1107_BuncombeCo_WQMP_DIN28513_20171220

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017
Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 2

3.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN .......................................................... 3

3.1 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Monitoring Well Network .................................................................. 3
3.1.2 Changes in Groundwater Elevations ................................................ 5
3.1.3 Monitoring Well Construction .......................................................... 5
3.1.4 Monitoring Well Development .......................................................... 6
3.1.5 Maintenance and Recordkeeping ...................................................... 7
3.1.6 Monitoring Well Abandonment ........................................................ 7
3.1.7 Detection Monitoring Program ......................................................... 8 3.1.7.1 Sampling Frequency .............................................................. 8 3.1.7.2 Establishment of Baseline Data ............................................. 9 3.1.7.3 Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data ............................. 9
3.1.8 Assessment Monitoring Program ...................................................... 9
3.1.9 Groundwater Sampling Methodology .............................................. 11 3.1.9.1 Sample Collection ................................................................... 11 3.1.9.1.1 Sampling Frequency ................................................ 11
3.1.9.1.2 Static Water Elevations .......................................... 11 3.1.9.1.3 Well Evacuation ..................................................... 11 3.1.9.1.3.1 Standard Evacuation Procedures .................. 11
3.1.9.1.3.2 Low-Flow Procedures ................................... 12 3.1.9.1.4 Sample Collection.................................................... 14 3.1.9.1.5 Decontamination ..................................................... 14
3.1.9.2 Sample Preservation and Handling ....................................... 14 3.1.9.3 Chain-of-Custody Program .................................................... 15 3.1.9.3.1 Sample Labels.......................................................... 15
3.1.9.3.2 Sample Seal ............................................................. 15 3.1.9.3.3 Field Logbook.......................................................... 15 3.1.9.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record ........................................ 16
3.1.9.4 Analytical Procedures ............................................................ 16 3.1.9.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program ................. 17
3.1.10 Statistical Methods (Optional) .......................................................... 18
3.2 Surface Water Monitoring.............................................................................. 18
3.2.1 Sampling Locations ............................................................................ 18
3.2.2 Monitoring Frequency ....................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Surface Water Sampling Methodology ............................................ 18
3.2.3.1 Sample Collection ................................................................... 19
3.2.3.1.1 Dipper Method ........................................................ 19 3.2.3.1.2 Direct Method.......................................................... 19 3.2.3.1.3 Decontamination ..................................................... 19
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

ii
3.2.3.2 Sample Preservation and Handling ....................................... 19
3.2.3.3 Chain-of-Custody Program .................................................... 19
3.2.3.3.1 Sample Labels.......................................................... 20 3.2.3.3.2 Sample Seal ............................................................. 21 3.2.3.3.3 Field Logbook.......................................................... 21
3.2.3.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record ........................................ 21 3.2.3.4 Analytical Procedures ............................................................ 21
3.2.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program ................. 22
3.3 Leachate Monitoring ....................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 Sampling Locations ............................................................................ 23
3.3.2 Monitoring Frequency and Parameters ........................................... 23
3.3.3 Leachate Sampling Methodology ...................................................... 23
3.4 Reporting ................................................................................................. 24
3.4.1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment
Reports ................................................................................................ 24
3.4.2 Water Quality Reports ....................................................................... 24

4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 25

TABLES
Table 1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Data
Table 2 Sampling Matrix
Table 3 Sampling and Preservation Procedures
Table 4 Surface Water Sampling Point Data

FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems
Figure 3 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map – April 17, 2017
Figure 4 Groundwater Monitoring Well Detail

APPENDICES
Appendix A Monitoring Well Construction Records
Appendix B North Carolina Appendix I and Appendix II Constituent Lists
Appendix C NCDEQ Memoranda and Reporting Limits and Standards
Appendix D Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form
Appendix E Low-Flow Groundwater Purging and Sampling Guidance

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The subject 654-acre landfill site is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina, approximately
nine miles north of the city of Asheville with a physical address of 81 Panther Branch Road in
Alexander, North Carolina (Figure 1). Buncombe County owns and operates a Subtitle D MSWLF
which includes Cell 1 through Cell 6 and a CDLF consisting of Phase 1 through Phase 5. Currently
Cell 6 of the MSWLF and Phase 5 of the CDLF are the active waste units. MSWLF Cell 7 has been
permitted for construction and MSWLF Cells 8 through 10 are planned (but not permitted) for future
expansion.

The county intends to expand the existing CDLF facility by constructing the next planned expansion
area designated Phase 6 which is approximately 11.9 acres and is located west of CDLF Phases 1
through 5. McGill Associates, PA (McGill) has been retained by the EIC to prepare an application for
a permit to construct for Phase 6. BLE has been retained by EIC to conduct a design hydrogeologic
investigation required under North Carolina’s Solid Waste Management Rules, Title 15A Section 13B
.0538(b)(1-2) for a Design Hydrogeologic Report (DHR). That work is reported under separate cover.

EIC has requested that BLE prepare a comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) for
submittal to the North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section (SWS), which
consolidates the monitoring plans for the operational and permitted expansion areas of the MSWLF
with the operational and expansion areas of the CDLF. We understand that this WQMP will be
included as part of the application for a permit to construct CDLF Phase 6 which will be prepared by
McGill.

The objective of this project is to prepare a WQMP which will include procedures and locations for
groundwater, surface water, and leachate monitoring as required following North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Solid Waste Management Rules:

• MSWLF Groundwater – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rules .0601, and .1630 through .1637.
• MSWLF Surface Water – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule .0602.

• MSWLF Leachate – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1626(12)(c).

• CDLF Groundwater – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule .0544(b).

• CDLF Surface Water – North Carolina Rules for Solid Waste Management, 15A NCAC 13B Rule .0544(c).

The WQMP herein is designed to detect and quantify contamination, as well as to measure the
effectiveness of engineered disposal systems. The groundwater and surface water monitoring networks
for this site will be designed to provide an early warning of a potential disposal system failure. The
locations of the groundwater, surface water, and leachate monitoring points are indicated on the
attached Figure 2 titled Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

2
2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

The subject site is located within the Blue Ridge geologic belt. The geology of the Blue Ridge Belt
consists of metamorphic Precambrian basement rock overlain with unconformable younger
Precambrian metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks. The Blue Ridge belt is bordered to the
southeast by the Brevard belt and to the northwest by the Valley and Ridge. The Precambrian
basement has undergone several episodes of uplift, deformation, faulting, intrusion, metamorphism,
and erosion. Locally, the site is geologically underlain by Middle Proterozoic biotite granitic gneiss
and migmatitic biotite hornblende gneiss interlayered with amphibolite and calc-silicate rocks
(Rhodes and Conrad, 1985; CDM, 2009).

The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey and silty soils near the surface, where soil
weathering is more advanced, underlain by micaceous sandy silts and silty sands. Residual soil zones
develop by the in situ chemical weathering of bedrock, and are commonly referred to as “saprolite.”
Saprolite usually consists of micaceous sand with large rock fragments and lesser amounts of clay
and silt. The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined.

A transitional zone of partially weathered rock (PWR) is normally found overlying the parent
bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with
standard penetration resistance (ASTM D 1586) in excess of 100 blows per foot (bpf). Fractures,
joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types facilitate weathering. Consequently, the profile
of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal
distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and zones of partially
weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

3
3.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN

This Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) will serve as a guidance document for collecting and
analyzing groundwater, surface water, and leachate samples, evaluating the associated analytical
results, and for monitoring existing and potential releases from the Buncombe County Landfill.

This WQMP complies with Title 15A, Subchapter 13B Rules .0601, and .1630 through .1637
pertaining to groundwater monitoring, Rule .0602 for surface water monitoring, and Rule
.1626(12)(c) for leachate monitoring, Rule .0544(b) for groundwater monitoring, and Rule .0544(c)
for surface water monitoring.

3.1 Groundwater Monitoring

3.1.1 Monitoring Well Network

The proposed groundwater monitoring network for the Buncombe County Landfill is designed to
monitor for potential releases to the uppermost saprolite/PWR and bedrock aquifers at the site (Table
1). The proposed network will consist of two (2) upgradient (background) wells (MW-1 and MW-
1D) and twenty-seven (27) downgradient (compliance) wells (MW-2, MW-2D, MW-3R, MW-4,
MW-4D, MW-5, MW-5D, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-8D, MW-10, MW-10D, MW-11, MW-11D,
MW-12, MW-12D, MW-13, MW-13D, MW-14, MW-14D, MW-15, MW-15D, MW-16, MW-16D,
MW-17, and MW-17D).

All monitoring locations currently exist except for MW-16, MW-16D, MW-17, and MW-17D.
Monitoring wells MW-16, MW-16D are permitted to be installed in conjunction with the
development of MSWLF Cell 7 and monitoring wells MW-17 and MW-17D are proposed herein to
be installed in conjunction with CDLF Phase 6 development. The location of each well is indicated
on the Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems (Figure 2).

A groundwater elevation contour map of the proposed CDLF Phase 6 expansion area was prepared
from water level data collected on April 17, 2017 (Figure 3). The MW-17 / MW-17D monitoring
well pair is proposed to be located at the B-808S / B-808D piezometer location.

A description of each groundwater monitoring point in the network and the proposed sequence of
installation is provided below.

Monitoring
Location
Proposed and Existing Monitoring Well Location and Justification
MW-1 and
MW-1D
(existing)
Existing upgradient (background) monitoring wells installed in the saprolite/PWR
and bedrock east-southeast of the MSWLF. See Table 1 for additional
information. These 2 wells have been established as the background wells for the
facility including MSWLF Cells 1 through 10, CDLF Phases 1 through 5, and are
proposed as background wells for CDLF Phase 6.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

4
Monitoring
Location
Proposed and Existing Monitoring Well Location and Justification
MW-2,
MW-2D,
MW-3R,
MW-4,
MW-4D,
MW-5,
MW-5D,
MW-6,
MW-7,
MW-8,
MW-8D,
MW-10,
MW-10D,
MW-11,
MW-11D,
MW-13, and
MW-13D
(existing)
Existing downgradient (compliance) monitoring well locations set to intercept
north, south, and west flowing groundwater from the MSWLF Cell 1 through Cell
6 waste units. These wells are set in varying strata including shallow saprolite,
PWR, and bedrock. See Table 1 and Appendix A for additional information.
MW-12,
MW-12D,
MW-14,
MW-14D,
MW-15, and
MW-15D
(existing)
Existing downgradient (compliance) monitoring well locations set to intercept
north and west flowing groundwater from the CDLF Phase 1 through Phase 5
waste units. These wells are set in varying strata including saprolite, PWR, and
bedrock. See Table 1 and Appendix A for additional information.
MW-16 and
MW-16D
(future
permitted)
Future permitted downgradient (compliance) monitoring well locations will be set
to intercept northern flowing groundwater from the MSWLF Cell 7 waste unit
when constructed.
MW-17 and
MW-17D
(proposed)
Proposed downgradient (compliance) monitoring well pair set to intersect the first
occurrence of groundwater in the saprolite/PWR and upper bedrock aquifers north
of proposed CDLF Phase 6.

The existing and proposed well locations are selected to yield groundwater samples representative
of the conditions in the uppermost saprolite/PWR and bedrock aquifers underlying the facility, and
to monitor for potential releases from the landfill units. Well placement, well construction methods,
well development, well maintenance, and well abandonment procedures are discussed in the
following sections. Groundwater monitoring wells shall be sampled during the active life of the
landfill as well as the post-closure period, in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1630 and .0544
of the Rules.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

5
3.1.2 Changes in Groundwater Elevations

After each sampling event, groundwater surface elevations will be evaluated to determine whether
the monitoring system remains adequate, and to determine the rate and direction of groundwater
flow.

The direction of groundwater flow will be determined semiannually by comparing the groundwater
surface elevations among the monitoring wells, and constructing a groundwater surface elevation
contour map. The groundwater flow rate shall be determined using the following modified Darcy
equation:

en
KiV=

where V = the groundwater flow rate (feet/day)
K = the hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
i = the hydraulic gradient, ∆h/∆l (foot/foot)
ne = the effective porosity of the host medium (unitless)
∆h = the change in groundwater elevation between two wells or
groundwater contours (feet)
∆l = the distance between the same two wells or groundwater
contours (feet)

If the evaluation shows that the groundwater monitoring system does not satisfy the requirements of
the Rules, the monitoring system will be modified accordingly. These modifications may include a
change in the number, location, and/or depth of the monitoring wells.

3.1.3 Monitoring Well Construction

The well completion information for the existing groundwater monitoring wells are included on
Table 1. Completed boring and well construction logs for eight (8) of the existing wells are included
in the Appendix A. Boring logs/well construction records for proposed monitoring wells will be
submitted to the Solid Waste Section (SWS) following installation.

Drilling and installation of any new monitoring wells will be performed in accordance with the
specifications outlined in 15A NCAC Subchapter 2C, Section .0100. Further guidance is provided
in the Draft North Carolina Water Quality Monitoring Guidance Document for Solid Waste
Facilities; Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management; Department of Environment, and Natural Resources (March 1995).

Each groundwater monitoring well will consist of 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC,
Schedule 40 ASTM 480, NSF-rated) casing with flush-threaded joints installed in a 5.0-inch (or
larger) nominal diameter augered or air-hammered borehole in soil, PWR, or bedrock. The bottom
10-foot to 15-foot section of each well will be a manufactured well screen with 0.010-inch wide
machined slots with a 0.20-foot long sediment trap threaded onto the bottom of the screen section.
The screen section of each well will be set to intersect the water table in the residual soil or the water-
producing fractures in the bedrock. The length of the screen section may be reduced to 5-feet to
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

6
maintain vertical separation and/or to intercept water-bearing fractures in wells screened in bedrock.
Silica filter sand will be placed around the outside of the pipe up to approximately 2-feet above the
top of the well screen. A hydrated bentonite seal will be installed on top of the filter sand backfill to
seal the monitoring well at the desired level. The borehole will then be grouted with a bentonite-
cement grout mixture up to the ground surface. The surface completion of each well consisted of a
PVC cap and a lockable 4" x 4" x 5’ standup protective steel cover, with a 3-foot by 3-foot concrete
pad at the base of the steel cover. Each well will be constructed with a vent hole in the PVC casing
near the top of the well and a weep hole near the base of the outer protective steel cover. An
identification plate will be fastened to the protective steel cover that specifies the well identification
number, drilling contractor, date installed, total depth, and construction details. A typical
groundwater monitoring well construction detail is attached as Figure 4.

A geologist or engineer will oversee drilling activities and prepare boring and well construction logs
for each newly installed well. As-built locations of new wells will be located by a surveyor licensed
in North Carolina to within +0.1 foot on the horizontal plane and +0.01 foot vertically in reference
to existing survey points. A boring log, well construction log, groundwater monitoring network map,
and well installation certification will be submitted to the SWS upon completion.

3.1.4 Monitoring Well Development

Newly constructed wells will be developed to remove particulates that are present in the well due to
construction activities, and to interconnect the well with the aquifer. Development of new
monitoring wells will be performed no sooner than 24 hours after well construction. Wells may be
developed with disposable bailers, a mechanical well developer, or other approved method. A surge
block may be used as a means of assessing the integrity of the well screen and riser. In the event a
pump is employed, the design of the pump will be such that any groundwater that has come into
contact with air is not allowed to drain back into the well. Each well will be developed until
sediment-free water with stabilized field parameters (i.e., temperature, pH, and specific conductance)
is obtained.

Well development equipment (bailers, pumps, surge blocks) and any additional equipment that
contacts subsurface formations will be decontaminated prior to on-site use, between consecutive on-
site uses, and/or between consecutive well installations.

The purge water will be disposed on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of the
monitoring well being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the water will need to be otherwise
disposed. If field characteristics suggest, the purge water will be containerized and disposed in the
facility’s leachate collection system, or by other approved disposal means.

Samples withdrawn from the facility’s monitoring wells should be clay- and silt-free; therefore,
existing wells may require redevelopment from time to time based upon observed turbidity levels
during sampling activities. If redevelopment of an existing monitoring well is required, it will be
performed in a manner similar to that used for a new well.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

7
3.1.5 Maintenance and Recordkeeping

The existing monitoring wells will be used and maintained in accordance with design specifications
throughout the life of the monitoring program. Routine well maintenance will include inspection
and correction/repair, as necessary, of identification labels, concrete aprons, locking caps and locks,
and access to the wells. Should it be determined that background or compliance monitoring wells
no longer provide samples representative of the quality of groundwater passing the relevant point of
compliance, the SWS will be notified. The owner will re-evaluate the monitoring network, and
provide recommendations to the SWS for modifying, rehabilitating, abandoning, or installing
replacement or additional monitoring wells, as appropriate.

Laboratory analytical results will be submitted to the SWS semiannually, along with sample
collection field logs, statistical analyses (if used), groundwater flow rate and direction calculations,
and groundwater contour map(s) as described in the following sections. Analytical data, calculations,
and other relevant groundwater monitoring records will be kept throughout the active life of the
facility and the post-closure care period, including notices and reports of any groundwater quality
standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202) exceedances, re-sampling notifications, and re-sampling results.

3.1.6 Monitoring Well Abandonment

Piezometers and wells installed within the proposed landfill footprint will be properly abandoned in
accordance with the procedures for permanent abandonment, as described in 15A NCAC 2C Rule
.0113(b). The piezometers and wells will be progressively abandoned as necessary to complete
construction activities. The piezometers and wells that are within proposed waste unit footprints will
be over-drilled to remove well construction materials, and then grouted with a cement-bentonite
grout. Other piezometers and wells that will potentially interfere with clearing and construction
activities will be grouted in place without over-drilling by grouting the well in place with a cement-
bentonite grout and removing all surface features, such as concrete aprons, protective casings, and
stickups. In each case, the bentonite content of the cement-bentonite grout shall be approximately
5%, and a tremie pipe will be used to ensure that grout is continuously placed from the bottom of the
borehole/monitoring well upward.

If a monitoring well becomes unusable during the monitoring period of the landfill, the well will be
abandoned in accordance with the procedures described above. Approval from the SWS will be
obtained prior to abandoning any monitoring well.

For each monitoring well abandoned, the following information will be provided to the SWS in a
report sealed by a licensed geologist in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B Rule .1623 of the Rules:
the monitoring well name, a description of the procedure by which the monitoring well was
abandoned, the date when the monitoring well was considered to be taken out of service, and the date
when the monitoring well was abandoned.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

8
3.1.7 Detection Monitoring Program

Groundwater samples will be obtained and analyzed semiannually for the NC Appendix I list of
constituents (Appendix B), as defined in the Detection Monitoring Program for the MSWLF (15A
NCAC 13B .1633) and for the CDLF [15A NCAC 13B .0544(a)(1)(D)], during the life of the facility
and the post-closure care period (Table 2). Please note that detection monitoring for the CDLF
includes analysis of groundwater for tetrahydrofuran per the North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding Tetrahydofuran Analysis at Construction and Demolition Landfills
dated June 25, 2010 (Table 2 and Appendix B).

The SWS has issued five (5) memoranda concerning guidelines for electronic submittal of
monitoring data and environmental reporting limits and standards for constituents. Those
memoranda include: 1) New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring
Data (dated October 27, 2006), 2) Addendum to the October 27, 2006 North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data (dated February 23, 2007), 3) Environmental Monitoring Data for North Carolina Solid
Waste Facilities (dated October 16, 2007), 4) Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal (dated November 5, 2014), and 5) North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding Guidelines for 14-Day Notification of Groundwater
Exceedances Form Submittal per rule: 15A NCAC 1B .1633(c)(1) (dated September 9, 2016). The
SWS has also issued a Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Reporting Limits and Standards – Constituent List (dated June 13, 2011) which consolidates reporting standards and limits for each
required constituent. Copies of the memoranda and constituent list are included in Appendix C.

The results of the groundwater data (and statistical analysis, if the owner so chooses to perform) will
be submitted to the SWS semiannually in accordance with the documents in Appendix C. Sampling
reports will be submitted on a CD-ROM with analytical data submitted in the required format, and
be accompanied by the required Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form, which will be signed
and sealed by a licensed geologist in the State of North Carolina. A copy of this form is also included
in Appendix D for reference.
3.1.7.1 Sampling Frequency

Groundwater samples will be collected semiannually and analyzed for NC Appendix I Detection
Monitoring constituents (Table 2 and Appendix B) plus required field parameters, including but not
limited to, pH, conductivity, turbidity, and temperature. Additional analytical requirements for the
CDLF include alkalinity, total dissolved solids, mercury, chloride, manganese, sulfate, and iron.
New monitoring wells will be sampled one time prior to waste placement and then as prescribed in
Section 3.1.7.2 of this plan followed by routine semi-annual sampling. If the facility’s groundwater
monitoring program must progress to Assessment Monitoring, notification and sampling will be
conducted according to the schedule specified in Rule .1634 and/or Rule .0545.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

9
3.1.7.2 Establishment of Baseline Data

During future phases of facility development of the CDLF, a minimum of one sample from new each
well, background and downgradient, must be collected and analyzed for the required CDLF
constituents before waste placement. Routine semiannual sampling and analysis is required for each
new monitoring well thereafter. During future phases of facility development of the MSWLF, a
minimum of one sample from each new well, background and downgradient, must be collected and
analyzed for the required MSWLF constituents before waste placement. Three additional samples
must be collected and analyzed from each new monitoring well either before or after waste starts
being accepted. All four samples must be collected within a 6-month period. The data will be
submitted to the SWS. 3.1.7.3 Evaluation of Detection Monitoring Data

If the owner or operator determines that there is an exceedance of the groundwater protection
standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202) for one or more of the required constituents (Table 2, Appendix
B) at any monitoring well at the relevant point of compliance, the following procedures will be
performed:

1) Notify SWS within the timeframe required in the Rules of the finding and place a notice in
the site operating record indicating which constituents have exceeded groundwater
protection standards.

2) Within the timeframe required in the Rules, establish an Assessment Monitoring Program
meeting the requirements of Rule .1634 and/or Rule .0545, except as discussed below.

The data may be re-evaluated within the timeframe required in the Rules to determine that a source
other than a landfill unit caused the exceedance, or the exceedance resulted from an error in sampling,
analysis, or natural variation in groundwater quality. If it can be demonstrated that one of these
factors occurred, a report (Alternate Source Demonstration) certified by a North Carolina licensed
geologist or engineer will be submitted to the SWS within the timeframe required in the Rules. A
copy of this report will be placed in the operating record. If the SWS approves the demonstration,
the Detection Monitoring Program will be resumed with the required semiannual sampling and
analysis. If the SWS does not accept the demonstration the within the timeframe required in the
Rules, the Assessment Monitoring Program will be initiated.

3.1.8 Assessment Monitoring Program

Assessment Monitoring (15A NCAC 13B .1634 and .0545) is required whenever a violation of the
groundwater quality standards (15A NCAC 2L, .0202) has occurred, and no source of error, alternate
source, or naturally occurring condition can be identified.

Within the timeframe required in the Rules of triggering the Assessment Monitoring Program, and
annually thereafter, groundwater will be sampled for analysis of the NC Appendix II list of
constituents (Appendix B). A minimum of one groundwater sample will be collected from each
well and submitted for analysis during each Assessment Monitoring sampling event. However, the
Rules allow for petitions to the SWS for an appropriate subset of wells or a reduction in the NC
Appendix II sampling list.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

10
If any NC Appendix II constituents are detected in groundwater from the downgradient wells, a
minimum of four independent samples will be collected from each background and downgradient
well to establish background concentrations for the detected Appendix II constituents.

