5002_JacksonMSWLF_CAER_DIN27101_20161031

Prepared for
Jackson County Solid Waste Department
Project Number 2040.3060

Prepared by
Altamont Environmental, Inc.
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, NC 28801
828.281.3350

Five-Year Corrective Action
Evaluation Report

Jackson County Closed
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Permit #50-02

October 31, 2016

Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page iii

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
Table of Contents
Historical Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Constituents of Concern ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Discussion of Historical Data ......................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Background Monitoring Well ............................................................................................ 3
2.1.2 Upgradient Monitoring Wells ............................................................................................ 3
2.1.3 Mid-Gradient Monitoring Wells ......................................................................................... 4
2.1.4 Downgradient Monitoring Wells ....................................................................................... 5
Overview of Remedial Approach .................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Leachate Extraction System .......................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Assessment of Natural Attenuation .............................................................................................. 7
3.2.1 Stability of COC Plume ...................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Analysis of MNA ................................................................................................................. 8
3.2.2.1 Summary of MNA Parameters ............................................................................. 8
3.3 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................................. 9
Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 11
References .................................................................................................................................................. 13

Figures
1. Site Location Map
2. Site Layout Map
3. Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction and Comparison of Chemical Concentrations from 2011 to
2016
4. Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time—Monitoring Well MW-01
5. Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time—Monitoring Well MW-03
6. Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time—Monitoring Well MW-04
7. Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time—Monitoring Well MW-05R
8. Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time—Monitoring Well MW-06
9. Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time—Monitoring Well MW-07
Tables
1. Summary of Laboratory Analyses Performed on Samples
2. Well Construction Details and Corresponding Elevations
3. Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Data (Detected VOCs Above 2L Standard)
4. Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in the Leachate Sample
5. Summary of Natural Attenuation Parameters
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page iv

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
Appendices
A. Extraction Well Boring Logs

Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 1

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
Historical Summary
The Jackson County Solid Waste Department maintains a closed municipal solid waste landfill (Site) located
approximately 0.75 miles west of Dillsboro, North Carolina, on the northeast side of Old Dillsboro Road (Old
U.S. Highway 74, Figure 1). Water quality monitoring at the landfill is performed in accordance with the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which was formerly known as the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Waste Management (DWM), Solid
Waste Section (SWS), under Permit No. 50-02, issued to Jackson County on April 11, 2006. The landfill
permit requires semiannual monitoring of groundwater quality by sampling seven monitoring (MW-01, MW-
02, MW-03, MW-04, MW-05R, MW-06, and MW-07). A Site Layout Map is included in Figure 2.
Over time, groundwater quality monitoring indicated persistent low-level concentrations of constituents in
groundwater samples that exceeded a regulatory standard. To achieve compliance with regulatory standards
the following activities were completed:
 September 7, 2010—An Assessment of Corrective Measures (ACM) report was submitted to the
DENR DWM SWS. The ACM stated that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals have been
historically detected in excess of the groundwater standards listed in Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 2L, .0202 (2L standards). Individual metals are not persistently
detected over time and, historically, elevated turbidity levels in the samples may have affected the
results. Therefore, the ACM suggested that the objective of the remedy focus on VOCs. The ACM
evaluated several potential remedies.
 November 12, 2010—Based on the ACM report, the SWS issued a letter to Jackson County entitled
Response: Assessment of Corrective Measures, requesting a remedy to restore groundwater quality
and effectively reduce contamination.
 May 13, 2011—Following advertisement and solicitation for public comment on the assessment of
corrective measures, Altamont submitted a letter containing the Corrective Action Permit
Modification Application—Jackson County Landfill, dated May 13, 2011. The Corrective Action Permit
Modification application indicated that the selected remedy was leachate removal and monitoring of
natural attenuation parameters.
 June 2, 2011—The SWS approved the selected remedy with a letter entitled Response: Groundwater
Corrective Action Selected Remedy Approval—Closed Jackson County Landfill, Permit #50-02, dated
June 2, 2011. The SWS requested the preparation of a Corrective Action Plan.
 June 30, 2011—Altamont submitted the Corrective Action Plan—Jackson County Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill on June 30, 2011. Based upon the property currently owned by Jackson County,
relative to monitoring locations, the Altamont Corrective Action Plan (CAP) established a compliance
and review boundary for the closed landfill in accordance with the criteria set forth in Title 15A, of
the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Subchapter 2L, .0107. The CAP offered a remedy to
restore groundwater quality and effectively reduce contamination for VOC constituents in excess of
groundwater quality standards outside the compliance boundary. The CAP outlined a schedule for
the implementation of the remedy that included a three-phased approach over a 5-year time span.
Implementation of the remedy included: purchase of dedicated leachate extraction pumps (Phase 1);
installation of dedicated pumps into each of the existing landfill gas extraction wells and collection of
leachate into a leachate extraction sump (Phase 2); disposal of leachate through connection of
leachate extraction sump to the Tuckaseegee Water & Sewer Authority collection system (Phase 3);
and continued monitoring of groundwater for natural attenuation parameters, VOCs, and metals.
 September 1, 2011—The CAP was approved by the SWS in a letter from the DENR titled Approval of
the County’s Corrective Action Plan, dated September 1, 2011. The approval letter required that
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 2

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
after 5 years, the corrective actions discussed in the CAP shall be evaluated and reviewed. If VOC
concentrations are not reduced, contingency plans may be required.
 June 30, 2012—The first phase of CAP implementation was completed. The leachate extraction
pumps were acquired.
 September 1, 2012—The second phase of CAP implementation was completed. The leachate
extraction pumps were installed in 10 landfill gas (LFG) extraction wells (Figure 2) and leachate
extraction was initiated.
 September 6, 2013—The third and final phase of CAP implementation was completed. Discharge
from the temporary collection tank (from which the leachate was pumped and hauled for disposal)
was permanently connected to the Tuckaseigee Water & Sewer Authority.
Figure 2 shows the locations of the seven groundwater monitoring wells and the 10 landfill gas extraction
wells.
The CAP established a compliance and review boundary for the closed landfill, which are shown on Figure 2.
Historically, several VOCs have been detected in samples collected from monitoring wells located outside the
compliance boundary (MW-02, MW-04, MW-06, and MW-07).
The DEQ-approved leachate extraction with monitored natural attenuation (MNA) remedy proposed to
restore groundwater quality through leachate extraction (e.g. source reduction), and thus, effectively reduce
contamination from VOC constituents in excess of groundwater quality standards outside the compliance
boundary. This 5-year review will evaluate the performance of the leachate extraction system with MNA in
regards to contaminant reduction at the compliance boundary.
A summary of laboratory analyses, including the MNA parameters, is provided in Table 1. Table 2 provides a
summary of well-construction information for the seven Site monitoring wells. Table 3 summarizes historical
concentrations of the Site COCs, which will be discussed in detail in Section 2.0.

Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 3

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
Constituents of Concern
The main constituents of concern (COCs), as outlined in the ACM, are 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,4-
dichlorobenzene (1,4-DCB), benzene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE),
trichloroethene (TCE), and vinyl chloride. Historically these compounds have been detected in Site
monitoring wells located both inside and outside of the compliance boundary at concentrations greater than
the 2L standards See Table 3 for a summary of the historical concentrations of the COCs.
Since the CAP’s sampling activities began in 2010, three VOCs, benzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and vinyl
chloride, have been detected in excess of the 2L standard outside of the compliance boundary. These
contaminants will be the focus for evaluating the effectiveness of corrective action at the Site.
The overall Site layout, including the edge-of-waste and compliance boundaries, is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3 provides a generalized groundwater flow map and a summary of COC concentrations along the
groundwater flow path. The graphs shown in Figures 4 through 9 provide a visual summary of the
concentration of VOCs that consistently exceed their respective 2L standards, how they relate to
groundwater elevation, and how their trend changes throughout the period that follows the implementation
of leachate extraction and the MNA remedy.
2.1 Discussion of Historical Data
Table 2 provides well construction information for the current seven Site monitoring wells. Table 3 shows
historic concentrations dating back as far as 1999 for the oldest monitoring wells on-Site.
2.1.1 Background Monitoring Well
One monitoring well, MW-02, serves as the Site’s background monitoring well. It is located downgradient of
the landfill but is in a position that is not along a groundwater flow path from the landfill wastes. MW-02 is
screened in bedrock and has not had exceedances of the COCs since October 2002. Prior to that time
1,1-dichlorothane was detected slightly above its 2L standard on two occasions.
2.1.2 Upgradient Monitoring Wells
Two monitoring wells are located in the upgradient portion of the Site, MW-01 and MW-06. MW-01 is located
inside the compliance boundary and was installed in 1992. MW-06 is located outside of the compliance
boundary in the northwest corner of the property and was installed in 2004. Both of these monitoring wells
are screened in bedrock.
The following constituents have exceeded 2L standards in upgradient monitoring wells (Table 3):
 Monitoring well MW-01 (Figure 4)
 1,1-DCA—Concentrations have been trending downward since 1999, dropping below the 2L
standard of 6 µg/L in 2012 and have remained below this standard since then.
 Benzene—Concentrations have consistently exceeded the 2L standard of 1 µg/L since 1999.
Concentrations have been trending downward and now are relatively stable at concentrations
slightly above the 2L standard.
 1,4-DCB—Concentrations have exceeded the 2L standard of 6 µg/L since 2001 and remain
generally steady.
 PCE—Concentrations have remained slightly above or slightly below the 2L standard of 0.70 µg/L
since 2007. All detections since 2008 have been reported with a “J” flag by the laboratory,
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 4

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
indicating the result is an estimated concentration (e.g., it is greater than the laboratory’s
method detection limit and less than its reporting limit).
 Monitoring well MW-06 (Figure 8)
 1,1-DCA—Concentrations regularly exceeded the 2L standard between 2004 and 2009.
Concentrations have been trending downward since 2009, with four exceedances occurring in
14 sampling events since October 2009.
 1,4-DCB—Concentrations have exceeded the 2L standard since 2004 and are subtly trending
downward.
 Benzene—Concentrations have exceeded the 2L standard since 2004 and although
concentrations are currently slightly above the 2L standard, they are trending downward.
 PCE—Concentrations have not exceeded 2L standards in MW-06 since the April 2009 sampling
event.
2.1.3 Mid-Gradient Monitoring Wells
Monitoring wells MW-03 and MW-05R are topographically located midway along the groundwater flow path
for the Site. MW-03 is screened in the partially weathered rock (PWR) portion of the aquifer, and was
installed in 1992. MW-05R is screened in the saprolite portion of the aquifer, which is located above PWR,
stratigraphically. MW-05R was installed in 2012 to replace MW-05. Altamont’s analytical records of MW-05
date back to 1999. Both monitoring wells are located inside the compliance boundary.
The following constituents have exceeded 2L standards in mid-gradient monitoring wells (Table 3):
 Monitoring well MW-03 (Figure 5)
 1,1-DCA—Concentrations have exceeded the 2L standard regularly between 1999 and 2005, but
have not exceeded the 2L standard since 2005. Concentrations have been trending strongly
downward.
 1,4-DCB—Concentrations regularly exceed its 2L standard during the fall sampling events when
groundwater elevations are lower. Seasonal variation (fall versus spring) at this well has been
occurring regularly since 2006.
 Benzene—Concentrations follow the same pattern as 1,4-DCB, with exceedances regularly
occurring in the fall. Concentrations are subtly trending downward, and have not exceeded the
2L standard since fall 2014.
 PCE—Concentrations have never exceeded the 2L standard in MW-03.
 Monitoring well MW-05/MW-05R (Figure 7)
 1,4-DCB—Although concentrations exceeded the 2L standard regularly between 1999 and 2011,
since 2011, 1,4-DCB has exceeded the 2L standard only four times over ten sampling events.
 Benzene—Although concentrations have exceeded the 2L standard consistently since 2007,
concentrations remain stable and only slightly above the 2L standard.
 PCE—PCE has not been detected in MW-05/MW-05R since 1999.
 Vinyl Chloride—Although concentrations have consistently exceeded the 2L standard since 2007,
they are increasing only slightly and as stated in Section 1.0, vinyl chloride is a degradation
product of chlorinated solvents. Increasing concentrations in this well indicate that conditions
between the source area and MW-05R may support degradation of chlorinated solvents.
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 5

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
2.1.4 Downgradient Monitoring Wells
Monitoring wells MW-04 and MW-07 are topographically located in the downgradient portion of the Site. MW-
04 is screened in saprolite and MW-07 is screened in bedrock.
The following constituents have exceeded 2L standards in downgradient monitoring wells (Table 3):
 Monitoring well MW-04 (Figure 6)
 1,4-DCB—Concentrations consistently exceeded the 2L standard between 1999 and 2009 and
have since been trending downward to concentrations less than the 2L standard. Concentrations
have not exceeded the 2L standard since the fall 2011 sampling event.
 Benzene—Concentrations consistently exceeded the 2L standard between 2007 and 2010, and
are subtly trending downward. Benzene has exceeded the 2L standard on two occasions since
2011.
 PCE—One detection of PCE was reported in 2007 at a “J” flagged concentration well below the 2L
standard.
 Vinyl Chloride—Concentrations have exceeded the 2L standard consistently since 2007 with
mostly “J” flagged concentrations.
 Monitoring well MW-07 (Figure 9)
 1,4-DCB—Concentrations have slightly exceeded the 2L standard four times since installation of
this monitoring well in 2010.
 Benzene—Concentrations have been reported slightly above the 2L standard since 2011.
 Vinyl Chloride—Concentrations have exceeded the 2L standard in six of the 12 events that this
well has been sampled. All concentrations of vinyl chloride were reported with a “J” flag by the
laboratory.

Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 6

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
Overview of Remedial Approach
As stated above, the CAP was implemented between 2012 and 2013, with leachate extraction beginning in
September 2012; however, from September 2012 to September 2013 leachate was intermittently pumped,
because flow was limited as a result of collecting and hauling the leachate for disposal off-Site. In
September 2013, the leachate extraction system was connected to the TWSA sanitary sewer system and
continuous pumping of the leachate started. The leachate extraction system was installed to remove mass
from the source area, which over time will allow for downgradient concentrations to attenuate at an
accelerated rate.
Monitored Natural Attenuation is the other component of the remedial approach at the Site. Analytical data
has been collected from the Site monitoring wells since at least 1999. A review of the data indicates that
overall COC concentrations have been declining and that natural attenuation parameters show support for
natural attenuation processes.
The following sections provide greater detail of the remedial approach and analysis of the semiannual
monitoring data.
3.1 Leachate Extraction System
There are 10 landfill gas (LFG) extraction wells installed at the Site, referred to as extraction well 1 (EW-1)
through EW-10. EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3 were installed in March 2004 to be used for a pilot study to
determine potential landfill-gas-to-energy use at the Site. EW-4 through EW-9 were installed in January 2005.
EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3, were replaced with new extraction wells in December 2011 (EW-1R, EW-2R, and
EW-3R, respectively). The wells range in depth from 40 ft-bgs to 90 ft-bgs, and have a screened interval that
ranges from 18 feet in the shallower wells to 48 feet in the deeper wells. They are constructed of either 4- or
6-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe which is perforated along the screened interval to allow the
flow of landfill gas into the well casing. The screened interval of the well is surrounded by a gravel pack. The
gravel is 1- to 3-inches in diameter.
Review of the extraction well boring logs (Appendix A) indicate the soil cap thickness is generally between
5- and 10-ft-bgs throughout the landfill. The boring logs also indicate that trash and debris mixed with soil
was noted from below the clay cap to each well’s terminal depth.
Bottom inlet air-powered leachate extraction pumps were installed in the bottom of each landfill gas
extraction well in September 2012. The leachate extraction system was connected to the TWSA in
September 2013. Altamont began collecting leachate samples during semiannual water quality monitoring
events in October 2012. The leachate samples were analyzed for Appendix I VOCs. Results from these
samples were used in a mass removal calculation to determine the quantity of VOCs removed in pounds. A
totalizer, installed at the TWSA sewer connection, is observed during each semiannual sampling event to
keep track of the number of gallons of leachate removed. As of April 2016, a total of 315,663 gallons of
leachate have been removed from the landfill. The analytical data provided by the leachate samples
indicates that approximately 0.158 pounds of VOCs have been removed from the landfill since leachate
extraction began in September 2012. A summary of mass removal calculations is provided in Table 4.
The leachate extraction system was designed to remove approximately 0.55 pounds of VOC mass in a 5-year
period, based on the following assumptions:
 The source of the extracted water is primarily water infiltrating through the landfill cap into waste.
 Most, if not all, of the estimated volume of water infiltrating through the landfilled waste becomes
leachate.
 The quality of leachate generated by the landfill is relatively uniform.
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 7

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
 The samples collected from EW-04 and EW-09 on February 21, 2011 are representative of the
quality of the water to be extracted.
There are many reasons that the leachate extraction system could be performing at a rate less than
expected. The primary reason for the difference appears to be related to the volume of leachate collected by
the system. The modeling and recharge calculations, as presented in the CAP, estimated the volume of
water that may infiltrate through the landfill cap at approximately 3.1 million gallons per year and the
estimated volume of water to be extracted was estimated at 1.2 million gallons per year at full
implementation. To date a total volume of 0.3 million gallons has been recovered since full scale
implementation. This is less than the design. The model that was used to estimate the 3.1 million gallons
per year was the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model (see Section 3.0 of the CAP).
The 1.2 million gallons per year was calculated using a simple hydraulic model based upon the known
characteristics/performance of the extraction pumps and incompressible fluid (leachate) flow in pressure
conduits (the leachate extraction and collection pipe). The parameters upon which the model in the CAP
were based were the best assumptions available at that time. Parameters could be calibrated to align
observed performance with modeled performance. However, because the leachate extraction system is only
part of the remedy, recalibration of the model and enhancement of the leachate extraction system based
upon model recalibration should only be considered in the context of the remedy as a whole.
3.2 Assessment of Natural Attenuation
Natural attenuation is a naturally occurring process in the environment that acts to reduce mass, toxicity,
mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants. Multiple in situ processes can contribute to natural
attenuation. These include biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and chemical
stabilization or destruction of contaminants (ITRC 1999). Natural attenuation is monitored by collecting
samples from Site monitoring wells and having the samples analyzed by a laboratory for VOCs and MNA
parameters. MNA parameters are a suite of compounds that provide insight on an aquifer’s ability to
naturally attenuate contaminants. MNA parameters are collected every 6 months, during fall and spring of
each year. The first MNA parameter suite was collected during the fall 2011 sampling event following the
CAP approval.
3.2.1 Stability of COC Plume
The source area for the Site is generally the landfilled waste and the area beneath it. Conditions best
representing the source area are observed in the collected leachate, which has been sampled semiannually
since implementation of the remedy. A generalized flow path downgradient from monitoring wells MW-01
and MW-06 consists of the extraction wells (source), monitoring wells MW-03 and MW-05R (mid-gradient),
and monitoring wells MW-07 and MW-04 (downgradient). A review of historical data (including 2016 data)
shows decreasing trends in total VOCs in most wells, suggesting a stable to declining COC plume. A review of
COC concentrations along the flow path shown on Figure 3 suggests plume stability as well:
 Source Area—In 2011 analytical results for leachate samples from EW-4 and EW-9 exceeded the 2L
standards for 1,4-DCB and benzene. Leachate collected from the leachate extraction system are
now generally less than the 2L standard for 1,4-DCB and greater than 2L standard for benzene.
 Mid-gradient Monitoring Wells—Wells MW-03 and MW-05R are located inside the compliance
boundary and represent mid-gradient wells along the flow path from the source area.
 MW-03—Groundwater samples collected from this well typically exceed 2L standards for 1,4-DCB
and benzene in the fall of each year, corresponding to typical 4- to 8-foot decreases in
groundwater elevation for the fall sampling event.
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 8

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
 MW-05R—Groundwater samples collected from this well exceed 2L standards for 1,4-DCB,
benzene, and vinyl chloride.
 Downgradient Monitoring Wells—Wells MW-04 and MW-07 are located outside of the compliance
boundary and represent the downgradient wells along the flow path from the source area.
 MW-04—Groundwater samples collected from this well have not exceeded the 2L standard for
1,4-DCB and have only intermittently exceeded the 2L standard for benzene since 2011.
 MW-07—Although groundwater samples collected from this well slightly exceed the 2L standards
for benzene and 1,4-DCB, the concentrations are generally stable.
Based on the current and historical results along the flow path from the source area to the downgradient
monitoring wells MW-04 and MW-07, the observed concentrations are generally decreasing or staying the
same along the flow path, providing evidence for a stable COC plume.
3.2.2 Analysis of MNA
Site contaminants can be categorized into two groups: aerobically-degraded contaminants (such as benzene
and 1,4-dichlorobenzene) and anaerobically-degraded contaminants (such as PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE). A
review of MNA and field parameter data can be found in Table 5. Certain parameters included in Table 1 are
not included in Table 5, as these parameters were not applicable to the specific conditions at the Site.
To evaluate the MNA parameters collected for the Site, Altamont generally followed the procedures outlined
in the Technical Protocol of Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater (EPA
1998) and the Technical Guidelines for Evaluating Monitored Natural Attenuation of Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater at Naval and Marine Corps Facilities (Department of
the Navy 1998). Both documents outline a screening process for evaluating natural attenuation processes
under anaerobic conditions. The Department of Navy provides guidance for evaluating natural attenuation of
petroleum constituents under aerobic conditions. While there are some anaerobically-degraded
contaminants in groundwater samples collected from Site monitoring wells, the main COCs on which this
report focuses are benzene, 1,4-DCB, and vinyl chloride. These three constituents degrade aerobically;
therefore, the Department of Navy guidance was used as the primary reference for evaluating natural
attenuation parameters collected at the Site. Conditions at the Site are supportive of aerobic degradation, as
discussed in the following section.
3.2.2.1 Summary of MNA Parameters
Certain parameters are found at high concentrations in different areas of the Site. The parameters
discussed in the following sections are either byproducts of contaminant degradation, or indicators of
chemical reactions that promote contaminant degradation. The following MNA parameters, summarized in
Table 5, are evaluated below for their support or non-support of MNA.
 Dissolved Oxygen—DO concentrations that are greater than 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are
generally not supportive of MNA through reductive dechlorination. DO concentrations across the Site
are generally greater than 0.5 mg/L, ranging from 0.11 to 7.3 mg/L with an average of 1.79 mg/L.
This suggests aerobic conditions on-Site, which are favorable for degradation of 1,4-DCB, benzene,
and vinyl chloride.
 Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)—ORP values that are less than 50 millivolts (mV) indicate that a
reductive pathway for COC degradation is possible, and values that are less than -100 mV suggest
that reductive degradation is likely. ORP concentrations across the Site are generally greater than 50
mV, ranging from -164 to 638, with an average of 113.5 mV. This suggests that the aquifer
conditions beneath the landfill are more aerobic than anaerobic, which are favorable for degradation
of 1,4-DCB, benzene, and vinyl chloride.
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 9

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
 Nitrate—Nitrate can be used as an electron donor through aerobic biodegradation and will result in
decreases in nitrate concentrations over time. Detected concentrations of nitrate from across the
Site range from 0.021 to 113.1 mg/L with an average of 3.05 mg/L. Monitoring wells MW-02, MW-
03, and MW-04 have a history of detectable concentrations for nitrate. While MW-02 nitrate
concentrations have been relatively stable, those for MW-03 and MW-04 have increased over time.
This suggests aerobic degradation through de-nitrification is not occurring at the Site. This
degradation pathway will likely remain suppressed until the dissolved oxygen has been consumed
and falls below a concentration of 0.5 mg/L.
 Ferrous (Fe2) Iron—Once denitrification has occurred and the available nitrate has been consumed,
ferric iron (Fe3) reducing bacteria will begin to co-metabolize petroleum hydrocarbons in the
presence of ferric iron, producing ferrous iron through reduction. A ferrous iron concentration above
1 mg/L is supportive of a reductive de-chlorination pathway. Across the Site, detected ferrous iron
concentrations range from 0.035 mg/L to 65 mg/L, with an average of 8.90 mg/L, indicating that a
reductive pathway is possible. MW-01 shows a generally increasing trend in ferrous iron over time,
suggesting that iron reduction is an active process in this area of the Site.
 Chloride—Under aerobic conditions, increases in chloride concentrations suggest direct oxidation of
chlorinated compounds may be occurring. Chloride concentrations are generally increasing in
monitoring well MW-07, suggesting that direct oxidation of 1,4-DCB and vinyl chloride is occurring in
the downgradient portion of the Site. At other locations across the Site, chloride concentrations are
not increasing, which suggests that other natural attenuation process are more active in these areas.
 Hydrogen—Hydrogen concentrations greater than 1 nanomole (nM) indicate evidence of reductive
de-chlorination occurring in the aquifer. Monitoring wells must be sampled via low-flow methods in
order to collect hydrogen samples. Some Site wells do not produce enough water to be sampled in
this method, and hydrogen samples cannot be collected. Across the Site, hydrogen concentrations
since 2011 have ranged from 0.34 to 170 nM, with an average of 17 nM. These concentrations
suggest that reductive de-chlorination is occurring in some areas of the Site.
 Carbon Dioxide—Carbon dioxide is the result of oxidation and final daughter product of degradation
processes. The average concentration of carbon dioxide in monitoring well MW-02 (48 mg/L) is lower
by an order of magnitude, than the other wells across the Site. The Site-wide carbon dioxide
concentrations (not including MW-02) have ranged between 27 and 390 from October 2011 through
April 2016, with an average concentration of 213 mg/L. Monitoring well MW-02 is not located along
a groundwater flow path from the landfill to a point of discharge; therefore, it is representative of a
background concentration. Considering that carbon dioxide concentrations are elevated relative to
background, it suggests that degradation of chlorinated compounds is occurring.
Overall, MNA parameters are supportive of contaminant oxidation in the mid-gradient and downgradient
portion of the Site. Parameters also provide evidence of reductive de-chlorination occurring in the upgradient
portion of the Site. The upgradient portion contains both aerobically degraded and anaerobically degraded
contaminants. Site-wide conditions appear to be sufficient for natural attenuation of both contaminant
groups (anaerobic degradation in the upgradient and source areas and aerobic in the mid-gradient and
downgradient areas).
3.3 Hydrogeology
Figure 3 shows a generalized groundwater flow direction pathway. Groundwater at the Site flows in a south-
southwest direction, from the extraction wells towards MW-04 and MW-07, with MW-03 and MW-05R
representing mid-gradient wells along this flow path. In Altamont’s 2011 CAP, it was stated that hydraulic
conductivity at the Site is estimated to be 0.0001 centimeters per second (cm/s), which equates to
approximately 103 feet per year (ft/yr). The hydraulic gradient was calculated to be 0.08 feet per foot, based
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 10

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
on the elevation difference between MW-05R and MW-04. Based on these values, groundwater flow velocity
can be calculated with an assumed effective porosity of 0.25 (established in the CAP). The following
equation was used to calculate groundwater flow velocity:
𝑣=−𝑘
𝑛∗�ℎ
𝑣�𝑑𝑟𝑑:𝑘=103 𝑑𝑡
𝑦𝑟𝑛𝑟 0.282 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑎𝑦,𝑛=0.25,𝑎𝑛𝑑 �ℎ=0.08117 𝑑𝑡/𝑑𝑡
𝑣= −0.282
0.25 ∗0.08117
𝑣=−0.092 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑛𝑟−33.44 𝑑𝑡/𝑦𝑟
The calculation of groundwater flow velocity shows that it takes approximately 15 years for groundwater to
travel from the source area to MW-05R and 24 years for groundwater to travel from the source area to the
downgradient wells MW-04 and MW-07. As stated in Section 3.1, leachate extraction began in 2012. Based
on the calculated groundwater flow velocity, it will take another 11 years for the leachate extraction system
to show any observable difference in groundwater quality in MW-05R, and 20 years for those changes to be
observed in the downgradient portion of the Site.

Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 11

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
Conclusions and Recommendations
While it is still premature to see reductions in COC concentrations as a result of the leachate extraction
system, this 5-year review has identified that the observed performance of the leachate extraction system
does not align with the performance as modeled in the CAP. This is most likely due to an overestimation of
the volume of precipitation infiltrating into the landfill. The leachate recovery system was based on an
infiltration volume of 3.1 million gallons per year and a leachate removal rate of 1.2 million gallons per year.
Over the 3 years of continual pumping from the leachate extraction system, a total of 0.5 million gallons
have been removed. Altamont recommends that Jackson County consider evaluating the leachate extraction
system to determine if performance can be improved. To evaluate the system, the following actions could be
taken:
1. Gauge depths to leachate in each extraction well and compare to 2010 levels.
2. Sample the leachate in EW4 and EW9 and compare to the 2010 concentrations.
3. Determine if leachate extraction pumps are operating at capacity.
Because the leachate extraction system is only part of the remedy, this recommendation (evaluating the
leachate extraction system) is something that should be considered, but may not be required now. Jackson
County could postpone implementing this recommendation for 11 years, at which time improvement in
groundwater quality because of the leachate extraction system may be observed in MW-05R despite the
disparity between observed performance and the performance modeled in the CAP.
Analysis of long-term MNA parameters and COC results indicates slow degradation of the Site COCs. While
the COCs are still detected above 2L standards outside of the compliance boundary, they have not been
detected in either surface water samples or groundwater samples collected from domestic water supply
wells. There is sufficient evidence for biodegradation of anaerobically-degraded contaminants (mainly PCE)
that are still present at low concentrations in the upgradient portion of the Site. Site conditions also allow for
aerobic degradation of 1,4-DCB, benzene, and vinyl chloride in the mid-gradient and downgradient portions
of the Site.
Based on the available data, Altamont believes that conditions for natural attenuation are sufficient at the
Site. The hydrogeologic conditions at the Site show that it will be 20 to 30 years before concentration
reductions, attributable to the leachate extraction system, begin to affect the concentrations in the
downgradient portion of the Site. Site receptors (surface water and domestic water supply wells) have not
been impacted by the COCs; therefore, Altamont recommends continued monitoring of MNA parameters and
a pared-down version of the Appendix I and Appendix II parameters. Based on the lack of historical
detections of these parameters, Altamont recommends removing the following parameters from the
monitoring schedule:
Appendix II Herbicides
Appendix II polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Appendix II Pesticides
Cyanide

Moving forward, Altamont requests on behalf of Jackson County, that the semiannual monitoring schedule
includes the following constituents and frequency:
Spring 2017 Appendix I VOCs
Appendix I Metals
Sulfide
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 12

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
Fall 2017 Appendix II VOCs
Appendix II Metals
Appendix II SVOCs
Sulfide

Appendix II herbicides, PCBs, and pesticides will be incorporated into a fall sampling event once every 5
years, with the next monitoring event to include these parameters to be performed in fall 2021. Removing
parameters from the sampling schedule may allow Jackson County to redirect resources toward the
previously mentioned actions, which will provide more useful data for future evaluation of remedy
performance.
Altamont will continue a semiannual monitoring schedule at the Site, which will include collecting samples
from all Site monitoring wells, surface waters upstream and downstream of the landfill, and sampling
domestic water supply wells annually. Altamont will reassess effectiveness of the remedy following the
spring 2021 monitoring event.
Five-Year Corrective Action Evaluation Report October 31, 2016
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Page 13

P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report 2016-1031.Docx
References
Altamont Environmental. 2011. Corrective Action Plan. June 2011.
Department of the Navy. 1998. Technical Guidelines for Evaluating Monitored Natural Attenuation of
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater at Naval and Marine Corps Facilities.
September 1998.
Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation. 1999. Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in
Groundwater: Principles and Practices. September 1999.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management Hazardous Waste
Section. 2000. Guidance on Developing a Monitored Natural Attenuation Remedial Proposal for Chlorinated
Organics in Ground Water. October 2000.
United States EPA. 1998. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in
Ground Water. September 1998.

FIGURES



0 1,000 2,000
Feet

1




¦








!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A @A
#7
#7
"
!U
!U
!A !A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A !A

















1
9
6
0
1
9
8
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
4
0
2
0
6
0
2
0
8
0
2
1
2
0
2
1
4
0
2160
2
1
8
0
2
2
2
0
2240
2
2
6
0
22
8
0
2
3
2
0
2
3
4
0
2360
2380
2420
2440
2460
248
0
19
8
0
2240
2140
2120
21
8
0
204
0
218
0
2060
22
2
0
2
1
2
0
208
0
218
0 2160
2160
2020
208
0
2180
2
2
2
0
¦
















2


!A 
!U 
"
#7 
@A 
! !



!U
!U
!U !U
!U
!U
!U
"
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A
!A









T
u
c
k
a
s
e
g
e
e
Riv
er
Leachate from the leachate
extraction wells is discharged
to a sump at this location,
where samples are collected
(LT-01), and then is discharged
to the Tuckaseigee Water and
Sewer sanitary sewer system.












GEN
E
R
A
L
I
Z
E
D

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

F
L
O
W

D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
EST
I
M
A
T
E
D

G
R
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

F
L
O
W

V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y

I
S

3
3

F
T
/
Y
E
A
R
Wilkey
Wilkey
Connor
Wilkey
MW-03
MW-04
MW-05R
MW-01MW-06
MW-02
MW-07
H
A
Y
W
O
O
D

R
D
JO
E

W
I
L
K
E
Y

R
D
T
U
N
N
E
L

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

R
D
FUGITIV
E

R
U
N
HAR
M
O
N
Y

H
L
GREE
N

E
N
E
R
G
Y

P
A
R
K

R
D












































¦
3


Feet























































































































































































Review of the 2011 and 2016 concentrations of the primary constituents of concern (COCs) show that relatively minor increases have occurred in some
locations; however, a review of Table 3 and Figures 4 through 9 show that overall concentrations have been in decline or remain stable.
The leachate removal system has had approximately 3 years of continuous operation (data in this report is collected over 2.5 years of operation of the leachatesystem). Based on leachate concentrations and the estimated groundwater flow velocity, concentration changes due to the leachate removal (equivalent to
source zone volatile organic compound [VOC] mass removal) should not affect monitoring wells MW-04 and MW-07 for at least 20 years.
Groundwater data presented in Table 5 show that aerobic conditions are present in the groundwater wells. These conditions are favorable for aerobic
degradation of petroleum compounds such as 1,4-DCB and benzene, as well as for the oxidation of vinyl chloride. As the leachate extraction system continues to
remove VOC mass from the landfill, downgradient concentrations will continue to decrease.
Notes:1. Apr-11 indicates the time that corrective actionwas initiated.
2. Apr-16 indicates the most recentsampling results.
3. 0.32U indicates the parameter was not detected
above laboratory detection limits.
4. 0.43J indicates the reported parameter concentration
was estimated by the laboratory.
Abbreviations:
1,4-DCB = 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-DCA = 1,1-Dichloroethane
PCE = Tetrachloroethene
TCE = Trichloroethene
VC = Vinyl Chloride
Concentration Changes Along Groundwater Flow Direction Path
LT-01 Oct-12 Apr-16
Historical Maximum Maximum Year
1,4-DCB 3.4 5.9 6 2013
Benzene 2.1 1.7 2.2 2015
1,1-DCA 0.32U 0.083U --
PCE 0.46U 0.098U --
TCE 0.47U 0.078U --
VC 0.62U 0.097U 0.38J 2015
MW-03 Apr-11 Apr-16
Historical Maximum Maximum Year
1,4-DCB 0.33U 2.2 19.0 2005
Benzene 0.43J 0.53J 6.1 2000
1,1-DCA 0.32U 0.083U 10.0 2002
PCE 0.46U 0.098U 1.0 1999
TCE 0.47U 0.078U 1.3 1999
VC 0.62U 0.097U 1.2 1999
MW-05/MW-05R Apr-11 Apr-16
Historical Maximum Maximum Year
1,4-DCB 0.33U 6.5 18.8 2007
Benzene 1.5 1.9 3.4 1999
1,1-DCA 0.32U 0.083U 3.0 1999
PCE 0.46U 0.098U --
TCE 0.47U 0.078U 0.55J 2010
VC 1.1 2 2.9 2014
MW-04 Apr-11 Apr-16
Historical Maximum Maximum Year
1,4-DCB 0.33U 2.7 11.3 2007
Benzene 0.59J 0.048U 2.8 1999
1,1-DCA 0.32U 0.083U 4.0 1999
PCE 0.46U 0.098U 3.9 1999
TCE 0.47U 0.078U 3.5 1999
VC 0.62U 0.097U 2.0 1999
MW-07 Apr-11 Apr-16
Historical Maximum Maximum Year
1,4-DCB 3.7 6.8 6.8 2016
Benzene 1.1 1.6 1.7 2013
1,1-DCA 0.54J 0.083U 0.71J 2011
PCE 0.46U 0.098U --
TCE 0.47U 0.078U --
VC 0.62U 0.097U 0.89J 2013

!A 
"
!U 
!U 
!U 









Figure 4
Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time
Monitoring Well MW-01
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\Graphs
2060.00
2062.00
2064.00
2066.00
2068.00
2070.00
2072.00
2074.00
2076.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
e
e
t
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Tetrachloroethene Groundwater Elevation (Feet)
2L Standards:
1,4-Dichlorobenzene = 6 µg/L
Benzene = 1 µg/L
Tetrachloroethene = 0.70 µg/L
Figure 5
Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time
Monitoring Well MW-03
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\Graphs
1984.00
1986.00
1988.00
1990.00
1992.00
1994.00
1996.00
1998.00
2000.00
2002.00
2004.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
e
e
t
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Groundwater Elevation (Feet)
2L Standards:
1,4 Dichlorobenzene = 6 µg/L
Benzene = 1 µg/L
Figure 6
Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time
Monitoring Well MW-04
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\Graphs
1947.00
1948.00
1949.00
1950.00
1951.00
1952.00
1953.00
1954.00
1955.00
1956.00
1957.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
e
e
t
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Vinyl Chloride Groundwater Elevation (Feet)
2L Standards:
1,4-Dichlorobenzene = 6 µg/L
Benzene = 1 µg/L
Vinyl Chloride = 0.03 µg/L
Figure 7
Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time
Monitoring Well MW-05/MW-05R
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\Graphs
1970.00
1972.00
1974.00
1976.00
1978.00
1980.00
1982.00
1984.00
1986.00
1988.00
1990.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
e
e
t
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Vinyl Chloride Groundwater Elevation (Feet)
2L Standards:
1,4-Dichlorobenzene = 6 µg/L
Benzene = 1 µg/L
Vinyl Chloride = 0.03 µg/L
Figure 8
Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time
Monitoring Well MW-06
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\Graphs
2035.00
2040.00
2045.00
2050.00
2055.00
2060.00
2065.00
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
e
e
t
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
1,1-Dichloroethane 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Groundwater Elevation (Feet)
2L Standards:
1,1-Dichloroethane = 6 µg/L
1,4-Dichlorobenzene = 6 µg/L
Benzene = 1 µg/L
Figure 9
Hydrograph and Constituents of Concern vs. Time
Monitoring Well MW-07
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\Graphs
1947
1947.5
1948
1948.5
1949
1949.5
1950
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
8/11/2010 4/13/2011 10/27/2011 4/12/2012 10/24/2012 4/10/2013 10/9/2013 4/9/2014 10/23/2014 4/22/2015 10/14/2015 4/6/2016
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
e
e
t
)
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
µ
g
/
L
)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Vinyl Chloride Groundwater Elevation (Feet)
2L Standards
1,4-Dichlorobenzene = 6 µg/L
Benzene = 1 µg/L
Vinyl Chloride = 0.03 µg/L

TABLES

Ta
b
l
e

1

Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

o
n

S
a
m
p
l
e
s
Ja
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

C
l
o
s
e
d

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
,

J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

S
A
M
P
L
E
S
SU
R
F
A
C
E

W
A
T
E
R
,

L
E
A
C
H
A
T
E
,

A
N
D

Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
-
C
O
N
T
R
O
L

S
A
M
P
L
E
S
Me
t
a
l
s

V
O
C
s

M
e
r
c
u
r
y
Me
t
a
l
s

V
O
C
s

M
e
r
c
u
r
y
X

X

X

XX

X
X

X

X

XX

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GR
O
U
N
D
W
A
T
E
R

S
A
M
P
L
E
S
To
t
a
l

Al
k
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

t
o

pH

4
.
5
BO
D

C
O
D

C
y
a
n
i
d
e
,

T
o
t
a
l
Vo
l
a
t
i
l
e

F
a
t
t
y

Ac
i
d
s
Fe
r
r
o
u
s

I
r
o
n

N
i
t
r
a
t
e

a
s

N

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

S
u
l
f
a
t
e

T
O
C

S
u
l
f
i
d
e
Ethane, Ethene, MethaneHydrogenCarbon Dioxide
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X
X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X
No
t
e
s
:
EP
A
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
y
VO
C
s
vo
l
a
t
i
l
e

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
TO
C
t ot
a
l

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
a
r
b
o
n
BO
D
bi
o
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

o
x
y
g
e
n

d
e
m
a
n
d
CO
D
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l

o
x
y
g
e
n

d
e
m
a
n
d
An
a
l
y
s
e
s
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x

I

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d

p
e
r

T
i
t
l
e

4
0

C
o
d
e

o
f

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
C
F
R
)

P
a
r
t

2
5
8
.
Bl
a
n
k

c
e
l
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

w
a
s

n
o
t

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

o
n

t
h
a
t

s
a
m
p
l
e
.
Hy
d
r
o
g
e
n
MW
-
0
6
MW
-
0
7
Sa
m
p
l
e
s

f
r
o
m

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l
s

M
W
-
0
1
,

M
W
-
0
2
,

a
n
d

M
W
-
0
5
R

c
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

b
e

a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d

f
o
r

h
y
d
r
o
g
e
n
.

T
h
e

h
y
d
r
o
g
e
n

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

t
h
e

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l
to

b
e

s
a
m
p
l
e
d

v
i
a

t
h
e

l
o
w
-
f
l
o
w

m
e
t
h
o
d
,

w
h
e
r
e
a
s

t
h
e
s
e

w
e
l
l
s

a
r
e

s
a
m
p
l
e
d

v
i
a

a

d
i
s
p
o
s
a
b
l
e

b
a
i
l
e
r
.

Sa
m
p
l
e

N
a
m
e
MW
-
0
1
MW
-
0
2
MW
-
0
3
MW
-
0
4
MW
-
0
5
R
EP
A

9
0
5
6
A
SM

4
5
0
0
-
C
N
-
E
SM

5
2
1
0
B

S
M

5
2
2
0
D
MW
-
0
6
MW
-
0
7
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
a
m
e
SW
-
0
1
SW
-
0
2
LT
-
0
1
EP
A

6
0
2
0
B
EP
A

7
4
7
0
A
EP
A

8
2
6
0
B

E
P
A

7
4
7
0
A
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
EP
A

6
0
2
0
B
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
EP
A

8
2
6
0
B
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Na
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
SM

2
3
2
0
B
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
a
m
e
MW
-
0
1
MW
-
0
2
MW
-
0
3
MW
-
0
4
MW
-
0
5
R
SM 4500-S F
SM

3
5
0
0
-
F
e

D
AM
2
3
G
SM

9
0
6
0
A
AM20GAX
P:
\
J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
\
D
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o

G
W
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
2
0
4
0
.
3
0
6
0
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
T
a
b
l
e
s

a
n
d

G
r
a
p
h
s
\
M
N
A

R
e
p
o
r
t

T
a
b
l
e
s
Page 1 of 1
Ta
b
l
e

2
We
l
l
-
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
t
a
i
l
s

a
n
d

C
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ja
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

C
l
o
s
e
d

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
,

J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Da
t
e

D
r
i
l
l
e
d
Gr
o
u
n
d

Su
r
f
a
c
e

El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
TO
C

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
t
i
c
k

U
p
To
t
a
l

W
e
l
l

De
p
t
h
De
p
t
h

T
o

W
a
t
e
r

Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

Ap
p
r
o
x
.

