5403_LenoirCoCDLF_GWMR_DIN27912_20161616

Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF
LaGrange, North Carolina
July 2016
MESCO Project Number: G16015.0
Semi-Annual Water Quality Monitoring Report
with Corrective Action Update
Prepared for
Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A.
Garner and Boone, North Carolina
Permit Number: 54-03
P.O. Box 97
Garner, NC 27529
License No. C-0281

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Introduction Page 1
Background Page 1
Sampling Procedures Page 2
Field Parameter Data Page 2
Laboratory Results Page 2
Quality Control Samples Page 3
Groundwater Samples Page 3
Surface Water Samples Page 3
Groundwater Characterization Page 3
Corrective Action Update Page 3
Findings Page 4
Closing Page 4
FIGURES
Topographic Map with Site Location Figure 1
Potentiometric Map of Surficial Aquifer with Detections Above 2L Standards Figure 2
Biochlor Natural Attenuation Screening Protocol Matrix (MW-4) Figure 3
Biochlor Natural Attenuation Screening Protocol Matrix (MW-6) Figure 4
Biochlor Natural Attenuation Screening Protocol Matrix (MW-11) Figure 5
TABLES
Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Table Table 1
Sampling and Analysis Summary Table 2
Detections Above Established SWSL, GWP, 2L, 2B or MCL (Appendix I) Table 3
Detections Above MDL (Appendix II Exclusive) Table 4
Hydrologic Properties at Monitoring Well Locations Table 5
MNA Parameter Data Summary Table 6
APPENDICIES
Laboratory and Field Analysis Reports and Chains of Custody Appendix A
December 15, 2016
Ms. Jaclynne Drummond
Solid Waste Section (SWS)
NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Subject: Semi-Annual Water Quality Monitoring Report with Corrective Action Update
Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF
Permit No. 54-03
MESCO Project No. G16015.0
Event Date: July 13, 2016
Dear Ms. Drummond:
Introduction
On behalf of Lenoir County, Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A. (MESCO) is pleased to present this
Semi-Annual Water Quality Monitoring Report with Corrective Action Update for the summer 2016 event
performed at the Lenoir County active construction and demolition (C&D) and closed municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLF). NCDENR Solid Waste Rule 15A NCAC 13B.1632 requires that Lenoir County provide this report to
the NC Solid Waste Section (SWS) on a semi-annual basis. This report documents the quality of the ground and
surface waters during this monitoring event performed on July 13, 2016. Laboratory analytical results indicate that
one or two volatile organic compound(s) (VOCs) were detected above NC Groundwater 2L Standards in samples
MW-6 and MW-11. Total mercury was also detected above the 2L Standard in sample MW-9 but dissolved
mercury was below. Corrective action via monitored natural attenuation (MNA) continues to be implemented to
with updated information presented herein.
Background
The Lenoir County Active Construction and Demolition (C&D) Landfill and Closed Unlined Sanitary Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) is located on Hodges Farm Road (SR 1524), La Grange, Lenoir County, North
Carolina and operates under permit #54-03. Prior to operation as a C&D landfill, the site operated as an unlined
MSWLF. Part of the southern portion of the MSWLF ceased receiving waste prior to October 1994 and was closed
with a 24 inch soil cover. The remainder of the MSWLF closed prior to October 1998, with an 18-inch cohesive soil
cap having a permeability of 1 x 10-5 cm/sec, and 18 inches of erosive layer, as part of the Lenoir County Transition
Plan. The C&D landfill operates on top of the capped MSWLF, and both units are monitored together. Lenoir
County's Subtitle D MSWLF, located on a contiguous property to the southeast is currently monitored separately
under permit 54-09. A topographic map showing the facility location is included as Figure 1.
Water quality has been monitored at this facility on at least a semi-annual basis since 1994 and any data
comparisons were made to all historical data believed to be reported. Municipal Engineering Services Company,
P.A. (MESCO) submitted an Assessment and Corrective Action (ACM) report dated August 30, 2007. MESCO then
developed a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) (DIN6843) on February 13, 2009. In response to improved water quality
and changing geochemical conditions, the CAP was revised on April 30, 2009 (CAP-Rev. 1) (DIN 8710).
Groundwater remediation using monitored natural attenuation (MNA) was initiated on July 29, 2009 and has
continued on a semi-annual basis.
Following establishment of the two year MNA baseline, MESCO completed a Corrective Action Evaluation Report

