 and 6.65 mg/L in SW-02. The 2B
standard indicates “greater than or equal to 5.0 mg/L”; thus, each sample is within the acceptable DO
range.
2B standards do not exist for the remaining field parameters measured in the surface water samples.
3.1.2.2 Appendix II Metals
Eleven metals were detected in surface water samples collected from downstream and upstream
surface water sampling locations (Table 2). The concentration of cadmium in the upstream surface
water sample (SW-01) exceeded the 2B standard established at 0.15 µg/L. This is the first event in
which cadmium was detected above the SWSL and 2B standard in either surface water standard. Zinc
was detected above the SWSL in SW-01, but below the 2B standard. Concentrations of the remaining
metals were all below their respective SWSLs and 2B surface water standards (Table 2).
3.1.2.3 Appendix II VOCs
Acetone was detected in the upstream surface water sample at a concentration below the SWSL and
2B standard (Table 2). No VOCs were detected in the downstream surface water sample. This VOC is
a common laboratory contaminant. No other VOCs were detected in the upstream or downstream
surface water samples (Table 2).
3.1.3 Leachate
No VOCs were detected in the leachate sample collected on October 11, 2016. This is the first
sampling event that no VOCs have been detected in the leachate sample. This is likely due to the
drought conditions that had occurred in the summer and fall of 2016. Leachate flow into the
collection tank was minimal at the time of sample collection.
On September 1, 2012, leachate extraction was initiated following installation of the leachate
extraction pumps in 10 landfill gas extraction wells. Between April 5, 2016 and October 11, 2016,
approximately 15,347 gallons of leachate were discharged through a permanent connection to the
TWSA (Table 3). From September 1, 2012 to October 11, 2016 a total of approximately 331,010
gallons of leachate have been extracted and/or discharged from the landfill (Table 3).
In fall 2013 the active portion of the approved corrective action remedy was initiated. Due to the lack
of VOC detections in the leachate sample collected during the fall 2016 sampling event, it must be
concluded that no VOCs were removed via leachate extraction between April and October 2016.
Mass removal calculations are included in Table 3.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 11 February 2017
3.2 Groundwater Flow Direction
Groundwater levels in the saprolite1, partially weathered rock2 (PWR), and bedrock3 are monitored at
the closed MSWLF. Three bedrock monitoring wells, MW-01, MW-02, and MW-06, are located in the
northern and northwestern portions of the Site (Figure 3 and Table 4). Bedrock monitoring well
(MW-07) is located southwest of the landfill (Figure 3). The fall 2016 water level data collected from
these four bedrock wells were used to determine generalized bedrock groundwater flow direction,
which is to the southwest (Figure 3).
PWR monitoring well MW-03 and saprolite monitoring wells MW-04 and MW-05R (Figure 3) are
located in the central, southwest, and southern parts of the landfill, respectively. The fall 2016 water-
level data collected from monitoring wells MW-03, MW-04, and MW-05R (Table 4) indicate that
groundwater flow direction in the saprolite and PWR is also generally to the southwest, toward the
Tuckasegee River (Figure 3).
1 Saprolite is the result of in-place weathering to produce soil-like material that retains relict features of the parent rock.
2 PWR is rock generally found above the bedrock and is softer than the bedrock but not as soft as saprolite.
3 Bedrock is solid rock that underlies loose soil and saprolite.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 12 February 2017
4 Summary
The second semiannual water quality monitoring event of 2016 was performed on October 11
and October 12, 2016 at the Jackson County closed MSWLF. Table 2 of this report and the Reports of
Laboratory Analysis (Appendix B) provide detailed analytical results and field data summarizing the
groundwater and surface water quality at the landfill.
4.1 Groundwater Quality
4.1.1 Metals
Sixteen metals were detected in the groundwater samples collected from one or more of the
monitoring wells. Seven of the detected metals (barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, and zinc) were detected at concentrations above the associated SWSLs in one or more
monitoring wells (Table 2).
Five metals (cadmium, chromium, cobalt, thallium, and vanadium) were detected at concentrations
above their associated groundwater quality standards in one or more of the monitoring wells
(Table 2). Cobalt exceeded its 2L standard in all of the groundwater samples collected. These results
are consistent with historical data.
4.1.2 VOCs & SVOCs
Twelve VOCs were detected in the groundwater samples collected from one or more of the
monitoring wells (Table 2). Five VOCs (1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, chlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethene, and vinyl chloride) were detected at concentrations above their respective SWSLs
(Table 2).
Four VOCs (1,4-dichlorobenzene, benzene, tetrachloroethene, and vinyl chloride) were detected at
concentrations above their respective 2L standards (Table 2). Concentration-versus-time graphs were
created for samples from those monitoring wells that had VOC concentrations over their 2L
standards. The graphs are provided as Figures 4 through 7.
Three SVOCs (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate, diethyl phthalate, and di-n-butyl phthalate) were detected
in the groundwater samples collected from one or more of the monitoring wells (Table 2). All SVOC
detections were reported at estimated concentrations below their respective SWSLs and water
quality standards.
4.1.3 Other Constituents
One PCB, Aroclor 1016, was detected in monitoring well MW-03 at a concentration that exceeded its
IMAC standard. This is the first time a PCB has been detected in any of the monitoring wells.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 13 February 2017
Groundwater samples were analyzed for Appendix II herbicides. No herbicides were detected in any
of the collected groundwater samples.
Six of the samples collected from the monitoring wells had pH readings that were recorded outside
of the 2L standard range for pH (6.5 SU to 8.5 SU). These results are consistent with historical data
and are characteristic of the natural groundwater quality of the region.
The turbidity was measured from the lowest reading of 3.42 NTU in monitoring well MW-04 to the
highest reading being out of the range of the turbidimeter in monitoring well MW-05R.
Natural attenuation parameters (alkalinity, BOD, COD, chloride, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, ferrous
iron, methane, nitrate, sulfate, and TOC) were detected in groundwater samples collected from one
or more of the monitoring wells at various concentrations. Natural attenuation parameters are being
obtained as part of the CAP and further evaluation of these parameters will be performed in future
monitoring events.
4.2 Surface Water Quality
Eleven metals were detected in both surface water samples SW-01 (upstream of the landfill) and
SW-02 (downstream of the landfill) during the spring 2016 water quality monitoring event. With the
exception of cadmium detected at a concentration above the 2B standard in the sample collected
from SW-01, all detections were below respective SWSLs and 2B standards in both samples.
With the exception of acetone being detected at an estimated concentration in the sample collected
from SW-01, no VOCs were detected in either surface water sample location.