D
e
p
t
h

to

B
e
d
r
o
c
k
Ap
p
r
o
x
.

T
o
p

o
f

Be
d
r
o
c
k

El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Depth to Top of Screened IntervalDepth to Bottom of Screened IntervalTop Elevation of Screened IntervalElevation of Bottom of Screened Interval
(m
m
/
d
d
/
y
y
y
y
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)
(f
e
e
t

a
b
o
v
e

gs
)
(
f
e
e
t

b
g
s
)
(f
e
e
t

b
e
l
o
w

TO
C
)

(f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t

b
g
s
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t

b
g
s
)

(
f
e
e
t

b
g
s
)

(
f
e
e
t
)

(
f
e
e
t
)
50
-
0
2

M
W
-
0
1

0
4
/
2
3
/
1
9
9
2

2
,
1
6
9
.
4
0

2
,
1
7
1
.
4
2

2
.
0

1
1
0
.
5

1
0
0
.
2
1

2
,
0
7
1
.
2
1

8
3
.
0

2
,
0
8
6
.
4
0

9
5
.
0

1
1
0
.
0

2
,
0
7
4
.
4
0

2
,
0
5
9
.
4
0

b
e
d
r
o
c
k

S
&
M
E
,

I
n
c
.
50
-
0
2

M
W
-
0
2

0
4
/
2
2
/
1
9
9
2

2
,
0
1
3
.
1
5

2
,
0
1
5
.
3
8

2
.
3

6
0
.
7

3
9
.
0
0

1
,
9
7
6
.
3
8

1
3
.
0

2
,
0
0
0
.
1
5

4
5
.
0

6
0
.
0

1
,
9
6
8
.
1
5

1
,
9
5
3
.
1
5

b
e
d
r
o
c
k

S
&
M
E
,

I
n
c
.
50
-
0
2

M
W
-
0
3

0
4
/
2
1
/
1
9
9
2

2
,
0
4
4
.
1
6

2
,
0
4
5
.
5
3

1
.
3

6
5
.
5

4
6
.
7
2

1
,
9
9
8
.
8
1

5
7
.
0

1
,
9
8
7
.
1
6

4
8
.
5

6
3
.
5

1
,
9
9
5
.
6
6

1
,
9
8
0
.
6
6
partially weathered bedrockS&ME, Inc.
50
-
0
2

M
W
-
0
4

0
4
/
2
1
/
1
9
9
2

1
,
9
7
8
.
6
8

1
,
9
8
0
.
7
7

2
.
0

4
3
.
0

2
6
.
3
5

1
,
9
5
4
.
4
2

N
A
NA

2
5
.
0

4
0
.
0

1
,
9
5
3
.
6
8

1
,
9
3
8
.
6
8

s
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e

S
&
M
E
,

I
n
c
.
50
-
0
2

M
W
-
0
5
R

0
1
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
2

2
,
0
2
7
.
9
8

2
,
0
3
0
.
9
5

2
.
8

5
4
.
0

4
8
.
1
2

1
,
9
8
2
.
8
3

N
A
NA

4
4
.
0

5
4
.
0

1
,
9
8
3
.
9
8

1
,
9
7
3
.
9
8

s
a
p
r
o
l
i
t
e
Altamont Environmental, Inc.
50
-
0
2

M
W
-
0
6

0
3
/
2
3
/
2
0
0
4

2
,
1
3
6
.
5
8

2
,
1
3
9
.
5
7

3
.
0

9
4
.
0

8
0
.
8
7

2
,
0
5
8
.
7
0

4
7
.
6

2
,
0
8
8
.
9
8

8
4
.
6

9
4
.
6

2
,
0
5
1
.
9
8

2
,
0
4
1
.
9
8

b
e
d
r
o
c
k
50
-
0
2

M
W
-
0
7

0
7
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
0

1
,
9
7
8
.
7
1

1
,
9
8
1
.
2
9

2
.
6

9
5
.
0

3
2
.
1
3

1
,
9
4
9
.
1
6

4
4
.
0

1
,
9
3
5
.
0
0

7
0
.
0

9
5
.
0

1
,
9
0
8
.
7
1

1
,
8
8
3
.
7
1

b
e
d
r
o
c
k
No
t
e
s
:
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
TO
C
to
p

o
f

c
a
s
i
n
g
gs
gr
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
bg
s
be
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
NA
No
t

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
De
p
t
h

t
o

B
e
d
r
o
c
k

a
n
d

Sc
r
e
e
n
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
De
p
t
h

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
6

s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

e
v
e
n
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d

o
n

A
p
r
i
l

5

a
n
d

6
,

2
0
1
6
.

MW
-
0
5
R
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y

P
e
r
m
i
t

W
e
l
l

I
D
Geology of Screened IntervalSource of Well Construction Information Altamont Environmental, Inc.
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

w
e
l
l
s

M
W
-
0
1
,

M
W
-
0
2
,

M
W
-
0
3
,

M
W
-
0
4
,

a
n
d

M
W
-
0
6

a
r
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

t
o

m
e
a
n

s
e
a

l
e
v
e
l

(
m
s
l
)

a
n
d

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

s
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

b
y

D
a
v
e
n
p
o
r
t

&

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,

I
n
c
.

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

w
e
l
l
s

M
W
-
0
5
R

a
n
d

M
W
-
0
7

ar
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

t
o

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

D
a
t
u
m

(
N
A
D
)

8
3

a
n
d

a
r
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

s
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

b
y

W
e
s

C
o
l
e

L
a
n
d

S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
,

P
.
A
.
MW
-
0
1

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

M
W
-
0
4

D
e
p
t
h

t
o

B
e
d
r
o
c
k

a
n
d

S
c
r
e
e
n
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

t
a
k
e
n

f
r
o
m

S
&
M
E
,

I
n
c
.

b
o
r
i
n
g

l
o
g
s

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

A
p
r
i
l

2
1
,

2
2
,

a
n
d

2
3
,

1
9
9
2
.

M
W
-
0
6

D
e
p
t
h

t
o

B
e
d
r
o
c
k

a
n
d

S
c
r
e
e
n
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

t
a
k
e
n

f
r
o
m

A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
,

I
n
c
.

b
o
r
i
n
g

l
o
g

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

Ma
r
c
h

2
3
,

2
0
0
4
.

M
W
-
0
7

D
e
p
t
h

t
o

B
e
d
r
o
c
k

a
n
d

S
c
r
e
e
n
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

t
a
k
e
n

f
r
o
m

A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t

b
o
r
i
n
g

l
o
g

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

J
u
l
y

3
0
,

2
0
1
0
.

M
W
-
0
5
R

S
c
r
e
e
n
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
v
a
l

t
a
k
e
n

f
r
o
m

A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t

b
o
r
i
n
g

l
o
g

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
6
,

2
0
1
2
.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

M
W
-
0
5

w
a
s

a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
6
,

2
0
1
2

b
y

N
Y
E
G

D
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
,

L
L
C
.

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

M
W
-
0
5
R

w
a
s

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
6
,

2
0
1
2

a
s

a

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

t
o

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

M
W
-
0
5

b
y

N
Y
E
G

D
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
,

L
L
C
.

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

w
e
l
l

M
W
-
0
5
R

w
a
s

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

b
y

We
s

C
o
l
e

L
a
n
d

S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
,

P
.
A
.
,

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
8
,

2
0
1
2
.
P:
\
J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
\
D
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o

G
W
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
2
0
4
0
.
3
0
6
0
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
T
a
b
l
e
s

