You are on page 1of 2532

Building lifetime relationships with our

clients and employees.

6NYCRR Part 360
Area 7 Development Application

Engineering Report
Town of Colonie Landfill
June 2016
Prepared for:

1319 Loudon Road
Cohoes, NY 12047

1200 Scottsville Road
Building C, Suite 320
Rochester, NY 14624
(845) 695-0200

TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................... II
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .......................................................................................VIII
1

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2

1.3
1.4

2

SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

2.5

2.6
2.7

3

PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................1
WASTE QUANTITIES AND SERVICE AREA .............................................................................3
1.2.1 WASTE TYPES ACCEPTED AND SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION .........................3
1.2.2 SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES .......................................................................................3
1.2.3 SERVICE AREAS .........................................................................................................4
PREVIOUS LANDFILL OPERATING PERMITS ..........................................................................4
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS ..................................................................................5
1.4.1 NEW YORK STATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................5
1.4.2 LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ..............................................................5

FACILITY PROPERTY, LOCATION AND ZONING ....................................................................7
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND UTILITY EASEMENTS...............................................................8
SITE TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................8
SITE GEOLOGY.......................................................................................................................9
2.4.1 GLACIOLACUSTRINE SILT AND CLAY .........................................................................9
2.4.2 ALLUVIUM ...............................................................................................................10
2.4.3 GLACIAL TILL...........................................................................................................10
2.4.4 BEDROCK .................................................................................................................10
2.4.5 RECENT FILL MATERIALS ........................................................................................11
2.4.6 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ................................................................................................11
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY .........................................................................................................11
2.5.1 UPPER WATER-BEARING ZONE ...............................................................................12
2.5.2 INTERMEDIATE WATER-BEARING ZONE..................................................................12
2.5.3 LOWER WATER BEARING ZONE...............................................................................13
FRESHWATER WETLANDS ...................................................................................................13
EXISTING/PREVIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS/AREAS .................................14

EXISTING LANDFILL SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 16
3.1
3.2
3.3

LINER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................16
POREWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................16
LEACHATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................16

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

iii

3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7

4

SITING CRITERIA ...................................................................................................... 25
4.1
4.2

5

LANDFILL FINAL GRADING DESIGN ...................................................................................18
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................18
LFG MANAGEMENT ...........................................................................................................20
UNNAMED AREA - 1.9(G) DEMONSTRATION –...................................................................21
3.7.1 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................22
3.7.2 GROUNDWATER FLOW ............................................................................................22
3.7.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS COMPLETED FOR THE UNNAMED AREA .................................22
3.7.4 EFFECT OF THE AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT ON THE UNNAMED AREA REMEDIAL
ACTIONS ..................................................................................................................23
3.7.5 MONITORABILITY ....................................................................................................23

PROHIBITED SITING .............................................................................................................25
LANDFILL SITING RESTRICTIONS ........................................................................................28

PROPOSED FACILITY DESIGN ................................................................................. 35
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

5.5

5.6

HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ..............................................................................36
SITE LIFE..............................................................................................................................37
PART 360 EQUIVALENT DESIGN ELEMENTS .......................................................................37
SUPPORTING FACILITIES......................................................................................................38
5.4.1 LEACHATE STORAGE FACILITY ................................................................................38
5.4.2 ENTRANCE FACILITIES .............................................................................................38
5.4.3 OFFICES ...................................................................................................................39
LINER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................39
5.5.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................39
5.5.2 NATURAL SUBGRADE ..............................................................................................40
5.5.2.1 Overfill Liner Subgrade .......................................................................41
5.5.3 POREWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM ............................................................................42
5.5.4 SOIL LINER ..............................................................................................................43
5.5.5 SECONDARY HDPE GEOMEMBRANE ......................................................................43
5.5.6 SECONDARY COLLECTION SYSTEM..........................................................................43
5.5.7 GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER....................................................................................44
5.5.8 PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE .......................................................................................45
5.5.9 PRIMARY GEOTEXTILE CUSHION .........................................................................45
5.5.10 PRIMARY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM ........................................................45
COVER SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................................46
5.6.1 DAILY COVER ..........................................................................................................46
5.6.2 INTERMEDIATE COVER ............................................................................................47
5.6.3 FINAL COVER SYSTEM .............................................................................................47

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

iv

5.6.3.1 Landfill Gas Venting Layer .................................................................48
5.6.3.2 Geomembrane .......................................................................................48
5.6.3.3 GCL .........................................................................................................48
5.6.3.4 Barrier Protection Layer .......................................................................48
5.6.3.5 Soil Suitable for Vegetative Cover ......................................................49
5.6.3.6 Vegetative Cover ...................................................................................49
5.7 CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE PLAN ........................................................................................50
5.7.1 CLOSURE PLAN........................................................................................................50
5.7.1.1 Post Closure Care..................................................................................50
5.8 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................51
5.8.1 LEACHATE GENERATION RATE FACTORS ................................................................52
5.8.1.1 HELP Model ..........................................................................................53
5.8.1.2 Existing Leachate Generation Data ....................................................56
5.8.1.3 Leachate Generation Estimate.............................................................57
5.8.2 LEACHATE CONVEYANCE, STORAGE AND TRANSFER SYSTEMS ...................57
5.8.2.1 Collection Piping and Cleanouts ........................................................58
5.8.2.2 Collection Sumps and Siderisers ........................................................59
5.8.2.3 Sideriser Stations ...................................................................................59
5.8.2.4 Flow Control and Monitoring Devices ..............................................60
5.8.2.5 Existing Landfill Retrofitting ..............................................................60
5.8.2.6 Leachate Conveyance System ........................................................60
5.8.2.7 Leachate Storage/Transfer Facility .............................................62
5.8.3 LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................64
5.8.4 LEACHATE RECIRCULATION ....................................................................................65
5.9 LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .............................................................................66
5.10 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................68
5.10.1 SUBSURFACE INFORMATION ....................................................................................68
5.10.1.1 Geologic Units and Engineering Properties......................................68
5.10.1.2 Field Investigations...............................................................................69
5.10.1.2.1 Previous Investigations ........................................................69
5.10.1.3 Area 7 Development Investigation.....................................................69
5.10.1.4 Laboratory Test Data ............................................................................69
5.10.1.5 Geotechnical Parameters of Fills and Improved Soils .....................70
5.10.1.6 Piezometric Levels ................................................................................70
5.10.2 STABILITY ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................71
5.10.2.1 Acceptable Factors of Safety for Slope Stability ...............................71
5.10.2.2 Perimeter Berm and Landfill Stability Analysis Procedure............71
5.10.2.3 Short-term Analysis Versus Long-term Analysis ............................72

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

v

5.10.2.4 Selection of Strength Parameters ........................................................73
5.10.2.5 Stability Analyses for Area 7 ...............................................................75
5.10.2.5.1 Selection of Cross Section Locations for Evaluation ............75
5.10.2.5.2 Perimeter Berm Stability......................................................75
5.10.2.5.3 Global Stability ....................................................................75
5.10.2.6 Geosynthetic Parameters .....................................................................76
5.10.2.7 Baseliner Slope Stability Analysis ......................................................76
5.10.2.7.1 Design Requirements ...........................................................76
5.10.2.7.2 Baseliner Stability Analysis .................................................77
5.10.2.7.3 Placement Requirements ......................................................78
5.10.2.8 Final Cover Slope Stability ..................................................................78
5.10.2.8.1 Design Requirements ...........................................................78
5.10.2.8.2 Cover Stability Analysis Parameters ...................................80
5.10.2.8.3 Cover Stability Analysis ......................................................81
5.10.2.8.4 Placement Requirements ......................................................81
5.10.2.9 Stability of Swale Embankment ..........................................................82
5.10.2.10Stability Recommendations For Waste at Field Moisture Capacity82
5.10.3 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................83
5.10.3.1 General 83
5.10.3.2 Selection of Critical Settlement Analysis Locations .........................83
5.10.3.3 Analysis Procedure ...............................................................................83
5.10.3.4 Selection of Settlement Parameters ....................................................84
5.10.3.5 Baseliner and Leachate Collection Pipe Settlement Assessment ...85
5.10.3.6 Baseliner Strain......................................................................................86
5.10.4 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................86
5.10.5 POREWATER RELIEF SYSTEM ...................................................................................86
5.11 LANDSCAPE PLAN ..............................................................................................................87
5.12 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ................................88
5.12.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................89
5.12.2 DESIGN METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................90
5.12.3 CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS ..........................................................................................90
5.12.3.1 Final Cover Sideslope Swales..............................................................91
5.12.3.2 Downdrains ...........................................................................................91
5.12.3.3 Conveyance Channels ..........................................................................92
5.12.3.4 Culverts 92
5.12.3.5 Stormwater Inlets and Piping .............................................................92
5.12.4 STORMWATER RETENTION PONDS ..........................................................................92
5.12.4.1 Stormwater Wet Pond Design ............................................................93

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

vi

5.12.4.2 Stormwater Discharge Rates ...............................................................93
5.12.4.3 Water Quality Volume .........................................................................94
5.12.5 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS ............................................................94
5.12.5.1 Runoff and Drainage Controls ............................................................94
5.12.5.2 Erosion Control (Stabilization) ...........................................................95
5.12.5.3 Dust Control ..........................................................................................98
5.12.5.4 Sediment Control ..................................................................................98

6

LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS ................................................. 101
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6

GENERAL ...........................................................................................................................101
LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION ...............................................................................................101
WASTE FILL PROGRESSION ...............................................................................................103
WASTE OPERATIONS .........................................................................................................105
6.4.1 SELECT WASTE ......................................................................................................106
COVER MATERIALS MANAGEMENT .................................................................................106
OPERATIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING .................................................................109

LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................... 110
TABLES ............................................................................................................................. 111
FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... 112
ATTACHMENT 1 ENGINEERING PERMIT DRAWINGS
ATTACHMENT 2 SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
ATTACHMENT 3 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN
ATTACHMENT 4 CQA/CQC PLAN
ATTACHMENT 5 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 6 CONCEPTUAL CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE PLAN
ATTACHMENT 7 SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
ATTACHMENT 8 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENT 9 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
ATTACHMENT 10 LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT AND ODOR CONTROL PLAN

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

vii

List of Tables and Figures
Tables
1-1
5-1

Historical Waste Acceptance
Leachate Generation Estimates

Figures
2-1
4-1
5-1

Facility/Project Limits
Flood Boundary Detail
Liner Type Location Map

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

viii

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This Engineering Report, along with its accompanying appendices, provides a
comprehensive set of documents comprising an application for a permit modification to
develop and operate Area 7 (Area 7 Development) at the Town of Colonie Landfill, which
operates under NYSDEC Solid Waste Management Permit #4-0126-00033/00001. This
report supports a modification of the existing permit. The Town of Colonie Landfill is
owned by the Town of Colonie and has been operated by Capital Region Landfills, Inc.
(CRL) since 2011.
The Area 7 Development, which will provide continued waste capacity beyond the
currently permitted life, is proposed to continue to function as outlined in the Town of
Colonie Solid Waste Management Plan. The remaining permitted capacity at the existing
landfill as of December 31, 2013 was approximately 1,517,000 million cubic yards (based on
a comparison of August 23, 2013 topography and permitted surfaces, and waste volume
during the last several month of the year). Depending on the rate of utilization and in place
density, this airspace likely represents a site life through 2017 (using currently permitted
waste acceptance rates).
In all, the Area 7 Development is anticipated to comprise approximately 132 acres of
activities on an approximately 212 acre site. The Area 7 Development is a proposed
horizontal and vertical landfill development generally to the north and west of the active
landfill operations of the existing landfill that will increase the permitted height of the
landfill to 517 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The preliminary area of proposed liner
construction is anticipated to be approximately 60 acres with an additional 45 acres of
vertical landfill development over the existing Areas 5 and 6. Approximately 23 acres will
be “new” waste footprint with the balance of new liner to be constructed over existing
Areas 1-4 waste footprint). The development will also involve the removal of the existing
leachate storage lagoons and replacement with tanks and will involve the relocation of the
landfill entrance.
With the exception of the Yard Waste Composting Facility, which will be removed as part
of this permit modification, the other waste activities at the site with specified tonnage
limits (Household Hazardous Waste Storage Facility, Regulated Medical Waste Collection
Storage and Transfer Facility, Solid Waste Transfer Facility, Materials Recycling Facility)
will continue as currently permitted for the majority of the proposed permit term. While
continued operation of these facilities is not anticipated through the life of the development
due to location conflicts, should they be relocated and remain operational, the relocated
facilities will be presented in the construction plans for a given phase.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

1

This Engineering Report documents the basis for the engineering design of the facilities and
has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 360-2.7 of Title 6 of the
New York Codes, Rules, Regulations, Part 360 (Part 360), effective October 9, 1993.
This Engineering Report discusses the overall design and performance criteria, including a
presentation of the salient features of each system, and is organized as follows:

Section 1 provides an overall description of the proposed development, site
history, and permitting requirements. For landfill-related facilities, documents
provided in support of required permits are provided in the associated
appendices, while other related permits/approvals that have, or are being
obtained, are discussed.

Section 2 provides a site description, including existing and surrounding zoning,
site and regional hydrology and hydrogeology, and previous disposal areas.

Section 3 provides a description of existing landfill facilities/operations.

Section 4 provides a description and evaluation of various siting criteria,
including landfill siting and prohibitions.

Section 5 provides a description and engineering design of the proposed
facilities. The information provided in Section 5 is supported by engineering
drawings, and the evaluation and design performed in support of the specific
component (e.g., leachate collection).

Section 6 provides an overview of the operation and maintenance of the
proposed landfill and supporting facilities. Supporting documents, which
provide more detailed plans for operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the
landfill are referenced and provided as appendices.

Attached to this report are the associated engineering drawings developed in support of the
Area 7 Development application.
Appendices to the Engineering Report prepared by Cornerstone (unless noted otherwise),
which were mentioned above, consist of the following:

Attachment 1 - Engineering Drawings

Attachment 2 - Site Investigation Report

Attachment 3 - Environmental Monitoring Plan

Attachment 4 - CQA/CQC Plan

Attachment 5 - Operations and Maintenance Plan

Attachment 6 - Conceptual Closure/Post-Closure Plan

Attachment 7 - Supporting Calculations

Attachment 8 - Supporting Documentation

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

2

1.2 Waste Quantities and Service Area
This section describes the landfill services by defining the types and quantities of waste that
are disposed at the Town of Colonie Landfill, and the geographic service area of the facility.

1.2.1 Waste Types Accepted and Solid Waste Characterization
The Town of Colonie Landfill accepts only non-hazardous municipal, commercial and
industrial solid waste streams for disposal, in accordance with applicable Part 360
requirements and the facility’s permit. The 2013 operating data for the facility indicate the
following general breakdown expressed in percentages of waste received:
71%

Municipal Solid Waste

4%

Industrial Waste (Including Alum)

5%

Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge

19%

Construction and Demolition Debris

1%

Hurricane Sandy Waste

0%

Friable Asbestos

0%

Medical Wastes

Over the five year period from 2009 through 2013, 72% of the waste accepted at the landfill
was MSW, while approximately 16% was C&D waste. Other waste types (industrial wastes
and sludges) made up the remaining 12%. Waste composition at the landfill is expected to
remain generally consistent with the recent historical data.
The Town of Colonie Landfill will continue to accept only non-hazardous municipal,
commercial and industrial solid waste streams for disposal, in accordance with applicable
Part 360 requirements and its permit. Special waste streams will be characterized by the
generator and the available data will be reviewed for acceptability by CRL prior to disposal
and as described in more detail in Attachment 5, the Operations and Maintenance Plan.

1.2.2 Solid Waste Quantities
The Town of Colonie Landfill is currently permitted to accept a maximum of 820 tons of
waste per operating day (tpd) (based on a 25 operating day rolling average) provided that
on an annual basis, no more than 255,840 tons per year are received and disposed of in the
landfill.
According to records provided by the Town of Colonie, the landfill has accepted
approximately 5.3 million tons of waste since 1973. Annual waste acceptance has ranged
from a low of approximately 75,000 in 1987 up to a high of approximately 254,700 tons in
2014. From 2000 through 2011, annual waste acceptance was relatively steady at an average
of approximately 150,000 tons per year. However, with the permit modification in 2012 that
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

3

brought the daily and annual tonnages in line with each other (as described in Section 1.3)
and waste placed as a result of and Emergency Action (Hurricane Sandy response) the
waste volumes for 2012 and 2013 were approximately 208,000 and 254,000 tons,
respectively.
The Area 7 Development will create approximately 11,600,000 cubic yards of additional
solid waste disposal capacity. The design capacity requested by this application does not
change the daily or annual maximum tonnages that are currently allowed in the existing
permit. At the existing disposal rate and including an allocation for BUD materials, the
proposed Development will have an estimated site life of 21.8 years. Details of site life
estimates and waste quantities per Phase of landfill operation are presented subsequent
sections of this report.