On the basis of these data, the groundwater migrating from the landfill toward the Tuckasegee River
is not impacting surface water quality with regard to metals and VOCs.
Field parameters including pH, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen measured in both surface water
samples were within the 2B standards established for these parameters.
4.3 Leachate Quality
The leachate sample (LT-01) was collected from the flow equalization tank and analyzed for
Appendix I VOCs only. No VOCs were detected in the collected sample.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 14 February 2017
5 Future Activities
Anchor QEA will continue to monitor the water quality on a semiannual basis at the Jackson County
Closed Municipal Solid Waste landfill. During the fall of each year, domestic well owners will be
contacted and groundwater samples will be collected from domestic wells if permitted to do so by
the well owner and if possible to do so based upon well pump operability. Domestic well samples
will be analyzed for VOCs only. Samples will be collected from monitoring wells, surface water
monitoring points, and the leachate flow equalization tank during the spring and fall of each year. In
addition to the natural attenuation parameters that were added as part of the approved corrective
action, the analytical suites associated with the current and future sampling events are outlined in
the 2011 CAP. The upcoming sampling event parameters are as follows:
Sampling
Event
Analytical Suite
(not inclusive of natural attenuation parameters)
Spring 2017 Appendix I VOCs
Fall 2017
Appendix I metals
Appendix II VOCs
Appendix II metals
Appendix II SVOCs
Cyanide and sulfide
Spring 2018 Appendix I VOCs
Appendix I Metals
The next sampling event is scheduled for April 2017.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 15 February 2017
6 References
Altamont Environmental, Inc., 2011. Corrective Action Plan. June 30, 2011.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Division of Waste
Management (DWM) Solid Waste Section (SWS), 2006. Memorandum to SW Director/County
Manager/ Consultant/Laboratory, Re: New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental
Monitoring Data. October 27, 2006.
DENR DWM SWS, 2007. Addendum to October 27, 2006, NC SWS Memorandum Regarding New
Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data. February 23, 2007.
DENR DWM SWS. Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling,
Rev 4-08.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-
Water Sampling Procedures. OSWER, EPA/540/S-95/504.
Tables
Table 1
Summary of Laboratory Analyses Performed on Samples
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES SURFACE WATER, LEACHATE, DOMESTIC WELL, AND QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
Metals Mercury VOCs SVOC PCB Herbicides Metals VOCs VOCs Mercury Herbicides PCB SVOCs
Sample
Name Date Collected Sample Name Date Collected
MW-01 10/11/2016 X X X X X X SW-01 10/12/2016 X X X X X X
MW-02 10/12/2016 X X X X X X SW-02 10/12/2016 X X X X X X
MW-03 10/11/2016 X X X X X X LT-01 10/11/2016 X
MW-04 10/12/2016 X X X X X X DW-01 10/11/2016 X
MW-05R 10/12/2016 X X X X X X TripBlank1 10/11/2016 X
MW-06 10/11/2016 X X X X X X TripBlank2 10/12/2016 X
MW-07 10/12/2016 X X X X X X TripBlank3 10/12/2016 X
TripBlank(DW)10/11/2016 X
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
Total
Alkalinity to
pH 4.5
BOD COD Cyanide
Volatile
Fatty
Acids
Ferrous Iron Nitrate as N Chloride Sulfate TOC Sulfide
Ethane,
Ethene,
Methane
Hydrogen Carbon
Dioxide
Sample
Name Date Collected
MW-01 10/11/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MW-02 10/12/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MW-03 10/11/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MW-04 10/12/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MW-05R 10/12/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MW-06 10/11/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MW-07 10/12/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Notes:
VOCs volatile organic compounds
SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
TOC total organic carbon
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
COD chemical oxygen demand
Analyses Appendix I constituents were analyzed per Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 258.
Blank cell Analysis was not performed on that sample.
EPA 8270DEPA 8260B EPA 524.2 EPA 7470A EPA 8151A 8082A
AM20GAXEPA 9056A
EPA 8151A
Analysis
EPA 6020A
SM 4500-S FSM 3500-Fe DAM23G SM 9060A
Analysis
EPA 8270D
Analysis
EPA 7470A 8082AEPA 6020B EPA 8260B
Natural Attenuation Parameters
SM 2320B SM 5210B SM 5220D SM 4500-CN-E
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Page 1 of 1
February 2017
Table 2
Summary of Analytical Results
Metals
402
EPA 6020B, 7470A
Parameter
An
t
i
m
o
n
y
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
Ba
r
i
u
m
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
Co
b
a
l
t
Co
p
p
e
r
Le
a
d
Nic
k
e
l
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Si
l
v
e
r
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
Ti
n
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
Zin
c
CAS Number 7440-36-0 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-41-7 7440-43-9 7440-47-3 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 7439-92-1 7440-02-0 7782-49-2 7440-22-4 7440-28-0 7440-31-5 7440-62-2 7440-66-6
SWS ID 13 14 15 23 34 51 53 54 131 152 183 184 194 195 209 213
Units µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
Sample Name Collect Date Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result
Groundwater Samples
MW-01 10/11/2016 0.14 J 0.66 J 120 0.13 J 2.2 1.9 J 160 18 1.3 J 16 J 0.35 U 0.11 J 1.7 J 0.84 J 2.5 U 76
MW-02 10/12/2016 0.074 J 0.29 U 49 J 0.060 J 0.14 J 2.4 J 6.4 J 3.1 J 0.87 J 2.2 J 0.35 U 0.029 J 0.13 J 0.37 U 2.8 J 14
MW-03 10/11/2016 0.13 J 0.39 J 160 0.073 J 0.47 J 0.51 U 51 2.0 J 0.13 J 9.2 J 0.65 J 0.054 J 0.19 J 0.37 U 2.5 U 160
MW-04 10/12/2016 0.090 J 0.72 J 64 J 0.050 J 0.39 J 0.51 U 2.7 J 0.99 J 0.13 J 2.4 J 4.0 J 0.079 J 0.083 J 0.37 U 2.5 U 77
MW-05R 10/12/2016 0.088 J 1.3 J 240 1.1 1.0 14 25 28 7.7 J 15 J 5.1 J 0.050 J 0.40 J 0.81 J 22 J 63
MW-06 10/11/2016 0.069 U 0.29 U 54 J 0.099 J 0.80 J 0.77 J 31 0.78 J 0.14 J 8.2 J 0.38 J 0.040 J 0.58 J 0.37 U 2.5 U 160
