10002_YanceyCountyCDLF_20180124

Jan 24, 2018

January 2018
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill
Fall 2017 Semiannual
Water Quality Monitoring Report
Yancey County, North Carolina, Permit No. 100-02

Prepared for Yancey County, North Carolina

Project Number: C61485-01.01.01
\\Asheville1\asheville\Projects\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Reports\2017\Fall\C&D LF\FINAL10002September 2017 Water Quality Report .docx
January 2018
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill
Fall 2017 Semiannual
Water Quality Monitoring Report
Yancey County, North Carolina, Permit No. 100-02
Prepared for
110 Town Square
Yancey County Courthouse, Room 11
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714

Prepared by
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Alec Macbeth, PG
Project Geologist

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report i January 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling .............................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 Groundwater Purging and Sampling Methods ........................................................................ 2
2.1.2 Surface Water Sampling Methods ................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Sample Handling, Documentation, and Analysis .................................................................................... 4
3 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Analytical Results ................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.1 Groundwater Samples ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Surface Water Samples ..................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
4 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Future Activities ................................................................................................................................................... 9
5 References ................................................................................................................................. 10

TABLES
Table 1 Monitoring Well Construction Summary
Table 2 Summary of Laboratory Analyses Performed on Samples
Table 3 Summary of Analytical Results
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Sample Location and Posted Data Map
Figure 3 Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Sampling Logs and Equipment Documentation and Instrument Calibration
Datasheets
Appendix B Reports of Laboratory Analysis and Chain-of-Custody Documentation

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report ii January 2018
ABBREVIATIONS
µS/cm microsiemens per centimeter
Anchor QEA Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
C&D construction and demolition debris
DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
feet-TOC feet below the top of the well casing
IMAC interim maximum allowable concentration
MDL method detection limit
mg/L milligrams per liter
MRL method reporting limit
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
mV millivolt
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
ORP oxidation reduction potential
SC specific conductivity
SU Standard Units
SWS Solid Waste Section
SWSL Solid Waste Section Limit
TDS total dissolved solids
VOC volatile organic compound

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 1 January 2018
1 Introduction
This Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report is presented by Anchor QEA of
North Carolina, PLLC (Anchor QEA).
The Yancey County Solid Waste Department operates a solid waste facility located on Landfill Road
near U.S. Highway 80, 7 miles from Burnsville, North Carolina (Figure 1). The facility accepts solid
waste from Yancey and Mitchell Counties and includes the following permitted components:
• A closed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill (Permit No. 100-01)
• A closed construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfill (Permit No. 100-02)
• An active transfer station (Permit No. 100-03T)
The approximate locations of the two landfill units within the solid waste facility are shown in
Figure 2. This report addresses water quality associated with the C&D Landfill. Water quality at the
MSW Landfill is addressed in a separate report (Anchor QEA 2018).
This report documents the second semiannual groundwater and surface water monitoring event for
2017 and is being submitted in accordance with requirements stipulated in the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)1 letter, “Construction & Demolition
Debris Unit Closure – Yancey/Mitchell Landfill” (DENR 2008a), issued to the county on
December 30, 2008; and in accordance with regulations codified in the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Solid Waste Management Rules Title 15A, North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
Subchapter 13B, Section .0531 (15A NCAC 13B .0531). This report provides an evaluation of surface
water and groundwater quality for the C&D Landfill.
The water quality monitoring network for the C&D Landfill consists of two compliance monitoring
wells (MW-H and MW-I), one background monitoring well (MW-J), and two surface water sampling
locations (SW-1 and SW-2) positioned along the North Toe River (Figure 2).

