6019_MecklenburgFoxHole_GWMR_DIN27955_20161115

November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
Prepared for:
Mecklenburg County LUESA
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Prepared by:
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
January 25, 2017
S&ME, Inc. | 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard | Charlotte, NC 28273 | p 704.523.4726 | f 704.525.3953 | www.smeinc.com
January 25, 2017
Mecklenburg County LUESA
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Attention:Amber Grzymski
Reference:November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
Dear Ms. Grzymski:
S&ME Inc. (S&ME) has completed the November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring and Reporting for
Mecklenburg County’s Foxhole Landfill. This report presents the results of the second monitoring event of
the year for the facility.
S&ME appreciates the continued opportunity to provide services to you and Mecklenburg County. If you
have any questions or need additional information regarding this report, please contact Ed Henriques at
[phone].
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Jasmine Tayouga, E.I.Edmund Q.B. Henriques, L.G.
Staff Professional Project Manager/Senior Geologist
NC Geology License No. C-145
cc: Jaclynne Drummond, NCDENR – Solid Waste Section
November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
January 25, 2017 ii
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................1
2.0 Groundwater Levels and Flow............................................................................1
3.0 Analytical Data ......................................................................................................1
3.1 Monitoring Well Sampling..............................................................................................2
3.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds..............................................................................................2
3.1.2 Dissolved Metals.................................................................................................................2
3.2 Surface Water Sampling..................................................................................................3
3.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds..............................................................................................3
3.2.2 Metals..................................................................................................................................3
3.3 Lift-Station Leachate Sample ..........................................................................................4
4.0 Statistical Analysis................................................................................................4
Appendices
Appendix I – Drawings
Appendix II – Tables
Appendix III – Well Sampling Logs and Laboratory Reports
Appendix IV – Statistical Analysis Procedure Sheets
Appendix V - Lift Station Laboratory Report
November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
January 25, 2017 1
1.0 Introduction
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) was contracted by Mecklenburg County to provide groundwater and surface water
monitoring services at the Highway 521 Landfill “Foxhole” located at 17131 Lancaster Highway in
Charlotte, North Carolina. This monitoring event was conducted on November 15
th and 16
th, 2016.
This report presents the results of the second monitoring event for the year 2016 at the facility, which
included the sampling of one background groundwater monitoring well (MW-1R), nine compliance
groundwater monitoring wells (MW-2R, MW-3, MW-8, MW-10, MW-10A, MW-11, MW-11A, MW-12, and
MW-13), and one surface water locations (SW-2). Monitoring well MW-7 could not be samples due to an
inadequate water column for sampling. Routine surface waters sample location SW-1 was dry; therefore a
sample was not collected. Similarly, surface water sample location SW-2 was observed as a stagnate pool
of water. Even though a samples was collected at SW-2, the sample may not be fully representative of the
site conditions it was intended to monitor. Please note that five (5) compliance wells (MW-4, MW-5, MW-
6, MW-6A and MW-9) were abandoned in 2011 and 2012 as part of the Phase 2 landfill expansion. The
next monitoring event is scheduled for May 2017.
2.0 Groundwater Levels and Flow
The water table elevations and our interpretation of the groundwater surface expressed as a
potentiometric map along with groundwater flow direction are shown on Drawing 1 of 1 located in
Appendix I – Drawings. Based upon the groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the landfill,
groundwater in this area is projected to flow from west to east toward Six-Mile Creek. Groundwater levels
obtained during the November 2016 monitoring event, as well as monitoring well construction data, are
presented in Table 1 located in Appendix II – Tables.
The hydraulic gradient (i) in the vicinity of each well was estimated by calculating the vertical difference
between the groundwater elevation at each well and one or more nearby contour lines from Drawing 1
of 1 - Groundwater Surface Map. This value was then divided by the horizontal distance measured from
the well to the selected groundwater elevation contour line. Groundwater velocity was calculated by
multiplying the gradient (i) by the hydraulic conductivity (k) and dividing by the estimated effective
porosity (ne) of the aquifer.Table 2 in Appendix II summarizes the groundwater flow rates for the
monitoring wells.