MW-07 10/12/2016 0.081 J 0.71 J 450 0.047 U 0.15 J 0.65 J 1.2 J 0.93 J 0.50 J 14 J 2.7 J 0.029 J 0.034 J 0.37 U 2.5 U 24
Leachate Sample
LT-01 10/11/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Surface Water Samples
SW-01 10/12/2016 0.069 U 0.30 J 14 J 0.047 U 1.5 0.51 U 0.091 J 1.3 J 0.20 J 3.1 J 0.35 U 0.017 J 0.0093 U 0.37 U 2.5 U 12
SW-02 10/12/2016 0.069 U 0.29 U 13 J 0.047 U 0.081 J 0.53 J 0.098 J 0.83 J 0.39 J 0.31 J 0.35 U 0.012 J 0.015 J 0.37 U 2.5 U 3.6 J
Domestic Well Sample
DW-01 10/11/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Quality Control Samples
TRIPBLANK1 10/11/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TRIPBLANK2 10/12/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TRIPBLANK3 10/12/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TRIPBLANK(DW)10/11/2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MDL 0.069 0.29 0.041 0.047 0.019 0.51 0.013 0.44 0.020 0.053 0.35 0.011 0.0093 0.37 2.5 0.98
MRL 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 10
SWSL 6 10 100 1 1 10 10 10 10 50 10 10 5.5 100 25 10
2L NE 700 700 NE 2 10 NE 1,000 15 100 20 20 NE NE NE 1,000
IMAC 1 NE NE 4 NE NE 1 NE NE NE NE NE 0.2 2,000 0.3 NE
GWPS 1 NE NE 4 NE NE 1 NE NE NE NE NE 0.28 2,000 0.3 NE
2B 640 10 200,000 6.5 0.15 35 4 2.7 0.54 16 5 0.06 0.47 800 NE 36
Naturally Occuring
Off-Site Source
Consistent with Historical
Concentrations
Other
Notes:
Prism Laboratory
Report of Analyses
Only results, MDLs, MRLs, certification numbers, and methods for detected constituents are listed on this table. Please refer to Prism Report of Laboratory Analysis for further details.
Lab Method The analytical method used to analyze the constituents.
Cas Number A unique number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) to all identified parameters.
SWS ID Solid Waste Section Identification Number.
Units Micrograms per liter (µg/L) and milligrams per liter (mg/L) for analytical results, Standard Units (SU) for pH and nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) for turbidity.
Collect Date The date on which the sample was collected in the field.
Result Analytical data reported by the laboratory or field data collected by Anchor QEA.
MDL Method detection limit, which is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
MRL Method reporting limit, which is the minimum concentration of a target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.
SWSL Solid Waste Section Limit. This limit (identified by DEQ) is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy.
U A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters not detected at concentrations above MDL.
J A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters detected at estimated concentrations above MDL but below MRL and SWSL.
J Assigned by Anchor QEA to reflect a detected concentration that is greater than MRL and MDL but less than the SWSL.
B A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters that were detected in the associated laboratory blank at a concentration greater than one-half of the report limit.
2L Groundwater standards from "North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality, Subchapter 2L - Groundwater Classifications and Standards," DEQ (Amended April 1, 2013).
IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration, analytes that do not have an established 2L standard were compared to the IMAC in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0202 [c].
GWPS
2B
100 Indicates a detection with a result at or exceeding the SWSL.
180 Shaded cell indicates result in exceedance of the 2L or IMAC standard or greater than or equal to the GWPS (if no 2L or IMAC exist), and 2B standard if applicable.
0.260*
NA Not analyzed.
NE Not established.
Groundwater Protection Standard pursuant to "15A NCAC 13B .1634," DEQ. Current standards were obtained from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/waste-management-permit-guidance/solid-waste-
section/environmental-monitoring/environmental-monitoring-list (last updated June, 2011).
Laboratory and
Regulatory Thresholds
Lab Certification
Lab Method
Surface water standard per "North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality, Subchapter 2B - Surface Water and Wetland Standards," (last amended June 2016). Where no 2B standard exists, the National Criteria per
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from standards Table (Current as of May 15, 2013) for the most stringent of fresh water and human health was used.
Indicates the parameter had multiple MDLs and MRLs listed by the laboratory in the analytical report. The lowest MDL or MRL was reported on this table. Refer to the Prism Laboratory Report of Analysis for further details.
Preliminary Analysis of
Cause for Exceedance
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Page 1 of 3
February 2017
Table 2
Summary of Analytical Results
Parameter
CAS Number
SWS ID
Units
Sample Name Collect Date
Groundwater Samples
MW-01 10/11/2016
MW-02 10/12/2016
MW-03 10/11/2016
MW-04 10/12/2016
MW-05R 10/12/2016
MW-06 10/11/2016
MW-07 10/12/2016
Leachate Sample
LT-01 10/11/2016
Surface Water Samples
SW-01 10/12/2016
SW-02 10/12/2016
Domestic Well Sample
DW-01 10/11/2016
Quality Control Samples
TRIPBLANK1 10/11/2016
TRIPBLANK2 10/12/2016
TRIPBLANK3 10/12/2016
TRIPBLANK(DW)10/11/2016
MDL
MRL
SWSL
2L
IMAC
GWPS
2B
Naturally Occuring
Off-Site Source
Consistent with Historical
Concentrations
Other
MDL
MRL
SWSL
U
J
J
B
2L
IMAC
GWPS
2B
100
180
0.260*
NA
NE
Laboratory and
Regulatory Thresholds
Lab Certification
Lab Method
Preliminary Analysis of
Cause for Exceedance
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PCBs Natural Attenuation Parameters
402 618 402 402, 618
EPA 8260B, 524.2 (DW-01 only)8270D 8082A SM2320B SM 5210B EPA 9056A
1,1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Ac
e
t
o
n
e
Be
n
z
e
n
e
Ch
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
cis
-
1
,
2
-
Dic
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
m
&
p
X
y
l
e
n
e
o-
X
y
l
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Xy
l
e
n
e
(
T
o
t
a
l
)
Bis
(
2
-
Et
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)
p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
Di
e
t
h
y
l
p
h
t
a
l
a
t
e
Di-
n
-
b
u
t
y
l
p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e
Ar
o
c
l
o
r
1
0
1
6
To
t
a
l
A
l
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y
,
t
o
p
H
4.