a
n
d

G
r
a
p
h
s
\
M
N
A

R
e
p
o
r
t

T
a
b
l
e
s
Page 1 of 1
Table 3
Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Data (Detected VOCs Above 2L Standard)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Be
n
z
e
n
e
cis
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
6 6 1.0 70 0.70 3 0.03
04/22/1999 31 3.5 7.9 7.5 3.7 4.3 2.1
10/21/1999 32 ND 8.9 13 ND ND ND
04/17/2000 25 ND 6 9.8 ND ND ND
10/09/2000 28 ND 9.8 17 ND ND ND
04/17/2001 20 6.6 8.9 12 ND ND ND
10/09/2001 21 9.7 9.9 18 ND ND ND
04/10/2002 22 11 12 25 ND ND ND
10/09/2002 20 18 14 31 ND 5.5 ND
04/17/2003 12 ND 8.3 21 ND ND ND
10/20-21/2003 13 8.6 9.6 24 ND ND ND
04/27/2004 10 10 7.3 ND 1.8 J ND 1.7 J
10/18-19/2004 9.1 11 7.5 16 ND ND ND
04/19/2005 10 15 8.1 17 ND ND ND
10/27/2005 9.5 13 7.6 18 ND ND ND
04/13/2006 6.1 14 8 17 ND ND ND
10/10-11/2006 5.4 13 6.7 13 ND ND ND
04/03/2007 7.8 15 6.2 11 1.6 1.6 0.58 U
10/09/2007 9.8 17.8 6.8 14.4 1.6 1.7 0.62 U
04/16/2008 9.0 0.33 U 5.9 10.7 0.46 U 0.95 J 0.67 J
10/09/2008 7.9 7.6 5.5 8.7 0.70 J 1.2 0.62 U
04/08/2009 6.5 5.6 5.8 10 0.49 J 1.2 0.62 U
10/06/2009 7.4 5.3 5.0 9.1 0.48 J 1.0 0.62 U
04/13/2010 6.6 11.0 5.2 10.8 0.69 J 1.3 0.62 U
10/26/2010 5.0 8.5 3.5 9.2 0.46 U 1.1 0.62 U
04/13/2011 5.0 0.33 U 2.7 7.7 0.46 U 0.97 J 0.62 U
10/26/2011 7.7 9.8 2.1 10.2 0.78 J 1.0 J 0.62 U
04/11/2012 6.1 10.9 2.8 8.6 0.78 J 1.1 0.62 U
10/23/2012 5.0 10 1.7 8.0 0.68 J 0.94 J 0.62 U
04/11/2013 4.8 J 8.0 1.7 6.9 0.77 J 0.75 J 0.78 J
10/08/2013 4.5 J 9.5 3.4 10.9 0.60 J 0.91 J 0.62 U
04/08/2014 3.5 J 10.0 3.0 8.7 0.67 J 0.76 J 0.62 U
10/23/2014 4.0 J 12.8 2.4 7.9 0.6 J 0.71 J 7.7
04/21/2015 4.4 J 11 1.5 7.0 0.44 J 0.90 J 0.35 J
10/13/2015 5.6 14 1.5 9.0 0.85 J 0.96 J 0.097 U
04/05/2016 4.7 J 13 2.4 7.2 0.79 J 0.078 U 0.097 U
Notes:
µg/L micrograms per liter
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC Detections The VOCs shown on this table have historically been detected more frequently and at higher
concentrations than other VOCs analyzed during the semiannual monitoring events.
See specific semiannual monitoring reports for the complete data sets.
NC 2L Standard Groundwater quality standard promulgated under Title 15 North Carolina Administrative
Code Subchapter 2L (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). Last amended April 1, 2013.
ND not detected
0.33 U Indicates the VOC was not detected by the laboratory above laboratory detection limits
31 Indicates a concentration is above associated North Carolina groundwater standards
0.95 J Indicates the analytical result is estimated by the laboratory
4.5 J An italicized J is added by Altamont and indicates the analytical result is between the laboratory
method detection limit and the method reporting limit.
10/23/2012 Indicates sampling dates occurred while leachate extraction was active
Monitoring
Well
Identification
and Location
NC 2L Standard
MW-01
(Inside
Compliance
Boundary)
Volatile Organic Compound
Sample Collection
Date
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables Page 1 of 6
Table 3
Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Data (Detected VOCs Above 2L Standard)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Be
n
z
e
n
e
cis
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
6 6 1.0 70 0.70 3 0.03
04/22/1999 3.7 ND ND ND ND 1.1 ND
10/21/1999 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/17/2000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
10/09/2000 6.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/17/2001 ND ND ND 5.5 ND ND ND
10/09/2001 5.8 ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/10/2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
10/09/2002 6.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/17/2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
10/20-21/2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/27/2004 2.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND
10/18-19/2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/19/2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
10/27/2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/13/2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
10/10-11/2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
04/03/2007 1.1 0.68 J 0.31 U 1.2 0.16 U 0.26 U 0.58 U
10/09/2007 3.3 J 1.8 0.42 J 5.8 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/15/2008 1.1 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 1.2 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/07/2008 1.3 J 0.58 J 0.25 U 1.4 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/08/2009 0.67 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.56 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/22/2009 0.57 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.82 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/13/2010 0.43 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.87 J 0.46 U 0.62 J 0.62 U
10/27/2010 0.64 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 1.2 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/13/2011 0.32 U 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.50 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/27/2011 1.2 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 1.4 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/12/2012 0.45 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.44 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/24/2012 0.49 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.45 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/10/2013 0.13 U 0.19 U 0.15 U 0.55 J 0.17 U 0.15 U 0.32 U
10/10/2013 0.45 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 1.2 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/09/2014 0.49 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.55 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/23/2014 0.39 J 0.33 U 0.25 U 0.71 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
4/21/2015 0.39 J 0.12 U 0.09 U 0.40 J 0.20 U 0.15 U 0.12 U
10/14/2015 0.79 J 0.050 U 0.048 U 1.0 J 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.097 U
04/06/2016 0.083 U 0.050 U 0.048 U 0.056 U 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.097 U
Notes:
µg/L micrograms per liter
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC Detections The VOCs shown on this table have historically been detected more frequently and at higher
concentrations than other VOCs analyzed during the semiannual monitoring events.
See specific semiannual monitoring reports for the complete data sets.
NC 2L Standard Groundwater quality standard promulgated under Title 15 North Carolina Administrative
Code Subchapter 2L (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). Last amended April 1, 2013.
ND not detected
0.33 U Indicates the VOC was not detected by the laboratory above laboratory detection limits
31 Indicates a concentration is above associated North Carolina groundwater standards
0.95 J Indicates the analytical result is estimated by the laboratory
4.5 J An italicized J is added by Altamont and indicates the analytical result is between the laboratory
method detection limit and the method reporting limit.
10/23/2012 Indicates sampling dates occurred while leachate extraction was active
MW-02
(Outside
Compliance
Boundary)
Monitoring
Well
Identification
and Location
Sample Collection
Date
Volatile Organic Compound
NC 2L Standard
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables Page 2 of 6
Table 3
Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Data (Detected VOCs Above 2L Standard)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Be
n
z
e
n
e
cis
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
6 6 1.0 70 0.70 3 0.03
04/22/1999 7.0 4.8 4.8 5.5 1.0 1.3 1.2
10/21/1999 ND ND ND 5.8 ND ND ND
04/17/2000 ND 5.1 ND ND ND ND ND
10/09/2000 8.2 10.0 6.1 9.4 ND ND ND
04/17/2001 5.4 7.2 ND 7.6 ND ND ND
10/09/2001 6.5 11.0 ND 7.3 ND ND ND
04/10/2002 6.0 8.7 ND 7.8 ND ND ND
10/09/2002 10.0 ND ND 10.0 ND ND ND
04/17/2003 ND 8.3 ND ND ND ND ND
10/20-21/2003 5.8 17.0 ND 8.9 ND ND ND
04/27/2004 5.4 14.0 3.6 J 6.7 ND ND ND
10/18-19/2004 6.5 18.0 ND 6.3 ND ND ND
04/19/2005 ND 14.0 ND 5.2 ND ND ND
10/27/2005 6.3 19.0 ND 7.3 ND ND ND
04/13/2006 ND 12.0 ND 5.4 ND ND ND
10/10-11/2006 ND ND ND 6.7 ND ND ND
04/03/2007 2.6 11 2.0 4.4 0.23 J 0.27 J 0.58 U
10/09/2007 5.9 18.4 1.7 10.6 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/16/2008 1.1 J 0.33 U 1.1 2.8 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/08/2008 2.7 J 12.6 1.3 5.1 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/07/2009 1.0 J 4.9 0.79 J 2.2 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/06/2009 1.7 J 8.3 1.7 3.6 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/13/2010 0.47 J 3.5 1.3 1.0 J 0.46 U 0.52 J 0.62 U
10/26/2010 2.7 J 9.5 1.3 4.3 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/13/2011 0.32 U 0.33 U 0.43 J 0.70 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/26/2011 2.9 J 11.2 1.2 5.4 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/11/2012 0.44 J 2.5 0.58 J 0.81 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/23/2012 1.8 8.6 1.3 3.5 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/10/2013 0.13 U 1.8 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.17 U 0.15 U 0.32 U
10/09/2013 0.77 J 6.4 1.3 1.6 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/08/2014 0.55 J 4.2 0.77 J 1.2 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/22/2014 1.4 J 10.2 1.2 3.3 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/21/2015 0.11 U 2.0 0.09 U 0.63 J 0.2 U 0.15 U 0.12 U
10/13/2015 1.3 J 9.2 0.79 J 2.8 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.097 U
04/05/2016 0.083 U 2.2 0.53 J 0.056 U 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.097 U
Notes:
µg/L micrograms per liter
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC Detections The VOCs shown on this table have historically been detected more frequently and at higher
concentrations than other VOCs analyzed during the semiannual monitoring events.
See specific semiannual monitoring reports for the complete data sets.
NC 2L Standard Groundwater quality standard promulgated under Title 15 North Carolina Administrative
Code Subchapter 2L (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). Last amended April 1, 2013.
ND not detected
0.33 U Indicates the VOC was not detected by the laboratory above laboratory detection limits
31 Indicates a concentration is above associated North Carolina groundwater standards
0.95 J Indicates the analytical result is estimated by the laboratory
4.5 J An italicized J is added by Altamont and indicates the analytical result is between the laboratory
method detection limit and the method reporting limit.
10/23/2012 Indicates sampling dates occurred while leachate extraction was active
MW-03
(Inside
Compliance
Boundary)
Monitoring
Well
Identification
and Location
Sample Collection
Date
Volatile Organic Compound
NC 2L Standard
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables Page 3 of 6
Table 3
Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Data (Detected VOCs Above 2L Standard)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Be
n
z
e
n
e
cis
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
6 6 1.0 70 0.70 3 0.03
04/22/1999 4 7.9 2.8 24 3.9 3.5 2
10/21/1999 ND 6.7 ND 20 ND ND ND
04/17/2000 ND 6.2 ND 15 ND ND ND
10/09/2000 ND 5.7 ND 19 ND ND ND
04/17/2001 ND 6.2 ND 9.6 ND ND ND
10/09/2001 ND 7.8 ND 17 ND ND ND
04/10/2002 ND 7.2 ND 16 ND ND ND
10/09/2002 ND ND ND 19 ND ND ND
04/17/2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
10/20-21/2003 ND 6.3 ND 18 ND ND ND
04/27/2004 ND 7.5 ND 13 ND ND ND
10/18-19/2004 ND 6.6 ND 9.7 ND ND ND
04/19/2005 ND ND ND 8.3 ND ND ND
10/27/2005 ND 8.9 ND 14 ND ND ND
04/13/2006 ND 7.8 ND 11 ND ND ND
10/10-11/2006 ND ND ND 13 ND ND ND
04/03/2007 0.50 J 8.4 1.3 11 0.38 J 0.38 J 0.58 U
10/09/2007 3.1 J 11.3 1.8 18.7 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.97 J
04/15/2008 0.57 J 0.33 U 1.2 11.0 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.76 J
10/07/2008 0.52 J 9.3 1.5 10.7 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.97 J
04/08/2009 0.44 J 7.1 1.2 9.6 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.78 J
10/07/2009 0.37 J 5.6 1.1 8.8 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.90 J
04/13/2010 0.32 U 2.9 0.55 J 4.3 J 0.46 U 0.47 J 0.62 U
10/27/2010 0.32 U 4.8 1.1 5.6 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/13/2011 0.32 U 0.33 U 0.59 J 3.9 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/27/2011 0.32 U 6.8 0.89 J 8.6 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.89 J
04/12/2012 0.32 U 4.0 0.64 J 5.0 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.69 J
10/24/2012 0.32 U 5.8 0.93 J 6.3 0.46 U 0.47 U 1.1
04/10/2013 0.13 U 2.4 0.43 J 2.5 J 0.17 U 0.15 U 0.52 J
10/09/2013 0.32 U 3.2 0.49 J 2.9 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/09/2014 0.32 U 2.6 0.44 J 2.3 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/22/2014 0.32 U 4.3 0.67 J 3.3 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
4/22/2015 0.11 U 4.0 0.60 J 3.8 J 0.20 U 0.15 U 0.50 J
10/14/2015 0.083 U 5.4 1.0 5.4 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.74 J
04/06/2016 0.083 U 2.7 0.048 U 1.8 J 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.097 U
Notes:
µg/L micrograms per liter
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC Detections The VOCs shown on this table have historically been detected more frequently and at higher
concentrations than other VOCs analyzed during the semiannual monitoring events.
See specific semiannual monitoring reports for the complete data sets.
NC 2L Standard Groundwater quality standard promulgated under Title 15 North Carolina Administrative
Code Subchapter 2L (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). Last amended April 1, 2013.
ND not detected
0.33 U Indicates the VOC was not detected by the laboratory above laboratory detection limits
31 Indicates a concentration is above associated North Carolina groundwater standards
0.95 J Indicates the analytical result is estimated by the laboratory
4.5 J An italicized J is added by Altamont and indicates the analytical result is between the laboratory
method detection limit and the method reporting limit.
10/23/2012 Indicates sampling dates occurred while leachate extraction was active
MW-04
(Outside
Compliance
Boundary)
Monitoring
Well
Identification
and Location
Sample Collection
Date
NC 2L Standard
Volatile Organic Compound
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables Page 4 of 6
Table 3
Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Data (Detected VOCs Above 2L Standard)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Be
n
z
e
n
e
cis
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
6 6 1.0 70 0.70 3 0.03
04/22/1999 3 14 3.4 36 ND ND 2.2
10/21/1999 ND 14 ND 44 ND ND ND
04/17/2000 ND 13 ND 44 ND ND ND
10/09/2000 ND 12 ND 44 ND ND ND
04/17/2001 ND 15 ND 43 ND ND ND
10/09/2001 ND 13 ND 30 ND ND ND
04/10/2002 ND ND ND 41 ND ND ND
10/09/2002 ND ND ND 38 ND ND ND
04/17/2003 ND 13 ND 32 ND ND ND
10/20-21/2003 ND 11 ND 32 ND ND ND
04/27/2004 ND 16 2.3 J 35 ND ND 2.4 J
10/18-19/2004 ND 15 ND 27 ND ND ND
04/19/2005
10/27/2005
04/13/2006
10/10-11/2006
04/03/2007 0.49 J 17 1.9 32 0.16 U 0.26 U 0.58 U
10/09/2007 0.32 U 18.8 1.6 38.1 0.46 U 0.47 U 1.4
04/16/2008 0.35 J 0.33 U 0.56 J 27.4 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.93 J
10/10/2008 0.32 U 16.2 1.2 21.6 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.78 J
04/07/2009 0.32 J 15.9 1.0 21.6 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.99 J
10/07/2009 0.32 U 13.1 1.2 18.4 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.93 J
04/13/2010 0.32 U 12.1 2.0 17.8 0.46 U 0.55 J 1.5
10/26/2010 0.32 U 13.9 1.8 17.3 0.46 U 0.47 U 1.6
04/13/2011 0.32 U 0.33 U 1.5 17.8 0.46 U 0.47 U 1.1
04/12/2012 0.32 U 2.5 1.3 14.3 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.82 J
10/24/2012 0.32 U 3.5 1.3 11.2 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 J
04/11/2013 0.13 U 3.7 1.5 3.1 J 0.17 U 0.15 U 0.32 U
10/09/2013 0.32 U 7.3 2.0 7.0 0.46 U 0.47 U 1.0
04/09/2014 0.32 U 6.9 2.2 5.3 0.46 U 0.47 U 2.5
10/23/2014 0.32 U 3.0 1.5 1.8 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 2.9
04/22/2015 0.11 U 5.6 1.4 1.7 J 0.20 U 0.15 U 1.8
10/14/2015 0.083 U 6.5 1.9 2.7 0.098 U 0.078 U 1.8
04/06/2016 0.083 U 6.5 1.9 2.4 0.098 U 0.078 U 2.0
Notes:
µg/L micrograms per liter
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC Detections The VOCs shown on this table have historically been detected more frequently and at higher
concentrations than other VOCs analyzed during the semiannual monitoring events.
See specific semiannual monitoring reports for the complete data sets.
NC 2L Standard Groundwater quality standard promulgated under Title 15 North Carolina Administrative
Code Subchapter 2L (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). Last amended April 1, 2013.
ND not detected
0.33 U Indicates the VOC was not detected by the laboratory above laboratory detection limits
31 Indicates a concentration is above associated North Carolina groundwater standards
0.95 J Indicates the analytical result is estimated by the laboratory
4.5 J An italicized J is added by Altamont and indicates the analytical result is between the laboratory
method detection limit and the method reporting limit.
10/23/2012 Indicates sampling dates occurred while leachate extraction was active
MW-05
(Inside
Compliance
Boundary)NOT SAMPLED
NOT SAMPLED
NOT SAMPLED
NOT SAMPLED
Monitoring
Well
Identification
and Location
Sample Collection
Date
Volatile Organic Compound
NC 2L Standard
MW-05R
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables Page 5 of 6
Table 3
Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Data (Detected VOCs Above 2L Standard)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
1,
1
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
1,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Be
n
z
e
n
e
cis
-
1
,
2
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
Vi
n
y
l