3.0 Analytical Data
Analytical results for the landfill monitoring wells are summarized in Table 4 in Appendix II. Groundwater
detections at or above the 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Standards (2L Standards) and/or Solid Waste
Groundwater Protection Standards (SW GWP Standards) are highlighted in gray. Field measurements of
pH, conductivity, turbidity, and temperature are summarized in Table 3 in Appendix II. Well sampling
logs containing this information are included in Appendix III. Analytical results for the surface water
sampling locations are summarized in Table 5 in Appendix II. Surface water detections at or above the
15A NCAC 2B Freshwater Standards (2B Standards) are highlighted in gray. The monitoring wells and
surface water locations were sampled for Appendix I volatile organic compounds and metals.
November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
January 25, 2017 2
3.1 Monitoring Well Sampling
During November 2016, the compliance and background monitoring wells that are part of the routine
semi-annual monitoring event were sampled, except for monitoring wells MW-7. At the time of sampling,
groundwater monitoring well MW-7 was dry and a sample could not be collected.
3.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
No volatile organic compounds were detected in groundwater monitoring wells during the November
2016 sampling event. Total Metals
Two or more inorganic constituents (metals) were detected in each of the groundwater monitoring wells
sampled. Concentrations of antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, thallium, and zinc
were detected at concentrations less than their respective 2L Standard and SW GWP Standard.
Chromium was detected at concentrations of 20.4 µg/L and 20.9 µg/L in compliance monitoring wells
MW-2R and MW-10A, respectively, these concentrations are greater than the 2L Standard of 10 µg/L.
Cobalt was detected at above its respective SW GWP Standard of 1 µg/L in compliance groundwater
monitoring well MW-2R at a concentration of 6.93 J µg/L. It is important to point out that cobalt was also
detected in background well MW-1R at a concentration of 3.12 J µg/L, which also exceeds the published
SW GWP Standard of 1 µg/L. Cobalt has generally been detected in this background well since
monitoring commenced in 1999.
Vanadium was detected at concentrations greater than its respective SW GWP Standard of 0.3 µg/L in
compliance groundwater monitoring wells MW-2R, MW-3, MW-10, MW-10A, MW-11, MW-11A, MW-12,
and MW-13 at concentrations ranging from 2.35 J to 18.3J µg/L. It is important to point out that
vanadium was also detected in background well MW-1R at a concentration of 2.58 J µg/L, which is greater
than the published SW GPS Standard of 0.3 µg/L. Vanadium has been detected frequently in this
background well since monitoring commenced in 1999.
The metals detected in the monitoring wells during the November 2016 monitoring event are summarized
in Table 4A in Appendix II. Based on previous metals concentrations in the background groundwater
monitoring well MW-1/1R, it appears that the metals concentrations are from naturally occurring
dissolved metals extracted from suspended solids (silts and clays) collected during sample extraction
rather than an anthropogenic source.
3.1.2 Dissolved Metals
To initiate an assessment of groundwater sample turbidity impacts on reported metals concentrations in
groundwater at the site, ‘split’ samples were taken during sampling at any groundwater well location with
a turbidity reading higher than 10 NTUs (Table 3 in Appendix II). Split samples include collecting the
compliance required total metals samples as well as an additional metals sample that is filtered in the lab
to determine a dissolved metals concentration. This informal review was not required by the facility
permit, rather it was conducted to help assess if suspended or colloidal solids in groundwater samples
were influencing the total metals concentrations reported.
November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
January 25, 2017 3
Table 4B provides a summary of the detected dissolved metals concentrations and the dissolved metals
concentrations for each well where these sample pairs were obtained during this event. The table also
includes the field turbidity of the samples and a calculation of the percent difference between the total
metals concentrations and the dissolved metal concentrations. Note, if the metal analyte was reported as
below the reporting limit, the reporting limit was used for the calculation.
