6013_GreenwayNorthMeckCDLF_20160321_AssessmentPlan_DIN25968

-i- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001 March 21, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE ...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................2 2.1 Description of the Closed Phase I C&D Landfill ................................................... 2
3.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF SITE CONTAMINANT HYDROGEOLOGY .............4
3.1 Site Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Potential Source(S) and Detected Contaminants .................................................... 5 3.2.1 Landfill Leachate .........................................................................................5
3.2.2 Landfill Gas (LFG) ......................................................................................6
3.2.3 Site-Specific Evidence for LFG Impact to Groundwater ............................7
3.3 Vinyl Chloride – Predominant Groundwater Contaminant .................................. 12 3.3.1 Fate and Transport of Vinyl Chloride ........................................................12 3.3.2 Vinyl Chloride Trends ...............................................................................13
3.3.3 Summary of October 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Data .......................14
4.0 INTERIM ABATEMENT MEASURES .......................................................................16
4.1 Neighboring Private Water Supply Wells ............................................................. 16 4.2 Installation and Operation of Landfill Gas (LFG) Control System ...................... 16
5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................17 5.1 Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water ............................................................ 17
5.1.1 Discharge to Unnamed Tributary Stream ..................................................17
5.1.2 Discharge to Cane Creek ...........................................................................17 5.2 Area Groundwater Supply Wells .......................................................................... 18 5.3 Migrating Landfill Gas Hazards and Structural Vapor Intrusion ......................... 18
5.3.1 Migrating Landfill Gas - Fire, Explosion, and Health Hazards .................18
5.3.2 VOC Vapor Partitioning from Groundwater – Inhalation Health
Hazard ........................................................................................................19
6.0 CONTAMINANT DELINEATION PLAN ...................................................................20 6.1 On-Going Evaluation of Landfill Impacts Due to LFG Migration ....................... 20
6.2 Evaluation of Landfill Gas Mitigation as a Groundwater Remedy ...................... 21
6.3 Development of Screening Model for Groundwater Flow and Solute Fate
and Transport ........................................................................................................ 21
7.0 INTERIM GROUNDWATER REMEDY .....................................................................22
8.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................23
9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................25

-ii- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001 March 21, 2016
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Map
Figure 2 – Groundwater Potentiometric Map
Figure 3 – Landfill Gas Extraction Well System
TABLES

Table 1 – Summary of Recent Site Groundwater Monitoring Data – North Meck Closed Phase I C&D Landfill & Vinyl Chloride Charts for Table 1
Table 2 – Summary of Recent Site Methane Monitoring Data
Table 3 – Landfill Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Well Headspace Vapor Data
Table 4 – Maximum Detected Groundwater VOC Concentrations in Site Landfill Compared with
Maximum Groundwater VOC Concentrations Attributed to Vapor Phase Migration from Morris (Rust Environmental & Infrastructure)

APPENDIX
Appendix A - Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. Data Report

-1- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
1.0 PURPOSE

On behalf of Greenway Waste Solutions of North Meck, LLC, Civil & Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC) has prepared this Contaminant Delineation Plan for the Closed Phase I
C&D Landfill at the North Meck C&D Landfill facility. The North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Solid Waste Section has requested a characterization of the
nature and extent of the groundwater contamination at the Closed Phase I C&D Landfill. This
Plan is submitted in response to the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at
concentrations above the 15A NCAC 02L groundwater quality standards (2L Standards) in
detection/assessment monitoring wells at the subject landfill. This Plan proposes:

1) Evaluation of additional analytical leachate/landfill gas ‟indicator” parameters as a part
of routine landfill monitoring to characterize the source of the groundwater impacts;
2) Evaluation of the active landfill gas extraction system in the Closed Phase I C&D
Landfill as an effective interim groundwater remedy;
3) Development of a screening numerical model to simulate contaminant fate and transport
to further evaluate risk associated with the migration of groundwater contaminants.

-2- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CLOSED PHASE I C&D LANDFILL

North Meck C&D Landfill is operated by Greenway Waste Solutions of North Meck, LLC
(GWS) under Solid Waste Facility Permit Number 60-13. The facility address is 15300
Holbrooks Road, Huntersville, North Carolina. The Closed Phase I disposal area is located in
the southern portion of the site and is bounded by an unnamed tributary of Cane Creek to the
north with other landfill disposal areas further to the north, private property to the west, and land
owned by Mecklenburg County to the east. Adjacent land parcels to the south and southeast of
the Closed Phase I Landfill are developed with single-family residences. Some adjacent parcels
have been recently purchased by GWS. Cane Creek abuts the southeast property boundaries of
the aforementioned land parcels on the south side of the closed landfill. The Closed Phase I
disposal area is approximately 23.3 acres. Waste placement in this disposal area generally
occurred during the years 1993 to 2002. It has been reported that the eastern and southern
margins of this disposal area contain buried land-clearing debris approximately 30-40 feet wide
and 20-30 feet deep. A Site Map is attached as Figure 1.

Routine semi-annual groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the landfill since June 1996.
The approximate locations of monitoring wells are shown on Figures 1 and 2. During the
October 2012 and subsequent routine monitoring events, VOCs including benzene and vinyl
chloride were detected at concentrations exceeding the 2L Standards in several detection
monitoring wells. Other VOCs that have been detected at low concentrations include 1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, carbon
disulfide, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes. Vinyl chloride is the predominant VOC in site
groundwater. A summary of recent groundwater data for the subject landfill is presented in
Table 1.

Due to the proximity of a few private residential water supply wells (now inactive) downgradient
of the landfill area, samples were collected from these private wells. VOCs detected in the
landfill monitoring wells were also detected in the former Gilkerson residence well. The

-3- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
Gilkerson and other neighboring residential water supply wells were made inactive and these
residences connected to a public water supply. GWS has purchased the former Gilkerson and
Wright parcels. Analytical results for the neighboring private wells are summarized in Table 1.

-4- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
3.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF SITE CONTAMINANT HYDROGEOLOGY

3.1 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY

Based on the NC Geologic Map (1985), the subject site is underlain by granitic rocks. The local
groundwater system is comprised of two interconnected zones: 1) residual soil/saprolite/weathered
fractured rock (regolith) overlying 2) fractured crystalline bedrock. The regolith layer is vertically
stratified by degree of weathering. A highly weathered and structure-less residual soil occurs near
the ground surface. The residual soil grades into saprolite, a coarser grained material that retains the
structure of the parent bedrock. Beneath the saprolite, partially weathered/fractured bedrock occurs
with depth until sound bedrock is encountered. A transition zone at the base of the regolith has been
interpreted to be present in many areas of the Piedmont. The zone consists of partially
weathered/fractured bedrock and lesser amounts of saprolite that grades into bedrock and has been
described as “being the most permeable part of the system, even slightly more permeable than the
soil zone” (Harned and Daniel 1992).

LeGrand (1988; 1989) developed a conceptual hydrogeologic model of the aforementioned
composite regolith-fractured crystalline rock aquifer system in the Piedmont that is useful for the
description of groundwater conditions. The basic hydrologic entity in this conceptual model is
the surface drainage basin that contains a perennial stream. Each Piedmont drainage basin is
similar to adjacent basins and the conditions are generally repetitive from basin to basin. Within
a basin, movement of groundwater is generally restricted to the area extending from the drainage
divides to a perennial stream. LeGrand refers to this hydrogeologic system as a “slope aquifer
system”. Rarely does groundwater move beneath a perennial stream to another more distant
stream or across drainage divides. Therefore, in most cases in the Piedmont, the groundwater
system is a two-medium system restricted to the local drainage basin (LeGrand 1988).
Groundwater flow paths in the Piedmont are almost invariably restricted to the zone underlying
the topographic slope extending from a topographic divide to an adjacent stream. Under natural
conditions, the general direction of groundwater flow can be approximated from the surface
topography (LeGrand 1989).

-5- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
A groundwater potentiometric map is presented in Figure 2. Groundwater movement beneath
the northern half of the Closed Phase I Landfill is to the north and northwest toward the unnamed
stream tributary that separates the Closed Phase I Landfill and the Infill Expansion Area. The
"V″-shaped potentiometric contours in the vicinity of the stream tributary are indicative of
shallow groundwater discharge from the northern half of the Closed Phase I Landfill to this
adjacent stream. Only one well cluster MW-5/MW-5D is located along the southern margin of
the stream tributary. An upward vertical hydraulic gradient of 0.06 feet/foot was calculated for
this well cluster. Similar to the vertical gradients calculated for well clusters on the north side of
the stream tributary, this vertical gradient to the south of the stream indicates ground water
discharge from the deeper aquifer horizon to the stream tributary. A local groundwater divide is
shown to bisect the Closed Phase I Landfill such that groundwater movement in the southern half
of this landfill area is to the southeast toward Cane Creek, which lies beyond the landfill property
boundary to the southeast. Please note that the landfill owner has recently purchased land
parcels situated between the landfill property boundary and Cane Creek.

3.2 POTENTIAL SOURCE(S) AND DETECTED CONTAMINANTS

The mechanism for groundwater contamination beneath the landfill area is not clearly
understood. The primary source for ground water contamination beneath the landfill occurs
within the waste mass disposed in the landfill areas. However, two secondary sources – landfill
leachate and landfill gas (LFG) – are the media that typically come into contact with the
underlying groundwater, which if contaminated may result in groundwater impacts. Leachate is
not collected at the landfill; thus, direct analytical data is not available for its evaluation as a
potential source of groundwater impact. Landfill gas (i.e. methane) is monitored on a quarterly
schedule in perimeter wells at the landfill. Elevated methane data have triggered the need to
design and implement a landfill gas extraction system that was activated in April 2015.