1 The former DENR is now known as the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 January 2018
2 Methods
2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling
On September 26 and 27, 2017, groundwater and surface water samples were collected by
Anchor QEA. The sampling locations are shown in Figure 2. A summary of monitoring well
construction and water level measurement is presented in Table 1. This table includes both the
closed C&D Landfill wells and the closed MSW Landfill wells to provide a more comprehensive
dataset for evaluating groundwater flow direction. Table 2 provides a list of collected groundwater
and surface water samples that are associated with the C&D Landfill and the laboratory analyses
performed on each sample.
2.1.1 Groundwater Purging and Sampling Methods
Prior to purging the monitoring wells, the static water level was gauged with a decontaminated
Geotech ET Water Level Meter. During the purging process, field parameters—pH, specific
conductivity (SC), dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, oxidation reduction potential (ORP), and
temperature—were recorded with a YSI 556 Multiprobe Water Quality Meter. Well sampling logs
with static water level measurements and field parameter data are included in Appendix A. Static
water level measurements are also provided in Table 1. Groundwater samples were collected after
the monitoring wells had been purged and field parameters had stabilized. When monitoring wells
were purged with a disposable bailer, a minimum of three well volumes were purged or, if the well
recharged slowly, the monitoring well was bailed dry and allowed to recharge prior to sampling.
Anchor QEA personnel used a disposable bailer, a bladder pump, or a downhole GeoTech Geosub
pump to purge the wells and collect groundwater samples. Total well depth, condition of the casing,
and the groundwater recharge rate were used to determine the purging and sample collection
method employed at each monitoring well. Sample collection methods were recorded in the
sampling logs provided in Appendix A. The specific purging methodologies used for the individual
monitoring wells are described in Sections 2.1.1.1 through 2.1.1.3. These methodologies are
consistent with historical practices.
2.1.1.1 Monitoring Well MW-H
The total depth of monitoring well MW-H is 64.50 feet below the top of the well casing (feet-TOC),
as measured on the day of purging, and it is screened within the saprolite portion of the aquifer
(Table 1). A new disposable bailer was used to sample this well because it recharges slowly.
Anchor QEA technicians purged the monitoring well dry after purging approximately one well
volume on September 26, 2017, and returned on September 27, once the well had recharged, to
collect the groundwater sample. Field parameters were recorded for the initial groundwater

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 3 January 2018
withdrawal and prior to collecting the sample. Groundwater samples were placed in laboratory-
supplied sample bottles by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves.
2.1.1.2 Monitoring Well MW-I
The total depth of monitoring well MW-I is 83.00 feet-TOC, as measured with a water level meter
during a prior sampling event, and it is screened within the saprolite portion of the aquifer. A bladder
pump and low-flow sampling techniques were used to purge and sample this well on
September 26, 2017, in accordance with the procedures described in Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown)
Ground-Water Sampling Procedures (Puls and Barcelona 1996).
During purging, field parameters were measured and recorded approximately every 3 minutes. Well
purging continued until these parameters stabilized for three consecutive readings, as outlined by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division in
Operating Procedure: Groundwater Sampling (EPA 2017). Stabilization criteria were as follows:
• pH values within 0.1 unit
• SC values within 3%
• Temperature, DO, and turbidity values within 10%
• ORP values within 10 millivolts (mV)
Once the parameters stabilized, groundwater samples were collected and placed in
laboratory-supplied sample bottles by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves.
2.1.1.3 Monitoring Well MW-J
MW-J has a total depth of 196.80 feet-TOC (Table 1) and is located on a ridge in the southwestern
area of the C&D Landfill (Figure 2). It is screened in bedrock and serves as the background
monitoring well for the water quality monitoring network. A bladder pump could not be used to
purge or sample this well, due to the pressure head caused by the deep groundwater level
(146.01 feet-TOC). Instead, Anchor QEA technicians used a Geotech Geosub pump and performed
low-flow sampling techniques to purge and sample the well on September 26, 2017. During purging,
the field parameters for groundwater were measured and recorded approximately every 3 minutes.
Well purging continued until these parameters stabilized for three consecutive readings. The
stabilization criteria were the same as for well MW-I (as described in Section 2.1.1.2). Once the
parameters stabilized, groundwater samples were collected and placed in laboratory-supplied
sample bottles by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves.
2.1.2 Surface Water Sampling Methods
Surface water samples SW-1 and SW-2 were collected on September 26, 2017, from designated
locations on the North Toe River, which is located east of the C&D Landfill (Figures 1 and 2). Sample
SW-1 represents surface water quality upstream of the C&D Landfill, and sample SW-2 represents

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 4 January 2018
surface water quality downstream of the C&D Landfill. One round of surface water field parameters,
consisting of temperature, pH, SC, DO, ORP, and turbidity, was measured and recorded at each
sampling location prior to collecting the sample. The collected samples were placed in
laboratory-supplied sample containers by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves.
2.2 Sample Handling, Documentation, and Analysis
Field parameters and additional observations pertaining to the C&D Landfill sampling locations are
provided in sampling logs included in Appendix A. Following collection, each groundwater and
surface water sample was immediately placed on ice in a sample cooler for shipment to Prism
Laboratories, a North Carolina-certified laboratory located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Table 2
provides details of the laboratory analyses performed on the samples.
Proper chain-of-custody documentation practices were followed during collection and transportation
of each sample; this documentation is included in Appendix B of this report. For each of the sampling
groups collected on September 26 and 27, 2017, a trip blank provided by the laboratory was placed
in the sample cooler and analyzed for Appendix I volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The laboratory
analytical reports are provided in Appendix B.