Monitoring well MW-2R exhibited the highest sample field turbidity at 299 NTU. For the analytes
detected at monitoring well MW-2R with concentrations greater than 1 µg/L, the calculated percent
change values ranged from 41% to 92%, indicating substantially lower metal analyte concentrations for
the sample pair’s filtered, dissolved metals sample. Similarly, samples obtained from monitoring well
MW-12R, with a field sample turbidity of 37 NTU, were calculated to yield percent change values that
approximate 30%. Similar trends in the data were recognized from the paired data obtained at the other
wells. These observations suggest that suspended or colloidal solids in the total metals samples are
contributing to the reported groundwater sample concentrations. This can be significant as indicated by
the observed results for vanadium at monitoring wells MW-1R, MW-2R, and MW-13, where the filtered
samples reported concentrations that were less than the corresponding 2L Standard, whereas the
companion unfiltered total metal sample reported concentrations greater than the 2L Standard.
A comparison of the total chromium vs dissolved chromium concentrations reported for the samples
obtained from monitoring well MW-2R, suggest that the exceedance of the 2L Standard for chromium
was likely due to suspended solids in the sample obtained. Groundwater sample turbidity at well MW-
10A was relatively low; therefore, this well was not selected for an assessment of total metals vs dissolved
metals during this monitoring event.
These observations suggest that despite the use of low-flow sampling methods, some obtained samples
may overestimate the metals concentrations due to suspended or colloidal solids in the samples.
3.2 Surface Water Sampling
Site conditions during this routine semi-annual monitoring event were extremely dry at time of sampling.
Surface water sample location SW-1 did not contain any water; therefore, no sample was obtained.
Sample location SW-2 was observed to be a stagnate pool of water and a sample was collected.
3.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds
No volatile organic compounds were detected in the surface water samples during the November 2016
sampling event.
3.2.2 Metals
Seven inorganic constituents (metals) were detected in the surface water sample SW-2. Concentrations of
barium, cobalt, thallium, vanadium, and zinc were detected in surface water sample SW-2 at
concentrations below their respective 2B Standard. Cadmium and cooper were detected with
concentrations greater than their respective 2B Standards. Analytical results for sample location SW-2
represent water in a stagnate pool of water. Consequently, the results were not likely representative of
the site conditions this location was intended to monitor. Considering these factors, the analytical results
for this event should not be used to determine compliance or non-compliance with 2B Standards.
November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
January 25, 2017 4
3.3 Lift-Station Leachate Sample
On November 16, 2016, a sample of landfill leachate was collected from the lift-station. The collected
sample was submitted for laboratory analyses for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Semi-Volatile
Organic Compounds (SVOCs), Pesticides, PCBs, Appendix I total metals, Cyanide (total), Ammonia,
Biological Oxygen Demand, and Chemical Oxygen Demand.Appendix V contains the laboratory
analytical report for this sample.
4.0 Statistical Analysis
S&ME compared the water quality data with the 2L Standards and the SW GWP standards and performed
a statistical evaluation of the data. S&ME utilized three statistical methods to evaluate statistically
significant increases (SSI) between the compliance monitoring wells and the background monitoring well
(MW-1/1R).
The first method utilized was a one-way parametric Analysis of Variance (Parametric ANOVA). The
parametric ANOVA analysis is recommended by the 1992 guidance document for parameters with fewer
than 15% non-detects in a specific well.
The second method used was the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric rank method. The Kruskal-Wallis
method is recommended by the 1992 guidance document for parameters that have 15% to 90% non-
detects in a specific well.
The third method used was an inter-well non-parametric prediction limit. The prediction limit was used for
parameters with greater than 90% non-detects in a specific well. The 1992 guidance document
recommends this method when a significant portion of the samples are non-detect.
Table 6 in Appendix II summarizes the results of the statistical analysis. No SSI were indicated by the
statistical tests performed, comparing the most recent event sample results for compliance monitoring
wells against background monitoring well data. Copies of the analytical procedures used to perform the
analysis used by the ChemStat software are included in Appendix IV.