3.2.1 Landfill Leachate

Leachate is the resultant liquid created when rainfall percolates into the landfill waste mass and
then slowly drains through the waste under gravity. During this process, the leachate picks up

-6- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
soluble contaminants from the waste itself. Xenobiotic organic compounds in leachate may
include aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, chlorinated aliphatics, pesticides, and plastizers. With
the exception of phenols, all these organic groups have been observed in the site groundwater.
Inorganic compounds in leachate may include arsenate, barium, borate, cobalt, lithium, mercury,
selenate and sulfide.

If not controlled or collected, leachate can migrate through permeable material that exists under
the landfill. Although geologic materials below the landfill can filter some of the leachate
constituents, the more mobile constituents in the migrating leachate can enter the underlying
groundwater. Where leachate seeps into groundwater, a plume of groundwater contamination
will occur.

3.2.2 Landfill Gas (LFG)

Landfill gas (LFG) is the product of microbiological decomposition of buried organic matter.
Certain microorganisms turn complex organic compounds in landfill waste into methane (~50-
55%), carbon dioxide (~40-45%), and trace amounts of other compounds including hydrogen
sulfide and other sulfur compounds. About 0.2 to 0.5% of LFG is composed of complex organic
compounds that are not biodegraded. Monitoring is important if specific trace compounds are to
be identified.

Appreciable volumes of LFG are generated in landfills in approximately one to three years,
depending on the waste types, amount of moisture or other factors. Peak production of LFG is
typically five to seven years after waste is disposed in the landfill.

The mechanisms for LFG transport are advection and diffusion. Advection transport is a
function of barometric pressure variations and landfill pressure gradients, and it is the primary
transport mechanism with regard to emissions and migration control strategies. LFG will
migrate vertically or laterally within subsurface materials along the path of least resistance.
Highly impermeable landfill covers will likely promote lateral LFG migration. Diffusion

-7- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
transport is minor compared to advection; however, this mechanism is associated with the
ultimate transfer of compounds into air, soil, and liquid media.

Some consultants and researchers have recently theorized that landfill gas may be a source of
low-level VOC contamination of groundwater. Low-level VOCs found in LFG and in LFG
condensate are sometimes found in off-site gas and groundwater monitoring wells. Detection
levels range from the low ppb to low parts per million (ppm) levels. The more commonly
identified VOCs reported in LFG are chlorinated aliphatics and aromatic hydrocarbons.

Researchers have found that LFG may be the source of groundwater contamination where:
• The presence of migrating LFG is confirmed in landfill gas monitoring wells;
• A significant increase in leachate ‟indicator” parameters is not associated with the VOCs;
• VOCs are in some cases detected in upgradient monitoring wells;
• Carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen isotopes indicate the lack of relationship between landfill
leachate and the groundwater samples from the impacted well;
• There is a direct relationship between the LFG and gases observed in the headspace of
monitoring wells;
• The VOC detected in groundwater was either the same compound or a degradation product
of the VOC found in the LFG;
• Typical detected VOC parameters are associated with vapor-phase migration in landfills;
• Low levels of VOCs are detected above background values; and
• VOC concentrations in groundwater are reduced during LFG mitigation.

3.2.3 Site-Specific Evidence for LFG Impact to Groundwater

Presence of LFG in Gas Monitoring Wells
Methane monitoring wells were installed at the Closed Phase I Landfill in March 2014. The
approximate locations of these wells are depicted on the attached Figure 2. As shown in Table 3,
elevated methane gas levels have been detected in gas monitoring wells GW-3, GW-4, GW-5,
and GW-6 located near the southeast property boundary since March 2014.

-8- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
Association of Leachate Indicator Parameters and Vinyl Chloride
Published studies which characterize the chemical composition of landfill leachates have shown
that sulfate and chloride are conservative (and therefore highly mobile) parameters that exist at
significant concentrations (Gibbons, 1991; USEPA, 1987b). Therefore, in the event of a leachate
release, these mobile indicator parameters, along with alkalinity and total dissolved solids (TDS),
are likely to be the first parameters to be detected.

Leachate “indicator” parameter data are available for several Closed Phase I Landfill monitoring
wells (MW-1, MW-4, MW-5, MW-10, and MW-11). With the exception of MW-11 data, a
review of these data does not show a significant increase in the concentrations of these indicator
parameters with the initial detection of vinyl chloride in these monitoring wells. Because the
low-level detection of vinyl chloride in these wells was not associated with a significant increase
in inorganic “indicator” compounds, migrating LFG is suspected to be the source of the vinyl
chloride detected in these groundwater monitoring wells. MW-11 data indicate elevated
indicator parameters concurrent with the initial detection of vinyl chloride, which suggest a
leachate source in this area of the landfill.

VOCs Detected in Upgradient Monitoring Wells
There is no true upgradient monitoring well at the Closed Phase I Landfill.

Isotopic Relationship between Leachate and Groundwater Samples
Site-specific comparative isotopic studies have not been conducted to evaluate a relationship
between landfill leachate and groundwater samples.

Relationship between LFG and Groundwater Monitoring Well Headspace Gases
Headspace gas samples were collected from two LFG extraction wells (GW-3 and GW-6) prior
to start-up of the LFG collection system and from one groundwater monitoring well MW-4D-1 at
the Closed Phase I Landfill. These samples were collected in Summa canisters and submitted
with a chain-of-custody record to Enthalpy Analytical, Inc. and analyzed for hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, and carbon dioxide using ASTM D1946-90 (Reapproved

-9- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
2000), Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography. The samples
were also analyzed for the TO-15 Target Compound List using EPA Method TO-15,
Determination of VOCs in Air Collected in Specially Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). A tabulated summary of the headspace gas
sample analytical results is presented in the attached Table 3, and the Enthalpy Analytical, Inc.
laboratory data report is included in Appendix A.

Researchers found that a comparison of percent hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and methane would indicate a similar chemical fingerprint in the headspace of
both LFG and groundwater wells (Romito and Allendorf. Abstract. Observed Landfill Gas
Effects on Ground Water Quality and Its Identification and Monitoring). They also found that
LFG impact to groundwater may be characterized by an increase in free carbon dioxide, a
decrease in pH, and the detection of low concentrations of VOCs. As summarized in Table 3,
there appears to be a strong correlation of percent hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon
monoxide in the headspace of both LFG and groundwater wells. The correlation is not as
conclusive for carbon dioxide and methane. Low concentrations of VOCs have been detected in
site groundwater.

In his research, Morris did not attempt to correlate the headspace VOC concentrations for gas
and groundwater wells; however, he did use well headspace data to demonstrate that similar
VOCs were being detected in the headspace of gas wells and groundwater monitoring wells
(Morris, Harry H. Abstract. The Potential for Landfill Gas to Impact Ground Water Quality).
For the site-specific VOC data, similar analytes were detected in the headspace of the gas wells
GW-3 and GW-6 and groundwater well MW-4D-1. Moreover, several commonly detected
VOCs including cis-1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were found to
have similar concentrations in the gas and groundwater well headspace samples.

Also, Morris used theoretical vapor-to-water partitioning calculations to estimate the magnitude
of VOC vapor concentrations which when partitioned would result in low-level ppb VOC levels
in groundwater, and vice versa. The site-specific headspace VOC concentrations that were
detected were not of sufficient magnitude to result in the detected groundwater VOC

-10- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
concentrations, and vice versa. We believe that our headspace collection method was not suited
to evaluate VOC concentration data. In his case study, Morris designed special sampling devices
to collect gas samples from the vadose zone gas in the area immediately above the capillary
fringe, and the associated groundwater samples were collected immediately below the
groundwater table. CEC collected samples of headspace gas from a sampling port adapted to the
top-of-casing of a monitoring well - a point significantly above the soil-groundwater interface.
Volumetric dilution within the well and/or vapor loss from the well may be too significant to use
the well headspace data for the theoretical vapor-to-water partitioning concentration calculations.

Relationship between VOCs in Groundwater and VOCs in LFG
As noted in Table 1, the predominant VOCs detected in site groundwater are chlorinated
aliphatic compounds including 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene,
and vinyl chloride, and aromatic compounds including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and
xylenes. In comparison, as presented in Table 3, vinyl chloride, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, benzene,
toluene, and xylenes were identified in LFG samples. Observation of the same VOCs or
degradation products in site groundwater and LFG is indicative that dissolution of LFG is the
source of VOCs found in groundwater.

Typical VOC Parameters Associated with Vapor Phase Migration in Landfills
Published scientific literature indicates that the more commonly identified VOCs reported in
LFG are benzene, dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, methylene
chloride, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, vinyl chloride, and
xylenes. A review of historical groundwater monitoring data for the landfill facility indicates
that the primary VOCs detected are benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and xylenes. It is believed that reducing conditions in
the landfill mass may sequentially degrade the primary aliphatic chlorinated VOCs
(tetrachloroethene → trichloroethene → cis-1,2-dichloroethene → vinyl chloride, and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane → 1,1-dichloroethane → chloroethane) such that the parent and first-order
degradation products are not frequently detected in the groundwater monitoring wells at the
subject landfill.