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 5 January 2018
3 Findings
3.1 Analytical Results
The laboratory analytical results and field parameter data for the groundwater and surface water
samples collected at the landfill are included in Appendices A and B, as well as in the Electronic Data
Deliverable, which is submitted separately to the DEQ Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste
Section (SWS), per applicable guidelines.
As stipulated in the SWS documents referenced in the preceding paragraph, all laboratory analytical
results were reported and appropriately qualified as follows:
• Non-detections: Non-detections (non-detects) are values reported by the laboratory as
below method detection limits (MDLs). They are tabulated in Table 3 and are flagged with a
“U” qualifier. The MDL is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured
and reported by a laboratory with 99% confidence that the constituent concentration is
greater than 0.
• Solid Waste Section Limits: All detections (values above the MDL) were compared to
constituent-specific Solid Waste Section Limits (SWSLs) established by DEQ. The SWSL is
defined as the lowest concentration of a constituent in a sample that can be quantitatively
determined with suitable precision and accuracy. A non-italicized “J” qualifier is used by the
laboratory to mark parameters that are detected at estimated concentrations greater than the
MDL, but less than the laboratory’s method reporting limit (MRL). The MRL is the minimum
concentration of a target analyte that can be accurately determined by the referenced
method.
• Estimated or “J”-Qualified: If the reported concentration is greater than the laboratory MDL
and MRL, but less than the SWSL, the analytical result is qualified as estimated and is flagged
with an italicized “J” qualifier by Anchor QEA, per SWS reporting requirements. In addition to
non-detects, detected concentrations of constituents below the applicable SWSLs are
included in Table 3.
• 2L Standard: Detected concentrations of constituents in groundwater samples were
compared to applicable North Carolina groundwater quality standards. For most constituents,
this standard is the 2L standard, defined in 15A NCAC 2L .0202. Detected concentrations of
analytes in groundwater with no established 2L standard were compared either to the interim
maximum allowable concentrations (IMACs) for Class GA and GSA groundwater (in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0202 [c]) or to Groundwater Protection Standards, pursuant
to 15A NCAC 13B .1634.
• 2B Standard: Detections of analytes in surface water samples were compared to the surface
water quality standards described in 15A NCAC 2B (2B standards).

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 6 January 2018
Table 3 presents a summary of detected constituents and outlines concentrations of analytes that
were above applicable SWSLs, as well as detected analytes that exceeded their respective 2L
standard, IMAC, or 2B standard.
3.1.1 Groundwater Samples
The following sections summarize detections of field parameters, VOCs, and metals (including
Appendix I metals) in groundwater.
3.1.1.1 Field Parameters
Measurements of pH were obtained on September 26 and 27, 2017, from groundwater samples
collected from the monitoring wells. The pH readings from wells MW-H and MW-I were 5.50
Standard Units (SU) and 5.18 SU, respectively. Both results are below the 2L standard pH range of 6.5
to 8.5 SU (Table 3). The pH reading from MW-J was 6.67 SU, which is within the 2L standard range.
These recorded pH readings are consistent with historical data.
Turbidity values at the time of sampling the monitoring wells ranged from 1.13 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTUs) in MW-I to 22.80 NTUs in MW-J (Table 3). Turbidity values for MW-I have
generally been recorded at or close to 0.00 NTUs, with occasional spikes in the data. Turbidity values
for MW-H have historically ranged from 0.00 to 147.10 NTUs.
DO readings from the samples collected from the monitoring wells ranged from 2.44 milligrams per
liter (mg/L) in MW-H to 5.57 mg/L in MW-J. SC measurements ranged from 81 microsiemens per
centimeter (µS/cm) in MW-I to 443 µS/cm in MW-H. ORP values measured in the samples ranged
from 196.1 mV in MW-H to 262.7 mV in MW-I. No SWSLs or 2L standards are established for DO, SC,
or ORP.
3.1.1.2 VOCs
Six VOCs were detected in groundwater samples collected from one or more of the monitoring wells
(Table 3). Acetone was detected in MW-H at a concentration greater than the SWSL, but well below
the applicable 2L standard (Table 3). No VOCs were detected at concentrations at or above
applicable water quality standards (2L standards or IMACs). For more detail regarding VOC analytical
results, refer to Table 3 and Appendix B.
3.1.1.3 Metals
Eighteen metals were detected in groundwater samples collected from one or more of the
monitoring wells (Table 3). Six of the metals (i.e., barium, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, and
zinc) were present at concentrations above the associated SWSLs (Table 3). Cobalt, iron, and
vanadium concentrations exceeded their respective water quality standards (2L standards or IMACs)
in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-H and MW-J (Figure 2 and Table 3).