(CAER) (DIN 13653) on April 12, 2011. Although the CAER demonstrated that water quality conditions have
improved and there is adequate evidence that groundwater natural attenuation is occurring, the SWS CAER review
response (DIN 15524) dated November 22, 2011 denied the proposed discontinuation of corrective action. The
Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling & Analysis Plan (SAP) Revision 2 (SAP-Rev.2) (DIN 16358) was
submitted by MESCO on March 23, 2012 at the request of the SWS. The SWS requested SAP-Rev.2 specifies full
Appendix II monitoring of all groundwater samples once every five years which was performed on June 25, 2012
and continuation of annual Appendix II monitoring of MW-3 which was performed during this event. Groundwater
remediation through MNA is required to continue until the SWS authorizes a change.
As specified within rule 15A NCAC 13B.1632(i) and the SWS Environmental Monitoring Report Form, this report
contains sampling procedures, field and laboratory results, corrective action update, groundwater and surface water
characterization, and findings. Detections compared to Standards tables, hydrogeologic properties table, MNA
parameters table, histograms of historical detections, potentiometric map, field parameters, laboratory analytical
reports with quality assurance/quality control data and chains-of-custody (C-O-C) are also included in this report.
Sampling Procedures
Environment 1 (E1) of Greenville, NC, reportedly performed this monitoring event in accordance with the semi-
annual monitoring schedule prescribed by the NC Solid Waste Section (SWS) rules/regulations as promulgated in
15A NCAC 13B.1600. E1 personnel reportedly conducted the sampling utilizing portable monitoring methodology
in accordance with the approved Sampling & Analysis Plan (SAP) contained in the CAP-Rev. 1. Water and
dissolved gas samples were collected from six downgradient groundwater monitoring wells (MW-3, MW-4, MW-6,
MW-9, MW-11, MW-12), and the hydraulically upgradient background well (MW-1). Surface water samples were
reportedly collected from SW-3 located upstream and SW-1 downstream of the facility. Quality control measures
included submittal and analysis of an equipment blank (EB), field blank (FB) and travel blank (TB). Monitoring
locations are shown in Figure 2.
A summary detailing the construction of the water monitoring wells is presented on Table 1. Static water levels in
each well were measured electronically prior to purging. Additional static water level readings were recorded from
two supplementary monitoring wells (MW-8 and MW-10) to improve potentiometric contouring. E1 documentation
indicates samples were transported under C-O-C protocols and analyzed within the specified hold times for each
method.
Field Parameter Data
E1 quantified the field parameters static water depth, pH, specific conductivity, temperature, turbidity, oxidation
reduction potential (ORP) and dissolved oxygen (DO), which is presented in the laboratory analysis report in
Appendix A.
Laboratory Results
E1 reportedly analyzed all of the water samples for at least the constituents listed in Appendix I of 40 CFR 258 and
total mercury (an Appendix II constituent). Annual assessment monitoring which entailed targeting an expanded
list of parameters listed in Appendix II of 40 CFR 258 was performed on MW-3 and background well MW-1.
Additionally, all groundwater samples were analyzed for the MNA performance parameter list specified by SWS.
Microseeps Inc. of Pittsburgh, PA performed analysis for the MNA parameters volatile fatty acids,
methane/ethene/ethane, and dissolved hydrogen. A sampling and analysis table summarizing the locations, targeted
constituents, and methods is presented on Table 2.
2
Water samples were analyzed to the laboratory-established Method Detection Limits (MDL), which are at or below
current Solid Waste Section Limits (SWSL). Table 3 summarizes constituents detected in groundwater samples
above the current SWSL, Groundwater Protection Standards (GWP), North Carolina Groundwater Standards (2L)