1.2.3 Service Areas
The primary service area of the landfill is the Capital Region of New York State, providing
waste disposal services for communities and businesses in the surrounding counties. The
Town of Colonie Landfill’s importance as a disposal facility to the management of solid
waste in the Capital Region is significant. Most of the counties in the immediate vicinity of
the landfill do not have their own disposal capacity or have limited landfill capacity. In
2013, 92% of the total 253,000 tons of wastes that were disposed at the landfill originated
from within the counties in the vicinity of the landfill: Albany (24%), Rensselaer (28%);
Saratoga (35%); and Washington (5%).
Consistent with the approved Local Solid Waste Management Plan and historical practices,
the landfill operates as a “regional, merchant solid waste management facility.” The
primary service area of a private landfill is not limited by municipal boundaries in the same
way that such boundaries may limit municipally owned and operated disposal sites.
Service area boundaries for the proposed Development are not intended to be permanent or
exclusive. Competing solid waste collection and disposal facilities exist within the service
area, and this competition benefits the residents and industries located in these areas.

1.3 Previous Landfill Operating Permits
In November 1993, an engineering and design report was prepared in accordance with the
Part 360 requirements. The engineering and design report was submitted to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to obtain approval to modify
the existing landfill to incorporate a vertical development in Area 4 and the development of
Area 5. The work was collectively called the "Area 5 Landfill Expansion." and a Part 360
permit was issued.
Following the development under the original Part 360 Permit, an application was
submitted in December 2002 for a modification of the permit to construct and operate Area
6. The permit was subsequently renewed and modified to accommodate additional

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

4

authorized activities at the site (HHW, Yard Waste Composting, Medical Waste Storage,
Transfer Facility, Materials Recycling Facility).
In 2012, a permit modification application was submitted to bring the allowable daily
tonnage in line with the allowable annual tonnage. Previously the allowable daily tonnage
did not correlate with the anticipated number of operating days and the allowable tonnage
limit. While the average daily tonnage stayed the same (820 tpd), the allowable annual
tonnage was increase from 170,500 to 255,840 tons per year.

1.4 Solid Waste Management Plans
1.4.1 New York State Solid Waste Management Plan
CRL's proposed Area 7 Development is consistent with current state policy regarding waste
management and disposal. Specifically, the NYSDEC Report titled “Beyond Waste – a
Sustainable Materials Management Strategy for New York State”, adopted December 27, 2012
recognizes that existing landfills and expansions of existing sites impact fewer natural
resources than a new site, and goes on to say in Section 9.4.9 that, “This trend toward
expansions and optimizing capacity at existing land-disposal operations helps establish an existing
and perhaps sustainable landfill disposal infrastructure such that the state’s land resources can be
conserved to the maximum extent possible.” CRL's operation also addresses more than land
disposal of solid waste. CRL's operation also will continue to provide landfill gas to
Innovative Energy Systems, Inc. which has constructed and is operating a landfill gas fired
electrical generating plant.

1.4.2 Local Solid Waste Management Plan
The Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 mandated the creation of solid waste planning
units, and the development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans (LSWMP's). A
fundamental objective of LSWMP's is to establish short, intermediate and long term goals
for the management of solid waste generated within the planning unit. The Town of
Colonie Landfill is located within the Town of Colonie Local Solid Waste Management
Planning Unit which includes not only the Town of Colonie, but also the Village of
Menands, the Village of Colonie, and the City of Cohoes.
The most current, approved Solid Waste Management Plan for the Town of Colonie, ,
which was updated for the 2007-2008 calendar years in December of 2009, indicates the
landfill as the first facility to be used for management of solid waste within the planning
unit. Additionally, in its Summary Solid Waste Management Program Schedule, which is
Appendix 7 of the 2009 LSWMP, the completion of a design for Landfill Area 7 is listed as
an activity in 2014. The Town of Colonie Landfill is an acceptable and permittable site that
has been approved by the NYSDEC on several occasions since the approval of the original
Solid Waste Management Plan. No other new disposal capacity has been developed in the

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

5

planning unit. Therefore, the proposed Area 7 Development is part of the approved Solid
Waste Management Plan and is consistent with its goals and objectives.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

6

2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the site characteristics, including:

Description of the facility property, location and zoning,

Site topography;

Site geology/hydrogeology;

Site hydrology;

Wetlands;

Previous site operation/disposal areas;

Current site/landfill areas.

2.1 Facility Property, Location and Zoning
The Site is located in the northern portion of the Town of Colonie (Albany County)
proximate to the Mohawk River. The Site is roughly triangular in shape with a narrow
northern end and widening to the south.
To the west of the Site is US Route 9, with mixed commercial, residential/planned
residential properties west of US Route 9. There are several residential and commercial
parcels located between the Site and US Route 9 at the Site’s southwestern corner, including
a church. North of the Site is a commercial property (currently unoccupied due to a recent
fire) with the Mohawk River farther to the north. To the east of the Site is Cohoes-Crescent
Road, with the Mohawk River immediately east of the road. The properties south of the
Site are commercial and industrial in nature and include the Town-owned parcels.
The Town of Colonie solid waste management facilities, including the landfill, are located
on contiguous Town-owned parcels comprising approximately 212 acres. The Facility is
located primarily within the IND-Industrial District of the Town of Colonie. While
landfilling is not identified as a specific use within the Town Code, Municipal Uses, which
the existing and proposed Area 7 Development will be, are an approved use. Similarly the
northeast and eastern portions of the site are within the LC – Land Conservation District,
which also lists Municipal Uses as an approved use. The proposed landfill footprint is
located within areas currently used for landfilling or solid waste activities.
Land use in the vicinity of the site is a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial.
Commercial/residential use is located to the west of the site, industrial use is located to the
south of the site and a road/river is located to the east of the site. Residential and
commercial businesses are present on the surrounding roadways.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

7

2.2 Property Ownership and Utility Easements
As indicated above, the Town of Colonie facility is municipally owned and privately
operated as a non-hazardous solid waste disposal facility situated on approximately 212
acres of town property holdings Within these property holdings, the proposed area to be
occupied by landfill operations (facility limits) totals approximately 153 acres, including
proposed landfill areas; existing and proposed stormwater management facilities; the
leachate management facility; resident drop-off areas; and miscellaneous supporting
facilities such as the office, access roads, truck queuing areas, and a scalehouse. The
property boundaries are shown on Sheets S-1 through S-3 of the Engineering Drawings and
the facility boundary can be seen on Figure 2-1, made part of this report.
After Capital Region Landfills, Inc. and the Town of Colonie executed the operating
agreement in 2011, a review of property records identified two parcels that had been
landfilled decades ago as part of the Town’s landfill operations and were encompassed by
other Town of Colonie properties, but The Town was not the owner of record. From 2014 to
2016, the ownership of these two parcels (parcels 2.3-2-7 and 2.3-2-8, which have historically
been part of the landfill facility and were landfilled decades ago) has been corrected to
properly reflect the historical use of these parcels by the Town of Colonie. Both parcels are
now owned by the Town of Colonie.
Innovative Energy Systems, Inc. (IES) is currently operating a separate landfill gas to energy
(LFGTE) facility on the southeastern portion of the site. IES has been granted a lease by the
Town of Colonie for a 1.25-acre area on which their recovery/power generating facility is
located. The proposed leachate storage facilities will be located within this lease area,
however, their construction will be completed in accordance with the terms of the lease and
coordinated with IES to minimize impact to their operations.
It should be noted that the survey indicates an easement to ATT on the west side of the site.
That easement no longer exists and that area is fully owned and controlled by the Town.
Existing utility easements and rights-of-way are shown on Sheets S-1 through S-3 of the
Engineering Drawings.

2.3 Site Topography
The site ranges in elevation from approximately 195 feet amsl in the eastern portion of the
site, to approximately 400 feet amsl at the current top of the Area 5 Landfill Cell. The south
end of the site contains the relatively flat Area 6 Landfill Cell at approximately 300 feet amsl
with the areas adjacent to Area 6 sloping downward to the south, west, and east. Area 5
represents the topographic high at the site, approximately 400 feet amsl, and slopes
downward to the north (Area 4), south (Area 6), east, and west. Area 4 is located adjacent
to the north slope of Area 5 and continues the downward sloping trend to the northwest
and northeast. The western slopes of Area 4, Area 5, and Area 6 Landfill Cells slope
downward to the west and northwest from the topographic high in the center of the site.
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

8

Almost the entire site drains from west to east, towards the Mohawk River. The exception
is a small area west of the office building that drains to the west and discharges into the
Route 9 drainage system of ditches and driveway culverts. Ultimately, drainage originating
from, or passing through the landfill site discharges into the Mohawk River.

2.4 Site Geology
The site geology has been previously described within the Area 6 Supplemental Site
Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001). The information from the Area 6 report has
been combined with the data collected under the current Part 360 Hydrogeologic
Investigation and is presented in Section 4.2 of the Site Investigation Report (SIR) which is
Attachment 2 to this application. A summary of the site geology is contained in the
following sections. The unconsolidated deposits underlying the facility generally consist of
an upper glaciolacustrine, varved silt and clay unit underlain by till. Where the
glaciolacustrine unit is absent, till is present at the ground surface. Also present is a limited
area of Alluvium deposits at the northeast corner of the Site.
Underlying the
unconsolidated deposits is shale bedrock. Each of these units is described below.
East-west orientated geologic cross-sections representing the northern, central and southern
portions of the site are depicted on Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 of the SIR, respectively. A
geologic cross-section oriented north to south through the center of the site is presented on
Figure 4-4.

2.4.1 Glaciolacustrine Silt and Clay
The glaciolacustrine deposits typically consist of an upper oxidized brown silt and clay unit
containing some silt partings, and a lower gray unoxidized silt and clay to clay unit. These
units contain minor amounts of wood fragments and both units contain varves of either silt
or fine sand. The contact between the upper brown clay unit and the lower gray clay unit is
typically gradational, with mottling occurring above the transition to solid gray.
In addition to the color change between the upper oxidized portion and the lower
unoxidized portion of the glaciolacustrine clay unit, the lower portion is less compact. In
the brown silt and clay unit, the blow counts per six inches on a standard split spoon
ranged from four to six. The number of blows per six inches in the gray clay unit across the
entire site ranged from zero (weight of hammer and drilling rods) to three.
The thickness of the glaciolacustrine deposits varies across the site from thin to absent to as
much as 60 feet. In general, the glaciolacustrine deposits are thickest to the east, closer to
the Mohawk River and thinnest to the west at higher elevations. At the eastern edge of the
site (locations CHA-5B, B-2013-10 and B-2013-12) the glaciolacustrine deposits directly
overly bedrock (i.e., the glacial till is not present).

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

9

2.4.2 Alluvium
The Alluvium deposits generally consist of medium to course grained sand and fine
gravels. These deposits are found in the northeast corner of the site and range in thickness
from 4 to 22 ft. Alluvium deposits were observed at boring locations B-2013-8, B-2013-9, B2013-12, well cluster locations MW-2013-2 and MW-2013-4, and well location CW-5.
As referenced in Section 2.5 of the SIR, and as detailed within the Primary and Principal
Aquifer Determinations document (NYDEC, 1990), a primary aquifer is a highly productive
aquifer presently being utilized as a source of water supply by major municipal water
supply systems. A principal aquifer is defined as an aquifer that is known to be highly
productive, but not currently being utilized as a source of water by a major municipal
system. The document further explains that a principal aquifer is one that covers a
minimum of 5 to 10 square miles of continuous area, saturated deposits of highly
permeable material with an average thickness of at least 20 feet, and is capable of sustained
yields from individual wells of 50 gallons per minute or greater over a 2 square mile area or
greater.
Based on these criteria, the Alluvium deposits found at the site do not meet the definition of
a primary or principal aquifer.

2.4.3 Glacial Till
The glacial till unit is generally characterized as a heterogeneous mix of gravel, cobbles,
boulders, and fragments of the underlying shale bedrock, within a matrix of clay, silt and
sand. It is typically brown near the ground surface due to oxidation, and grades to gray
with depth.
The till is significantly denser than the silt and clay unit. Blow counts per six inches on a
split spoon using the standard penetration test, generally range from 25 to greater than 100.
Occasional, discontinuous sand lenses, as much as five feet in thickness, are reported within
the till unit. Reworked portions of the till have also been noted (MPI-2 well location), that
are less dense and of slightly greater permeability than the surrounding materials.
The till varies in thickness across the site ranging from thin to not present near the eastern
portion of the site and greater than 89 feet to the west underlying the higher elevations.

2.4.4 Bedrock
The bedrock underlying the site consists of interbedded layers of greywacke (gray, poorly
sorted sandstone) and shale, believed to be part of the Ordovician aged Austin Glen
Formation. The depth to bedrock varies from as little as 2 feet to greater than 89 feet across
the site.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

10

Collectively, the data indicate that the bedrock surface slopes downward, from an elevation
high of approximately 260 amsl in the southwest corner of the site towards the Mohawk
River to the east and north. A top of rock surface elevation map is presented on Figure 4-5.

2.4.5 Recent Fill Materials
Much of the northern portion of the proposed Area 7 Landfill Expansion consists of fill
(waste) materials overlaying natural soils. Waste materials were found within borings: B2013-3, B-2013-4, B-2013-5, B-2013-6, B-2013-7, B-2013-8, B-2013-10, B-2013-11, B-2013-12, B2013-13, MW-2013-2D and MW 2013-4D. Waste was found to be overlaying glacial till,
glaciolacustrine deposits and alluvium deposits. Waste encountered was covered with fill
material consisting primarily of silt and clays.

2.4.6 Bedrock Geology
The Town of Colonie Landfill lies within the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands physiographic
province (Broughton, et al., 1966). Bedrock in the project area is mapped as shales and
graywackes of the Austin Glen Formation (Fisher et. al., 1970). The occurrence of the
Austin glen formation in this area is the result of landsliding and thrust faulting which
occurred during the Taconic Orogeny of the late-medial Ordovician period.
During this time period the land to the east of the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands province
was undergoing continued uplift approaching the climax of the Taconic Orogeny that
occurred in the late-Ordovician. The end result of this orogeny was a high standing
mountain range in eastern New York, Vermont and southern New England (Empire, 1989).
This uplift caused the thrust faulting and landsliding of bedrock and soils which
transported the nappe of Austin Glen Formation to its current location. As bedrock
mapping of the area indicates (Fischer et. Al., 1970), the formation is an oval shaped, thrust
fault surrounded feature nearly 13 miles long (north to south) and five (5) miles wide (east
to west).

2.5 Site Hydrogeology
The geology of the site has been described in previous sections of this report. In this
section, the interrelationships between groundwater and various geologic deposits are
described. Groundwater elevation measurements recorded November 8, 2013 and May 28,
2014, are presented in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 of the SIR, respectively.
The Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001) describes
groundwater flow beneath the facility and assigns three water-bearing zones:

An upper water-bearing zone where the water table is present.

An intermediate water-bearing zone at the glacial deposit/bedrock interface.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

11

A lower water-bearing zone in the bedrock.

The information collected under the current investigation continues to support the division
of groundwater into the three distinct water-bearing zones as described in the SIR
(Attachment 2 of this application) and summarized in the following sections.

2.5.1 Upper Water-Bearing Zone
The saturated glaciolacustrine silt and clay, as well as the till, act as a single low
permeability, unconfined, hydrogeologic zone. The water table is found within the till in
the western portion of the site (i.e., PZ-3, MW-2013-1S) and in the glaciolacustrine silt and
clay in the eastern portion of the site (i.e., MW-9S, MW-2013-3). Thus, the upper waterbearing zone is not coincident with a single stratigraphic unit.
Groundwater flow in the upper water-bearing zone is generally to the east toward the
Mohawk River, which represents the regional groundwater discharge area. Historically,
localized discharge points have been reported associated with topographically low areas
across the site. However, these localized areas are no longer present following re-grading
and development of the site.
Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 was used to construct the
upper water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps as presented in the SIR.
Groundwater flow as mapped by the most recently collected data is generally consistent
(absent localized discharge points as described above) with mapping completed as part of
previous investigations.