Within the timeframe required in the Rules and after receipt of the initial or subsequent sampling
analytical data, a report identifying the detected NC Appendix II constituents will be submitted to
the SWS, and a notice will be placed in the operating record. Background concentrations of any
detected NC Appendix II constituents will be established and reported to the SWS.

Within the timeframe required in the Rules and on at least a semiannual basis thereafter, the wells
will be sampled and analyzed for the NC Appendix I list plus any additional detected Appendix II
constituents. An analytical results report of each sampling event will be submitted to the SWS and
placed in the facility operating record.

The SWS will determine whether Groundwater Protection Standards must be established for the
facility [Rules .1634(g) and (h) & Rules .0545(b)(3) and (b)(4)], and may specify a more appropriate
alternate sampling frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for the full set of NC Appendix II
constituents. Groundwater monitoring will continue in one of two ways, based on the results of the
water quality analyses:

1) If the NC Appendix II constituent concentrations are equal to or less than the approved
Groundwater Protection Standards for two consecutive sampling events, the facility may
resume Detection Monitoring with the approval of SWS.

2) If one or more NC Appendix II constituents are detected in excess of the approved
Groundwater Protection Standards, and no source of error can be identified, within the
timeframe required in the Rules the SWS will be notified, a notice will be placed in the
operating record, and appropriate local government officials will be notified. The facility
operator will proceed to characterize the nature and extent of the release [Rule .1634(f)(1)
and/or Rule .0545(b)(1)]. Next, the operator will initiate an assessment of corrective
measures and corrective action plan, and proceed according to Rules .1635 through.1637
and/or Rules .0545(c) and (d). If the facility proceeds to corrective action, a revised WQMP
will be submitted to the SWS with the Corrective Action Plan, if necessary.

The results of the groundwater data will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in accordance with
the documents in Appendix C. Reports will be submitted on a CD-ROM, or electronically, with
analytical data submitted in the required format, and be accompanied by the required Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form, which will be signed and sealed by a licensed geologist or engineer in
the State of North Carolina. A copy of this form is also included in Appendix D.

3.1.9 Groundwater Sampling Methodology

Groundwater samples will be collected in general accordance with Solid Waste Management Rule
.1632, Rule .0544, and guidance provided in the Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling (April 2008). Procedures for well purging, sample withdrawal,
and decontamination methods as well as chain-of-custody procedures are outlined below. Field
parameter measurements will be submitted electronically to the SWS in accordance with the
documents in Appendix C.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

11
3.1.9.1 Sample Collection

The procedures for collecting groundwater samples are presented below. The background wells
(MW-1, and MW-1D) will be sampled first, followed by the downgradient compliance wells (MW-
2, MW-2D, MW-3R, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-5, MW-5D, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, MW-8D, MW-10,
MW-10D, MW-11, MW-11D, MW-12, MW-12D, MW-13, MW-13D, MW-14, MW-14D, MW-15,
MW-15D, MW-16, MW-16D, MW-17, and MW-17D). The downgradient wells will be sampled so
that the most contaminated well, if one is identified from the previous sampling event, is sampled
last. Note that MW-16 and MW-16D are not currently installed.
3.1.9.1.1 Sampling Frequency

The above-mentioned samples will be collected on a semiannual basis during the Detection and/or
Assessment Monitoring programs.
3.1.9.1.2 Static Water Elevations

The static water level and total well depth will be measured with an electronic water level indicator,
to the nearest 0.01 foot, in each well prior to sampling. Static water elevations will be calculated
from water depth measurements and top of casing elevations. A reference point will be marked on
the top of casing of each well to ensure the same measuring point is used each time static water levels
are measured.

If a monitoring well contains a dedicated pump, the depth to water shall be measured without
removing the pump. Depth to bottom measurements should be taken from the well construction data
and updated when pumps are removed for maintenance.
3.1.9.1.3 Well Evacuation

The preferred well evacuation and sampling procedure for the site is conventional bailed well
technology (standard evacuation) which is presented below. 3.1.9.1.3.1 Standard Evacuation Procedures

Monitoring wells will be evacuated with a laboratory cleaned bailer, disposable bailer, or submersible
pump. If a pump or bailer is used for multiple wells, it and any other non-dedicated equipment will
be decontaminated before use and between each well.

A low-yield well (one that yields less than 0.5 gallon per minute) will be purged so that water is
removed from the bottom of the screened interval. Low-yield wells will be evacuated to dryness
once. However, at no time will a well be evacuated to dryness if the recharge rate causes the
formation water to vigorously cascade down the sides of the screen and cause an accelerated loss of
volatiles. Upon recharging of the well and no longer than a time period of 24 hours, the first sample
will be field-tested for pH, temperature, and specific conductivity. Samples will then be collected
and containerized in the order of the volatilization sensitivity of the target constituents.

A high-yield well (one that yields 0.5 gallon per minute or more) will be purged so that water is
drawn down from above the screen in the uppermost part of the water column to ensure that fresh
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

12
water from the formation will move upward in the screen. If a pump is used for purging, a high-
yield well should be purged at less than 4 gallons per minute to prevent further well development.

A minimum of three casing volumes will be evacuated from each well prior to sampling. An
alternative purge will be considered complete if the monitoring well goes dry before removing the
calculated minimum purge volume. The well casing volume for a 2-inch well will be calculated
using the following formula:

Vc (gallons) = 0.163 x hw

where:
Vc = volume in the well casing = (dc2/4) x 3.14 x hw x 7.48 gallons/cubic foot)
dc = casing diameter in feet (dc = 0.167)
hw = height of the water column (i.e., well depth minus depth to water)

The purge water will be disposed by pouring on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of
the monitoring well being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the purge water may be
contaminated. In that case, the purged water will be containerized and disposed in the facility’s
leachate collection system (or by other approved disposal means).

The monitoring wells will be sampled using laboratory cleaned or disposable bailers within 24 hours
of completing the purge. The bailers will be equipped with a check valve and bottom-emptying
device. The bailer will be lowered gently into the well to minimize the possibility of degassing the
water.

Field measurements of temperature, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity will be made before and
after sample collection as a check on the stability of the groundwater sampled over time. The direct-
reading equipment used at each well will be calibrated in the field according to the manufacturer’s
specifications prior to each day’s use. Calibration information should be documented in the
instrument’s calibration logbook and the field book.

3.1.9.1.3.2 Low-Flow Procedures

Under normal conditions, monitoring wells will be purged and sampled using the Standard
Evacuation Procedures specified above. However, at the discretion of the owner/operator a low-flow
sampling method in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Sampling Procedures (EPA, April 1996), may be implemented as
allowed under the Rules. A summary of these procedures is listed below, and a copy of the
procedures is presented in Appendix E.

Depth-to-water measurements will be obtained using an electronic water level indicator capable of
recording the depth to an accuracy of 0.01 foot. A determination of whether or not the water table is
located within the screened interval of the well will be made. If the water table is not within the
screened interval, the amount of drawdown that can be achieved before the screen is intersected will
be calculated. If the water table is within the screened interval, total drawdown should not exceed 1
foot so as to minimize the amount of aeration and turbidity. If the water table is above the top of the
screened interval, the amount of drawdown should be minimized to keep the screen from being
exposed.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

13
If the purging equipment is non-dedicated, the equipment will be lowered into the well, taking care
to minimize the disturbance to the water column. If conditions (i.e., water column height and well
yield) allow, the pump will be placed in the uppermost portion of the water column (minimum of 18
inches of pump submergence is recommended).

The minimum volume/time period for obtaining independent Water Quality Parameter
Measurements (WQPM) will be determined. The minimum volume/time period is determined based
on the stabilized flow rate and the amount of volume in the pump and the discharge tubing
(alternatively, the volume of the flow cell can be used, provided it is greater than the volume of the
pump and discharge tubing). Volume of the bladder pump should be obtained from the manufacturer.
Volume of the discharge tubing is as follows:

3/8-inch inside diameter tubing: 20 milliliters per foot
1/4-inch inside diameter tubing: 10 milliliters per foot
3/16-inch inside diameter tubing: 5 milliliters per foot

Once the volume of the flow-cell or the pump and the discharge tubing has been calculated, the well
purge will begin. The flow rate should be based on historical data for that well (if available) and
should not exceed 500 milliliters per minute. The initial round of WQPM should be recorded and
the flow rate adjusted until drawdown in the well stabilizes. Water levels should be measured
periodically to maintain a stabilized water level. The water level should not fall within 1 foot of the
top of the well screen. If the purge rate has been reduced to 100 milliliters or less and the head level
in the well continues to decline, the required water samples should be collected following
stabilization of the WQPM, based on the criteria presented below.

If neither the head level nor the WQPM stabilize, a passive sample should be collected. Passive
sampling is defined as sampling before WQPM have stabilized if the well yield is low enough that
the well will purge dry at the lowest possible purge rate (generally 100 milliliters per minute or less).

WQPM stabilization is defined as follows:
• pH (+/- 0.2 S.U.);
• conductance (+/- 5% of reading);
• temperature (+/- 10% of reading or 0.2 C);
• dissolved oxygen [+/- 10% of reading or 0.2 mg/L (whichever is greater)]; and
• oxidation reduction potential (ORP) may also be measured and ideally should also fall within
+/- 10% of reading; however, this is not a required field parameter.

Stabilization of the WQPM should occur in most wells within five to six rounds of measurements.
If stabilization does not occur following the removal of a purge volume equal to three well volumes,
a passive sample will be collected.

At a minimum, turbidity measurements should also be recorded at the beginning of purging,
following the stabilization of the WQPM, and following the collection of the samples. The optimal
turbidity range for micropurging is 25 NTU or less. Turbidity measurements above 25 NTU are
generally indicative of an excessive purge rate or natural conditions related to excessive fines in the
aquifer matrix.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

14
The direct-reading equipment used at each well will be calibrated in the field according to the
manufacturer’s specifications prior to each day’s use and checked at a minimum at the end of each
sampling day. Calibration information should be documented in the instrument’s calibration logbook
and the field book.

Each well is to be sampled immediately following stabilization of the WQPM. The sampling flow
rate must be maintained at a rate that is less than or equal to the purging rate. For volatile organic
compounds, lower sampling rates (100 - 200 milliliters/minute) should be used. Final field parameter
readings should be recorded prior to and after sampling.
3.1.9.1.4 Sample Collection

Samples will be collected and containerized in the order described below.

• Volatile Organic Compounds (SW- 846 Method 8260);
• Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SW- 846 Method 8270);
• Herbicides (SW-846 Method 8151);
• Pesticides (SW- 846 Method 8081);
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs; SW-846 Method 8082);
• Cyanide and Sulfide; and
• Total Metals.

Total metals samples may be collected out of sequence if the turbidity increases during sample
collection. Samples will be transferred directly from field sampling equipment into pre-preserved,
laboratory-supplied containers. Containers for volatile organic analyses will be filled in such a
manner that no headspace remains after filling.
3.1.9.1.5 Decontamination

Non-dedicated field equipment that is used for purging or sample collection shall be cleaned with a
phosphate-free detergent, and triple-rinsed with distilled water. Any disposable polyethylene tubing
used with non-dedicated pumps should be discarded after use at each well. Clean, chemical-resistant
nitrile gloves will be worn by sampling personnel during well evacuation and sample collection.
Measures will be taken to prevent surface soils, which could introduce contaminants into the well
being sampled, from coming in contact with the purging and sampling equipment.
3.1.9.2 Sample Preservation and Handling

Upon containerizing the water samples, the samples will be packed into pre-chilled, ice-filled coolers
and either hand-delivered or shipped overnight by a commercial carrier to the laboratory for analysis.
Sample preservation methods will be used to retard biological action and hydrolysis, as well as to
reduce sorption effects. These methods will include chemical preservation, cooling/refrigeration at
4º C, and protection from light. The type of sample container, minimum volume, chemical
preservative, and holding times for each analysis type are provided in Table 3.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

15
3.1.9.3 Chain-of-Custody Program

The chain-of-custody program will allow for tracing sample possession and handling from the time
of field collection through laboratory analysis. The chain-of-custody program includes sample
labels, sample seal, field logbook, and chain-of-custody record.
3.1.9.3.1 Sample Labels

Legible labels sufficiently durable to remain legible when wet will contain the following information:

• Site identification;
• Monitoring well number or other location;
• Date and time of collection;
• Name of collector;
• Parameters to be analyzed; and
• Preservative, if applicable.
3.1.9.3.2 Sample Seal

The shipping container will be sealed to ensure that the samples have not been disturbed during
transport to the laboratory. The tape used to seal the shipping container will be labeled with
instructions to notify the shipper if the seal is broken prior to receipt at the laboratory.
3.1.9.3.3 Field Logbook

The field logbook will contain sheets documenting the following information:

• Identification of the well;
• Well depth;
• Field meter calibration information;
• Static water level depth and measurement technique;
• Purge volume (given in gallons);
• Time well was purged;
• Date and time of collection;
• Well sampling sequence;
• Types of sample containers used and sample identification numbers;
• Preservative used;
• Field analysis data and methods;
• Field observations on sampling event;
• Name of collector(s); and
• Climatic conditions including air temperatures and precipitation.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

16
3.1.9.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record

The chain-of-custody record is required for tracing sample possession from time of collection to time
of receipt at the laboratory. A chain-of-custody record will accompany each individual shipment.
The record will contain the following information:

• Sample destination and transporter;
• Sample identification numbers;
• Signature of collector;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sample type;
• Identification of well;
• Number of sample containers in shipping container;
• Parameters requested for analysis;
• Signature of person(s) involved in the chain of possession;
• Inclusive dates of possession; and
• Internal temperature of shipping container upon opening in laboratory (noted by the
laboratory).

A copy of the completed chain-of-custody form will accompany the shipment and will be returned
to the shipper after the shipping container reaches its destination. The chain-of-custody record will
also be used as the analysis request sheet.
3.1.9.4 Analytical Procedures

A laboratory certified by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will be
utilized for analysis of groundwater and surface water samples from the facility. Analyses will be
performed in accordance with U.S. EPA SW-846 methods in accordance with the EPA guidance
document (EPA, June 1997). For Detection Monitoring, method numbers and reporting limits to be
used will be those listed in accordance with the documents in Appendix C. Alternate SW-846
methods may be used if they have the same or lower reporting limit. The laboratory must report any
detection of any constituent even if it is detected below the solid waste section limit (Appendix C).

The laboratory certificates-of-analyses shall, at a minimum, include the following information:

• Narrative: Must include a brief description of the sample group (number and type of
samples, field and associated lab sample identification numbers, preparation and analytical
methods used). The data reviewer shall also include a statement that all holding times and
Quality Control (QC) criteria were met, samples were received intact and properly preserved,
with a brief discussion of any deviations potentially affecting data usability. This includes,
but is not limited to, test method deviation(s), holding time violations, out-of-control
incidents occurring during the processing of QC or field samples and corrective actions
taken, and repeated analyses and reasons for the re-analyses (including, for example,
contamination, failing surrogate recoveries, matrix effects, or dilutions). The narrative shall
be signed by the laboratory director or authorized laboratory representative, signifying that
all statements are true to the best of the reviewer's knowledge, and that the data meet the data
quality objectives as described in this plan (except as noted). One narrative is required for
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

17
each sample group.

• Original Chain-of Custody Form.

• Target Analyte List (TAL)/Target Compound List (TCL): The laboratory shall list all
compounds for which the samples were analyzed. The TAL/TCL is typically included as
part of the analytical reporting forms.

• Dilution factors with a narrative of the sample results, including the reasons for the dilution
(if any).

• Blank Data: For organic analyses, the laboratory shall report the results of any method
blanks, reagent blanks, trip blanks, field blanks, and any other blanks associated with the
sample group. For inorganic analyses, the laboratory shall provide the results of any
preparation or initial calibration blanks associated with the sample group.

• QC Summary: The laboratory will provide summary forms detailing laboratory QC sample
results, which include individual recoveries and relative percent differences (if appropriate)
for the following Quality Assurance (QA)/QC criteria: surrogates, MS analyses, MSD
analyses, LCS, and sample duplicate analyses. QC control limits shall also be reported; if
any QC limits are exceeded, a flag or footnote shall be placed to indicate the affected
samples.

Additional QA data and/or other pertinent data may be reported as requested by the owner/operator
of the facility.
3.1.9.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program

Trip and field blanks will be collected and analyzed during each monitoring event to verify that the
sample collection and handling process has not affected the quality of the samples. The trip blank
will be prepared in the laboratory each time a group of bottles is prepared for use in the field. The
appropriate number of bottles for VOA analysis will be filled with Type II reagent grade water,
transported to the site, handled like the samples, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. The field
blank will be prepared in the field and exposed to the sampling environment. As with all other
samples, the time of the blank exposure will be recorded so that the sampling sequence is
documented. The field blank will be analyzed for the same list of constituents as the groundwater
samples. The trip blank will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds only.

The assessment of blank analysis results will be in general accordance with EPA guidance documents
(EPA, 1993 and 1994). No positive sample results will be relied upon unless the concentration of
the compound in the sample exceeds 10 times the amount in any blank for common laboratory
contaminants (see next paragraph), or five times the amount for other compounds. If necessary,
resampling will be performed as necessary to confirm or refute suspect data; such resampling will
occur within the individual compliance monitoring period.

Concentrations of any contaminants found in the blanks will be used to qualify the groundwater data.
Any compound (other than those listed below) detected in the sample, which was also detected in
any associated blank, will be qualified “B” when the sample concentration is less than five times the
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

18
blank concentration. For common laboratory contaminants (methylene chloride, acetone, 2-
butanone, and common phthalate esters), the results will be qualified “B” when the reported sample
concentration is less than 10 times the blank concentration. The “B” qualifier designates that the
reported detection is considered to represent cross-contamination and that the reported constituent is
not considered to be present in the sample at the reported concentration.

3.1.10 Statistical Methods (Optional)

If the landfill owner or operator chooses, groundwater monitoring data for landfill compliance wells
screened in the uppermost and/or bedrock aquifers may be evaluated using statistical procedures.
However as specified in the Rules, this is optional (not required) under 15A NCAC 13B .1632(g) for
the MSWLF. The statistical test used to evaluate the groundwater monitoring data will be the
prediction interval procedure unless the test is inappropriate with the data collected. If statistical
evaluation of groundwater monitoring data is selected, it will be performed in compliance with 15A
NCAC 13B Rule .1632 (g), (h), and (i) and the USEPA’s Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified Guidance, Office of Solid Waste, Waste Management
Division, US EPA, dated March 2009.

3.2 Surface Water Monitoring

3.2.1 Sampling Locations

In accordance with Rule .0602 and Rule .0544(c), seven (7) surface water monitoring locations have
been established for the facility to monitor water quality surrounding the proposed and existing waste
footprint (Table 4). The proposed surface water locations will consist of one (1) upstream
(background) point (SW-1) and six (6) downstream (compliance) points (SW-2 through SW-7). All
surface water sampling locations currently exist except for SW-7 which is proposed for the
development of CDLF Phase 6. The location of each surface water sampling point is indicated on
the Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems (Figure 2).

3.2.2 Monitoring Frequency

The surface water sampling locations will be sampled semiannually (Table 2) for analysis of the NC
Appendix I list of constituents (Appendix B) and required water quality parameters (pH, specific
conductivity, temperature, and turbidity). The results of the analysis of the surface water data will
be submitted to the SWS semiannually in conjunction with the groundwater data.

3.2.3 Surface Water Sampling Methodology

The surface water samples should be collected using the Dipper Method or the Direct Method
described below. In surface water sampling, extreme care must be used to obtain a representative
sample. The greatest potential source of inadvertent sample contamination is incorrect handling by
field personnel. Therefore, extreme care should be used during sample collection to minimize the
potential for inadvertent contamination.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

19
3.2.3.1 Sample Collection

Surface water samples will be obtained from areas of minimal turbulence and aeration. Samples will
only be collected if flowing water is observed during the sampling event.

3.2.3.1.1 Dipper Method

A dip sampler is useful for situations where a sample is to be recovered from an outfall pipe or where
direct access is limited. The long handle on such a device allows sample collection from a discrete
location. Sampling procedures are as follows:

1. Assemble the dip sampler device in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
2. Extend the device to the sample location and collect the sample.
3. Retrieve the sampler and transfer the sample to the appropriate sample container.
3.2.3.1.2 Direct Method

The sampler should face upstream and collect the sample without disturbing the sediment. The
collector submerses the closed sample container, opens the bottle to collect the sample and then caps
the bottle while sub-surface. The collection bottle may be rinsed two times by the sample water.
Collect the sample under the water surface avoiding surface debris. When using the direct method,
pre-preserved sample bottles should not be used because the collection method may dilute the
concentration of preservative necessary for proper sample preservation. Samples will be collected
using dedicated, clean, laboratory-provided bottles, and then the samples are carefully transferred
into the pre-preserved bottles for transport to the laboratory.
3.2.3.1.3 Decontamination

Non-dedicated field equipment that is used for sample collection shall be cleaned with a phosphate-
free detergent, and triple-rinsed with distilled water. Clean, chemical-resistant nitrile gloves will be
worn by sampling personnel during sample collection. Measures will be taken to prevent surface
soils, which could introduce contaminants into the location being sampled, from coming in contact
with the sampling equipment.
3.2.3.2 Sample Preservation and Handling

Upon containerizing the water samples, the samples will be packed into pre-chilled, ice-filled coolers
and either hand-delivered or shipped overnight by a commercial carrier to the laboratory for analysis.
Sample preservation methods will be used to retard biological action and hydrolysis, as well as to
reduce sorption effects. These methods will include chemical preservation, cooling/refrigeration at
4º C, and protection from light. The type of sample container, minimum volume, chemical
preservative, and holding times for each analysis type are provided in Table 3.
3.2.3.3 Chain-of-Custody Program

The chain-of-custody program will allow for tracing sample possession and handling from the time
of field collection through laboratory analysis. The chain-of-custody program includes sample
labels, sample seal, field logbook, and chain-of-custody record.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

20
3.2.3.3.1 Sample Labels

Legible labels sufficiently durable to remain legible when wet will contain the following information:

• Site identification;
• Sampling location identifier;
• Date and time of collection;
• Name of collector;
• Parameters to be analyzed; and
• Preservative, if applicable.
3.2.3.3.2 Sample Seal

The shipping container will be sealed to ensure that the samples have not been disturbed during
transport to the laboratory. The tape used to seal the shipping container will be labeled with
instructions to notify the shipper if the seal is broken prior to receipt at the laboratory.
3.2.3.3.3 Field Logbook

The field logbook will contain sheets documenting the following information:

• Sampling location identifier;
• Flow conditions observations;
• Field meter calibration information;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sequence of sampling locations;
• Types of sample containers used and sample identification numbers;
• Preservative used;
• Field analysis data and methods;
• Field observations on sampling event;
• Name of collector(s); and
• Climatic conditions including air temperatures and precipitation.
3.2.3.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Record

The chain-of-custody record is required for tracing sample possession from time of collection to time
of receipt at the laboratory. A chain-of-custody record will accompany each individual shipment.
The record will contain the following information:

• Sample destination and transporter;
• Sample identification numbers;
• Signature of collector;
• Date and time of collection;
• Sample type;
• Number of sample containers in shipping container;
• Parameters requested for analysis;
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

21
• Signature of person(s) involved in the chain of possession;
• Inclusive dates of possession; and
• Internal temperature of shipping container upon opening in laboratory (noted by the
laboratory).