5
BO
D
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
75-34-3 106-46-7 67-64-1 71-43-2 108-90-7 156-59-2 91-20-3 179601-23-1 95-47-6 127-18-4 75-01-4 1330-20-7 117-81-7 84-66-2 84-74-2 12674-11-2 SW337 SW316 16887-00-6
75 71 3 16 39 78 148 359 408 192 211 346 111 96 33 401 337 316 301
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result
2.5 J 6.9 7.7 J 1.3 2.0 J 4.5 J 1.0 J 0.86 J 0.51 1.2 0.097 U 1.4 J 1.50 J 0.742 J 0.564 J 0.24 U 120,000 5,600 880 J
0.083 U 0.050 U 4.3 J 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 0.275 U 0.549 U 0.549 U 0.24 U 55,000 340 J 18,000
0.60 J 4.7 0.31 U 0.64 J 7.3 1.4 J 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 0.278 U 0.952 J 0.556 U 5.2 84,000 520 J 40,000
0.083 U 3.3 7.6 J 0.50 J 2.5 J 2.0 J 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 0.307 J 0.564 J 0.556 U 0.24 U 150,000 1,100 J 81,000
0.083 U 4.4 12 J 0.82 J 4.0 2.3 J 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.62 J 0.15 U 0.508 J 0.975 J 0.644 J 0.24 U 240,000 3,500 50,000
1.9 J 3.1 5.2 J 0.048 U 0.062 U 1.9 J 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 0.321 U 1.16 J 0.556 U 0.24 U 31,000 1,200 J 870 J
0.083 U 3.3 4.5 J 0.87 J 3.5 2.2 J 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 0.269 U 0.538 U 0.538 U 0.24 U 250,000 160 J 67,000
0.083 U 0.050 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.083 U 0.050 U 5.4 J 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 0.287 U 0.575 U 0.575 U 0.24 U NA NA NA
0.083 U 0.050 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U 0.260 U 0.521 U 0.521 U 0.24 U NA NA NA
0.077 U 0.088 U NA 0.078 U 0.076 U 0.12 U 0.059 U 0.16 U 0.098 U 0.13 U 0.083 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.083 U 0.050 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.083 U 0.050 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.083 U 0.050 U 0.31 U 0.048 U 0.062 U 0.056 U 0.19 U 0.12 U 0.044 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.15 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.077 U 0.088 U NA 0.078 U 0.076 U 0.12 U 0.059 U 0.16 U 0.098 U 0.13 U 0.083 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.077/0.083 0.050/0.088 0.31 0.048/0.078 0.062/0.076 0.056/0.12 0.059/0.19 0.12/0.16 0.044/0.098 0.098/0.13 0.083/0.097 0.15 0.260*0.521*0.521*0.24 770 NE 200
0.50 0.50 5.0 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50/1.0 1.0 0.50 0.50 0.50 3.0 10.5*10.5*10.5*0.50 5,000 2,000 1,000
5 1 100 1 3 5 10 NE NE 1 1 5 15 10 10 2 NE NE NE
6 6 6,000 1 50 70 6 500 500 0.7 0.03 500 3 6,000 700 NE NE NE 250,000
NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.09 NE NE NE
NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.09 NE NE NE
100 100 2,000 51 140 720 12 NE 600 3.3 2.4 670 2.2 600 9.5 0.001 NE NE 230,000
See report text See report text
See report text
Notes:
Prism Laboratory
Report of Analyses
Only results, MDLs, MRLs, certification numbers, and methods for detected constituents are listed on this table. Please refer to Prism Report of Laboratory Analysis for further details.
Lab Method The analytical method used to analyze the constituents.
Cas Number A unique number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) to all identified parameters.
SWS ID Solid Waste Section Identification Number.
Units Micrograms per liter (µg/L) and milligrams per liter (mg/L) for analytical results, Standard Units (SU) for pH and nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) for turbidity.
Collect Date The date on which the sample was collected in the field.
Result Analytical data reported by the laboratory or field data collected by Anchor QEA.
MDL Method detection limit, which is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
MRL Method reporting limit, which is the minimum concentration of a target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.
SWSL Solid Waste Section Limit. This limit (identified by DEQ) is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy.
U A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters not detected at concentrations above MDL.
J A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters detected at estimated concentrations above MDL but below MRL and SWSL.
J Assigned by Anchor QEA to reflect a detected concentration that is greater than MRL and MDL but less than the SWSL.
B A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters that were detected in the associated laboratory blank at a concentration greater than one-half of the report limit.
2L Groundwater standards from "North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality, Subchapter 2L - Groundwater Classifications and Standards," DEQ (Amended April 1, 2013).
IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration, analytes that do not have an established 2L standard were compared to the IMAC in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0202 [c].
GWPS
2B
100 Indicates a detection with a result at or exceeding the SWSL.
180 Shaded cell indicates result in exceedance of the 2L or IMAC standard or greater than or equal to the GWPS (if no 2L or IMAC exist), and 2B standard if applicable.
0.260*Indicates the parameter had multiple MDLs and MRLs listed by the laboratory in the analytical report. The lowest MDL or MRL was reported on this table. Refer to the Prism Laboratory Report of Analysis for further details.
NA Not analyzed.
NE Not established.