2.5.2 Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
The interface between the saturated glacial deposits and top of bedrock acts as a single,
moderately permeable, confined, hydrogeologic zone with groundwater flow to the
Mohawk River to the east. Historically, localized upward gradients were observed between
this zone and the upper water-bearing zone near topographically low areas of the site.
However, these topographically low areas are no longer present and downward vertical
gradients now dominate with the strongest downward gradients observed at the higher
elevations to the west and decreasing to the east towards the Mohawk River. Upward
gradients are present between the intermediate and upper water-bearing zones on the east
side of the site along the Mohawk River.
Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 were used to construct
the intermediate water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps as presented on Figures
4-7 and 4-9, respectively of the SIR. Groundwater flow as mapped by the most recently
collected data is generally consistent with mapping completed as part of previous
investigations.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

12

2.5.3 Lower Water Bearing Zone
As described in the Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001)
groundwater flow within the bedrock is primarily contained in secondary features such as
fractures, joints, bedding and cleavage planes. Groundwater flow is to the east, with
discharge to the Mohawk River. Additional investigation of the lower (bedrock) waterbearing zone was not conducted during the Area 7 hydrogeologic investigation as it is not
part of the critical stratigraphic section as described in the SIR.

2.6 Freshwater Wetlands
Cornerstone retained Bagdon Environmental to perform wetlands delineation on
approximately 167 acres of land owned by the Town of Colonie that encompassed the Area
7 Development disturbance limits. The focus of the wetlands delineation studies was to
identify wetlands boundaries on the town properties. In addition to the wetlands
delineation, additional data was collected by Bagdon on vegetation and wildlife present in
the wetlands to further evaluate the wetlands communities.
Based upon the delineation, 4.64± acres of wetlands are found on the 167± acre area
investigated by Bagdon Environmental. These wetlands are generally topography driven
and are the result of landfill construction and activity. Much of the water onsite is directed
via extensive subsurface pipe systems, culverts and riprap drainages, manmade berms and
water treatment ponds. Almost no natural or previously existing water features can be
found within the area of investigation.
On site meetings were held between Bagdon Environmental, Cornerstone, the NYSDEC
and the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to verify the wetland limits in the field
delineated by Bagdon Environmental. Upon field concurrence with the agencies, Bagdon
Environmental submitted the delineation report to the ACOE. After review and
subsequent correspondence, the ACOE issued a letter of jurisdictional determination on
April 16, 2014, confirming the wetland areas as follows:
Wetland Designation
A
B
C-1
C-2
D
E
F

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

Delineated Wetlands
Type
Emergent
Emergent-Forested
Isolated
Isolated
Isolated
Emergent/Roadside
Emergent
Total =

13

Size (ac)
0.13
2.80
0.54
0.27
0.002
0.77
0.13
4.64

Areas C-1, C-2, and D, which are associated with existing landfill drainage systems at the
south end of the site were determined to be isolated and therefore, non-jurisdictional.
Areas E and F, which were delineated primarily to determine the estimated limits of the
wetland mitigation project that was completed during the development of Area 6, are not
within the proposed limits of disturbance for the Area 7 Development. Wetland Areas E
and F are also contiguous with State wetland areas to the southeast of the site. While
Wetland Area E is within 100-feet of the proposed disturbance limits, the proposed landfill
construction and operation is consistent with the existing land use (landfill and leachate
ponds) that are within 100 feet of Wetland Area E. There is no proposed disturbance within
100-feet of Wetland F.
Wetland Areas A and B are located at the south end of the site and consist of 0.13 acres and
2.80 acres of wetland area respectively. These wetland areas are within the development
limits and mitigation of the potential impact is described in more detail in Section 4.0.

2.7 Existing/Previous Waste Management Operations/Areas
The Area 7 Development includes areas which have previously been utilized for waste
management activities, other than those at the currently permitted Landfill. These areas are
discussed below. The initial waste management development of the Site began at the
northern corner of the Site in what is now termed the Unnamed Area and progressed in a
southerly direction to six (6) additional landfill areas (Areas 1 through 6).
The Unnamed Area reportedly accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s
until it ceased accepting waste in 1972. The Unnamed Area is unlined and has a vegetated
soil cover (installed in 1983) incorporating a low-permeability soil component and
comprises approximately 12 acres. The Unnamed Area is a listed Class 3 Inactive
Hazardous Waste site (NYSDEC Registry Site Code 401004).
Area 1 accepted waste from 1972 through 1980. Area 1 is approximately 24 acres in size.
Although this area does not include an engineered baseliner it is underlain by natural clay
deposits and at one time reportedly had a rudimentary provisions for leachate collection
and a vegetated low-permeability soil cover.
Areas 2 and 3 were the active disposal areas from 1980 through 1988. Areas 2 and 3 are
lined with clay and had a leachate collection system installed at the time of the original
development. Both areas were closed with a vegetated low-permeability soil cover and
currently have active underdrain systems to collect leachate.
Area 4 accepted waste from 1989 through 1996. Area 4 is 15-acres, lined with clay and had
a leachate collection system installed at the time of original development. Area 4 was
capped with a geomembrane cap and currently has an active LFG collection system.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

14

Funding for the Area 4 closure was provided by New York State and a condition of the
funding was no future landfill development on the capped area.
Area 5 is a 22-acre Part 360 composite (geomembrane and low permeability soil) lined area
with a leachate collection system. In 1996, Phase I of the Area 5 landfill cell construction
was completed and the cell became operational. In 1999, Phase II of the Area 5 landfill cell
construction was completed and the cell became operational. Area 5 also included an 11.5
acre piggyback single-composite overliner over a portion of Area 4. Area 5 is active but
currently 95% filled. No partial closure work has been completed. Area 5 has an active
LFG collection system.
Area 6 is approximately 22 acres in size and the baseliner was constructed in two phases,
both of which have been completed. Area 6 is a Part 360 composite (geomembrane and low
permeability soil) lined area with a leachate collection system. Phase I and II are the
primary active landfill areas (in addition to waste being placed for Area 5 completion). No
partial closure work has been completed. Area 6 has an active LFG collection system.
There was also reportedly an area where fiber drums containing asbestos waste were
disposed. This area is located between the transfer station and the landfill. The Town has
indicated that the presence of this area is based on anecdotal and photographic records only
and fiber drums are stacked 4-5 drums high and cover less than ½-acre. The Town does not
believe that this area is designated on Site Plans they have reviewed, and drawings
identifying the specific location are not currently available. Based on information from the
Town, the approximate location can be seen on Sheet 4 and 7 of the Engineering Drawings.
In addition to the landfill, the project site accommodates an office and shop building, scale
facility, a solid waste transfer station, a materials recovery facility, a composting operation,
a medical waste transfer and storage area, a household hazardous waste transfer area, and a
LFGTE facility. Waste Connections operates each of these facilities for the Town of Colonie,
except for the LFGTE facility which is a contract operation subject to a separate contract by
the Town. Waste Connections began operating the facility in October of 2011.
The approximate limits of the various landfill areas and solid waste operations can be seen
in Figure 2-1.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

15

3 EXISTING LANDFILL SYSTEMS
3.1 Liner Systems
The operating landfill cells include Areas 5 and 6. Both liner systems are double composite
liners (with the exception of the Area 5 piggyback area), the design of which was provided
in the original Part 360 permit application and subsequent design reports for those areas.
The double composite liner system installed for the most recently permitted cell (Area 6) is
a similar design to that proposed in the Area 7 Development, and includes the following
layers (from bottom up, as applicable):

Prepared subgrade;

Subgrade backfill (if applicable);

Porewater collection systems (if applicable);

24” secondary soil liner, with a maximum permeability of 1x10-7 cm/s;

60-mil HDPE secondary geomembrane;

Secondary leachate collection system;

Primary soil liner (floor areas only), consisting of:

Geosynthetic Clay Liner (on the floor areas);

60-mil HDPE primary geomembrane;

Primary leachate collection system.

The remaining portions of the landfill (non-operating) that are lined with a constructed clay
liner system are discussed in Section 2.7, above.

3.2 Porewater Collection Systems
Both Areas 5 and 6 of the existing landfill were constructed with porewater collection
systems. The majority of the Area 6 landfill has the porewater collection layer installed,
while only the western two-thirds of the Area 5 landfill have a porewater collection layer.
The porewater collection systems within the landfill cells include a geocomposite drainage
layer that conveys porewater to a collection sump. Subsurface collection pipes were
installed to convey this water to the collection sumps.

3.3 Leachate Management
Leachate is collected from Areas 5 and 6 of the landfill. Areas 5 and 6 have primary and
secondary leachate collection systems incorporated within the double-composite baseliner
systems. Leachate at the Town of Colonie Landfill is directed to one of the ponds on the
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

16

northeast portion of the landfill. From there, the leachate is directed through a forcemain to
the south to the Fonda Road sanitary sewer and ultimately to the Town of Colonie
wastewater treatment plant. Alternatively, valving is in place to direct the leachate flow to
the North Albany County Wastewater Treatment Facility via the City of Cohoes sanitary
sewer system.
The existing underdrain piping systems installed for Areas 2, 3, and 4 reportedly consist of
SDR 35 PVC and the layout can be seen on Sheet 5 (Existing Conditions Utility Plan) of the
Engineering Drawings. These systems were designed to drain via gravity into the
perimeter gravity leachate collection line on the east side of the site that discharges into the
collection ponds. The connections between the Area 2, 3, and 4 underdrain system and the
perimeter leachate collection line are continuous connections (solid wall wye connections or
similar) with no current access point. This design was shown on the Area 5 construction
plans and record drawings, which would have been submitted to the Department prior to
approval to place waste in the Area 5 cells.
The proposed construction is not anticipated to impact the current functionality of these
underdrain lines. The pipe loading calculations, included in Attachment #7, indicate that
under the greatest thickness of proposed fill, the maximum overburden pressure is less
than the critical failure pressures for the existing pipe.
Several of the connections to the perimeter line will be exposed during Area 7 construction
and reconstructed as they will be under the proposed Cell #1 construction. At the time of
construction the connection points will be accessed and the functionality of the lines will be
assessed and jetting will be performed. In addition, it should be noted that the Area 7
overfill liner will be constructed over Areas 2, 3, and 4 and will significantly minimize
infiltration into the existing wastes and the underdrain pipes.
The leachate collection lines for Areas 1 through 4 are not fully functional. Reportedly, the
lines were connected to the leachate sewer along the east side of the site when it was
constructed. Although efforts were made to remove sediment from these lines at the time
of connection, the observed quantity of sand inundating the lines indicated the possibility
that the lines could be physically compromised. The cleanouts to access these lines
installed during the construction of the gravity sewer are no longer functioning Based on
correspondence with the Engineer of Record (Malcom Pirnie) at the time of the construction
of the collection line it is believed that leachate from Areas 1 – 4 is not being effectively
collected through these lines.
As shown in the following summary of leachate quantities (data provided by the Town),
total leachate quantities have generally been around 20,000,000 gallons per year. However,
as seen in table below, the volume in 2011 increased significantly. The volumes in 2011
appear to have been impacted by the significant rainfall during the year (53.7 inches versus
39.4 inches on average) punctuated by the Hurricane Irene rainfall. Additionally, it has

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

17

been reported that the leachate volumes for the period below have also been impacted by
stormwater as described in more detail in section 5.8.1
2012

2009

2010

Primary Collection

22,253,234

19,439,000

28,191,000

Area 5 Secondary

20,521

24,534

39,876

23,719

21,243

Area 6 Secondary

46,231

20,642

9,543

107,784

63,973

Area 5/6 Secondary Subtotal

66,752

45,176

49,419

131,503

85,217

22,319,987

19,484,177

Total Leachate Collected

2011

2013

Leachate Collected (gallons)

18,866,770 18,988,582

28,240,419 18,998,273 19,073,800

3.4 Landfill Final Grading Design
As identified in the most recent Part 360 application (Area 6), the final grading plan for the
facility designated a peak height of the final cover system at approximately an elevation of
430 amsl for the Area 5 landfill and an elevation of 425 amsl for the Area 6 landfill, with
outside slopes of 3H:1V. Plateaus are graded on a 4% slope (25H:1V). CRL utilizes GPS
surveying equipment that will provide cut-fill grades to working face personnel based on
the design waste grades.

3.5 Stormwater Management
Stormwater runoff at the landfill drains to several separate discharge points that eventually
discharge to the Mohawk River to the east of the site. The site is located within the
designated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) boundary of the Town of
Colonie. The activities and controls in place at the landfill are consistent with the
requirements established by the Town and support the Town’s overall stormwater
management program being implemented for compliance with its MS4 General Permit.
The drainage areas are described in general below and in more detail in the site Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by Crawford & Associates Engineering, P.C. which is
required as part of the coverage for the site under the State’s Multi-Sector General Permit (GP-0-12001) for stormwater discharges associated with Industrial Activity.
OUTFALL I (Inactive Outfall) --- Is located at the Northern tip of the site adjacent to the
intersection of Route 9 and Cohoes-Crescent Road. Stormwater that comes into contact
with the on-site portion of this drainage area infiltrates into the ground (which contains
a closed/capped (vegetated), class III, inactive hazardous waste landfill - Site Code
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

18

401004) within the Unnamed area described above. The riprap-lined drainage swale
associated with Outfall I located immediately west of the inactive hazardous waste
landfill area (which ultimately discharges via a 24-inch diameter storm drain pipe to the
Mohawk River), receives stormwater run-off from the adjacent roadway (Route 9).
Since stormwater run-off/flow from this outfall does not have contact with industrial
activities which occur on-site, it is not required to be monitored as an active outfall.
OUTFALL II – Is located approximately 1,140 feet southeast of Outfall I, adjacent to
Cohoes-Crescent Road. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into contact
with a portion of the Unnamed area, a small portion of landfill Areas 2, 3 and 4, and,
from a majority of Area 1. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area also has contact
with the facility’s vehicle fueling area; the residential drop-off area (containers covered
with tarps after hours); the truck scale area; the medical waste collection and storage
area (covered); the transfer station (covered); the household hazardous waste storage
area (covered); a stormwater ponding area and the truck tire-wash station (selfcontained) and flows overland via sheet flow to a series of catch basins and a rip-rap
lined swale. A 54-inch storm drainage pipeline is located somewhat perpendicular to
Route 9 which discharges to the Mohawk River approximately 1,150 feet north of the
intersection of Route 9 and Cohoes-Crescent Road. Several drop inlets on the interior of
the northern portion of the site also collect stormwater runoff and discharge to the 54inch pipe.
OUTFALL IIIA – Is located between the two on-site leachate lagoons (at the eastern side
of the site). Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into contact with capped
landfill Areas 2, 3, and 4 and ultimately discharges to a wetland drainage area through a
36-inch corrugated pipe.
OUTFALL IIIB – Is located ~517 feet south of the southern edge of the southern leachate
lagoon. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into contact with the eastern
slope of capped landfill Areas 2, 3 and 4 and ultimately discharges to State wetland on
the east side of the site through a 12-inch corrugated pipe (which runs under the site
access road).
OUTFALL IIIC – Is located in a catch basin (inlet pipe from the drainage area shown on
Figure 3) along the perimeter access road which is south of landfill area 6. Stormwater
runoff from this drainage area comes into contact with a small portion of covered
landfill Areas 4 and 6; a moderate portion of landfill Area 5 (which has intermediate
cover); a stormwater holding pond; a stone anti-tracking pad; a stone check dam; and a
series of culverts, swales, and ditches which ultimately discharge to a wetland drainage
area located in the southeast corner of the site via a 48 inch diameter pipe. Due to the
large volume of runoff that contributes to this outfall, a rock-filled gabion outlet
structure was constructed to dissipate the energy before the flow is discharged into the
drainage area for state wetland on the east side of the site.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

19

OUTFALL IIID – Is located approximately 1,050 feet south of the southern edge of the
southern leachate lagoon. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes into
contact with a small portion of covered landfill Areas 4 and 6, and a moderate portion of
landfill Area 5 (which has intermediate cover). Accumulated stormwater collects in
drainage swales along the lower perimeter access road, passes under the access road via
a drainage culvert, and is then directed down a rip-rap lined down-chute to the State
wetland on the east side of the site.
OUTFALL IIIE – Is located along the southern most border of the property, along
Arrowhead Lane. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area flows towards the south
(away from the landfill) and either collects on-site or flows (sheet flow) into a catch
basin system located along Arrowhead Lane which flows towards/joins stormwater
discharges associated with landfill operations at the southern portion of the property.
OUTFALL IIIF – Is located in the same catch basin as Outfall IIIC (which is located along
the perimeter access road that is south of landfill Area 6 (the inlet pipe from the
drainage area shown on Figure 3). Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes
into contact with the outer portion of landfill Area 6 (which is capped with partial
intermediate cover).
OUTFALL IIIG – Is located along the access road to the Landfill Gas to Energy Facility at
the southeastern end of the landfill. Stormwater run-off from this drainage area comes
into contact with a small portion of a hill which has the potential to receive surface flow
from the landfill’s perimeter road. There is a drainage culvert that extends from north
to south beneath the roadway.
OUTFALL IIIH – Is located just north and east of the MBI maintenance shop. Stormwater
run-off from this drainage area comes into contact with the gravel covered parking lot
located immediately north of the MBI Maintenance shop.
OUTFALL S-5 – Is a 24” HDPE pipe located along a rip-rap lined drainage swale
located in the north-western portion of the site (prior to where the swale receives
stormwater run-off from nearby NYS Route 9). Stormwater run-off from this drainage
area comes into contact with the residential waste drop-off area (recyclables, used
oil/antifreeze and MSW); the scale area; the truck tire wash area (self-contained); the
vehicle maintenance garage; the Materials Recycling Building; the vehicle fueling area;
the medical waste collection and storage area; the household hazardous waste storage
area; and, the transfer station area.