Time vs concentrations charts for chromium in wells MW-2R and MW-10A generally depict periodic spikes
in the detected concentrations; however, most were not sustained or validated during the subsequent
monitoring event. Mann-Kendall trend analysis of chromium in MW-2R indicates no evidence of an upper
ward trend in concentrations over time. Mann-Kendall trend analysis of chromium in MW-10A, indicated
evidence of an upward trend. The historic concentrations of chromium in well MW-10A exhibit
noteworthy variability, likely related to differences in turbidity in the well during sample collection. It is
noted that the 2L Standards do not apply to sediment or other particulate matter preserved in
groundwater samples as a result of groundwater sample collection procedures or well construction issues.
Redevelopment of wells MW-2R and MW-10A, followed by verification sampling should be considered to
verify these SSIs and assess current conditions at these monitoring wells.
Time vs concentrations charts for cobalt in wells MW-2R generally depict stable or declining
concentrations over time, which is further supported by Mann-Kendall trend analyses indicating no
evidence of an upward trend in this well.
November 2016 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report
Foxhole Landfill - Permit # 60-19
Charlotte, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
January 25, 2017 5
It is important to point out that time vs concentrations charts for concentrations of vanadium in wells
MW-3, MW-10, MW-10A, MW-11A, MW-12, and MW-13 in MW-10A generally depict stable or declining
concentrations over time. These observations are further supported by Mann-Kendall trend analyses
indicating no evidence of an upward trend for vanadium concentrations over time in these wells. The
historical concentrations of vanadium in MW-10A are likely indicative of turbidity in the well. The majority
of the wells on site have historically had detections of vanadium above the published 2L standard
concentration, including background monitoring well MW-1R.
The presence of chromium, cobalt and vanadium in the background well coupled with no evidence of
upward trends for these constituents provides solid evidence to support that these constituents likely
natural occurrence in the facility’s groundwater. 15A NCAC 02L .0202 contains a provision for instances
where a naturally occurring substances exceed the published standards, such that standard shall be the
naturally occurring concentration.
Appendices
Appendix I – Drawings
L
L
L
L
L
PHASE 1, CELL 2(AS-BUILT)
P
H
A
S
E

1
,

C
E
L
L
1
(
A
S

B
U
I
L
T
)
P
H
A
S
E

2
PROJECT NUMBER:
DATE:F
I
G
U
R
E

N
O
.
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:DRAWING NUMBER:WWW.SMEINC.COM
3201 SPRING FOREST RD, RALEIGH, NC 27616
NC ENGINEER LICENSE #F-0176
1
BTR1356-07-003
DEC 20161" = 300'
FOXHOLE LANDFILL (PERMIT #60-19)
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA B-2679
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP
NOVEMBER 2016
3
0
0
6
0
0

(
I
N

F
E
E
T
)
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

S
C
A
L
E
0

(
I
N

F
E
E
T
)
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

S
C
A
L
E
Q:\PROJECTS\2007\1356-07-003\CAD\B2679.dwg, FIG1, 12/13/2016 8:31:27 AM, 1:1
Appendix II – Tables
LATITUDE LONGITUDE GROUND TOH DTW - TOH GW ELEV.