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 7 January 2018
Manganese concentrations exceeded the 2L standard in groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells MW-H and MW-I (Figure 2 and Table 3). The detected chromium concentration
exceeded its 2L standard in the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-J (Figure 2
and Table 3). The detected concentrations of these metals are generally consistent with historical
data.
3.1.1.4 Additional Water Quality Parameters
All additional water quality parameters and constituents (alkalinity, chloride, sulfate, and total
dissolved solids [TDS]) that were measured or detected in the groundwater samples collected from
the monitoring wells are summarized in Table 3. SWSLs are not established for these parameters,
with the exception of sulfate. The detected concentrations of sulfate were below its SWSL.
Chloride, sulfate, and TDS have established 2L standards. All detected concentrations of these
parameters were below their applicable groundwater standards.
3.1.2 Surface Water Samples
The following sections summarize detections of Appendix I VOCs, metals (including Appendix I
metals), and measured field parameters in surface water samples collected during the fall 2017
sampling event. The location of sample point SW-1 in the North Toe River is upstream of the landfills
and is considered to represent surface water quality at an upstream location. The location of sample
point SW-2 in the North Toe River is downstream of the landfills and is considered to represent
surface water quality at a downstream location (Figure 2).
3.1.2.1 Field Parameters
Field parameters were obtained on September 26, 2017, for surface water samples. The pH readings
were 6.14 SU and 6.55 SU for surface water samples SW-1 and SW-2, respectively. Both results are
within the 2B standard range for pH and are consistent with historical data.
Turbidity was measured and recorded for SW-1 and SW-2 at 2.81 NTUs and 4.72 NTUs, respectively,
and both values are within the 2B standard established at 10 NTUs for trout waters (Table 3). These
turbidity results are consistent with historical data.
DO concentrations were compliant with the established 2B standard of greater than or equal to 6.0
mg/L.
SC measurements in surface water samples SW-1 and SW-2 were recorded at 116 µS/cm and 85
µS/cm, respectively. ORP measurements in SW-1 and SW-2 were recorded at 347.6 mV and 262.5
mV, respectively. 2B standards do not exist for these field parameters. Detailed field parameter
results are provided in Appendix A and Table 3.

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 8 January 2018
3.1.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds
No VOCs were detected in either of the surface water samples collected from the landfill.
3.1.2.3 Metals
Ten metals were detected in surface water samples collected from one or both sampling locations
(Table 3). None of the ten detected metals exceeded their respective SWSLs or 2B surface water
standards. The variations in overall concentrations of metals between the upstream and downstream
surface water samples do not show evidence of the landfill impacting surface water downstream of
the landfill.
Anchor QEA will continue to monitor surface water quality in the North Toe River upstream and
downstream of the landfill, paying close attention to any new detections of metals in the samples.
3.1.2.4 Additional Water Quality Parameters
Additional water quality parameters and constituents (alkalinity, chloride, sulfate, and TDS) were
measured or detected in the surface water samples collected from the SW-1 and SW-2 locations
(Table 3). SWSLs are not established for these parameters, with the exception of sulfate. The detected
concentrations of sulfate were below its SWSL.
Of these constituents, only chloride has an established 2B standard. Detected concentrations of
chloride in both surface water samples were found to be below this standard (Table 3).
3.2 Hydrogeology
Groundwater elevations were calculated for the fall 2017 semiannual water quality monitoring event
using the measured depths to water and the associated top-of-casing elevations from the survey
performed on the monitoring wells in October 2009. Groundwater elevation data for the
C&D Landfill monitoring wells and the MSW Landfill monitoring wells are reported in Table 1.
Figure 3 presents the generalized groundwater flow direction for both bedrock and saprolite.
Generalized groundwater flow directions were estimated using groundwater elevation data
associated with a limited number of data points in an area of complex topographic and geologic
conditions. The estimated groundwater flow directions indicate groundwater in the bedrock is
flowing in a generally northeasterly direction. Groundwater flow in the saprolite seems to be
generally mimicking topography in the areas where data is available, and appears to be convergent
toward a topographic trough in a northerly direction in the water table aquifer. Apparent
groundwater flow directions and the local topography suggest groundwater is flowing toward the
North Toe River.