A copy of the completed chain-of-custody form will accompany the shipment and will be returned
to the shipper after the shipping container reaches its destination. The chain-of-custody record will
also be used as the analysis request sheet.
3.2.3.4 Analytical Procedures

A laboratory certified by the DEQ will be utilized for analysis of groundwater and surface water
samples from the facility. Analyses will be performed in accordance with U.S. EPA SW-846
methods in accordance with the EPA guidance document (EPA, 1997). For Detection Monitoring,
method numbers and reporting limits to be used will be those listed in accordance with the documents
in Appendix C. The monitoring parameters are also included in Appendix C, along with the
proposed analytical methods and reporting limits. Alternate SW-846 methods may be used if they
have the same or lower reporting limit. The laboratory must report any detection of any constituent
even if it is detected below the solid waste reporting limit (Appendix C).

The laboratory certificates-of-analyses shall, at a minimum, include the following information:

• Narrative: Must include a brief description of the sample group (number and type of
samples, field and associated lab sample identification numbers, preparation and analytical
methods used). The data reviewer shall also include a statement that all holding times and
Quality Control (QC) criteria were met, samples were received intact and properly preserved,
with a brief discussion of any deviations potentially affecting data usability. This includes,
but is not limited to, test method deviation(s), holding time violations, out-of-control
incidents occurring during the processing of QC or field samples and corrective actions
taken, and repeated analyses and reasons for the reanalyzes (including, for example,
contamination, failing surrogate recoveries, matrix effects, or dilutions). The narrative shall
be signed by the laboratory director or authorized laboratory representative, signifying that
all statements are true to the best of the reviewer's knowledge, and that the data meet the data
quality objectives as described in this plan (except as noted). One narrative is required for
each sample group.

• Original Chain-of Custody Form.

• Target Analyte List (TAL)/Target Compound List (TCL): The laboratory shall list all
compounds for which the samples were analyzed. The TAL/TCL is typically included as
part of the analytical reporting forms.

• Dilution factors with a narrative of the sample results, including the reasons for the dilution
(if any).

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

22
• Blank Data: For organic analyses, the laboratory shall report the results of any method
blanks, reagent blanks, trip blanks, field blanks, and any other blanks associated with the
sample group. For inorganic analyses, the laboratory shall provide the results of any
preparation or initial calibration blanks associated with the sample group.

• QC Summary: The laboratory will provide summary forms detailing laboratory QC sample
results, which include individual recoveries and relative percent differences (if appropriate)
for the following Quality Assurance (QA)/QC criteria: surrogates, MS analyses, MSD
analyses, LCS, and sample duplicate analyses. QC control limits shall also be reported; if
any QC limits are exceeded, a flag or footnote shall be placed to indicate the affected
samples.

Additional QA data and/or other pertinent data may be reported as requested by the owner/operator
of the facility.

3.2.3.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program

Trip and field blanks will be collected and analyzed during each monitoring event to verify that the
sample collection and handling process has not affected the quality of the samples. The trip blank
will be prepared in the laboratory each time a group of bottles is prepared for use in the field. The
appropriate number of bottles for VOA analysis will be filled with Type II reagent grade water,
transported to the site, handled like the samples, and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. The field
blank will be prepared in the field and exposed to the sampling environment. As with all other
samples, the time of the blank exposure will be recorded so that the sampling sequence is
documented. The field blank will be analyzed for the same list of constituents as the surface water
samples. The trip blank will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds only.

The assessment of blank analysis results will be in general accordance with EPA guidance documents
(EPA, 1993 and 1994). No positive sample results will be relied upon unless the concentration of
the compound in the sample exceeds 10 times the amount in any blank for common laboratory
contaminants (see next paragraph), or five times the amount for other compounds. If necessary,
resampling will be performed as necessary to confirm or refute suspect data; such resampling will
occur within the individual compliance monitoring period.

Concentrations of any contaminants found in the blanks will be used to qualify the surface water
data. Any compound (other than those listed below) detected in the sample, which was also detected
in any associated blank, will be qualified “B” when the sample concentration is less than five times
the blank concentration. For common laboratory contaminants (methylene chloride, acetone, 2-
butanone, and common phthalate esters), the results will be qualified “B” when the reported sample
concentration is less than 10 times the blank concentration. The “B” qualifier designates that the
reported detection is considered to represent cross-contamination and that the reported constituent is
not considered to be present in the sample at the reported concentration.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

23
3.3 Leachate Monitoring

3.3.1 Sampling Location

In accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .1626(12)(c) of the Rules, nine (9) sampling locations has been
established for the facility. The locations include six existing leak detection sampling locations
associated with each MSWLF cell (Cells 1 through 6) designated LD-1 through LD-6, one permitted
future leak detection sampling location for MSWLF Cell 7 designated LD-7, one leachate leak
detection sampling location near the leachate pond designated Lechate LD, and the Leachate Pond
itself. All nine sampling locations are on the attached Figure 2 titled Water Quality and Landfill Gas Environmental Monitoring Systems.

3.3.2 Monitoring Frequency and Parameters

All existing leak detection locations will be sampled semiannually (Table 2) for analysis of the
Appendix I VOC and metals. The Leachate Pond will be sampled semiannually for the leachate
monitoring parameters (Table 2). The results of the analysis of the leachate leak detection and
leachate samples will be submitted to the SWS semiannually in conjunction with the groundwater
and surface water data.

3.3.3 Leachate Sampling Methodology

The leachate sampling methodology including sample collection, sample preservation and handling,
chain-of-custody program, and quality assurance and quality control program will be in general
accordance with those specified herein for surface water.
Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

24
3.4 Reporting

3.4.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment Reports

Groundwater monitoring well installation and abandonment reports will be prepared upon
completion of well installation or abandonment prior to waste disposal into a new cell in accordance
with the phased landfill construction for Phase 6. The monitoring well installation reports will
include documentation of boring logs, well diagrams, development results, and field procedures. The
abandonment reports will include documentation of abandonment logs and field procedures.
Monitoring well installation and abandonment reports will be submitted in electronic format in
accordance with the procedures in Appendix C and if physical copies are required to the SWS at the
following mailing address:

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management -- Solid Waste Section
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646

Additionally, copies of all installation and abandonment reports will be kept at the landfill as part of
the facility’s operating record.

3.4.2 Water Quality Reports

Copies of all laboratory analytical data will be forwarded to the SWS within 120 calendar days of
the sampling event. The analytical data submitted will specify the date of sample collection, the
sampling point identification and include a map of sampling locations. Should a significant
concentration of contaminants be detected in ground and surface water, as defined in North Carolina
Solid Waste Management Rules, Groundwater Quality Standards, or Surface Water Quality
Standards, the owner/operator of the landfill shall notify the SWS and will place a notice in the
landfill operating records as to which constituents were detected. All monitoring reports will be
submitted with the following:

1. An evaluation of potentiometric surface;
2. Analytical laboratory reports and summary tables;
3. An Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form (included in Appendix D); and
4. Laboratory Data submitted in accordance with the Electronic Data Deliverable Template.

Monitoring reports will be submitted electronically by e-mail, CD, or FTP and in paper copy form if
requested. Copies of all laboratory results and water quality reports for the Buncombe County
Landfill will be kept at the landfill office as part of the facility’s operating record. Reports
summarizing all groundwater quality results and data evaluation will be submitted in electronic form
in accordance with the procedures in Appendix C and if physical copies are required to the SWS at
their current mailing address.

Water Quality Monitoring Plan December 20, 2017 Buncombe County Landfill -- Alexander, North Carolina BLE Project Number J17-9378-11

25
4.0 REFERENCES

Bunnell-Lammons Engineering, Inc., 2017. Design Hydrogeologic Report, Phase 6 C&D, Buncombe County Landfill [in press].

Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc.; April 2009; C&D Landfill Expansion, Part 2: Site Hydrogeological Investigation, Buncombe County Solid Waste Facility.

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

North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2006. N.C. New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data.

North Carolina Dept. Environmental and Natural Resources. 2007. N.C. Addendum to October 27, 2006, North Carolina Solid Waste Section Memorandum Regarding New Guidelines for Electronic
Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). April 2008. Solid Waste
Section, Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling.
North Carolina Dept. Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2014. Division of Waste
Management, Solid Waste Section, Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal.

Rhodes, Thomas S., and Conrad, Stephen G., 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land Resources, and the NC
Geological Survey, 1:500,000-scale, compiled by Brown, Philip M., et al, and Parker, John M. III,
and in association with the State Geologic Map Advisory Committee.

USEPA. September 1986. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD).

USEPA. 1996. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures. Puls, Robert
W. and Barcelona, Michael J.

USEPA. 1993. Region III Modifications to Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses, EPA 540/R-01-008. April.

USEPA, 1994. Region III Modifications to National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (OLMO1.0-OLMO0.9), EPA 540/R-99-008. September.

USEPA. June 1997. SW-846 Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Final Update III.

USEPA. March 2009. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities – Unified Guidance. EPA/530-R-09-007. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.

TABLES
Table 1
Groundwater Monitoring Well Data
Buncombe County Landfill
Permit No. 1107-CDLF-1998
Permit No. 1107-MSWLF-1996
Alexander, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J17-9378-11
Monitoring Point
Installation
Date1 Geology Monitored1
MSW or
C&D
Waste Unit
Monitored2
Well
Status/Purpose
Well
Diameter (in)1 Northing1 Easting1
TOC
Elevation (ft)1
Ground Surface
Elevation1
Well Depth
(ft)1
MW-1 1990's Saprolite/PWR Facility Facility Background 2.0 737,383.3 923,481.5 2021.22 2019.28 76 61.0 -76.0
MW-1D 1990's Bedrock Facility Facility Background 2.0 737,371.0 923,468.7 2021.57 2019.97 200 85.0 -95.0
MW-2 1990's Saprolite/PWR MSW Cell 3 Compliance 2.0 739,569.6 921,033.3 1920.86 1918.54 20 5.0 -20.0
MW-2D 1990's Bedrock MSW Cell 3 Compliance 2.0 739,565.7 921,027.7 1920.51 1918.63 55 45.0 -55.0
MW-3R 7/28/2014 PWR MSW Cell 1 Compliance 2.0 739,499.1 920,384.3 1973.18 1975.67 55 45.0 -55.0
MW-4 10/10/1996 Saprolite/PWR MSW Cell 1 Compliance 2.0 739,263.0 920,192.1 1944.35 1942.48 25 9.0 -24.0
MW-4D 10/11/1996 Bedrock MSW Cell 1 Compliance 2.0 739,261.0 920,177.3 1944.64 1942.79 55 45.0 -55.0
MW-5 10/9/1996 Saprolite/PWR MSW Cell 1 Compliance 2.0 739,111.5 920,246.7 1977.12 1975.39 50 35.0 -50.0
MW-5D 10/10/1996 Bedrock MSW Cell 1 Compliance 2.0 739,103.6 920,242.3 1976.92 1975.31 81 71.0 -81.0
MW-6 10/8/1996 Saprolite/PWR MSW Cell 1 Compliance 2.0 738,767.9 920,223.6 1987.34 1985.39 50 35.0 -50.0
MW-7 10/4/1996 Saprolite/PWR MSW Cell 2 Compliance 2.0 738,286.3 920,586.8 2022.83 2020.72 61 42.0 -61.0
MW-8 1990's Saprolite/PWR MSW Cell 2 Compliance 2.0 738,102.0 920,801.7 1962.06 1959.85 70 55.0 -70.0
MW-8D 1990's Bedrock MSW Cell 2 Compliance 2.0 738,116.7 920,812.0 1962.47 1960.57 95 85.0 -95.0
MW-10 3/6/2002 Saprolite/PWR MSW Cell 4 Compliance 2.0 739,324.0 921,597.0 2010.54 2007.50 73 58.0 -73.0
MW-10D 3/6/2002 Bedrock MSW Cell 4 Compliance 2.0 739,324.0 921,590.8 2010.56 2007.50 117 102.0 -117.0
MW-11 3/6/2002 Bedrock MSW Cell 5 Compliance 2.0 738,169.2 921,422.1 1966.71 1963.70 50 35.0 -50.0
MW-11D 3/6/2002 Bedrock MSW Cell 5 Compliance 2.0 738,154.0 921,406.0 1966.15 1963.20 70 60.0 -70.0
MW-12 6/25/2002 Saprolite/PWR/Bedrock C&D Phases 1 - 5 Compliance 2.0 738,703.7 919,192.4 1947.39 1944.70 17 7.0 -17.0
MW-12D 6/25/2002 Bedrock C&D Phases 1 - 5 Compliance 2.0 739,489.5 921,966.6 1947.10 1944.30 37 27.0 -37.0
MW-13 6/24/2005 Bedrock MSW Cell 6 Compliance 2.0 739,489.5 921,966.6 1953.92 1951.30 16 6.0 -16.0
MW-13D 6/23/2005 Bedrock MSW Cell 6 Compliance 2.0 738,761.6 919,055.7 1953.82 1951.40 44 39.0 -44.0
MW-14 4/5/2006 Bedrock C&D Phases 1 - 5 Compliance 2.0 738,782.5 919,037.1 1952.77 1949.80 49 39.0 -49.0
MW-14D 4/6/2006 Bedrock C&D Phases 1 - 5 Compliance 2.0 738,703.7 919,192.4 1953.76 1950.70 88 78.0 -88.0
MW-15 6/7/2012 Saprolite/PWR C&D Phases 1 - 5 Compliance 2.0 739,143.4 919,829.3 1973.29 1970.21 26 16.0 -26.0
MW-15D 6/7/2012 Bedrock C&D Phases 1 - 5 Compliance 2.0 739,143.4 919,829.3 1973.51 1970.25 43 33.0 -43.0
MW-16 Pending MSW Cell 7 Compliance 2.0
MW-16D Pending MSW Cell 7 Compliance 2.0
MW-17 Proposed C&D Phase 6 Compliance 2.0
MW-17D Proposed C&D Phase 6 Compliance 2.0
1 - Data from Table 3, Well Construction, New Buncombe County Landfill, Buncombe County, North Carolina , provided by SCS Engineers.
Some well installation dates appear inconsistent with water level records and may not be accurate. Changes to some dates (italics) made based on water level records and dates from SHR and DHR documents by CDM.
The top of casing and ground surface elevations for MW-3R are a probable error (reversed) based on April 2016 water levels in the SCS Engineers report.
The top of casing and ground surface elevations for MW-14 and MW-14D do not match those in the SHR and DHR documents by CDM.
2 - Based on visual observation of Sheet No 1 Groundwater and Methane Monitoring Well Locations by CDM Smith dated August 2014.
Pending - Wells have been approved by the DEQ for MSWLF Cell 7 when the waste unit is constructed.
TOC - Top of Casing.
GS - Ground Surface.
All depth measurments in feet -- All elevations in feet above an arbitrary site datum.
Screen Depth
(below GS)1
S:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Buncombe County Landfill\9378-11 BCLF Phase 6 CnD EMP\WQMP\BCLF 9378-11 WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: IAI
Table 2
Sampling Matrix
Buncombe County Landfill
Permit No. 1107-CDLF-1998
Permit No. 1107-MSWLF-1996
Alexander, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J17-9378-11
April October
Station ID *Analytical Suite* *Analytical Suite*
MW-1 A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-1D A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-2 A-1 A-1
MW-2D A-1 A-1
MW-3R A-1 A-1
MW-4 A-1 A-1
MW-4D A-1 A-1
MW-5 A-1 A-1
MW-5D A-1 A-1
MW-6 A-1 A-1
MW-7 A-1 A-1
MW-8 A-1 A-1
MW-8D A-1 A-1
MW-10 A-1 A-1
MW-10D A-1 A-1
MW-11 A-1 A-1
MW-11D A-1 A-1
MW-12 A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-12D A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-13 A-1 A-1
MW-13D A-1 A-1
MW-14 A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-14D A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-15 A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-15D A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-16 A-1 A-1
MW-16D A-1 A-1
MW-17 A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
MW-17D A-1 Plus A-1 Plus
SW-1 A-1 A-1
SW-2 A-1 A-1
SW-3 A-1 A-1
SW-4 A-1T A-1T
SW-5 A-1 A-1
SW-6 A-1T A-1T
SW-7 A-1T A-1T
LD-1 A-1 A-1
LD-2 A-1 A-1
LD-3 A-1 A-1
LD-4 A-1 A-1
LD-5 A-1 A-1
LD-6 A-1 A-1
LD-7 A-1 A-1
Leachate LD A-1 A-1
Leachate Pond LMP LMP
Notes:
A-1 = Appendix I VOCs & Metals
A-1T = Appendix I VOCs plus Tetrahydrofuran & Metals
A-1 Plus = Appendix I VOCs plus Tetrahydrofuran & Metals plus Mercury,
Manganese, Iron, Sulfate, Chloride, Alkalinity, & Total Dissolved Solids
LMP (Leachate Monitoring Parameters) = Appendix I VOCs & Metals, pH,
specific conductance, BOD, COD, Nitrates, Sulfates, & Phosphates.
LD = Leak DetectorBackground WellsComplianceWellsSurfaceWaterLeachate and Leak DetectorsS:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Buncombe County Landfill\9378-11 BCLF Phase 6 CnD EMP\WQMP\BCLF 9378-11 WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP
Table 3
Sampling and Preservation Procedures
Buncombe County Landfill
Permit No. 1107-CDLF-1998
Permit No. 1107-MSWLF-1996
Alexander, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J17-9378-11
Parameter Container & Volume Preservative Maximum Holding Time
Cyanide P,G; 500 mL 4°C NaOH to pH>12, add Sodium Arsenite 14 days
Sulfide P,G; 500 mL 4°C, add Zinc Acetate and NaOH 7 days
Chloride P,G; 500 mL 4°C 28 days
Alkalinity P,G; 500 mL 4°C 14 days
Total Dissolved Solids P,G; 500 mL 4°C 7 days
Mercury (total)P; 500 mL HNO3 to pH<2 28 days
Metals (total) except mercury P; 500 mL HNO3 to pH<2 6 months
Base Neutrals & Acids G, Teflon-lined cap; 1000 mL 4°C 7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Chlorinated Pesticides/PCBs G, Teflon-lined cap; 1000 mL 4°C 7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Chlorinated Acids G, Teflon-lined cap; 1000 mL 4°C 7 days to extraction, 40 days after extraction
Purgeables 2-40 mL VOA w/G, Teflon-lined septum 4°C; HCl to pH<2 14 days
BOD P; 1000 mL 6°C 48 hours
COD P; 250 mL 6°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days
Sulfate P; 250 mL 4°C 28 days
Nitrate P; 250 mL 4°C 48 hours
ortho-Phosphate P; 250 mL 4°C 48 hours
Notes: P - Plastic, G - Glass, T - Fluorocarbon Resin (PTFE, Teflon®, FEP, etc.)
No headspace should be allowed in the volatile organic compound containers.
S:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Buncombe County Landfill\9378-11 BCLF Phase 6 CnD EMP\WQMP\BCLF 9378-11 WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP/MPH
Table 4
Surface Water Sampling Point Data
Buncombe County Landfill
Permit No. 1107-CDLF-1998
Permit No. 1107-MSWLF-1996
Alexander, North Carolina
BLE Project Number J17-9378-11
Monitoring Point Water Body Monitored
1
Existing Waste Unit
Monitored2
Current
Status/Purpose
Proposed Waste Unit
Monitored
Proposed
Status/Purpose Northing Easting
SW-1 Blevin Branch Facility Upstream Facility Upstream DNA DNA
SW-2 Blevin Branch MSWLF Downstream MSWLF Downstream DNA DNA
SW-3 Unnamed Tributary MSWLF Downstream MSWLF Downstream DNA DNA
SW-4 Unnamed Tributary C&D Downstream C&D Downstream DNA DNA
SW-5 Unnamed Tributary MSWLF Downstream MSWLF Downstream DNA DNA
SW-6 Blevin Branch MSWLF and C&D Downstream MSWLF and C&D Downstream DNA DNA
SW-7 Unnamed Tributary Proposed C&D -- Phase 6 Downstream
1 - Information from USGS Topographic Map 7.5 Minute Series, Leicester and Weaverville, NC Quads., 1990 & 1993.
2 - Based on visual observation of Sheet No 1 Groundwater and Methane Monitoring Well Locations by CDM Smith dated August 2014.
DNA - Data Not Available
SW - Surface Water Location
S:\02 AWA Projects\McGill\Buncombe County Landfill\9378-11 BCLF Phase 6 CnD EMP\WQMP\BCLF 9378-11 WQMP Tables.xlsx
Prepared by: AWA
Checked by: MSP

FIGURES
SEDIMENTPOND
GRAVEL
SO
I
L

R
O
A
DS SOIL
RO
AD
S SOIL
ROADS
SOIL
R
O
A
D
S
2

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORDS
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
FIELD BOREHOLE LOG
BOREHOLE NO.:
TOTAL DEPTH:
PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT:
SITE LOCATION:
JOB NO.:
GEOLOGIST:
PROJECT MANAGER:
DATE DRILLED:
DRILLING CO.:
DRILLER:
RIG TYPE:
METHOD OF DRILLING:
SAMPLING METHODS:
HAMMER WT./DROP
Depth Soil
Symbol Soil Description Sample Blows (Recovery)Boring
Completion Well
Description
Page 1 of 1Notes:
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612(919) 787-5620 tel
[phone] fax
Locking Protective
Cover
2" Schedule 40 PVCRiser
Bentonite/Portland
Cement Grout
Bentonite Seal
#2 Sand Filter Pack
2" Schedule 40 0.010"Slotted Screen
FILL: Tan to reddish brown,
silt/sand/clay.
SILTY SAND: Medium sand with silt,
gray to brown, micaceous, trace rock
fragments. Saprolite/PWR.
GNEISS: Fractured Rock -
Undifferentiated Gneiss
Phase 5 Expansion
Buncombe County C&D Landfill
5000-90099
Mat Colone
Mat Colone
6/27/12
Reuben Caldwell Drilling, Inc
Billie Nash
Schramm T450
Air Rotary
Visual inspection
NA
MW-15s
26 ft
Damp cuttings at 23 ft bls. Initially dry after installation. Static water level ~20 ft bls.
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
FIELD BOREHOLE LOG
BOREHOLE NO.:
TOTAL DEPTH:
PROJECT INFORMATION DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT:
SITE LOCATION:
JOB NO.:
GEOLOGIST:
PROJECT MANAGER:
DATE DRILLED:
DRILLING CO.:
DRILLER:
RIG TYPE:
METHOD OF DRILLING:
SAMPLING METHODS:
HAMMER WT./DROP
Depth Soil
Symbol Soil Description Sample Blows (Recovery)Boring
Completion Well
Description
Page 1 of 1Notes:
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612(919) 787-5620 tel
[phone] fax
Locking ProtectiveCover
2" Schedule 40 PVCRiser
Bentonite/Portland
Cement Grout
Bentonite Seal
#2 Sand Filter Pack
2" Schedule 40 0.010"
Slotted Screen
FILL: Tan to reddish brown,
silt/sand/clay.
SILTY SAND: Medium sand with silt,
gray to brown, micaceous, trace rock
fragments. Saprolite/PWR.
GNEISS: Fractured Rock -
Undifferentiated Gneiss
Phase 5 Expansion
Buncombe County C&D Landfill
5000-90099
Mat Colone
Mat Colone
6/27/12
Reuben Caldwell Drilling, Inc
Billie Nash
Schramm T450
Air Rotary
Visual inspection
NA
MW-15d
43 ft
Bedrock @ 25 ft bls. Water bearing fracture @ 38 ft bls.