3.6 LFG Management
The landfill includes provisions for management of landfill gas (LFG). LFG from the
Unnamed Area is vented directly to the atmosphere through passive vents. More recent
areas of the landfill are covered by an active LFG collection system. LFG is collected by a

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

20

system of horizontal collectors and vertical collection wells connected by a header system
and routed to either a flare or the LFGTE facility. Condensate knockouts are provided in
the collection system and condensate is directed to the leachate collection system.
As shown in the following summary of LFG quantities (from the Landfill’s annual reports),
total LFG quantities collected has varied from year to year from 2009 through 2013 with
high value of 877 mmcf in 2009. Collected LFG was reported to contain approximately 48%
methane on average for each year.
Landfill Gas Collected (mmcf)
Flared

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2.340

0.016

ND

2.047

34.771

LFGTE Facility

874.540

794.893

700.305

637.183

694.209

Total LFG Collected

876.879

700.305

700.305

639.230

728.980

ND = No data reported

3.7 Unnamed Area - 1.9(g) Demonstration –
The proposed Area 7 development will occur approximately 300 feet to the south of an
historical disposal area identified as the Unnamed Area. The Unnamed Area reportedly
accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s until it ceased accepting waste in
1972. The Unnamed Area is unlined and has a vegetated soil cover (installed in 1983)
incorporating a low-permeability soil component and covers and area approximately 12
acres in size. The Unnamed Area is a listed Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste site
(NYSDEC Registry Site Code 401004), and in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.9(g)(1),
sufficient information must be provided to NYSDEC to determine whether the proposed
activity (Area 7 Development) would interfere significantly with potential, ongoing, or
completed inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program, or would expose the
environment or the public health to a significantly increased threat of harm.
In accordance with 360-1.9(g) the following data needs are presented and discussed relative
to the proposed Area 7 Development proximate to the Unnamed Area:

A general description of the hydrogeologic setting, including description of the
geology in the vicinity of the inactive hazardous waste disposal site, the occurrence
of groundwater in the vicinity of the site, the direction of groundwater flow, and the
extent and direction of movement of the contaminant plume.

Description and evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial actions taken to date at
the classified site and/or discussion and preliminary evaluation of appropriate

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

21

alternative remedial programs or supplemental remedial programs that would
provide the required remediation of the classified site.

A discussion of the effects the proposed development may have on contemplated or
completed remediation and a discussion of the constraints the proposed
development may have on the alternative or supplemental remedial programs,
including the preclusion of alternatives and the availability of sufficient land to
implement, monitor, operate, maintain and modify, if necessary, an alternative
remedial program.

3.7.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting
Information relative to the sites geologic and hydrogeologic setting is presented below and
discussed in greater detail within the Site Investigation Report (SIR) provided as
Attachment 2 to this application. The unconsolidated deposits underlying the facility
generally consist of an upper glaciolacustrine, varved silt and clay unit underlain by till.
Where the glaciolacustrine unit is absent, till is present at the ground surface. Also present
is a limited area of Alluvium deposits at the northeast corner of the proposed Area 7
Development. Underlying the unconsolidated deposits is shale bedrock. Each of these
units is described in more detail in Section 2 of this report.

3.7.2 Groundwater Flow
Groundwater flow beneath the facility has been assigned to three water-bearing zones:


An upper water-bearing zone where the water table is present.
An intermediate water-bearing zone at the glacial deposit/bedrock interface.
A lower water-bearing zone in the bedrock.

Each of these water-bearing zones are described in Section 2 of this report and additional
detail and groundwater flow maps are presented as part of the SIR.

3.7.3 Remedial Actions Completed for the Unnamed Area
The Unnamed Area reportedly accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s
until it ceased accepting waste in 1972. The Unnamed Area is approximately 12 acres in
size, is unlined, and was closed, capped and vegetated in 1983. The original cap included
approximately 36 inches of clay underneath a 6 inch layer of vegetated topsoil. In 2006 the
top soil component of this cap was removed and significant quantities of additional low
permeability clay were added above the original clay cap and graded for positive drainage,
significantly improving the cap in this area.
At this time, there are no alternative or supplemental remedial actions planned for the
Unnamed Area. However, such actions, as necessary, may include repairs and/or
upgrades to the cap, installation of leachate collection lines along selected perimeter areas
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

22

of the waste mass, or the collection and treatment of groundwater/leachate within selected
areas.

3.7.4 Effect of the Area 7 Development on the Unnamed Area Remedial Actions
As noted above, the Unnamed Area is approximately 300 feet north of the Area 7
Development footprint and associated infrastructure. Access to the Unnamed Area is not
affected by the Area 7 Development and the perimeter of the unnamed area remains fully
accessible. In addition, groundwater flow is predominantly to the east such that the two
areas are cross gradient to each other. The Area 7 Development will therefore have no
impact on the performance of the completed Unnamed Area remedial actions (capping), the
ability to implement repairs to the existing cap, or the implementation of alternative or
supplemental remedial actions.

3.7.5 Monitorability
As described above and in more detail within the SIR, groundwater flow at the site is
generally to the east with discharge to the nearby Mohawk River. As a consequence, the
Unnamed Area is located cross gradient to the Area 7 Development and groundwater flow
paths originating beneath each of the areas can be monitored independently. Likewise,
there is sufficient room for the installation of monitoring wells between the two areas, such
that cross gradient flow paths may also be monitored.
The Area 7 Development will include the construction of a double-composite liner
consistent with current Part 360 requirements. As such, the volume and quantity of liquids
in the secondary containment system will be monitored such that a potential release from
Area 7 would be identifiable and distinguishable from a release from the Unnamed Area or
other areas of the facility. As described in the SIR, groundwater impacts are currently
present down gradient of Area 7 due to past waste disposal and it is anticipated that the
reduction in recharge associated with the Area 7 development will result in positive
changes in water quality. However, irrespective of the anticipated changes in water
quality, the environmental monitoring program (EMP) for the site calls for quarterly
groundwater quality sampling from which a database of water quality specific to each well
will be developed. Water quality data from future sampling events will then be statistically
compared to the historical water quality such that statistically significant changes can be
further assessed. Further assessment may include additional sampling, evaluation of
potential changes in concentration of leachate indicator parameters, comparison of
analytical data from the wells to that obtained from the Area 7 secondary collection system,
secondary collection system liquid volumes, use of graphical methods of water quality
assessment such as Stiff and Piper Trilinear diagrams, etc. Through this suite of assessment
methods, the objective of differentiating current or future impacts from the existing areas
can be met.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

23

In summary, the site hydrogeology, the construction of Area 7 with a double composite
liner, and the on-going EMP allows for separate monitorability between Area 7, the
Unnamed Area and other waste disposal areas present at the site.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

24

4 SITING CRITERIA
6 NYCRR Part 360, Section 360-2.12 and Paragraph 360-1.7(a)(2) of New York State’s solid
waste management facility regulations establish siting restrictions for new and expanded
land disposal facilities. The following is a review of section 360-2.12 and paragraph 3601.7(a)(2) siting criteria, in relation to the proposed Area 7 Development.

4.1 Prohibited Siting
Paragraph 360-1.7(a)(2) requires that solid waste management facilities must not be located
in the following areas:
Agricultural Land
Subparagraph 360-1.7 (a)(2)(i) states that new or expanded solid waste facilities must not be
located on land that:

Was, or is proposed to be, taken through the exercise of eminent domain;

Consists primarily of agricultural soil group 1 or 2; and,

Is within an agricultural district pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law.

Since the property is not proposed to be taken through the exercise of eminent domain, this
criterion does not apply. Furthermore, agricultural soil groups 1 or 2 are not present in the
proposed facility development area, and the site does not lie within an agricultural district.
As a result, this prohibition does not apply to the proposed Area 7 Development.
Floodplains
Subparagraph 360-1.7 (a)(2)(ii) states that new solid waste management facilities and
Developments of existing ones must not be constructed or operated on floodplains unless
provisions have been made to control encroachment of floodwaters upon such facilities.
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Colonie (Panels 78 and 86,
#36001C0078D/86D), the flood plain generally parallels Cohoes-Crescent Road, but in some
areas extends to the west side of the road in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Detailed analysis of the flood maps, as seen in Figure 4-1, indicate the limits of the 100-year
flood plain will overlap with the project limits at the northeast corner of the site
(approximately 0.07 acres). The proposed construction within the anticipated future flood
plain only consists of the installation of an access road and does not include waste footprint.
The flood plain in this area of the site for the Mohawk River ranges from 1,770- to 2,840feet-wide and the proposed development would extend, at most, approximately 40 feet into
the flood plain. It should be noted that the proposed encroachment is associated with a
perimeter access road and associated drainage features and these features (along with a
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

25

perimeter berm) will control encroachment of the flood plain on the active portions of the
solid waste facility. The stone for the road or the vegetated side slopes protected by a
permanent turf reinforcement mat (TRM) on the sideslopes of the berm are anticipated to
protect the berm from the very limited erosive velocities that would be anticipated for such
a wide flood plain (<4.0 feet per second mean velocity for the flood plain). The TRM is
noted on Sheet 12.
The Town of Colonie, which administers the flood plain and associated development under
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines, currently allows the level of
development that is proposed for Area 7 in flood plains and is expected to continue to
allow this type of development in flood plains under amendments to the flood plain
management requirements of the Town’s Zoning and Land Use Law that may be
implemented at the time the revised flood mapping becomes effective. A flood plain
development permit would be required as a result of the new mapping. An engineering
analysis showing that proposed development in the flood plain would not result in physical
damage to other property is required to be included with the permit application. Town
flood plain development permit requirements associated with buildings and watercourses
(i.e., floodway) alterations do not apply because the proposed development is limited to
soil fill and is not within the watercourse.
To support the anticipated future permitting process we have performed calculations that
indicate the proposed development in the flood plain will not result in physical damage to
other property. A HEC-RAS model was developed using several generalized cross-sections
for the Mohawk River that were consistent (e.g., same width, overall cross-sectional area,
depth, N-value were used) with those used in the recent flood study. The calculations,
which can be seen in Attachment 7, indicate that the reported water surface elevation, crosssectional capacity, and flow velocity would not change as a result of the proposed
encroachment. This is likely the result of the extremely limited amount of development
relative to the overall width and size of the river at that location.
The calculations indicating the proposed development will not have an impact on upstream
properties will be prepared by the Town as part of the anticipated flood plain development
permit process which cannot be initiated until the Town’s Zoning and Land Use Law is
amended.
Threatened or Endangered Species

Subparagraph 360-1.7 (a)(2)(iii) prohibits the siting of solid waste management facilities
in areas where endangered or threatened species of plants, fish or wildlife would be
taken, or where their critical habitat would be destroyed or adversely modified.
Based on discussions and correspondence with Karl Parker (Wildlife Biologist) of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) the presence of bald
eagles in the vicinity of adjacent developments had been identified. Therefore, CRL

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

26

performed field surveys for the bald eagle, evaluating the potential impacts associated with
the landfill Development. The scope of survey activities required to document the presence
and behavior of bald eagles in the vicinity of the landfill was further discussed and agreed
upon with the NYSDEC. The results of the surveys indicate that the Mohawk River is the
main attractant for bald eagles in the landfill vicinity. The availability of fish and other food
sources, as well as perching/roosting and nesting habitat likely attracts eagles throughout
most of the year. The landfill appears to be incidental to the presence of the bald eagles and
does not appear to negatively impact their presence or activities. Landfill personnel have
not reported seeing bald eagles directly on the site, other than fly-overs. The results of the
Bagdon Environmental surveys are consistent with those reports, with only one observation
of a bald eagle landing in an opportunistic attempt to capture prey unrelated to landfill
activities. Based on the surveys and other reported observations, it is unlikely that impacts
will occur to bald eagles as a result of continued operation and development of the landfill.
No other threatened or endangered species were identified by Bagdon Environmental or
noted as a concern by the NYDEC.
Horizontal Separation
Subparagraph 360-1.7 (a)(2)(v) Horizontal separation distances between permitted land
application and composting facilities, and permitted landfills, which are located
hydraulically upgradient from reservoirs, reservoir stems or controlled lakes, located in
watersheds which are managed pursuant to a filtration avoidance determination issued
pursuant to the Safe Water Drinking Act (see section 360-1.3 of this Part) must be sufficient
to preclude contravention of State surface water quality standards in those surface waters.
A determination of the minimum separation distance required must be approved by the
department and in no case may be less than 100 feet. For the purposes of this
subparagraph, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) Controlled lakes means a lake from which a purveyor of water supply may withdraw
water pursuant to rights acquired by the purveyor of water supply or as a right of
ownership.
(b) Reservoir means any natural or artificial impoundment of water owned or controlled by
a purveyor of water supply which is tributary to the water supply system.
(c) Reservoir stem means any watercourse segment which is tributary to a reservoir and lies
within 500 feet of the reservoir.
The proposed limits of the Area 7 development will be greater than 100’ from the closest
water body, which is the Mohawk River (approx. 120’) and its impoundment at Crescent
Dam, which is not a known water source in the vicinity of the site. The closest source of
potable water is the City of Cohoes water intake that is downstream of the Crescent Dam
approximately 1.5 miles from the site. Because of the above conditions, the horizontal
separation distance between the proposed facilities and a controlled lake or reservoir is
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

27

greater than the minimum separation distance, and does not represent an impediment to
the project.