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 9 January 2018
4 Summary
Anchor QEA completed the second semiannual water quality monitoring event of 2017 at the
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed C&D Landfill on September 26 and 27, 2017.
Table 3 of this report and the Prism Reports of Laboratory Analysis included in Appendix B provide
detailed analytical results and field data summarizing the groundwater and surface water quality at
the Yancey-Mitchell County Closed C&D Landfill.
Generally, the groundwater and surface water analytical results show constituent concentrations are
below the respective SWSLs and water quality standards (2L standards and IMACs for groundwater;
2B standards for surface water), with the exception of chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, and
vanadium. Cobalt, iron, and vanadium concentrations exceeded their respective 2L standards or
IMACs in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW-H and MW-J. Manganese
concentrations exceeded the 2L standard in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells
MW-H and MW-I. Chromium was detected at a concentration exceeding its 2L standard in the
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW-J.
No constituents exceeded any of the respective 2B surface water standards in either the upstream or
the downstream surface water sample.
Based on these data, it appears unlikely groundwater from the landfill is impacting the North Toe
River.
4.1 Future Activities
Anchor QEA will continue to measure field parameters and monitor Appendix I VOCs, metals
(including Appendix I constituents), and inorganic water quality parameters in the groundwater and
surface water monitoring network at the Yancey-Mitchell Closed C&D Landfill on a semiannual basis.
The next sampling event is scheduled for March 2018.

Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report 10 January 2018
5 References
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC), 20187. Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality
Monitoring Report – Yancey County Closed MSW Landfill. January 2018.
DENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources), 2008a. Letter to: Mr.
Nathan Bennett, Yancey County. Regarding: Construction & Demolition Debris Unit Closure –
Yancey/Mitchell Landfill. Yancey County, Permit No. 100-02, Document ID No. 6314. Division
of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section. December 30, 2008.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2017. Operating Procedure: Groundwater Sampling.
Science and Ecosystem Support Division. April 26, 2017.
Puls, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona, 1996. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling
Procedures. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OSWER, EPA/540/S-
95/504.

