7607_GreatOakMSWLF_Comment_2ndPartial_Cell1ACQARpt_DIN27010_20161114

1
Chao, Ming-tai
From:Chao, Ming-tai
Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 12:08 PM
To:Lamb, Steve
Cc:Murray, John E; Cobb, Mike
Subject: Comments on the Great Oak Landfill - the second Partial CQA Report, Permit # 7607
(DIN 27010)
Attachments:Microsoft Outlook - Memo Style.pdf
Hi Steve:

The Solid Waste Section completed a review of the 2nd draft CQA Report (Report); the hard copy of the Report
was received on November 1, 2016.

The following comments that were reiterated from the previous comments dated October 11, 2016 don’t
addressed properly in the 2nd Report, please provide the proper responses and corrections:
1. (Section 3) The PI of the soil sample SF-6 stated in Table 1 is different from that in Appendix A-1. PI =
LL – PL, so the correct PI shall be 21 not 14. Please provide the correct value in Table 1.

2. (Appendix B) The revised subgrade elevations for the following points - PT2030, PT2032, and PT2043
are not provided in the 2nd Report dated October 28, 2016.

3. (Appendix D-2) Section 5.2 stated that geonet should be tested for tensile properties (by ASTM D 5035)
and geotextile should be tested for UV Resistance (by ASTM D 4355), but those test results can’t be
found in Appendix D-2. Please provide test results.

4. (Appendix E-1) MQA Full Geotextile Cert 01-9514 does include the test results for the (Cover
Geotextile) roll # 2024581479 (Oder No. 55006362). Please provide the data.

The following comments on the new data provide in the in the 2nd draft Report dated October 28, 2016.
5. (Section4, Table 2 & Appendix C-4) please address the following concerns:
i. The total seam length for each of three geomembranes cannot be verified since the not-to-scale
drawings are provided in Appendix C-5. Additionally, there are no legends on the drawings to
differentiate the single track seam (extrusion fillet welding) from the dual track seam (double hot
wedge fusion welding).
ii. The total seam length for the secondary geomembrane is 20,461 feet (= 18,985 feet +1,476 feet)
which is different from the total seam length of 19,090 feet, sum of the welding lengths
documented in Geomembrane Seam Log in Appendix C-4.

6. (Section 3.2.1 & Appendix A-2) The Section 3.2.1 states that a total of 77 density tests were conducted
using a nuclear gage; but there are 111 testing locations are documented in Appendix A-2. Please
explain the discrepancies below:
i. There are 78 in-place density tests being recorded in Appendix A-2, not described 77 in Section
3.2.1. Please correct the typo.
ii. Testing at locations SF-79 through SF-111 is likely conducted at Cell 1B area according to the
testing dates when the geomembrane was deployed in Cell 1A area. Since this Report is
dedicated for Cell 1A only, please either, for the sake of consistency, revise the narrative
2
(including constructed acreages) of the Report by including the portion of Cell 1 B or remove the
data from the Report to avoid any confusion that might occur.

7. (Section 6.2) According to the testing results in Appendix E-2, nine (9) GCL samples were tested, not
eight (8) samples stated in Section 6.2. Please correct the typo.

8. (Appendix A) According to the Section 3.3.2 of the approved CQA Plan, the in-place density test
locations will be plotted on drawing(s) which should be a portion of the Report. Please provide the
drawing(s) showing in-place density test location consistent with the data in Appendix A.

9. (Appendix C-4) All the required records and logs associated with deployment and field-testing of
primary and tertiary liners are not included in this appendix. Please provide the documents.

10. (Appendix C-4, Geomembrane Seam Log) Seams between panels S-2/S-3, S-3/S-4, S-4/S-5, S-5/S-6, S-
6/S-7, S-7/S-8, & S-8/S-9, respectively were not completed at the single round on September 10, 2016
as noted in the Seam Pressure Test Log. The seams of the panels were completed at two different dates -
September 10, 2016 and October 04, 2016. This practice violates the Technical Specification, 31
0519.16, Part 3.04B.3. Please provide the reason why this situation is acceptable by the CQA Engineer.

11. (Appendix C-4, Geomembrane Seam Pressure Log) The following seams test results are not available in
the log: S-10/S-55, S-11/S-56, S-12/S-57, S-13/S-58, & S-1/S-54, but present in the Geomembrane
Seam Vacuum Test Log. What seam method was used to seam theses panels – dual track or single track
methods? If the dual trach/hot wedge fusion weld method is used for seaming panel, the air pressure test
shall be used according to the CQA Plan; otherwise, a non-conformance report according to the Section
7.1.3 of the CQA Plan should be provided in the Report to explain this event.