-11- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
Low Levels of VOCs Detected above Background Values
Groundwater concentrations associated with vapor to aqueous phase transfer are in the parts per
billion range. Thus, another line of evidence that dissolution of LFG is the source of VOCs
found in groundwater is the detection of low levels of VOCs in landfill groundwater samples.
Morris charted maximum VOC concentrations for ten sites where groundwater VOCs were
attributed to vapor phase contaminant migration. Historical concentration ranges of the primary
VOCs detected in on-site monitoring wells are listed in Column 2 of Table 4. For comparison,
the maximum VOC concentrations charted by Morris are listed in Column 3 of Table 4. The
site-specific maximum VOC levels are lower than the study site levels with the exception of cis-
1,2-dichloroethene. These data show that the site low-level VOC concentrations may be
attributable to vapor phase migration.

Reduction of VOC Concentrations in Groundwater during LFG Mitigation
Published studies indicate that the installation and operation of LFG control systems appeared to
reduce the VOC levels in groundwater at several landfill sites. GWS engaged CEC to design and
install an LFG extraction system at the Closed Phase I Landfill. This gas control system has
been operational since April 2, 2015. As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the increasing trend in VC
concentrations in site groundwater monitoring wells from October 2012 to October 2014
corresponds with the initial detection of elevated methane gas levels in LFG monitoring wells
GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, GW-6, and GW-8 in March 2014. The decreasing trend in VC
concentrations in site groundwater monitoring wells indicated by the April 24, 2015 and
subsequent October 21, 2015 monitoring data corresponds with the continuous operation of the
site LFG collection system since April 2, 2015. If, as we believe, operation of the LFG
collection system resulted in a significant reduction in vinyl chloride in groundwater, continued
future operation of this system should be effective as a groundwater remedy.

-12- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
3.3 VINYL CHLORIDE – PREDOMINANT GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT
3.3.1 Fate and Transport of Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl chloride is the predominant contaminant in the area groundwater and appears to present
the most significant concern based upon it prevalence. Vinyl chloride may be a primary
decomposition byproduct of some disposed wastes; however, it seems more likely that vinyl
chloride occurs as an anaerobic degradation byproduct of parent chlorinated aliphatic
compounds. The presence of intermediate degradation byproducts - 1,1-dichloroethene and cis-
1,2-dichloroethene – suggest that such reduction dechlorination is occurring in site groundwater.

Groundwater flow patterns in the northern half of the Closed Phase I Landfill will result in the
transport and discharge of groundwater-borne contaminants to the unnamed stream tributary to
the north. Vinyl chloride was detected in a tributary stream sample SW-2 at 1.3 ppb in October
2015 and in sample SW-4 at 1.2 ppb in October 2014. These detections are below its 15A
NCAC 2B Surface Water Standard of 2.4 ppb for Human Heath.

Groundwater movement in the southern half of the Closed Phase I Landfill is to the southeast
toward Cane Creek. If not attenuated, impacted groundwater to the south of the landfill facility
will discharge to Cane Creek. GWS has recently purchased residentially-developed land parcels
located between the southeastern and southern perimeter of the closed landfill and Cane Creek.
Moreover, private supply wells that were utilized at the residences on these land parcels have
been made inactive, and the residences have been connected to a public water system. By
removing these receptors, the current exposure pathway via impacted groundwater is not
complete and the risk to human health reduced.

With regard to fate and transport of groundwater contaminants in deeper groundwater, it is
anticipated that groundwater discharge will either occur in the tributary stream or ultimately into
Cane Creek. Vinyl chloride has not been detected in deeper monitoring wells located along the
east side of the landfill property where the tributary stream exits the site. It was detected in
deeper monitoring wells located along the southeast and south sides of the landfill property. If

-13- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
not attenuated, contaminant migration via deeper groundwater movement in a south or east
direction from the Closed Phase I Landfill is anticipated to ultimately discharge to Cane Creek.

3.3.2 Vinyl Chloride Trends

As illustrated in the charts presented with Table 1, vinyl chloride was first detected in site
groundwater in the October 2012 monitoring event, and its concentrations were observed to
increase in several landfill monitoring wells up to October 2014. Concurrently, elevated
methane levels were initially detected in site gas monitoring wells GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, GW-6,
and GW-8 in March 2014 (i.e., indicating the presence of migrating LFG). Recent groundwater
VOC data indicate a significant improvement in site groundwater quality from the historic
maximum VOC levels. The Table 1 charts show a recent overall trend of decreasing vinyl
chloride concentration in site monitoring wells.

Over the period from October 2013 to October 2014, vinyl chloride concentrations in deeper
landfill monitoring wells were typically increasing. From October 2014 to October 2015, vinyl
chloride trends decreased for eight of the deeper monitoring wells and increased for three deeper
wells (MW-4A, MW-5D, and MW-6D) along the perimeter of the Closed Phase I Landfill.
Although vinyl chloride was historically detected in wells MW-4D-1, MW-6D-1, MW-7D, MW-
8D, MW-11A, MW-11D-1, the October 2015 data show vinyl chloride to be non-detect in these
wells.

As illustrated in Figure 2, vinyl chloride is distributed at low ppb concentrations (1 to 6.6 ppb) at
the downgradient perimeter of the Closed Phase I Landfill. Also observed in the potentiometric
contour map, the Closed Phase I Landfill is bisected by a centrally located groundwater divide,
and vinyl chloride has been detected in downgradient perimeter wells to the north, east, and
south. The widespread distribution of vinyl chloride at low ppb levels along the entire
downgradient perimeter of this closed landfill is not indicative of groundwater impacted by
landfill leachate, yet may result from groundwater impacted by a more homogeneous medium
such as migrating LFG.

-14- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
It is premature to assign a cause(s) for this recent declining groundwater VOC trend.
Groundwater levels were slightly higher in April 2015 when compared with October 2014
suggesting that seasonal groundwater fluctuation is not likely a significant factor. The site LFG
extraction system began operation on April 2, 2015, and thus may be a factor in reducing vinyl
chloride levels in groundwater. Further evaluation of additional groundwater monitoring data is
needed following an extended period of gas extraction system operation to determine whether
LFG extraction will be effective as a groundwater remedy.

3.3.3 Summary of October 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Data

A tabulated summary is presented in this section to update the Solid Waste Section with
additional site data obtained during the October 2015 semi-annual groundwater monitoring event
conducted at the Closed Phase I Landfill.

Monitoring Area VOC Trend Analysis
MW-1 MW-1 is located along the north-central perimeter of the landfill adjacent to the tributary.
MW-1 –VC decreased from 1.5 ppb to non-detect; toluene and xylenes decreased to non-detect.
Elevated alkalinity, CO2 and manganese (Mn) point to LFG impact to groundwater.
MW-4 Area

The well cluster at MW-4 is located in near proximity to gas collection well GW-5. Since the gas collection system was started: MW-4 - VC decreased from 7.0 to 1.2 ppb. Elevated alkalinity, CO2 and Mn point to LFG impact to groundwater. MW-4A - VC decreased from 3.4 to 1.2 ppb; DCE decreased from 2.4 to 1.8 (<2L Std); DCA,
toluene and xylenes decrease to non-detect. Elevated CO2 points to LFG impact to groundwater.
MW-4D – VC decreased from 6.9 to 0.65 ppb; DCA decreased from 2.8 to 1.3 (<2L Std); DCE
decreased from 3.7 to 1.4 ppb (<2L Std); xylenes decrease to non-detect. Leachate indicator
parameters were not elevated. MW-4D-1 – VC decreased from 1.2 ppb to non-detect; carbon disulfide decreased from 9.6 to 2.1 ppb (<2L Std); DCE and xylenes were essentially unchanged at 1.5 and 1.2 ppb (both <2L Std); DCA was detected at 1.0 ppb (<2L Std). Leachate indicator parameters were not elevated. The above data are evidence for LFG impact to site groundwater. These data predominantly show decreasing VOC levels since the gas collection system became active.
MW-5 Area
The well cluster at MW-5 is located on the northeast perimeter of the landfill adjacent to the tributary. MW-5 - VC decreased from 8.6 to 2.1 ppb; cis-DCE remained unchanged at 1.9 ppb (<2L Std); DCA and xylenes decrease to non-detect. MW-5D - VC has increased from 3.0 – 6.2 – 6.6 ppb; cis-DCE decreased from 4.3 to 3.8 ppb (<2L Std); DCA decreased from 2.9 to 2.8 ppb (<2L Std); chloroethane was present at 2.1 ppb; benzene increased from 1.2 to 1.3 ppb; xylenes decrease to non-detect. VC and other VOCs decreased in the shallow groundwater (MW-5). The data also suggest natural bio-decay of cis-DCE to VC and DCA to chloroethane. The decay process may be
presently increasing the VC levels in the deeper well MW-5D.
MW-6 Area The well cluster at MW-6 is located in near proximity to gas collection well GW-3. Since the gas
collection system was started: MW-6 - VC decreased from 1.6 ppb to non-detect; xylenes decrease from 1.4 ppb to non-detect.

