WQ0000782_LagoonReviewComment_19882111

� oj.✓
r
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
GROUNDWATER SECTION
November 21, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: Arthur Mouberry
THROUGH: Bob Cheek
FROM: Bill Reid
SUBJECT: Town of rest City
Alum Sludge Storage Lagoons
Rutherford County
A00074306/GW88201
The Gxoundwater Section has reviewed the subject permit
application andrecommendsissuance of the permit with the
following conditions:
(1) The interior surfaces of the two alum sludge
storage lagoons shall be completely lined,with a
40 -mil thick HDPE liner.
Following installation and inspection of the
lagoon liners, and prior to waste disposal
operations, certification of the liners compliance
with approved construction specifications and the
liners integrity shall be provided to the
Department by the project engineer.
(2) Any groundwater quality monitoring, as deemed
necessary by the Department, shall be provided.
MC/tej
cc: Roy Davis/Don Link
Central Files
Permit Issuance Files
C E I V E
N!IV94
re�ur�cl��€a�er �wr�i��
Asheville Regional Offi(,e

S1
✓\ 1 � X,T
RECEIVED
Water Quality Section
NOV "30 1988
State of North Carolina"°"''�e;os�al Office
Ashevilie, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division or Em-ironmental Management
512 North Salisbury Taj j�1 Tl�'c" CQJ*a 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
November 28, 1988
Mr. Charles R. Summey, II
Town of Forest City
P.O. Box 728
Forest City, NC 28043
Dear Mr. Summey:
SUBJECT: Town of Forest City
Land Application of Sludge
Rutherford County
WQ0000782/GW88294
R. Paul Wilms
Director
As part of the Division of Environmental Management's
comprehensive approach in addressing the impact of waste
treatment, storage, or disposal projects on the environment,
your permit application has been forwarded to us for assessment
of the potential impact of the project on groundwater quality.
Our initial review indicates that the data submitted is
not sufficient to make this assessment.
Before your application can be processed, you are re-
quested to submit the following information to the Groundwater
Section. This information should be submitted in full within 60
days of the date of this letter. Failure to comply may result
in the returning of this application as incomplete.
1. Information as to the presence or absence of any
wells located within 500 feet of the waste
disposal sites. Any such wells should be
accurately located on the site map, and labeled as
to their primary usage (i.e. drinking water,
monitoring, etc.)
2.. Is the waste which is to be discharged comprised
solely of domestic waste, or are there other
-sources which will contribute to the wastewater?
If so, please provide information as to the
type(s) of waste involved, as well as the
anticipated quantity. A complete chemical
Poi;utior, Prcrcnrion Pcr�
P.O Box _27687,Ralei,+ Norh Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
^,r. Equal OpDorajmry Att rmative Action Employer

analysis may be required for industrial types of
waste.
3. The information 'submitted indicates that hand
auger borings were advanced at the site. Please
indicate the locations of these borings on a site
map. If available, you are requested to submit
complete lithologic descriptions of the borings
along with any evidence which may indicate the
presence or absence of a seasonal high water
table.
4. The information for Farm No. 9 (owner - John
Tedder) , indicates that the water table was
observed in a hand -dug well at a depth of 30
inches "at the top of the hill". In which field
was this well located? What is the depth to mean
seasonal high water table on the rest of the
field(s)? It is noted that the lower portion of
field 9.1 is in the floodplain of a creek of unknown
name. What type of soil(s) comprise this portion
of the field? What is the depth to mean seasonal
high water table in this area?
5. The Jack Philback Site, Farm #4 has three (3)
fields associated with it, but only two (2) are
described in the soils report. One of those
described (FC4) makes no mention of the type of
soil found at the site, nor the depth to mean
seasonal high water table. Please provide this
information along with a similar description of
the third field at this site.
6. Most of the sites proposed for land application
contain several different fields. The soils
report, however, presents a summary of the site as
a whole. Were land auger borings advanced in each
field? Are the summaries provided in the soils
report representative of all the fields in each.
site? Please provide clarification of this issue.
Please feel free to contact the Groundwater Section, at
[phone], if clarification or information is required.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Cleary
Hydrogeologist
Permits Group
MC/tej
cc: Don Link Mike Cleary
Babette McKemie McGill Associates
Central Files P.O. Box 2259
Permit Issuance Files Asheville, NC 28802

GROUNDWATER SECTION GW #
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RECORD OF WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
REVIEW BY 7-ezL GI DATE i;% FIELD INVESTIGATION? (Y/N) �
FACILITY NAME��af:-.r G��zj /4.�>� �J �i�rr> i v` ,1�-, t ��� COUNTY
LOCATION 2 XiOL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL SYSTEM ( LAGOON, ETC.)DESIGN CAP. ( GPD)
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
SIZE OF IMPOUNDMENT (T SQ)Z -- � E - c' L_ & / OR SIZE OF APPLICATION AREA
WASTE SOURCE : ❑ MUN. SLUDGE MUN. W. WATER: F] PRIMARY []SECONDARY [3 TERTIARY
[]IND. SLUDGE IND. W. WATER OTHERS rA-L­-4vA !LL-v]i2ez-'i= .
DISTANCE FROM WASTE SOURCE TO NEAREST: STREAM i, --no FT., WELL FT.
FOR WELL: TYPE OF USE , DEPTH , PUMP RATE ( EST. )
WHAT DESIGN CONDITIONS WILL REDUCE/ INCREASE CHANCr OF GW CONTAMINATION:
/il A , JiL t� �c7�LlCF [ l% c bil l/ i 7d1�
WHAT NATURAL SITE CONDITIONS WILL REDUCE / INCREASE CHANCE OF GW CONTAMINATION:
DEPTH TO: BEDROCK FT. , SEASONAL HIGH W. T. /oU FT., ANNUAL W. T. FLUX: FT.
SURFICIAL AQUIFER BEDROCK / ARTESIAN AQUIFER
GEN. LITHOLOGY 'vi;�-4 :�c, (� F/luc 1-0 M& D
ji;"doc1 SILT- 7z Ci yl j c3rv�� Sic
HYD. COND. � rx ` FT,/DAY ` J MEASURED �il FT./DAY MEASURED
�TIMATED � ESTIMATED
THICKNESS
am
NO. OF MONITOR WELLS: PROPOSED: UP' ' DOWN ; EXISTING : UP K-> DOWN C__2
FROM WORKSHEET: SITE NUMERICAL DESCRIPTION= �- Z
T 1 2 3 4 5 6 6A 6B
SITE GRADE (HYDROGEOL.) = O SITUATION GRADE =
PROPOSED SAMPLING SCHEDULE & PARAMETER(S) :
REMARKS/RECOMMENDATIONS
-1 1i Vi, L i�•v� =. 1 Se 7 iti,iii R 1 � .a _ (zt_ �;, � . i�f . U JfV d -tie:=, U- �.�) Z,, 1?-� .1 �_ + •--�
AA)A_:t.vC} j�/ ,_-c i°_ tr- L.Ae;-C-r"y�
4- r Le- (L -L_ t)
GW -48 Revised 8/87 HYD.

DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW WORKSHEET I
-
Facility: ir1
Point value 0 1
Water table Gradient Gradient
2
Gradient
3 4
Gradient Gradient
County
table gradient
gradient and away from almost
less than
less than greater
GW#:
from contomin-
flow direction ori water flat
2 percent
2 percent than 2
Reviewer=
ation site
supplies that
toward
towaed percent
Date : r z
(4) II column -bedrock-
relalNitety
are closer
water
water toward
Mal
I
than 1000
supply but
supply water
Determine the dNtancA,
Point value 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8
9
on ground between
to xl source and
Distance In 2000+ 300-999 75-149
150-299
35-49
.
10-19
anticipated but not
t
waterer supply (well or
meters 1000-2000
50-74 20-34
direction of
0-9
stream).
Distance In 6200+ 1001- 3100 251-500
101-160
31-60
Sow cipated
direction
feet 3100-6200 501-1000 161- 250 61-100
7G
0-30
direction
Note, If water table in permeable bedrock pt. value A In poorly permeable
bedrock
15-19
CO
Of flow
pt. Value - 4
4C
4E
Step 2
Point value 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8
9
Estimate the depth
Meters 60+ 3060 20.29 12-29 B-11
5-7 3-4 15-25
5-1
0
to the water table
below base of con -
Feet 200+ 91-200 61-90 36.80 26.35
16.25 9-15 3-8
02
0
taminatio n source
7E
71
9D
9J
more than 5 % of
28-45
the year.
1
Step 3
Estimate water
Point value 0 1
Water table Gradient Gradient
2
Gradient
3 4
Gradient Gradient
5
Gradient
table gradient
gradient and away from almost
less than
less than greater
greater
from contomin-
flow direction ori water flat
2 percent
2 percent than 2
than 2
ation site
supplies that
toward
towaed percent
percent
(4) II column -bedrock-
relalNitety
are closer
water
water toward
toward
I
than 1000
supply but
supply water
water
1C
meters
riot the
and is the supply
supply
5F
6E
anticipated
anticipated but not
and Is the
9M
75-94
direction of
direction of the anti.
anticipated
IE
3D
flow
Sow cipated
direction
6F
7G
8F
direction
of flaw
60-74
15-19
CO
Of flow
1 F
Step 4
Estimate of
permeability -
sorption for the
waste disposal site.
(2) A Row - Rock > 100
feet beknv�
uric
surface
Clay wlth Clean
no more Sand with Sand with gravel or
than 50 % 15-30% less than Clean fine coarse
Clay sand Cale 15%clnv sand sand
Distance Pt. Value
(Step 1)
Depth Pt. Value
W.T. (Step 2)
Gradient
More than 30
OA
2A
4A
6A
BA
(3) I column -bedrock
9A
ply
we
peke
LL Q ]c
I Po
O�
II
LU z
(4) II column -bedrock-
relalNitety
LU
8 O
51 z
orvery
FT _ C
permeable
I
Clay wlth Clean
no more Sand with Sand with gravel or
than 50 % 15-30% less than Clean fine coarse
Clay sand Cale 15%clnv sand sand
Distance Pt. Value
(Step 1)
Depth Pt. Value
W.T. (Step 2)
Gradient
More than 30
OA
2A
4A
6A
BA
9A
More than 95
1
I Po
I'
II
I
II
I
II
1
II
I
II
25-29
OB
1C
I
2F
3E
4G
5F
6E
7F
BE
9G
9M
75-94
20-24
OC
2C
IE
3D
4D
5E
5G
6F
7G
8F
9H
9N
60-74
15-19
CO
3B
1 F
4C
4E
6C
57H
BG
91
90
46-59
10-14
OE
48
2D
5B
4F
6D
5
7E
71
9D
9J
9P
28-45
1
3-9
1B
68
2E
78
5C
7C
8D
7.1
9E
9K
9e
10-27
Less than 3
1B
88
1 3C
8C
I 5D
981
5K
9C
I 7K
9F
1 9L
9RI
lessthan 1
Bedrock at land surface; 1- 57,11= 92
Note: K Bedrock at land surface, use 10 (plus approprk do letter)
Degree of confidence in accuracy of values A = very confident
B - fairly confident
C =with low confidence
Step 6A
Point of concernwith regard to contaminant souroe is: W - nearby well
S - spring / stream
B = perimeter of compliance
Stec 61 Additional DualHler (arcle only One)
D . Cone of depression of nearby pumping well has, M - Fund nnourtding under site highly likely
or will likely, Influence contaminant flow
P - Site has poor percolation potential (Value at 3 or less in Step 4 )
E - Distance In Step i based on separation from
contaminant plume rather than point source
F - Waste source In groundwater discharge area,
thus rrdNmal groundwater contamirKitlon at depth / dlstamce
K - Area underlain by caverou s limestone
0 = Waste source In groundwater recharge area
T = Water table in very highly fractured or caverous rock
Y - Site underldin by 1 or more orteslon aquifers
ti
G
12
Y
a
F__
Pt. Value
(Step 3)
Category
(Step 4)
_E
Confidence
(Step 5)
S
Point of Concern
(Step 6A)
C
Qualifier
(Step 6B)

2=2
97711
I.3n'z�
WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW WORKSHEET (CONT.)
Site Numerical description
14- 1_
Total Step 1
I Z S
Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 60k Step 68
( Add Steps 1 - 4 (Omit letters) )
Site Grade Based on Hydrogeologlo Parameters
Hazard Potential Matrix Identifier ( HPI II )
( Choose One) D
G I
B
a:) H +
A
C F
-`
HPMI
Total
Perm / Sap. HPMI
(1) Numerical Site Description ( from Step 7)
21
C2) PAR VALUE (Stage 3)
�L _ Z�
SITUATION RATING: (1) - C2)
EW
i
(table below)
SITUATION GRADE
no m tions
(see table below)
Stop 10 SITUATION GRADE
site a 1
(see table below)
SITUATION RATING TABLE
To be used for Step 9 ( Natural ) and Step 10 ( Modified) (Step 10)
SITUATION RATING PROBABILITY OF SITUATION
( Combined Value) CONTAMINATION DEGREE OF ACCEPTABILITY GRADE
B a less Improbable Probably acceptable A
-7 to -4 ? Probably acceptable or B
unacceptable
-3to+3 ? Accue uncerlah
+4 to +7 ProbaUV Probably unacceptable D
or maghaly aoceptode
+B or more Very Probable Almost certain to be F
unacceptable
The probability of contamaminatlon from situations having values between t 7 and - 7 Is difficult to categorIze
satisfactorily. Therefore, this range of values represented by grades B and C. Is designed only by a question mark.
Acceptance or rejection of oro site for the intended purpose Is a responsibility of the particular regulatory agency
and may depend on special requirements of the agency or on feasibility and execution of approved
engineering of a site ( Stage 4 ).

csuiro[��c1���1 �cs�isg inc
v 54 RAVENSCROFT DRIVE
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
704 254-7176
Fred Whittemore
Town of Forest City
441 Vance St.
Forest City, NC 28043
Storet Parameters
Number
Date Reported: 10/12/88
Date Collected: 09/14/88
Date Received: 09/14/88
Number of Samples:
1. Sludge
Liquid from sludge
4.
5.
6.
Results in MG/L unless otherwise noted
1. 3. 4. 5. 6.
00310 BOD5 a 20C
00340 COD @.0.25N K2Cr207
007220 Cyanide, Total (CN)
31616 Fecal Coliform, #/100 ml
38260 MBAS, (Detergents)
00610 Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total
00625 Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total
00620 Nitrogen, Nitrate, Brucine
00556 Oil L Grease
00400 pH (Standard Units)
32730 Phenols
00665 Phosphorus, Total (P)
00500 Residue, Total
00530 Residue, Total Nonfilter.
TGX 4.650
Storet Metals
Number
Results in
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
01105
Aluminum, Total (A1)
01002
Arsenic, Total (As)
01007
Barium, Total (Ba)
01027
Cadmium, Total (Cd)
00916
Calcium, Total (-Ca)
01034
Chromium, Total (Cr)
01042
Copper, Total (Cu)
01045
Iron, Total (Fe)
01051
Lead, Total (Pb)
00927
Magnesium, Total (Mg)
01055
Manganese, Total (Mn)
71900
Mercury, Total (Hg)
01067
Nickel, Total (Ni)
00937
Potassium, Total (K)
01147
Selenium, Total (Se)
01077
Silver, Total (Ag)
00929
Sodium, Total (Na)
01092
Zinc, Total (Zn)
Certified By:
SOURCE TESTING / AMBIENT AIR / WATER / WASTEWATER / HAZARDOUS WASTES / INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE / GROUNDWATER / CONSULTING