or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) also known as “Federal Primary Drinking Water Standards”. Table 4
summarizes all Appendix II detections (defined in this report as not also listed in Appendix I) above the MDL.
Quality Control Samples
Three out of sixteen total metals were detected in low “j-qualified” concentrations in the blanks (EB and FB).
Although the field and/or laboratory induced artifact contamination was identified it is unlikely the data set for the
lined landfill has been influenced by false positives or high bias.
Groundwater Samples
VOCs were detected in samples collected from MW-3, MW-4, MW-6 and MW-11. Samples with VOCs detected
above and presented with their respective 2L Standard were:
MW-3 benzene (2.5/1.0 µg/L) and vinyl chloride (5.4/0.03 µg/L)
MW-6 tetrachloroethene (1.7/0.7 µg/L)
MW-11 vinyl chloride (2.2/0.03 µg/L)
Total mercury, an Appendix II heavy metal, was detected in MW-9 (4.2 µg/L) which is above the 2L Standard (1.0
µg/L). However, lab filtered dissolved mercury was at 1.2 µg/L which is below the Standard.
Metals detected above regulatory Standards in sample MW-6 relative to their 2L/GWP Standard were chromium
(11/10 µg/L) and vanadium (17.1/3.5 µg/L).
Surface Water Samples
No contaminants were detected above the SWSL in either of the surface water samples collected upstream or
downstream of the facility.
Groundwater Characterization
A single-day potentiometric map of the surficial aquifer was created using groundwater elevation data reported
during this event (Figure 2). Flow direction trends in a general northeasterly direction towards Falling Creek.
Groundwater flow rates via modified Darcy's equation ranged from approximately 6 ft/yr in MW-3 to 133 ft/yr in
MW-11 and averaged 45 ft/yr. Groundwater flow rates and directions are included in Table 5. Flow directions and
gradients are generally consistent with historical observations.
Corrective Action Update
Groundwater remediation measures using MNA per CAP-Rev. 1 continue to be implemented at the facility. Semi-
annual MNA monitoring of seven wells was initiated on July 29, 2009 and has consistently been performed for the
full suite of SWS recommended parameters for twelve consecutive semi-annual events. The most recent MNA data
is presented in Table 6. The data for the three impacted wells (MW-3, MW-6 and MW-11) were inputted into the
Biochlor natural attenuation screening protocol matrix (Figures 3, 4 and 5).
The screening matrix scores were:
•MW-3 (23) which is interpreted as strong evidence of anaerobic biodegredation of chlorinated organics.
•MW-6 (17) which is interpreted as adequate evidence of anaerobic biodegredation of chlorinated organics.
•MW-11 (13) which is interpreted as limited evidence of anaerobic biodegredation of chlorinated organics.
3
Figures
Topographic Map with Site Location
Lenoir County Landfill Facility
FIGURE 1
QUADRANGLE LEGEND
N
2949 Hodges Farm Rd (SR1524)
LaGrange, NC 28501
Lat:35-17-07.4269
Long:-77-42-32.7453
Northing:561295.59
Easting:2385220.32
SW-1
SW-3
UNLINEDC&D
MSWLF
SUBTITLE DLINEDMSWLF
Natural Attenuation Interpretation Score
Screening Inadequate evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 0 to 5
Protocol Limited evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 6 to 14 Score:23
Adequate evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 15 to 20
Strong evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics >20 Scroll to End of Table
Concentration in PointsAnalysisMost Contam. Zone Interpretation Yes No Awarded
Oxygen*<0.5 mg/L Tolerated, suppresses the reductive pathway at higher 0
concentrations
> 5mg/L Not tolerated; however, VC may be oxidized aerobically 0
Nitrate*<1 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 2
pathway
Iron II*>1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible; VC may be oxidized under 3
Fe(III)-reducing conditions
Sulfate*<20 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 2
pathway
Sulfide*>1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible 0