Tables

Table 1
Monitoring Well Construction Summary
Northing Easting
Ground
Surface
Elevation
TOC
Elevation Stick Up
Total
Well
Depth
Depth
To
Water
Groundwater
Elevation
Approximate
Depth to
Bedrock
Approximate
Bedrock
Elevation
Depth to
Top of
Screened
Interval
Depth to
Bottom of
Screened
Interval
Top of
Screen
Elevation
Elevation of
Bottom of
Screen
(NAD 83;
2007)(NAD 83; 2007)
(feet
NAVD 88)
(feet
NAVD 88)
(feet
above
ground
surface)
(feet
below
TOC)
(feet
below
TOC)
(feet
NAVD 88)
(feet below
ground
surface)
(feet
NAVD 88)
(feet below
ground
surface)
(feet below
ground
surface)
(feet
NAVD 88)
(feet
NAVD 88)
C&D Landfill Monitoring Wells
100-02 MW-H 12/04/1996 809563.75 1058698.38 2,566.36 2,568.68 2.3 64.5 60.75 2,507.93 62 2,504 47.0 62.0 2,519.4 2,504.4
100-02 MW-I 12/02/1996 809923.04 1058531.91 2,596.57 2,598.77 2.0 83.0 65.95 2,532.82 ~85 2,512 64.0 79.0 2,532.6 2,517.6
100-02 MW-J 11/26/1996 808698.05 1057994.86 2,873.58 2,875.99 2.3 196.80 148.06 2,727.93 2 2,872 179.5 194.5 2,694.1 2,679.1 Bedrock
MSW Landfill Monitoring Wells
100-01 MW-2 No Well Record 809474.01 1059181.42 2,568.85 2,572.06 3.2 56.3 36.20 2,535.86
100-01 MW-3 No Well Record 809357.74 1058830.13 2,551.34 2,553.57 1.7 38.0 32.84 2,520.73
100-01 MW-AR No Well Record 808483.97 1059176.2 2,688.76 2,691.17 2.3 71.4 63.08 2,628.09 Assumed
Bedrock
100-01 MW-B 12/02/1996 809020.07 1059514.58 2,624.07 2,626.27 2.0 70.0 60.95 2,565.32 18 2,606 53.0 68.0 2,571.1 2,556.1 Bedrock
DENR Well
Construction/
Drilling Log Record,
dated 12/31/1996
Notes:
Survey data showing the horizontal and vertical positions of the monitoring wells were presented in Appendix A of the Fall 2009 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report, Yancey-Mitchell County Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, dated November 16, 2009.
Depth to water was measured on September 26 and 27, 2017.
"No Well Record" indicates that the well record, if it exists, was not readily obtainable.
C&D: construction and demolition debris
MSW: municipal solid waste
NAD: North American Datum 1983
NAVD: North American Vertical Datum 1988
TOC: top of casing
Saprolite DENR Well
Construction/
Drilling Log Record,
dated 12/31/1996
Assumed
Saprolite
No Well
Construction/
Drilling Record is
Available
No Well Record No Well Record No Well
Record
No Well
Record
No Well
Record
No Well
Record
Source of Well
Construction
InformationFacility Permit Well ID Date Drilled
Geology of
Screened
Interval
Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Page 1 of 1
January 2018
Table 2
Summary of Laboratory Analyses Performed on Samples
Groundwater Samples
VOCs Metals Sulfate Chloride TDS Alkalinity
EPA 8260B
EPA 6020B
EPA 7470A
EPA
9056A
EPA
9056A
SM
2540C SM 2320B
100-02 MW-H 09/27/2017 X X X X X X
100-02 MW-I 09/26/2017 X X X X X X
100-02 MW-J 09/26/2017 X X X X X X
Surface Water Samples
VOCs Metals Sulfate Chloride TDS Alkalinity
EPA 8260B
EPA 6020B
EPA 7470A
EPA
9056A
EPA
9056A
SM
2540C SM 2320B
100-02 SW-1 09/26/2017 X X X X X X
100-02 SW-2 09/26/2017 X X X X X X
Quality Control Samples
VOCs
EPA 8260B
100-02 TRIP BLANK (C&D)09/27/2017 X
100-02 TRIP BLANK (J)09/26/2017 X
100-02 TRIP BLANK (SW)09/26/2017 X
Notes:
VOC: volatile organic compound
C&D: construction and demolition debris landfill
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SM: Standard Method
TDS: total dissolved solid
Facility
Permit Well ID Collect Date
Facility
Permit Well ID Collect Date
Facility
Permit Sample ID Collect Date
VOCs and metals analysis include Appendix I constituents per 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 258. Metals include manganese, iron, and
mercury, in addition to Appendix I constituents.
Tetrahydrofuran analysis has been performed since the spring 2011 sampling event, per the North Carolina Division of Waste Management,
Solid Waste Section requirement specified in the June 25, 2010 memorandum.
Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill
Page 1 of 1
January 2018
Table 3
Summary of Analytical Results
Metals (including Appendix I)
Lab Certification 40
Lab Methods EPA 6020B and EPA 7470A (Mercury)
Parameter Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc
CAS Number 7440-36-0 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-41-7 7440-43-9 7440-47-3 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 7439-89-6 7439-92-1 7439-96-5 7439-97-6 7440-02-0 7782-49-2 7440-22-4 7440-28-0 7440-62-2 7440-66-6
SWS ID 13 14 15 23 34 51 53 54 340 131 342 132 152 183 184 194 209 213
Units µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
Sample ID Collect Date Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result
MW-H 09/27/2017 0.41 U 0.45 U 120 0.38 J 0.35 J 9.6 J 3.2 J 11 4,700 1.8 J 1,300 0.090 J 6.8 J 0.62 J 0.20 J 0.20 J 5.6 J 26
MW-I 09/26/2017 0.41 U 0.45 U 95 J 0.27 J 0.11 J 0.38 J 0.58 J 0.74 J 21 J 0.17 J 100 0.036 U 1.7 J 0.45 U 0.067 U 0.13 J 0.79 U 18
MW-J 09/26/2017 0.90 J 1.7 J 24 J 0.068 U 0.064 J 12 1.6 J 7.7 J 1,200 1.1 J 50 J 0.036 U 12 J 1.2 J 0.067 U 0.040 J 1.1 J 8.5 J
SW-1 09/26/2017 0.41 U 0.45 U 23 J 0.068 U 0.053 U 0.30 J 0.081 J 0.89 J 210 J 0.14 J 19 J 0.036 U 0.37 J 0.45 U 0.067 U 0.028 J 0.79 U 4.4 JSW-2 09/26/2017 0.41 U 0.45 U 18 J 0.068 U 0.053 U 0.29 J 0.074 J 0.79 J 170 J 0.15 J 13 J 0.036 U 0.14 J 0.45 U 0.067 U 0.028 J 0.79 U 3.7 J
TRIP BLANK (C&D)09/27/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TRIP BLANK (J)09/26/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TRIP BLANK (SW)09/26/2017 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MDL 0.41 0.450 0.12 0.068 0.053 0.081 0.056 0.41 20 0.061 0.76 0.036 0.082 0.45 0.067 0.018 0.79 1.3
MRL 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 100 1.0 5.0 0.20 2.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 10
SWSL 6 10 100 1 1 10 10 10 300 10 50 0.2 50 10 10 5.5 25 10
2L NE 10 700 NE 2 10 NE 1,000 300 15 50 1 100 20 20 NE NE 1,000
IMAC 1 NE NE 4 NE NE 1 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.2 0.3 NE
GWPS 1 NE NE 4 NE NE 1 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.28 0.3 NE
2B 640 10 200,000 6.5 0.15 35 4 2.7 NE 0.54 NE 0.012 16 5 0.06 0.47 NE 36
Groundwater Samples
Surface Water Samples
Quality Control Samples
Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill
Page 1 of 2
January 2018
Table 3
Summary of Analytical Results
VOCs (Appendix I)Inorganics Field Parameters
Lab Certification 12
Lab Methods EPA 8260B EPA 9056A EPA 9056A SM2320 B SM2540 C 5445 (pH only)
Parameter Acetone
cis-1,2-
Dichloro-
ethene
m & p
Xylene
Tetra-
hydrofuran
Trichloro-
fluoro-
methane Xylene (Total)Chloride Sulfate
Total
Alkalinity to
pH 4.5
Total
Dissolved
Solids pH
Dissolved
Oxygen Turbidity Temperature
Specific
Conductivity
Oxidation
Reduction
Potential
CAS Number 67-64-1 156-59-2 108-38-3 109-99-9 75-69-4 1330-20-7 16887-00-6 14808-79-8 NA NA SW320 7782-44-7 SW330 SW325 SW323 SW336
SWS ID 3 78 359 458 203 346 301 315 337 311 320 356 330 325 323 336
Units µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L SU mg/L NTU °C µS/cm mV
Sample ID Collect Date Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result
MW-H 09/27/2017 140 0.58 J 0.12 U 37 0.062 U 0.15 U 29,000 110,000 J 120,000 330,000 5.50 2.44 4.09 14.88 443 196.1
MW-I 09/26/2017 0.31 U 0.056 U 0.12 U 30 0.52 J 0.15 U 13,000 200 U 21,000 44,000 J 5.18 3.05 1.13 14.36 81 262.7
MW-J 09/26/2017 0.31 U 0.056 U 0.71 J 0.16 U 0.062 U 0.71 J 1,400 55,000 77,000 160,000 6.67 5.57 22.8 14.76 273 220.4
SW-1 09/26/2017 0.31 U 0.056 U 0.12 U 0.16 U 0.062 U 0.15 U 7,000 17,000 J 20,000 54,000 6.14 8.52 2.81 19.56 116 347.6SW-2 09/26/2017 0.31 U 0.056 U 0.12 U 0.16 U 0.062 U 0.15 U 5,300 10,000 J 17,000 40,000 J 6.55 8.07 4.72 20.23 85 262.5
TRIP BLANK (C&D)09/26/2017 0.31 U 0.056 U 0.12 U 0.16 U 0.062 U 0.15 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TRIP BLANK (J)09/27/2017 0.31 U 0.056 U 0.12 U 0.16 U 0.062 U 0.15 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TRIP BLANK (SW)09/26/2017 0.31 U 0.056 U 0.12 U 0.16 U 0.062 U 0.15 U NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
MDL 0.31 0.056 0.12 0.16 0.062 0.15 40 200 770 1,400 NA NA NA NA NA NA
MRL 5.0 0.50 1.0 10 0.50 1.5 1,000 1,000 5,000 50,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA
SWSL 100 5 NE NE 1 5 NE 250,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
2L 6,000 70 NE NE 2000 500 250,000 250,000 NE 500,000 6.5-8.5 NE NE NE NE NE
IMAC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
GWPS NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
2B 2,000 720 550 NE 67,000 450 230,000 NE NE NE 6.0-9.0 > 6.0 10 NE NE NE
Groundwater Samples
Surface Water Samples
Quality Control Samples
Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Yancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill
Page 2 of 2
January 2018