cauiraumeahal hushing iaa-
54 RAVENSCROFT DRIVE
G ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
704 - 254-7176
Fred Whittemore
Town of Forest City
441 Vance St.
Forest City, NC 28043
Storet Parameters
Number
00310 BOD5 a 20C
00340 COD @ 0.25N K2Cr2O7
00720 Cyanide, Total (CN)
31616 Fecal Coli foram, #/100 all
38260 MEAS, (Detergents)
00610 Nitrogen, Ammonia, Total
00625 Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total
00620 Nitrogen, Nitrate, Brucine
00556 Oil & Grease
00400 pH (Standard Units)
3730 Phenols
00665 Phosphorus, Total (P)
00500 Residue, Total
00530 Residue, Total Nonfilter.
Ammonia, Total (NH4)
00945 Sulfate (SO4)
Storet Metals
Number
Date Reported: 10/12/88
Date Collected: 09/14/88
Date Received: 09/14/88
Number of Samples: 2
1. Sludge
�. Liquid from sludge
3.
4.
5.
6,
Results in MG/L unless otherwise noted
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
6.50 6.85
6.77 4.18
34.12
Results in mg/1
1: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
01105
Aluminum, Total (Al)
413 1.31
01002
Arsenic, Total (As)
01007
Barium, Total (Ba)
01027
Cadmium, Total (Cd)
00916
Calcium, Total (Ca)
01034
Chromium, Total (Cr)
01042
Copper, Total (Cu)
<0.03 0.05
01045
Iron, Total (Fe)
01051
Lead, Total (Pb)
00927
Magnesium, Total (Mg)
01055
Manganese, Total (Mn)
71900
Mercury, Total (Hg)
01067
Nickel, Total (Ni)
<,0.03 ;0.03
00937
Potassium, Total (K)
17.9 6-.34
01147
Selenium, Total (Se)
01077
Silver, Total (Ag)
0099
Sodium, Total (Na)
7.66 14.8
01092
Zinc, Total (Zn)
0.07 0.10
Certified By: ��cL�, VaLCd
SOURCE TESTING / AMBIENT AIR / WATER / WASTEWATER / HAZARDOUS WASTES / INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE / GROUNDWATER / CONSULTING

STATE o
j
IX�
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary GROUNDWATER SECTION Director
September 7, 1988
Mr. Charles R. Summey II, City Manager
Town of Forest City
Forest City, NC 28043
Dear Mr. Summey,
SUBJECT: Town of Forest City
Alum Sludge Treatment Lagoons
Rutherford County
AC0074306/GW88201
As part of the Division of Environmental Management's
comprehensive approach in addressing the impact of waste
treatment, storage, or disposal projects on the environment,
your permit application has been forwarded to us for assessment
of the potential impact of the project on groundwater quality.
Our initial review indicates that the data submitted is
not sufficient to make this assessment.
Before your application can be processed, you are re-
quested to submit the following information to the Groundwater
Section. This information should be submitted in full within 60
days of the date of this letter. Failure to comply may result
in the returning of this application as incomplete.
1. A hydrogeologic description of the subsurface, in
the vicinity of the lagoons, to a depth of 20 feet
or bedrock, whichever is less. The number of
borings shall be sufficient to define the
following for the area underlying the lagoon
sites:
CE.1VE w
Pollution Prevention Pays QEP 9 T 1988
P.O. Box 27697, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Groundwater $lection
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer ASheville Regional Office

(i) significant changes in lithology underlying
the site(s);
(ii) the vertical permeability of the unsaturated
zone and the hydraulic conductivity of the
saturated zone; and
(iii) depth to the mean seasonal high water table
(if definable from soil morphology or from
evaluation of other applicable available
data)
2. Static groundwater elevation measurements from
each borehole which should be made both
immediately following borehole completion, and 24
hours after borehole completion.
3. A complete chemical analysis of the typical sludge
to be placed in the lagoons, which should include,
but is not limited to, the following parameters:
pH Copper
Nickel Total Ammonia
Sulphate Potassium
TOX Sodium
Aluminum Zinc
The analytical methods used for TOX must be
capable of detecting the total of all halogenated
organic compounds present at a concentration of
5.0 parts per billion (ppb) or greater. In the
event that a TOX concentration of 5.0 ppb or
greater is detected, any individual halogenated
organic compound(s) present at a concentration at
or above the method detection limit (MDL) must be
identified and quantified utilizing EPAmethods
601, 602, 604 and 611.
4. An additional sludge sample should be taken and
run through a centrifuge to separate the liquid
and solid fractions. The liquid fraction shall be
analyzed for .those 'parameters outlined in Comment
3 above, except for TOX.
Please feel free to contact the Groundwater Section, at (919)
733-3221 if clarification or information is required.
Sincerely,
��� P-
(F&�
Michael D. Cleary
Hydrogeologist
Permits Group
cc: Don Link Asaad Shamsi Mr. Daniel McPherson Spartenburg, SC 29304
Mike Cleary Central Files Harwood Beebe Co. Central Files
P.O. Box 2646 Permit Files

v®ntrol Number
FACILITY PERMITTED: Yes No
1 ConLirmed 1 Rank
1 NPDES
6
Mining
County Number
No:
GROUNDWATER
POLLUTION SOURCE
INVENTORY
7
Hazardous Waste (RCRA)
Source Name
No:
No:
2 State has data
3 Well Construction
8
Solid Waste (Landfill)
OWNERSHIP
No:
No:
4 Status unknown
1 Private
Municipa
4 State
Source Address
City County Region
ctinc
DATABASE CROSS-REFERENCE
No:
No:
1 ERRIS (CERCLA) list
5 UIC
0
Air Quality
`925MM
No:
No:
2 Surface Impoundment (SIR)
5 Federal
Owner/Operator
Comments
6 Military
7#' Quad Name"
Multt..
uu at Site
Source 8's
�rces
YES NO
JCounty
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF GROUNDWATER
POLLUTION
LOCATION
OPERATION
TYPE
TYPE OF WASTE
DISPOSAL1FACILITY
OTHER SOURCE
Facility
Municipal
1
Gasoline/diesel
1
Lagoon, etc.
1
Agricultural Activity
2 Highway
2
Industrial
2
Other oil
2
Landfill-contro.
2
Salt water intrusion
3 Railroad
3
Agricultural
3
Solvents
3
Landfill-uncont.
3
Chemical stock pile
4 Waterway
4
Oil and gas
4
Corrosives
4
Land application
4
River infiltration
5 Pipeline
5
Mining
5
Other chemical
5
Abandoned site
5
Mine drainage
6 Dumpsite
6
Other Source
6
Sewage/septage
6
Sewer system
6
Intentional dump
7 Other
er
Slud
7
Septic tank
7
Spill
8
Leachate
8
Injection well
8
Leak --above ground
9
Other solids
9
Disposal well
9
Leak --underground
1 In use
10
Gas
WASTE:
STATUS OF SOURCE:
2 Inactive
11
Pest/herbicides
3 Other
12
Fertilizers
POLLUTION STATUS AND CROSS-REFERENCES
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION
FACILITY PERMITTED: Yes No
1 ConLirmed 1 Rank
1 NPDES
6
Mining
Potential 2 Tabulate
No:
No:
MONITORING WELLS
2 DEM Nondischarge
7
Hazardous Waste (RCRA)
-•. �._ ----
I No monitorin
No:
No:
2 State has data
3 Well Construction
8
Solid Waste (Landfill)
3 Data at facility
No:
No:
4 Status unknown
4 Capacity Use
9
Oil Terminal Registration
DATABASE CROSS-REFERENCE
No:
No:
1 ERRIS (CERCLA) list
5 UIC
0
Air Quality
ID:
No:
No:
2 Surface Impoundment (SIR)
Comments
ID:
3 GW Pollution Source Inv.
Date:
4 Other DEM investigation
Date: Compiler: ll(cseA1
Date:

GROUNDWATER SECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GW #[2'
RECORD OF WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
REVIEW BY DATE FIELD INVESTIGATION? (Y/N )_,S�_
FACILITY NAMEo��S�r-�
LOCATION
TYPE OF DISPOSAL SYSTEM ( LAGOON, ETC.DESIGN CAP. (-GPE)-) Z_ .
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
SIZE OF IMPOUNDMENT E-�-� O Za) 7 -3ZO c -E & / OR SIZE OF APPLICATION AREA
WASTE SOURCE: �MUN. SLUDGE MUN. W. WATER: F]PRIMARY SECONDARY [] TERTIARY
IND. SLUDGE IND. W. WATER OTHERS
DISTANCE FROM WASTE SOURCE TO NEAREST: STREAM t oc n Fr., WELL FT.
FOR WELL: TYPE OF USE , DEPTH PUMP RATE ( EST. )
WHAT DESIGN CONDITIONS WILL REDUCE/ INCREASE CHANCE' OF GW CONTAMINATION: 16ST*za_kin,, J
WHAT NATURAL SITE CONDITIONS WILL REDUCE / INCREASE CHANCE OF GW CONTAMINATION:
DEPTH TO: BEDROCK FT. , SEASONAL HIGH
SURFICIAL AQUIFER
GEN. LITHOLOGY
W. T. 100 FT., ANNUAL W. T. FLUX: FT.
BEDROCK / ARTESIAN AQUIFER
HYD. GOND. LAAb LA�,_)&FT./DAY MEASURED Uk*A46 FT./DAY ❑ MEASURED
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
THICKNESS ij,4�AIba-,h� FT.
NO. OF MONITOR WELLS: PROPOSED: UPS DOWN ; EXISTING : UP_(-) DOWN n
FROM WORKSHEET: SITE NUMERICAL DESCRIPTION =L4- L
T 1 2 3 4 5 6 6A 6B
SITE GRADE (HYDROGEOL.) _ SITUATION GRADE =
PROPOSED SAMPLING SCHEDULE & PARAMETER(S) :
REMARKS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Ai -c
v aA � � 7 a I � �1 •.
/ A:: �1
:W-48 Revised 8/87 YD. RE - IONAL SUPE

ATE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW WORKSHEET
Coun,
GW#:
St�o 1
Determine It thea distance Point value 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
on ground between con- Dilates h 2000+ app
to ter up lures and motors - 1000 - 2000 X150 - 299 75-149 50-74 74 35-49.20-34 - -19 0-9
water soppy (hell or
stream. Distance In 6200+ 1001-3100 251- 500 101-160 31-60
Step 3
Estimate water
feet
3100 - 6200 601-1000 161-250 61-100
0-30
5
Gradient
it 11;
If water table In permeable bedrock pt. value =6 In poorly permeable bedrock
les than
lea than greater
greater
pt. value * 4
flow direction all water fid
Step 2
Point value 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9
Estkmatethe depth
Meters
60+ 3060 20.29 12-29 8-11 5.7 3-4 15-25 5-1
0
to the water table
Feet
200+ 91-200 61-90 36..60 26-35 16-25 9-15 3-8 02
0
below base of con-
toward
I
than 1000
tamination source
supply water
water
1 C
more than 5 % of
not the
and Is the supply
supply
the year.
6E
anticipated
anticipated buf not
Step 3
Estimate water
point MA 19 0 1
Water table Gradient Gradient
2
Gradient
3 4
Gradient Gradient
5
Gradient
table gradient
gradient and away from aimod
les than
lea than greater
greater
from cantomh-
flow direction all water fid
2 percent
2 percent than 2
than 2
ation site
supplies that
toward
towaed percent
percent
II
are closer
water
water toward
toward
I
than 1000
supply but
supply water
water
1 C
meter
not the
and Is the supply
supply
5F
6E
anticipated
anticipated buf not
and Is the
9M
75-94
direction of
direction of the anti•
anticipated
1 E
3D
flow
now cipoted
direction
6F
7G
8F
direction
of flow
60-74
15 - 19
CO
Of flow
1 F
Stop 4
Estimate of
permeability -
sorption for the
waste disposal site.
(2) A Row -Rock > 100 `
Step 5
Degree of confidence In accuracy of values
feet belowSurfacLU
e(3)1 column -bedrock � M
paaAy � c
PermeableUJ z
LL QQ Y
(4) II column -bedrock -
relatNitey Q � "
orvery
Clay With Clean
no more Sand with Sand with gravel or
than 50 % 15-30% les than Clean fine coarse
Clay sand caly 15 % ckw sand sand
i_
Distance Pt. Value
(Step 1)
Depth Pt. VOW
W.T. (Step 2)
_� '5
Gradient Pt. VOLS
(Step 3)
More titan 30
OA
2A
4A
6A
BA
9A
More than 95
I
I
I-
II
I
II
I
11
O
II
I
Permeable
Clay With Clean
no more Sand with Sand with gravel or
than 50 % 15-30% les than Clean fine coarse
Clay sand caly 15 % ckw sand sand
i_
Distance Pt. Value
(Step 1)
Depth Pt. VOW
W.T. (Step 2)
_� '5
Gradient Pt. VOLS
(Step 3)
More titan 30
OA
2A
4A
6A
BA
9A
More than 95
I
I
I-
II
I
II
I
11
I
II
I
II
25-29
OB
1 C
i D
2F
3E
4G
5F
6E
7F
BE
9G
9M
75-94
20 -24
OC
2C
1 E
3D
4D
5E
5G
6F
7G
8F
9H
9N
60-74
15 - 19
CO
38
1 F
4C
4E
6C
5H
7H
8G
91
90
46-59
10-14
OE
48
2D
5B
4F
6D
5
7E
71
9D
9J
9P
28-45
L
-
3-9
1
6B
2E
7B
5C
7C
8D
7J
9E
9K
9Q
10-27
Lesihan3
iB
8B
3C
8C
5D
9B
5K
9C
7K
9F
9L
9R
Les than 1
Bedrock at kxdd surface: I- 5Z, 11= 9Z
Step 6A
Point of concern with regard to contan rto nt source is
Note : If Bedrock at land surface, use 10 (plexi appropriate letter)
A = very confident
8 - fairy confident
C *with low confidence
W * near by well
S - spring / stream
8 * perimeter of compliance
Slep 6B Additional Qualifier (Circle Only One)
D * Cone of depression of nearby pumping well has,
a will n likely, Influence cortc xvt flow
E = Distance h Step 1 based on separation from
oo tomkna rt plume rather than point source
F - Waste source in groundwater discharge area,
thus mhknd groundwater cortaminaf on at depth / didamoe
K - Area underlain by coverous limestone
M - Fluid mounding under site highly likely
P * Site has poor percolation potential (value at 3 or less In Step 4 )
Q . Waste source In groundwater recharge area
T * Water table in very highly fractured or coverous rock
Y = Site underlain by 1 or more afteskrn aquifers
Cdrtegory
(Step 4)
E
Confidence
(Step 5)
S
Point of Concern
(Step 6A)
F
Qualifier
(Step 6B)

- WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW WORKSHEET (CONT.)
Stet) 7
Site Numerical description
_l_ ___L_ ..�. -
Total Step 1 Slep 2 Step 3 Slop 4 Step 5 Step 6A Step 68
( Add Steps 1- 4 (Omit letters) )
Site Grade Based on Hydrogecb& Parameters
0
Hazard Potential MatrtK Identifier ( HPM )
(Choose D G I
B a/ H +
A C F -`
HPMI
SITUATION RATING TABLE
Total
Perm / Sorp.
HPM
(1) Numerical Site Description ( from Step 7)
I �
7
-moi
(2) PAR VALUE (Stage 3)
1&
GRADE
8 orloss
SITUATION RATING : (1) - (2)
EB
A
-710 -4
(table below)
Provably acceptable or
BMJ
SITUATION GRADE
nxyghc*V unacceptable
-3 to +3
no site m ns
Acceptance uncertain
�✓
+41o+7
(see table below)
Probably rnaooeplable
D
Stet) 10 SITUATION GRADE
or marginally aoCeptable
+8 or more
site rhodlIMUTL�
Aknod certain to be
F
(see table below)
unacceptable
SITUATION RATING TABLE
The probability of contomaminotlon from sMuatlons having values between t 7 and - 7 Is difficult to categortm
satisfactorily. Therefore, this range of values represented by grades B and C, Is designed only by a question mark.
Acceptance or rejection of oa site for the Intended purpose Is a responablltty of the particular regulatory agency
and may depend on special requirements of the agency or on feagblNty and execution of approved
engineering of a site ( Stage 4 ).
To be used for Step 9 ( Natural) and Step 10 ( Modified)
(Step 10)
SITUATION RATING
PROBABILITY OF
SITUATION
( Combined Value)
CONTAMNATION
DEGREE OF ACCEPTABILITY
GRADE
8 orloss
Improbable
Probably ooceptable
A
-710 -4
?
Provably acceptable or
BMJ
nxyghc*V unacceptable
-3 to +3
?
Acceptance uncertain
�✓
+41o+7
Aobably
Probably rnaooeplable
D
or marginally aoCeptable
+8 or more
Very Probable
Aknod certain to be
F
unacceptable
The probability of contomaminotlon from sMuatlons having values between t 7 and - 7 Is difficult to categortm
satisfactorily. Therefore, this range of values represented by grades B and C, Is designed only by a question mark.
Acceptance or rejection of oa site for the Intended purpose Is a responablltty of the particular regulatory agency
and may depend on special requirements of the agency or on feagblNty and execution of approved
engineering of a site ( Stage 4 ).

OO D
U 111—�1� 1J 1J Company, Inc.
Architects Engineers Planners
364 South Pine Street, P O. Box 2646, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
Tel. [phone]
47046.11
}
October 17, 19$8
Mr. Michael D. Cleary
Groundwater Section
State of North Carolina Dept. of
Natural Resources & Com unity Development
OROUINDI TE
SEf�%TI
512 N. Salisbury Street
WEIGH,
' �r �'�
NG
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Town of Forest City
Alum Sludge Treatment Lagoon
Dear Mr. Cleary:
Enclosed is the information requested in your
review comments
dated
September 7, 1988. I hope this is adequate. Do
not hesitate to
contact
me with any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
KIMBERLY R. TIMMONS, EIT
Project Engineer
KRT/dc:w
Enclosures
V E
0;" T 9 L 1
Groundwater ect�On
Asheville Regional Office

Ak
LAW ENGINEERING
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
& CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
CONSULTANTS
July 7, 1988
Harwood Beebe Company, Inca
364 Pine Street
P. 0 Box 2646
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
Attention: Ms. Kimberly R. Timmons
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Alum Sludge Treatment Lagoons
Vance Cc'. rt Road
Forest City, North Carolina
Law Job No. CH 6371
Gentlemen:
As authorized by your acceptance of our Proposal No. 24158 dated May 16,
1988, Law Engineering has completed a subsurface exploration for the subject
project. The purpose of this exploration was to develop information about the
site and subsurface conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations for
the proposed construction. This report describes the work performed and
presents the results obtained, along with our geotechnical recommendations for
the proposed construction site preparation.
PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION
We understand that two side by side lagoons are planned. The northern and
southern lagoons will have approximate overall plan dimension of 135 by 255 ft
and 170 by 205 ft, respectively. The level bottom of the lagoons will be at
elevation 954.5 ft, which will require up to about 17 ft of cut at the higher,
western end of the lagoons. Up to about 15 ft of fill will be required below
the lagoon bottom at the east end of the lagoons where a stream crosses the
lagoon area. Additional fill would be required at the east ends of the lagoons
to construct an earthen dike for impoundment. We have not been furnished the
top elevation of this earthen embankment. A wet well with bot -tom at 954.5 ft
will be located between the two lagoons.
The ground surface within the lagoon area slopes generally downward from
south to north. Ground surface elevations range from about 980 to 940 ft.
Approximately the western half of the proposed lagoon area is open. A gravel
and fenced in area occupy much of this open area. The eastern half of the
construction area is reportedly heavily wooded. Several buried lines, up to 18
1
RO. BOX 11297
CHARLOTTE, NC 28220
501 MINUET LANE
CHARLOTTE, NC 28217
704-523-2022

Beebe Company, Inc. Law Job No. CH 6371
July 7, 1988
inch diameter, feed into a collection point located in the center of the
proposed southern lagoon. From this collection point, a stream flows toward the
north through the eastern ends of both proposed lagoons. Scattered cobble sized
rocks are present at the ground surface within the area of the lagoons.
We understand that plans call for the lagoops to be lined with at least 1 ft
of clayey soil having a permeability of 1 x 10 cm/sec or less. It is desired
to use excavated clayey material from the lagoons to construct the clayey
liners.
The above site and project information was obtained from Harwood Beebe
letters dated April 27 and May 9, 1988, the accompanying topographic site plan,
conversations between our Mr. Mel Browning and Ms. Kimberly 'Timmons of Harwood
Beebe and observations by our field personnel.
FIELD EXPLORATION
Soil Test Borings
Six soil test borings were made at the site at the approximate locations
shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. The boring locations were mutually
selected by Harwood Beebe and Law Engineering, and were located in the field by
our drill crew from map -scaled distances, using a tape and estimated right
angles. The elevations on the Test Boring Records were estimated between the
ground surface contours shown on the furnished topographic site plan.
The borings were made by mechanically twisting a continuous flight steel
auger into the soil. Soil sampling and penetration testing were performed in
general accordance with ASTM D 1586. At regular intervals, soil samples were
obtained with a standard 1.4 -inch I. D., 2 -inch 0. D., split -tube sampler. The
sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then
driven an additional 12 inches with blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30
inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12
inches was recorded and is designated the "penetration resistance The
penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil's
strength and foundation supporting capability.
Representative portions of the soil samples, thus obtained, were placed in
glass jars and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples
were examined by a geotechnical engineer to verify the driller's field
classifications. Test Boring Records are attached, showing the soil
descriptions and penetration resistances.
Bag Sampling
Bag samples were obtained at selected boring locations using a bulldozer
provided by the town of Forest City. These bulk -samples, along with jar samples
of each material, were transported to -the laboratory for testing. The locations
of these samples are indicated on the appropriate boring logs or on the
appropriate test sheets.
2
LAW ENGINEERING

„,'Beebe Company, Inc. Law Job No. CH 6371 July 7, 1988
LABORATORY TESTING
Compaction
Standard Proctor compaction tests (ASTM D 698) were performed on selected
bag samples to determine their compaction characteristics, including their
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Test results are presented on
the attached Compaction Test sheets.
Permeabili
The permeability of the proposed clayey linear soils was measured with
constant head permeability tests. One test specimen was tested with bentonite
clay added to the borrow soil. The samples were remolded in cylindrical molds
at the proper density and moisture content, according to the standard Proctor
compaction test (ASTM D 698). End caps were applied and the samples were
saturated. The samples were then subjected to a constant water pressure at one
end and the volume of water passing through the sample in a given time period
was recorded. The permeability was calculated from a knowledge of the volume of
water passing through the sample, the sample geometry, the time duration and
pressure applied. The test results are presented on the attached Summary of
Laboratory Permeability Testing.
AREA GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, an area
underlain by ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks. The virgin soils
encountered in this area are the residual product of in-place chemical
weathering of rock which was similar to the rock presently underlying the site.
In areas not altered by erosion or disturbed by the activities of man, the
typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soils near the surface, where
soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands. The
boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This transitional zone
termed "partially weathered rock” is normally found overlying the parent
bedrock. Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as
residual material with standard penetration resistances in excess of 100 blows
per foot. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints and by the presence of
less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered
rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal
distances. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and
zones of partially weathered rock within the soil mantle, well above the general
bedrock level
Often, the upper soils along drainage features and in flood plain areas are
water -deposited (alluvial) materials that have been eroded and washed down from
adjacent higher ground. These alluvial soils are usually soft and compressible,
having never been consolidated by pressures in excess of their present
overburden.