12. (Appendix C-5, HDPE Geomembrane Panel Deployment Drawing)
i. Please provide the scaled drawings so that the SWS can verify the seam length and the number
of destruct samples for each layer stated in Table 2 of Section 4.5 of the Report and Appendix C-
4.
ii. The repaired locations (consistent with the Repair Log) must show on the drawings according to
the Section 4.6 of the Report and the Section 7.5 of the CQA Plan.

Please contact me if you have any question of the above-mentioned comments. Thanks and have a wonderful
day.
By the way, I have not received the electronic copy of the 2nd CQA Report yet. Please provide one for me so I
can upload the document to the tracking system.

Ming Chao
Ming-Tai Chao, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Permitting Branch, Solid Waste Section
NCDEQ, Division of Waste Management
(Mailing Address)
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646

(Street Address)
Green Square, 217 West Jones Street
3
Raleigh, NC 27603
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Chao, Ming-tai
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:19 PM
To: 'Lamb, Steve' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Murray, John E <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments on the Great Oak Landfill - Partial CQA Report, DIN 26837

Hi Steve:

I hope Hurricane Matthew did not create any problem or delay the landfill construction project; if any or need
any assistance from our end please inform us. I got lucky and didn’t face any problem or have any property
damage from this hurricane, and hope you and your family all safe and sound and dodge the storm as well.
John and his wife had evacuated from the coastal area so he is not reachable at this moment.

I completed a review of the draft (Partial) CQA Report (DIN 26813) for the above mentioned landfill
construction and have some comments on the report or require additional data. The comments are stated below:

General
1. Please include the following documents related to this landfill construction project to the CQA Report:
i. Pre-construction and progressive meeting minutes.
ii. Memo for resolving the testing frequency for geosynthetic material and any other item deviates
from the approved cell design, Technical Specifications, or CQA Plan but is approved by the
Engineer, for example the portion of the Cell 1 area/subgrade are field modified due to the power
line right-of-way (guy-wire anchor) owned by Duke Energy.
iii. Leach tank foundation reports adds to the Appendix F
iv. Leak location testing work plan adds to the Appendix H.

2. (Cover page) The Facility Permit Number is 7607-MSWLF-2015, please correct the typo.

Section 3 & Appendix A-1
3. The PI of the soil sample SF-6 stated in Table 1 is different from that in Appendix A-1. Please clarify.

4. Soil Sample 21814-SF-1 is classified as CH based on the USCS which does not meet the fill material
specification – Section 31 2323.13 (Part 2.01A). The CQA Report, Section 3 & Table 1 should state if
the borrow area/location which this soil sample is representing for was used as Type S1 - structural fill
in this project.

Section 3 & Appendix A-2
5. The calculated % of compaction for the sample SF-22 is likely incorrect. Please verify and make
necessary correction.

4
6. For test sample SF-77 the maximum dry density of 99.7 pcf for the referenced sample SF-9 is likely
incorrect. This error carries over so the calculated % of compaction for the sample SF-77 is likely
incorrect. Please verify and make necessary correction.

7. Moisture content of the test sample SF-35 is outside the specified range of 3%. If this exceedance is
acceptable, the Engineer must approve this deviation which should be documented to the Section 3 of
the CQA Report.

8. The in-situ moisture content for each test sample must be conducted by ASTM D 2216 according to fill
material specification – Section 31 2323.13 (Part 3.05B.2). Please provide the laboratory data of the
moisture content test. If other in-situ testing methods are used, the Engineer must approve this deviation
which should be documented to the Section 3 of the CQA Report.

Appendix B
9. In the Report of Subgrade Inspection and vertical Separation Certification dated September 9, 2016, the
four (4)-feet separation/vertical buffer is likely not achieving at the following location points – PT2030,
PT2032, and PT2043. Please verify the measurements. (Christin Ritter has sent this comment to Mike
Cobb via an e-mail dated 10/06/2016 - attached)

Appendix C-1
10. The summary sheet for Agru 60HD Microspike Roll 16 through 30 has the Lot#HGF820370 but the
Quality Certificate Sheets have the Lot# HGF821370. Please explain this discrepancy.

11. The certification letters dated June 17,2015 from Chevron Philips shows testing results of HP-OIT,
Oven Aging & UV Aging on the HDPE samples which are from the geomembrane not being used for
this landfill project. The Lot# and Roll # of geomembrane from which the samples were collected/cut do
not match any identification on the material delivery sheets. Please explain why the testing results from
samples coming a batch of geomembrane which is not used for this project are acceptable.