(MM/DD/YY)(ft)(ft-MSL)
MW-1R 03/23/09 35.0164638° -080.8495912° 687.40 690.65 +3 .00 to 33.0 33.0 to 48.0 0.0 to 29.0 29.0 to 31.0 #2 31.0 to 48.0 SAP 35.00 655.65
MW-2R 02/16/10 35.0129978° -080.8487614° 660.90 663.80 +2.90 to 20.0 20.0 to 35.0 0.0 to 16.0 16.0 to 18.0 #2 18.0 to 35.0 SAP NM NA
MW-3 03/19/99 35.0162047° -080.8459443° 641.68 644.08 +2.25 to 10.0 10.0 to 25.0 0.0 to 5.0 5.0 to 8.0 #1 8.0 to 25.0 SAP 23.01 621.07
MW-7 03/16/99 35.0168592° -080.8441975° 634.81 637.90 +2.86 to 10.0 10.0 to 25.0 0.0 to 5.0 5.0 to 7.0 #1 7.0 to 25.0 SAP 25.91 611.99
MW-8 03/08/99 35.0160863° -080.8419354° 618.90 620.19 +2.35 to 10.0 10.0 to 25.0 0.0 to 5.0 5.0 to 8.0 #1 8.0 to 25.0 SAP 20.25 599.94
MW-10 04/02/99 35.0148756° -080.8403383° 624.23 627.03 +2.65 to 25.0 25.0 to 40.0 0.0 to 21.0 21.0 to 23.0 #1 23.0 to 40.0 SAP 33.96 593.07
MW-10A 03/31/99 35.0148756° -080.8403383° 624.30 627.32 +2.65 to 55.0 55.0 to 60.0 0.0 to 50.0 50.0 to 53.0 #1 53.0 to 60.0 SAP 34.51 592.81
MW-11 03/06/99 35.0133929° -080.8392855° 593.53 595.67 +1.47 to 7.0 7.0 to 22.0 0.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 5.0 #1 5.0 to 22.0 SAP 10.88 584.79
MW-11A 02/26/99 35.0133929° -080.8392855° 594.12 596.38 +1.62 to 40.0 40.0 to 45.0 0.0 to 36.0 36.0 to 38.0 #1 38.0 to 45.0 SAP 11.90 584.48
MW-12 10/02/12 35.0105705° -080.8450554° 633.10 636.07 +2.94 to 15.7 15.7 to 30.7 0.0 to 11.0 11.0 to 14.0 #2 14.0 to 31.2 SAP 23.21 612.86
MW-13 10/03/12 35.0122690° -080.8405290° 619.30 622.36 +3.04 to 23.0 23.0 to 38.0 0.0 to 18.0 18.0 to 21.0 #2 21.0 to 38.5 SAP 28.31 594.05
Notes:
(ft-MSL)Feet Mean Sea Level #1 Filter Sand Fine to Very Fine Grained Silica Sand
(ft-bls)Feet Below Land Surface Bentonite Bentonite Pellets
TOH Top of Hinge Sch. 40 Schedule 40 Pipe
Ground Ground Surface 0.010 Slot 0.010-Inch Machine-Slotted Pipe
DTW Depth to Water Neat Cement Cement Mixture without Bentonite
GW ELEV.Groundwater Elevation NA Not Available
#2 Filter Sand Medium to Fine Grained Silica Sand SAP Saprolite
The "A" suffix on the well locations indicates the deep well of the pair.
NM Not Measured
Table 1
Well Construction Summary and Water Level Data
Mecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill - Foxhole
S&ME Project No: 1356-07-003
WELL ID
INSTALL
DATE
GPS COORDINATES SURVEY ELEVATIONS CASING INTERVAL SCREEN INTERVAL GROUT INTERVAL SEAL INTERVAL FILTER
PACK
SIZE
FILTER PACK
INTERVAL
GEOLOGY IN
SCREEN
INTERVAL(ft-bls)(ft-bls)
November 2016
2-INCH, SCH. 40, PVC 2-INCH, 0.010 SLOT, PVC NEAT CEMENT BENTONITE
(decimal degrees)(ft-MSL)(ft-bls)(ft-bls)(ft-bls)
Table 2
November 2016 - Groundwater Flow Velocity
Mecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill "Foxhole"
Permit # 60-19
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
Well Identification
Hydraulic
Conductivity (K)
ft/yr
Effective Porosity (n
e)
%
Hydraulic Gradient (i)
ft/ft
Seepage Velocity (v)
ft/yr
6019 MW-1R 3.3E+02 0.15 0.02 48
6019 MW-2R
6019 MW-3 3.6E+02 0.09 0.02 71
6019 MW-7 1.3E+03 0.20 0.02 129
6019 MW-8 1.6E+03 0.20 0.01 101
6019 MW-10 5.0E+02 0.23 0.01 22
6019 MW-11 1.9E+02 0.25 0.02 17
6019 MW-12 3.1E+02 0.27 0.03 32
6019 MW-13 2.8E+03 0.25 0.01 140
Notes:
No Water Level Obtained November 2016
(1) Hydraulic Conductivity was calculated from slug tests performed after well construction.