APPENDIX B

NORTH CAROLINA APPENDIX I AND APPENDIX II CONSTITUENT LISTS
Constituents for Detection Monitoring
(40 CFR 258, Appendix I)
Common name CAS RN
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Barium (Total)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Cobalt (Total)
Copper (Total)
Lead (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Vanadium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
Acetone 67-64-1
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
Benzene 71-43-2
Bromochloromethane 74-97-5
Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4
Bromoform; Tribromomethane 75-25-2
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 75-00-3
Chloroform; Trichloromethane 67-66-3
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlorpropane; DBCP 96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB 106-93-4
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 110-57-6
1,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene chloride 75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethlyene dichloride 107-06-2
1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1-1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene
chloride
75-35-4
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5
1,2-Dichlorpropane; Propylene dichloride 78-87-5
cis-1,3-Dichlorpropene 10061-01-5
trans-1,3-Dichlorpropene 10061-02-6
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4
2-hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 591-78-6
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane 74-83-9
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 74-87-3
Methylene bromide Dibromomethane 74-95-3
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane 75-09-2
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone 78-93-3
Methyl iodide; Iodomethane 74-88-4
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl isobutyl
ketone
108-10-1
Styrene 100-42-5
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5
Tetrachloroethylene; Tetracholorethene;
Perchloroethylene
127-18-4
Toluene 108-88-3
1,1,1-Trochlorethane; Methylchloroform 71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5
Trichloroethylene; Trichlorethene 79-01-6
Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-11 75-69-4
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4
Vinyl acetate 108-05-4
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4
Xylenes 1330-20-7
Common Name CAS RN
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Acenaphthylene 208-96-8
Acetone 67-64-1
Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide 75-05-8
Acetophenone 98-86-2
2-Acetylaminofluorene; 2-AAF 53-96-3
Acrolein 107-02-8
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
Aldrin 309-00-2
Allyl chloride 107-05-1
4-Aminobiphenyl 92-67-1
Anthracene 120-12-7
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Barium (Total)
Benzene 71-43-2
Benzo[a]anthracene; Benzanthracene 56-55-3
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205-99-2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 207-08-9
Benzo[ghi]perylene 191-24-2
Benzo[a]pyrene 50-32-8
Benyl alcohol 100-51-5
Beryllium (Total)
alpha-BHC 319-84-6
beta-BHC 319-85-7
delta-BHC 319-86-8
gamma-BHC; Lindane 58-89-9
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether; Dichloroethyl ether 111-44-4
Bis-(2-chlor-1-methyl) ether; 2, 2-Dichloro-
diisopropyl ether; DCIP, See note 6
108-60-1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7
Bromochloromethane; Chlorobromomethane 74-97-5
Bromodichloromethane; Dibromochloromethane 75-27-4
Bromoform; Tribromomethane 75-25-2
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3
Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate 85-68-7
Cadmium (Total)
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5
Chlordane See NOTE 1
p-Chloroaniline 106-47-8
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6
p-Chloro-m-cresol; 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7
Constituents for Assessment Monitoring
(40 CFR 258, Appendix II)
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 75-00-3
Chloroform; Trichloromethane 67-66-3
2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7
2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005-72-3
Chloroprene 126-99-8
Chromium (Total)
Chrysene 218-01-9
Cobalt 218-01-9
Copper (Total)
m-Cresol; 3-methylphenol 108-39-4
o-Cresol; 2-methlphenol 95-48-7
p-Cresol; 4-methylphenol 106-44-5
Cyanide 57-12-5
2,4-D; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 94-75-7
4,4-DDD 72-54-8
4,4-DDE 72-55-9
4,4-DDT 50-29-3
Diallate 2303-16-4
aDibenz[a,h]anthracene 53-70-3
Dibenzofuran 132-64-9
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1
1,2-Dibromo-30chloropropane; DBCP 96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB 106-93-4
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
m-Dichlorobenzene; 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1
p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 110-57-6
Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12;75-71-8
1,1-Dichloroethane chloride 75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride 107-06-2
1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethane;
Vinylidene
75-35-4
chloride (Total)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5
2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2
2,6-Dichlorophenol 87-65-0
1,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride 78-87-5
1,3-Dichloropropane; Trimethylene dichloride 142-28-9
2,2-Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene chloride 594-20-7
1,1-Dichloropropene 563-58-6
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6
Dieldrin 60-57-1
Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2
0,0-Diethyl 0-2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate;
thionazin
297-97-2
Dimethoate 60-51-5
p-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene 60-11-7
7,12-Dimethylbenxz[a]anthracene 57-97-6
3,3-Dimethylbenzidine 119-93-7
2,4-Dimethlphenol; m-Xylenol 105-67-9
Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3
m-Dinitrobenzene 99-65-0
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2
Dinoseb; DNBP; 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 88-85-7
Di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0
Diphenylamine 122-39-4
Disulfoton 298-04-4
Endosulfan I 959-98-8
Endosulfan II 33213-65-9
Endodulfan sulfate 1031-07-8
Endrin 72-20-8
Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4
Ethyl methacrylate 97-63-2
Ethyl methanesulfonate 62-50-0
Famphur 52-85-7
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
Fluorene 86-73-7
Heptachlor 76-44-8
Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1
Hexachloropropene 188-71-7
2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 591-78-6
Indenol(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5
Isopbutyl alcohol 78-83-1
Isodrin 465-73-6
Isophorone 78-59-1
Isosafrole 120-58-1
Kepone 143-50-0
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Methacrylonitrile 126-98-7
Methapyrilene 91-80-5
Methoxychlor 72-43-5
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane 74-83-9
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 74-87-3
3-Methylcholanthrene 56-49-5
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone 78-93-3
Methyl iodide; lodomethane 74-88-4
Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6
Methyl methanesulfonate 66-27-3
2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6
Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl 298-00-0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1
Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane 74-95-3
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane 75-09-2
Naphthalene 91-20-3
1,4-Naphthoquinone 130-15-4
1-Naphthylamine 134-32-7
2-Naphthylamine 91-59-8
Nickel (Total)
o-Nitroaniline; 2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4
m-Nitroaniline; 3-Nitroanile 99-09-2
p-Nitroaniline; 4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6
Nitrobenzene 98-95-3
o-Nitrophenol; 2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5
p-Nitrophenol; 4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 924-16-3
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-Nitroso-N-Di-n-
propylnitrosamine
86-30-6
N-Nitrosodipropylamine; dipropylamine; 621-64-7
N-Nitrosomethylethalamine 10595-95-6
N-Nitrosopiperidine 100-75-4
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2
5-Nitro-o-toluidine 99-55-8
Parathion 56-38-2
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5
Pentachloronitrobenzene 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5
Phenacetin 62-44-2
Phenanthrene 85-01-8
Phenol 108-95-2
p-Phenylenediamine 106-50-3
Phorate 298-02-2
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); Aroclors see NOTE 2
Pronamide 23950-58-5
Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide 107-12-0
Pyrene 129-00-0
Safrole 94-59-7
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Silvex; 2,4,5-TP 93-72-1
Styrene 100-42-5
Sulfide 18496-25-8
2,4,5-T; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 93-76-5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5
Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene;
Perchloroethylene
127-18-4
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 58-90-2
Thallium (Total)
Tin (Total)
Toluene 108-88-3
o-Toluidine 95-53-4
Toxaphene See NOTE 3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform 71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5
Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene 79-01-6
Trichlorrofluoromethane; CFC-11 75-69-4
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4
0,0,0-Triethyl phosphorothioate 126-68-1
sym-Trinitrobenzene 99-35-4
Vanadium (Total)
Vinyl acetate 108-05-4
Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene 75-01-4
Xylene (total)See NOTE 4
Zinc (Total)
1. Chlordane: This entry includes alpha-chlordane (CAS RN 5103-71-9), beta-chlordane
(CAS RN 5103-74-2), gamma-chlordane (CAS RN 5566-34-7), and constituents of chlordane
(CAS RN 57-74-9 and CAS RN 12789-03-6)
2. Polychlorinated biphenyls (CAS RN 1336-36-3); this category contains congener chemicals, including
constituents of Aroclor-1016 (CAS RN 12674-11-2), Aroclor-1221 (CAS RN 11104-28-2),
Aroclor-1232 (CAS RN 11141-16-5), Aroclor-1242 (CAS RN 53469-21-9), Aroclor-1248
(CAS RN 12672-29-6), Aroclor-1254 (CAS RN 11097-69-1), and Aroclor-1260
(CAS RN 11096-82-5)
3. Toxaphene: This entry includes congener chemicals contained in technical toxaphene
(CAS RN 8001-35-2), ie, chlorinated camphene
4. Xylene (total): This entry includes o-xylene (CAS RN 96-47-6), m- xylene (CAS RN 108-38-3),
p-xylene (CAS RN 106-42-3), and unspecified xylenes (dimethylbenzenes) (CAS RN 1330-20-7)
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled \ 10 % Post Consumer Paper
June 25, 2010
MEMORANDUM
To: Solid Waste Directors, Landfill Owners/Operators, and North Carolina Certified
Laboratories
From: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: Tetrahydrofuran Analysis at Construction and Demolition Landfills
Based upon historical sampling results, health and environmental concerns, and an ongoing EPA evaluation of tetrahydrofuran (THF), the Solid Waste Section (Section) is requiring, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .0601, that Construction and Demolition Landfills (CDLFs)
begin analyzing ground and surface water samples collected after January 1, 2011 for THF. The
purpose of this memorandum is to inform CDLF owners and operators and laboratories that are
involved in the collection or analysis of environmental samples of this requirement.
Although the North Carolina Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch previously
established a health based standard for THF, there are currently no established
Maximum Contaminant Levels or 15A NCAC 02L .0202 Standards due to the lack
of historical toxicological data necessary to promulgate regulatory standards. However, THF analysis is currently required at CDLFs located in several states throughout the U.S. and
has been shown to be a constituent of concern in groundwater at CDLFs for several years. In
addition, THF has been documented as a contaminant associated with CDLF leachate.
Due to the potential health hazards associated with THF and its documented presence at CDLFs, the Section has determined that CDLFs should begin analyzing ground and surface water
samples for THF to ensure protection of human health and the environment. Although
regulatory standards have not yet been established for THF, its presence in groundwater must be
determined in order to accurately assess the risks at each CDLF and determine if regulatory
standards need to be established. The Section will reevaluate monitoring requirements for THF in the future after enough data has been collected to determine the extent of THF at C&D
facilities.
Laboratories are advised to contact the Division of Water Quality-Laboratory Section-
Certification Branch prior to initiating THF analysis using Method 8260.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-
8500) or Ervin Lane (919-508-8516). Thank you for your continued cooperation with this
matter.

APPENDIX C

NCDEQ MEMORANDA AND REPORTING LIMITS AND STANDARDS

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
October 27, 2006

To: SW Director/County Manager/Consultant/Laboratory

From: NC DENR-DWM, Solid Waste Section

Re: New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data

The Solid Waste Section receives and reviews a wide variety of environmental monitoring data from permitted
solid waste management facilities, including the results from groundwater and surface water analyses, leachate
samples, methane gas readings, potentiometric measurements, and corrective action data. We are in the process
of developing a database to capture the large volume of data submitted by facilities.

To maintain the integrity of the database, it is critical that facilities, consultants, and laboratories work with the
Solid Waste Section to ensure that environmental samples are collected and analyzed properly with the resulting
data transferred to the Solid Waste Section in an accurate manner.

In order to better serve the public and to expedite our review process, the Solid Waste Section is requesting
specific formatting for environmental monitoring data submittals for all solid waste management facilities.

Effective, December 1, 2006, please submit a Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Data Form in
addition to your environmental monitoring data report. This form will be sent in lieu of your current cover
letter to the Solid Waste Section. The Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Data Form must be filled out
completely, signed, and stamped with a Board Certified North Carolina Geologist License Seal.

The solid waste environmental monitoring data form will include the following:
1. Contact Information
2. Facility Name
3. Facility Permit Number
4. Facility Address
5. Monitoring Event Date (MM/DD/YYYY)
6. Water Quality Status: Monitoring, Detection Monitoring, or Assessment Monitoring
7. Type of Data Submitted: Groundwater Monitoring Wells, Groundwater Potable Wells, Leachate,
Methane Gas, or Corrective Action Data
8. Notification of Exceedance of Groundwater, Surface Water, or Methane Gas (in table form)
9. Signature
10. North Carolina Geologist Seal
Page 2 of 2

Most of these criteria are already being included or can be added with little effort. The Solid Waste
Environmental Monitoring Data Form can be downloaded from our website:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp.

The Solid Waste Section is also requesting a new format for monitoring wells, potable wells, surface water
sampling locations, and methane probes. This format is essential in the development and maintenance of the
database. The Solid Waste Section is requesting that each sampling location at all North Carolina solid waste
management facilities have its own unique identification number. We are simply asking for the permit number
to be placed directly in front of the sampling location number (example: 9901-MW1 = Permit Number 99-01
and Monitoring Well MW-1). No changes will need to be made to the well tags, etc. This unique identification
system will enable us to accurately report data not only to NCDENR, but to the public as well. We understand
that this new identification system will take some time to implement, but we feel that this will be beneficial to
everyone involved in the long term.

Additionally, effective December 1, 2006, the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) established in 1994
will change. The Solid Waste Section is requiring that all solid waste management facilities use the new Solid
Waste Reporting Limits (SWRL) for all groundwater analyses by a North Carolina Certified Laboratory.
Laboratories must also report any detection of a constituent even it is detected below the new SWRL (e.g., J
values where the constituent was detected above the detection limit, but below the quantitation limit).

PQLs are technology-based analytical levels that are considered achievable using the referenced analytical
method. The PQL is considered the lowest concentration of a contaminant that the lab can accurately detect and
quantify. PQLs provided consistency and available numbers that were achievable by the given analytical
method. However, PQLs are not health-based, and analytical instruments have improved over the years
resulting in lower achievable PQLs for many of the constituents. As a result, the Solid Waste Section has
established the SWRLs as the new reporting limits eliminating the use of the PQLs.

We would also like to take this opportunity to encourage electronic submittal of the reports. This option is
intended to save resources for both the public and private sectors. The Solid Waste Section will accept the
entire report including narrative text, figures, tables, and maps on CD-ROM. The CD-ROM submittal shall
contain a CD-ROM case and both CD-ROM and the case shall be labeled with the site name, site address,
permit number, and the monitoring event date (MM/DD/YYYY). The files may be a .pdf, .txt, .csv, .xls, or .doc
type. Also, analytical lab data should be reported in an .xls file. We have a template for analytical lab data
available on the web at the address listed above.

If you have any questions or concerns, please call [phone]. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation
in this matter.

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
1

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
February 23, 2007
EMORANDUM

M
o: Solid Waste Directors, Landfill Operators, North Carolina Certified Laboratories, and Consultants
rom: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: ste Section Memorandum Regarding New
Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data.

arolina Solid Waste Section memo titled, “New Guidelines for Electronic Submittal of Environmental Data.”
adily available laboratory analytical methodology and current health-based groundwater protection standards.
efinitions

T

F

Addendum to October 27, 2006, North Carolina Solid Wa

The purpose of this addendum memorandum is to provide further clarification to the October 27, 2006, North
C

The updated guidelines is in large part due to questions and concerns from laboratories, consultants, and the
regulated community regarding the detection of constituents in groundwater at levels below the previous
practical quantitation limits (PQLs). The North Carolina Solid Waste Section solicited feedback from the
regulated community, and, in conjunction with the regulated community, developed new limits. The primary
purpose of these changes was to improve the protection of public health and the environment. The North
Carolina Solid Waste Section is concerned about analytical data at these low levels because the earliest possible
detection of toxic or potentially carcinogenic chemicals in the environment is paramount in the North Carolina
Solid Waste Section’s mission to protect human health and the environment. Low level analytical data are
critical for making the correct choices when designing site remediation strategies, alerting the public to health
threats, and protecting the environment from toxic contaminants. The revised limits were updated based on
re

D
s are also an attempt to clarify the meaning of these
rms as used by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section.
e that can be measured and
ported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero.
is the minimum concentration of a
target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced method.

Many definitions relating to detection limits and quantitation limits are used in the literature and by government
agencies, and commonly accepted procedures for calculating these limits exist. Except for the Solid Waste
Section Limit and the North Carolina 2L Standards, the definitions listed below are referenced from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The definition
te

Method Detection Limit (MDL) is the minimum concentration of a substanc
re

Method Reporting Limit or Method Quantitation Limit (MRL or MQL)

Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) is a quantitation limit that represents a practical and routinely achievable
quantitation limit with a high degree of certainty (>99.9% confidence) in the results. Per EPA Publication
Number SW-846, the PQL is the lowest concentration that can be reliably measured within specified limits of
precision and accuracy for a specific laboratory analytical method during routine laboratory operating
conditions in accordance with "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods. The
PQL appears in

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
2
older NCDENR literature; however, it is no longer being used by the North Carolina Solid
aste Section.
n. The nomenclature of the SWRL described in the October
7, 2006, memorandum has changed to the SWSL.
C 2L .0200, Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the
roundwaters of North Carolina.
ethod Detection Limits (MDLs)
W

Solid Waste Section Limit (SWSL) is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with suitable precision and accuracy. The SWSL is the concentration below which reported
analytical results must be qualified as estimated. The SWSL is the updated version of the PQL that appears in
older North Carolina Solid Waste Section literature. The SWSL is the limit established by the laboratory survey
conducted by the North Carolina Solid Waste Sectio
2

North Carolina 2L Standards (2L) are water quality standards for the protection of groundwaters of North
Carolina as specified in 15A NCA
G

M
he North Carolina Solid Waste Section is now
quiring laboratories to report to the method detection limit.
atories generally report the highest method detection limit for all the instruments
sed for a specific method.
ata below unspecified or non-statistical reporting limits severely biases data sets and restricts their usefulness.
olid Waste Section Limits (SWSLs)

Clarification of detection limits referenced in the October 27, 2006, memorandum needed to be addressed
because of concerns raised by the regulated community. T
re

Method detection limits are statistically determined values that define the concentration at which measurements
of a substance by a specific analytical protocol can be distinguished from measurements of a blank (background
noise). Method detection limits are matrix-specific and require a well defined analytical method. In the course
of routine operations, labor
u

In many instances, the North Carolina Solid Waste Section gathers data from many sources prior to evaluating
the data or making a compliance decision. Standardization in data reporting significantly enhances the ability to
interpret and review data because the reporting formats are comparable. Reporting a method detection limit
alerts data users of the known uncertainties and limitations associated with using the data. Data users must
understand these limitations in order to minimize the risk of making poor environmental decisions. Censoring
d

S
nd surface water data reported to the North Carolina Solid Waste
ection. The PQLs will no longer be used.

Due to comments from the regulated community, the North Carolina Solid Waste Section has changed the
nomenclature of the new limits referenced on Page 2 of the October 27, 2006, memorandum, from the North
Carolina Solid Waste Reporting Limits (SWRL) to the Solid Waste Section Limits (SWSL). Data must be
reported to the laboratory specific method detection limits and must be quantifiable at or below the SWSL. The
SWSLs must be used for both groundwater a
S

The North Carolina Solid Waste Section has considered further feedback from laboratories and the regulated
community and ha

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
3
s made some additional changes to the values of the SWSLs. These changes may be viewed
ttp://www.wastenotnc.org/sw/swenvmonitoringlist.asp
nalytical Data Reporting Requirements
on our webpage:
h

A
al
boratory method detection limit with all analytical laboratory results along with the following requirements:
oncentration, compliance action may not be taken unless it is statistically significant
crease over background.
hese analytical results may require additional confirmation.
he possibility that a constituent concentration may exceed the North Carolina 2L Standards in the
ture.
hese analytical results may be used for compliance without further confirmation.
will be returned and deemed unacceptable. Submittal of unacceptable data may lead to

lectronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Submittal

The strategy for implementing the new analytical data reporting requirements involves reporting the actu
la

1) Any analyte detected at a concentration greater than the MDL but less than the SWSL is known to be present,
but the uncertainty in the value is higher than a value reported above the SWSL. As a result, the actual
concentration is estimated. The estimated concentration is reported along with a qualifier (“J” flag) to alert data
users that the result is between the MDL and the SWSL. Any analytical data below quantifiable levels should
be examined closely to evaluate whether the analytical data should be included in any statistical analysis. A
statistician should make this determination. If an analyte is detected below the North Carolina 2L Standards,
even if it is a quantifiable c
in

T

2) Any analyte detected at a concentration greater than the SWSL is present, and the quantitated value can be
reported with a high degree of confidence. These analytes are reported without estimated qualification. The
laboratory’s MDL and SWSL must be included in the analytical laboratory report. Any reported concentration
of an organic or inorganic constituent at or above the North Carolina 2L Standards will be used for compliance
purposes, unless the inorganic constituent is not statistically significant). Exceedance of the North Carolina 2L
Standards or a statistically significant increase over background concentrations define when a violation has
occurred. Any reported concentration of an organic or inorganic constituent at or above the SWSL that is not
above an North Carolina 2L Standard will be used as a tool to assess the integrity of the landfill system and
predict t
fu

T

Failure to comply with the requirements described in the October 27, 2006, memorandum and this addendum to
the October 27, 2006, memorandum will constitute a violation of 15A NCAC 13B .0601, .0602, or .1632(b),
and the analytical data
enforcement action.

E
he analytical laboratory data. This option is intended to save resources
r both the public and private sectors.

The North Carolina Solid Waste Section would also like to take this opportunity to encourage electronic
submittal of the reports in addition to t
fo

The North Carolina Solid Waste Section will accept the entire report including narrative text, figures, tables,
and maps on CD-ROM. Please separate the figures and tables from the report when saving in order to keep the

size of the files smaller. The CD-ROM submittal shall contain a CD-ROM case and both CD

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
4
-ROM and the
ase shall be labeled with the site name, site address, permit number, and the monitoring event date
ab data and field data. This template is available on our webpage:
ttp://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp. Methane monitoring data may also be submitted
ry or exceeds 25% of the LEL
facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery system components), include the exceedance(s) on the
you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-8500) or Ervin
Thank you for your continued cooperation with this matter.

c
(MM/DD/YYYY). The reporting files may be submitted as a .pdf, .txt, .csv, .xls,. or .doc type.

Also, analytical lab data and field data should be reported in .xls files. The North Carolina Solid Waste Section
has a template for analytical l
h
electronically in this format.

Pursuant to the October 27, 2006, memorandum, please remember to submit a Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form in addition to your environmental monitoring data report. This
form should be sealed by a geologist or engineer licensed in North Carolina if hydrogeologic or geologic
calculations, maps, or interpretations are included with the report. Otherwise, any representative that the
facility owner chooses may sign and submit the form. Also, if the concentration of methane generated by the
facility exceeds 100% of the lower explosive limits (LEL) at the property bounda
in
North Carolina Solid Waste Section Environmental Monitoring Reporting Form.