4.2 Landfill Siting Restrictions
Subparagraph 360-2.12(a)(1)(ii) requires landfill Development sites to comply with the
requirements of subdivision 360-2.12(c) and paragraph 360-2.12(a)(1), and these criteria are
enumerated below.
Primary Water Supply, and Principal Aquifers
No new landfill or development of an existing landfill can be constructed over a primary
water supply aquifer, principal aquifer, within a public water supply stabilized cone of
depression area or within a distance of 100 feet from surface waters that are actively used as
sources of municipal water supply.
Primary Aquifers as defined within the Division of Water Technical & Operational
Guidance Series (TOGS) 2.1.3 are “highly productive aquifers presently utilized as sources
of water supply by major municipal water supply systems.” Principal Aquifers are
“aquifers known to be highly productive or whose geology suggests abundant potential
water supply, but which are not intensively used as sources of water supply by major
municipal systems at the present time.” No Principal or Primary Aquifers are present at the
site, however an area defined as producing 10 to 100 gallons per minute (i.e., the lower
capacity category considered principal aquifers) is mapped immediately south of
Arrowhead Lane (Potential Yields of Wells in Unconsolidated Aquifers in Upstate New
York – Hudson Mohawk Sheet, Bugliosi, et. al.).
The Town of Colonie Solid Waste Disposal Facility is located in the far eastern portion of
the mapped region of the Schenectady-Niskayuna Sole Source Aquifer. However, the
geology (consisting principally of low permeability silts and clays) is inconsistent with
productive aquifer deposits and the alluvium underlying the northeast corner of the study
area is of insufficient thickness and areal extent to meet the definition of a Principal
Aquifer. The absence of a productive aquifer is further supported by the limited use of
groundwater within the area and availability of public water as described below.
The proposed limits of the Area 7 development will be greater than 100’ from the closest
water body, which is the Mohawk River (approx. 120’) and its impoundment at Crescent
Dam, which is not a known water source in the vicinity of the site. The closest source of
potable water is the City of Cohoes water intake that is downstream of the Crescent Dam
approximately 1.5 miles from the site.
As discussed in the SIR, groundwater impacts are currently present immediately down
gradient of Area 7 due to past waste disposal and site groundwater discharges to the
Mohawk River. However, the existing site groundwater quality has not impacted the City

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

28

of Cohoes potable water intake that is located approximately 1.5 miles downstream, and it
is anticipated that the reduction in recharge associated with the Area 7 development will
result in positive changes (i.e., improvement) in site groundwater quality.
Floodplains
Owners or operators of Development landfills located in 100 year floodplains must
demonstrate the landfill facility will not restrict the flow of the 100 year flood, reduce the
temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain or result in washout of solid waste so as
to pose a hazard to human health and the environment. As discussed previously with
respect to the prohibited siting criteria, the project will obtain necessary approval and
provide appropriate protections for the limited portion of the project (access road) within
the 100-year flood plain.
Aircraft Safety
The Part 360 requirements contain various criteria regarding facility height and the
proximity of putrescible waste landfills to airports. As identified by 6NYCRR 360-1.2(b)(5),
an airport is a facility open to the public without prior permission and without restrictions
within the physical capabilities of available facilities; and an active military airfield. The
aircraft safety criteria specified in the regulations (360-2.12) is as follows:
(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)
(v)

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

A landfill or landfill subcell into which putrescible solid waste is to be
disposed must be located no closer than 5,000 feet from any airport
runway end used by piston-powered fixed-wing aircraft and no closer
than 10,000 feet from any airport runway end used by turbine-powered
fixed-wing aircraft.
A landfill or landfill subcell into which putrescible solid waste is to be
disposed, which is located within five miles of any airport runway end,
must not, in the opinion of the Federal Aviation Administration, pose a
potential bird or obstruction hazard to aircraft.
The permittee of an existing landfill or landfill subcell that is authorized to
dispose of putrescible solid waste and that is located less than 10,000 feet
from any airport runway end used by turbine-powered fixed- wing
aircraft or less than 5,000 feet from any airport runway end used only by
piston-powered fixed-wing aircraft must provide in its permit renewal
application documentation that the Federal Aviation Administration
believes the landfill or landfill subcell does not pose a bird hazard to
aircraft.
(Landfills containing only nonputrescible solid waste may be located less
than 10,000 feet from any airport runway end used by turbine-powered
fixed-wing aircraft or less than 5,000 feet
The final elevation of a new landfill or expansion of an existing landfill
must not extend more than 200 feet above the highest elevation of the land
29

surface that existed prior to landfill development, unless the Federal
Aviation Administration believes that the proposed fill height in excess of
200 feet will not present a safety hazard to air traffic.
Local maps and FAA resources were reviewed to evaluate the minimum distance
requirements specified by the Part 360 requirements. The nearest public use airport within
five miles of the proposed facility is the Albany International Airport and its runways are
4.6 miles from the edge of the landfill. Therefore, sections (i), (iii), and (iv) are not
applicable. Additionally, the final elevation of the proposed landfills will not extend more
than 200 feet above the land surface at the site. The existing ‘highest elevation of land
surface that existed prior to landfill development was elevation 332 amsl, located in the
southwest portion of the site, and the highest proposed fill height above the elevation is 185
feet (top of landfill is at elevation 517 amsl). Therefore, section (v) is not applicable.
However, because the distance is less than the 5-mile minimum distance specified by the
Part 360 requirements an opinion from the FAA regarding potential hazards to aircraft is
required. [Section (ii)]. An electronic submittal was made to the FAA on April 1, 2014, in
accordance with FAA requirements for the above determination regarding safety hazard.
Based on this submittal, the FAA made a determination, on May 22, 2014 (2014-AEA-1962OE) that the proposed structure would not pose a hazard to air navigation. A subsequent
submittal was made to the FAA on September 11, 2014 to request a determination for the
temporary use of construction equipment used in constructing the cap of the landfill. The
FAA provided a determination on October 20, 2014 (2014-AEA-5585-OE) that the
construction equipment would not pose a hazard to air navigation.
Supporting
documentation, including the submittal information and the letter of determination from
the FAA can be seen in Attachment 8.
Unstable Areas
Paragraph 360-2.12(c)(4) states that “landfills must not be located in unstable areas where
inadequate support for the structural components of the landfill exists.” Additionally, a
demonstration must be made that the landfill is properly engineered to ensure adequate
support for the structural components and anticipated additional loads. The geotechnical
properties of geologic media underlying the site have been well established through
various subsurface investigations and laboratory analysis performed during past and recent
investigations in support of this and other facility Developments as well as specific projectrelated investigations. Conservative strength parameters were assigned to the subsurface
soils for drained and undrained conditions based on laboratory triaxial compression shear
testing for the on-site soils. The condition of these soils varies across the site so proposed
remedies at certain parts of the facility are expected to be somewhat different. The
Geotechnical analysis included in this report has taken this into consideration and describes
how the facility layout provides the necessary factors of safety for facility construction and
operation

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

30

The stability analysis was performed for short term and long term conditions to simulate
operational and post closure periods. Stability analysis for landfill sections, including those
that evaluated the effects of increased waste being placed over existing overfill liners,
indicated failure surfaces associated with the developed landfill(s) showed factors of safety
greater than 1.5. As mentioned above, the presence of soft soils requires the use of ground
improvement, material overexcavation/replacement, or equivalent methods to achieve the
necessary factor of safety in some instances.
A bearing capacity analysis shows factors of safety in excess of 2 for drained and undrained
conditions for the landfill. The stability analysis concludes that the subsurface soils in the
Development landfill areas possess adequate strength to achieve acceptable factors of
safety.
Monitorability/Remediability
Paragraph 2.12(c)(5) states that new landfills must not be located in areas where
environmental monitoring and site remediation cannot be conducted.
The ability to perform monitoring and site remediation is based on a sufficient
characterization of groundwater and surface water flow that allows the proper
identification of upgradient and downgradient locations. In turn, this allows the proper
placement of environmental monitoring points which will detect and define a release from
the landfills, including the identification of source areas. This information then would form
the basis of selecting an appropriate corrective action which would mitigate a release.
The Area 7 Development will include the construction of a double liner consistent with
current Part 360 requirements.
As such, the volume and quantity of liquids in the
secondary containment system will be monitored such that a potential release from Area 7
would be identifiable and distinguishable from a release from the Unnamed Area or other
areas of the facility. As described in the SIR, groundwater impacts are currently present
down gradient of Area 7 due to past waste disposal and it is anticipated that the reduction
in recharge associated with the Area 7 development will result in positive changes in water
quality.
However, irrespective of the anticipated changes in water quality, the
environmental monitoring program (EMP) for the site calls for quarterly groundwater
quality sampling from which a database of water quality specific to each well will be
developed. Water quality data from future sampling events will then be statistically
compared to the historical water quality such that statistically significant changes can be
further assessed. Further assessment may include additional sampling, evaluation of
potential changes in concentration of leachate indicator parameters, comparison of
analytical data from the wells to that obtained from the Area 7 secondary collection system,
secondary collection system liquid volumes, use of graphical methods of water quality
assessment such as Stiff and Piper Trilinear diagrams, etc. Through this suite of assessment
methods, the objective of differentiating current or future impacts from the existing areas
can be met.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

31

In summary, the site hydrogeology, the construction of Area 7 with a double composite
liner, and the on-going EMP allows for separate monitorability between Area 7, the
Unnamed Area and other waste disposal areas present at the site.
In the event that a detected release requires remediation, the site hydrogeology is
sufficiently characterized such that applicable remedial actions can be evaluated, selected
and implemented as needed. For example, the SIR has documented groundwater flow
directions, that groundwater flow is principally within the overburden/top of rock
interface, and that vertical hydraulic gradients become smaller and start to become upward
toward the Mohawk River. With this understanding, localized groundwater extraction
wells or shallow groundwater collection trenches (i.e., French Drains) may be considered as
viable remedial actions to collect impacted groundwater, both of which could be
constructed at the down gradient perimeter of the proposed Area 7 development area.
Fault Areas
New landfills or lateral Developments of existing landfills are not to be located within 200
feet of a fault that has experienced displacement in Holocene time, unless the owner can
demonstrate an alternative setback distance of less than 200 feet will not result in damage to
the structural integrity of the landfill and will be protective of human health and the
environment. No faults are mapped on the map titled Geologic Map of New York, 1970,
Hudson Mohawk Sheet within 200 feet of the project limits. There are no Quaternary faults
(which include the Holocene time) mapped on the USGS interactive mapping tool.
Seismic Impact Zones
New landfills and lateral Developments are not permitted in seismic impact zones unless
certain demonstrations regarding the structural integrity of the landfill are made.
A seismic impact zone is defined as an area with a ten percent or greater probability that
the maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material, expressed as a percentage
of the earth’s gravitational pull (g), will exceed 0.10g in 250 years as delineated on the most
current version of USGS Survey Map MF-2120 or as delineated on another approved
source. Based on correspondence from the NYSDEC approving the use of the most current
seismic hazard maps posted on the USGS seismic hazard mapping web page, a review of
the USGS map entitled Two-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map of peak ground
acceleration, 2014 (which is accepted as equivalent to 10% in 250 years) and associated data
indicates the site’s maximum horizontal acceleration is 0.109g. As the mapped acceleration
places the site in a seismic impact zone the design, as described in Section 5.10,
demonstrates that the landfill has been designed to adequately resist the maximum
horizontal acceleration.
Federally Regulated Wetlands

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

32

Subparagraph 360-2.12(c) states that Developments of existing solid waste management
facilities cannot be constructed or operated within the boundary of a regulated wetland,
unless permits are obtained and demonstrations are made that there are no practicable
alternatives, wetlands will be protected, and there will be no net loss of wetlands. As
extensively discussed in planning meetings with the NYSDEC and reported under separate
cover as part of the SEQR process, CRL is proposing to construct its proposed Area 7
Development facilities within the boundary of a regulated wetland.
As seen on Sheet 4 of the Engineering Drawings, portions of the remaining wetlands (Area
A and B) will be impacted by the proposed development. A small area (0.01 acres) of
wetland Area A will require disturbance to provide an outlet for one of the proposed
stormwater ponds and 0.55 acres of emergent wetland and 0.88 acres of forested wetland,
both in Area B, will be impacted by construction of the proposed perimeter berm.
This alternative was selected after an evaluation of both on- and off-site alternatives, for
generating After determining no other suitable sites or configurations that met the project
criteria, CRL is in the process of applying for wetland permits from the NYSDEC and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers As part of this request, CRL has developed a wetlands
mitigation strategy in which the a Town owned property on Onderdonk Avenue,
approximately 2.5-miles to the southeast of the landfill, would be converted to an
approximately 3.2-acre wetland mitigation area to provide mitigation at an appropriate
ratio. The permitting process is currently underway with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for the federal wetlands permit Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the NYSDEC.
Groundwater Flow
The Part 360 requirements state that sites underlain by bedrock subject to rapid or
unpredictable groundwater flow should be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that a
containment failure would not result in contamination entering the bedrock groundwater
system. Also, sites in proximity to mines, caves or other anomalous features that may alter
groundwater flow are to be avoided.
The bedrock flow system at the Town of Colonie site is well understood as a result of the
extensive quantity of data obtained through various investigations. Groundwater flow in
the vicinity of the site is primarily to the east with discharge to the Mohawk River.
Observed hydraulic heads indicate downward vertical gradients are present within the
boundaries of the site. However, the geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of the
intermediate water-bearing zone is approximately two orders of magnitude higher than
that of the underlying bedrock. This difference in hydraulic conductivity, coupled with the
sites proximity to the Mohawk River, creates preferential horizontal flow through the
intermediate zone with limited infiltration into bedrock below. The companion document,
Site Investigation Report, includes the data to support these conclusions. As a result, these
criteria do not represent a siting restriction for the proposed facility.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

33

Character and Thickness of Unconsolidated Deposits
In accordance with 360-2.12(b), the lateral development of active facilities are exempt from
the minimum thickness and permeability requirements for unconsolidated deposits, as
cited in 360-2.12(a)(1), if the landfill is identified in the local solid waste management plan
and a site selection study has been completed. The proposed Development meets both of
these criteria such that the character and thickness of the overburden deposits is regulated
under 360-2.13(e). This paragraph states that a minimum of ten feet of vertical separation
(thickness) must be maintained between the base of the liner and bedrock and that the
nature of these materials, whether natural or backfilled, is subject to Department approval.
The minimum separation distance of ten feet to bedrock will be maintained. The proposed
bedrock separation generally does not come close to 10 feet with the exception of Cell 1,
located over the leachate pond area. At this location, where bedrock was previously
removed for installation of the leachate ponds, the subgrade elevation approaches, but is
not less, than the 10-foot separation. Based on correspondence and discussion in the May 7,
2014 progress meeting with the NYSDEC, it is our understanding that existing soils or
where soils are required in the area of the leachate pond to establish subgrade are not
required to have a specific permeability. The soil properties and placement procedures will
be consistent with those used to establish the 10-foot separation in Area 6 (which only calls
for compacted on-site or imported fill), and as needed maintain the structural integrity of
the subgrade.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

34

5 PROPOSED FACILITY DESIGN
The proposed Area 7 Development is depicted throughout the Engineering Drawings. As
shown on these sheets and discussed throughout this report, the proposed development
will include the following 5 components of landfill construction:

Relocation of the leachate collection ponds and construction of a landfill cell at
the northeast portion of the site (in the former leachate pond location) referred to
in this report as Cell 1.

Construction in the former compost area facility, and over former landfill Areas 1
and 2/3, referred to in this report as Cell 2. The Cell 2 area will extend south
over a portion of the existing Area 4 cap, however, the existing cap will be
removed during grading operations and a new subgrade will be established for
Cell 2. The southern limits of Cell 2 construction will extend to the relatively flat
area at the top of Area 4.

Construction to the west of the former compost area facility, and over a portion
of Area 2/3, referred to in this report as Cell 3.

Construction over the remaining portion of Area 4, referred to as Cell 4. This cell
area will extend from the southern edge of proposed Cells 1 and 2, extend south
over a portion of the existing Area 4 where it will tie-in to the Area 5 liner
system. The remaining portion of the existing Area 4 cap will be removed
during grading operations and a new subgrade will be established for Cell 4.

Construction on the west side of the existing landfill cells in the area of the
landfill support buldings, referred to as Cell 5. This cell area will extend from
the southern edge of Cell 3, extend south to over the existing stormwater pond,
and tie-in to the existing Area 5 and 6 liner system on the east side of the new
cells.

The final configuration of the proposed landfill development will provide a contiguous Part
360 compliant lined landfill facility with an estimated additional 21.8 years of site life. It is
estimated the proposed Area 7 Development will allow continued solid waste disposal
services to the year 2039. In addition to the solid waste landfills, the proposed
Development also includes the following components:

Construct upgraded leachate storage facilities for the landfill,

Construction of the associated leachate and landfill gas management systems;

Construct new stormwater management ponds;

Relocate the entrance facilities

Relocate the residential drop-off facilities

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

35

The Area 7 Development layout considers the existing infrastructure, site conditions,
existing and future operational procedures, and site access. The Area 7 Development will
accommodate the weighing, receiving, and disposal of solid waste in an organized and
environmentally sound fashion as described in detail in this Engineering Report as well as
the companion documents included in the Solid Waste Facility Permit Application.
Existing infrastructure at the site will be utilized to support the operation of the proposed
facilities. The main access road, truck scales and scale house, landfill office, maintenance
facilities, landfill gas collection and control facilities and parking areas will be available for
use, as shown in the Engineering Drawings, for the proposed operations and as described
herein.

5.1 Horizontal/Vertical Alignment
The limit of waste placement has been designed to comply with the applicable Part 360
criteria; specifically, subdivision 360-2.13(a) which requires the following:

One hundred feet minimum distance between the deposited solid waste and the
property line;

One hundred feet minimum distance between deposited solid waste and the
mean high water elevation of any surface waters; and,

Adequate separation between waste and surface water to prevent contravention
of state surface water standards in the surface water body, or flooding of the
landfill from the surface waters.