Groundwater Protection Standard pursuant to "15A NCAC 13B .1634," DEQ. Current standards were obtained from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/waste-management-permit-guidance/solid-waste-section/environmental-
monitoring/environmental-monitoring-list (last updated June, 2011).Surface water standard per "North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality, Subchapter 2B - Surface Water and Wetland Standards," (last amended June 2016). Where no 2B standard exists, the National Criteria per
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from standards Table (Current as of May 15, 2013) for the most stringent of fresh water and human health was used.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Page 2 of 3
February 2017
Table 2
Summary of Analytical Results
Parameter
CAS Number
SWS ID
Units
Sample Name Collect Date
Groundwater Samples
MW-01 10/11/2016
MW-02 10/12/2016
MW-03 10/11/2016
MW-04 10/12/2016
MW-05R 10/12/2016
MW-06 10/11/2016
MW-07 10/12/2016
Leachate Sample
LT-01 10/11/2016
Surface Water Samples
SW-01 10/12/2016
SW-02 10/12/2016
Domestic Well Sample
DW-01 10/11/2016
Quality Control Samples
TRIPBLANK1 10/11/2016
TRIPBLANK2 10/12/2016
TRIPBLANK3 10/12/2016
TRIPBLANK(DW)10/11/2016
MDL
MRL
SWSL
2L
IMAC
GWPS
2B
Naturally Occuring
Off-Site Source
Consistent with Historical
Concentrations
Other
MDL
MRL
SWSL
U
J
J
B
2L
IMAC
GWPS
2B
100
180
0.260*
NA
NE
Laboratory and
Regulatory Thresholds
Lab Certification
Lab Method
Preliminary Analysis of
Cause for Exceedance
Natural Attenuation Parameters Natural Attenuation Parameters Field Parameters
402, 618 402 5445 (pH only)
SM 5220D SM 4500-CN-E SM 3500-Fe-D EPA 9056A EPA 9056A EPA 9060A
CO
D
Cy
a
n
i
d
e
Ir
o
n
,
F
e
r
r
o
u
s
Nit
r
a
t
e
a
s
N
Su
l
f
a
t
e
TO
C
Ac
e
t
i
c
A
c
i
d
Fo
r
m
i
c
A
c
i
d
Ha
x
a
n
o
i
c
A
c
i
d
Me
t
h
a
n
e
Et
h
a
n
e
Et
h
e
n
e
Ca
r
b
o
n
D
i
o
x
i
d
e
Hy
d
r
o
g
e
n
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d
O
x
y
g
e
n
pH
Tu
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
SW317 57-12-5 NA SW303 14808-79-8 C-012 64-19-7 64-18-6 142-62-1 74-82-8 74-84-0 74-85-1 124-38-9 1333-74-0 7782-44-7 SW320 SW330
317 58 334 303 315 357 NE NE NE 456 331 332 459 420 356 320 330
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L mg/L nM mg/L SU NTU
Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result
91,000 2.0 J 36,000 70 J 550 J 30,600 0.96 0.10 U 0.20 U 2,400 0.10 U 0.10 U 290 NA 0.99 5.83 68.8
94,000 1.0 U 71 U 140 J 8,600 J 5,600 0.38 0.10 U 0.20 U 0.50 U 0.18 0.10 U 53 NA 4.38 6.59 103
38,000 J 2.9 J 71 U 3,600 J 1,100 J 22,000 0.36 0.10 U 0.94 0.78 0.036 0.17 380 38 0.64 5.60 4.70
39,000 J 1.4 J 71 U 950 J 80,000 J 26,200 0.58 0.10 U 0.23 570 0.043 0.024 340 230 0.50 5.77 3.42
79,000 2.0 J 6,000 100 J 870 J 20,700 0.47 0.14 0.20 U 810 0.20 0.14 89 NA 3.24 6.34 out of range
14,000 U 1.6 J 71 U 130 J 440 J 14,500 0.10 U 0.10 U 0.20 U 28 0.010 U 0.057 220 57 0.78 5.33 6.20
29,000 J 1.0 J 190 J 200 J 23,000 J 25,100 0.43 0.10 U 0.20 U 180 0.099 0.240 380 41 0.39 6.03 7.24
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.55 6.91 24.8
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.05 7.70 12.6
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.65 7.25 11.7
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.55 7.05 4.90
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
14,000 1.0 71/1,800 14 260 300 0.007/0.008 0.004 0.007 0.006*0.001/0.002 0.006 0.24/0.45/0.83 0.075 NA NA NA
50,000 5.0 200/5,000 100 1,000 2,000 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.05*0.01/0.1 0.01 4.0/5.0 0.6 NA NA NA
NE 10 NE 10,000 250,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
NE 70 300 10,000 250,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 6.5-8.5 NE
NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
NE 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE > 5.0 6.0-9.0 25
Notes:
Prism Laboratory
Report of Analyses
Only results, MDLs, MRLs, certification numbers, and methods for detected constituents are listed on this table. Please refer to Prism Report of Laboratory Analysis for further details.
Lab Method The analytical method used to analyze the constituents.
Cas Number A unique number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) to all identified parameters.
SWS ID Solid Waste Section Identification Number.
Units Micrograms per liter (µg/L) and milligrams per liter (mg/L) for analytical results, Standard Units (SU) for pH and nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) for turbidity.
Collect Date The date on which the sample was collected in the field.
Result Analytical data reported by the laboratory or field data collected by Anchor QEA.
MDL Method detection limit, which is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
MRL Method reporting limit, which is the minimum concentration of a target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.
SWSL Solid Waste Section Limit. This limit (identified by DEQ) is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy.
U A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters not detected at concentrations above MDL.
J A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters detected at estimated concentrations above MDL but below MRL and SWSL.
J Assigned by Anchor QEA to reflect a detected concentration that is greater than MRL and MDL but less than the SWSL.
B A laboratory data qualifier used for parameters that were detected in the associated laboratory blank at a concentration greater than one-half of the report limit.
2L Groundwater standards from "North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality, Subchapter 2L - Groundwater Classifications and Standards," DEQ (Amended April 1, 2013).
IMAC Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration, analytes that do not have an established 2L standard were compared to the IMAC in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0202 [c].
GWPS
2B
100 Indicates a detection with a result at or exceeding the SWSL.
180 Shaded cell indicates result in exceedance of the 2L or IMAC standard or greater than or equal to the GWPS (if no 2L or IMAC exist), and 2B standard if applicable.
0.260*Indicates the parameter had multiple MDLs and MRLs listed by the laboratory in the analytical report. The lowest MDL or MRL was reported on this table. Refer to the Prism Laboratory Report of Analysis for further details.
NA Not analyzed.
NE Not established.
AM20GAX
Groundwater Protection Standard pursuant to "15A NCAC 13B .1634," DEQ. Current standards were obtained from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/waste-management-permit-guidance/solid-waste-
section/environmental-monitoring/environmental-monitoring-list (last updated June, 2011).Surface water standard per "North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A: Department of Environmental Quality, Subchapter 2B - Surface Water and Wetland Standards," (last amended June 2016). Where no 2B standard exists, the National
Criteria per Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from standards Table (Current as of May 15, 2013) for the most stringent of fresh water and human health was used.