Methane*>0.5 mg/L Ultimate reductive daughter product, VC Accumulates 3
Oxidation <50 millivolts (mV)Reductive pathway possible 1
Reduction
Potential* (ORP)<-100mV Reductive pathway likely 0

pH*5 < pH < 9 Optimal range for reductive pathway 0
TOC >20 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination; can be 0
natural or anthropogenic
Temperature*>20oC At T >20oC biochemical process is accelerated 1
Carbon Dioxide >2x background Ultimate oxidative daughter product 1
Alkalinity >2x background Results from interaction of carbon dioxide with aquifer 1
minerals
Chloride*>2x background Daughter product of organic chlorine 2
Hydrogen >1 nM Reductive pathway possible, VC may accumulate 3
Volatile Fatty Acids >0.1 mg/L Intermediates resulting from biodegradation of aromatic 0
compounds; carbon and energy source
BTEX*>0.1 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination 0
PCE*Material released 0
TCE*Daughter product of PCE a/0

DCE*Daughter product of TCE.
If cis is greater than 80% of total DCE it is likely a daughter 2
product of TCEa/; 1,1-DCE can be a chem. reaction product of TCA
VC*Daughter product of DCEa/2
1,1,1- Material released 0
Trichloroethane*
DCA Daughter product of TCA under reducing conditions 0
Carbon Material released 0
Tetrachloride
Chloroethane*Daughter product of DCA or VC under reducing conditions 0
Ethene/Ethane >0.01 mg/L Daughter product of VC/ethene 0
>0.1 mg/L Daughter product of VC/ethene 0
Chloroform Daughter product of Carbon Tetrachloride 0
Dichloromethane Daughter product of Chloroform 0

* required analysis.
a/ Points awarded only if it can be shown that the compound is a daughter product
(i.e., not a constituent of the source NAPL).
End of Form
* reductive dechlorination
The following is taken from the USEPA protocol (USEPA, 1998). The results of this scoring process have no regulatory significance.
ResetSCORE
Natural Attenuation Interpretation Score
Screening Inadequate evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 0 to 5
Protocol Limited evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 6 to 14 Score:17
Adequate evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 15 to 20
Strong evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics >20 Scroll to End of Table
Concentration in PointsAnalysisMost Contam. Zone Interpretation Yes No Awarded
Oxygen*<0.5 mg/L Tolerated, suppresses the reductive pathway at higher 0
concentrations
> 5mg/L Not tolerated; however, VC may be oxidized aerobically 0
Nitrate*<1 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 2
pathway
Iron II*>1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible; VC may be oxidized under 3
Fe(III)-reducing conditions
Sulfate*<20 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 0
pathway
Sulfide*>1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible 0

Methane*>0.5 mg/L Ultimate reductive daughter product, VC Accumulates 3
Oxidation <50 millivolts (mV)Reductive pathway possible 1
Reduction
Potential* (ORP)<-100mV Reductive pathway likely 0

pH*5 < pH < 9 Optimal range for reductive pathway 0
TOC >20 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination; can be 2
natural or anthropogenic
Temperature*>20oC At T >20oC biochemical process is accelerated 1
Carbon Dioxide >2x background Ultimate oxidative daughter product 1
Alkalinity >2x background Results from interaction of carbon dioxide with aquifer 1
minerals
Chloride*>2x background Daughter product of organic chlorine 0
Hydrogen >1 nM Reductive pathway possible, VC may accumulate 3
Volatile Fatty Acids >0.1 mg/L Intermediates resulting from biodegradation of aromatic 0
compounds; carbon and energy source
BTEX*>0.1 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination 0
PCE*Material released 0
TCE*Daughter product of PCE a/0

DCE*Daughter product of TCE.
If cis is greater than 80% of total DCE it is likely a daughter 0
product of TCEa/; 1,1-DCE can be a chem. reaction product of TCA
VC*Daughter product of DCEa/0
1,1,1- Material released 0
Trichloroethane*
DCA Daughter product of TCA under reducing conditions 0
Carbon Material released 0
Tetrachloride
Chloroethane*Daughter product of DCA or VC under reducing conditions 0
Ethene/Ethane >0.01 mg/L Daughter product of VC/ethene 0
>0.1 mg/L Daughter product of VC/ethene 0
Chloroform Daughter product of Carbon Tetrachloride 0
Dichloromethane Daughter product of Chloroform 0

* required analysis.
a/ Points awarded only if it can be shown that the compound is a daughter product
(i.e., not a constituent of the source NAPL).
End of Form
* reductive dechlorination
The following is taken from the USEPA protocol (USEPA, 1998). The results of this scoring process have no regulatory significance.
ResetSCORE
Natural Attenuation Interpretation Score
Screening Inadequate evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 0 to 5
Protocol Limited evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 6 to 14 Score:13
Adequate evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics 15 to 20
Strong evidence for anaerobic biodegradation* of chlorinated organics >20 Scroll to End of Table
Concentration in PointsAnalysisMost Contam. Zone Interpretation Yes No Awarded
Oxygen*<0.5 mg/L Tolerated, suppresses the reductive pathway at higher 0
concentrations
> 5mg/L Not tolerated; however, VC may be oxidized aerobically 0
Nitrate*<1 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 0
pathway
Iron II*>1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible; VC may be oxidized under 0
Fe(III)-reducing conditions
Sulfate*<20 mg/L At higher concentrations may compete with reductive 2
pathway
Sulfide*>1 mg/L Reductive pathway possible 0