,ud Beebe Company, Inc Law Job No. CH 6371 July 7, 1988
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Man-made fill was encountered to 3 ft in borings B-1, B-2 and B-5. Fill was
encountered to 8 ft in boring B-6. The fill was composed of sandy silt soil.
Gravel was present in the fill at many boring locations. Alluvium (water
deposited soil) was encountered at boring B-3 to a depth of 3 ft. The alluvium
was composed of soft sandy silt with small roots.
Beneath the fill or alluvium, where present, and from near the ground
surface at boring B-4, residual soils resulting from the in-place weathering of
parent bedrock were encountered. The residual profile was generally composed of
upper stiff to very stiff clayey and sandy silts, underlain by firm micaceous
silty sands.
Auger refusal was encountered at 8 ft in borings B-2, B -2A and B -2B.
Refusal may result from boulders, lenses, ledges or layers of relatively hard
rock underlain by partially weathered rock or residual soil; refusal may also
represent the surface of relatively continuous bedrock. Core drilling
procedures are required to penetrate refusal materials and determine their
character and continuity. Core drilling was beyond the scope of this
exploration.
The borings did not encounter ground water at the time of drilling. After a
stabilization period of several days, the borings were generally caved in and
dry at depths ranging from 10.5 to 18 ft below the ground surface. Caved depths
in open boreholes are sometimes.indicative of ground water at or slightly below
the caved depths.
Ground -water levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and rainfall
variations and with changes in the water level in adjacent drainage features.
Normally, the highest ground -water levels occur in late winter and spring and
the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall. The ground water level at the
time of this exploration was likely lower than "normal" due to the drought
conditions the project area had experienced prior to this exploration.
The above descriptions provide a general summary of the subsurface
conditions encountered. The attached Test Boring Records contain detailed
information recorded at each boring location. These Test Boring Records
represent our interpretation of the field logs based on engineering examination
of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various
strata represent approximate boundaries and the transition between strata may be
gradual.
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Dike Stability
An analytical stability analysis of the basin slopes was beyond the scope of
..this exploration. However, based on precedent, we recommend the basin slopes be
constructed with 3:1 (horizontal ; vertical) slopes. It will be important, to
properly prepare the foundation area of the embankments, to minimize the
4
LAW ENGINEERIN

ad Beebe Company, Inc. Law Job No. CH 6371 July 7, 1988
potential for excessive settlement or slope instability. This will require
removal of any existing loose or soft alluvium and fill in the area of the
lagoon embankments, such as encountered to 3 ft at B-2 and B-3, and to 8 ft at
B-6. Based on our understanding of the planned lagoon bottom, much of the
existing fill will have. to be undercut to obtain desired grades. We recommend
that the existing stream be routed well away from the outside of the lagoon
embankments so as not to affect their long term stability.
Site Preparation and Grading
All existing topsoil, vegetation, man-made fill, and alluvium, disturbed
soils and surface soils containing organic matter or other deleterious materials
should be stripped from within the proposed project area. After stripping and
rough excavation grading, we recommend that areas to provide support for
structural fill and the lagoon liner material be carefully inspected for soft
surficial soils and proofrolled with a 25 to 35 -ton, four -wheeled, rubber -tired
roller or similar approved equipment. The proofroller should make at least four
passes over each location, with the last two passes perpendicular to the first
two. Any areas which wave, rut or deflect excessively and continue to do so
after several passes of the proofroller should be undercut to firmer soils. The
undercut areas should be backfilled in thin lifts with suitable compacted fill
materials. The proofrolling and undercutting operations should be carefully
monitored by an experienced engineering technician working under the direct
supervision of the geotechnical engineer.
Any irregular surface features over the foundation area of the embankments
should be excavated to form smooth slopes without abrupt changes. This shaping
should extend for the entire width of the dikes. The purpose of the smoothed
slopes is to avoid abrupt changes and thus minimize the potential for
differential settlement and cracking in the embankment.
Excavation of the soils encountered by all the borings except B-2 can
normally be accomplished using conventional earthmoving equipment such as
bulldozers, scrapers, backhoes, etc. The refusal materials such as that
encountered at boring B-2 may present some difficulty in excavating during
construction. Due to its typically erratic surface, such material may be
encountered during site grading in other portions of the site, as well. Heavy
excavating equipment with ripping tools would likely be required to remove such
material.
i
The borings did not encounter ground water within the expected construction
depths at the time of this exploration. However, the contractor should be
prepared to promptly remove any surface water or ground water from the
construction area, particularly in the vicinity of the site drainage features.
This has been done effectively on past jobs by means of gravity ditches and
pumping from filtered sumps. ,,.
Engineered Fill for Embankment
The residual clayey silts and sandy silts in the basin area should provide
-suitable material for an earth fill embankment. Much of the existing fill would
5
LAW ENGINEERING

_ocd Beebe Company, Inc. Law Job No. CH 6371 July 7, 1988
potentially be reusable for construction of these embankments. The soils can be
compacted most effectively by sheepsfoot rollers and rubber -tired rollers.
The fill compaction criteria for the dike should be based on a minimum of 95
percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor test
(ASTM D 698) and compacted at a moisture content of 2 to 3 percent wet of
optimum moisture. Fill placed on the wet side of optimum provides a slightly
less rigid embankment and thus is able to absorb some movement with less risk of
cracking.
The geotechnical engineer should inspect the condition of the prepared
foundation on which the engineered fill is to be supported and should be present
during the initial filling operations to lend guidance and observe how well
compaction is being achieved in the initial lifts of the embankment. An
engineering technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer
should be at the project to observe placement of each succeeding lift of fill
that is placed. A technician should also make the field density tests necessary
to check the degree of compaction and moisture of each 2 ft maximum accumulation
of fill or daily accumulation. Additional laboratory compaction tests will be
required for soil types other than the upper clayey soils tested for this
exploration.
The fill soils should be spread in horizontal loose lifts no thicker than
about 8 inches prior to compaction. If a specific lift of soil is too dry to be
compacted to the fill compaction criteria, then moisture should be added by
sprinkling. Uniform moisture content of the soil should be obtained by disc
plowing the water into the uncompacted soils. If the moisture content is too
high in the borrow soils, the soils should be turned by disc plowing to provide
aeration and drying by exposure to sun and wind action. It may be more
expedient and efficient to adjust the moisture content as necessary in the
borrow area prior to placing on the dike.
Lagoon Liner
Based on the soil test borings and completed laboratory permeability
testing, selected site clayey soils should be suitable for the proposed basin
liner if properly placed. Based on the borings, the clayey soils from 3 to 8 ft
in B-1, 3 ft in B-2, B-3 and B-5, and from 8 to 12 ft in B-6 would be suitable
clayey liner soils. Close field control will be required to selectively
excavate and stockpile these clayey soils and avoid mixing with more sandy and
permeable soils. The soils should be free of all topsoil and organics.
A permeability in the range of 1 x 10-6 to 1.5 x 10-7 cm/sec was obtained on
samples of these natural soils remolded to 95 percent of standard Proctor,
obtained at a depth of 3 to 5 ft in borings B-1 and B-2. Based on our
experience, the mass permeability obtained in the field usilyg'such clayey site
soils could range up to as much as 10 times the laboratory values for the same
state of compaction, or within a range of 10-5to 10 cm/sec for the natural
clayey soils. With 3 percent bentonite added by weight, the permeability of the
"`clayey soil tested from boring B-1 was reduced to 8.6 x 10 cm/sec. On the
basis of the above considerations, and assuming that the required field
6
LAW ENGINEER