AM23G
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Page 3 of 3
February 2017
Table 3
Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Detected in the
Leachate Sample (LT-01)
Cumulative
Flow
Differential
Flow
Mass
Removed
Cumulative
Mass Removed
Beginning Ending (gallons)(gallons)(pounds)(pounds)
09/01/2012 10/25/2012 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0034 11,500 11,500 0.00033
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone (MIBK)0.0021 J 0.00020
Acetone 0.0292 0.00280
Benzene 0.0021 0.00020
Chlorobenzene 0.0029 0.00028
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00063 J 0.00006
Dichlorodifluoro-
methane 0.00093 J 0.00009
Ethylbenzene 0.0102 0.00098
Naphthalene 0.0069 0.00066
Styrene 0.00033 J 0.00003
Toluene 0.003 0.00029
Xylene (Total)0.0094 0.00090
Total 0.00682 0.00682
10/26/2012 04/11/2013 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.006 65,500 54,000 0.00270
Acetone 0.012 J 0.00540
Benzene 0.0011 0.00049
Carbon disulfide 0.0067 J 0.00301
Chlorobenzene 0.0024 J 0.00108
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00058 J 0.00026
Ethylbenzene 0.0083 0.00373
Toluene 0.00059 J 0.00027
Xylene (Total)0.0078 0.00351
Total 0.02045 0.02727
04/12/2013 10/08/2013 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0055 114,737 49,237 0.00226
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone (MIBK)0.0012 J 0.00049
Benzene 0.0020 0.00082
Chlorobenzene 0.0039 0.00160
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00080 J 0.00033
Ethylbenzene 0.0151 0.00619
Naphthalene 0.0184 0.00754
Toluene 0.0012 0.00049
Xylene (Total)0.0090 0.00369
Total 0.02341 0.05068
Sample Dates Detected Volatile
Organic Compounds
Concentration
in LT-01
(mg/L)
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
1 of 3
February 2017
Table 3
Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Detected in the
Leachate Sample (LT-01)
Cumulative
Flow
Differential
Flow
Mass
Removed
Cumulative
Mass Removed
Beginning Ending (gallons)(gallons)(pounds)(pounds)
Sample Dates Detected Volatile
Organic Compounds
Concentration
in LT-01
(mg/L)
10/09/2013 04/08/2014 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0056 168,821 54,084 0.00252
Benzene 0.0018 0.00081
Chlorobenzene 0.0051 0.00230
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00049 J 0.00022
Ethylbenzene 0.0047 0.00212
Toluene 0.00041 J 0.00018
Xylene (Total)0.0021 J 0.00095
Total 0.00910 0.05978
04/08/2014 10/23/2014 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0053 179,652 10,831 0.00048
Benzene 0.0014 0.00013
Chlorobenzene 0.003 0.00027
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00049 J 0.00004
Ethylbenzene 0.0027 0.00024
Toluene 0.00051 J 0.00005
Xylene (Total)0.0014 J 0.00013
Total 0.00133 0.06111
10/23/2014 04/21/2015
1,2,3-
Trimethylbenzene 0.00062 219,965 40,313 0.000211,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene 0.00076 0.00026
2-Chlorotoluene 0.00067 0.00022
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0059 0.00198
Acetone 0.00790 0.00265
Benzene 0.0022 0.00074
Chlorobenzene 0.003 0.00101
Ethylbenzene 0.0056 0.00188
Isopropylbenzene 0.0013 0.00044Methy Tert-butyl-
Ether 0.0013 0.00044
Napthalene 0.024 0.00806
n-Propylbenzene 0.00088 0.00030
Tetrahydrofuran 0.089 0.02988
Toluene 0.00054 J 0.00018
Vinyl Chloride 0.00038 J 0.00013
Xylene (Total)0.0030 J 0.00101
Total 0.04937 0.11048
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
2 of 3
February 2017
Table 3
Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Detected in the
Leachate Sample (LT-01)
Cumulative
Flow
Differential
Flow
Mass
Removed
Cumulative
Mass Removed
Beginning Ending (gallons)(gallons)(pounds)(pounds)
Sample Dates Detected Volatile
Organic Compounds
Concentration
in LT-01
(mg/L)
04/21/2015 10/13/2015 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.00600 256,685 36,720 0.00183
2-Butanone 0.00960 J 0.00294
Benzene 0.00210 0.00064
Chlorobenzene 0.0040 0.00122
Ethylbenzene 0.00710 0.00217
m,p-Xylenes 0.0014 0.00043
Naphthalene 0.021 0.00642
o-Xylene 0.0017 0.00052
Tetrahydrofuran 0.062 0.01896
Toluene 0.00058 J 0.00018
Total Xylenes 0.0031 J 0.00095
Total 0.03626 0.14674
10/13/2015 04/05/2016 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.00590 315,663 58,978 0.00290
Benzene 0.00170 0.00083
Chlorobenzene 0.0038 0.00187
Ethylbenzene 0.00500 0.00246
m,p-Xylenes 0.0010 0.00049
o-Xylene 0.0015 0.00074
Toluene 0.00063 J 0.00031
Total Xylenes 0.0025 J 0.00123
Total 0.01082 0.15756
04/05/2016 10/11/2016 331,010 15,347 0.00000
Total 0.00000 0.15756
Notes:
Detections Only detected VOCs in leachate sample LT-01 are included in the mass removal calculation.
Extraction Leachate extraction at the landfill initiated on September 1, 2012.
Volume Extraction volume measurements were recorded and provided by Jackson County staff.
Calculations
Cumulative Flow Interpolated between LT-01 Sample Dates.
Differential Flow Represents the total flow between the LT-01 Sample Dates.
Mass Removed
mg/L milligrams per liter.
J Indicates laboratory estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
October 2016 No VOCs were detected in the leachate sample collected during the October 2016 sampling event.
Anchor QEA bases mass removal calculations on the assumption that the VOCs concentration in one sampling event is representative of
leachate quality until the next sampling event occurs, and that the leachate removal system has a 100% removal and treatment efficiency.
Mass Removed and Treated is estimated based upon a conversion of milligrams to pounds and liters to gallons and the multiplication of the
Concentration by the Differential Flow for the specified period.
No detected compounds.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
3 of 3
February 2017
Table 4
Well Construction Details and Corresponding Elevations
Date Drilled
Ground
Surface
Elevation
TOC
Elevation Stick Up Total Well
Depth
Depth To
Water
Groundwater
Elevation
Approx.
Depth to
Bedrock
Approx. Top
of Bedrock
Elevation
Depth to
Top of
Screened
Interval
Depth to
Bottom of
Screened
Interval
Top Elevation
of Screened
Interval
Elevation of
Bottom of
Screened
Interval
(mm/dd/yyyy)(feet)(feet)(feet
above gs) (feet bgs)(feet below
TOC) (feet)(feet bgs)(feet)(feet bgs)(feet bgs)(feet)(feet)
50-02 MW-01 04/23/1992 2,169.40 2,171.42 2.0 110.5 99.40 2,072.02 83.0 2,086.40 95.0 110.0 2,074.40 2,059.40 bedrock S&ME, Inc.
50-02 MW-02 04/22/1992 2,013.15 2,015.38 2.3 60.7 42.15 1,973.23 13.0 2,000.15 45.0 60.0 1,968.15 1,953.15 bedrock S&ME, Inc.
50-02 MW-03 04/21/1992 2,044.16 2,045.53 1.3 65.5 52.61 1,992.92 57.0 1,987.16 48.5 63.5 1,995.66 1,980.66
partially
weathered
bedrock
S&ME, Inc.