Methane*>0.5 mg/L Ultimate reductive daughter product, VC Accumulates 3
Oxidation <50 millivolts (mV)Reductive pathway possible 0
Reduction
Potential* (ORP)<-100mV Reductive pathway likely 0

pH*5 < pH < 9 Optimal range for reductive pathway -2
TOC >20 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination; can be 2
natural or anthropogenic
Temperature*>20oC At T >20oC biochemical process is accelerated 1
Carbon Dioxide >2x background Ultimate oxidative daughter product 1
Alkalinity >2x background Results from interaction of carbon dioxide with aquifer 1
minerals
Chloride*>2x background Daughter product of organic chlorine 0
Hydrogen >1 nM Reductive pathway possible, VC may accumulate 3
Volatile Fatty Acids >0.1 mg/L Intermediates resulting from biodegradation of aromatic 0
compounds; carbon and energy source
BTEX*>0.1 mg/L Carbon and energy source; drives dechlorination 0
PCE*Material released 0
TCE*Daughter product of PCE a/0

DCE*Daughter product of TCE.
If cis is greater than 80% of total DCE it is likely a daughter 0
product of TCEa/; 1,1-DCE can be a chem. reaction product of TCA
VC*Daughter product of DCEa/2
1,1,1- Material released 0
Trichloroethane*
DCA Daughter product of TCA under reducing conditions 0
Carbon Material released 0
Tetrachloride
Chloroethane*Daughter product of DCA or VC under reducing conditions 0
Ethene/Ethane >0.01 mg/L Daughter product of VC/ethene 0
>0.1 mg/L Daughter product of VC/ethene 0
Chloroform Daughter product of Carbon Tetrachloride 0
Dichloromethane Daughter product of Chloroform 0