(2) Effective porosity was estimated from soils collected within the saturated portion of screen interval during well
construction.
(3) Hydraulic gradient calculated by measuring linear feet between selected contour intervals.
(4) Seepage velocity v = (K*i)/n
e
Well ID
Depth to Water
TOC (ft-bls)
pH Temperature
(°C)
Conductance
(μS/sec)
Turbidity
(NTU)
6019 MW-1R 35.00 5.61 17.3 50 41.62
6019 MW-2R Not Measured 5.71 16.1 32 299.5
6019 MW-3 23.01 6.38 16.0 62 24.41
6019 MW-7 25.91
6019 MW-8 20.25 5.70 16.0 63 0.07
6019 MW-10 33.96 7.95 46.0 17.2 14.43
6019 MW-10A 34.51 10.61 17.4 166 1.36
6019 MW-11 10.88 6.36 18.0 253 0.09
6019 MW-11A 11.90 6.39 16.7 190 0.72
6019 MW-12 23.21 6.51 18.0 86 37.96
6019 MW-13 28.31 6.32 15.4 51 44.61
Notes:
(1) μS = microSiemens
(2) ft-bls = feet below land surface
(3) °C = degrees Celsius
Permit # 60-19
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
DRY
Table 3
November 2016 - Field Parameters in Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Mecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill "Foxhole"
EPA Appendix I Volatile
Organic Compounds
Method 8260 (µg/L)
NCDENR
SWSL
15A
NCAC
2L
Solid Waste
GWP ST
6019
MW-1R
6019
MW-2R
6019
MW-3
6019
MW-4
6019
MW-5
6019
MW-6
6019
MW-6A
6019
MW-7
6019
MW-8
6019
MW-9
6019
MW-10
6019
MW-10A
6019
MW-11
6019
MW-11A
6019
MW-12
6019
MW-13
EPA Appendix I Total
Metals Method
6010D/6020B (µg/L)
Antimony 6 NE 1 0.485 J 0.236 J
Barium 100 700 NE 68.1 J 134 34.5 J 17.1 J 33.8 J 8.57 J 41.6 J 21.9 J 21.6 J 61.3 J
Beryllium 1 NE 4 0.332 J 0.234 J 0.169 J 0.174 J 0.147 J 0.112 J 0.108 J
Cadmium 1 2 NE 0.362 J
Chromium 10 10 NE 4.68 J 20.4 4.20 J 3.03 J 20.9 1.81 J 3.31 J 5.06 J 1.46 J
Cobalt 10 NE 1 3.12 J 6.93 J
Copper 10 1000 NE 6.12 J 86.1
Lead 10 15 NE 3.85 J 5.33 J 4.13 J
Nickel 50 100 NE 8.72 J 11.4 J 3.22 J 4.90 J
Thallium 5.5 NE 0.28 0.117 J 0.146 J 0.139 J
Vanadium 25 NE 0.3 2.58 J 18.3 J 5.06 J 4.14 J 16.4 J 2.68 J 6.43 J 4.15 J 2.35 J
Zinc 10 1000 NE 27.0 30.7 5.31 J
Notes for Table 4A:
(1) µg/L = micrograms per liter (parts per billion)
(2) 15A NCAC 2L = North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards
(3) GWP ST = Solid Waste Groundwater Protection Standard
(4) NE = No established standard
(5) J = Reported value is between method detection limit (MDL) and method reporting limit (MRL)
(6) B = Analyte was detected in associated laboratory method blank.