Similarly, subdivision 360-2.13(e) establishes a minimum separation distance of ten feet
between bedrock and the bottom of the landfill liner system. The design of the proposed
Area 7 Development includes a liner system design that maintains a minimum separation
of 10 feet above bedrock. This design approach will place the base of the Development
facilities below the seasonal high groundwater table; accordingly, a temporary
groundwater drainage system is included in the design as required by subdivision 3602.13(d). This system is referred to as the porewater drain throughout the application, and
this drain would be dewatered until such time that the hydrostatic forces are resolved by
the weight of the liner system and waste.
The peak elevations of the Area 7 Development areas have been selected to optimize waste
volume within the design footprints. The height and degree of slope selected for the
landfills are typical of common land disposal practice in the U.S. Geotechnical analysis of
the design indicates the selected slopes will be stable with factors of safety consistent with
the requirements of Part 360. The existing Area 5 and 6 cells are currently permitted to
obtain a peak elevation of approximately 430 feet above mean sea level. As part of this
application, increases to the vertical elevation of the landfill are being proposed so that the
proposed maximum elevation of the existing landfill will be 517 feet.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

36

5.2 Site Life
The Proposed Area 7 Development has an approximate volume of 11.6 million cubic yards
(CY). The Town of Colonie Landfill is permitted to accept up to 255,840 tons per year of
waste for disposal. Waste materials (consisting of predominately MSW as is typically the
case for Colonie) would be expected to be placed at approximately 1,200 to 1,500 pounds
per CY (to be conservative for this assessment, we will use 1,200 pounds per CY).
Typically, in landfill operations the cover materials would be expected to comprise up to
20% to 30% of the waste volume. Using an average factor of 25%, the projected site life is
calculated as follows:
Annual Volume of Wastes:
Annual Volume of Cover:
Annual Volume Utilized:
Years of Disposal Capacity:

255,840 ???????? ×

2,000 ????????????
??????

????

× 1,200 ???????????? = 426,400 ????

426,400 ???? × 25% = 106,600 ????

426,400 ???? + 106,600 ???? = 533,000 ????
????????

11,600,000 ???? × 533,000 ???? = 21.8 ??????????

Using this conservative approach, the projected site life will be at least 20 years.

5.3 Part 360 Equivalent Design Elements
The intent of the design of the landfill containment liner systems, final cover systems,
landfill gas collection, leachate management systems and the operational plan is to meet or
exceed the performance requirements of the applicable Part 360 requirements. While the
performance requirements of Part 360 will be met or exceeded, the proposed configuration
of certain liner and final cover components will require a demonstration of equivalent
design under subdivision 360-2.13(w). This citation allows the applicant to demonstrate
that the alternative design can perform in the same manner as that specified by the Part 360
requirements. As part of the development baseliner design, CRL is proposing the use of a
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) as a substitute for the six-inch specified primary soil liner.
This is a relatively standard equivalent design within New York as the GCLs offer superior
performance to the 6-inch primary soil liner. For this application, an equivalent
determination is being made for two components of the final cover system:

Gas Venting Layer – a Geo-Composite Drainage (GCD) layer product will be
used as an equivalent material to the 12” soil gas venting layer.

GCL – a GCL is proposed as a substitute to the soil component of the composite
cover system on final cover slopes less than 25%.

Both of the proposed geosynthetics are commonly used materials in final cover
construction. Each of these materials provides superior performance over the specified soil
components and offers a net reduction in the amount of natural materials required for
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

37

landfill construction. Demonstration of engineering equivalence for the drainage layer
GCD and final cover GCL is discussed in Section 5.6.

5.4 Supporting Facilities
As part of the Area 7 Development, several existing support facilities will be relocated.
These include the leachate storage facility, the entrance facility, including the scalehouse,
the residential drop-off facility, and the offices.

5.4.1 Leachate Storage Facility
The proposed leachate storage facility at the site consists of two lined ponds with a total
storage capacity of approximately 1.8 million gallons of leachate. Leachate from the
operating landfill cells (primarily Areas 5 and 6) flows via gravity along the eastern side of
the site. Pumping facilities manage both the inflow and outflow from the ponds. The
ponds discharge via pumping to a force main that leaves the site at the northeast corner of
the ponds and enters a force-main along Cohoes-Crescent Road. As Cell 1 will be located in
the existing location of the leachate ponds, the initial Area 7 Development construction will
consist of the installation of two new glass-lined steel tanks with a total combined capacity
of 1,000,000 gallons. The proposed volume of the new steel tanks is discussed in Section
5.8. From the new tank locations, leachate will be pumped via forcemain along landfill
access roads on the east side of the site to the same line that is currently being used along
Cohoes-Crescent Road. As a back-up system a second force main will be installed along
landfill access roads to the south end of the site where it will enter a new force main (using
an existing, unused sewer alignment) located on Green Mountain Drive.

5.4.2 Entrance Facilities
The proposed Area 7 Development will include a significant enhancement to the overall
operation of the facility and traffic safety along Route 9 by relocating the entrance to the
landfill facility from its current location on Route 9, to a location off of Arrowhead Drive at
the south end of the site. While the Area 7 Development will not include liner construction
in the area of where the existing scale facilities are located until approximately 10 years into
the development, CRL is committed to the relocation of the entrance 2 to 3 years into Phase
2 (4 to 5 years into the overall development). Upon relocation of the entrance facilities,
traffic will enter the landfill by accessing Arrowhead Drive from Green Mountain Drive
and Fonda Road. Landfill traffic will not access or leave Arrowhead Drive directly from or
to Route 9. The relocated entrance facilities, depicted on Sheet 13, consist of a truck
queuing area located on the north side of Arrowhead Drive, two scales (inbound and
outbound), a truck staging area in front of the scales, and a residential drop-off facility.
The relocation of the residential waste and recycling drop-off area will improve safety and
provide visual contact between the residential area and the scale house operators.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

38

While the entrance facilities are anticipated to be relocated 2 to 3 years into Phase 2
Construction, the office, maintenance building, transfer facility, wheel wash facility and
MRF, will remain in their current locations into Phase 5 of the development estimated at
approximately 10 years into the life of the development. Should opportunities arise to
relocate the office and maintenance building sooner that Phase 5 construction, relocation
may occur during Phases 2 through 4.

5.4.3 Offices
As part of the Area 7 Development the office and maintenance facility will be relocated to
the south end of the site and make use of the existing Town owned buildings adjacent to the
proposed entrance facility. While the entrance facilities are anticipated to be relocated 2 to 3
years into Phase 2 Construction, the office and maintenance building will remain in their
current locations into Phase 5 of the development, estimated at approximately 10 years into
the life of the development. Should opportunities arise to relocate the office and
maintenance building sooner that Phase 5 construction, relocation may occur during Phases
2 through 4.

5.5 Liner Systems
In accordance with Part 360 requirements, the liner system design will provide for both
primary and secondary collection and removal of leachate. The proposed liner system will
meet, at a minimum, the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13.

5.5.1 General
The dual composite liner systems for the proposed landfill cell areas, including the overfill
liner, are designed and will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Part
360 requirements. The components of the liner systems on slopes of less than 25 percent, in
ascending order, are as follows:

Prepared subgrade;

Porewater collection system, where subgrade is below the seasonal high
groundwater table, consisting of:

Geosynthetic composite drainage (GCD) layer with embedded pipe network;

Two-foot thick secondary soil liner;

60 mil textured secondary HDPE geomembrane;

Secondary GCD collection layer with embedded pipe network;

One foot thick secondary leachate collection soil layer (on bottom slopes less than
25%);

Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) – floor area only;

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

39

60 mil textured primary HDPE geomembrane;

Geotextile cushion;

24-inch thick natural aggregate (No.1 stone, as needed for permeability) leachate
collection layer with embedded pipe network; and,

In accordance with paragraph 360-2.13(f)(2), the primary liner system on slopes greater than
25 percent may be a single geomembrane overlying the secondary collection system.
Therefore, on slopes greater than 25 percent, the GCL is not included in the design. CRL is
proposing the use of a combined geosynthetic/sand layer for the secondary leachate
collection system. Also, the one-foot secondary collection soil layer is not included in the
design on the slopes greater than 25 percent.
Typical liner configurations are shown on Sheet 24 of the Engineering Drawings and the
liner areas slopes less than or equal to or greater than 25% can be seen on Figure 5-1.

5.5.2 Natural Subgrade
The base of the portions of the proposed Area 7 Development areas will be founded in the
unconsolidated deposits occurring naturally at the Site. In certain areas of the site,
undercutting of naturally occurring subgrade soils may be required. The need for
undercutting and removal of native subgrade soils is based on the following anticipated
conditions at various portions of the site:

Presence of soft soils at the subgrade surface that would necessitate removal to
facilitate construction (inadequate subgrade);

Presence of soft soils at or below the design subgrade surface that will require
removal based on stability considerations (as referenced in the Geotechnical
analysis described in this report)

It should be noted that other methods of providing a stable configuration any be acceptable
(e.g., additional geogrid, subgrade stabilization, lightweight fill) and will be determined at
the time of construction submittals.
The engineering properties of these soils have been characterized through the geotechnical
sampling and testing program performed as part of the site investigation. The details of the
field and laboratory geotechnical testing program are contained in the Site Investigation
Report and the geotechnical analyses described herein.
The engineering properties of the site subgrade were used to establish the bearing capacity
of the foundation soils and to estimate settlement. The estimated settlement was then used
to define pre-settlement liner and collection pipe slopes that will result in minimum postsettlement slopes of two percent for liners and one percent for collection piping. The details
of the bearing capacity and settlement calculations are contained in the Section 5.10 of this
Engineering Report.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

40

The subgrade will be proof rolled to assess whether pockets of unsuitable subgrade soils are
present (e.g., soft materials that will not meet the foundation specifications). Unsuitable
materials will be removed and replaced as indicated on the permit drawings with
compacted, structural fill. Before placing porewater relief or liner materials over the
subgrade, the exposed surface will be observed and tested in accordance with the
requirements of the CQA/CQC Plan to confirm the suitability of the subgrade soils.
The asbestos placement area identified in Section 2.7 and noted on Sheets 4 and 7 of the
Engineering Drawings is located in an area where the existing soil is proposed to be
excavated on the order of 20 feet below existing grade. It is not anticipated that the asbestos
is located that far below existing grade and will therefore be removed as part of the
subgrade excavation. Asbestos present below the proposed subgrade will be removed and
the resulting excavation replaced with structural fill. All asbestos removed from the
indicated location will be disposed of in accordance with NYSDEC regulations.
Prior to placement of geosynthetic materials above the subgrade, the surface will be
prepared with a smooth drum compactor. The resultant surface will then be inspected for
sharp objects that may damage the geosynthetic materials, and if objects are found they will
be removed. The subgrade will also be checked for a uniform surface suitable for
geosynthetics (e.g., no pockets that may cause bridging of geosynthetics) and will be
reworked as needed to meet subgrade acceptance requirements.

5.5.2.1 Overfill Liner Subgrade
Subgrade preparation for the overfill liner will be similar to that for areas above native soils.
The overfill liner construction will occur in areas of the landfill development and thus, the
area of the existing landfill that will receive overfill liner for the Development will have
previously received final cover. As such, the waste subgrade would already have been
made suitable for placement of a compacted low permeability soil cover (e.g., proof roll,
address soft spots). Then for construction of the overfill liner, the subgrade preparation
process will proceed as follows:

Overlying layers of topsoil and barrier protection layer will be stripped and
stockpiled for future use in the landfill operation. The materials will be
segregated to the extent practicable (e.g., topsoil, barrier protection soil).

The condition of the underlying barrier layer will be assessed. This will include
collection of samples/or test pits to assess the overall condition and thickness of
the barrier layer.

The overfill subgrades will be proof rolled to assess whether pockets of
unsuitable material remain. Unsuitable materials that weave significantly under
proof-rolling will be removed and replaced with compacted common fill. Before
placing liner materials over the subgrade, the exposed surface will be observed
to confirm suitability.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

41

Additional fill material will be installed over the final approved barrier layer
material to achieve the desired thickness and to provide for a smooth, continuous
grade across the overfill liner area.

The overfill subgrade materials, because they consist of previously placed waste, will be
variable across the proposed overfill areas. The stability and settlement analyses for the
overfill liner are described in the geotechnical sections of this report. Deformations that
may occur in the overfill areas would be the result of settlement and not a loss of strength
leading to bearing failure. Settlement of the existing waste will be a function of the
thickness of the existing waste mass and the anticipated overfill thickness. The computed
post-settlement configuration of the overfill lining as described in the geotechnical analyses,
will continue to provide appropriate leachate drainage.
In areas of the overfill liner where there is the potential for landfill gas migration to occur
during landfill construction (upward from the existing waste) gas collection trenches
(connected by an overlying gas venting layer) will be installed as seen on Sheets 20 and 36.
These trenches will serve to convey gas and moisture to low points at the edge of the
proposed liner where they will be collected and input into either the gas collection of
leachate collection systems. The gas collection trenches and subgrade gas venting layer will
be installed are areas of new liner over Area 1, 2/3 and 4.
During the construction of the overfill liner system, the installation of the subgrade landfill
gas venting system shall be staged such that gas may not be allowed to build up under the
liner system. Should formation of gas under the liner system cause uplift of the liner
components, vacuum shall be applied to the venting system to relieve the pressure and an
engineer will examine liner components that for damage. Damage to liner components will
be repaired compliant to NYSDEC Part 360 regulations.

5.5.3 Porewater Drainage System
To maintain heads below the double composite liner system, a porewater drainage system
will be installed on the prepared subgrade of the Development areas wherever the seasonal
high groundwater table elevations are above the bottom of the liner system elevations. The
extent of the porewater drainage system is shown on the Engineering Drawings, Sheet 7.
The porewater drainage system will be dewatered until such time as the head above the
liner system is equalized by the liner system and overlying waste, and will help provide a
firm, stable foundation upon which the liner system will be constructed.
The components of the porewater drainage system are as follows:

A geosynthetic composite drainage (GCD) layer or a stone mat as a blanket drain
over the area in which porewater collection is necessary.

Piping along the low points of the porewater drainage system to collect the
groundwater and convey it to a sump.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

42

A sump and submersible pump from which collected porewater will be pumped
to the site-wide stormwater system.

The geocomposite porewater drain layer must possess adequate transmissivity to
effectively collect and remove groundwater. The required transmissivity of the GCD was
calculated using the seepage rates identified in the calculations in Attachment 7. The results
of the calculation for required transmissivity indicate a minimum transmissivity of 5 x 10-4
m2/sec is required.

5.5.4 Soil Liner
The secondary soil liner has been designed and will be placed in accordance with the
requirements of Part 360, paragraph 360-2.13(j). Soil liner will be placed directly below the
secondary HDPE geomembrane. The secondary clay layer for the horizontal development
will consist of 24 inches of low permeability soil. The minimum compaction required will
be 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density to provide a maximum hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The maximum thickness of the lift will be 6 inches unless
otherwise approved by the department. QA/QC testing will be performed at the
frequencies specified in Section 02276 of the Technical Specifications and in the
Construction Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Plan. The QA/QC testing requirements
meet or exceed the requirements of Part 360.

5.5.5 Secondary HDPE Geomembrane
The upper component of the secondary composite liner specified for the facility will consist
of a 60 mil, textured HDPE geomembrane. The secondary geomembrane, in conjunction
with the underlying secondary soil liner, will form the secondary composite liner system.
HDPE geomembranes are widely used in landfill liner applications. The HDPE
geomembrane will have physical and chemical properties that provide for an excellent
barrier to the migration of liquids. Geomembrane is subject to manufacturing quality
assurance/quality control testing as well as independent conformance testing to verify that
the properties meet or exceed the requirements provided in the technical specifications.
The geomembrane used in the dual composite liner system will be deployed, seamed,
inspected, and tested in accordance with the provisions of the CQA/CQC Plan and the
Specifications. The membrane liners will be protected after placement to maintain their
integrity by implementing measures to minimize puncture or tearing of the sheet prior to
placement of the protective geotextile.