Figures
[
0 2,0001,000
Feet
NOTE:Burnsville, North Carolina is located approximately 7.0 milessouthwest of the landfill parcel boundary.
LEGEND:
Landfill Property Boundary
Publish Date: 2018/01/23, 4:13 PM | User: alesueurFilepath: \\Asheville1\Asheville\Projects\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Figures\GIS\MXD\2017\Fall\Figure 1 - Site Location Map CD AQ.mxd
Figure 1Site Location Map
Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring ReportYancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Landfill
SOURCES:Basemap: USGS 1:24,000 Scale Topo Maps, Micaville Quadrangle, 1987Site Property Boundary: Yancey County GIS
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC%7 miles to Burnsville, NC %NC Highway 80
[
0 500 1,000250
Feet
NOTES:1. Posted data indicate constituents detected atconcentrations above their respective water qualitystandard (2L standard, Interim Maximum AllowableConcentration [IMAC], or 2B standard)2. Sample dates: September 26 and 27, 20173. Surface water sample locations are approximate. Thedownstream surface water sample (SW-2) is shown onthe map inset.
LEGEND:
!U Bedrock Monitoring Well Location
!U Saprolite Monitoring Well Location
#*Surface Water Sample Location
Approximate Landfill Boundaries
Landfill Parcel Boundary
Streams
Publish Date: 2018/01/23, 4:30 PM | User: alesueurFilepath: \\Asheville1\Asheville\Projects\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Figures\GIS\MXD\2017\Fall\Figure 2 - C&D Sample Location Map AQ.mxd
Figure 2Sample Location and Posted Data Map
Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality Monitoring ReportYancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Landfill
SOURCES:Basemap: NC OneMap 2010Parcels and Streams: Yancey County GISMonitoring Wells: Survey data from Webb A. Morganand Associates, P.A. (2009)
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
2L Groundwater Standards or IMACIron (300 µg/L)Manganese (50 µg/L)Vanadium (0.3 µg/L)pH (6.5-8.5 Standard Units [SU])
#*!U
!U
!U
MW-I
Manganese (100 µg/L)pH (5.18 SU)
MW-H
Iron (4,700 µg/L)
Manganese (1,300 µg/L)Vanadium (5.6 J µg/L)pH (5.50 SU)
MW-J (Background Well)
Iron (1,200 µg/L)
Vanadium (1.1 J µg/L)
Construction and
Demolition Debris Landfill
Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill
SW-1
No Exceedances%Flo
w