-15- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
Monitoring Area VOC Trend Analysis
MW-6D - VC decreased from 5.7 to 1.5 ppb; DCE decreased from 1.3 ppb to non-detect. MW-6D-1 - VC decreased from 3.8 ppb to non-detect; carbon disulfide at 2.8 (<2L Std). The decrease in groundwater VOC levels concurrent with gas collection is evidence for LFG impact.
MW-7 Area
The well cluster at MW-7 is located in near proximity to gas collection well GW-7. Since the gas collection system was started: MW-7 - VC trend is mixed from 3.3 to 1.1 to 1.6 ppb; DCE increased from 2.3 to 2.6 ppb (<2L Std); toluene and xylenes decreased to non-detect. Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated. MW-7A – VC has not been detected in this well; DCE increased from 1.1 to 1.4 ppb (<2L Std).
Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated.
MW-7D – VC decreased from 1.6 ppb to non-detect; DCE increased from 1.1 to 1.5 ppb (<2L
Std); carbon disulfide at 1.8 ppb (<2LStd). Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated.
The above data are evidence for LFG impact to site groundwater. These data show decreasing
VOC levels since the gas collection system became active.
MW-8 Area

The well cluster at MW-8 is located in near proximity to gas collection well GW-8. Since the gas
collection system was started:
MW-8 - VC decreased from 1.1 ppb to non-detect; carbon disulfide at 2.6 (<2L Std). Leachate
indicator parameters are not elevated.
MW-8D - VC decreased from 2.1 ppb to non-detect; no other VOCs detected. Leachate indicator
parameters are not elevated. The above data appear to be evidence for LFG impact to site groundwater. These data show decreasing VC levels since the gas collection system became active.
MW-9
MW-9 is located in near proximity to gas collection well GW-9. Since the gas collection system
was started: MW-9 – No VOCs have been detected in MW-9. Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated.
MW-10 Area
The well cluster at MW-10 is located along the northwest perimeter of the landfill adjacent to the
tributary. MW-10 - VC decreased from 6.7 ppb to non-detect; no other VOCs detected. Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated. MW-10D - VC decreased from 8.1 to 2.4 ppb; benzene decreased from 2.9 to 1.3 ppb; toluene and xylenes decreased to non-detect. The decrease in groundwater VOC levels concurrent with gas collection may be evidence for LFG impact.
MW-11 Area
The well cluster at MW-11 is located at the east side of the landfill area in the vicinity of gas
collection wells GW-1 and GW-2. MW-11 - VC decreased from 12.0 to 1.9 ppb; benzene decreased from 1.2 to 0.62 ppb (<2L Std). MW-11A – No VOCs detected. Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated. MW-11B - No VOCs detected. Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated. MW-11D-1 - VC decreased from 1.4 ppb to non-detect; no other VOCs detected. Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated. MW-11D-2 – Xylenes at 1.4 ppb (<2L Std). Leachate indicator parameters are not elevated. The significant decrease in groundwater VOC levels concurrent with gas collection is evidence
for LFG impact.

Table Notes: Cl = chloride; CO2 = carbon dioxide; DCA = dichloroethane; DCE = dichloroethene;
LFG = landfill gas; Mn = manganese; PCE = tetrachloroethene; TCE = trichloroethene; TDS = total dissolved solids; VC = vinyl chloride;
2L Standards = 15A NCAC 2L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards; µg/L = microgram per liter.

-16- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
4.0 INTERIM ABATEMENT MEASURES

4.1 NEIGHBORING PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY WELLS

Private residential supply wells located hydraulically down-gradient of the Closed Phase I
Landfill have been made inactive (see Figure 1). These residences have been connected to a
public water system. Moreover, the landfill owner has recently purchased the former Gilkerson
and Wright parcels situated in this area. By removing these receptors, the current exposure
pathway via impacted groundwater is not complete and the risk to human health reduced.

4.2 INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF LANDFILL GAS (LFG) CONTROL SYSTEM

In addition, GWS engaged CEC to design, construct, and implement a LFG extraction well
system to mitigate LFG migration at the Closed Phase I Landfill. The system consists of 15
perimeter LFG extraction wells, three LFG extraction wells placed in the waste mass, a blower and
LFG collection piping and appurtenances. The approximate locations of LFG extraction wells are
depicted on Figure 3. This system was made operational on April 2, 2015, and ran continually
until June when an electrical problem interrupted the operation for approximately three weeks. The
LFG extraction system has been operated continuously since these initial repairs were made with
the exception of brief electrical outages. Initially, the extraction wells exhibited positive pressure
buildup in all extraction wells, which can cause LFG migration. Since system startup, the positive
pressure in the extraction wells has been reduced and all wells are now performing at a negative
pressure (vacuum) at each well. Based on recent perimeter well monitoring, methane
concentrations were reduced in the LFG monitoring wells; and as of February 2016, only one
methane monitoring well (GW-6) continued to show elevated (~2.2%) methane levels. Recent
routine monthly methane monitoring data for the Closed Phase I Landfill are summarized in Table
2.

-17- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

Exposure pathways have been identified for the detected site contaminants. An assessment of
exposure pathways and the potential for exposure risk to impacted site groundwater and landfill
gas is presented in this Section.

5.1 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER

5.1.1 Discharge to Unnamed Tributary Stream

Groundwater flow patterns in the northern half of the Closed Phase I Landfill will result in the
transport and discharge of groundwater-borne contaminants to the unnamed stream tributary to
the north. Vinyl chloride was detected in a tributary stream sample SW-2 at 1.3 ppb in October
2015 and in sample SW-4 at 1.2 ppb in October 2014. These detections are below the 15A
NCAC 2B Surface Water Standard for vinyl chloride of 2.4 ppb for Human Heath. This
tributary stream is situated internally to the landfill facility and is not frequented by the general
public.

5.1.2 Discharge to Cane Creek

Groundwater movement in the southern half of the Closed Phase I Landfill is to the southeast
toward Cane Creek. Vinyl chloride was detected in shallow and deeper monitoring wells located
along the southeast and south sides of the landfill property. If not attenuated, contaminant
migration via groundwater movement in a southeast direction from the Closed Phase I Landfill is
anticipated to ultimately discharge to Cane Creek. It is important to note that the landfill owner
has recently purchased land parcels located between the southern perimeter of the Closed Phase I
Landfill and Cane Creek. The base flow in Cane Creek is significantly higher than in the
centrally located tributary stream to the north; therefore, it is not anticipated that the low VOC
concentrations detected in perimeter groundwater monitoring wells would result in potential
exceedances of the surface water standards in Cane Creek.

-18- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
5.2 AREA GROUNDWATER SUPPLY WELLS

As previously discussed in Section 4.1, private residential supply wells located hydraulically
downgradient of the Closed Phase I Landfill have been made inactive. These residences have
been connected to a public water system. By removing these receptors, the current exposure
pathway via impacted groundwater is not complete.

With regard to future groundwater use in the area, Mecklenburg County has adopted
Groundwater Well Regulations that restrict the use of existing and new water supply wells in an
Area of Regulated Groundwater Usage (ARGU). ARGUs are established by the County around
sites with reported violations of the 2L Groundwater Quality Standards. The Mecklenburg
Priority List (MPL) was established in 1989 to respond to the need for a more aggressive
program to protect citizens from drinking contaminated groundwater. A site is added to the MPL
when information is provided that reports soil or groundwater contamination. In 1999, landfills
were added as MPL sites. Thus, future groundwater use in the area is restricted by public
institutional controls.

5.3 MIGRATING LANDFILL GAS HAZARDS AND STRUCTURAL VAPOR
INTRUSION

5.3.1 Migrating Landfill Gas - Fire, Explosion, and Health Hazards

At the Closed Phase I Landfill, methane exceedances were documented at LFG monitoring wells
GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, and GW-6. All of these LFG monitoring wells are located near the landfill
property boundary. In response to the methane exceedances, GWS began operation of a LFG
control system at the closed landfill on April 2, 2015. The approximate locations of LFG
extraction wells are depicted on Figure 3. Based on recent perimeter monitoring well sampling,
methane concentrations have been reduced; and as of February 2016, only one methane monitoring
well (GW-6) continued to show elevated (~2.2%) methane levels. The facility is currently
performing monthly methane monitoring at the Closed Phase I Landfill until further notice from the
Solid Waste Section. Recent routine monthly methane monitoring data for the Closed Phase I
Landfill are summarized in Table 2. Further, GWS installed and maintains indoor natural gas

-19- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
monitors in the residences and enclosed structures located south of the landfill to detect methane
above normal levels and to prevent harm to the residents.

In addition to the primary LFG constituents – methane and carbon dioxide – analyses of gas well
headspace vapor samples detected several low-level hazardous VOCs in the site landfill gas (see
Table 3 and Appendix A). The migration of hazardous VOC vapors in LFG into adjacent
enclosed structures is also controlled by the continuous operation of the LFG control system.

5.3.2 VOC Vapor Partitioning from Groundwater – Inhalation Health Hazard

Structural vapor intrusion may occur where hazardous VOC vapors partition from groundwater,
migrate beneath a building, and then enter the building. One or more of the identified volatile
contaminants in site groundwater present a potential inhalation health risk due to vapor intrusion.
The potential receptors for vapor intrusion due to partitioning from VOC-impacted groundwater
are the residences and enclosed structures located south of the Closed Phase I Landfill. Given
the low-ppb levels of the partitioning VOC vapors (see Table 3 and Appendix A) and the
continued operation of the site LFG control system, an exposure pathway by structural vapor
intrusion is not complete.