5.5.6 Secondary Collection System
The combined GCD and sand drainage layer are designed to provide not only leak
detection, but a second liner/leachate collection system that is can effectively convey
leachate. The secondary leachate collection system will consist of a geosynthetic composite
drainage layer, 12 inches of overlying sand, and a perforated pipe system designed to
convey liquid from above the secondary composite liner system to the secondary sumps for
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

43

removal. Flow from the secondary system will be measured and averaged over 30-day
periods to determine the leakage rate for the primary liner system. The secondary leachate
collection system will be discontinuous between operational cells to allow separate and
distinct monitoring of the primary liner system between subcells, as shown on the
Engineering Drawings.
The GCD will consist of a geonet core with a non-woven needle-punched geotextile heat
bonded to both sides consistent with the specifications presented in Attachment 4. The
geocomposite will be placed on top of the textured secondary membrane liner, and below a
12-inch sand drainage layer. The results of the calculation for required transmissivity are
presented in Attachment 7 and indicate a minimum transmissivity of 1.07 x 10-4 m2/sec is
required for the secondary GCD. At the impingement rate of 100 gpad the minimum
required hydraulic conductivity of the sand would be 0.01 cm/sec.
Once the secondary collection system drainage layer has conveyed leachate to the pipe
drains placed in the low points of the baseliner configuration, the pipe maintains significant
capacity to convey flow to the sumps. The lateral and header pipe for the secondary
leachate collection system will consist of six-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe. The
required flow capacity of the six-inch perforated collection piping was determined based on
the largest calculated contributing flow rate of 0.025 cubic feet per second (cfs), based on the
maximum operating area under the initial conditions (i.e., highest) impingement rate. The
calculated flow capacity of the six-inch perforated secondary collection pipe, flowing half
full, is 0.33 cfs at a slope of one percent (minimum post settlement slope along pipe
alignments). The pipe loading calculations are presented in Attachment 7, and indicate that
under the greatest areas of fill with the maximum overburden pressures, PVC schedule 80
pipe is acceptable.

5.5.7 Geosynthetic Clay Liner
In lieu of a compacted primary soil liner, the material used below the primary
geomembrane will be a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). As specified in Part 360 paragraph
2.13 (j)(1) (i), a GCL may be substituted for a compacted soil liner below the primary
geomembrane. The GCL will be a needle-punched, reinforced composite consisting of a
layer of sodium bentonite between two geotextile layers that are needle-punched to
develop a reinforcing bond. The materials of construction will be in accordance with the
specifications contained in the CQA/CQC Plan (Attachment 4).
The typical permeability of commercially available GCL materials is conservatively
estimated at 5 x 10-9 cm/sec, but is typically even lower based on actual field
measurements. This value is typically an order of magnitude lower than achieved with a
compacted clay liner. The GCL used in the primary liner system will be deployed, seamed,
inspected, and tested in accordance with the provisions of the CQA/CQC Plan and the
Specifications (Attachment 4).

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

44

5.5.8 Primary Geomembrane
The upper component of the primary composite liner specified for the facility will consist of
a 60 mil, textured HDPE geomembrane. The secondary geomembrane, in conjunction with
the underlying secondary soil liner, will form the secondary composite liner system. HDPE
geomembranes are widely used in landfill liner applications. The HDPE geomembrane will
have physical and chemical properties that provide for an excellent barrier to the migration
of liquids. Geomembrane is subject to manufacturing quality assurance/quality control
testing as well as independent conformance testing to verify that the properties meet or
exceed the requirements provided in the technical specifications.
The geomembrane used in the dual composite liner system will be deployed, seamed,
inspected, and tested in accordance with the provisions of the CQA/CQC Plan and the
Specifications. The membrane liners will be protected after placement to maintain their
integrity by implementing measures to minimize puncture or tearing of the sheet prior to
placement of the protective geotextile.

5.5.9 Primary Geotextile Cushion
To protect the uppermost geomembrane during the placement and loading of the primary
collection system drainage layer (No. 1 stone), a geotextile cushion will be placed directly
above the membrane. Geotextile cushions have the effect of improving the puncture and
impact strength of membrane liner systems. Geotextiles placed above membrane liners
tend to increase the radius of curvature of a membrane under load, which decreases the
strain and therefore the stress level in the membrane. In addition, the tensile strength
mobilized in the geotextile will spread the load imposed by materials above the liner
system, further reducing stress in the membrane liner. For the purposes of design, the
suitability of the geotextile cushion was evaluated based on the amount of strain associated
with the placement of coarse-grained materials (No. 1 stone) over a geomembrane. At the
time of construction, the weight of the geotextile would be verified against the actual
material used in the primary soil drainage layer.
The primary geotextile cushion will be covered with the primary leachate collection layer
soon after placement to limit UV exposure. Geotextiles that may remain exposed for a
period of time exceeding 30 days will be covered with a sacrificial geotextile for protection
from weathering or will be covered with additional geotextile or removed if exposed for
greater than 30 days. The use of tracked equipment directly on the cushion will be
prohibited to prevent ripping or tearing of the geotextile.

5.5.10 Primary Leachate Collection System
The primary leachate collection system is designed to collect leachate generated in the
landfill and convey it to a low point, or sump, where leachate will be pumped to the
aboveground storage tank, or recirculated to the landfilled waste. The design of the

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

45

primary leachate collection system is based on the requirements of paragraph
360-2.13(g)(1). The design of the system is such that the head on the primary liner system
will not exceed 12 inches except during storm events when the liner system is exposed, or
in the immediate vicinity of the sumps. The primary leachate collection layer will consist of
24 inches of No. 1 rounded stone.
The requirements of subparagraph 360-2.13(1)(2)(i) state that the minimum coefficient of
permeability for the primary leachate collection layer must be 1 x 10-2 cm/sec. At the short
term impingement rate of 2,141 gpad (which then had a factor of safety of 3 applied) the
minimum required permeability of the stone in Cell 2 would be 0.28 cm/sec. This is the
longest proposed flow path for the project. For other cells, which have shorter flow paths,
lower permeabilities are allowed as called out in the Permit Drawings. On the sideslopes
(>=33%), which have a higher gradient, the minimum required hydraulic conductivity of
the stone or sand would be 0.04 cm/sec for each of the cells. It is anticipated that No. 1
stone can meet the requirements for conveyance of leachate while maintaining a maximum
head of 12 inches on the liner system. CQA/CQC procedures as described in Attachment 4
will be followed to confirm that the hydraulic conductivity of the primary leachate
collection layer meets the required permeability. These data will be obtained prior to use of
a material and throughout construction.
Once the primary collection system drainage layer (i.e., No. 1 stone) has conveyed leachate
to the pipe drains placed in the low points of the baseliner configuration, the pipe maintains
significant capacity to convey flow to the sumps. The lateral and header pipe for the
primary leachate collection system will consist of eight-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe.
The required flow capacity of the eight-inch perforated collection piping was determined
based on the largest calculated contributing flow rate of 0.11 cubic feet per second (cfs),
based on the maximum operating area under the initial conditions (i.e., highest)
impingement rate. The calculated flow capacity of the eight-inch perforated primary
collection pipe, flowing half full, is 0.72 cfs at a slope of one percent (minimum post
settlement slope along pipe alignments). The pipe loading calculations are presented in
Attachment 7, and indicate that under the greatest areas of fill with the maximum
overburden pressures, PVC schedule 80 pipe is acceptable.

5.6 Cover Systems
5.6.1 Daily Cover
As the site has limited soil availability, CRL will utilize Alternative Daily Cover (ADC)
material approved under 6NYCRR 360-2.17(c). Additional detail regarding the specific
materials used and placement procedures is provided in the O&M Plan.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

46

5.6.2 Intermediate Cover
Intermediate cover consists of non-contaminated soils that are not readily eroded by
stormwater runoff or wind. Clayey soils are normally used and are applied to achieve a
compacted (minimum) one-foot thickness over waste where additional waste will not be
applied within 30 calendar days. Intermediate cover is stripped to the maximum extent
practical immediately prior to the resumption of landfilling within an area. The stripping
of soils prior to waste placement reduces the opportunity for perching of leachate to occur.
Additional detail regarding the specific materials used and placement procedures is
provided in the O&M Plan.

5.6.3 Final Cover System
The conceptual closure design, developed in accordance with Subdivision 360-2.15 is shown
in plan and detail on the drawings. An approvable final closure plan will be submitted to
the department within 60 days of the last receipt of waste, within 60 days before the last
day of the operating permit, or in accordance with the permit requirements, whichever is
earlier. The plan will comply with the requirements of Subdivision 360-2.15(b).
Final cover will be constructed on a 3H:1V slope with a plateau sloped at four percent rising
to peak elevation. Sheet 29 presents a typical section of the proposed final cover system. On
the 3:1 slopes in the Development Landfills, final cover will consist of the following layers,
from bottom to top:

Intermediate cover serving as subgrade;

Landfill gas venting layer, consisting of a geocomposite drainage layer;

Linear low-density polyethylene geomembrane liner;

12 inch sand barrier protection layer with embedded drainage pipe network;

6-oz non-woven geotextile;

12 inches of low permeability barrier protection layer;

6 inch layer of soil suitable to maintain vegetative growth; and,

Vegetative cover.

On the four percent sloped plateau, final cover will consist of the layers that comprise the
3H:1V slopes, along with a GCL between the gas venting layer and the geomembrane.
The above final cover system is consistent with Part 360 design requirements. A GCL is
proposed for use below the geomembrane in lieu of the 18” thick low permeability soil liner
in the composite (< 25%) lined areas, and a geocomposite LFG venting layer is proposed in
lieu of the soil venting layer, as required by subdivision 360-2.13(p). Both the GCL and
geocomposite LFG venting layer are considered equivalent design elements as they will

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

47

effectively perform the functions of the low-permeability soil barrier layer and soil gas
venting layer, respectively, as is discussed further below.
Each of the final cover components are discussed below:

5.6.3.1 Landfill Gas Venting Layer
CRL proposes the substitution of a geocomposite drainage layer for the NYSDEC-specified
12-inch thick landfill gas venting layer. The gas venting GCD is considered an equivalent
layer and would serve as an engineering equivalent material. The substitution of GCD for
the 12-inch soil gas venting layer is a relatively common one that has also been identified as
an acceptable design at other sites. From a performance standpoint, the geocomposite
drainage layer is considered to be a superior system based on the higher transmissivity
associated with readily available materials.

5.6.3.2 Geomembrane
The geomembrane cover system will include a 40-mil linear low-density polyethylene
(LLDPE) geomembrane. LLDPE geomembrane is typically used in final cover applications
due to its superior properties associated with flexibility and ability to conform to grade
changes over time associated with landfill settlement and is well suited to meet the
requirements of 360-2.13(q)(1).

5.6.3.3 GCL
A composite cover system will be required on portions of final cover with slopes less than
25%. For the proposed facilities, this is primarily limited to plateau areas of 4% minimum
slope. CRL is proposing the use of a GCL in lieu of the specified 18” soil barrier layer for
the low-permeability soil barrier layer of the composite cover system. As an equivalent
design, a geosynthetic clay liner is being proposed as a technically equivalent substitute for
the 18” low permeability soil barrier layer component required for the upper plateau of the
landfill. Furthermore, the use of GCLs for composite cover systems on slopes less than 25%
is commonly used in New York State and has been identified as the preferred component
for the soil barrier layer in current NYSDEC draft revised solid waste requirements. GCLs
would not be used on sideslope areas. The proposed GCL for this project would include a
needlepunched GCL. Needlepunched GCLs typically offer a shear strength that, when
properly installed and loaded, far exceeds the required shear strength for the flatter
portions of the slope.

5.6.3.4 Barrier Protection Layer
Barrier protection layer soils are placed on the final cover geosynthetics. The barrier
protection layer serves several functions, including protection of the underlying
geosynthetics from exposure, damage (due to construction equipment or from root

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

48

penetration), to provide a drainage pathway for water that infiltrates the overlying cap
materials and to provide support to the vegetative cover soil.
The barrier protection layer will consist of a 12-inch thick layer of sand, overlain by a 12inch thick layer of relatively impermeable compacted soil, separated by a 10-oz non-woven
geotextile filter fabric. The sand layer serves to drain water infiltrating through the
overlying soils. Within the sand layer a network of drainage pipes will be installed in
vertical and horizontal directions to minimize the flow length within the sand and
efficiently convey water from the cover soils. Without the sand layer and piping, water
would fill the pores within the cover soils resulting in a reduction of soil-to-soil or soil-togeosynthetic normal forces and an increase in the driving force. The reduction in normal
force is due to the soil mass becoming buoyant and would result in a reduction in overall
factor of safety.
The required permeability of the sand layer placed above the geomembrane barrier is a
function of the infiltration rate to the layer, and the location and design of collection drains
to the surface water drainage system. The selection of the design infiltration drainage rate
from the barrier protection layer must consider the engineering properties of the overlying
fine grained barrier protection layer soils, and the physical and biological processes that
tend to affect the soil layer and infiltration rates with time.
Calculations for the required drainage sand permeability, based on collection drainage
spacing and barrier protection layer permeability are provided in Attachment 7. These
calculations have been used to develop the required laboratory permeability results as well
as evaluate potential requirements for required barrier protection layer permeability.
Based on the results of this calculation, the required laboratory permeability for the barrier
protection sand will be at least 0.01 cm/sec. This is based on an assumed barrier protection
layer permeability of 1x10-6 cm/s, and a maximum drainage flow path of 60 feet. Since
permeability of the overlying soil layer is an important parameter, it is recommended that
actual permeability values be evaluated as part of a CQA/CQC program. The actual inplace permeability will be confirmed during construction quality assurance activities.

5.6.3.5 Soil Suitable for Vegetative Cover
The uppermost layer of the final cover system consists of soils capable of sustaining
vegetative growth, applied in one six-inch lift. Prior to seeding, the surface is scarified to
retain seed. Seed over final cover areas is applied with by hand, broadcast spreader,
(followed by placement of a temporary rolled erosion control mat) or by hydroseeding. Use
of hydroseeding or RECPs is dependent upon the overall slope length, time of year, and
type of seed application.

5.6.3.6 Vegetative Cover
The vegetative cover layer typically serves several functions, including:
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

49

Providing an aesthetically pleasing surface;

Providing for erosion protection;

Increasing the rate of evapotranspiration to reduce the rate of infiltration.

In addition, the vegetative cover designed for the final cover system has been designed to
provide a native grassland habitat to various native bird species over a large portion of the
landfill. The grass seed mix selected for the vegetative cover consists of a mixture of quick
germinating species as well as various perennial species consistent with a native grassland
habitat. Additional discussion regarding the selected seed varieties is provided in Section
5.12.5.2

5.7 Closure/Post-Closure Plan
5.7.1 Closure Plan
Placement of final cover is performed to close the facility under a phased approach. Upon
reaching the final design grades, the last portion of final cover placement will essentially
constitute “closure” of the landfill. A Closure Plan (Attachment 6) for the facility has been
developed that provides an overview of the facility closure, including placement of final
cover, closure of supporting facilities, and financial assurances. Sheet 11 depicts the final
grading plans for the proposed Area 7 Development landfill areas.
Fill progression plans have been developed for the facility, which depict the sequence of
facility construction, waste filling and final cover placement. CRL's closure procedures will
consist of sequential final cover construction, landfill gas collection system installation,
drainage facility construction, final access control and final site grading. Landfill closure
certification reports will be prepared for each phase of closure construction. These
certification reports will be prepared in accordance with the Part 360 requirements, and will
include record drawings depicting the final condition of the subject areas.
Final overall grades for the landfills will not exceed the maximum slope allowed by Part
360 requirements, or three feet of horizontal run for every one foot of vertical rise. The
proposed grading also includes intermediate benches/roads to enhance the stability,
operations, and stormwater management of the facility. The 3H:1V slope will continue to a
point near the peak elevation that will result in a plateau that is up to 300-foot wide at the
top of the fill. This plateau will be graded at a four percent slope from the edge of the
3H:1V slope up to the peak elevation.

5.7.1.1 Post Closure Care
In accordance with requirements of subdivision 360-2.15(k), CRL will maintain and sample
facility monitoring points for a period of 30 years beyond final site closure activities.
Methodologies, record keeping, reporting, and other procedural requirements addressed

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

50

during operations and described in the application, apply to the post-closure period. These
are provided in detail in the Closure/Post-Closure Plan (Attachment 6).
Regularly scheduled monitoring, which addresses groundwater, leachate, landfill gas,
surface water and sediment will be conducted throughout the post-closure period in
accordance with the requirements of the Part 360 requirements. Sampling and data
evaluation will be completed in accordance with the approved Closure/Post-Closure Plan
and the Environmental Monitoring Plan, and will be submitted to the NYSDEC in
accordance with the prescribed reporting format and frequencies. Liquid removal from the
primary and secondary collection systems will continue during post-closure. CRL will
record primary and secondary leachate as well as landfill gas condensate generated
throughout the post-closure period.
Maintenance and repairs on the leachate management system will consist of flushing of the
primary leachate collection system piping to maintain leachate removal capabilities.
Routine inspection and upkeep of the stormwater management system will continue on an
as-needed basis to ensure the surface water management system is working properly. Final
cover system integrity will be inspected and maintained throughout the post-closure
period. Deep rooted vegetation not included in the landscaping plans will be removed
from the final cover and areas that have been disturbed or eroded will be repaired and
revegetated. Maintenance of the landfill gas management system will continue throughout
the post-closure period to ensure proper performance. Maintenance of environmental
monitoring program points of compliance will continue throughout the post-closure period
to ensure they are in proper working order.