* required analysis.
a/ Points awarded only if it can be shown that the compound is a daughter product
(i.e., not a constituent of the source NAPL).
End of Form
* reductive dechlorination
The following is taken from the USEPA protocol (USEPA, 1998). The results of this scoring process have no regulatory significance.
ResetSCORE
Tables
Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF Page 1 of 1
Table 1
Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Table
July 15, 2016
Latitude Longitude
(inches)(ft)
MW-1 10/7/80 2 40 Silty Sand 98.34 82.94 15.40 N35° 17' 29.98"W77° 42' 37.63"
MW-3 9/26/91 2 12 2 10 Silty Sand 63.87 60.71 57.56 6.31 N35° 17' 51.39"W77° 42' 25.53"
MW-4 9/25/91 2 15 5 10 Silty Sand 68.03 65.86 60.82 7.21 N35° 17' 44.60"W77° 42' 23.26"
MW-6 5/27/92 2 17 7 10 Silty Sand 85.56 84.93 75.23 10.33 N35° 17' 38.82"W77° 42' 48.13"
MW-8 8/24/94 2 31.5 16.5 15 Silt 88.29 85.39 68.01 20.28 N35° 17' 47.26"W77° 42' 38.63"
MW-9 8/25/94 2 19.8 4.8 15 Sandy Clay 62.40 56.55 56.99 5.41 N35° 17' 59.03"W77° 42' 32.15"
MW-10 8/24/94 2 31.5 16.5 15 Sandy Silt 87.15 84.04 64.85 22.30 N35° 17' 49.91"W77° 42' 35.62"
MW-11 3/31/99 2 36 26 10 Sand 78.26 75.36 65.62 12.64 N35° 17' 48.26"W77° 42' 39.65"
MW-12 3/31/99 2 35 25 10 Sand 77.46 74.65 61.56 15.90 N35° 17' 52.37"W77° 42' 35.08"
NOTE:
Monitoring
Well
Date
Installed
Well
Diameter
Total
Well
Depth
Top of
Screen
Depth
Screen
Length Geology of
Screened
Interval
Top of
Casing
Elevation
Ground
Elevation
Groundwater
Elevation
Depth to
Water
(ft bgs)(ft bgs)(ft amsl)(ft amsl)(ft amsl)(ft btoc)
na na na
bgs = below ground surface
amsl= above mean sea level
btoc = below top of casing (PVC well casing)
na = not available. Not shown on well construction record or boring log
Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF Page 1 of 1
Table 2
Sampling and Analysis Summary
July 13, 2016
App. I App. II MNA Field Parameter
M e t a l s , T o t a l
T o t a l M e t a l s
T o t a l M e r c u r y
T o t a l M e r c u r y (D i s s o l v e d )
P e s t i c i d e s
H e r b i c i d e s -C h l o r i n a t e d
T o t a l C y a n i d e
S u l f i d e
V F A
H y d r o g e n
D i s s o l v e d C O 2
A l k a l i n i t y
S u l f a t e
S u l f i d e
C h l o r i d e
T O C
C O D
B O D
I r o n , t o t a l
I r o n , F e r r o u s
N i t r a t e
D i s s o l v e d O x y g e n (D O )
O x i d a t i o n R e d u c t i o n P o t e n t i a l (O R P )
S t a t i c D e p t h t o W a t e r
T e m p e r a t u r e
C o n d u c t i v i t y
p H T u r b i d i t y
L a b E P A 8 2 6 0 B
L a b E P A 2 0 0 .8
L a b E P A 8 2 6 0 B
L a b E P A 2 0 0 .8
L a b 2 4 5 .1
L a b 2 4 5 .1
L a b E P A 8 0 8 1 B
L a b S W 8 1 5 1 A
L a b E P A 8 0 8 1 B
L a b E P A 8 2 7 0 C
L a b E P A 9 0 1 4
L a b S M 1 8 4 5 0 0 -S 2 D
A M 2 3 G
A M 2 0 G A X
A M 2 0 G A X
S M 4 5 0 0 C O 2 C
2 3 2 0 B -9 7
4 5 0 0 S O 4 2 E 9 7
4 5 0 0 S 2 D -0 0
4 5 0 0 C L B -9 7
5 3 1 0 C -0 0
H 8 0 0 0 -7 9
5 2 1 0 B -0 1
E P A 2 0 0 .7
3 5 0 0 F E B -9 7
3 5 3 .2 R 2 -9 3
S M 4 5 0 0 O G
S M 2 5 8 0 B
S M 2 5 5 0 B
S M 2 5 1 0 B
S M 4 5 0 0 H B
S M 2 1 3 0 -B
MW-1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
MW-3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
MW-4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
MW-6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
MW-8 Exempt from water quality sampling only water level elevation required x
MW-9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
MW-10 Exempt from water quality sampling only water level elevation required x
MW-11 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
MW-12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
SW-1 Not sampled since reported to be dry
SW-3 x x x x x x x x
EB x x x
FB x x x
TB x
App I & II= Appendix Lists from current 40 CFR 258
V O C s
V O C s
P o l y c h l o r i n a t e d b i p h e n y l (P C B )
S e m i v o l a t i l e O r g a n i c s (S V O C s )
M e t h a n e /E t h e n e /E t h a n e
Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF Page 1 of 1
Table 3
July 13, 2016
Result Unit
MW-1 Barium, Total 7/13/16 171 0.02 100 700 1300
MW-1 Zinc, Total 7/13/16 14 1.61 10 1000 NE
MW-3 7/13/16 1.9 0.39 1 6 75
MW-3 Benzene 7/13/16 2.5 0.24 1 1 5 L &/or LFG
MW-3 7/13/16 7.3 0.25 5 70 70
MW-3 Vinyl Chloride 7/13/16 5.4 0.63 1 0.03 2 L &/or LFG
MW-3 Zinc, Total 7/13/16 29 1.61 10 1000 NE
MW-4 Benzene 7/13/16 1 0.24 1 1 5
MW-4 7/13/16 3.6 0.3 3 50 100
MW-4 Zinc, Total 7/13/16 12 1.61 10 1000 NE