,a Beebe Company, Inc. Law Job No. CH 6371 July 7, 1988
permeability of the liner is 1 x 10-6 cm/sec, we recommend at least 5 percent
bentonite by weight be mixed with the natural clayey soils to construct the
liner.
We recommend that the liner be placed in loose lifts no greater than 8
inches and compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. In
order to obtain this degree of compaction on the fill slopes, relatively heavy
compaction equipment and close moisture control will likely be required.
Compaction testing of the soils should be performed after they are placed.
After construction of the soil liner, we recommend that some undisturbed samples
be obtained and laboratory permeability testing performed to verify the in-situ
permeability. The clayey liner soils should not be allowed to dry out after
placement, which could result in cracking and significant increase in mass
permeability.
QUALIFICATION OF REPORT
Our evaluation of foundation support conditions has been based on our
understanding of the site and project information and the data obtained in our
exploration. The general subsurface conditions utilized in our evaluation have
been based on interpolation of subsurface data between the borings. In
evaluating the boring data, we have examined previous correlations between
penetration resistances and foundation bearing pressures observed in soil
conditions similar to those at your site. If the project information is
incorrect or if the lagoon location (horizontal or vertical) and/or dimensions
are changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The
discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during construction which deviate
from the data outlined in this exploration should be reported to us for our
evaluation. The assessment of site environmental conditions or the presence of
pollutants in the soil, rock and ground water of the site was beyond the scope
of this exploration.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our professional geotechnical
services during this phase of your project. Please contact us when we can be of
further service or if you have any questions concerning this report.
RDL/MYB:krh
Very truly yours,
LAW ENGINEERING
Randall "DLiAsha, E.I� T.
Staff Geotechnical Engineer
Mel Y. BT/wning, P. E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Registered, N. C. 8696
7
LAW ENGINEERING

Q
odOa txno') 3-)NVn Cmc ul
� 4 z
� Z a
} o
cc
Cz
o Z 4 a
Ld -
�i� W z o W
aQ�_ D
Q u.
zo%J
Q r
ca
,, z V 2 W =
LL z
►!,44
9 4 44 0II 1
� " "/'' •-ry ' t 1i =-moi
�T = �. Q a �1
..: (fpy�s.°Z '�P=: tf1 • n d o Lu �- J
CQ
Ldt _
Ld
All
VI
UP 2
Ul
Cu
DA cc
1A
CL
Z L Q
m \\ I
cz
CL
i n� Q

KEY TO CLASSIFICATIONS AND SYMBOLS
CORRELATION OF PENETRATION RESISTANCE WITH
RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY
No. of Blows, N - Relative Density*
0 - 4 Very Loose
5 - 10 Loose
Sands 11 - 20 Firm
21 - 30 Very Firm
31 - 50 Dense
51+ Very Dense
Consistency*
0 - 1 Very Soft
2 - 4 Soft
Silts and Clays 5 - 8 Firm
9 15 Stiff
16 30 Very Stiff
31+ Hard
SYMBOLS
- Undisturbed Sample (UD) Recovered
50=2" - Number of Blows (50) to Drive the Spoon a Number of Inches (2)
BQ,NX,NQ,NW - Core Barrel Sizes Which Obtain Cores 1-7/16, 2-1/8 Inches,
1-7/8 Inches, 2-1/16 Inches in Diameter, Respectively
65% - Percentage (65) of Rock Core Recovered (Compared to Cored
Length)
RQD - Rock Quality Designation - Percentage of Recovered Cored Length
Consisting of Moderately Hard or Better Core Segments 4 or More
Inches Long
- Water Table Approximately 24 Hours or More After Drilling
- Water Table Approximately at Time of Drilling (Within 1 Hour)
- Loss of Drilling Fluid
-,*Terminology may be altered if presence of gravel, cobbles or boulders
interferes with accurate measurement of standard penetration resistances
LAW ENGINEERIN

iw25.0
I
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION *PENETRATION BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.) ,
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 inn
972.0±
Fill -Firm Red Brown Micaceous Clayey
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt with Gravel
Residuum -Stiff to Very Stiff Red
Brown Slightly Micaceous Fine to
Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
967.0+
Very Stiff Red Brown Micaceous
Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy Silt
962.0* -
Firm Black Brown Tan to Brown Tan
Very Micaceous Silty Fine Sand
957.0`-
952.0`-
947.0±
Boring Terminated at 25.0 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring. Borehole Caved and Dry
at 18.0 Ft on 05-26-88.

3.0
1
Note: Bag Sample of Soil Obtained
From 3 to 5 Ft by Excavating
with Bulldozer.
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION *PENETRATION — BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 10-0
Fill orDisturbed Residuum -Stiff Red
Brown Slightly Micaceous Slightly
Clayey Fine to Medium Very Sandy Silt
960.0±
Residuum -Very Stiff Red Brown
Micaceous Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy
Silt to Fine Sandy Silt
(Rock Fragments Below 6 Ft.)
955.0±
Auger Refusal and Boring Terminated
at 8.0 Ft. No Ground Water
Encountered at Time of Boring.
Borehole Caved and Dry at 3.9 Ft on
05-26-88.
950.0±
4
26
28
Ij LAW ENGINEERING
l

8 0
aESCRIPTION ELEVATION
(FT.)
*PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
10 20 30 40 60 80 100
U
Auger Boring
961.o'-
956.ot
Auger Refusal and Boring Terminated
at 8.0 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring.
951.0*
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
Il TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NUMBER B -2A
DATE DRILLED 05-25-88
PROJECT NUMBER CH 6371
PROJECT ALUM SLUDGE TREATMENT
PAGE 1 OF 1

DESCRIPTION ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
Auger Boring:
963.0±
958.0±
Auger Refusal and Boring Terminated
at 8.0 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring.
953,0±
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE

DESCRIPTION ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
10
30
86
1 25
0.0"
50
5 0..
TEST BORING`RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-3
DATE DRILLED 05-25-88
PROJECT NUMBER CH 6371 -
PROJECT ALUM SLUDGE TREATMENT
PAGE 1 OF 1
94o.o-
30
40
60
80
Alluvium-Soft Tan Dark Brown Slightly
Micaceous Fine to Coarse Sandy Silt
with Small Roots
Residuum -Stiff Red Brown Slightly
Micaceous Fine to Coarse Sandy Clayey
Silt
935.0±
Very Stiff Black Red Brown Micaceous
Clayey Fine to Medium Sandy Silt with
Rock Fragments
Very Dense Red Brown Gray Micaceous
Silty Fine to Coarse Sand with Rock
Fragments
930.0*-
Partially Weathered Rock -No Sample
Recovery
925.0+
Partially Weathered Rock Sampled as
Brown Gray Tan Micaceous Silty Fine
to Coarse Sand with Rock Fragments
Boring Terminated at 18.9 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
920.0''-`
of Boring. Borehole Caved and Dry at
11.5 Ft on 05-26-88.
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
10
30
86
1 25
0.0"
50
5 0..
TEST BORING`RECORD
BORING NUMBER B-3
DATE DRILLED 05-25-88
PROJECT NUMBER CH 6371 -
PROJECT ALUM SLUDGE TREATMENT
PAGE 1 OF 1