If
Lane (919-508-8520).

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
1

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

October 16, 2007
EMORANDUM
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Wa e Management st Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

M
To: Operators, North Carolina Certified
Laboratories, and Consultants
rom: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section
Re: ring Data for North Carolina Solid Waste
Management Facilities
and provide a reminder of formats for environmental monitoring data
bmittals.
ese changes was to improve the protection of public health and the
nvironment.
reported to the North Carolina Solid Waste Section. The PQLs will no
nger be used.
ted can be directed to the North Carolina Department of Health
nd Human Services.

Solid Waste Directors, Landfill

F

Environmental Monito

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a reiteration of the use of the Solid Waste
Section Limits (SWSLs), provide new information on the Groundwater Protection
Standards,
su

The updated guidelines are in large part due to questions and concerns from laboratories,
consultants, and the regulated community regarding the detection of constituents in
groundwater at levels below the previous Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs). The
North Carolina Solid Waste Section solicited feedback from the regulated community,
and, in conjunction with the regulated community, developed new limits. The primary
purpose of th
e

Data must be reported to the laboratory specific method detection limits and must be
quantifiable at or below the SWSLs. The SWSLs must be used for both groundwater and
surface water data
lo

In June 2007, we received new information regarding changes to the Groundwater
Protection Standards. If a North Carolina 2L Groundwater Standard does not exist, then
a designated Groundwater Protection Standard is used pursuant to 15A NCAC 13B
.1634. Toxicologists with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
calculated these new Groundwater Protection Standards. Questions regarding how the
standards were calcula
a

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer – Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
2
every year or sooner if new scientific and toxicological data become available.
lease review our website periodically for any changes to the 2L NC Standards,
ic updates will be noted on our
ebsite.
wastenotnc.org/sw/swenvmonitoringlist.asp

We have reviewed the new results from the North Carolina Department of Public Health
and have updated our webpage accordingly. The list of Groundwater Protection
Standards, North Carolina 2L Standards and SWSLs are subject to change and will be
reviewed
P
Groundwater Protection Standards, or SWSLs. Specif
w

http://www.

ental monitoring data

In addition, the following should be included with environm
submittals:
1. Environmental Monitoring Data Form as a cover sheet:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/NCEnvMonRptForm.pdf
2. Copy of original laboratory results.
3. Table of detections and discussion of 2L exceedances.
4. Electronic files on CD or sent by email. These files should include the written report as
Portable Document Format (PDF) file and the laboratory data as an excel file following a
the format of the updated Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) template on our website:
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Donald Herndon (919-
08-8502), Ervin Lane (919-508-8520) or Jaclynne Drummond (919-508-8500).
Thank you for your continued cooperation with these matters.

5

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2090 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-82111 Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
1
November 5, 2014

MEMORANDUM
To: Solid Waste Directors, Public Works Directors, Landfill Operators, and Landfill Owners

From: Solid Waste Section

Re: Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil, Sediment, and Landfill Gas Electronic Document Submittal The Solid Waste Section is continuing its efforts to improve efficiencies in document management. All
groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, and landfill gas documents submitted to the Solid Waste Section are
stored electronically and are made readily available for the public to view on our webpage. Please remember that
hard copies/paper copies are not required, and should not be submitted. The submittal of these electronic
documents following a consistent electronic document protocol will also assist us in our review. Please follow these procedures when submitting all groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, and landfill gas documents to the Solid Waste Section. Submittal Method and Formatting
 All files must be in portable document format (pdf) except for Electronic Data Deliverables (EDDs) unless otherwise specified by the Solid Waste Section. All pdf files should meet these requirements:
o Optical Characteristic Recognition (OCR) applied;
o Minimum of 300 dpi;
o Free of password protections and/or encryptions (applies to EDDs as well);
o Optimized to reduce file size; and
o Please begin using the following naming convention when submitting all electronic files: Permit Number (00-00)_Date of Document (YYYYMMDD). For example: 00-00_20140101.
 Please submit all files via email or by file transfer protocol (FTP) via email to the appropriate Hydrogeologist unless otherwise specified by the Solid Waste Section. If the electronic file is greater
than 20 MB, please submit the file via FTP or on a CD. If submitting a CD, please mail the CD to the
appropriate Hydrogeologist. The CD should be labeled with the facility name, permit number, county,
name of document, date of monitoring event (if applicable), and the date of document.
 Please be sure a signed Environmental Monitoring Data Form is submitted as part of the electronic file for
all water quality and landfill gas documents (monitoring, alternate source demonstration, assessment,
investigation, corrective action). This completed form should be the first page of the document before the
cover/title page and should not be submitted as an individual file. Blank forms can be downloaded at
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/NCEnvMonRptForm.pdf

Monitoring Data
Monitoring data documents may include any or all of the following: 1) groundwater and surface water monitoring; 2) soil and sediment, and 3) landfill gas monitoring. In addition to the above procedures, at a minimum, please include the following: Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
 A copy of the laboratory report(s).
 A copy of the sampling log(s).
 A separate table of detections and exceedances for each monitoring location.

1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 2090 US Highway 70, Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778-82111 Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
2
o All analytical results should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L) except for field
parameters and specific Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) parameters.
o Please also include the laboratory’s method detection limit (MDL) in ug/L, the Solid Waste
Section Limit (SWSL) in ug/L, the appropriate NC regulatory standard in ug/L (2L, 2B, GWPS, IMAC), and the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in ug/L.
o Please BOLD each exceedance result.
 A separate table of field parameters for each monitoring location.
 An Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) spreadsheet for each monitoring event submitted in the correct
format. All analytical results should be reported in micrograms per liter (ug/L) except for field parameters and specific Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) parameters. The blank EDD template can be downloaded at http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp. Please pay attention to the formats within the spreadsheet. Any EDD received that is not formatted correctly will be emailed back to be resubmitted via email within five (5) days.
 A separate groundwater monitoring well construction table.
o Please also include the date the well was drilled, well diameter, total well depth, depth to top of screened interval (in feet), screened interval (in feet), geology of screened interval, TOC elevation, ground elevation, groundwater elevation, GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude), and depth to water (in feet).
 A separate groundwater table with groundwater flow rate(s).
 A recent facility figure that includes labeled groundwater and surface water monitoring locations.
 A groundwater flow map with an arrow(s) indicating flow direction(s), including date the
measurements were taken.

Soil and Sediment Sampling
 A copy of the laboratory report(s).
 A copy of the sampling log(s).
 A separate table of detections and exceedances for each sampling location.
o Please also include the results in micrograms per liter (ug/L), the laboratory’s method
detection limit (MDL) in ug/L, and the appropriate NC regulatory standard (PSRG) in ug/L.
o Please BOLD each exceedance result.
 A separate table of soil and/or sediment characteristics.
 A recent facility figure that includes labeled sampling locations.
Landfill Gas Monitoring
 A blank Landfill Gas Monitoring Data Form can be found within the Landfill Gas Monitoring
Guidance document and can be downloaded at
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=da699f7e-8c13-4249-9012-
16af8aefdc7b&groupId=38361.
 A separate table of landfill gas detections and exceedances for each monitoring location. Please
BOLD each exceedance result.
 A recent facility figure that includes labeled landfill gas monitoring locations (both permanent and temporary).

If you have any questions or concerns regarding electronic submittals, please feel free to contact the
Hydrogeologist overseeing your facility. The Solid Waste Section greatly appreciates your assistance on this matter. Working together, we can continue to provide excellent customer service to you and to the
public.
 Jackie Drummond, Asheville Regional Office, 828-296-4706, [e-mail]
 Ervin Lane, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8288, [e-mail]
 Elizabeth Werner, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8253, [e-mail]
 Christine Ritter, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8254, [e-mail]
 Perry Sugg, Raleigh Central Office, 919-707-8258, [e-mail]

PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary

MICHAEL SCOTT
Director
State of North Carolina | Environmental Quality | Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center | 217 West Jones Street | Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
919 707 8200 T

September 9, 2016

UMEMORANDUM

To: Solid Waste Directors, Public Works Directors, Landfill Operators, and
Landfill Owners

From: The Solid Waste Section

Reference: Guidelines for 14-Day Notification of Groundwater Exceedances Form
Submittal per rule: 15A NCAC 13B .1633(c)(1)

• The 14-day notification form should be submitted whenever a groundwater
protection standard (GWPS) is exceeded for the first time.
o As defined in 13B .1634(g)(h), a GWPS will be either of the following: the 2L
standard (most cases); 2L Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration; a
groundwater protection standard calculated by the SWS; or a site-specific
statistical background level approved by the SWS.

• If a facility is undergoing assessment or corrective action, the 14-day notification
form should be submitted UONLYU when the constituent with the reported
exceedance is not being addressed through assessment or corrective action.

• If a facility plans to conduct a re-sampling event to confirm the initial
exceedance, the 14-day notification form should be submitted UONLYU when the
re-sampling event analytical data confirms the initial exceedance.

Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance*YESIs Facility Currently in Assessment or Corrective Action?NoIs Assessment or CA addressing the Constituent w/ current exceedance value(s)? No 14‐Day Notification STOPWill  verification resampling & Analysis be conducted?Does Verification Sampling Confirm GWPS  Exceedance(s)?Submit 14‐Day Notification Form to SWSNCDWM Solid Waste Section 14‐Day Notification of GWPS Exceedances Flowchart    [per Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1633(c)(1)]Proceed with Alternative Source Demonstration (ASD) or AssessmentAugust 2016NOTE:*GWPS = see Rule 15A NCAC 13B .1634(g)(h)NoNoYESNo 14‐Day Notification STOPYESNoYESYESNo
NC DEQ
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste 14-Day Notification of Groundwater
Protection Standard Exceedance(s)
Notice: This form and any information attached to it are "Public Records" as defined in NC General Statute 132-1. As such, these documents are
available for inspection and examination by any person upon request (NC General Statute 132-6).
Instructions:
• Prepare one form for each individually monitored unit.
• Please type or print legibly.
• Attach a notification table with values that attain or exceed applicable groundwater protection standards.
• Send the original signed and sealed form, any tables, and Electronic Data Deliverable to: Compliance Unit, NCDEQ-DWM, Solid Waste
Section, 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646.
Solid Waste Monitoring Data Submittal Information
Name of entity submitting data (laboratory, consultant, facility owner):
Contact for questions about data formatting. Include data preparer's name, telephone number and E-mail address:
Name: Phone:
E-mail:
Facility name: Facility Address: Facility Permit #
Actual sampling dates (e.g.,
October 20-24, 2006)
Environmental Status: (Check all that apply)
Initial/Background Monitoring Detection Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action
Additional Information:
A notification of values exceeding a groundwater protection standard as defined in 15A NCAC 13B .1634(g)(h) is attached. It includes a list of
groundwater monitoring points, dates, analytical values, NC 2L groundwater standard, NC Solid Waste GWPS and preliminary analysis of the
cause and significance of any concentration.
A re-sampling event was conducted to confirm the exceedances.
Certification
To the best of my knowledge, the information reported and statements made on this data submittal and attachments are true and correct.
Furthermore, I have attached complete notification of any sampling values meeting or exceeding groundwater standards or explosive gas
levels, and a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of concentrations exceeding groundwater standards. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for making any false statement, representation, or certification including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.
Facility Representative Name (Print) Title (Area Code) Telephone Number
Signature
Affix NC Licensed/Professional Geologist or Professional
Engineer Seal
Revised 6/2016
Date
Facility Representative Address
NC PG/PE Firm License Number (if applicable effective May 1, 2009)
Alternate Source Demonstration(s) have been approved for the following constituents with report date:
per rule: 15A NCAC 13B .1633(c)(1)
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 1/11
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Waste Management ‐ Constituent List
Sections and Programs » Solid Waste Section » Environmental Monitoring » List
Solid Waste Environmental Monitoring Reporting Limits and Stand ards
All units are in (ug/L) unless noted.
NE = Not Established
CAS numbers that begin with "SW" are not real CAS numbers, instead this represents the Solid Waste Section's ID
number.
CAS Number Name Other Names 2L Std. GWP* Std. SWSL** SW ID App I
630‐20‐6 1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane Ethane, 1,1,1,2‐tetrachloro‐NE 1 5 190 I
71‐55‐6 1,1,1‐Trichloroethane;Ethane, 1,1,1‐trichloro‐200 ‐‐1 200 I
79‐34‐5 1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane Ethane, 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloro‐0.2 0.18 3 191 I
79‐00‐5 1,1,2‐Trichloroethane Ethane, 1,1,2‐trichloro‐NE 0.6 1 202 I
76‐13‐1 1,1,2‐Trichlorotrifluoroethane CFC‐113 200000 NE NE 398  
92‐52‐4 1,1‐biphenyl 1,1‐biphenyl 400 ‐‐10 421  
75‐34‐3 1,1‐Dichloroethane; Ethyldidene Ethane, 1,1‐dichloro‐6 ‐‐5 75 I
75‐35‐4 1,1‐Dichloroethylene; 1,1‐Ethene, 1,1‐dichloro‐7 ‐‐5 77 I
563‐58‐6 1,1‐Dichloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,1‐dichloro‐NE NE 5 85  
96‐18‐4 1,2,3‐Trichloropropane Propane, 1,2,3‐trichloro‐0.005 ‐‐1 206 I
95‐94‐3 1,2,4,5‐Tetrachlorobenzene Benzene, 1,2,4,5‐tetrachloro‐NE 2 10 189  
120‐82‐1 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene Benzene, 1,2,4‐trichloro‐70 70 10 199  
95‐63‐6 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene Pseudocumene 400 NE NE 372  
226‐36‐8 1,2,5,6‐Dibenzacridine  NE NE NE 385  
96‐12‐8 1,2‐Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane; DBCP Propane, 1,2‐dibromo‐3‐chloro‐0.04 ‐‐13 67 I
106‐93‐4 1,2‐Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; Ethane, 1,2‐dibromo‐0.02 ‐‐1 68 I
107‐06‐2 1,2‐Dichloroethane; Ethylene Ethane, 1,2‐dichloro‐0.4 ‐‐1 76 I
540‐59‐0 1,2‐Dichloroethylene mixed isomers Mixed Isomers NE 60 NE 481  
78‐87‐5 1,2‐Dichloropropane Propane, 1,2‐dichloro‐0.6 ‐‐1 82 I
122‐66‐7 1,2‐Diphenylhydrazine  NE NE NE 394  
108‐67‐8 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene)Mesitylene 400 NE NE 373  
142‐28‐9 1,3‐Dichloropropane; Trimethylene Propane, 1,3‐dichloro‐NE NE 1 83  
106‐37‐6 1,4‐Dibromobenzene p‐Dibromobenzene, p‐Bromobenzene   70   471  
123‐91‐1 1,4‐dioxane 1,4‐dioxane 3 ‐‐10 422  
130‐15‐4 1,4‐Naphthoquinone 1,4‐Naphthalenedione NE NE 10 149  
87‐61‐6 1‐2‐3‐Trichlorobenzene  NE NE NE 371  
90‐12‐0 1‐Methylnaphthalene α‐methylnaphthalene NE 1 NE 503  
134‐32‐7 1‐Naphthylamine 1‐Naphthalenamine NE NE 10 150  
120‐36‐5 2‐(2‐4‐dichlorophenoxy)propionic  NE NE NE 352  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 2/11
594‐20‐7 2,2‐Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene Propane, 2,2‐dichloro‐NE NE 15 84  
58‐90‐2 2,3,4,6‐Tetrachlorophenol Phenol, 2,3,4,6‐tetrachloro‐200 ‐‐10 193  
93‐76‐5 2,4,5‐T; 2,4,5‐Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acetic acid, (2,4,5‐trichlorophenoxy)‐NE NE 2 188  
93‐72‐1 2,4,5‐TP Acid Silvex 50 NE NE 452  
95‐95‐4 2,4,5‐Trichlorophenol Phenol, 2,4,5‐trichloro‐NE 63 10 204  
88‐06‐2 2,4,6‐Trichlorophenol Phenol, 2,4,6‐trichloro‐NE 4 10 205  
94‐75‐7 2,4‐D; 2,4‐Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acetic acid, (2,4‐dichlorophenoxy)‐70 ‐‐2 59  
120‐83‐2 2,4‐Dichlorophenol Phenol, 2,4‐dichloro‐NE 0.98 10 80  
105‐67‐9 2,4‐Dimethylphenol; m‐Xylenol Phenol, 2,4‐dimethyl‐100 ‐‐10 95  
51‐28‐5 2,4‐Dinitrophenol Phenol, 2,4‐dinitro‐NE NE 50 99  
121‐14‐2 2,4‐Dinitrotoluene Benzene, 1‐methyl‐2,4‐dinitro‐NE 0.1 10 100  
87‐65‐0 2,6‐Dichlorophenol Phenol, 2,6‐dichloro‐NE NE 10 81  
606‐20‐2 2,6‐Dinitrotoluene Benzene, 2‐methyl‐1,3‐dinitro‐NE NE 10 101  
94‐82‐6 2‐4 DB  NE NE NE 350  
53‐96‐3 2‐Acetylaminofluorene; 2‐AAF Acetamide, N‐9H‐fluoren‐2‐yl‐NE NE 20 6  
110‐75‐8 2‐Chloroethylvinyl ether  NE NE NE 358  
91‐58‐7 2‐Chloronaphthalene Naphthalene, 2‐chloro‐NE NE 10 47  
95‐57‐8 2‐Chlorophenol Phenol, 2‐chloro‐0.4 ‐‐10 48  
591‐78‐6 2‐Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 2‐Hexanone NE 40 50 124 I
91‐57‐6 2‐Methylnaphthalene Naphthalene, 2‐methyl‐30 ‐‐10 145  
91‐59‐8 2‐Naphthylamine 2‐Naphthalenamine NE NE 10 151  
109‐06‐8 2‐Picoline  NE NE NE 390  
91‐94‐1 3,3'‐Dichlorobenzidine [1,1'‐Biphenyl]‐4,4'‐diamine,3,3'‐NE NE 20 72  
119‐93‐7 3,3'‐Dimethylbenzidine [1,1'‐Biphenyl]‐4,4'‐diamine,3,3'‐NE NE 10 94  
56‐49‐5 3‐Methylcholanthrene Benz[j]aceanthrylene,1,2‐dihydro‐3‐NE NE 10 138  
72‐54‐8 4,4'‐DDD Benzene 1,1'‐(2,2‐0.1 ‐‐0.1 60  
72‐55‐9 4,4'‐DDE Benzene, 1,1'‐NE NE 0.1 61  
50‐29‐3 4,4'‐DDT Benzene, 1,1'‐(2,2,2‐0.1 ‐‐0.1 62  
534‐52‐1 4,6‐Dinitro‐o‐cresol; 4,6‐Dinitro‐2‐Phenol, 2‐methyl‐4,6‐dinitro‐NE NE 50 98  
92‐67‐1 4‐Aminobiphenyl [1,1'‐Biphenyl]‐4‐amine NE NE 20 11  
460‐00‐4 4‐Bromofluorobenzene  NE NE NE 463  
101‐55‐3 4‐Bromophenyl phenyl ether Benzene, 1‐bromo‐4‐phenoxy‐NE NE 10 31  
7005‐72‐3 4‐Chlorophenyl phenyl ether Benzene, 1‐chloro‐4‐phenoxy‐NE NE 10 49  
108‐10‐1 4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone; Methyl isobutyl 2‐Pentanone, 4‐methyl‐NE 560 100 147 I
56‐57‐5 4‐nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide  NE NE NE 388  
99‐55‐8 5‐Nitro‐o‐toluidine Benzenamine, 2‐methyl‐5‐nitro‐NE NE 10 157  
57‐97‐6 7,12‐Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene Benz[a]anthracene, 7,12‐dimethyl‐NE NE 10 93  
83‐32‐9 Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene, 1,2‐dihydro‐80 ‐‐10 1  
208‐96‐8 Acenaphthylene Acenaphthylene 200 ‐‐10 2  
SW416 Acetic Acid Acetic Acid NE NE NE 416  
34256‐82‐1 Acetochlor    100   490  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 3/11
187022‐11‐3 Acetochlor ESA    1000   491  
184992‐44‐4 Acetochlor OXA    1000   492  
67‐64‐1 Acetone 2‐Propanone 6000 ‐‐100 3 I
75‐05‐8 Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide Acetonitrile NE 42 55 4  
98‐86‐2 Acetophenone Ethanone, 1‐phenyl‐NE 700 10 5  
50594‐66‐6 Acifluorofen Acifluorofen      453  
107‐02‐8 Acrolein 2‐Propenal NE 4 53 7  
79‐06‐1 Acrylamide Acrylamide 0.008 ‐‐NE 429  
107‐13‐1 Acrylonitrile 2‐Propenenitrile NE NE 200 8 I
15972‐60‐8 Alachlor    0.4   469  
309‐00‐2 Aldrin 1,4:5,8‐NE 0.002 0.05 9  
SW337 Alkalinity  NE NE NE 337  
107‐05‐1 Allyl chloride 1‐Propene, 3‐chloro‐NE NE 10 10  
319‐84‐6 alpha‐BHC Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐NE 0.006 0.05 24  
319‐84‐6 alpha‐Hexachlorocyclohexane α‐Benzenehexachloride NE 0.006 NE 501  
‐‐Aluminum Aluminum NE 3500 NE 454  
7429‐90‐5 Aluminum  NE 3500 NE 438  
7664‐41‐7 Ammonia Ammonia NE 1500 NE 435  
62‐53‐3 Aniline  NE NE NE 381  
120‐12‐7 Anthracene Anthracene 2000 ‐‐10 12  
7440‐36‐0 Antimony Antimony NE 1 6 13 I
140‐57‐8 Aramite  NE NE NE 382  
12674‐11‐2 Aroclor 1016 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 401  
11104‐28‐2 Aroclor 1221 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 402  
11141‐16‐5 Aroclor 1232 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 403  
53469‐21‐9 Aroclor 1242 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 404  
12672‐29‐6 Aroclor 1248 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 405  
11097‐69‐1 Aroclor 1254 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 406  
11096‐82‐5 Aroclor 1260 congener of PCB; see (1336‐36‐3) NE NE NE 407  
7440‐38‐2 Arsenic Arsenic 10 ‐‐10 14 I
7440‐39‐3 Barium Barium 700 ‐‐100 15 I
25057‐89‐0 Bentazon  NE NE NE 462  
100‐52‐7 Benzaldehyde Phenylmethanal,NE 700 NE 496  
71‐43‐2 Benzene Benzene 1 ‐‐1 16 I
122‐09‐8 Benzeneethanamine, alpha,alpha‐ NE NE NE 386  
92‐87‐5 Benzidine  NE NE NE 383  
56‐55‐3 Benzo[a]anthracene;Benz[a]anthracene 0.05 ‐‐10 17  
50‐32‐8 Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[a]pyrene 0.005 ‐‐10 21  
205‐99‐2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benz[e]acephenanthrylene 0.05 ‐‐10 18  
191‐24‐2 Benzo[ghi]perylene Benzo[ghi]perylene 200 ‐‐10 20  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 4/11
207‐08‐9 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.5 ‐‐10 19  
65‐85‐0 Benzoic Acid  30000 28000 NE 395  
100‐51‐6 Benzyl alcohol Benzenemethanol NE 700 20 22  
7440‐41‐7 Beryllium Beryllium NE 4 1 23 I
319‐85‐7 beta‐BHC Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐NE 0.019 0.05 25  
319‐85‐7 beta‐Hexachlorocyclohexane β‐Benzenehexachloride NE 0.02 NE 502  
SW347 Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) NE NE NE 347  
SW316 Biological Oxygen Demand BOD NE NE NE 316  
101‐84‐8 biphenyl ether biphenyl ether NE NE 10 423  
108‐60‐1 Bis(2‐chloro‐1‐methylethyl) ether; 2,2'‐Propane, 2,2'‐oxybis[1‐chloro‐NE NE 10 46  
111‐91‐1 Bis(2‐chloroethoxy)methane Ethane, 1,1'‐[methylenebis(oxy)]bis [2‐NE NE 10 42  
111‐44‐4 Bis(2‐chloroethyl)ether; Dichloroethyl Ethane, 1,1'‐oxybis[2‐chloro‐NE 0.031 10 43  
39638‐32‐9 Bis(2‐chloroisopropyl) ether  0.03 NE NE 384  
117‐81‐7 Bis(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2‐3 NE 15 111  
7440‐42‐8 Boron Boron 700 ‐‐NE 428  
108‐86‐1 Bromobenzene  NE NE NE 360  
74‐97‐5 Bromochloromethane;Methane, bromochloro‐NE 0.6 3 28 I
75‐27‐4 Bromodichloromethane;Methane, bromodichloro‐0.6 ‐‐1 29 I
75‐25‐2 Bromoform; Tribromomethane Methane, tribromo‐4 ‐‐3 30 I
71‐36‐3 Butanol n n‐Butyl Alcohol NE 700   470  
78‐92‐2 Butanol sec sec‐Butyl Alcohol NE 10000   483  
85‐68‐7 Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, butyl 1000 ‐‐10 32  
SW418 Butyric Acid Butyric Acid NE NE NE 418  
7440‐43‐9 Cadmium Cadmium 2 ‐‐1 34 I
7440‐70‐2 Calcium  NE NE NE 375  
471‐34‐1 Calcium carbonate  NE NE NE 464  
105‐60‐2 Caprolactam  4000 NE NE 440  
86‐74‐8 Carbazole dibenzopyrrole, diphenylenimine, NE 2 NE 497  
1563‐66‐2 Carbofuran Carbofuran 40 NE NE 430  
124‐38‐9 Carbon Dioxide  NE NE NE 459  
SW413 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)CO2 Gas NE NE NE 413  
75‐15‐0 Carbon disulfide Carbon disulfide 700 ‐‐100 35 I
56‐23‐5 Carbon tetrachloride Methane, tetrachloro‐0.3 ‐‐1 36 I
SW348 Carbonate (as CaCO3) NE NE NE 348  
7440‐44‐0 Charcoal  NE NE NE 466  
SW317 Chemical Oxygen Demand COD NE NE NE 317  
57‐74‐9 Chlordane 4,7‐Methano‐1H‐indene,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8‐0.1 ‐‐0.5 339  
12789‐03‐6 Chlordane (constituents) NE NE NE 400  
5103‐71‐9 Chlordane, alpha cis‐Chlordane NE NE NE 379  
5103‐74‐2 Chlordane, beta trans‐Chlordane NE NE NE 378  
5566‐34‐7 Chlordane, gamma  NE NE NE 399  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 5/11
16887‐00‐6 Chloride Chloride      455  
SW301 Chloride  250000 ‐‐NE 301  
108‐90‐7 Chlorobenzene Benzene, chloro‐50 ‐‐3 39 I
510‐15‐6 Chlorobenzilate Benzeneacetic acid, 4‐chloro‐(4‐NE NE 10 40  
75‐00‐3 Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride Ethane, chloro‐3000 ‐‐10 41 I
67‐66‐3 Chloroform; Trichloromethane Methane, trichloro‐70 ‐‐5 44 I
126‐99‐8 Chloroprene 1,3‐Butadiene, 2‐chloro‐NE NE 20 50  
7440‐47‐3 Chromium Chromium 10 ‐‐10 51 I
218‐01‐9 Chrysene Chrysene 5 ‐‐10 52  
156‐59‐2 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethylene; cis‐1,2‐Ethene, 1,2‐dichloro‐,(Z)‐70 ‐‐5 78 I
10061‐01‐5 cis‐1,3‐Dichloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,3‐dichloro‐, (Z)‐0.4 ‐‐1 86 I
7440‐48‐4 Cobalt Cobalt NE 1 10 53 I
SW309 Coliform (total) 1 NE NE 309  
SW310 Color (color units) 15 NE NE 310  
7440‐50‐8 Copper Copper 1000 ‐‐10 54 I
57‐12‐5 Cyanide Cyanide 70 ‐‐10 58  
75‐99‐0 Dalapon  NE 200 NE 355  
3424‐82‐6 DDE o,p‐DDE   0.1   472  
319‐86‐8 delta‐BHC Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐NE 0.019 0.05 26  
SW318 Depth To Water (ft)DTW NE NE NE 318  
117‐81‐7 Di(2‐ethylhexyl)phthalate Di(2‐ethylhexyl)phthalate, DEHP 2.5 ‐‐NE 431  
2303‐16‐4 Diallate Carbamothioic acid,bis(1‐methylethyl)‐, NE NE 10 63  
53‐70‐3 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.005 ‐‐10 64  
132‐64‐9 Dibenzofuran Dibenzofuran NE 28 10 65  
124‐48‐1 Dibromochloromethane;Methane, dibromochloro‐0.4 0.41 3 66 I
1918‐00‐9 Dicamba  NE NE NE 353  
79‐43‐6 Dichloroacetic Acid  NE 0.7 NE 480  
75‐71‐8 Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12 Methane,dichlorodifluoro‐1000 ‐‐5 74  
60‐57‐1 Dieldrin 2,7:3,6‐Dimethanonaphth[2,3‐0.002 ‐‐0.075 88  
84‐66‐2 Diethyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, diethyl 6000 ‐‐10 90  
60‐51‐5 Dimethoate Phosphorodithioic acid,O,O‐dimethyl S‐NE NE 20 91  
131‐11‐3 Dimethyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, dimethyl NE NE 10 96  
84‐74‐2 Di‐n‐butyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl 700 ‐‐10 33  
117‐84‐0 Di‐n‐octyl phthalate 1,2‐Benzenedicarboxylicacid, dioctyl 100 ‐‐10 168  
88‐85‐7 Dinoseb; DNBP; 2‐sec‐Butyl‐4,6‐Phenol, 2‐(1‐methylpropyl)‐4,6‐dinitro‐NE 7 1 102  
1746‐01‐6 Dioxin 2,3,7,8‐TCDD 0.2 NE NE 441  
101‐84‐8 Diphenyl ether Diphenyl oxide; 1,1'‐Oxybisbenzene; NE 100 NE 498  
122‐39‐4 Diphenylamine Benzenamine, N‐phenyl‐NE NE 10 103  
85‐00‐7 Diquat    20   473  
74‐82‐8 Dissolved Methane Dissolved Methane      456  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 6/11
7782‐44‐7 Dissolved Oxygen  NE NE NE 356  
298‐04‐4 Disulfoton Phosphorodithioic acid,O,O‐diethyl S‐[2‐0.3 ‐‐10 104  
3648‐20‐2 Diundecyl phthalate Santicizer 711 100 NE NE 442  
959‐98‐8 Endosulfan I 6,9‐Methano‐2,4,3‐benzodiox‐40 NE 0.1 105  
33213‐65‐9 Endosulfan II 6,9‐Methano‐2,4,3‐‐‐42 0.1 106  
1031‐07‐8 Endosulfan sulfate 6,9‐Methano‐2,4,3‐NE 40 0.1 107  
145‐73‐3 Endothall    100   474  
72‐20‐8 Endrin 2,7:3,6‐Dimethanonaphth[2,3‐b]oxirene, 2 ‐‐0.1 108  
7421‐93‐4 Endrin aldehyde 1,2,4‐Methenocyclo‐penta[cd]pentalene‐2 ‐‐0.1 109  
106‐89‐8 Epichlorohydrin  4 NE NE 443  
74‐84‐0 Ethane‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 331  
64‐17‐5 Ethanol Ethyl alcohol, Ethyl hydrate,NE 4000 NE 499  
74‐85‐1 Ethene‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 332  
141‐78‐6 Ethyl acetate  3000 NE NE 444  
97‐63‐2 Ethyl methacrylate 2‐Propenoic acid, 2‐methyl‐, ethyl NE NE 10 112  
62‐50‐0 Ethyl methanesulfonate Methanesulfonic acid,ethyl ester NE NE 20 113  
637‐92‐3 Ethyl tert‐butyl ether ETBE, Ethyl tertiary butyl ether NE 47 NE 500  
100‐41‐4 Ethylbenzene Benzene, ethyl‐600 ‐‐1 110 I
107‐21‐1 ethylene glycol ethylene glycol 10000 ‐‐10,000 424  
52‐85‐7 Famphur Phosphorothioic acid, O‐[4‐NE NE 20 114  
SW334 Ferrous Iron‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 334  
206‐44‐0 Fluoranthene Fluoranthene 300 ‐‐10 115  
86‐73‐7 Fluorene 9H‐Fluorene 300 ‐‐10 116  
16984‐48‐8 Fluoride  2000 ‐‐2000 312  
SW313 Foaming Agents  500 ‐‐NE 313  
50‐00‐0 Formaldehyde  600 NE NE 445  
59‐89‐9 gamma‐BHC (Lindane)gamma‐BHC (Lindane)     457  
58‐89‐9 gamma‐BHC; Lindane Cyclohexane,1,2,3,4,5,6‐hexachloro‐0.03 ‐‐0.05 27  
SW314 Gross Alpha  15 NE NE 314  
SW427 Groundwater Elevation (feet)GW Elevation (feet)NE NE NE 427  
SW319 Head (ft mean sea level) NE NE NE 319  
76‐44‐8 Heptachlor 4,7‐Methano‐1H‐indene,1,4,5,6,7,8,8‐0.008 ‐‐0.05 117  
1024‐57‐3 Heptachlor epoxide 2,5‐Methano‐2H‐indeno[1,2‐0.004 ‐‐0.075 118  
142‐82‐5 Heptane Heptane 400 ‐‐NE 432  
118‐74‐1 Hexachlorobenzene Benzene, hexachloro‐0.02 ‐‐10 119  
87‐68‐3 Hexachlorobutadiene 1,3‐Butadiene,1,1,2,3,4,4‐hexachloro‐0.4 0.44 10 120  
608‐73‐1 Hexachlorocyclohexane isomers  0.02 NE NE 446  
77‐47‐4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1,3‐Cyclopentadiene,1,2,3,4,5,5‐NE 50 10 121  
67‐72‐1 Hexachloroethane Ethane, hexachloro‐NE 2.5 10 122  
70‐30‐4 Hexachlorophene  NE NE NE 387  
1888‐71‐7 Hexachloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3‐hexachloro‐NE NE 10 123  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 7/11
142‐62‐1 Hexanoic Acid  NE NE NE 485  
133‐74‐0 Hydrogen Gas Dissolved Hydrogen Gas NE NE NE 420  
SW338 Hydrogen Sulfide  NE NE NE 338  
646‐07‐1 i‐Hexonic Acid  NE NE NE 486  
193‐39‐5 Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene Indeno[1,2,3‐cd]pyrene 0.05 ‐‐10 125  
503‐74‐2 i‐Pentanoic Acid  NE NE NE 488  
7439‐89‐6 Iron  300 ‐‐300 340  
78‐83‐1 Isobutyl alcohol 1‐Propanol, 2‐methyl‐NE NE 100 126  
465‐73‐6 Isodrin 1,4,5,8‐Dimethanonaphthalene,1,2,3,4,1 NE NE 20 127  
78‐59‐1 Isophorone 2‐Cyclohexen‐1‐one,3,5,5‐trimethyl‐40 ‐‐10 128  
108‐20‐3 Isopropyl ether  70 ‐‐NE 366  
98‐82‐8 Isopropylbenzene  70 ‐‐NE 367  
120‐58‐1 Isosafrole 1,3‐Benzodioxole, 5‐(1‐propenyl)‐NE NE 10 129  
143‐50‐0 Kepone 1,3,4‐Metheno‐2H‐cyclobuta‐NE NE 20 130  
SW415 Lactic Acid Lactic Acid NE NE NE 415  
SW329 Landfill Gas LFG NE NE NE 329  
7439‐92‐1 Lead Lead 15 ‐‐10 131 I
SW374 m‐&p‐Cresol (combined) NE NE NE 374  
SW359 m‐&p‐Xylene (combined) NE NE NE 359  
7439‐95‐4 Magnesium  NE NE NE 376  
7439‐96‐5 Manganese  50 ‐‐50 342  
SW335 Manganese‐ Dissolved  50 ‐‐50 335  
94‐74‐6 MCPA  NE NE NE 351  
108‐39‐4 m‐Cresol; 3‐Methylphenol Phenol, 3‐methyl‐400 ‐‐10 345  
541‐73‐1 m‐Dichlorobenzene; 1,3‐Benzene, 1,3‐dichloro‐200 ‐‐5 70  
99‐65‐0 m‐Dinitrobenzene Benzene, 1,3‐dinitro‐NE NE 20 97  
93‐65‐2 Mecopop, MCPP  NE NE NE 354  
7439‐97‐6 Mercury Mercury 1 ‐‐0.2 132  
126‐98‐7 Methacrylonitrile 2‐Propenenitrile, 2‐methyl‐NE NE 100 133  
SW333 Methane‐ Dissolved  NE NE NE 333  
67‐56‐1 Methanol  4000 NE NE 448  
91‐80‐5 Methapyrilene 1,2,Ethanediamine, N,N‐dimethyl‐N'‐2‐NE NE 100 134  
72‐43‐5 Methoxychlor Benzene, 1,1'‐40 ‐‐1 135  
72‐43‐5 Methoxychlor  40 NE NE 449  
74‐83‐9 Methyl bromide; Bromomethane Methane, bromo‐NE 10 10 136 I
74‐87‐3 Methyl chloride; Chloromethane Methane, chloro‐3 ‐‐1 137 I
78‐93‐3 Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2‐2‐Butanone 4000 ‐‐100 141 I
74‐88‐4 Methyl iodide; Iodomethane Methane, iodo‐NE NE 10 142 I
108‐10‐1 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone    100   493  
80‐62‐6 Methyl methacrylate 2‐Propenoic acid, 2‐methyl‐, methyl NE 25 30 143  
66‐27‐3 Methyl methanesulfonate Methanesulfonic acid,methyl ester NE NE 10 144  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 8/11
298‐00‐0 Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl Phosphorothioic acid,O,O‐dimethyl NE NE 10 146  
2037‐26‐5 Methylbenzene  NE NE NE 461  
74‐95‐3 Methylene bromide;Methane, dibromo‐NE 70 10 139 I
75‐09‐2 Methylene chloride;Methane, dichloro‐5 ‐‐1 140 I
1634‐04‐4 Methyl‐tert‐butyl ether (MTBE) 20 ‐‐NE 369  
99‐09‐2 m‐Nitroaniline; 3‐Nitroaniline Benzenamine, 3‐nitro‐NE NE 50 153  
7439‐98‐7 Molybdenum  NE NE NE 397  
108‐38‐3 m‐Xylene  NE NE NE 409  
91‐20‐3 Naphthalene Naphthalene 6 ‐‐10 148  
104‐51‐8 n‐Butylbenzene  70 ‐‐NE 361  
110‐54‐3 n‐Hexane  400 NE NE 447  
7440‐02‐0 Nickel Nickel 100 ‐‐50 152 I
14797‐55‐8 Nitrate (as N) 10000 ‐‐10000 303  
14797‐65‐0 Nitrite (as N) 1000 ‐‐1000 304  
98‐95‐3 Nitrobenzene Benzene, nitro‐NE NE 10 156  
7727‐37‐9 Nitrogen  NE NE NE 467  
55‐18‐5 N‐Nitrosodiethylamine Ethanamine, N‐ethyl‐N‐nitroso‐NE NE 20 160  
62‐75‐9 N‐Nitrosodimethylamine Methanamine, N‐methyl‐N‐nitroso‐0.0007 ‐‐10 161  
924‐16‐3 N‐Nitrosodi‐n‐butylamine 1‐Butanamine, N‐butyl‐N‐nitroso‐NE NE 10 162  
86‐30‐6 N‐Nitrosodiphenylamine Benzenamine, N‐nitroso‐N‐phenyl‐NE NE 10 163  
SW426 N‐N‐NE NE 10 426  
SW439 N‐ NE NE NE 439  
621‐64‐7 N‐Nitrosodipropylamine; N‐Nitroso‐N‐1‐Propanamine, N‐nitroso‐N‐propyl‐NE NE 10 164  
10595‐95‐6 N‐Nitrosomethylethalamine Ethanamine, N‐methyl‐N‐nitroso‐NE NE 10 165  
59‐89‐2 N‐Nitrosomorpholine  NE NE NE 389  
100‐75‐4 N‐Nitrosopiperidine Piperidine, 1‐nitroso‐NE NE 20 166  
930‐55‐2 N‐Nitrosopyrrolidine Pyrrolidine, 1‐nitroso‐NE NE 10 167  
SW419 No2/No3 (nitrate & nitrite reported NOX NE NE NE 419  
103‐65‐1 n‐Propylbenzene  70 NE NE 370  
126‐68‐1 O,O,O‐Triethyl phosphorothioate Phosphorothioic acid,O,O,O‐triethyl NE NE 10 207  
297‐97‐2 O,O‐Diethyl O‐2‐pyrazinyl Phosphorothioic acid,O,O‐diethyl O‐NE NE 20 89  
136777‐61‐2 o,p‐Xylene  NE NE NE 460  
95‐49‐8 o‐Chlorotoluene 2‐chlorotoluene 100 NE NE 364  
95‐48‐7 o‐Cresol; 2‐Methylphenol Phenol, 2‐methyl‐NE 400 10 56  
95‐50‐1 o‐Dichlorobenzene; 1,2‐Benzene, 1,2‐dichloro‐20 ‐‐5 69 I
88‐74‐4 o‐Nitroaniline; 2‐Nitroaniline Benzenamine, 2‐nitro‐NE NE 50 154  
88‐75‐5 o‐Nitrophenol; 2‐Nitrophenol Phenol, 2‐nitro‐NE NE 10 158  
SW437 Orthophosphate Phosphorus  NE NE NE 437  
95‐53‐4 o‐Toluidine Benzenamine, 2‐methyl‐NE NE 10 197  
23135‐22‐0 Oxamyl  200 NE NE 450  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 9/11
SW336 Oxygen Reduction Potential (mV)ORP NE NE NE 336  
96‐47‐6 o‐Xylene  NE NE NE 408  
60‐11‐7 p‐(Dimethylamino)azobenzene Benzenamine, N,N‐dimethyl‐4‐NE NE 10 92  
56‐38‐2 Parathion Phosphorothioic acid,O,O‐diethyl‐O‐(4‐NE NE 10 169  
106‐47‐8 p‐Chloroaniline Benzenamine, 4‐chloro‐NE NE 20 38  
59‐50‐7 p‐Chloro‐m‐cresol; 4‐Chloro‐3‐Phenol, 4‐chloro‐3‐methyl‐NE NE 20 45  
106‐43‐4 p‐Chlorotoluene  NE 24 NE 365  
106‐44‐5 p‐Cresol; 4‐Methylphenol Phenol, 4‐methyl‐40 NE‐‐10 344  
99‐87‐6 p‐Cymene  NE 25 NE 368  
106‐46‐7 p‐Dichlorobenzene; 1,4‐Benzene, 1,4‐dichloro‐6 ‐‐1 71 I
608‐93‐5 Pentachlorobenzene Benzene, pentachloro‐NE NE 10 171  
76‐01‐7 Pentachloroethane  NE NE NE 380  
82‐68‐8 Pentachloronitrobenzene Benzene,pentachloronitro‐NE NE 20 172  
87‐86‐5 Pentachlorophenol Phenol, pentachloro‐0.3 ‐‐25 173  
109‐52‐4 Pentanoic Acid  NE NE NE 487  
7790‐98‐9 Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts    2   494  
335‐67‐1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA, C8   2   484  
SW307 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class  10000 ‐‐NE 307  
SW305 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class  400 ‐‐NE 305  
SW306 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class  700 ‐‐NE 306  
SW308 petroleum aromatics carbon fraction  200 ‐‐NE 308  
SW320 pH (field) NE NE NE 320  
SW321 pH (lab) NE NE NE 321  
62‐44‐2 Phenacetin Acetamide, N‐(4‐ethoxyphenyl)NE NE 20 174  
85‐01‐8 Phenanthrene Phenanthrene 200 ‐‐10 175  
108‐95‐2 Phenol Phenol 30 ‐‐10 177  
298‐02‐2 Phorate Phosphorodithioic acid,O,O‐diethyl S‐1 ‐‐10 178  
96‐91‐3 Picramic Acid 2‐amino‐4,6‐dinitiphenol NE 0.7 NE 482  
100‐01‐6 p‐Nitroaniline; 4‐Nitroaniline Benzenamine, 4‐nitro‐NE NE 20 155  
100‐02‐7 p‐Nitrophenol; 4‐Nitrophenol Phenol, 4‐nitro‐NE NE 50 159  
1336‐36‐3 Polychlorinated biphenyls; PCBs 1,1'‐Biphenyl,chloro derivatives Method NE 0.09 2 434  
7440‐09‐7 Potassium  NE NE NE 377  
106‐50‐3 p‐Phenylenediamine 1,4‐Benzenediamine NE NE 10 176  
23950‐58‐5 Pronamide Benzamide, 3,5‐dichloro‐N‐(1,1‐NE NE 10 179  
SW417 Propionic Acid Propionic Acid NE NE NE 417  
107‐12‐0 Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide Propanenitrile NE NE 150 180  
57‐55‐6 Propylene Glycol  NE 140,000 NE 507  
106‐42‐3 p‐Xylene  NE NE NE 410  
129‐00‐0 Pyrene Pyrene 200 ‐‐10 181  