-20- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
6.0 CONTAMINANT DELINEATION PLAN

6.1 ON-GOING EVALUATION OF LANDFILL IMPACTS DUE TO LFG MIGRATION
Researchers have identified several "indicator" parameters that not only detect landfill impacts
due to leachate and gas migration, but can also distinguish between impacts related to leachate
versus those associated with LFG. These analytical parameters, along with routinely monitored
field analytical measurements, methane, and groundwater VOC data, will be evaluated to ascertain
the most probable source for the observed groundwater impact. The specific indicator parameters
along with their associated indicator characteristics are as follows:

• Chloride - If values elevated above background, the probable source is landfill leachate.
• Ammonia (as Nitrogen) - If values are elevated above background, the most probable source
is leachate.
• Total Dissolved Solids - If values elevated above background, the probable source is
landfill leachate.
• Alkalinity (as Bicarbonate) - If values are elevated above background, the most probable
source is LFG.
• Carbon Dioxide - If values are elevated above background, the most probable source is
LFG.
• Calcium - If values are elevated above background, it is an indication of gas impact if other
strong leachate indicators are not significantly noted.
• Manganese - If values are elevated above background, it is an indication of gas impact if
other strong leachate indicators are not significantly noted.
• Arsenic - If values are elevated above background, it is an indication of gas impact if other
strong leachate indicators are not significantly noted.

-21- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016

6.2 EVALUATION OF LANDFILL GAS MITIGATION AS A GROUNDWATER
REMEDY

Engineering studies by others indicate that the installation and operation of landfill gas control
systems appeared to reduce the VOC levels in groundwater at several landfill sites. Thus, the
groundwater response to the active gas mitigation should be monitored and evaluated over time
with regard to its effectiveness to remedy groundwater impacts at the landfill.

6.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SCREENING MODEL FOR GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SOLUTE FATE AND TRANSPORT
Per NCDEQ’s request, CEC will develop a groundwater flow and solute transport screening model
to predict contaminant migration and evaluate exposure risk. The selected model will have the
capability of conservatively simulating the important processes identified in the conceptual model.
CEC will use sensitivity analysis to define the effect of selected parameters on model results.

-22- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
7.0 INTERIM GROUNDWATER REMEDY

In response to detecting methane in perimeter LFG monitoring wells, an LFG extraction well
system has been installed and is currently operated at the Closed Phase I Landfill. This system
consists of 15 LFG extraction wells installed along the southern and southeastern perimeter of the
closed landfill, three LFG extraction wells placed in the waste mass in the northwest portion of the
closed landfill, a blower, and LFG collection piping and appurtenances. Based on recent perimeter
methane monitoring data, methane concentrations have been reduced drastically; and as of February
2016, only one methane monitoring well (GW-6) continues to show elevated methane levels.

Engineering studies by others indicate that the installation and operation of LFG control systems
appeared to reduce the VOC levels in groundwater at several landfill sites. An evaluation of the
most recent site groundwater monitoring data, which was collected after the start-up of the site
LFG control system, indicates an overall significant diminishing trend in VC concentrations in
shallow and deeper groundwater monitoring wells. We believe that deeper groundwater
contaminated by the diffusion and downward vertical movement of contaminants from shallow
groundwater, which is in direct contact with migrating LFG, will naturally attenuate should LFG
mitigation abate the LFG source. Additional groundwater monitoring data is needed to evaluate
the long-term effectiveness and permanence of LFG extraction as an interim groundwater
remedy.

The source of contamination (i.e., leachate or LFG) can have a significant impact on the costs for
control and remediation. Usually, costs for LFG control are less than for groundwater
remediation. Where LFG is the source for groundwater impacts, aqueous treatment will not
address the source directly; therefore, we propose to evaluate the effectiveness of the operating
LFG extraction in removing the VOC source.

It is our technical opinion that more costly remediation approaches such as physical source
removal, landfill capping, or aqueous treatments are not warranted at this time, and that they
would not be effective if migrating LFG is the source of the site groundwater contamination.

-23- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
8.0 SUMMARY

The NCDEQ - Solid Waste Section has requested a characterization of the nature and extent of
the groundwater contamination at the Closed Phase I Landfill as a result of the detection of
VOCs in several landfill monitoring wells and in a neighboring private water supply well (now
inactive). On behalf of GWS, CEC has prepared this Contaminant Delineation Plan to provide
such a site characterization based upon available site data and to recommend the collection and
evaluation of additional hydrogeologic/groundwater quality data to further assess site conditions.

Since the October 2012 semi-annual groundwater monitoring event, VOCs including benzene
and vinyl chloride have been detected at concentrations exceeding the NC 2L Standards in
several Closed Phase I Landfill monitoring wells. Other VOCs that have been detected at low
levels include 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,4-
dichlorobenzene, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes. Vinyl chloride is the
predominant VOC in site groundwater and has been detected in 19 landfill monitoring wells.
Recent groundwater VOC data indicate a significant improvement in site groundwater quality
from the historic maximum VOC levels. Vinyl chloride levels have currently decreased to non-
detect 10 wells (MW-1, MW-4D-1, MW-6D-1, MW-6, MW-7D, MW-8, MW-8D, MW-10,
MW-11A, and MW-11D-1).

Concurrent with the historical increasing trend of vinyl chloride concentrations in site
groundwater, elevated methane levels were detected in several perimeter gas monitoring wells
beginning in March 2014. The methane data indicated the presence of migrating landfill gas.
Therefore, GWS engaged CEC to design, construct, and implement a gas extraction well system
to mitigate gas migration at the Closed Phase I Landfill, which was made operational on April 2,
2015. The gas extraction system has been continuously operated with the exception of brief
electrical outages. Based on recent methane monitoring data, methane concentrations are reduced;
and as of February 2016, only one methane monitoring well (GW-6) continued to show elevated
methane levels (~2.2%). As significantly, vinyl chloride concentrations in groundwater generally
decreased in the Closed Phase I C&D Landfill during the timeframe the gas extraction system
has been operating.

-24- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
The mechanism for groundwater contamination beneath the subject landfill area is not clearly
understood. Leachate and landfill gas are the possible sources. Leachate is not collected at the
landfill; however, groundwater sample analyses to provide leachate "indicator″ parameters are
being evaluated to assess whether leachate is a significant source. Landfill gas (i.e. methane) is
monitored on a quarterly schedule in perimeter wells at the landfill, and the historic monitoring
data do indicate significant lateral gas migration. Site-specific groundwater and landfill gas data
have been evaluated with regard to several lines of evidence established by other researchers to
assess the potential for migrating gas to impact groundwater. Our current evaluation suggests
that landfill gas may be a significant source of the observed groundwater impacts at the subject
landfill. The improvement in site groundwater quality with concurrent gas control appears to be
empirical evidence that landfill gas is impacting site groundwater.

Our specific recommendations for the collection and evaluation of additional hydrogeologic and
groundwater quality data to further assess site conditions include the following:

1) Evaluation of additional analytical leachate/landfill gas ‟indicator” parameters as a part
of routine landfill monitoring to characterize the source of the groundwater impacts;
2) Evaluation of the active landfill gas extraction system in the Closed Phase I C&D Landfill
as an effective interim groundwater remedy;
3) Development of a screening numerical model to simulate contaminant fate and transport
to further evaluate risk associated with the migration of groundwater contaminants.

On behalf of GWS, CEC is requesting that the Division approve this Contaminant Delineation
Plan to evaluate additional landfill gas and groundwater monitoring data to determine the
predominant contaminant source (leachate and/or landfill gas) for the observed groundwater
impact, and to determine the effectiveness of landfill gas extraction as a permanent groundwater
remedy.

-25- Contaminant Delineation Plan – 111-370.001
March 21, 2016
9.0 REFERENCES

Harned, D.A. and C.C. Daniel, III. 1989. The transition zone between bedrock and regolith:
Conduit for contamination? Proceedings of a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont of
the Eastern U.S. Charlotte, NC. October 16-18, 1989: pp. 336-348.
Heath, R.C. 1980. Basic elements of ground-water hydrology with reference to conditions in
North Carolina. USGS Water-Resources Open-File Report 80-44, 86 p.
Kerfoot, et al. 2004. Geochemical changes in ground water due to landfill gas effects. Ground
Water Monitoring & Remediation, v. 24, no. 1, Winter 2004, pp. 60-65.
LeGrand, H.E. 1988. Region 21. Piedmont and Blue Ridge. in Hydrogeology, The Geology of
North America. Vol. 0-2, ed. W.B. Back, J.S. Rosenheim, and P.R. Seaber. pp. 201-207.
Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.
LeGrand, H.E. 1989. A conceptual model of groundwater settings in the Piedmont region. in
Ground Water in the Piedmont, ed. C.C.Daniel, III, R.K. White, and P.A. Stone. Proceedings of
a Conference on Ground Water in the Piedmont of the Eastern U.S. Charlotte, NC. October 16-
18, 1989: pp. 336-348.
Morris, Harry H. The potential for landfill gas to impact ground water quality. Abstract. Rust
Environmental & Infrastructure. Internet at https://info.ngwa.org/GWOL/pdf/950161759.PDF.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina
Geological Survey, General Geologic Map, scale 1:500000.
Romito, A.A. and Allendorf, M.A. 1997. Observed landfill gas effects on ground water quality
and its identification and monitoring. ASCE Toledo and Central Ohio Sections 1997 Spring
Seminar ʺLandfill Gas Management for the 21st Century″.
Smith, et al. 1989. Field investigation to characterize relationship between groundwater and
subsurface gas contamination at a municipal landfill. Superfund ’89: Proceedings of the 10th
National Conference. November 27-19, 1989. Washington, D.C. The Hazardous Materials
Control Research Institute, pp. 251-258.