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Transfer Station NORTH TOE
R
IVERNORTH TOE
R
IVER
WOLF BRANCHWOLF BRANCHUTUT#*
#*
SW-2
No Exceedances
0 6,0003,000Feet
%%%%
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U
!U %Flow Direction
Flow Direction
Generalized Bedrock Groundwater Flow
Generalized SaproliteGroundwater Flow
Construction
and DemolitionDebris Landfill
Municipal SolidWaste Landfill
MW-2
(2,535.86)MW-3
(2,520.73)
MW-AR
(2,628.09)
MW-B
(2,565.32)
MW-J
(2,727.93)
MW-H
(2,507.93)
MW-I
(2,532.82)25402580
25202380
25202560
2460 2680
2 5 6 0
2440
2
4
8
0
2420
266026402620
2420
2540
24602520
24402480
2360
2600
2500
2400 25002
5
0
0
27002600
24002700
24002500
27002400
2700
280025802420256028602480
2620272027802
7
4
0
2480
268025
4
0
252024402860272
0
24202520
2380
244024202640
2840 244027202460
28202620
2 4 602680
278026602760 2480264027602680
2360
WOLF BRANCHWOLF BRANCHREBELS CREEKREBELS CREEKNORTH TOE RIVERNORTH TOE RIVER
Publish Date: 2018/01/23, 4:37 PM | User: alesueurFilepath: \\Asheville1\Asheville\Projects\Yancey County\Solid Waste\Figures\GIS\MXD\2017\Fall\Fig3AQ.mxd
[
0 400200
Feet
NOTES:1. (2,522.73): Calculated groundwaterelevation2. Groundwater elevations are based ondepth to water measurements collectedon September 26 and 27, 2017.
Figure 3Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction Map
Fall 2017 Semiannual Water Quality ReportYancey-Mitchell County Closed Construction and Demolition Landfill
LEGEND:
!U Bedrock Monitoring Well Location
!U Saprolite Monitoring Well Location
Approximate Landfill Boundaries
Elevation Contour (20-Foot Interval)
Landfill Parcel Boundary
Streams
SOURCES:1. Parcels: Yancey County GIS2. Monitoring Wells: Survey data fromWebb A. Morgan and Associates, P.A.(2009)3. Elevation Contours: NCDOT Lidar,20074. Roads: Yancey County and MitchellCounty GIS
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC

Appendix A
Sampling Logs and Equipment
Documentation and Instrument
Calibration Datasheets

Appendix B
Reports of Laboratory Analysis and Chain-
of-Custody Documentation
Page 1 of 21
Page 2 of 21
Page 3 of 21
Page 4 of 21
Page 5 of 21
Page 6 of 21
Page 7 of 21
Page 8 of 21
Page 9 of 21
Page 10 of 21
Page 11 of 21
Page 12 of 21
Page 13 of 21
Page 14 of 21
Page 15 of 21
Page 16 of 21
Page 17 of 21
Page 18 of 21
Page 19 of 21
Page 20 of 21
Page 21 of 21
Page 1 of 17
Page 2 of 17
Page 3 of 17
Page 4 of 17
Page 5 of 17
Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17
Page 8 of 17
Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17
Page 11 of 17
Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17
Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17
Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17
Page 1 of 20
Page 2 of 20
Page 3 of 20
Page 4 of 20
Page 5 of 20
Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20
Page 8 of 20
Page 9 of 20
Page 10 of 20
Page 11 of 20
Page 12 of 20
Page 13 of 20
Page 14 of 20
Page 15 of 20
Page 16 of 20
Page 17 of 20
Page 18 of 20
Page 19 of 20
Page 20 of 20