MW-6 Chromium, Total 7/13/16 11 0.06 10 10 100 N
MW-6 7/13/16 1.7 0.17 1 0.7 5 L &/or LFG
MW-6 Vanadium, Total 7/13/16 17.1J 0.36 25 NE 3.5 NE N
MW-6 Zinc, Total 7/13/16 41 1.61 10 1000 NE
MW-9 Barium, Total 7/13/16 205 0.02 100 700 1300
MW-9 Zinc, Total 7/13/16 46 1.61 10 1000 NE
MW-11 Vinyl Chloride 7/13/16 2.2 0.63 1 0.03 2 L &/or LFG
MW-11 Zinc, Total 7/13/16 34 1.61 10 1000 NE
MW-12 Zinc, Total 7/13/16 10 1.61 10 1000 NE
A definitive source of the detection was not determined as part of this report. Preliminary cause only listed pursuant to instructions
N = Natural from erosion of natural deposits
LFG = Landfill Gas
BOLD = Concentration > 2L, 2B, GWP or MCL Standard
Detections Above Established SWSL, GWP, 2L, 2B or MCL (Appendix I)
Sample
ID Parameter Name 1 Sample
Date MDL 2 SWSL 3 2L 4 2B 5 GWP 6 MCL 7 Preliminary
Cause 8
ug/l
ug/l
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/l
ug/l
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Chlorobenzene ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Tetrachloroethene ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1 Table contains constituents detected at or above SWSL, 2L, 2B, GWP or MCL
2 MDL = Method Detection Limit
3 SWSL = Solid Waste Section Reporting Limit
4 2L = North Carolina 15A NCAC 2L Groundwater Quality Standard
5 2B = North Carolina 15 NCAC 2B Surface Water Quality Standard for this Specific Stream Classification
6 GWP = Groundwater Protection Standard
7 MCL = Primary Drinking Water Standard (not currently applicable for regulatory comparisons)
8 Preliminary Cause = Refers to a preliminary analysis of the cause and/or source of a detection over the respective 2L/2B Standard.
L = Leachate
Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF Page 1 of 1
Table 4
July 15, 2016
Sample ID Result Unit
MW-3 Mercury, total 7/13/16 0.05j 0.04 0.2 2 2
MW-4 Mercury, total 7/13/16 0.06j 0.04 0.2 2 2
MW-4 Sulfide 7/13/16 113j 100 1000 NE
MW-6 Mercury, total 7/13/16 0.11j 0.04 0.2 2 2
MW-11 Mercury, total 7/13/16 0.45 0.04 0.2 2 2
MW-9 Mercury, total 7/13/16 4.2 0.04 0.2 2 2
MW-9 Mercury, dissolved 7/13/16 1.2 0.04 0.2 2 2
A definitive source of the detection was not determined as part of this report.
Detections Above MDL (Appendix II Exclusive)
Parameter Name 1 Sample
Date MDL 2 SWSL 3 2L 4 GWP 5 MCL 6 Preliminary
Cause 7
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
1 Table contains detected App II exclusive constituents (Not also included on App I list)
2 MDL = Method Detection Limit
3 SWSL = Solid Waste Section Reporting Limit
4 2L = North Carolina 15A NCAC 2L Groundwater Quality Standard
5 GWP = Groundwater Protection Standard
6 MCL = Primary Drinking Water Standard (not currently applicable for regulatory comparisons)
7 Preliminary Cause = Refers to a preliminary analysis of the cause and/or source of a detection over the respective 2L/2B Standard.
j =The reported value is estimated & between the laboratory MDL & the SWSL, adjusted for actual sample preparation data and moisture content.
BOLD = Concentration >2L, GWP or MCL Standard
Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF Page 1 of 1
Table 5
July 13, 2016
MW-1 4.30E-04 20 0.012 26 N38E 15.40 82.94 Silty Sand
MW-3 1.30E-04 20 0.010 7 N42E 6.31 57.56 Silty Sand
MW-4 5.40E-04 20 0.009 25 N36E 7.21 60.82 Silty Sand
MW-6 --0.020 -N20W 10.33 75.23 Silty Sand
MW-9 3.80E-04 20 0.005 11 N26E 5.41 56.99 Sandy Clay
MW-11 6.59E-04 20 0.029 100 N34W 12.64 65.62 Sand
MW-12 2.10E-04 20 0.011 12 N01W 15.90 61.56 Sand
Minimum 1.30E-04 20 0.005 7 -5.41 56.99 -
Average 3.91E-04 20 0.014 30 -10.46 65.82 -
Maximum 6.59E-04 20 0.029 100 -15.90 82.94 -
NOTE:1.Hydraulic conductivity (K) values for MW-1, MW-3, MW-4 and MW-9 were obtained from GAI Consultants (June 1996).
K values for MW-11 and MW-12 were based on slug test results conducted by MESCO in July 1999.
2.Water levels were measured prior to sampling by Environment 1, Inc. on July 13, 2016.
Linear velocity rate (Q) is was calculated via modified Darcy's equation:
where
K = hydraulic conductivity
Hydrologic Properties at Monitoring Well Locations
Monitoring
Well
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Effective
Porosity
(%)
Hydraulic
Gradient
(ft/ft)
Linear
Velocity
(ft/yr)
Flow
Direction
Depth to
Groundwater
(ft btoc)
Groundwater
Potentiometric
Elevation
(ft amsl)
Screened
Interval
Lithology
ne = effective porosity
dh = head difference
dl = horizontal distance
dl
dh
n
KQ
e