FIGURES

REFERENCE
8
A
B
34567 12
C
D
E
F
G
H
8 34567 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
SI
T
E

M
A
P

11
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
0
1
1"

=

2
0
0
'
AU
G
U
S
T

2
0
1
5
JK
S
EH
S
EH
S

1
GR
E
E
N
W
A
Y

W
A
S
T
E

S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S

O
F
NO
R
T
H

M
E
C
K
,

L
L
C
NO
R
T
H

M
E
C
K
L
E
N
B
U
R
G

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
HU
N
T
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
,

N
C
NORTH
8
A
B
3
4
5
67
1
2
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
3
4
5
67
1
2
A B C D E F G H
DESCRIPTIONDATENO
REVISION RECORD
333 Baldwin Road · Pittsburgh, PA 15205
412-429-2324 · 800-365-2324
www.cecinc.com
DATE:
DWG SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:
S
H
E
E
T
O
F
F
I
G
U
R
E

N
O
.
:
SITE MAP
111-370.001
1"=200'
MARCH 2016 PNP
EHS
EHS
1
1
2
GREENWAY WASTE SOLUTIONS
AT NORTH MECK, LLC
NORTH MECK LANDFILL
HUNTERSVILLE, NC
NORTH
DATE:DWG SCALE:
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO.:
LANDFILL GAS EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM
111-370.0011"=200'JULY 2014
NTB PNP EHS 3
GREENWAY WASTE SOLUTIONS OF
NORTH MECK, LLC
NORTH MECKLENBURG LANDFILL
HUNTERSVILLE, NC%DOGZLQ5RDGÃ3LWWVEXUJK3$
Ã
www.cecinc.com
NORTH

TABLES

Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1

Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
10
.
2
4
.
1
2

4
.
2
5
.
1
3

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
4
.
1
2

4
.
2
5
.
1
3

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
0.
0
2
8
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
0.0
1
3
1

0
.
0
1
2

0
.
0
1
0.0019
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7

0
.
1
9
3

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
7
1

0
.
0
6
5

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
7
7

0
.
4
6

0
.
5
2
7

0
.
6
2

0
.
6
2

0
.
6
5

0
.
6
1

0
.
6
5

0
.
5
5
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S

0
.
0
0
1
6
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
0
6
4
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S

1
1
0

5
5
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
0
8
6
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
0.
0
1
1
7

0
.
0
1
8
Co
p
p
e
r

1

0
.
0
3
1
4

0
.
0
0
7
3

0
.
0
6
7

0
.
0
0
5
9

0
.
0
1
9
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
0.0017
1,1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6

0
.
0
0
1
1
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5

0
.
0
0
1
3
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5

0
.
0
1
6
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
4.
5

3
.
3
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
0.008
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S

0
.
0
5
3
4

0
.
0
7
1
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
0.
0
0
1
5

0
.
0
0
3
5

0
.
0
0
7
1

0
.
0
0
6
8

0
.
0
0
7

0
.
0
0
2
7

0
.
0
0
1
2
Zin
c

1

0
.
0
4
5
7

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
4
3

0
.
0
3
1

0
.
2

0
.
0
2
7
0.14
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S

2
8
9

3
3
0

3
7
0

3
0
6

3
9
0
320
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S

0
.
9
1
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0

3
7
1

3
8
0

4
6
0

3
5
7

4
2
0
440
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0

1
4
.
4

3
1

8
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S

4
4
0
660
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0

3
.
0
4

3
.
6

3
.
3

5
.
7
4

4
.
7
8.1
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

(
E
f
f
.

A
p
r
i
l

1
,

2
0
1
3
)

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
MW
-
1

M
W
-
4
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bi
s

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zi
n
c

1
Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
2
7

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
8
3

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
8
6

0
.
0
8
9

0
.
1
4

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
4
34

8
4
0.
0
2
7
0.
0
0
8
0.
0
8
6

0
.
0
0
5
3

0
.
0
1
6
0.
0
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
2
4

0
.
0
0
2
8

0
.
0
0
2
8

0
.
0
0
2
5

0
.
0
0
1
3
0.
0
0
1
7

0
.
0
0
2
4

0
.
0
0
1
8

0
.
0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
2
6

0
.
0
0
3
7

0
.
0
0
1
4
0.0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
7
4
0.0
0
3
9

0
.
0
0
8
1

0
.
0
0
1
1
0.
0
2
6
0.
0
2
6
0.
4
6
0.
0
0
0
3
2

0
.
0
0
0
2
5

0
.
0
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
0
4
8
0.
0
0
6
6
0.
0
6
8
0.0
0
3
4

0
.
0
0
3
4

0
.
0
0
3
4

0
.
0
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
4
7

0
.
0
0
6

0
.
0
0
6
9

0
.
0
0
1
7

0
.
0
0
0
6
5
0.
0
1
3

0
.
3
2

0
.
0
1
5
0.
2
9

0
.
8
9
0.
0
4
5

0
.
0
4
3
17
0
19
0
0.
1
7
0.
8
2
28
0
27
0
38
0
21
0
8.
2
8.
4
MW
-
4
A

M
W
-
4
D
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
2
4
.
1
2

4
.
2
5
.
1
3

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.001
1.
3
2
0.
4
6

0
.
4
1
0.
3
7

0
.
4
6
0.
2
8

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
8
0.3
2

0
.
3
2
0.3
2

0
.
2
9
0.
0
0
0
5
3
0.
0
0
1
1
0.
0
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
1
3
0.
0
0
1
0.
1
1
99

2
5
0
0.
0
0
2
2

0
.
0
0
2
1
0.
0
3
1
9
0.0
0
5
3
0.
0
0
5
5
0.0
1
3
0.0
3
3
8
1.
1
3
0.
1
6

0
.
1
1
0.0
6
3

0
.
1
4
0.0
1
1

0
.
0
2
1

0
.
0
2
8
0.
0
1
9

0
.
0
0
7
2
0.
0
0
5
8

0
.
0
0
5
2
0.
0
0
0
7
3

0
.
0
0
3
3

0
.
0
0
3
6
0.
0
0
3
3

0
.
0
0
1
9
0.
0
0
2
9

0
.
0
0
2
8
0.0
0
1
9

0
.
0
0
2
1

0
.
0
0
2
1
0.
0
0
1
8

0
.
0
0
1
9
0.
0
0
1
9

0
.
0
0
1
9

0
.
0
0
6
5
0.
0
0
5
4
0.
0
0
3
1
0.
0
0
4
3

0
.
0
0
3
8
0.
0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
1
5
0.0
1
3
7
0.
2
9

0
.
8
0.
0
0
0
1
2
0.0
2
4
3
0.0096
0.
0
0
1
4

0
.
0
0
4
1
0.0
3
6
0.
0
3
7

0
.
0
3
3
0.0
3

0
.
0
2
4
0.
3
2
4

0
.
0
5
1

0
.
0
0
7
2

0
.
0
0
7
0.
0
0
0
9
5

0
.
0
0
4
6

0
.
0
0
7
5
0.
0
0
6
4
0.
0
0
8
6
0.
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
2
1

0
.
0
1
2
0.
0
1
3

0
.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
6
2

0
.
0
0
6
6
0.
3
2
7

0
.
0
4
9

0
.
0
3
1
0.0
2
6

0
.
0
5
5
0.0
8
5

0
.
0
7
8
23
2

2
3
0

3
1
0

6
2
0
0.0
9
6

0
.
0
8
5
43
3

4
7
0
59
0

1
2
0
0
11
4

1
0
0
87
0

1
4
0
0
26
.
8

2
5

2
8

8
4
MW
-
5
D
MW
-
5
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
2
4
.
1
2

4
.
2
5
.
1
3

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.
0
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
1
3
0.
2
8
8

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
2

0
.
3

0
.
3
2

0
.
3

0
.
2
9

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
2

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
5

0
.
2
2
0.
0
0
0
1
5
14
0

1
9
0
0.
0
0
6
7
0.0
0
9
6

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
1
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
0
6
5

0
.
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
1
3
0.
0
0
1
3
0.
0
0
1
4
0.
0
1
3
0.
1
5
1.6
0.
0
0
0
1
7
0.0
1
3
1