12. The TRI certification letters dated April 19, 2010 shows testing results of Oven Aging & UV Aging on
the “SMOOTH” HDPE samples. The construction drawings and technical specifications require
textured geomembrane for this landfill project. Please clarify.

Appendix C-2
13. TRI testing result report dated August 16, 2016 contains CQA Conformance Testing Samples from
HDPE Roll Nos. G16D003037, G16D003048 & G16D003056 which can’t be identified in the delivery
sheet.

14. CQA Conformance Testing Samples from HDPE Roll Nos. G16B003048 (Roll 49) & G16B003056
(Roll 57) are not included in the CQA Report.

Section 5.2 & Appendix D-2
15. Section 5.2 stated that geonet should be tested for tensile properties (by ASTM D 5035) and geotextile
should be tested for UV Resistance (by ASTM D 4355) & AOS (by ASTM D 4751), but those test
results can’t be found in Appendix D-2. Please provide test results.

Section 6 & Appendix E-1
5
16. Section 6.0 stated that 116 rolls of GCL were purchased for the project site, but the GCL Packing List
and MQA Tracking Forms document 276 rolls (180 rolls from Oder No. 55006362 & 96 rolls from Oder
No. 55006854) have been delivered to the project site. Please clarify.

17. MQA Full Geotextile Cert 01-9514 does include the test results for the (Cover Geotextile) roll #
2024581479 (Oder No. 55006362). Please provide the data.

Please contact me if you have any questions about the comments. Have a wonderful day.

By the way, please inform us (give us a few day heads-up) the date and time to start the leak location test at Cell
1A area.

Ming Chao
Ming-Tai Chao, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Permitting Branch, Solid Waste Section
NCDEQ, Division of Waste Management
(Mailing Address)
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646

(Street Address)
Green Square, 217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Lamb, Steve [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 4:07 PM
To: Chao, Ming-tai <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Great Oak Landfill - Partial CQA Report

Ming:

And here it is. Partial Construction Documentation Report, Great Oak Landfill.

If it would help to facilitate your review, I am able to come up to Raleigh and meet with you.

Thanks for helping us and Waste Management of the Carolinas out by agreeing to review this partial report. We
appreciate it.

The hard copy is being sent out tonight.

Thanks,
6

Steve Lamb, PE
Vice President
SCS Engineers
2520 Whitehall Park Drive, Suite 450
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Office – 704.504.3107
Direct - 704-916-1529
Mobile – 704.576.4731

From: Chao, Ming-tai [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 1:04 PM
To: Lamb, Steve
Subject: RE: Great Oak Landfill - Partial CQA Report

Steve:

I will place all the received document to the DWM document tracking system according to my interpretation of the
government document transparency/retention policy even the draft version. If you don’t want the draft CQA in the
system just let me know.

Ming

From: Lamb, Steve [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 12:55 PM
To: Chao, Ming-tai <[e-mail]>
Cc: Murray, John E <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Great Oak Landfill - Partial CQA Report

Ming
The submittal will be draft since the project isn't complete yet. Do you place draft submittals in the document tracking
system?

John
We have no drawings yet. The final survey shots for the top of structural fill just came in today.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 4, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Chao, Ming-tai <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Steve:

For the partial CQA report, you are correct that I need a hard copy and an electronic copy (in Pdf format)
which will be placed in the document tracking system.

Ming Chao
Ming-Tai Chao, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
7
Permitting Branch, Solid Waste Section
NCDEQ, Division of Waste Management
(Mailing Address)
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646

(Street Address)
Green Square, 217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw

<image001.png>
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Lamb, Steve [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 12:41 PM
To: Murray, John E <[e-mail]>; Chao, Ming-tai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Great Oak Landfill - Partial CQA Report

John and Ming

We discussed a while back about SCS submitting the CQA Report for Great Oak in parts. The project is at
a good point where that makes sense now. All structural fill is tested and in place. And all MQC and
CQA data for the geosynthetics is completed.

I have the partial report completed and ready to submit. Before I do I wanted to confirm how each of
you wanted the report.

As I understand, John wants a hard copy and Ming wanted it both electronically and a hard copy. Is that
correct?

Ming – do you want the narrative in MS Word or is a pdf version OK.

Let me know today and I will issue the draft partial report.

Thanks,

Steve Lamb, PE
Vice President
SCS Engineers
2520 Whitehall Park Drive, Suite 450
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Office – 704.504.3107
Direct - 704-916-1529
Mobile – 704.576.4731