110‐86‐1 Pyridine  NE 7 NE 391  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 10/11
SW414 Pyruvic Acid Pyruvic Acid NE NE NE 414  
94‐59‐7 Safrole 1,3‐Benzodioxole, 5‐(2‐propenyl)‐NE NE 10 182  
135‐98‐8 sec‐Butylbenzene  70 ‐‐NE 362  
7782‐49‐2 Selenium Selenium 20 ‐‐10 183 I
7440‐22‐4 Silver Silver 20 ‐‐10 184 I
93‐72‐1 Silvex; 2,4,5‐TP Propanoic acid, 2‐(2,4,5‐50 ‐‐2 185  
122‐34‐9 Simazine  4 NE NE 451  
7440‐23‐5 Sodium  NE 20000 NE 322  
SW323 SpecCond (field) NE NE NE 323  
SW324 SpecCond (lab) NE NE NE 324  
7440‐24‐6 Strontium  NE NE NE 465  
100‐42‐5 Styrene Benzene, ethenyl‐70 ‐‐1 186 I
14808‐79‐8 Sulfate  250000 ‐‐250000 315  
18496‐25‐8 Sulfide Sulfide NE NE 1000 187  
3689‐24‐5 Sulfotep  NE NE NE 392  
99‐35‐4 sym‐Trinitrobenzene Benzene, 1,3,5‐trinitro‐NE NE 10 208  
SW325 Temp (oC) NE NE NE 325  
994‐05‐8 tert‐Amyl methyl ether TAME, 2‐methoxy‐2‐methylbutane NE 128 NE 504  
98‐06‐6 tert‐Butylbenzene  70 ‐‐NE 363  
75‐65‐0 Tertiary Butyl Alcohol tert‐butanol NE 10 NE 505  
127‐18‐4 Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; Ethene, tetrachloro‐0.7 ‐‐1 192 I
109‐99‐9 Tetrahydrofuran  NE NE NE 458  
7440‐28‐0 Thallium Thallium NE 0.28 5.5 194 I
7440‐31‐5 Tin Tin NE 2000 100 195  
108‐88‐3 Toluene Benzene, methyl‐600 ‐‐1 196 I
SW328 Top Of Casing (ft mean sea level) TOC NE NE NE 328  
SW425 Total BHC  NE 0.019 NE 425  
SW311 Total Dissolved Solids TDS 500000 ‐‐NE 311  
SW436 Total Fatty Acids Total Fatty Acids NE NE NE 436  
E‐10195 Total Organic Carbon  NE NE NE 357  
SW396 Total Organic Halides  NE NE NE 396  
7723‐14‐0 Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus NE NE NE 412  
SW343 Total Suspended Solids  NE NE NE 343  
SW411 Total Well Depth (ft)TD NE NE NE 411  
8001‐35‐2 Toxaphene Toxaphene 0.03 ‐‐1.5 198  
156‐60‐5 trans‐1,2‐Dichloroethylene; trans‐1,2‐Ethene, 1,2‐dichloro‐,(E)‐100 ‐‐5 79 I
10061‐02‐6 trans‐1,3‐Dichloropropene 1‐Propene, 1,3‐dichloro‐, (E)‐0.4 ‐‐1 87 I
110‐57‐6 trans‐1,4‐Dichloro‐2‐butene 2‐Butene, 1,4‐dichloro‐, (E)‐NE NE 100 73 I
79‐01‐6 Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene Ethene, trichloro‐3 ‐‐1 201 I
75‐69‐4 Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC‐11 Methane,trichlorofluoro‐2000 ‐‐1 203 I
SW330 Turbidity  NE NE NE 330  
5/15/2015 NCDENR - Constituent List
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/envmonitoringlist 11/11
* GWP = Groundwater Protection
** SWSL = Solid Waste
Last updated: 6/13/2011 8:19:15 AM
7440‐62‐2 Vanadium Vanadium NE 0.3 25 209 I
108‐05‐4 Vinyl acetate Acetic acid, ethenylester NE 88 50 210 I
75‐01‐4 Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene Ethene, chloro‐0.03 ‐‐1 211 I
1330‐20‐7 Xylene (total)(o‐,m‐,and p‐, Benzene, dimethyl 500 ‐‐5 346 I
7440‐66‐6 Zinc Zinc 1000 ‐‐10 213 I
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC  27699‐1601
Headquarters (Environment and Natural Resources Building): 217 W. Jones St.
Archdale Building: 512 N. Salisbury St.
Toll Free:  (877) 623‐6748

APPENDIX D

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORTING FORM
DENR USE ONLY: Paper Report Electronic Data - Email CD (data loaded: Yes / No ) Doc/Event #:
NC DENR
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste
Environmental Monitoring
Reporting Form
Notice: This form and any information attached to it are "Public Records" as defined in NC General Statute 132-1. As such, these documents are
available for inspection and examination by any person upon request (NC General Statute 132-6).
Instructions:
 Prepare one form for each individually monitored unit.
 Please type or print legibly.
 Attach a notification table with values that attain or exceed NC 2L groundwater standards or NC 2B surface water standards. The notification
must include a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of each value. (e.g. naturally occurring, off-site source, pre-existing
condition, etc.).
 Attach a notification table of any groundwater or surface water values that equal or exceed the reporting limits.
 Attach a notification table of any methane gas values that attain or exceed explosive gas levels. This includes any structures on or nearby the
facility (NCAC 13B .1629 (4)(a)(i).
 Send the original signed and sealed form, any tables, and Electronic Data Deliverable to: Compliance Unit, NCDENR-DWM, Solid Waste
Section, 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646.
Solid Waste Monitoring Data Submittal Information
Name of entity submitting data (laboratory, consultant, facility owner):
Contact for questions about data formatting. Include data preparer's name, telephone number and E-mail address:
Name: Phone:
E-mail:
Facility name: Facility Address: Facility Permit #
NC Landfill Rule:
(.0500 or .1600)
Actual sampling dates (e.g.,
October 20-24, 2006)
Environmental Status: (Check all that apply)
Initial/Background Monitoring Detection Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action
Type of data submitted: (Check all that apply)
Groundwater monitoring data from monitoring wells Methane gas monitoring data
Groundwater monitoring data from private water supply wells Corrective action data (specify)
Leachate monitoring data Other(specify) Surface water monitoring data
Notification attached?
No. No groundwater or surface water standards were exceeded.
Yes, a notification of values exceeding a groundwater or surface water standard is attached. It includes a list of groundwater and surface water
monitoring points, dates, analytical values, NC 2L groundwater standard, NC 2B surface water standard or NC Solid Waste GWPS and
preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of any concentration.
Yes, a notification of values exceeding an explosive methane gas limit is attached. It includes the methane monitoring points, dates, sample
values and explosive methane gas limits.
Certification
To the best of my knowledge, the information reported and statements made on this data submittal and attachments are true and correct.
Furthermore, I have attached complete notification of any sampling values meeting or exceeding groundwater standards or explosive gas
levels, and a preliminary analysis of the cause and significance of concentrations exceeding groundwater standards. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for making any false statement, representation, or certification including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.


Affix NC Licensed/ Professional Geologist Seal
Revised 6/2009
Date
Facility Representative Address
NC PE Firm License Number (if applicable effective May 1, 2009