0
.
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
5
8
0.
0
0
1
7
0.0
1
8

0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
2
7

0
.
0
0
2
9
0.0057
0.0
0
2
9

0
.
0
0
1
6

0
.
0
0
4
7

0
.
0
0
5
7

0
.
0
0
1
4

0
.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
2
8

0
.
0
2
1

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
8
1

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
5
6
66
2

6
7
0

6
6
0

7
3
0
0.0
6
3

0
.
0
8
7
77
3

7
0
0

8
7
0

9
1
0
31
.
3

1
7
90
0

9
9
0
30

3
0

3
7

2
1
MW
-
6

M
W
-
6
D
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.
2
6

0
.
2
5

0
.
2
4

0
.
3
1

0
.
2
6

0
.
2
2

0
.
3

0
.
2
6

0
.
3

0
.
2
8
0.1
9

0
.
2
2

0
.
2
1

0
.
1
8

0
.
0
1
9
86

6
1
82
0.0
0
6
3

0
.
0
0
4
5

0
.
0
0
4
8

0
.
0
0
7
8

0
.
0
0
1
6
0.0018
0.0
0
1
3

0
.
0
0
2
3

0
.
0
0
2
6

0
.
0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
1
4
0.0011

0
.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
1
1
0.0011
0.
0
0
1
5

0
.
0
0
1
6
0.001 4
0.
0
1
3
0.
1
9

0
.
2
0.17
0.
0
0
0
2
0.
0
0
1
6

0
.
0
0
1
4
0.
0
0
1
4

0
.
0
0
1
4

0
.
0
0
3
3

0
.
0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
1
6
0.
0
0
1
3

0
.
0
0
1
6
0.
0
4
8

0
.
0
3
2

0
.
0
7
3

0
.
0
0
7
4
0.05
31
0

2
3
0
270
0.
1
9

0
.
0
5
3
0.073
47
0

3
5
0
390
37
0

3
5
0
310
44

3
0
35
MW
-
7

M
W
-
7
A

M
W
-
7
D
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.
0
2

0
.
3
6

0
.
0
2
7
0.
2
3

0
.
2

0
.
0
5
7

0
.
0
4
5

0
.
1
5

0
.
1
4

0
.
0
9

0
.
0
9
1

0
.
0
3
4

0
.
0
7
2

0
.
2
5

0
.
1
1

0
.
2
1

0
.
2
1

0
.
0
7
57

8
5

1
3
0.0
0
6
6
0.
0
2
9
0.0
0
5
7
0.
0
1
6

0
.
0
1
2

0
.
0
1
5
0.0
2
7

0
.
0
4
5
0.
0
3
5

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
1
5

0
.
0
6

0
.
0
3
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
0
6
5

0
.
0
4
3

0
.
0
1
3

0
.
0
2
9

0
.
0
3
1

0
.
0
0
4
9
0.
0
0
2
6
0.
0
1
5

0
.
0
2
7
0.0
1
5
4.
4

0
.
0
8
1

0
.
0
6
0.
0
0
0
1
2
0.0
2
6
0.
0
0
1
7
0.
0
8
2

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
5
9

0
.
0
5
8

0
.
0
5

0
.
0
6
3
0.0
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
1
6

0
.
0
0
1
7

0
.
0
0
2
1
0.
0
7
1

0
.
1
8

0
.
0
2
8

0
.
1
3

0
.
9
7

0
.
0
3
3

0
.
0
8
1

0
.
0
9
4

0
.
0
8
3

0
.
0
8

0
.
0
2
6
25
0

2
5
0

4
0
0.
4
6
0.3
22
0

4
3
0

2
5
0
29
0

2
4
0

1
0
0
7.
9

5
5

1
4
MW
-
8

M
W
-
8
D

M
W
-
9
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
2
4
.
1
2

4
.
2
5
.
1
3

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.0
0
9
6
0.
0
1
2

0
.
0
1
3
0.
0
0
5
1

0
.
0
0
2
3
0.
4
2
6

0
.
2
2

0
.
1
7

0
.
5
4

0
.
2
5

0
.
5
2

0
.
2
7

0
.
2
9

0
.
1
9

0
.
2

0
.
2

0
.
1
9
0.
0
0
3
1

0
.
0
0
2
7

0
.
0
0
2
9

0
.
0
0
2
5

0
.
0
0
1
3
0.0
0
1
5
50

3
8
0
0.
0
3
3
0.
0
1
8

0
.
0
0
6
9

0
.
0
3
3

0
.
0
2
6

0
.
0
2
6

0
.
0
2
4
0.0
6
5
5

0
.
0
1
1

0
.
0
0
5
1

0
.
0
6
8

0
.
0
1
1

0
.
0
1
5

0
.
0
0
7

0
.
0
0
7
6
0.0
0
3

0
.
0
0
2
9

0
.
0
0
2
4
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
3
1
1
0.
0
0
1
9
2.
9

1
3
0.
0
0
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
0
1
3
0.
0
1
7

0
.
0
5
1

0
.
0
4
3

0
.
0
4

0
.
0
4
2
0.0089
0.
1
2

0
.
1
1

0
.
0
9
1

0
.
0
8
5

0
.
0
6
1
0.
1
6
2

0
.
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
5
0.0
0
2
2

0
.
0
0
5
3

0
.
0
0
7
2

0
.
0
0
6
7

0
.
0
0
3
1

0
.
0
2
5

0
.
0
2
7

0
.
0
2
9

0
.
0
0
8
1

0
.
0
0
2
4
0.
1
0
7

0
.
0
7
6

0
.
0
3
7

0
.
0
5
3
17
5

2
2
0

2
2
0

1
6
0
0
1.
5

0
.
5
1
21
2

1
3
0

3
4
0
2300
2.
7
2
32
0

2
0
0
0
12
.
3

1
3

1
6

1
3
0
MW
-
1
0

M
W
-
1
0
D
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
2
4
.
1
2

4
.
2
5
.
1
3

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.
0
1
4
0.
0
0
1
2
0.
2
4
4

0
.
1
4

0
.
2
7

0
.
1

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
6
0.0
4
7

0
.
0
4
7

0
.
0
5
0.0
4

0
.
0
5
4
0.
0
0
0
8
7
0.
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
1
2
0.
0
0
0
6
2
27
0

1
3
0.
0
1

0
.
0
0
6
5

0
.
0
1
4

0
.
0
3
2

0
.
0
4
2

0
.
0
1
4

0
.
0
0
0
8
2
0.
0
0
1
1
1.
8
0.015
0.0
1
6
4

0
.
0
2
3
0.
0
0
2
7
0.0
2
8
4

0
.
0
2
8

0
.
0
5
2

0
.
0
2
3

0
.
0
2
8

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
2
2
0.
0
0
5
4
0.0
0
2
7

0
.
0
0
8
6

0
.
0
0
9
2

0
.
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
1
9
0.
0
0
3
7
0.0
6
8

0
.
0
1
6
22
7

9
9
0

9
9
0

8
8
0.
1
6

N
D
11
6
0

1
2
0
0

1
4
0
0
240
15
6

1
0
0
14
0
0

1
5
0
59
.
7

4
9

4
5

9
.
1
MW
-
1
1
A
MW
-
1
1
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.0015
0.
2

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
1
3

0
.
1

0
.
0
7
4

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
5

0
.
0
5
6

0
.
1
3

0
.
0
8
3

0
.
0
3

0
.
0
3
1

0
.
0
3
2
15

5
7

1
4

3
7
0.0
0
7
6

0
.
0
0
7
6
0.
0
4
3

0
.
0
0
5
9

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
1

0
.
0
2
7

0
.
0
0
7
8

0
.
0
0
1
5
0.0096

0
.
0
0
2
1
0.001 0.0012

0
.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
1
4

0
.
0
0
1
2

0
.
0
0
1
2
0.
1
1
0.0
1
4
0.
0
9
8
0.03
0.
0
0
0
1
4
0.0
0
1
0.0
0
8
4
0.
0
1
7
0.0
0
4
5

0
.
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
1
4

0
.
0
0
1
2
0.
0
5
8

0
.
0
2
6

0
.
0
2
2
65

2
8
0

7
5

1
5
0
0.
0
8
7

0
.
1
5

N
D

0
.
0
7
4
67
0
40
0

1
9
0

2
1
0
13
0

2
9
0

1
4
0

1
4
0
4.
6

1
9

4
.
4

1
3
MW-4D-1
MW
-
1
1
D
-
1
MW
-
1
1
B
MW
-
1
1
D
-
2
Ta
b
l
e

1
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

S
i
t
e

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
NC
D
E
N
R

St
a
n
d
a
r
d

(m
g
/
L
)

*
Ac
e
t
o
n
e

6
Ar
s
e
n
i
c

0
.
0
1
Ba
r
i
u
m

0
.
7
Be
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
1
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m

N
S
Ca
d
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
0
2
Ca
l
c
i
u
m

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

3
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m

0
.
0
1
Co
b
a
l
t

N
S
Co
p
p
e
r

1
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
s
u
l
f
i
d
e

0
.
7
1,1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
7
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
0
0
6
ci
s
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e

0
.
0
7
bis

(
2
-
E
t
h
y
l
h
e
x
y
l
)

p
h
t
h
a
l
a
t
e

0
.
0
0
3
Et
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e

0
.
6
To
l
u
e
n
e

0
.
6
Xy
l
e
n
e
s

0
.
5
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r

0
.
0
0
0
0
0
8
be
t
a
-
B
H
C

N
S
Le
a
d

0
.
0
1
5
Ma
n
g
a
n
e
s
e

0
.
0
5
Me
r
c
u
r
y

0
.
0
0
1
Me
t
h
y
l
e
n
e

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
5
Ni
c
k
e
l

0
.
1
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m

0
.
0
2
Su
l
f
i
d
e

N
S
Te
t
r
a
h
y
d
r
o
f
u
r
a
n

N
S
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m

N
S
Vin
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

0
.
0
0
0
0
3
Zin
c

1
Alk
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

N
S
Am
m
o
n
i
a
-
N

N
S
To
t
a
l

D
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

5
0
0
Su
l
f
a
t
e

2
5
0
Ca
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

N
S
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e

2
5
0
*

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

=

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

0
2
L

.
0
2
0
2

Bo
l
d
v
a
l
u
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
10
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
0.
0
0
1
7
0.0053
0.
2
5