DESCRIPTION
Co
ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
1 SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
11
22
14
10
14
17
Residuum -Stiff Red Brown Micaceous
950.0-
Slightly Clayey Fine to Medium Sandy
Silt
Very Stiff Red Brown Micaceous Fine
to Coarse Sandy Silt
-- - - - - -- - - --
Stiff Orange Brown to Black Tan
945.0+
Micaceous Fine Sandy Silt
940.0+
Firm Black Tan to Greenish Gray Tan
Very Micaceous Silty Fine Sand
935.0+
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft.
930.0+-
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring. Borehole Caved and Dry
at 10.5 Ft on 05-26-88.
1 SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
11
22
14
10
14
17

DESCRIPTION
6.o
0.3
1 3.0
i
8.0 ,
12.0
20.0
ELEVATION *PENETRATION BLOWS/FOOT.
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
6
22
16
16
11
14
965.0+
To soil
Fill -Firm Dark Brown Slightly
Micaceous Slightly Clayey Fine to
Medium Sandy Silt with Small Roots
Residuum -Very Stiff Red Brown
Micaceous To Very Micaceous Clayey to
96o.o±
Slightly Clayey Fine to Medium Sandy
Silt
Very Stiff Black Brown Tan Micaceous
Fine Sandy Silt
955.0+
Firm White Tan to Brown Tan Micaceous
Silty Fine to Medium Sand
950.0--
945.0'±
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring. Borehole Caved and Dry
at 12.0 Ft on 05-26-88.
6
22
16
16
11
14

DESCRIPTION ELEVATION *PENETRATION - BLOWS/FOOT
(FT.)
0 10 20 30 40
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
100
6
3
2
12
14
21
971.0±
60
80
Fill -Firm Red Brown Micaceous Clayey
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt
Fill -Soft Red Brown to Purple Tan
Micaceous to Very Micaceous Fine to
Medium Sandy Silt with Gravel and
Roots and Clayey Inclusions
966.0±
Residuum -Stiff Red Brown Slightly
Micaceous Clayey Fine Sandy Silt to
Fine Sandy Silt
961.o±
956.o±
Very Stiff Brown Tan Slightly
Micaceous Fine Sandy Silt
951.0 --
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft.
No Ground Water Encountered at Time
of Boring. Borehole Caved and Dry
at 11.6 Ft on 05-26-88.
SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVATIONS USED ABOVE
100
6
3
2
12
14
21

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY PERMEABILITY TESTING
I
LAW JOB NO. CH 6371
Permeability, cm/sec
Sample Natural With 3 Percent Bentonite
o.
Depth ft Soil By Weight
Boring N
(a) 1 x 10-6 (b) 8.6 x 10-7
B-1 3 - 5
3 - 5 (c) 1.5 x 10-7 --
B-2
Notes:
(a) Remolded to 95 Percent of Standard Proctor
Maximum Dry Density, at Optimum Plus 1.4 Percent Moisture
(b) Remolded to 95 Percent of Standard Proctor
Maximum Dry Density, at Optimum Plus 1.5 Percent Moisture
(c) Remolded to 95 Percent of Standard Proctor
Maximum Dry Density, at Optimum Plus 2.2 Percent Moisture

STANDARD PROCTOR REPORT
ASTM—D 698
DATE: 06-07-88
PROJECT NUMBER: CH 6371
PROJECT NAME: ALUM SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
CLIENT: HARWOOD BEBEE
SAMPLE NUMBER: 1
SOIL DESCRIPTION:
RED -BROWN SLIGHTLY MICACEOUS FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY CLAYEY SILT
PROPOSED USE:
LAGOON LINER
SOURCE LOCATION:
BORING B-1, 2' TO 5'
MOISTURE — DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
110
105
DRY UNIT
WEIGHT
f
i 100
!
95
90
LBS
/FT3
85
ZERO AIR VOID FOR:
G = 2.75
s
G = 2.70
s
G = 2.65
s
_ 80
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
WATER CONTENT — PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 24.6 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY 96.6

STANDARD PROCTOR REPORT
ASTM—D 698
DATE: 06-06-88
PROJECT NUMBER:CH 6731
PROJECT NAME: ALUM SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
CLIENT: HARWOOD BEBEE
SAMPLE NUMBER: 2
SOIL DESCRIPTION:
RED BROWN CLAYEY FINE SANDY SILT
PROPOSED USE:
LAGOON LINER
SOURCE LOCATION:
BORING B-2 2' TO 5'
I
MOISTURE — DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
95 --
I
DRY UNIT.
WEIGHT
90
85
LBS 3
FT
ZERO AIR VOID FOR:
cs = 2.75
Gs = 2.70
Gs = 2.65
40

-c?U ARG LAU00i� LL/ L w E K
1,2
ALX LX ) + ( LY, KYj + �KZ/�� X,J = 1
L=
�oxz +144-/_. 4 I-Y-� -7aj
��LZ f144x - 132,�SS -�J
2
-144+ (144)7 132,15 5 )
A4 t % rJ 751(0
�Z
-2
ch��k
12:1
rn
4
Y K • "mryio 'l DATES SUBJECT e 1 �� �{ViYi ��Yi� SHEET NO. 2 OF
HKD. BY DATE /\
JOB NO.
m1/j� PMW(0)O9 P I �s' o I ----_.DESIGN SHE
12:1
rn
4
Y K • "mryio 'l DATES SUBJECT e 1 �� �{ViYi ��Yi� SHEET NO. 2 OF
HKD. BY DATE /\
JOB NO.
m1/j� PMW(0)O9 P I �s' o I ----_.DESIGN SHE

z: i -:�(ope, al ( a four>d � fie, a(c
X3"1,2.5 CL )•1- MOO) = i S• S CF/ uN
C IOCA +u a s:, l -ibpe on one,
�� Z s, ert� reduces �-w,e vdume by
_ •Z-- -- '�' CVzYZZ)( )]13-7.29- : -741 ►.s
G(
e I erYa�F, ►�us� �e e x i'eX e d � S .5 C rlu N -741 I'S
�1 •, V ffx %l DATES SUBJECT—�[�sZ'n�J
SHEET NO. OF
IKD. BY � DATE 4--1
JOB NO. V' -F-
�n /R� o wAw (o) no (D) (Z i� (� ri-2 fi

+pec far La�_c oon Lil liver
sc�- d =�� R =12' sed Ltl =1►n
^Desigr� @ ►� o, o ab �._ = 133,eo9a cr
-7 32 L
L:- Iio,S
_ Check
(rio.S k 1 lox L,) +
L=VI1 LL�=110
'ro ►make de,a ')trA3 o� 4-e laTon mSief ,ore erd �shd�Id be
V►ope.d s ; -�o , backhoe. or kor,� -erx� I�acler Co.r, � driven
_In% 4x, Loon.
2:1
V.
T 2:I
Lj4k 0. el I slope of I ofoUrj 4vfE
OUr� 110C(o)i- IZ(,(o) = 732��UN FT
CIWYi-b a 5,1 slope, on ohe,
tr,d reduce- 44he volorne kxj
30 �2 Cl2)WO ( 10 = 514 c
..
-h ler k must be eXi'ereied 32C-%, r -r = 5g4O csF
DATE IQ -a'98 SUBJECT �f- G�t1 alum LAQ000S SHEET NO. � OF
KD. BY • DATE JOB NO. 4�(�
M n FOMI7(]nf1

_ /2-1 4- l2/4 133. z; _
-- _13.y f._ / 3 9 t-• 1 61—?. 2 f
ol
Z _
wL x !Z -a sv
_4a'sy X
5 Ld -7—o , c;Z _ 75-7:5 2, S s Y
QFC%/ NC,uLA
,bedtfo.,, ¢Y
_ � t d es w = �• 5:1 _ _ _
vz
15 7L -
--------DATE SUBJECT
----DATE
bQG°3�In UOO [off o
SHEET NO.-OF-
JOB
O. OFJOB NO.
e 4-
4 c
SY
--------DATE SUBJECT
----DATE
bQG°3�In UOO [off o
SHEET NO.-OF-
JOB
O. OFJOB NO.