Lenoir County Active C&D and Closed MSWLF Page 1 of 1
Table 6
MNA Parameter Summary
July 13, 2016
Parameters Method MDL*Units
MW-1 MW-3 MW-4 MW-6 MW-9 MW-11 MW-12
7/13/16 7/13/16 7/13/16 7/13/16 7/13/16 7/13/16 7/13/16
VFA – Acetic Acid AM23G 7 13j 15j 30j 42j 29j 27j 38j
AM23G 7 <7 65j <7 <7 410 8j 150
AM23G 7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7
AM23G 4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 120j
AM23G 7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7
VFA – Lactic Acid AM23G 6 21j 69j 31j 160j 49j 23j 58j
AM23G 6 36j 30j 27j <6 41j 27j 32j
AM23G 9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9
AM23G 7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7
Hydrogen AM20GAX 0.08 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.2
Methane AM20GAX 0.01 2000 1400 2700 1700 430 2500 160
AM20GAX 0.01 0.12 0.5 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.11
Ethane AM20GAX 0.002 0.210 0.200 0.076 0.089 0.0053j 0.180 0.02
CO2-Dissolved 4500CO2C 1000 42000 402000 468000 139000 118000 249000 538000
Alkalinity 2320B-97 1000 <1000 39000 89000 50000 <1000 <1000 1000
Sulfate 4500SO42E97 5000 <5000 <5000 <5000 20900j <5000 <5000 28700j
Sulfide 4500S2D-00 100 <100 <100 113j <100 <100 <100 <100
Chloride 4500CLB-97 5000 16000 60000 8000 7000 58000 10000 33000
TOC 5310C-00 100 <100 4600 10380 3600 3270 1170 20200
COD H8000-79 20000 <20000 38000 39000 31000 25000 <20000 60000
BOD 5210B-01 2000 <2000 <2000 <2000 <2000 <2000 <2000 <2000
Iron, total 3111B-99 5.23 96j 63342 29111 21709 559 <5.23 53j
Iron, Ferrous 3500F5403-EB-97 50 <50 61140 27700 19200 <50 <50 <50
Nitrate 353.2 R2-93 4 13400 60j 50j <4 4290j 1830j 120j
Temperature 2550B-00 0 C 23 25 26 26 25 24 24
ORP 2580B 0 139 3 35 -6 135 79 120
DO 4500OG-01 100 860 1980 1910 1940 2050 2380 2490
pH 4500HB-00 0 SU 4.1 5.8 5.7 6.2 4.4 4.5 4.4
Specific Conductance 2510B-97 1 186 472 266 256 294 81 305
Turbidity 2130B-01 1 NTU <1 25.4 33.5 37.1 32.3 <1 1.97
Notes:
VFA = Volatile Fatty Acids
MDL* = Lowest Method Detection Limit for Lab Parameters or Lowest Field Measurement Possible
j = The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) and the laboratory method reporting limit (MRL),
Adjusted for actual sample preparation data and moisture content, where applicable.
ug/L
VFA – Butyric Acid ug/L
VFA – Hexanoic Acid ug/L
VFA – i-Hexanoic Acid ug/L
VFA – i-Pentanoic Acid ug/L
ug/L
VFA – Pentaonic Acid ug/L
VFA – Propionic Acid ug/L
VFA – Pyruvic Acid ug/L
nM
ug/L
Ethene ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mV
ug/L
uMhos
Constituents Below Quantization Limit are shown as <MDL value
Appendix A
Laboratory Analysis Report
Field Analysis Report
Chains of Custody