0
.
2
3

0
.
2
9

0
.
1

0
.
0
9
5

0
.
0
3
1

0
.
0
4
8

0
.
0
4
4

0
.
0
4
9
0.
0
0
0
1
3
15
0

6
3

2
2

1
1
0
0.
0
0
7
6

0
.
0
0
4
7
0.
0
0
2
8
0.0
0
1
1
0.
3
7

0
.
1
2

0
.
1
2

0
.
0
6
2
0.
0
0
1
2
0.
1
2

0
.
1
1

0
.
1
1
0.
0
0
7
7
0.0
0
3
8
0.0
7
3

0
.
0
2
4

0
.
0
3
3

0
.
0
2

0
.
0
5
3

0
.
0
2
5
50
0

1
5
0

8
2
0.0
6
8

N
D

0
.
0
7
4
60
0
32
0

1
4
0
49
0

1
3
0

1
0
0
25

1
7

7
.
7
MW
-
6
D
-
1

T
i
n
s
l
e
y

W
S
W

G
i
l
k
e
r
s
o
n

W
S
W

H
a
m
m
i
l
l

W
S
W
Ch
a
r
t
s

f
o
r

T
a
b
l
e

1
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1

0
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
6
0.
0
0
7
0.
0
0
8
MW
-
4

Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
6
0.
0
0
7
0.
0
0
8
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
4
D
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
2
5
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
3
5
0.
0
0
4
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
4
A

Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
6
0.
0
0
8
0.
0
1
MW
-
5
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ch
a
r
t
s

f
o
r

T
a
b
l
e

1
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1

0
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
6
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
6
D
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
2
5
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
3
5
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
7
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
2
5
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
3
5
MW
-
6
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
BD
L

B
D
L
BD
L
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
6
0.
0
0
8
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
2
0.
0
1
4
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
5
D
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
Ch
a
r
t
s

f
o
r

T
a
b
l
e

1
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1

0
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
2
5
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
8
D
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BDL
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
2
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
7
D
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
BD
L
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
0
6
0.
0
0
7
0.
0
0
8
MW
-
1
0
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
BDL
0
0.
0
0
0
2
0.
0
0
0
4
0.
0
0
0
6
0.
0
0
0
8
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
1
2
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
8
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
BD
L
BD
L
BD
L
Ch
a
r
t
s

f
o
r

T
a
b
l
e

1
No
r
t
h

M
e
c
k

C
l
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

I

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1

0
0.
0
0
5
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
5
0.
0
2
0.
0
2
5
0.
0
3
0.
0
3
5
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
1
0
D
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
0
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
6
0.
0
0
8
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
2
0.
0
1
4
MW
-
1
1
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
0
5
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
1
5
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
2
5
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
3
5
0.
0
0
4
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
1
1
A
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
BD
L
BDL
BD
L
0
0.
0
0
1
0.
0
0
2
0.
0
0
3
0.
0
0
4
0.
0
0
5
10
.
3
.
1
3

4
.
1
0
.
1
4

1
0
.
2
3
.
1
4

4
.
2
4
.
1
5

1
0
.
2
1
.
1
5
MW
-
1
1
D
-
1
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

T
r
e
n
d

(
m
g
/
L
)
BD
L
BDL
Ta
b
l
e

2
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
e
c
e
n
t

Si
t
e

M
e
t
h
a
n
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

D
a
t
a
Cl
o
s
e
d

P
h
a
s
e

1

C
&
D

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
CE
C

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

N
o
.

1
1
1
-
3
7
0
.
0
0
1
We
l
l

I
D
2/
2
/
1
5

3
/
2
/
1
5

4
/
1
/
1
5

5
/
1
/
1
5
6/
2
/
1
5

7
/
1
/
1
5

8
/
1
/
1
5

9
/
1
/
1
5

1
0
/
2
/
1
5
11
/
5
/
2
0
1
5

1
2
/
3
/
2
0
1
5

1
/
6
/
2
0
1
6

2
/
1
/
2
0
1
6

3
/
1
/
2
0
1
6
GW
-
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
2

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
3

2
7
.
7

2
0
.
4

2
2
.
2

7
.
4

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
4

0
.
5

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
5

5
.
9

1
.
9

0
.
3

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
6

2
3
.
4

1
3
.
4

8
.
1

5
.
2

6
.
7

1
6
.
3

1
2
.
2

1
0
.
2

7
.
8

2
.
6

1
.
8

2
.
7

2
.
2

0
.
9
GW
-
7

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
8

0
.
0

0
.
0

1
.
1

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
9

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
GW
-
1
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
Gi
l
k
e
r
s
o
n

B
a
r
n
0.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0

0
.
0
Sa
m
p
l
e

D
a
t
e
%
M
e
t
h
a
n
e
0.
0
%
5.
0
%
10
.
0
%
15
.
0
%
20
.
0
%
25
.
0
%
30
.
0
%
%

M
e
t
h
a
n
e
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r

L
F
G

S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
GW
-
3
GW
-
4
GW
-
5
GW
-
6
GW
-
8
Table 3
Landfill Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Well Headspace Vapor Data
North Meck C&D Landfill
CEC Project No. 111-370.001
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrogen
Methane
Nitrogen
Oxygen
ppbv µg/m3 ppbv µg/m3 ppbv µg/m3 ppbv µg/m3
Propylene ND ND 39.9 69.8 2.37 4.14
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) 1.14 5.72 0.672 3.38 1.33 6.69 0.632 3.18
Chloromethane 0.678 1.42 0.786 1.65 0.734 1.54 0.877 1.84
Vinyl Chloride 0.231 0.601 0.278 0.721 0.25 0.649 0.879 2.28
Bromomethane 0.965 3.81 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroethane 1.65 4.41 ND ND 0.589 1.58 0.797 2.14
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 0.244 1.4 0.276 1.57 0.257 1.47 0.237 1.35
Ethanol 18.1 34.6 3.22 6.16 3.33 6.38 4.97 9.52
Acrolein ND ND 0.626 1.46 ND ND 0.685 1.6
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113) ND ND ND ND 0.109 0.847 0.107 0.83
Acetone 130 313 13.3 32 16.3 39.3 7.78 18.8
Carbon Disulfide 0.368 1.16 0.119 0.377 0.214 0.676 0.284 0.898
Isopropyl Alcohol 6.37 15.9 1.99 4.97 0.943 2.35 2.7 6.75
Methylene Chloride ND ND 0.207 0.73 ND ND ND ND
Hexane 16.6 59.4 9.97 35.7 16.6 59.4 0.231 0.828
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND 0.139 0.572 0.651 2.68
Vinyl Acetate 0.0958 0.343 ND ND ND ND ND ND
cis-1,2,-Dichloroethene ND ND 0.14 0.565 0.13 0.524 0.472 1.9
2-Butanone (MEK) ND ND 0.872 2.61 6.11 18.3 1.02 3.05
Tetrahydrofuran ND ND ND ND 13.1 39.3 0.0961 0.288
Cyclohexane 18 62.9 2.5 8.73 3.93 13.7 ND ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0952 0.609 0.109 0.7 0.105 0.672 0.106 0.68
Benzene 5.57 18.1 2 6.51 0.538 1.75 0.263 0.854
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 106 503 6.42 30.5 4 19 ND ND
Heptane 2.57 10.7 2.93 12.2 4.68 19.5 0.216 0.902
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND 0.183 0.86 ND ND ND ND
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0929 0.387
Toluene 0.798 3.06 0.991 3.8 0.486 1.86 0.395 1.51
Tetrachloroethene 0.14 0.965 0.935 6.44 ND ND ND ND
2-Hexanone ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.143 0.595
Ethylbenzene 0.219 0.968 0.201 0.885 0.183 0.806 0.111 0.491
m-/p-Xylenes 0.738 3.26 0.53 2.34 0.364 1.6 ND ND
o-Xylene 0.2 0.884 ND ND 0.142 0.627 ND ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.129 0.646 0.13 0.648 0.0989 0.494 ND ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND ND 0.0866 0.433 ND ND ND ND
ppbv = parts per billion per volume
µg/m3 = micorgrams per cubic meter
74.6
19.4
GW-3 GW-6
6.04
0.0904
0.121
2.5
70.4
16.9
0.0733
MW-9-INFILLMW-4D-1
0.131
0.0913
0.122
Percent (%)
19.6
0.355
0.0922
0.124
0.074
74.5
19.4
0.131
0.0914
0.123
0.0734
75.5
Table 4
Maximum Detected Groundwater VOC Concentrations in Site Landfill
Compared with Maximum Groundwater VOC Concentrations
Attributed to Vapor Phase Migration
from Morris (Rust Environmental & Infrastructure)
Analyte
Maximum VOC Concentration
in Site Landfill Wells (µg/L)
Maximum VOC Concentration
Attributed to Vapor Phase
Migration from Morris 1
Chlorinated VOCs
1,1-Dichloroethane 3.3 120
1,1-Dichloroethene 3.7 ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 54 10
Vinyl Chloride 27 42
Aromatic VOCs
Benzene 2.7 17
Ethylbenzene 1.5 34
Toluene 7.4 140
Xylenes 8.1 ND
ND = No Data Available
1 Data from Table 3 in Morris, Harry H. The Potential for Landfill Gas to Impact
Ground Water Quality. Abstract. Rust Environmental & Infrastructure (see below).

APPENDIX A