50-02 MW-04 04/21/1992 1,978.68 1,980.77 2.0 43.0 29.11 1,951.66 NA NA 25.0 40.0 1,953.68 1,938.68 saprolite S&ME, Inc.
50-02 MW-05R 01/26/2012 2,027.98 2,030.95 2.8 54.0 51.02 1,979.93 NA NA 44.0 54.0 1,983.98 1,973.98 saprolite
Altamont
Environmental,
Inc.
50-02 MW-06 03/23/2004 2,136.58 2,139.57 3.0 94.0 84.39 2,055.18 47.6 2,088.98 84.6 94.6 2,051.98 2,041.98 bedrock
50-02 MW-07 07/30/2010 1,978.71 1,981.29 2.6 95.0 33.17 1,948.12 44.0 1,935.00 70.0 95.0 1,908.71 1,883.71 bedrock
Notes:
Elevations
TOC top of casing
gs ground surface
bgs below ground surface
NA Not Applicable
Depth to Bedrock and
Screened Interval
Depth to Water Measured on October 11 and 12, 2016.
MW-05R
MW-01 through MW-04 Depth to Bedrock and Screened Interval taken from S&ME boring logs completed April 21, 22, and 23, 1992. MW-06 Depth to Bedrock and Screened Interval taken from Altamont boring log completed March 23, 2004. MW-07 Depth
to Bedrock and Screened Interval taken from Altamont boring log completed July 30, 2010. MW-05R Screened Interval taken from Altamont boring log completed January 26, 2012.
Monitoring well MW-05 was abandoned on January 26, 2012 by NYEG Drilling, LLC. Monitoring well MW-05R was installed on January 26, 2012 as a replacement to the well MW-05 by NYEG Drilling, LLC. The well MW-05R was surveyed by Wes Cole Land
Surveying, P.A. on September 28, 2012.
Facility Permit Well ID
Source of Well
Construction
Information
Geology of
Screened
Interval
Altamont
Environmental,
Inc.
Elevations associated with wells MW-01, MW-02, MW-03, MW-04, and MW-06 are measured relative to mean sea level (msl) and are based on surveying completed by Davenport & Associates, Inc. Elevations associated with wells MW-05R and MW-07 are
measured relative to horizontal North American Datum (NAD) 83 and are based on surveying completed by Wes Cole Land Surveying, P.A.
Fall 2016 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Page 1 of 1
February 2017
Figures
[0 2,000 4,0001,000
Feet
LEGEND:
Site Parcel Boundary
Publish Date: 2017/01/17, 2:30 PM | User: alesueurFilepath: P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Figures\GIS\2016\Fall\Figure 1 Site Location Map AQ.mxd
Figure 1Site Location MapJackson County Closed MSW Landfill Water Quality ReportJackson County Closed MSW Landfill, Permit #50-02, Jackson County, NC
SOURCE(S):Basemap: USGS Topographic Maps - GreensCreek and Whittier 7.5 Minute QuadranglesParcels: Jackson County GIS
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A @A
#
I
#
I
"
!U
!U
!A !A !A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A!A
T
U
C
K
A
S
E
G
E
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
U
C
K
A
S
E
G
E
E
R
I
V
E
R
HA
Y
W
O
O
D
R
D
JOE
W
I
L
K
E
Y
R
D
S U
S
4
4
1
TU
N
N
E
L
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
R
D
WEST
E
R
N
L
N
MOO
D
Y
R
D
HARM
O
N
Y
H
L
FUGITIVE RU
N
HU
N
D
R
E
D
A
C
R
E
L
N
WH
I
T
E
F
A
L
C
O
N
D
R
DE
L
L
W
O
O
D
D
R
S U
S
4
4
1
1
9
8
0
1
9
6
0
2
0
2
0
20
4
0
2
0
6
0
2
0
8
0
2
1
2
0
2
1
4
0
2
1
6
0
2
1
8
0
2220
2240
2
2
6
0
2
2
8
0
2
3
2
0
2
3
4
0
2
3
6
0
2380
2420
2440
2460
2480
25
2
0
25
4
0
256
0
21
2
0
2020
22
4
0
2160
2120 21
8
0
21
4
0
218
0
2060
22
2
0
204
0
208
0
2180
21
6
0
2020
2080
218
0
2
2
2
0
Wilkey
Wilkey
Connor
Wilkey
[
0 500 1,000250
Feet
NOTE(S):1. Sample locations are approximate.2. Adjacent property owner name shownwithin their respective property boundary.
LEGEND:
Stream
!A Extraction Well
!U Domestic Well Sample Location
"Leachate Sample Location
#
I
Surface Water Sample Location
@A Monitoring Well Location
Property Boundary
Road
Elevation Contour (20 ft Interval)
Publish Date: 2017/02/13, 9:01 AM | User: alesueurFilepath: P:\Projects\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Figures\GIS\2016\Fall\Figure 2 Sample Location Map AQ.mxd
Figure 2Site Layout MapJackson County Closed MSW Landfill Water Quality ReportJackson County Closed MSW Landfill, Permit #50-02, Jackson County, NC
SOURCE(S):Basemap: NC OneMap 2010Contours, Roads, and Parcels: Jackson County GIS
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
Flo
w
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
0
2100
2
3
0
0
22
0
0
2
4
0
0
210
0
2
2
0
0
Wilkey
Wilkey
Wilkey
Connor
T
U
C
K
A
S
E
G
E
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
U
C
K
A
S
E
G
E
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
U
C
K
A
S
E
G
E
E
R
I
V
E
R
T
U
C
K
A
S
E
G
E
E
R
I
V
E
R
GEN
E
R
A
L
I
Z
E
D
G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R
F
L
O
W
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
MW-03
(1,992.92)
MW-04
(1,951.66)
MW-05R
(1,979.93)
MW-01
(2,072.02)
MW-06
(2,055.18)
MW-02
(1,973.23)
MW-07
(1,948.12)
TU
N
N
E
L
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
R
D
JOE WILKEY RD
GREEN
E
N
E
R
G
Y
P
A
R
K
R
D
HA
Y
W
O
O
D
R
D
FUGITIVE RU
N
HA
Y
W
O
O
D
R
D
2
0
4
0
20
6
0
1
9
8
0
2
0
8
0
1
9
6
0
2
1
2
0
2
1
4
0
2
2
4
0
2
2
6
0
2
2
8
0
2
3
2
0
2160
2
3
4
0
2
3
6
0
2
3
8
0
2180
242
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
20
2