C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L
6 6 1.0 70 0.70 3 0.03
04/27/2004 13 14 6.3 18 1.8 ND ND
10/18-19/2004 12 9.5 5.7 13 ND ND ND
04/19/2005 10 11 6.4 22 ND ND ND
10/27/2005 7.9 11 ND 16 ND ND ND
04/13/2006 7.3 14 6.3 17 ND ND ND
10/10-11/2006 7.9 ND 5.5 15 ND ND ND
04/03/2007 9.7 13 4.7 12 1.3 1.5 0.58 U
10/09/2007 11.3 11.2 3.3 13.2 1.5 1.5 0.62 U
04/15/2008 11.8 0.33 U 1.9 7.7 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/09/2008 12.4 2.1 1.8 7.2 0.46 U 0.86 J 0.62 U
04/07/2009 13.0 3.2 1.4 7.1 0.81 J 1.4 0.62 U
10/06/2009 2.7 J 1.3 0.56 J 4.2 J 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/13/2010 1.1 J 3.9 1.7 5.9 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/26/2010 5.4 7.9 4.3 12.0 0.46 U 1.2 0.62 U
04/13/2011 0.85 J 4.6 1.8 5.4 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/26/2011 3.8 J 6.0 2.3 8.4 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.91 J
04/11/2012 6.7 4.3 2.5 8.6 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/23/2012 5.3 7.0 2.8 8.8 0.46 U 0.76 J 0.62 U
04/11/2013 6.1 5.8 1.9 5.1 0.17 U 0.78 J 0.32 U
10/08/2013 5.4 11.1 2.9 10.4 0.67 J 0.80 J 0.62 U
04/08/2014 5.0 8.2 3.0 10.9 0.49 J 0.85 J 0.62 U
10/22/2014 4.4 9.8 2.7 8.9 0.50 J 0.81 J 0.62 U
04/21/2015 6.2 9.3 2.4 7.2 0.32 J 0.85 J 0.12 U
10/13/2015 6.4 8.1 1.5 7.7 0.098 U 0.73 J 0.097 U
04/05/2016 4.0 J 6.9 0.048 U 3.6 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.097 U
08/11/2010 0.87 J 0.51 J 0.76 J 4.9 0.46 U 1.0 0.62 U
04/13/2011 0.54 J 3.7 1.1 8.7 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/27/2011 0.71 J 5.0 1.1 12.5 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.65 J
04/12/2012 0.54 J 5.7 1.4 10.5 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.82 J
10/24/2012 0.57 J 4.9 1.4 9.0 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.68 J
04/10/2013 0.47 J 6.4 1.7 9.0 0.17 U 0.15 U 0.89 J
10/09/2013 0.38 J 6.0 1.4 7.5 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/09/2014 0.40 J 5.1 1.3 7.2 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
10/23/2014 0.32 U 5.7 1.1 5.4 0.46 U 0.47 U 0.62 U
04/22/2015 0.32 J 5.3 1.2 5.8 0.20 U 0.15 U 0.30 J
10/14/2015 0.083 U 6.6 1.7 6.2 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.55 J
04/06/2016 0.083 U 6.8 1.6 4.6 0.098 U 0.078 U 0.097 U
Notes:
µg/L micrograms per liter
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC Detections The VOCs shown on this table have historically been detected more frequently and at higher
concentrations than other VOCs analyzed during the semiannual monitoring events.
See specific semiannual monitoring reports for the complete data sets.
NC 2L Standard Groundwater quality standard promulgated under Title 15 North Carolina Administrative
Code Subchapter 2L (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). Last amended April 1, 2013.
ND not detected
0.33 U Indicates the VOC was not detected by the laboratory above laboratory detection limits
31 Indicates a concentration is above associated North Carolina groundwater standards
0.95 J Indicates the analytical result is estimated by the laboratory
4.5 J An italicized J is added by Altamont and indicates the analytical result is between the laboratory
method detection limit and the method reporting limit.
10/23/2012 Indicates sampling dates occurred while leachate extraction was active
MW-07
(Outside
Compliance
Boundary)
MW-06
(Outside
Compliance
Boundary)
Monitoring
Well
Identification
and Location
Sample Collection
Date
Volatile Organic Compound
NC 2L Standard
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables Page 6 of 6
Table 4
Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic
Compounds Detected in the Leachate Sample (LT-01)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
Cumulative
Flow
Differential
Flow
Mass
Removed
Cumulative
Mass
Removed
Beginning Ending (gallons) (gallons) (pounds) (pounds)
09/01/2012 10/25/2012 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0034 11,500 11,500 0.00033
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone (MIBK)0.0021 J
0.00020
Acetone 0.0292 0.00280
Benzene 0.0021 0.00020
Chlorobenzene 0.0029 0.00028
Dichloroethene 0.00063 J 0.00006
Dichlorodifluoro-
methane 0.00093 J
0.00009
Ethylbenzene 0.0102 0.00098
Naphthalene 0.0069 0.00066
Styrene 0.00033 J 0.00003
Toluene 0.003 0.00029
Xylene (Total) 0.0094 0.00090
Total 0.00682 0.00682
10/26/2012 04/11/2013 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.006 65,500 54,000 0.00270
Acetone 0.012 J 0.00540
Benzene 0.0011 0.00049
Carbon disulfide 0.0067 J 0.00301
Chlorobenzene 0.0024 J 0.00108
Dichloroethene 0.00058 J 0.00026
Ethylbenzene 0.0083 0.00373
Toluene 0.00059 J 0.00027
Xylene (Total)0.0078 0.00351
Total 0.02045 0.02727
04/12/2013 10/08/2013 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0055 114,737 49,237 0.00226
MIBK 0.0012 J 0.00049
Benzene 0.0020 0.00082
Chlorobenzene 0.0039 0.00160
Dichloroethene 0.00080 J 0.00033
Ethylbenzene 0.0151 0.00619
Naphthalene 0.0184 0.00754
Toluene 0.0012 0.00049
Xylene (Total)0.0090 0.00369
Total 0.02341 0.05068
Notes:
Detections Only detected VOCs in leachate sample LT-01 are included in the mass removal calculation.
Extraction Leachate extraction at the landfill initiated on September 1, 2012.
Volume Extraction volume measurements were recorded and provided by Jackson County staff.
Calculations
Cumulative Flow Interpolated between LT-01 sample dates
Differential Flow Represents the total flow between the LT-01 sample dates
Mass Removed
mg/L milligrams per liter
J
J
Sample Dates
Detected VOCs
Concentration in
LT-01
(mg/L)
Altamont bases mass removal calculations on the assumption that the VOC concentration in one sampling event is representative of
leachate quality until the next sampling event occurs, and that the leachate removal system has a 100% removal and treatment
Mass Removed and Treated is estimated based upon a conversion of milligrams to pounds and liters to gallons and the
multiplication of the Concentration by the Differential Flow for the specified period. Formula: ((concentration[mg/L])*(2.2e-6
Indicates the concentration is above the laboratory detection limit but below the laboratory reporting limit, and the concentration is
estimated by the laboratory.
A qualifier added by Altamont, which indicates the reported concentration is above the laboratory reporting limit but below the Solid
Waste Section Limit (SWSL).
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables 1 of 3
Table 4
Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic
Compounds Detected in the Leachate Sample (LT-01)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
Cumulative
Flow
Differential
Flow
Mass
Removed
Cumulative
Mass
Removed
Beginning Ending (gallons) (gallons) (pounds) (pounds)
Sample Dates
Detected VOCs
Concentration in
LT-01
(mg/L)
10/09/2013 04/08/2014 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0056 168,821 54,084 0.00252
Benzene 0.0018 0.00081
Chlorobenzene 0.0051 0.00230
Dichloroethene 0.00049 J 0.00022
Ethylbenzene 0.0047 0.00212
Toluene 0.00041 J 0.00018
Xylene (Total)0.0021 J 0.00095
Total 0.00910 0.05978
04/08/2014 10/23/2014 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0053 179,652 10,831 0.00048
Benzene 0.0014 0.00013
Chlorobenzene 0.003 0.00027
Dichloroethene 0.00049 J 0.00004
Ethylbenzene 0.0027 0.00024
Toluene 0.00051 J 0.00005
Xylene (Total)0.0014 J 0.00013
Total 0.00133 0.06111
10/23/2014 04/21/2015
1,2,3-
Trimethylbenzene 0.00062 219,965 40,313 0.00021
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene 0.00076 0.00026
2-Chlorotoluene 0.00067 0.00022
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0059 0.00198
Acetone 0.00790 0.00265
Benzene 0.0022 0.00074
Chlorobenzene 0.003 0.00101
Ethylbenzene 0.0056 0.00188
Isopropylbenzene 0.0013 0.00044
Ether 0.0013 0.00044
Napthalene 0.024 0.00806
n-Propylbenzene 0.00088 0.00030
Tetrahydrofuran 0.089 0.02988
Toluene 0.00054 J 0.00018
Vinyl Chloride 0.00038 J 0.00013
Xylene (Total)0.0030 J 0.00101
Total 0.04937 0.11048
Notes:
Detections Only detected VOCs in leachate sample LT-01 are included in the mass removal calculation.
Extraction Leachate extraction at the landfill initiated on September 1, 2012.
Volume Extraction volume measurements were recorded and provided by Jackson County staff.
Calculations
Cumulative Flow Interpolated between LT-01 sample dates
Differential Flow Represents the total flow between the LT-01 sample dates
Mass Removed
mg/L milligrams per liter
J
J
Altamont bases mass removal calculations on the assumption that the VOC concentration in one sampling event is representative of
leachate quality until the next sampling event occurs, and that the leachate removal system has a 100% removal and treatment
Mass Removed and Treated is estimated based upon a conversion of milligrams to pounds and liters to gallons and the
multiplication of the Concentration by the Differential Flow for the specified period. Formula: ((concentration[mg/L])*(2.2e-6
Indicates the concentration is above the laboratory detection limit but below the laboratory reporting limit, and the concentration is
estimated by the laboratory.
A qualifier added by Altamont, which indicates the reported concentration is above the laboratory reporting limit but below the Solid
Waste Section Limit (SWSL).
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables 2 of 3
Table 4
Mass Removal Calculations for Volatile Organic
Compounds Detected in the Leachate Sample (LT-01)
Jackson County Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Jackson County, North Carolina
Cumulative
Flow
Differential
Flow
Mass
Removed
Cumulative
Mass
Removed
Beginning Ending (gallons) (gallons) (pounds) (pounds)
Sample Dates
Detected VOCs
Concentration in
LT-01
(mg/L)
04/21/2015 10/13/2015 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.00600 256,685 36,720 0.00183
2-Butanone 0.00960 J 0.00294
Benzene 0.00210 0.00064
Chlorobenzene 0.0040 0.00122
Ethylbenzene 0.00710 0.00217
m,p-Xylenes 0.0014 0.00043
Naphthalene 0.021 0.00642
o-Xylene 0.0017 0.00052
Tetrahydrofuran 0.062 0.01896
Toluene 0.00058 J 0.00018
Total Xylenes 0.0031 J 0.00095
Total 0.03626 0.14674
10/13/2015 04/05/2016 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.00590 315,663 58,978 0.00290
Benzene 0.00170 0.00083
Chlorobenzene 0.0038 0.00187
Ethylbenzene 0.00500 0.00246
m,p-Xylenes 0.0010 0.00049
o-Xylene 0.0015 0.00074
Toluene 0.00063 J 0.00031
Total Xylenes 0.0025 J 0.00123
Total 0.01082 0.15756
Notes:
Detections Only detected VOCs in leachate sample LT-01 are included in the mass removal calculation.
Extraction Leachate extraction at the landfill initiated on September 1, 2012.
Volume Extraction volume measurements were recorded and provided by Jackson County staff.
Calculations
Cumulative Flow Interpolated between LT-01 sample dates
Differential Flow Represents the total flow between the LT-01 sample dates
Mass Removed
mg/L milligrams per liter
J
J
Altamont bases mass removal calculations on the assumption that the VOC concentration in one sampling event is representative of
leachate quality until the next sampling event occurs, and that the leachate removal system has a 100% removal and treatment
Mass Removed and Treated is estimated based upon a conversion of milligrams to pounds and liters to gallons and the
multiplication of the Concentration by the Differential Flow for the specified period. Formula: ((concentration[mg/L])*(2.2e-6
A qualifier added by Altamont, which indicates the reported concentration is above the laboratory reporting limit but below the Solid
Waste Section Limit (SWSL).
Indicates the concentration is above the laboratory detection limit but below the laboratory reporting limit, and the concentration is
estimated by the laboratory.
P:\Jackson County\Dillsboro GW\Reports\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation Report_2040.3060\2016 Corrective Action Evaluation
Report\Tables and Graphs\MNA Report Tables 3 of 3
Ta
b
l
e

5
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Ja
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

C
l
o
s
e
d

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
,

J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Fie
l
d

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Volatile Fatty Acids
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

Ox
y
g
e
n
Ox
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
pH
Ca
r
b
o
n

Di
o
x
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Fe
r
r
o
u
s

Ir
o
n
Hy
d
r
o
g
e
n

N
i
t
r
a
t
e

E
t
h
a
n
e

E
t
h
e
n
e

M
e
t
h
a
n
e
To
t
a
l

Or
g
a
n
i
c

Ca
r
b
o
n
Bio
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

Ox
y
g
e
n

De
m
a
n
d
,

5

da
y
Chemical Oxygen DemandSulfate

S
u
l
f
i
d
e
Lactic AcidAcetic AcidFormic Acid
CA
S

N
u
m
b
e
r
SW
3
5
6

S
W
3
3
6

S
W
3
2
0

1
2
4
-
3
8
-
9

1
6
8
8
7
-
0
0
-
6

SW
3
3
4

S
W
3
3
8

S
W
4
1
9

7
4
-
8
4
-
0

7
4
-
8
5
-
1

7
4
-
8
2
-
8

7
4
4
0
-
4
4
-
0

S
W
3
1
6

S
W
3
1
7

1
4
8
0
8
-
7
9
-
8

1
8
4
9
6
-
2
5
-
8

S
W
4
1
5

S
W
4
1
6

N
E
SW
S

I
D
35
6

3
3
6

3
2
0
45
9
30
1

3
3
4
33
8
41
9
33
1

3
3
2
45
6

3
5
7
31
6

3
1
7
315

1
8
7
415

4
1
6

N
E
We
l
l

I
D

C
o
l
l
e
c
t

D
a
t
e
mg
/
L

m
V

S
U
mg
/
L
µg
/
L

µ
g
/
L
nM
µg
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L
mg/L

m
g
/
L

m
g
/
L
10
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
1

1
.
3
3

-
3
1
.
5

5
.
5
7

N
A

5
,
0
0
0

U
5,
8
0
0
NA

2
0
0

U

5

U

5

U
2,
0
6
0

1
2
,
1
0
0
NA

N
A

5
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
2

1
.
1
9

-
1
1
1
.
1

5
.
8
0
25
0
5,
0
0
0

U
2,
8
0
0

4
2
20
0

U

6
.
2

U

6
.
2

U
5,
3
6
0

4
,
6
0
0

8
,
3
0
0
NA

5
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U
0.062 J

0
.
0
2
2

J

0
.
0
5
8

J
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2

0
.
2
7

4
5
.
2

5
.
4
3
16
0

1
,
2
0
0

1
6
,
4
0
0

5
.
4

3
2

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
3,
1
3
0
1,
0
0
0

U

2
,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
2,300 J 100 U

0
.
0
3
2

U

0
.
0
2
1

U
0.044 J
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
3
1

2
.
6

6
.
0
3
15
0
1,
0
0
0

U
20
,
0
0
0

1
.
8
20

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
1,
5
5
0

7
,
5
0
0

2
,
8
0
0
25,000 U 3,000 J 100 U

2
.
3

U

1
.
8

U

N
A
10
/
8
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
2
6

1
2
.
1

5
.
7
5
12
0

1
,
5
0
0

3
4
,
6
0
0

1
.
7
20

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
6,
1
5
0

1
2
,
8
0
0

9
,
6
0
0
25,000 U

2
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
8
/
2
0
1
4

1
.
8
7

1
7
.
2

5
.
8
5
28
0

1
,
1
0
0

2
7
,
5
0
0

0
.
9
0
21

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
23
,
3
0
0

6
,
0
0
0

3
6
0
0
0

4
0
0
0

J
100 U 0.08

0
.
1
5
NA
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

1
.
2
0

4
1
.
5

5
.
9
1
32
0

1
,
2
0
0

2
5
,
7
0
0
NA

1
0

U

3
.
1

U

3
.
1

U
3,
3
2
0

3
1
,
5
0
0

4
,
9
0
0

3
6
,
0
0
0

1
,
6
0
0

J
100 U 0.098 J

0
.
2
1

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

2
.
0
4

3
1
4
.
3

2
.
0
8
*

N
A
74
0

J

1
5
,
0
0
0
NA

2
3

U

4
.
1

U

4
.
3

U
1,
4
0
0

7
,
1
0
0
5,
0
0
0

U
16,000

8
8

J
NA

1
0

U

5
.
0

U

N
A
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5

1
.
0
3

6
6
.
4

5
.
7
5
36
0

5
1
0

J

1
5
,
0
0
0
NA
39

J
0.
1

U

0
.
1

U
3,
0
0
0

6
,
7
0
0

6
,
0
0
0

2
7
,
0
0
0

6
0
0

J
830 U

0
.
2

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
4/
5
/
2
0
1
6

4
.
4
2

5
7
.
5

6
.
0
5
22
0

8
2
0

J

6
5
,
0
0
0
NA
85

J
0.
1

U

0
.
1

U
2,
3
0
0

4
,
8
0
0

5
,
3
0
0
7,300 U 540 J 830 U

0
.
2

U
0.10 0.1 U
10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
1

4
.
9
6

1
5
8
.
7

5
.
4
4

N
A
28
,
5
0
0
50
0

U

N
A

2
0
0

U

5

U

5

U

5

U
3,
7
0
0
NA

N
A
6,300 J 100 U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
1
2
/
2
0
1
2