APPENDIX E

LOW-FLOW GROUNDWATER PURGING AND SAMPLING GUIDANCE
1
EPA/540/S-95/504
April 1996
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
Office of
Research and
Development
LOW-FLOW (MINIMAL DRAWDOWN)
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES
by Robert W. Puls1 and Michael J. Barcelona2
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, US EPA, Washington, DC
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
Ground Water Issue
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
Ada, Oklahoma
Superfund Technology Support Center for
Ground Water
Background
The Regional Superfund Ground Water Forum is a
group of ground-water scientists, representing EPA’s
Regional Superfund Offices, organized to exchange
information related to ground-water remediation at Superfund
sites. One of the major concerns of the Forum is the
sampling of ground water to support site assessment and
remedial performance monitoring objectives. This paper is
intended to provide background information on the
development of low-flow sampling procedures and its
application under a variety of hydrogeologic settings. It is
hoped that the paper will support the production of standard
operating procedures for use by EPA Regional personnel and
other environmental professionals engaged in ground-water
sampling.
For further information contact: Robert Puls, 405-436-8543,
Subsurface Remediation and Protection Division, NRMRL,
Ada, Oklahoma.
I. Introduction
The methods and objectives of ground-water
sampling to assess water quality have evolved over time.
Initially the emphasis was on the assessment of water quality
of aquifers as sources of drinking water. Large water-bearing
units were identified and sampled in keeping with that
objective. These were highly productive aquifers that
supplied drinking water via private wells or through public
water supply systems. Gradually, with the increasing aware-
ness of subsurface pollution of these water resources, the
understanding of complex hydrogeochemical processes
which govern the fate and transport of contaminants in the
subsurface increased. This increase in understanding was
also due to advances in a number of scientific disciplines and
improvements in tools used for site characterization and
ground-water sampling. Ground-water quality investigations
where pollution was detected initially borrowed ideas,
methods, and materials for site characterization from the
water supply field and water analysis from public health
practices. This included the materials and manner in which
monitoring wells were installed and the way in which water
was brought to the surface, treated, preserved and analyzed.
The prevailing conceptual ideas included convenient generali-
zations of ground-water resources in terms of large and
relatively homogeneous hydrologic units. With time it became
apparent that conventional water supply generalizations of
homogeneity did not adequately represent field data regard-
ing pollution of these subsurface resources. The important
role of heterogeneity became increasingly clear not only in
geologic terms, but also in terms of complex physical,
1National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA
2University of Michigan
2
chemical and biological subsurface processes. With greater
appreciation of the role of heterogeneity, it became evident
that subsurface pollution was ubiquitous and encompassed
the unsaturated zone to the deep subsurface and included
unconsolidated sediments, fractured rock, and aquitards or
low-yielding or impermeable formations. Small-scale pro-
cesses and heterogeneities were shown to be important in
identifying contaminant distributions and in controlling water
and contaminant flow paths.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize all
the advances in the field of ground-water quality investiga-
tions and remediation, but two particular issues have bearing
on ground-water sampling today: aquifer heterogeneity and
colloidal transport. Aquifer heterogeneities affect contaminant
flow paths and include variations in geology, geochemistry,
hydrology and microbiology. As methods and the tools
available for subsurface investigations have become increas-
ingly sophisticated and understanding of the subsurface
environment has advanced, there is an awareness that in
most cases a primary concern for site investigations is
characterization of contaminant flow paths rather than entire
aquifers. In fact, in many cases, plume thickness can be less
than well screen lengths (e.g., 3-6 m) typically installed at
hazardous waste sites to detect and monitor plume movement
over time. Small-scale differences have increasingly been
shown to be important and there is a general trend toward
smaller diameter wells and shorter screens.
The hydrogeochemical significance of colloidal-size
particles in subsurface systems has been realized during the
past several years (Gschwend and Reynolds, 1987; McCarthy
and Zachara, 1989; Puls, 1990; Ryan and Gschwend, 1990).
This realization resulted from both field and laboratory studies
that showed faster contaminant migration over greater
distances and at higher concentrations than flow and trans-
port model predictions would suggest (Buddemeier and Hunt,
1988; Enfield and Bengtsson, 1988; Penrose et al., 1990).
Such models typically account for interaction between the
mobile aqueous and immobile solid phases, but do not allow
for a mobile, reactive solid phase. It is recognition of this third
phase as a possible means of contaminant transport that has
brought increasing attention to the manner in which samples
are collected and processed for analysis (Puls et al., 1990;
McCarthy and Degueldre, 1993; Backhus et al., 1993; U. S.
EPA, 1995). If such a phase is present in sufficient mass,
possesses high sorption reactivity, large surface area, and
remains stable in suspension, it can serve as an important
mechanism to facilitate contaminant transport in many types
of subsurface systems.
Colloids are particles that are sufficiently small so
that the surface free energy of the particle dominates the bulk
free energy. Typically, in ground water, this includes particles
with diameters between 1 and 1000 nm. The most commonly
observed mobile particles include: secondary clay minerals;
hydrous iron, aluminum, and manganese oxides; dissolved
and particulate organic materials, and viruses and bacteria.
These reactive particles have been shown to be mobile under
a variety of conditions in both field studies and laboratory
column experiments, and as such need to be included in
monitoring programs where identification of the total mobile
contaminant loading (dissolved + naturally suspended
particles) at a site is an objective. To that end, sampling
methodologies must be used which do not artificially bias
naturally suspended particle concentrations.
Currently the most common ground-water purging
and sampling methodology is to purge a well using bailers or
high speed pumps to remove 3 to 5 casing volumes followed
by sample collection. This method can cause adverse impacts
on sample quality through collection of samples with high
levels of turbidity. This results in the inclusion of otherwise
immobile artifactual particles which produce an overestima-
tion of certain analytes of interest (e.g., metals or hydrophobic
organic compounds). Numerous documented problems
associated with filtration (Danielsson, 1982; Laxen and
Chandler, 1982; Horowitz et al., 1992) make this an undesir-
able method of rectifying the turbidity problem, and include
the removal of potentially mobile (contaminant-associated)
particles during filtration, thus artificially biasing contaminant
concentrations low. Sampling-induced turbidity problems can
often be mitigated by using low-flow purging and sampling
techniques.
Current subsurface conceptual models have under-
gone considerable refinement due to the recent development
and increased use of field screening tools. So-called
hydraulic push technologies (e.g., cone penetrometer,
Geoprobe®, QED HydroPunch®) enable relatively fast
screening site characterization which can then be used to
design and install a monitoring well network. Indeed,
alternatives to conventional monitoring wells are now being
considered for some hydrogeologic settings. The ultimate
design of any monitoring system should however be based
upon adequate site characterization and be consistent with
established monitoring objectives.
If the sampling program objectives include accurate
assessment of the magnitude and extent of subsurface
contamination over time and/or accurate assessment of
subsequent remedial performance, then some information
regarding plume delineation in three-dimensional space is
necessary prior to monitoring well network design and
installation. This can be accomplished with a variety of
different tools and equipment ranging from hand-operated
augers to screening tools mentioned above and large drilling
rigs. Detailed information on ground-water flow velocity,
direction, and horizontal and vertical variability are essential
baseline data requirements. Detailed soil and geologic data
are required prior to and during the installation of sampling
points. This includes historical as well as detailed soil and
geologic logs which accumulate during the site investigation.
The use of borehole geophysical techniques is also recom-
mended. With this information (together with other site
characterization data) and a clear understanding of sampling
3
objectives, then appropriate location, screen length, well
diameter, slot size, etc. for the monitoring well network can be
decided. This is especially critical for new in situ remedial
approaches or natural attenuation assessments at hazardous
waste sites.
In general, the overall goal of any ground-water
sampling program is to collect water samples with no alter-
ation in water chemistry; analytical data thus obtained may be
used for a variety of specific monitoring programs depending
on the regulatory requirements. The sampling methodology
described in this paper assumes that the monitoring goal is to
sample monitoring wells for the presence of contaminants and
it is applicable whether mobile colloids are a concern or not
and whether the analytes of concern are metals (and metal-
loids) or organic compounds.
II. Monitoring Objectives and Design
Considerations
The following issues are important to consider prior
to the design and implementation of any ground-water
monitoring program, including those which anticipate using
low-flow purging and sampling procedures.
A. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
Monitoring objectives include four main types:
detection, assessment, corrective-action evaluation and
resource evaluation, along with hybrid variations such as site-
assessments for property transfers and water availability
investigations. Monitoring objectives may change as contami-
nation or water quality problems are discovered. However,
there are a number of common components of monitoring
programs which should be recognized as important regard-
less of initial objectives. These components include:
1) Development of a conceptual model that incorporates
elements of the regional geology to the local geologic
framework. The conceptual model development also
includes initial site characterization efforts to identify
hydrostratigraphic units and likely flow-paths using a
minimum number of borings and well completions;
2) Cost-effective and well documented collection of high
quality data utilizing simple, accurate, and reproduc-
ible techniques; and
3) Refinement of the conceptual model based on
supplementary data collection and analysis.
These fundamental components serve many types of monitor-
ing programs and provide a basis for future efforts that evolve
in complexity and level of spatial detail as purposes and
objectives expand. High quality, reproducible data collection
is a common goal regardless of program objectives.
High quality data collection implies data of sufficient
accuracy, precision, and completeness (i.e., ratio of valid
analytical results to the minimum sample number called for by
the program design) to meet the program objectives. Accu-
racy depends on the correct choice of monitoring tools and
procedures to minimize sample and subsurface disturbance
from collection to analysis. Precision depends on the
repeatability of sampling and analytical protocols. It can be
assured or improved by replication of sample analyses
including blanks, field/lab standards and reference standards.
B. Sample Representativeness
An important goal of any monitoring program is
collection of data that is truly representative of conditions at
the site. The term representativeness applies to chemical and
hydrogeologic data collected via wells, borings, piezometers,
geophysical and soil gas measurements, lysimeters, and
temporary sampling points. It involves a recognition of the
statistical variability of individual subsurface physical proper-
ties, and contaminant or major ion concentration levels, while
explaining extreme values. Subsurface temporal and spatial
variability are facts. Good professional practice seeks to
maximize representativeness by using proven accurate and
reproducible techniques to define limits on the distribution of
measurements collected at a site. However, measures of
representativeness are dynamic and are controlled by
evolving site characterization and monitoring objectives. An
evolutionary site characterization model, as shown in Fig-
ure 1, provides a systematic approach to the goal of consis-
tent data collection.
Figure 1. Evolutionary Site Characterization Model
The model emphasizes a recognition of the causes of the
variability (e.g., use of inappropriate technology such as using
bailers to purge wells; imprecise or operator-dependent
methods) and the need to control avoidable errors.
4
1) Questions of Scale
A sampling plan designed to collect representative
samples must take into account the potential scale of
changes in site conditions through space and time as well as
the chemical associations and behavior of the parameters
that are targeted for investigation. In subsurface systems,
physical (i.e., aquifer) and chemical properties over time or
space are not statistically independent. In fact, samples
taken in close proximity (i.e., within distances of a few meters)
or within short time periods (i.e., more frequently than
monthly) are highly auto-correlated. This means that designs
employing high-sampling frequency (e.g., monthly) or dense
spatial monitoring designs run the risk of redundant data
collection and misleading inferences regarding trends in
values that aren’t statistically valid. In practice, contaminant
detection and assessment monitoring programs rarely suffer
these over-sampling concerns. In corrective-action evaluation
programs, it is also possible that too little data may be
collected over space or time. In these cases, false interpreta-
tion of the spatial extent of contamination or underestimation
of temporal concentration variability may result.
2) Target Parameters
Parameter selection in monitoring program design is
most often dictated by the regulatory status of the site.
However, background water quality constituents, purging
indicator parameters, and contaminants, all represent targets
for data collection programs. The tools and procedures used
in these programs should be equally rigorous and applicable
to all categories of data, since all may be needed to deter-
mine or support regulatory action.
C. Sampling Point Design and Construction
Detailed site characterization is central to all
decision-making purposes and the basis for this characteriza-
tion resides in identification of the geologic framework and
major hydro-stratigraphic units. Fundamental data for sample
point location include: subsurface lithology, head-differences
and background geochemical conditions. Each sampling point
has a proper use or uses which should be documented at a
level which is appropriate for the program’s data quality
objectives. Individual sampling points may not always be
able to fulfill multiple monitoring objectives (e.g., detection,
assessment, corrective action).
1) Compatibility with Monitoring Program and Data
Quality Objectives
Specifics of sampling point location and design will
be dictated by the complexity of subsurface lithology and
variability in contaminant and/or geochemical conditions. It
should be noted that, regardless of the ground-water sam-
pling approach, few sampling points (e.g., wells, drive-points,
screened augers) have zones of influence in excess of a few
feet. Therefore, the spatial frequency of sampling points
should be carefully selected and designed.
2) Flexibility of Sampling Point Design
In most cases well-point diameters in excess of 1 7/8
inches will permit the use of most types of submersible
pumping devices for low-flow (minimal drawdown) sampling.
It is suggested that short (e.g., less than 1.6 m) screens be
incorporated into the monitoring design where possible so
that comparable results from one device to another might be
expected. Short, of course, is relative to the degree of vertical
water quality variability expected at a site.
3) Equilibration of Sampling Point
Time should be allowed for equilibration of the well
or sampling point with the formation after installation. Place-
ment of well or sampling points in the subsurface produces
some disturbance of ambient conditions. Drilling techniques
(e.g., auger, rotary, etc.) are generally considered to cause
more disturbance than direct-push technologies. In either
case, there may be a period (i.e., days to months) during
which water quality near the point may be distinctly different
from that in the formation. Proper development of the sam-
pling point and adjacent formation to remove fines created
during emplacement will shorten this water quality recovery
period.
III. Definition of Low-Flow Purging and Sampling
It is generally accepted that water in the well casing
is non-representative of the formation water and needs to be
purged prior to collection of ground-water samples. However,
the water in the screened interval may indeed be representa-
tive of the formation, depending upon well construction and
site hydrogeology. Wells are purged to some extent for the
following reasons: the presence of the air interface at the top
of the water column resulting in an oxygen concentration
gradient with depth, loss of volatiles up the water column,
leaching from or sorption to the casing or filter pack, chemical
changes due to clay seals or backfill, and surface infiltration.
Low-flow purging, whether using portable or dedi-
cated systems, should be done using pump-intake located in
the middle or slightly above the middle of the screened
interval. Placement of the pump too close to the bottom of the
well will cause increased entrainment of solids which have
collected in the well over time. These particles are present as
a result of well development, prior purging and sampling
events, and natural colloidal transport and deposition.
Therefore, placement of the pump in the middle or toward the
top of the screened interval is suggested. Placement of the
pump at the top of the water column for sampling is only
recommended in unconfined aquifers, screened across the
water table, where this is the desired sampling point. Low-
5
flow purging has the advantage of minimizing mixing between
the overlying stagnant casing water and water within the
screened interval.
A. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling
Low-flow refers to the velocity with which water
enters the pump intake and that is imparted to the formation
pore water in the immediate vicinity of the well screen. It
does not necessarily refer to the flow rate of water discharged
at the surface which can be affected by flow regulators or
restrictions. Water level drawdown provides the best indica-
tion of the stress imparted by a given flow-rate for a given
hydrological situation. The objective is to pump in a manner
that minimizes stress (drawdown) to the system to the extent
practical taking into account established site sampling
objectives. Typically, flow rates on the order of 0.1 - 0.5 L/min
are used, however this is dependent on site-specific
hydrogeology. Some extremely coarse-textured formations
have been successfully sampled in this manner at flow rates
to 1 L/min. The effectiveness of using low-flow purging is
intimately linked with proper screen location, screen length,
and well construction and development techniques. The
reestablishment of natural flow paths in both the vertical and
horizontal directions is important for correct interpretation of
the data. For high resolution sampling needs, screens less
than 1 m should be used. Most of the need for purging has
been found to be due to passing the sampling device through
the overlying casing water which causes mixing of these
stagnant waters and the dynamic waters within the screened
interval. Additionally, there is disturbance to suspended
sediment collected in the bottom of the casing and the
displacement of water out into the formation immediately
adjacent to the well screen. These disturbances and impacts
can be avoided using dedicated sampling equipment, which
precludes the need to insert the sampling device prior to
purging and sampling.
Isolation of the screened interval water from the
overlying stagnant casing water may be accomplished using
low-flow minimal drawdown techniques. If the pump intake is
located within the screened interval, most of the water
pumped will be drawn in directly from the formation with little
mixing of casing water or disturbance to the sampling zone.
However, if the wells are not constructed and developed
properly, zones other than those intended may be sampled.
At some sites where geologic heterogeneities are sufficiently
different within the screened interval, higher conductivity
zones may be preferentially sampled. This is another reason
to use shorter screened intervals, especially where high
spatial resolution is a sampling objective.
B. Water Quality Indicator Parameters
It is recommended that water quality indicator
parameters be used to determine purging needs prior to
sample collection in each well. Stabilization of parameters
such as pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxida-
tion-reduction potential, temperature and turbidity should be
used to determine when formation water is accessed during
purging. In general, the order of stabilization is pH, tempera-
ture, and specific conductance, followed by oxidation-
reduction potential, dissolved oxygen and turbidity. Tempera-
ture and pH, while commonly used as purging indicators, are
actually quite insensitive in distinguishing between formation
water and stagnant casing water; nevertheless, these are
important parameters for data interpretation purposes and
should also be measured. Performance criteria for determi-
nation of stabilization should be based on water-level draw-
down, pumping rate and equipment specifications for measur-
ing indicator parameters. Instruments are available which
utilize in-line flow cells to continuously measure the above
parameters.
It is important to establish specific well stabilization
criteria and then consistently follow the same methods
thereafter, particularly with respect to drawdown, flow rate
and sampling device. Generally, the time or purge volume
required for parameter stabilization is independent of well
depth or well volumes. Dependent variables are well diam-
eter, sampling device, hydrogeochemistry, pump flow rate,
and whether the devices are used in a portable or dedicated
manner. If the sampling device is already in place (i.e.,
dedicated sampling systems), then the time and purge
volume needed for stabilization is much shorter. Other
advantages of dedicated equipment include less purge water
for waste disposal, much less decontamination of equipment,
less time spent in preparation of sampling as well as time in
the field, and more consistency in the sampling approach
which probably will translate into less variability in sampling
results. The use of dedicated equipment is strongly recom-
mended at wells which will undergo routine sampling over
time.
If parameter stabilization criteria are too stringent,
then minor oscillations in indicator parameters may cause
purging operations to become unnecessarily protracted. It
should also be noted that turbidity is a very conservative
parameter in terms of stabilization. Turbidity is always the
last parameter to stabilize. Excessive purge times are
invariably related to the establishment of too stringent turbidity
stabilization criteria. It should be noted that natural turbidity
levels in ground water may exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU).
C. Advantages and Disadvantages of Low-Flow
(Minimum Drawdown) Purging
In general, the advantages of low-flow purging
include:
• samples which are representative of the mobile load of
contaminants present (dissolved and colloid-associ-
ated);
• minimal disturbance of the sampling point thereby
minimizing sampling artifacts;
• less operator variability, greater operator control;
6
sampling, it is recommended that an in-line water quality
measurement device (e.g., flow-through cell) be used to
establish the stabilization time for several parameters (e.g. ,
pH, specific conductance, redox, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)
on a well-specific basis. Data on pumping rate, drawdown,
and volume required for parameter stabilization can be used
as a guide for conducting subsequent sampling activities.
The following are recommendations to be considered
before, during and after sampling:
• use low-flow rates (<0.5 L/min), during both purging
and sampling to maintain minimal drawdown in the
well;
• maximize tubing wall thickness, minimize tubing
length;
• place the sampling device intake at the desired
sampling point;
• minimize disturbances of the stagnant water column
above the screened interval during water level
measurement and sampling device insertion;
• make proper adjustments to stabilize the flow rate as
soon as possible;
• monitor water quality indicators during purging;
• collect unfiltered samples to estimate contaminant
loading and transport potential in the subsurface
system.
B. Equipment Calibration
Prior to sampling, all sampling device and monitoring
equipment should be calibrated according to manufacturer’s
recommendations and the site Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) and Field Sampling Plan (FSP). Calibration of pH
should be performed with at least two buffers which bracket
the expected range. Dissolved oxygen calibration must be
corrected for local barometric pressure readings and eleva-
tion.
C. Water Level Measurement and Monitoring
It is recommended that a device be used which will
least disturb the water surface in the casing. Well depth
should be obtained from the well logs. Measuring to the
bottom of the well casing will only cause resuspension of
settled solids from the formation and require longer purging
times for turbidity equilibration. Measure well depth after
sampling is completed. The water level measurement should
be taken from a permanent reference point which is surveyed
relative to ground elevation.
D. Pump Type
The use of low-flow (e.g., 0.1-0.5 L/min) pumps is
suggested for purging and sampling all types of analytes. All
pumps have some limitation and these should be investigated
with respect to application at a particular site. Bailers are
inappropriate devices for low-flow sampling.
• reduced stress on the formation (minimal drawdown);
• less mixing of stagnant casing water with formation
water;
• reduced need for filtration and, therefore, less time
required for sampling;
• smaller purging volume which decreases waste
disposal costs and sampling time;
• better sample consistency; reduced artificial sample
variability.
Some disadvantages of low-flow purging are:
• higher initial capital costs,
• greater set-up time in the field,
• need to transport additional equipment to and from the
site,
• increased training needs,
• resistance to change on the part of sampling practitio-
ners,
• concern that new data will indicate a change in
conditions and trigger an action.
IV. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Sampling
Protocols
The following ground-water sampling procedure has
evolved over many years of experience in ground-water
sampling for organic and inorganic compound determinations
and as such summarizes the authors' (and others) experi-
ences to date (Barcelona et al., 1984, 1994; Barcelona and
Helfrich, 1986; Puls and Barcelona, 1989; Puls et. al. 1990,
1992; Puls and Powell, 1992; Puls and Paul, 1995). High-
quality chemical data collection is essential in ground-water
monitoring and site characterization. The primary limitations
to the collection of representative ground-water samples
include: mixing of the stagnant casing and fresh screen
waters during insertion of the sampling device or ground-
water level measurement device; disturbance and
resuspension of settled solids at the bottom of the well when
using high pumping rates or raising and lowering a pump or
bailer; introduction of atmospheric gases or degassing from
the water during sample handling and transfer, or inappropri-
ate use of vacuum sampling device, etc.
A. Sampling Recommendations
Water samples should not be taken immediately
following well development. Sufficient time should be allowed
for the ground-water flow regime in the vicinity of the monitor-
ing well to stabilize and to approach chemical equilibrium with
the well construction materials. This lag time will depend on
site conditions and methods of installation but often exceeds
one week.
Well purging is nearly always necessary to obtain
samples of water flowing through the geologic formations in
the screened interval. Rather than using a general but
arbitrary guideline of purging three casing volumes prior to
7
1) General Considerations
There are no unusual requirements for ground-water
sampling devices when using low-flow, minimal drawdown
techniques. The major concern is that the device give
consistent results and minimal disturbance of the sample
across a range of low flow rates (i.e., < 0.5 L/min). Clearly,
pumping rates that cause minimal to no drawdown in one well
could easily cause significant drawdown in another well
finished in a less transmissive formation. In this sense, the
pump should not cause undue pressure or temperature
changes or physical disturbance on the water sample over a
reasonable sampling range. Consistency in operation is
critical to meet accuracy and precision goals.
2) Advantages and Disadvantages of Sampling Devices
A variety of sampling devices are available for low-
flow (minimal drawdown) purging and sampling and include
peristaltic pumps, bladder pumps, electrical submersible
pumps, and gas-driven pumps. Devices which lend them-
selves to both dedication and consistent operation at defin-
able low-flow rates are preferred. It is desirable that the pump
be easily adjustable and operate reliably at these lower flow
rates. The peristaltic pump is limited to shallow applications
and can cause degassing resulting in alteration of pH,
alkalinity, and some volatiles loss. Gas-driven pumps should
be of a type that does not allow the gas to be in direct contact
with the sampled fluid.
Clearly, bailers and other grab type samplers are ill-
suited for low-flow sampling since they will cause repeated
disturbance and mixing of stagnant water in the casing and
the dynamic water in the screened interval. Similarly, the use
of inertial lift foot-valve type samplers may cause too much
disturbance at the point of sampling. Use of these devices
also tends to introduce uncontrolled and unacceptable
operator variability.
Summaries of advantages and disadvantages of
various sampling devices are listed in Herzog et al. (1991),
U. S. EPA (1992), Parker (1994) and Thurnblad (1994).
E. Pump Installation
Dedicated sampling devices (left in the well) capable
of pumping and sampling are preferred over any other type of
device. Any portable sampling device should be slowly and
carefully lowered to the middle of the screened interval or
slightly above the middle (e.g., 1-1.5 m below the top of a 3 m
screen). This is to minimize excessive mixing of the stagnant
water in the casing above the screen with the screened
interval zone water, and to minimize resuspension of solids
which will have collected at the bottom of the well. These two
disturbance effects have been shown to directly affect the
time required for purging. There also appears to be a direct
correlation between size of portable sampling devices relative
to the well bore and resulting purge volumes and times. The
key is to minimize disturbance of water and solids in the well
casing.
F. Filtration
Decisions to filter samples should be dictated by
sampling objectives rather than as a fix for poor sampling
practices, and field-filtering of certain constituents should not
be the default. Consideration should be given as to what the
application of field-filtration is trying to accomplish. For
assessment of truly dissolved (as opposed to operationally
dissolved [i.e., samples filtered with 0.45 µm filters]) concen-
trations of major ions and trace metals, 0.1 µm filters are
recommended although 0.45 µm filters are normally used for
most regulatory programs. Alkalinity samples must also be
filtered if significant particulate calcium carbonate is sus-
pected, since this material is likely to impact alkalinity titration
results (although filtration itself may alter the CO2 composition
of the sample and, therefore, affect the results).
Although filtration may be appropriate, filtration of a
sample may cause a number of unintended changes to occur
(e.g. oxidation, aeration) possibly leading to filtration-induced
artifacts during sample analysis and uncertainty in the results.
Some of these unintended changes may be unavoidable but
the factors leading to them must be recognized. Deleterious
effects can be minimized by consistent application of certain
filtration guidelines. Guidelines should address selection of
filter type, media, pore size, etc. in order to identify and
minimize potential sources of uncertainty when filtering
samples.
In-line filtration is recommended because it provides
better consistency through less sample handling, and
minimizes sample exposure to the atmosphere. In-line filters
are available in both disposable (barrel filters) and non-
disposable (in-line filter holder, flat membrane filters) formats
and various filter pore sizes (0.1-5.0 µm). Disposable filter
cartridges have the advantage of greater sediment handling
capacity when compared to traditional membrane filters.
Filters must be pre-rinsed following manufacturer’s recom-
mendations. If there are no recommendations for rinsing,
pass through a minimum of 1 L of ground water following
purging and prior to sampling. Once filtration has begun, a
filter cake may develop as particles larger than the pore size
accumulate on the filter membrane. The result is that the
effective pore diameter of the membrane is reduced and
particles smaller than the stated pore size are excluded from
the filtrate. Possible corrective measures include prefiltering
(with larger pore size filters), minimizing particle loads to
begin with, and reducing sample volume.
G. Monitoring of Water Level and Water Quality
Indicator Parameters
Check water level periodically to monitor drawdown
in the well as a guide to flow rate adjustment. The goal is
minimal drawdown (<0.1 m) during purging. This goal may be
difficult to achieve under some circumstances due to geologic
heterogeneities within the screened interval, and may require
adjustment based on site-specific conditions and personal
experience. In-line water quality indicator parameters should
be continuously monitored during purging. The water quality
8
introducing field contaminants into a sample bottle while
adding the preservatives.
The preservatives should be transferred from the
chemical bottle to the sample container using a disposable
polyethylene pipet and the disposable pipet should be used
only once and then discarded.
After a sample container has been filled with ground
water, a Teflon™ (or tin)-lined cap is screwed on tightly to
prevent the container from leaking. A sample label is filled
out as specified in the FSP. The samples should be stored
inverted at 4oC.
Specific decontamination protocols for sampling
devices are dependent to some extent on the type of device
used and the type of contaminants encountered. Refer to the
site QAPP and FSP for specific requirements.
I. Blanks
The following blanks should be collected:
(1) field blank: one field blank should be collected from
each source water (distilled/deionized water) used for
sampling equipment decontamination or for assisting
well development procedures.
(2) equipment blank: one equipment blank should be
taken prior to the commencement of field work, from
each set of sampling equipment to be used for that
day. Refer to site QAPP or FSP for specific require-
ments.
(3) trip blank: a trip blank is required to accompany each
volatile sample shipment. These blanks are prepared
in the laboratory by filling a 40-mL volatile organic
analysis (VOA) bottle with distilled/deionized water.
V. Low-Permeability Formations and Fractured
Rock
The overall sampling program goals or sampling
objectives will drive how the sampling points are located,
installed, and choice of sampling device. Likewise, site-
specific hydrogeologic factors will affect these decisions.
Sites with very low permeability formations or fractures
causing discrete flow channels may require a unique monitor-
ing approach. Unlike water supply wells, wells installed for
ground-water quality assessment and restoration programs
are often installed in low water-yielding settings (e.g., clays,
silts). Alternative types of sampling points and sampling
methods are often needed in these types of environments,
because low-permeability settings may require extremely low-
flow purging (<0.1 L/min) and may be technology-limited.
Where devices are not readily available to pump at such low
flow rates, the primary consideration is to avoid dewatering of
indicator parameters monitored can include pH, redox
potential, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and turbidity.
The last three parameters are often most sensitive. Pumping
rate, drawdown, and the time or volume required to obtain
stabilization of parameter readings can be used as a future
guide to purge the well. Measurements should be taken
every three to five minutes if the above suggested rates are
used. Stabilization is achieved after all parameters have
stabilized for three successive readings. In lieu of measuring
all five parameters, a minimum subset would include pH,
conductivity, and turbidity or DO. Three successive readings
should be within ± 0.1 for pH, ± 3% for conductivity, ± 10 mv
for redox potential, and ± 10% for turbidity and DO. Stabilized
purge indicator parameter trends are generally obvious and
follow either an exponential or asymptotic change to stable
values during purging. Dissolved oxygen and turbidity usually
require the longest time for stabilization. The above stabiliza-
tion guidelines are provided for rough estimates based on
experience.
H. Sampling, Sample Containers, Preservation and
Decontamination
Upon parameter stabilization, sampling can be
initiated. If an in-line device is used to monitor water quality
parameters, it should be disconnected or bypassed during
sample collection. Sampling flow rate may remain at estab-
lished purge rate or may be adjusted slightly to minimize
aeration, bubble formation, turbulent filling of sample bottles,
or loss of volatiles due to extended residence time in tubing.
Typically, flow rates less than 0.5 L/min are appropriate. The
same device should be used for sampling as was used for
purging. Sampling should occur in a progression from least to
most contaminated well, if this is known. Generally, volatile
(e.g., solvents and fuel constituents) and gas sensitive (e.g.,
Fe2+, CH4, H2S/HS-, alkalinity) parameters should be sampled
first. The sequence in which samples for most inorganic
parameters are collected is immaterial unless filtered (dis-
solved) samples are desired. Filtering should be done last
and in-line filters should be used as discussed above. During
both well purging and sampling, proper protective clothing
and equipment must be used based upon the type and level
of contaminants present.
The appropriate sample container will be prepared in
advance of actual sample collection for the analytes of
interest and include sample preservative where necessary.
Water samples should be collected directly into this container
from the pump tubing.
Immediately after a sample bottle has been filled, it
must be preserved as specified in the site (QAPP). Sample
preservation requirements are based on the analyses being
performed (use site QAPP, FSP, RCRA guidance document
[U. S. EPA, 1992] or EPA SW-846 [U. S. EPA, 1982] ). It
may be advisable to add preservatives to sample bottles in a
controlled setting prior to entering the field in order to reduce
the chances of improperly preserving sample bottles or
9
the well screen. This may require repeated recovery of the
water during purging while leaving the pump in place within
the well screen.
Use of low-flow techniques may be impractical in
these settings, depending upon the water recharge rates.
The sampler and the end-user of data collected from such
wells need to understand the limitations of the data collected;
i.e., a strong potential for underestimation of actual contami-
nant concentrations for volatile organics, potential false
negatives for filtered metals and potential false positives for
unfiltered metals. It is suggested that comparisons be made
between samples recovered using low-flow purging tech-
niques and samples recovered using passive sampling
techniques (i.e., two sets of samples). Passive sample
collection would essentially entail acquisition of the sample
with no or very little purging using a dedicated sampling
system installed within the screened interval or a passive
sample collection device.
A. Low-Permeability Formations (<0.1 L/min
recharge)
1. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling with Pumps
a. “portable or non-dedicated mode” - Lower the pump
(one capable of pumping at <0.1 L/min) to mid-screen
or slightly above and set in place for minimum of 48
hours (to lessen purge volume requirements). After 48
hours, use procedures listed in Part IV above regard-
ing monitoring water quality parameters for stabiliza-
tion, etc., but do not dewater the screen. If excessive
drawdown and slow recovery is a problem, then
alternate approaches such as those listed below may
be better.
b. “dedicated mode” - Set the pump as above at least a
week prior to sampling; that is, operate in a dedicated
pump mode. With this approach significant reductions
in purge volume should be realized. Water quality
parameters should stabilize quite rapidly due to less
disturbance of the sampling zone.
2. Passive Sample Collection
Passive sampling collection requires insertion of the
device into the screened interval for a sufficient time period to
allow flow and sample equilibration before extraction for
analysis. Conceptually, the extraction of water from low
yielding formations seems more akin to the collection of water
from the unsaturated zone and passive sampling techniques
may be more appropriate in terms of obtaining “representa-
tive” samples. Satisfying usual sample volume requirements
is typically a problem with this approach and some latitude will
be needed on the part of regulatory entities to achieve
sampling objectives.
B. Fractured Rock
In fractured rock formations, a low-flow to zero
purging approach using pumps in conjunction with packers to
isolate the sampling zone in the borehole is suggested.
Passive multi-layer sampling devices may also provide the
most “representative” samples. It is imperative in these
settings to identify flow paths or water-producing fractures
prior to sampling using tools such as borehole flowmeters
and/or other geophysical tools.
After identification of water-bearing fractures, install
packer(s) and pump assembly for sample collection using
low-flow sampling in “dedicated mode” or use a passive
sampling device which can isolate the identified water-bearing
fractures.
VI. Documentation
The usual practices for documenting the sampling
event should be used for low-flow purging and sampling
techniques. This should include, at a minimum: information
on the conduct of purging operations (flow-rate, drawdown,
water-quality parameter values, volumes extracted and times
for measurements), field instrument calibration data, water
sampling forms and chain of custody forms. See Figures 2
and 3 and “Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A Workshop
Summary” (U. S. EPA, 1995) for example forms and other
documentation suggestions and information. This information
coupled with laboratory analytical data and validation data are
needed to judge the “useability” of the sampling data.
VII. Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office
of Research and Development funded and managed the
research described herein as part of its in-house research
program and under Contract No. 68-C4-0031 to Dynamac
Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review and has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
VIII. References
Backhus, D,A., J.N. Ryan, D.M. Groher, J.K. McFarlane, and
P.M. Gschwend. 1993. Sampling Colloids and Colloid-
Associated Contaminants in Ground Water. Ground Water,
31(3):466-479.
Barcelona, M.J., J.A. Helfrich, E.E. Garske, and J.P. Gibb.
1984. A laboratory evaluation of groundwater sampling
mechanisms. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 4(2):32-41.
10
Barcelona, M.J. and J.A. Helfrich. 1986. Well construction and
purging effects on ground-water samples. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 20(11):1179-1184.
Barcelona, M.J., H.A. Wehrmann, and M.D. Varljen. 1994.
Reproducible well purging procedures and VOC stabilization
criteria for ground-water sampling. Ground Water, 32(1):12-
22.
Buddemeier, R.W. and J.R. Hunt. 1988. Transport of Colloidal
Contaminants in Ground Water: Radionuclide Migration at the
Nevada Test Site. Applied Geochemistry, 3: 535-548.
Danielsson, L.G. 1982. On the Use of Filters for Distinguish-
ing Between Dissolved and Particulate Fractions in Natural
Waters. Water Research, 16:179.
Enfield, C.G. and G. Bengtsson. 1988. Macromolecular
Transport of Hydrophobic Contaminants in Aqueous Environ-
ments. Ground Water, 26(1): 64-70.
Gschwend, P.M. and M.D. Reynolds. 1987. Monodisperse
Ferrous Phosphate Colloids in an Anoxic Groundwater
Plume, J. of Contaminant Hydrol., 1: 309-327.
Herzog, B., J. Pennino, and G. Nielsen. 1991. Ground-Water
Sampling. In Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Moni-
toring (D.M. Nielsen, ed.). Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 449-
499.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The effect
of membrane filtration artifacts on dissolved trace element
concentrations. Water Res., 26(6):753-763.
Laxen, D.P.H. and I.M. Chandler. 1982. Comparison of
Filtration Techniques for Size Distribution in Freshwaters.
Analytical Chemistry, 54(8):1350.
McCarthy, J.F. and J.M. Zachara. 1989. Subsurface Transport
of Contaminants, Environ. Sci. Technol., 5(23):496-502.
McCarthy, J.F. and C. Degueldre. 1993. Sampling and
Characterization of Colloids and Ground Water for Studying
Their Role in Contaminant Transport. In: Environmental
Particles (J. Buffle and H.P. van Leeuwen, eds.), Lewis Publ.,
Chelsea, MI, pp. 247-315.
Parker, L.V. 1994. The Effects of Ground Water Sampling
Devices on Water Quality: A Literature Review. Ground
Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(2):130-141.
Penrose, W.R., W.L. Polzer, E.H. Essington, D.M. Nelson,
and K.A. Orlandini. 1990. Mobility of Plutonium and Ameri-
cium through a Shallow Aquifer in a Semiarid Region,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 24:228-234.
Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Filtration of Ground
Water Samples for Metals Analyses. Hazardous Waste and
Hazardous Materials, 6(4):385-393.
Puls, R.W., J.H. Eychaner, and R.M. Powell. 1990. Colloidal-
Facilitated Transport of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground
Water: Part I. Sampling Considerations. EPA/600/M-90/023,
NTIS PB 91-168419.
Puls, R.W. 1990. Colloidal Considerations in Groundwater
Sampling and Contaminant Transport Predictions. Nuclear
Safety, 31(1):58-65.
Puls, R.W. and R.M. Powell. 1992. Acquisition of Representa-
tive Ground Water Quality Samples for Metals. Ground Water
Monitoring Review, 12(3):167-176.
Puls, R.W., D.A. Clark, B.Bledsoe, R.M. Powell, and C.J.
Paul. 1992. Metals in Ground Water: Sampling Artifacts and
Reproducibility. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials,
9(2): 149-162.
Puls, R.W. and C.J. Paul. 1995. Low-Flow Purging and
Sampling of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells with Dedicated
Systems. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation,
15(1):116-123.
Ryan, J.N. and P.M. Gschwend. 1990. Colloid Mobilization in
Two Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifers. Water Resour. Res., 26:
307-322.
Thurnblad, T. 1994. Ground Water Sampling Guidance:
Development of Sampling Plans, Sampling Protocols, and
Sampling Reports. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
U. S. EPA. 1992. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft
Technical Guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC
EPA/530/R-93/001, NTIS PB 93-139350.
U. S. EPA. 1995. Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A
Workshop Summary, Dallas, TX, November 30 - December 2,
1993. EPA/600/R-94/205, NTIS PB 95-193249, 126 pp.
U. S. EPA. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
11
Figure 2. Ground Water Sampling Log
Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date _________________________
Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ____________
Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level __________________
Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel __________________________________________________________________________
Type of Samples Collected
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = Br2h, Volsphere = 4/3B r3
Time pH Temp Cond.Dis.O Turb.[ ]Conc Notes2
12
Figure 3.Ground Water Sampling Log (with automatic data logging for most water quality
parameters)
Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date ________________________
Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ___________
Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level _________________
Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel _________________________________________________________________________
Type of Samples Collected
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = Br2h, Volsphere = 4/3B r3
Time Pump Rate Turbidity Alkalinity [ ] Conc Notes