0
2160
21
4
0
20
8
0
21
6
0
21
8
0
20
6
0
21
2
0
2
1
8
0
[0 200 400100
Feet
NOTE(S):1. Monitoring well locations are approximate.2. Groundwater elevations and flow direction are updated on a semiannual basis following sample collectionevents in April and October.3. Groundwater flow direction is based on groundwater elevations in monitoring wells MW-03, MW-04, and MW-05R. Direction is calculated based on depth to water measured on October 11 and 12, 2016.4. Last names of property owners are shown in parcels that border the landfill property.5. PWR = Partially weathered rock6. (1,992.92) = Groundwater elevation in feet
LEGEND:
!U PWR Monitoring Well
!U Saprolite Monitoring Well
!U Bedrock Monitoring Well
Groundwater Flow Direction
Stream
Property Boundary
Road
Elevation Contour (20 ft Interval)
Publish Date: 2017/02/13, 2:55 PM | User: alesueurFilepath: P:\Projects\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Figures\GIS\2016\Fall\Figure 3 Groundwater Elevation Map AQ.mxd
Figure 3Generalized Groundwater Flow DirectionJackson County MSW Landfill Water Quality ReportJackson County Closed MSW Landfill, Permit #50-02, Dillsboro, North Carolina
SOURCE(S):Elevation contours, roads, and parcels: Jackson County GIS
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
Appendix A
Well Sampling Logs and Equipment
Documentation & Instrument Calibration
Data Sheets
Appendix B
Reports of Laboratory Analysis, Chain-of-
Custody Documentation, and Certificates
of Analysis
Page 1 of 94
Page 2 of 94
Page 3 of 94
Page 4 of 94
Page 5 of 94
Page 6 of 94
Page 7 of 94
Page 8 of 94
Page 9 of 94
Page 10 of 94
Page 11 of 94
Page 12 of 94
Page 13 of 94
Page 14 of 94
Page 15 of 94
Page 16 of 94
Page 17 of 94
Page 18 of 94
Page 19 of 94
Page 20 of 94
Page 21 of 94
Page 22 of 94
Page 23 of 94
Page 24 of 94
Page 25 of 94
Page 26 of 94
Page 27 of 94
Page 28 of 94
Page 29 of 94
Page 30 of 94
Page 31 of 94
Page 32 of 94
Page 33 of 94
Page 34 of 94
Page 35 of 94
Page 36 of 94
Page 37 of 94
Page 38 of 94
Page 39 of 94
Page 40 of 94
Page 41 of 94
Page 42 of 94
Page 43 of 94
Page 44 of 94
Page 45 of 94
Page 46 of 94
Page 47 of 94
Page 48 of 94
Page 49 of 94
Page 50 of 94
Page 51 of 94
Page 52 of 94
Page 53 of 94
Page 54 of 94
Page 55 of 94
Page 56 of 94
Page 57 of 94
Page 58 of 94
Page 59 of 94
Page 60 of 94
Page 61 of 94
Page 62 of 94
Page 63 of 94
Page 64 of 94
Page 65 of 94
Page 66 of 94
Page 67 of 94
Page 68 of 94
Page 69 of 94
Page 70 of 94
Page 71 of 94
Page 72 of 94
Page 73 of 94
Page 74 of 94
Page 75 of 94
Page 76 of 94
Page 77 of 94
Page 78 of 94
Page 79 of 94
Page 80 of 94
Page 81 of 94
Page 82 of 94
Page 83 of 94
Page 84 of 94
Page 85 of 94
Page 86 of 94
Page 87 of 94
Page 88 of 94
Page 89 of 94
Page 90 of 94
Page 91 of 94
Page 92 of 94
Page 93 of 94
Page 94 of 94
Page 1 of 121
Page 2 of 121
Page 3 of 121
Page 4 of 121
Page 5 of 121
Page 6 of 121
Page 7 of 121
Page 8 of 121
Page 9 of 121
Page 10 of 121
Page 11 of 121
Page 12 of 121
Page 13 of 121
Page 14 of 121
Page 15 of 121
Page 16 of 121
Page 17 of 121
Page 18 of 121
Page 19 of 121
Page 20 of 121
Page 21 of 121
Page 22 of 121
Page 23 of 121
Page 24 of 121
Page 25 of 121
Page 26 of 121
Page 27 of 121
Page 28 of 121
Page 29 of 121
Page 30 of 121
Page 31 of 121
Page 32 of 121
Page 33 of 121
Page 34 of 121
Page 35 of 121
Page 36 of 121
Page 37 of 121
Page 38 of 121
Page 39 of 121
Page 40 of 121
Page 41 of 121
Page 42 of 121
Page 43 of 121
Page 44 of 121
Page 45 of 121
Page 46 of 121
Page 47 of 121
Page 48 of 121
Page 49 of 121
Page 50 of 121
Page 51 of 121
Page 52 of 121
Page 53 of 121
Page 54 of 121
Page 55 of 121
Page 56 of 121
Page 57 of 121
Page 58 of 121
Page 59 of 121
Page 60 of 121
Page 61 of 121
Page 62 of 121
Page 63 of 121
Page 64 of 121
Page 65 of 121
Page 66 of 121
Page 67 of 121
Page 68 of 121
Page 69 of 121
Page 70 of 121
Page 71 of 121
Page 72 of 121
Page 73 of 121
Page 74 of 121
Page 75 of 121
Page 76 of 121
Page 77 of 121
Page 78 of 121
Page 79 of 121
Page 80 of 121
Page 81 of 121
Page 82 of 121
Page 83 of 121
Page 84 of 121
Page 85 of 121
Page 86 of 121
Page 87 of 121
Page 88 of 121
Page 89 of 121
Page 90 of 121
Page 91 of 121
Page 92 of 121
Page 93 of 121
Page 94 of 121
Page 95 of 121
Page 96 of 121
Page 97 of 121
Page 98 of 121
Page 99 of 121
Page 100 of 121
Page 101 of 121
Page 102 of 121
Page 103 of 121
Page 104 of 121
Page 105 of 121
Page 106 of 121
Page 107 of 121
Page 108 of 121
Page 109 of 121
Page 110 of 121
Page 111 of 121
Page 112 of 121
Page 113 of 121
Page 114 of 121
Page 115 of 121
Page 116 of 121
Page 117 of 121
Page 118 of 121
Page 119 of 121
Page 120 of 121
Page 121 of 121
Page 1 of 12
Page 2 of 12
Page 3 of 12
Page 4 of 12
Page 5 of 12
Page 6 of 12
Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 12
Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 12
Page 11 of 12
Page 12 of 12
Page 1 of 13
Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 13
Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 13
Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13