4
.
3
0

-
8
5
.
5

6
.
2
8
27

2
6
,
2
0
0
50
0

U
3.
9
25
0

6.
2

U

6
.
2

U
2.
5

J

1
,
7
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

N
A
6,600 100 U 0.15 0.12

0
.
0
4
7

J
10
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
2

3
.
7
4

1
6
5
.
6

5
.
6
3
45

2
0
,
0
0
0
50
0

U
0.
8
9

2
9
0

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
11
.
5

4
,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
8,100 J 100 U

0
.
0
3
2

U
0.08 0.01 U
4/
1
0
/
2
0
1
3

6
.
1
1

1
7
1
.
9

6
.
0
3
34

1
8
,
2
0
0
50
0

U
0.
7
1

1
7
0

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U

3
.
3

U
2,
1
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
7,800 J 100 U

2
.
3

U

1
.
8

U

N
A
10
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
9
5

1
0
4
.
5

5
.
8
4
36

2
2
,
3
0
0
50
0

U
0.
7
8

2
1

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
65
8

5
,
3
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
8,800 J 100 U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
9
/
2
0
1
4

3
.
8
4

1
7
0
.
4

6
.
0
7
28

2
6
,
5
0
0

5
0
0

1
.
4

2
5
0
NA

N
A

N
A
3,
0
0
0
20
0
0

U
29,000

8
8
0
0

J
100 U 0.050 J

0
.
0
9

0
.
1
2
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

6
.
2
0

1
7
6
.
4

5
.
5
1
94

1
5
,
5
0
0
50
0

U

N
A
18
0
3.
1

U

3
.
1

U

3
.
3

U
16
,
2
0
0

4
,
3
0
0

4
5
,
0
0
0

4
,
6
0
0
100 U 0.14

0
.
1
0

0
.
1
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
5

5
.
7
4

2
8
6
.
7

5
.
1
4

N
A
25
0
,
0
0
0

7
1
NA
2,2
0
0
J
4.
1

U

4
.
3

U
7.
5

J

1
,
6
0
0
5,
0
0
0

U

3
0
0
0

U
66,000 J NA

1
0

U

5
.
0

U

N
A
10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
5

7
.
3
0

2
3
6
.
4

6
.
1
8
80

2
2
,
0
0
0
39

U

N
A
98

J
0.
1

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
5

U
1,
1
0
0

J

1
,
2
0
0

J

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

1
1
,
0
0
0

J 6,600 U

0
.
2

U
0.15 0.1 U
4/
6
/
2
0
1
6

6
.
5
3

1
2
3
.
4

6
.
5
1
41

2
3
,
0
0
0
22

U

N
A
23
0

J
0.
1

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
5

U
78
0

J

2
6
0

J
7,300 U 9,400 J 830 U

0
.
2

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
10
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
1

0
.
4
9

1
5
7
.
9

4
.
5
2

N
A
46
,
7
0
0
50
0

U

N
A
41
0

J
5
U

5

U
56
.
8

1
5
,
0
0
0
NA

N
A

5
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
2

0
.
2
5

1
3
4
.
6

5
.
5
3
19
0

3
7
,
0
0
0
50
0

U
17
0

3
,
2
0
0
6.
2

U

6
.
2

U
21
.
8

5
,
5
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

N
A

5
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U
0.081 J

0
.
0
5
6

J
0.068 J
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2

0
.
9
9

-
1
0
9
.
3

5
.
5
8
15
0
50
,
6
0
0
50
0

U
0.
7
4

5
6
0

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
6.
5

J

1
1
,
8
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
2,700 J 100 U 0.22 0.021 U

0
.
0
1

U
4/
1
0
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
5
5

1
5
3
.
4

5
.
7
5
14
0

3
0
,
9
0
0
50
0

U
0.
3
8

J

6
,
0
0
0

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
4.
0

J

6
,
3
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
2,100 J 100 U

2
.
3

U

1
.
8

U

N
A
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
2
6

1
0
4
.
3

5
.
5
1
27
0

3
8
,
9
0
0
50
0

U
59

2
,
0
0
0

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
79
.
2

1
4
,
5
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U
29,000

2
,
2
0
0

J
100 U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
8
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
5
9

1
7
8
.
9

5
.
5
4
35
0

3
0
,
5
0
0
50
0

U
4.
7

4
5
0
0
NA

N
A

N
A
12
,
2
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U
36,000

3
9
0
0
100 U 0.14

0
.
0
2
0
J

0
.
0
9
8

J
10
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
8
1

1
8
3
.
6

5
.
3
9
32
0

4
2
,
1
0
0
50
0

U
6.
5

1
,
7
0
0
3.
1

U

3
.
1

U
9.
5

4
5
,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U
27,000

2
,
2
0
0
100 U 0.053 J

0
.
0
3
7

J

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

0
.
2
5

3
7
2
.
5

3
.
2
9
*
27
0

2
9
,
0
0
0

3
5

J

1
.
5

8
,
9
0
0

J
4.
1

U

4
.
3

U
5.
6

J

4
,
8
0
0
5,
0
0
0

U
11,000

2
8
0

J
NA

1
0

U

5
.
0

U

N
A
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5

1
.
2
8

3
2
5
.
7

5
.
6
3
22
0

3
9
,
0
0
0
39

U
5.
4

3
,
2
0
0

J
0.
0
2

U

0
.
0
2

U
1.
1

2
,
0
0
0

J

5
,
1
0
0

1
1
,
0
0
0

J

1
,
3
0
0

J 830 U

0
.
2

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
4/
5
/
2
0
1
6

0
.
4
5

2
0
0
.
9

5
.
4
8
19
0

2
7
,
0
0
0
22

U
15

1
3
,
0
0
0

0
.
0
1
4

0
.
0
5
9

0
.
5

1
,
9
0
0

J

2
2
0

J
7,300 U 570 J

1
,
0
0
0

J
0.2 U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
No
t
e
s
:
Ca
s

N
u
m
b
e
r

A

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

A
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
s

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
C
A
S
)

t
o

a
l
l

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
SW
S

I
D

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r
µg
/
L

m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
mg
/
L

m
i
l
l
i
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
nM

n
a
n
o
m
o
l
a
r
mV

m
i
l
l
i
v
o
l
t
s
SU

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

u
n
i
t
s
MD
L

M
e
t
h
o
d

d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

a
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

9
9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

z
e
r
o
.
MR
L

M
e
t
h
o
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

l
i
m
i
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

t
a
r
g
e
t

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d

m
e
t
h
o
d
.
SW
S
L

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

L
i
m
i
t
.

T
h
i
s

l
i
m
i
t

(
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
)

i
s

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
s
t

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

i
n

a

s
a
m
p
l
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.

U

A

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

d
a
t
a

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
r

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

n
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

M
D
L
2,0
6
0
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d

w
a
s

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

m
e
t
h
o
d

r
e
p
o
r
t

l
i
m
i
t
s
J

A

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

d
a
t
a

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
r

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

M
D
L

b
u
t

b
e
l
o
w

t
h
e

M
R
L

a
n
d

S
W
S
L
J
As
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

a

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

i
s

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

M
R
L

a
n
d

t
h
e

M
D
L

b
u
t

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

S
W
S
L
2.0
8
*

T
h
e
s
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
n
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e

d
u
e

t
o

p
H

m
e
t
e
r

m
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
.

NA

N
o
t

a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
NE

N
o
t

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
MW
-
0
1
MW
-
0
2
MW
-
0
3
P:
\
J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
\
D
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o

G
W
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
2
0
4
0
.
3
0
6
0
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
T
a
b
l
e
s

a
n
d

G
r
a
p
h
s
\
M
N
A

R
e
p
o
r
t

T
a
b
l
e
s
Page 1 of 3
Ta
b
l
e

5
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Ja
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

C
l
o
s
e
d

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
,

J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Fie
l
d

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Volatile Fatty Acids
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

Ox
y
g
e
n
Ox
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
pH
Ca
r
b
o
n

Di
o
x
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Fe
r
r
o
u
s

Ir
o
n
Hy
d
r
o
g
e
n

N
i
t
r
a
t
e

E
t
h
a
n
e

E
t
h
e
n
e

M
e
t
h
a
n
e
To
t
a
l

Or
g
a
n
i
c

Ca
r
b
o
n
Bio
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

Ox
y
g
e
n

De
m
a
n
d
,

5

da
y
Chemical Oxygen DemandSulfate

S
u
l
f
i
d
e
Lactic AcidAcetic AcidFormic Acid
CA
S

N
u
m
b
e
r
SW
3
5
6

S
W
3
3
6

S
W
3
2
0

1
2
4
-
3
8
-
9

1
6
8
8
7
-
0
0
-
6

SW
3
3
4

S
W
3
3
8

S
W
4
1
9

7
4
-
8
4
-
0

7
4
-
8
5
-
1

7
4
-
8
2
-
8

7
4
4
0
-
4
4
-
0

S
W
3
1
6

S
W
3
1
7

1
4
8
0
8
-
7
9
-
8

1
8
4
9
6
-
2
5
-
8

S
W
4
1
5

S
W
4
1
6

N
E
SW
S

I
D
35
6

3
3
6

3
2
0
45
9
30
1

3
3
4
33
8
41
9
33
1

3
3
2
45
6

3
5
7
31
6

3
1
7
315

1
8
7
415

4
1
6

N
E
We
l
l

I
D

C
o
l
l
e
c
t

D
a
t
e
mg
/
L

m
V

S
U
mg
/
L
µg
/
L

µ
g
/
L
nM
µg
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L
mg/L

m
g
/
L

m
g
/
L
10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
1

2
.
9
9

5
3
2
.
3

5
.
3
9

N
A
92
,
6
0
0
50
0

U

N
A
2,
5
0
0

J
5
U

5

U
1,
4
1
0

1
7
2
,
0
0
0
NA

N
A
71,100 J 100 U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
1
2
/
2
0
1
2

1
.
0
9

6
.
8

5
.
6
6
24
0

7
1
,
7
0
0
50
0

U
62

7
,
7
0
0
6.
2

U

6
.
2

U
54
4

6
,
5
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

N
A
10,000 U 100 U 0.11

0
.
0
3
1

J

0
.
0
6
3

J
10
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
2

0
.
2
1

5
0
2
.
0

5
.
2
7
23
0

8
3
,
4
0
0
50
0

U
19

4
,
0
0
0

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
88
9

1
4
,
4
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
105,000 J 100 U

0
.
0
3
2

U

0
.
0
2
1

U

0
.
0
1

U
4/
1
0
/
2
0
1
3

1
.
4
0

1
8
6
.
2

5
.
5
6
25
0

4
6
,
2
0
0
50
0

U
20

1
4
,
6
0
0
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
9.
1

8
,
6
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
62,500 J 100 U

2
.
3

U

1
.
8

U

N
A
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
4
2

1
2
2
.
3

5
.
4
8
23
0

4
8
,
6
0
0
50
0

U
50

1
1
,
9
0
0

J
0.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
88
3

1
0
,
2
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
108,000 J 100 U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
9
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
4
4

2
2
0
.
7

5
.
6
3
19
0

4
2
,
7
0
0
50
0

U
7.
8

8
2
0
0
NA

N
A

N
A
11
,
1
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
80,200 100 U 0.23

0
.
0
2
8
J

0
.
1
3
10
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
3
9

3
7
7
.
9

5
.
4
2
39
0

7
5
,
2
0
0
50
0

U
33

2
,
7
0
0
3.
1

U

3
.
1

U
1,
4
2
0

6
5
,
4
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U
45,000

9
5
,
5
0
0
100 U 0.055 J

0
.
0
4
0

J

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

0
.
3
1

6
3
7
.
9

3
.
9
0
*
30
0

6
0
,
0
0
0

4
5

J

7
.
9

3
,
5
0
0

J
4.
1

U

4
.
3

U
93
0

3
,
8
0
0
5,
0
0
0

U
6,200 J

6
5
,
0
0
0

J
NA

1
0

U

5
.
0

U

N
A
10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
5

0
.
5
3

3
4
7
.
9

5
.
6
6
36
0

7
2
,
0
0
0
39

U
11

2
,
2
0
0

J
0.
0
2
3
0.
0
1

U
46
0

2
,
9
0
0

J

3
7
0

J

1
8
,
0
0
0

J

7
0
,
0
0
0

J 1,000 J

0
.
2

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
4/
6
/
2
0
1
6

0
.
8
0

1
9
1
.
5

5
.
6
6
19
0

4
0
,
0
0
0
22

U
17

7
,
5
0
0

J
0.
0
1
2

0
.
0
2
1

1
6
0

1
,
9
0
0

J
2,
2
0
0

U

7
,
3
0
0

U
69,000 J 830 U

0
.
2

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
MW
-
0
5
10
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
1