(7) Bold and highlighted indicates above 15A NCAC 2L or SW GWP standard
(8) Target analytes not shown were reported as below detection limits
(9) SWSL = North Carolina Department of Environmtent and Natural Resources Solid Waste Section Limit established in 2007
Table 4A
November 2016 - Detected Analytes in Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Mecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill "Foxhole"
Permit # 60-19
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
DRY
No Volatile Organic Compounds Detected During November 2016 Event
Table 4B
November 2016 - Dissolved Metals in Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Mecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill "Foxhole"
Permit # 60-19
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
6019 MW-1R 6019 MW-2R 6019 MW-3 6019 MW-10 6019 MW-12 6019 MW-13 15A NCAC 2L
Solid Waste
GWP ST
Antimony Totals 0.49 J 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.236 J 0.220 U NE 1
Dissolved 0.24 J 0.337 J 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.220 U 0.220 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 52%-53%0%0%7%0%
Barium Totals 68.1 J 134 34.5 J 33.8 J 21.6 J 61.3 J 700 NE
Dissolved 55.6 J 51.4 J 32.0 J 28.9 J 15.1 J 42.8 J
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 18%62%7%14%30%30%
Beryllium Totals 0.332 J 0.234 J 0.169 J 0.147 J 0.100 U 0.108 J NE 4
Dissolved 0.169 J 0.137 J 0.111 J 2.53 J 0.100 U 0.100 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 49%41%34%-1621%0%7%
Chromium Totals 4.68 J 20.4 4.2 J 3.03 J 5.06 J 1.46 J 10 NE
Dissolved 1.00 U 2.76 J 4.03 J 1.00 U 4.01 J 1.00 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 79%86%4%67%21%32%
Cobalt Totals 3.12 J 6.93 J 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U NE 1
Dissolved 2.19 J 2.24 J 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U 1.10 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 30%68%0%0%0%0%
Copper Totals 6.12 J 86.1 1.60 U 1.60 U 1.60 U 1.60 U 1000 NE
Dissolved 1.73 J 9.7 J 1.60 U 1.60 U 1.60 U 1.60 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 72%89%0%0%0%0%
Lead Totals 3.85 J 5.33 J 3.10 U 3.10 U 4.13 J 3.10 U 15 NE
Dissolved 3.10 U 3.10 U 3.10 U 3.10 U 4.28 J 3.10 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 19%42%0%0%-4%0%
Nickel Totals 8.72 J 11.4 J 2.20 U 2.20 U 4.9 J 2.20 U 100 NE
Dissolved 4.89 J 4.13 J 2.20 U 2.20 U 2.20 U 2.20 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 44%64%0%0%55%0%
Thallium Totals 0.117 J 0.146 J 0.110 U 0.110 U 0.110 U 0.110 U NE 0.28
Dissolved 0.147 J 0.166 J 0.110 U 0.110 U 0.110 U 0.110 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference -26%-14%0%0%0%0%
Vanadium Totals 2.58 J 18.3 J 5.06 J 4.14 J 4.15 J 2.35 J NE 0.3
Dissolved 1.40 U 1.40 U 4.29 J 1.88 J 2.93 J 1.40 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 46%92%15%55%29%40%
Zinc Totals 27.0 30.7 4.40 U 4.40 U 4.40 U 5.31 J 1000 NE
Dissolved 17.0 12.4 4.40 U 4.40 U 4.40 U 4.40 U
Field Turbidity 41.62 299.5 24.41 14.43 37.96 44.61
% difference 37%60%0%0%0%17%
Notes for Table 4B:
(1) µg/L = micrograms per liter (parts per billion)
(2) 15A NCAC 2L = North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards
(3) GWP ST = Solid Waste Groundwater Protection Standard
(4) NE = No established standard
(5) J = Reported value is between method detection limit (MDL) and method reporting limit (MRL)
(6) U = Analyte was not detected at or above the method reporting limit shown
(7) Bold and highlighted indicates above 15A NCAC 2L or SW GWP standard
(8) SWSL = North Carolina Department of Environmtent and Natural Resources Solid Waste Section Limit established in 2007
EPA Appendix I Metals (ug/L)
(9) % Difference = Percent difference between the total metal concentration and the dissolved metal concentration. If the analyte was reported as being below the reporting limit, the reporting limit concentration
was used for the calculation.
Table 5
November 2016 - Detected Analytes in Surface Water Samples
Mecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill "Foxhole"
Permit # 60-19
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
EPA Appendix I Metals
Method 6010B/6020
(µg/L)
15A NCAC
2B SW-1 SW-2
EPA Appendix I Metals
Method 6010B/6020
(µg/L)
Barium 1,000 170
Cadmium 0.15 0.499 J
Cobalt NE 2.06 J
Copper 2.7 3.10 J
Thallium NE 0.116 J
Vanadium NE 2.02 J
Zinc 36 65.8
Notes:
(1) µg/L = micrograms per liter (parts per billion)
(2) 15A NCAC 2B = North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards for Freshwater
(3) NE = No established standard
(5) B = Analyte was detected in associated laboratory method blank
(6) Bold and highlighted indicates concentration reported is above 15A NCAC 2B
(7) Compounds not shown were not detected.
(8) Target analytes not shown were reported as below detection limits
No Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Surface Water Samples
DRY
(4) J = Reported value is estimated between method detection limit (MDL) and method
reporting limit (MRL)
Antimony MW-12 82 KW FALSE
Barium MW-2 44 KW FALSE
MW-3 38 KW FALSE
MW-8 46 KW FALSE
MW-10 38 KW FALSE
MW-10A 46 KW FALSE
MW-11 46 KW FALSE
MW-11A 46 KW FALSE
MW-13 0 PA FALSE
MW-12 0 PA FALSE
Beryllium MW-2 81 KW FALSE
MW-3 96 PL FALSE
MW-8 86 KW FALSE
MW-10 84 KW FALSE
MW-10A 92 PL FALSE
MW-13 64 KW FALSE
Chromium MW-2 56 KW FALSE
MW-3 49 KW FALSE
MW-10 46 KW FALSE
MW-10A 5 PA FALSE
MW-11 76 KW FALSE
MW-11A 43 KW FALSE
MW-13 27 KW FALSE
MW-12 0 PA FALSE
Cobalt MW-2 6 PA FALSE
Copper MW-2 44 KW FALSE
Lead MW-2 81 KW FALSE
MW-12 91 KW FALSE
Nickel MW-2 50 KW FALSE
MW-11 84 KW FALSE
MW-12 0 PA FALSE
Comments
Table 6
November 2016 - Statistical AnalysisMecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill "Foxhole"
Permit # 60-19
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
Parameter Well ID
Percent
Non-Detect
Statistical
Analysis
Method
SSI
Page 1 of 2
Comments
Table 6
November 2016 - Statistical AnalysisMecklenburg County Highway 521 Landfill "Foxhole"
Permit # 60-19
S&ME Project No. 1356-07-003
Parameter Well ID
Percent
Non-Detect
Statistical
Analysis
Method
SSI
Selenium MW-10 97 PL FALSE
MW-10A 97 PL FALSE
MW-11 95 PL FALSE
MW-11A 97 PL FALSE
MW-2 97 PL FALSE
MW-3 97 PL FALSE
MW-7 94 PL FALSE
MW-8 97 PL FALSE
MW-13 91 PL FALSE
Thallium MW-2 88 KW FALSE
MW-11 95 PL FALSE
Vanadium MW-2 66 KW FALSE
MW-3 46 KW FALSE
MW-10 46 KW FALSE
MW-10A 38 KW FALSE
MW-11 73 KW FALSE
MW-11A 46 KW FALSE
MW-13 9 PA FALSE
MW-12 0 PA FALSE
Zinc MW-2 50 KW FALSE
MW-13 9 PA FALSE
Notes:
(1)SSI = Statistically Significant Increase
(2)PA = One Way Parametric Analysis of Variance (Parametric ANOVA)
Parametric ANOVA analysis is recommended by the 1992 guidance document for
parameters with fewer than 15% non-detects in a specific well.
(3)KW = Kruskal Wallis Non-Parametric Rank Analysis
Kruskal-Wallis method is recommended by the 1992 guidance document for parameters
that have 15% to 90% non-detects in a specific well.
(4)PL = Non-Parametric Inter-Well Prediction Limit Analysis
Prediction limit was used for parameters with greater than 90% non-detects in a specific well.
The 1992 guidance document recommends this method when a significant portion of the
samples are non-detect.
Page 2 of 2
Appendix III – Well Sampling Logs and Laboratory
Reports
Appendix IV – Statistical Analysis Procedure Sheets
Appendix V – Lift Station Laboratory Report