N
o
t

S
a
m
p
l
e
d
4/
1
2
/
2
0
1
2

3
.
5
0

-
1
3
0
.
9

6
.
8
9
17
0

8
2
,
3
0
0

1
,
2
0
0
NA
20
0

U

6
.
2

U

6
.
2

U
85
0

3
0
,
6
0
0

6
9
,
0
0
0
NA

5
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U
0.14 0.031 J

0
.
0
8
6

J
10
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
2
3.
1
1

1
8
.
2

5
.
7
2
16
0

7
6
,
0
0
0
50
0

U

N
A

2
0

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U

3
.
3

U
27
,
2
0
0

4
,
9
0
0

6
8
,
0
0
0

2
,
7
0
0

J
100 U 0.11 0.027 J

0
.
0
3
2

J
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3

2
.
4
2

-
7
0
.
7

6
.
8
5
11
0

5
0
,
8
0
0
50
0

U

2
.
3

U

2
0

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
4,
8
7
0

2
4
,
3
0
0

1
3
,
2
0
0

2
6
,
0
0
0

3
,
4
0
0

J
100 U

1
.
8

U

1

U

N
A
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
3

2
.
6
7

-
4
3
.
1

6
.
8
2
48

5
1
,
8
0
0

2
,
4
0
0
NA

2
0

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
7,
7
6
0

2
5
,
7
0
0

1
1
,
2
0
0

4
0
,
0
0
0
2,000 U

1
0
0

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
9
/
2
0
1
4

3
.
3
6

-
9
9
.
5

6
.
7
9
76

5
4
,
6
0
0

2
,
8
0
0
NA

2
0

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
41
,
9
0
0

4
4
,
1
0
0

6
9
,
0
0
0
2,000 U

1
0
0

U
0.32

0
.
3
7

0
.
1
8
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

3
.
5
1

-
4
2
.
2

6
.
4
8
11
0

5
1
,
9
0
0

2
,
3
0
0
NA

1
0

U

3
.
1

U

3
.
1

U
2,
2
1
0

4
8
,
4
0
0

1
6
,
7
0
0

7
2
,
0
0
0

1
,
5
0
0

J
100 U 0.54

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
8
4/
2
2
/
2
0
1
5

4
.
1
8

5
9
.
8

5
.
1
1

N
A
46
,
0
0
0

2
5
,
0
0
0
NA

2
3

U

4
.
1

U

4
.
3

U
1,
8
0
0

8
,
5
0
0

6
,
3
0
0

4
2
,
0
0
0

2
7
0

J
NA

1
0

U

5
.
0

U

N
A
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5

2
.
6
8

-
6
.
8

6
.
6
7
13
0

5
0
,
0
0
0

5
,
1
0
0
NA
58

J

0
.
2
4

0
.
4
0

1
,
9
0
0

1
0
,
7
0
0

1
4
,
0
0
0

8
2
,
0
0
0

9
6
0

J
3,300 U

0
.
2

U
0.11

0
.
2
0
4/
6
/
2
0
1
6

3
.
4
8

-
2
8
.
2

6
.
9
5
62

4
3
,
0
0
0
22

U

N
A
50

J

0
.
3
4

0
.
2
1

3
,
9
0
0

8
,
7
0
0

3
,
6
0
0

3
4
,
0
0
0

J
240 U

8
3
0

U

0
.
2

U

0
.
1

U
0.1 U
10
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
1

1
.
4
6

-
7
2
.
6

5
.
4
0

N
A

5
,
0
0
0

U
10
,
3
0
0
NA

2
0
0

U

5

U

5

U
1,
1
7
0

1
3
,
2
0
0
NA

N
A

5
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
2

2
.
1
9

-
1
0
8
.
4

6
.
0
3
22
0
5,
0
0
0

U
13
,
2
0
0

3
1
20
0

U

6
.
2

U

6
.
2

U
31
3

4
,
6
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

N
A

5
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U
0.096 J

0
.
0
1
9

J

0
.
0
4
9

J
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2

0
.
3
7

1
0
.
3

5
.
3
3
12
0
1,
0
0
0

U
3,
6
0
0

0
.
3
4

J
20

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
21

1
,
1
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U

2
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U

0
.
0
3
2

U

0
.
0
2
1

U
0.021 J
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
3
9

9
3
.
4

5
.
4
0
24
0
1,
0
0
0

U
1,
4
0
0

1
2
20

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
31
4

9
,
6
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
2,100 J 100 U

2
.
3

U

1
.
8

U

N
A
10
/
8
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
3
1

7
1
.
5

5
.
1
3
25
0

1
,
1
0
0

8
8
0

2
3
20

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
90
0

1
5
,
8
0
0

2
,
0
0
0
25,000 U

2
,
0
0
0

U

1
0
0

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
8
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
7
0

9
7
.
4

5
.
3
2
38
0
1,
0
0
0

U
1,
1
0
0

3
.
7
20

U

N
A

N
A

N
A
11
,
4
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
2,200 100 U 0.12

0
.
0
2
0

J

0
.
1
1
10
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
3
8

1
4
6
.
6

4
.
9
1
28
0

8
0
0

J

1
,
5
0
0

1
.
3
20

U

3
.
1

U

3
.
1

U
60
7

3
7
,
8
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
1,500 J 100 U 0.031 J

0
.
0
3
0

J

0
.
0
7
2

J
4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
5

0
.
3
9

1
6
6
.
0

2
.
5
9
*
26
0

6
4
0

J

6
,
2
0
0

6
5
23

U

4
.
1

U

4
.
3

U
72
0
4,
3
0
0
5,
0
0
0

U
7,200 J

3
2
,
0
0
0

J
NA

1
0

U

5
.
0

U

N
A
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
5

2
.
5
8

9
9
.
5

5
.
5
6
19
0

6
2
0

J

6
,
1
0
0

2
.
6

1
0
0

J
0.
1
0

0
.
3
9

1
8
0
30
0

U

5
,
1
0
0

U

5
,
3
0
0

U
760 J 830 U

0
.
2

U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
4/
5
/
2
0
1
6

0
.
5
4

2
4
3
.
0

5
.
2
1
20
0

9
6
0

J

1
4
0

J

4
.
1

7
8
0

J
0.
0
1

U
0.
0
4
7

1
1
1,
5
0
0

U
1,
7
0
0

J
7,300 U 1,600 J 830 U

0
.
2

U
0.22

0
.
2
0
No
t
e
s
:
Ca
s

N
u
m
b
e
r

A

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

A
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
s

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
C
A
S
)

t
o

a
l
l

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
SW
S

I
D

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r
µg
/
L

m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
mg
/
L

m
i
l
l
i
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
nM

n
a
n
o
m
o
l
a
r
mV

m
i
l
l
i
v
o
l
t
s
SU

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

u
n
i
t
s
MD
L

M
e
t
h
o
d

d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

a
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

9
9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

z
e
r
o
.
MR
L

M
e
t
h
o
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

l
i
m
i
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

t
a
r
g
e
t

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d

m
e
t
h
o
d
.
SW
S
L

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

L
i
m
i
t
.

T
h
i
s

l
i
m
i
t

(
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
)

i
s

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
s
t

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

i
n

a

s
a
m
p
l
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.

U

A

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

d
a
t
a

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
r

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

n
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

M
D
L
2,0
6
0
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d

w
a
s

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

m
e
t
h
o
d

r
e
p
o
r
t

l
i
m
i
t
s
J

A

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

d
a
t
a

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
r

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

M
D
L

b
u
t

b
e
l
o
w

t
h
e

M
R
L

a
n
d

S
W
S
L
J
As
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

a

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

i
s

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

M
R
L

a
n
d

t
h
e

M
D
L

b
u
t

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

S
W
S
L
2.0
8
*

T
h
e
s
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
n
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e

d
u
e

t
o

p
H

m
e
t
e
r

m
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
.

NA

N
o
t

a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
NE

N
o
t

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
MW
-
0
4
MW
-
0
5
R
MW
-
0
6
P:
\
J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
\
D
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o

G
W
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
2
0
4
0
.
3
0
6
0
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
T
a
b
l
e
s

a
n
d

G
r
a
p
h
s
\
M
N
A

R
e
p
o
r
t

T
a
b
l
e
s
Page 2 of 3
Ta
b
l
e

5
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Ja
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

C
l
o
s
e
d

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
,

J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Fie
l
d

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Volatile Fatty Acids
Pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Di
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

Ox
y
g
e
n
Ox
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
pH
Ca
r
b
o
n

Di
o
x
i
d
e
Ch
l
o
r
i
d
e
Fe
r
r
o
u
s

Ir
o
n
Hy
d
r
o
g
e
n

N
i
t
r
a
t
e

E
t
h
a
n
e

E
t
h
e
n
e

M
e
t
h
a
n
e
To
t
a
l

Or
g
a
n
i
c

Ca
r
b
o
n
Bio
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

Ox
y
g
e
n

De
m
a
n
d
,

5

da
y
Chemical Oxygen DemandSulfate

S
u
l
f
i
d
e
Lactic AcidAcetic AcidFormic Acid
CA
S

N
u
m
b
e
r
SW
3
5
6

S
W
3
3
6

S
W
3
2
0

1
2
4
-
3
8
-
9

1
6
8
8
7
-
0
0
-
6

SW
3
3
4

S
W
3
3
8

S
W
4
1
9

7
4
-
8
4
-
0

7
4
-
8
5
-
1

7
4
-
8
2
-
8

7
4
4
0
-
4
4
-
0

S
W
3
1
6

S
W
3
1
7

1
4
8
0
8
-
7
9
-
8

1
8
4
9
6
-
2
5
-
8

S
W
4
1
5

S
W
4
1
6

N
E
SW
S

I
D
35
6

3
3
6

3
2
0
45
9
30
1

3
3
4
33
8
41
9
33
1

3
3
2
45
6

3
5
7
31
6

3
1
7
315

1
8
7
415

4
1
6

N
E
We
l
l

I
D

C
o
l
l
e
c
t

D
a
t
e
mg
/
L

m
V

S
U
mg
/
L
µg
/
L

µ
g
/
L
nM
µg
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L

µ
g
/
L
mg/L

m
g
/
L

m
g
/
L
10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
1

1
.
5
3

-
5
1
.
0

6
.
0
1

N
A
45
,
4
0
0

2
,
7
0
0
NA

2
0
0

U

5

U

5

U
1,
3
6
0

1
3
,
2
0
0
NA

N
A
42,800 J 100 U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
1
2
/
2
0
1
2

0
.
7
2

-
1
6
4
.
0

6
.
4
1
15
0

5
1
,
4
0
0
50
0

U
4.
1
20
0

U

6
.
2

U

6
.
2

U
1,
0
9
0

5
,
9
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

N
A
24,600 100 U 0.14 0.032 J

0
.
0
4
8

J
10
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
2

0
.
4
3

8
1
.
6

5
.
7
2
12
0

4
8
,
6
0
0

1
,
8
0
0

1
6
20

U

0
.
8
6

U
1.
0

J

1
,
2
0
0

1
2
,
5
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
27,200 J 100 U 0.033 J 0.021 U

0
.
0
1

U
4/
1
0
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
2
1

1
0
1
.
9

6
.
0
9
30
0

1
9
,
7
0
0

6
0
0

0
.
5
4

J
20

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
1,
4
7
0

1
5
,
6
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

2
5
,
0
0
0

U
30,800 J 100 U

2
.
3

U

1
.
8

U

N
A
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
3

0
.
3
4

9
1
.
5

5
.
9
8
98

5
2
,
6
0
0
50
0

U
47
20

U

0
.
8
6

U

0
.
7
9

U
1,
4
1
0

1
6
,
6
0
0

2
,
0
0
0
25,000 U 29,200 J 100 U

N
A

N
A

N
A
4/
9
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
8
1

1
0
3
.
7

6
.
0
3
61

6
1
,
0
0
0
50
0

U
3.
6
20

U
NA

N
A

N
A
16
,
5
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U
25,000 U 30,600 100 U 0.085J

0
.
0
1
1
J

0
.
1
2
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4

0
.
3
2

9
5
.
2

5
.
9
3
34
0

6
0
,
0
0
0

7
3
0

1
.
5
10

U

3
.
1

U

3
.
1

U
64
8

2
8
,
9
0
0
2,
0
0
0

U

3
8
,
0
0
0
26,000 100 U 0.085 J

0
.
0
4
3

J

0
.
1
3
4/
2
2
/
2
0
1
5

0
.
1
1

1
4
5
.
8

4
.
3
6
*
27
0

6
0
,
0
0
0

2
,
4
0
0

1
.
6
23

U

4
.
1

U

4
.
3

U
80
0

2
,
6
0
0
5,
0
0
0

U
4,800 J

3
2
,
0
0
0

J NA

1
0

U

5
.
0

U

N
A
10
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
5

1
.
9
7

1
4
8
.
5

6
.
0
3
20
0

6
8
,
0
0
0

3
3
0

2
.
0
58

J
0.
0
2
8

0
.
0
7
0

1
1
0

1
,
8
0
0

J

2
,
4
0
0

J

2
0
,
0
0
0

J

2
7
,
0
0
0

J 1,600 J 0.2 U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
4/
6
/
2
0
1
6

0
.
4
7

1
2
2
.
4

5
.
9
7
20
0

6
9
,
0
0
0

1
9
0

J

7
.
2
15
0

J
0.
0
5
3

0
.
0
9
5

1
4
0

1
,
5
0
0

J
2,
2
0
0

U

7
,
3
0
0

U
27,000 J 1,000 J 0.2 U

0
.
1

U

0
.
1

U
No
t
e
s
:
Ca
s

N
u
m
b
e
r

A

u
n
i
q
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

A
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
s

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
C
A
S
)

t
o

a
l
l

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
SW
S

I
D

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

N
u
m
b
e
r
µg
/
L

m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
mg
/
L

m
i
l
l
i
g
r
a
m
s

p
e
r

l
i
t
e
r
nM

n
a
n
o
m
o
l
a
r
mV

m
i
l
l
i
v
o
l
t
s
SU

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

u
n
i
t
s
MD
L

M
e
t
h
o
d

d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

a
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

9
9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

z
e
r
o
.
MR
L

M
e
t
h
o
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

l
i
m
i
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

t
a
r
g
e
t

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d

m
e
t
h
o
d
.
SW
S
L

S
o
l
i
d

W
a
s
t
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

L
i
m
i
t
.

T
h
i
s

l
i
m
i
t

(
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
)

i
s

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
s
t

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

a
n
a
l
y
t
e

i
n

a

s
a
m
p
l
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

p
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
.

U

A

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

d
a
t
a

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
r

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

n
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

M
D
L
2,0
6
0
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d

w
a
s

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
b
o
v
e

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

m
e
t
h
o
d

r
e
p
o
r
t

l
i
m
i
t
s
J

A

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

d
a
t
a

q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
r

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

a
t

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

M
D
L

b
u
t

b
e
l
o
w

t
h
e

M
R
L

a
n
d

S
W
S
L
J
As
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t

t
o

r
e
f
l
e
c
t

a

d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

i
s

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

M
R
L

a
n
d

t
h
e

M
D
L

b
u
t

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

S
W
S
L
2.0
8
*

T
h
e
s
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
n
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e

d
u
e

t
o

p
H

m
e
t
e
r

m
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
.

NA

N
o
t

a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
NE

N
o
t

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
MW
-
0
7
P:
\
J
a
c
k
s
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
\
D
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o

G
W
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
_
2
0
4
0
.
3
0
6
0
\
2
0
1
6

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e

A
c
t
i
o
n

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
\
T
a
b
l
e
s

a
n
d

G
r
a
p
h
s
\
M
N
A

R
e
p
o
r
t

T
a
b
l
e
s
Page 3 of 3

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Extraction Well Boring Logs