5.8 Leachate Management
One of the key aspects of managing a sanitary landfill is leachate management. The landfill
design includes various measures to minimize and contain leachate and then collect and
manage the liquid that contacts waste and is collected in the landfill containment system.
The purpose of a low permeability liner system is to restrict the migration of liquids to or
from the contained waste. Intermediate cover placement offers a reduction in the
generation of leachate during operations, while a low permeability final cover is applied to
even further restrict the generation of leachate after closure of the landfill. The leachate
collection system, in part, is designed to effectively minimize the buildup of liquid on the
low permeability liner system below. The minimization of this "head" on the liner system,
by limiting the infiltration of liquids through operational practices and by providing
efficient removal, will help to protect the environment. The following sections describe the
various practices for leachate management that are used in the currently permitted landfill
operation and are proposed for the landfill Development.
For the purposes of this application, leachate is defined as:

A liquid that accumulates in an existing leachate well;

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

51

A liquid which accumulates within a zone in which refuse has been deposited; or

A liquid which has been in contact with or passed through solid waste, or which
has been contaminated by liquid which has been in contact with or passed
through solid waste.

5.8.1 Leachate Generation Rate Factors
Liquid is introduced to and/or removed from the landfill through surface and subsurface
processes. Surface processes include retention, evaporation, infiltration and runoff.
Subsurface processes following infiltration include evapotranspiration, percolation and
lateral flow. These processes are defined as follows:

Surface Retention: The portion of water that is stored at the surface of the landfill is
known as surface retention. Water is retained at the surface through vegetation and
puddling. Evaporation can deplete some of this water.

Surface Runoff and Run-on: This condition is often defined as overland flow and
represents the portion of precipitation which exceeds infiltration rate and therefore
runs off the ground surface.

Infiltration: This can be defined as the portion of the water that flows into the cover
and/or waste. The infiltration capacity is defined as the maximum rate at which
water can enter the subsurface system.

Storage: Storage is defined as the volume of water accumulated in soil and surface
voids.

Evaporation: The process by which liquid water is converted to vapor is
evaporation. This process is controlled by several factors including air temperature,
solar radiation, vapor pressure, wind, and atmospheric pressure. The evaporation of
water from a saturated soil surface is essentially equal to the evaporation from a
water surface. As surface soil water evaporates, the soil dries and moisture must be
drawn from deeper soil layers. As the saturation depth in soil increases, the rate of
evaporation decreases.

Transpiration: During the process of transpiration, water is absorbed by plant roots
and is released to the atmosphere by the plant as a vapor. This process is dependent
on the plant type, plant density, and soil moisture.

Evapotranspiration: This is defined as the amount of water loss that will occur from
a soil surface containing enough moisture to sustain vegetation. During this process,
water is absorbed by plant roots and is released to the atmosphere by the plant as a
vapor. This process is dependent on the plant type, plant density, and soil moisture.

Percolation: This is defined as the rate of vertical flow of water through the soil.
Percolation is affected by gravity, saturation zone thickness, soil permeability and
capillary flow.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

52

Lateral Drainage: Lateral drainage represents the portion of precipitation which
infiltrates through the surface of the landfill final cover system and is collected by a
drainage system installed within the final cover. This collected liquid does not
contact waste and is therefore not considered leachate.

Underflow: Groundwater which enters the landfill from below unlined areas is
defined as underflow.

Leachate generation rates depend primarily on the amount of water contained in the waste
upon disposal and the quantity of precipitation that percolates through the waste mass.
The factors which influence leachate generation rates include:

Climate: The amount of precipitation in an area will have a significant impact on
leachate generation. Leachate generation rates tend to vary seasonally. Spring and
fall generation rates typically exceed those in the summer and winter.

Topography: The landfill slope influences the amount of infiltration and runoff
which occurs as a result of surface water flow. Steeper slopes promote runoff and
minimize infiltration thus reducing leachate generation.

Cover: The type and thickness of cover affects infiltration of rainfall into the waste
mass. More porous or permeable soil leads to increased leachate generation. As the
permeability of cover soils decreases so does the leachate generation.

Vegetation: The use of vegetation in final cover has a significant effect on the
leachate generation rate of the landfill. Vegetation intercepts precipitation directly
and absorbs soil moisture thus reducing net infiltration. Without vegetation, erosion
of cap components would occur and infiltration would increase.

Waste Type: The type and composition of waste affect the quantity and composition
of leachate produced. Waste disposed with a higher moisture content will result in
the production of more leachate, for example.

With the above as background, leachate generation rates for the proposed Area 7
Development have been estimated using both existing operating data and estimates from
predictive tools. Each of the components of the leachate generation estimates is described
below.

5.8.1.1 HELP Model
The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model is a water balance model
(EPA, 1984) developed by the USEPA as a predictive tool for assessing leachate generation
at landfills, among other items. The HELP model was used in combination with the
existing landfill data to predict leachate generation rates.
Simulation runs were conducted for a variety of operational scenarios (involving different
surface covers) that would be present during various phases of the Area 7 Development.
The input parameters to the HELP model for these simulations are as follows:
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

53

General Input Parameters:

Precipitation data: Daily precipitation records from Albany International Airport
for the time period between 1964 and 2013 (past 50 years) were obtained from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Temperature data: A 50 year synthetic temperature data set was created by the
HELP model using normal mean monthly temperatures for Albany, NY.

Solar Radiation data: A 50 year synthetic solar radiation data set was created by
the HELP model based on a latitude of 42.45 degrees.

Initial Start-up Conditions (baseliner only):

For conservative purposes, this condition was modeled as an open constructed
baseliner without waste. Baseliner layers were modeled as the proposed Area 7
Development floor liner system (Sheet 24 of the Engineering Drawings).

Surface runoff was not allowed by the model, meaning precipitation could only
be collected by the primary leachate collection layer or be lost to
evapotranspiration.

An evaporative zone depth of 3-inches and a leaf area index of 0 were used to
reflect minimal presence of vegetation.

Active Waste Placement Conditions (baseliner with half of total waste height):

In addition to the baseliner, 50-feet of waste was modeled as half of the total
waste height with 6-inches of daily cover. This height is representative of the
average waste height during active conditions.

Surface runoff was not allowed by the model, meaning precipitation could only
infiltrate the waste and be collected by the primary leachate collection layer or be
lost to evapotranspiration.

An evaporative zone depth of 3-inches and a leaf area index of 0 were used to
reflect minimal presence of vegetation.

An initial water content of 20% was used for the waste layer, which is
representative of municipal solid waste as it comes to a disposal site.

The model was run for 5-years, representing the amount of time an area would
remain active before placing intermediate cover, using the most recent
precipitation data (2009-2013).

Intermediate Cover Conditions (total waste height with 12”of soil cover):

Twelve inches of silty-clay soil cover typical of the cover types available at the
site was modeled over the total waste height (estimated as 100-feet) and
baseliner.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

54

Surface runoff was allowed for 50% of the modeled area with a curve number of
73.7 to reflect to reflect segregation of runoff from leachate under intermediate
cover conditions with a good stand of grass.

An evaporative zone depth of 8-inches and a leaf area index of 2 were used to
reflect the presence of shallow rooted vegetation cover.

The intermediate cover model is assumed to occur on a landfill sideslope area,
with a slope of 33% and slope length of 500-feet.

Final Cover (Area 7 Development):

The proposed Area 7 Development final cover was modeled from top to bottom
as 6-inches of top soil, 24-inches of barrier protection layer (12-inches of
compacted soil and 12-inches of sand), 40 mil textured LLDPE geomembrane
liner, landfill gas venting composite, 12-inches of intermediate cover, 100-feet
waste, and baseliner (Sheet 29 of the Engineering Drawings).

Surface runoff was allowed for 100% of the modeled area with a curve number of
73.7 to reflect to reflect segregation of runoff from leachate under intermediate
cover conditions with a good stand of grass.

An evaporative zone depth of 8-inches and a leaf area index of 2 were used to
reflect the presence of shallow rooted vegetation cover.

The intermediate cover model is assumed to occur on a landfill sideslope area,
with a slope of 33% and slope length of 500-feet.

Final Cover (Area 4 Geomembrane):

The Area 4 final cover was modeled from top to bottom as 6-inches of top soil,
12-inches of barrier protection layer, geocomposite drainage layer, 60 mil LLDPE
geomembrane liner, 18-inches of intermediate cover, 100-feet waste, and
baseliner.
Final Cover layers were modeled as the proposed Area 7
Development final cover system with slopes less than 25%

Surface runoff was allowed for 100% of the modeled area with a curve number of
73.7 to reflect to reflect segregation of runoff from leachate under intermediate
cover conditions with a good stand of grass.

An evaporative zone depth of 8-inches and a leaf area index of 2 were used to
reflect the presence of shallow rooted vegetation cover.

The intermediate cover model is assumed to occur on a landfill sideslope area,
with a slope of 33% and slope length of 500-feet.

Final Cover (Area 2/3 Clay):

The Area 2/3 final cover was modeled from top to bottom as 6-inches of top soil,
18-inches of compacted clay barrier soil, 12-inches of intermediate cover, 100-feet
waste, and baseliner.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

55

Surface runoff was allowed for 100% of the modeled area with a curve number of
73.7 to reflect to reflect segregation of runoff from leachate under intermediate
cover conditions with a good stand of grass.

An evaporative zone depth of 8-inches and a leaf area index of 2 were used to
reflect the presence of shallow rooted vegetation cover.

The intermediate cover model is assumed to occur on a landfill sideslope area,
with a slope of 33% and slope length of 500-feet.

Initial operations are defined as the time period when minimal waste thickness exists over a
constructed liner area. During this time period the presence of a limited quantity of waste
(modeled here as no waste) limits the moisture holding capacity available to reduce
leachate generation rates and portions of the porous leachate collection layer where
stormwater cannot be effectively diverted are directly exposed to precipitation. Therefore,
initial operations for a given area is the time period during which leachate generation rates
would be at their maximum.
Active operations represent conditions where waste covers the entire area of baseliner, the
moisture holding capacity of the waste reduces net infiltration to the primary leachate
collection system, and only daily cover exists on the landfill operating areas. This condition
yields leachate generation rates considerably less than initial operations.
The results of these HELP model simulations resulted in the following estimated leachate
generation rates:

Initial Start-up: 28.8 inches per year, or 2,141 gallons per acres day (gpad)

Active Waste Placement: 15.0 inches per year, or 1,116 gpad

Intermediate Cover: 6.5 inches per year, or 482 gpad

Final Cover (Area 7 Development): 0.15 inches per year, or 11 gpad

Final Cover (Area 4): 0.00 inches per year, or 0 gpad

Final Cover (Area 2/3): 0.71 inches per year, or 53 gpad

The HELP model output files are presented in Attachment 7 of this Engineering Report.

5.8.1.2 Existing Leachate Generation Data
The leachate generation estimates during the life of the landfill and at closure are presented
in Attachment 7. To evaluate the accuracy of the leachate generation estimate, actual
leachate collection data from the site in 2012 was compared to an estimate for 2012 based on
open areas, cover types and other factors that influenced the leachate volume. Taking into
account that some stormwater had been treated as leachate during 2012, the estimate and
historical data were comparable and proved the validity of the overall leachate generation
estimate. As seen in the calculation the estimated volume of leachate that would have been
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

56

generated based on infiltration through the various cover soils is approximately 15.2 million
gallons. However, in 2012 the runoff from a significant area of the east face of Areas 5 and 6
that had intermediate cover was not actively directed to the stormwater system. The
resulting runoff entered the leachate collection system and contributed to the overall annual
leachate volumes. Based on area, cover type and a reduction factor based on conversations
with site personnel that accounted for operational variations, a volume of approximately 3.9
million gallons of stormwater was estimated to enter into the leachate collection system.
The resulting overall estimate of 19.1 million gallons correlates to the total collected in 2012
of 19 million gallons, supporting the leachate model described above, its inputs,
assumptions, and its results.

5.8.1.3 Leachate Generation Estimate
A leachate generation estimate was developed for the proposed Area 7 Development to
evaluate the logistics of off-site leachate management and the sizing of storage facilities.
The leachate generation estimate is based on the leachate generation rates presented in the
preceding section for the initial start-up, active waste placement, and intermediate cover
conditions, and more conservative values for the final cover conditions. For the final covers
that include a geomembrane liner (Area 7 Development and Area 4), a conservative
generation rate of 20 gpad was used since it represents the Part 360 maximum allowable
leakage rate of leachate into the secondary leachate collection system. For the compact clay
final cover (Area 2/3), a factor of safety of approximately 2 was applied to the HELP model
analysis output to account for possible desiccation and cracking of the clay, increasing the
generation rate to 100 gpad.
Leachate generation estimates were prepared for eight (8) phases of the Area 7
Development by applying the leachate generation rates over the different operational
scenarios. These phases are depicted by site maps included in the calculations in
Attachment 7 of this Engineering Report. Both a lower and upper estimate was performed
for each phase. The lower leachate generation estimate represents the conditions as
depicted on the site maps included in Attachment 7, with no more than ten (10) acres of
initial start-up conditions. The upper leachate generation estimate assumes there is a total
of twenty (20) acres of active landfilling (if the site plan shows less than 20 acres open, some
intermediate cover is modeled as active waste placement).
The estimates of annual leachate generation rates during the life of the landfill and at
closure are presented in Table 5-1. As seen in this table the largest volume of leachate is
anticipated to be generated during Phase 3 and is estimated at approximately 17,050,000
million gallons.

5.8.2 Leachate Conveyance, Storage and Transfer Systems
The proposed leachate conveyance, storage and transfer system consists of six main
components as described below. These main components are:

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

57

Leachate collection sumps, consisting of the primary and secondary sumps in
each of the Development areas;

The side riser stations, which house and protect the flow meters, sampling ports
and level controllers;

The flow meters, sampling ports and valves which provide control and effective
monitoring of the system;

The leachate conveyance system, which consists of the leachate pressure pipe
systems, flow meters, sampling ports, manholes, cleanouts and monitoring
risers. This conveyance system transfers leachate from the side riser stations to
the leachate storage/transfer facility; The leachate recirculation system,
consisting of horizontal injection trenches, actuated valving, level and flow
sensors, leachate pumps and transmission piping;

The leachate storage tanks and pump station which allows temporary storage
and transfer of leachate to off-site location via forcemain; and

The retrofitting of the existing landfill leachate collection drains in Areas 5 and 6
to accommodate the Area 7 Development area overfill on to the existing landfill
(west side).

5.8.2.1 Collection Piping and Cleanouts
As discussed in Section 5.5, porewater and leachate collection pipes will be installed within
the primary and secondary leachate collection layers to intercept and convey leachate flow
into the leachate collection sump. The purpose of the leachate collection piping system is to
transfer leachate from the collection system (e.g., drainage media) into the leachate
conveyance systems. The porewater/leachate piping systems convey liquids to the
respective collection sumps within each cell. Leachate collection pipes are also installed
along the toe of slopes located on side or down gradient locations of the liner system and at
flow convergence locations on the liner floor. The required leachate collection piping
spacing is a function of leachate impingement rates, the flow path, and system
permeability. The Area 7 Development liner systems have been designed with higher
permeability leachate collection media (e.g., No. 1 stone in primary systems, use of GCD in
secondary leachate collection systems), allowing for minimization of leachate collection
piping along the floor. Calculations supporting leachate collection pipe spacing are
provided in Attachment 7 and show that the leachate head will be maintained below a
maximum of 12 inches with collection pipes located only along the perimeter areas of the
liner system.
Leachate collection pipe cleanouts will be connected to the leachate collection pipes located
on the floor of the liner system to facilitate inspection and cleaning of the pipes. Cleanouts
will consist of similar diameter Schedule 80 PVC pipe (HDPE SDR 17 is also appropriate)
piping installed on the sideslopes of the leachate collection systems. Primary and
secondary leachate collection pipe cleanout locations are depicted on Sheets 8 and 9 of the
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

58

Engineering Drawings. No cleanouts will be required for porewater collection systems due
to the short time frame this system will operate.

5.8.2.2 Collection Sumps and Siderisers
The proposed Area 7 Development is divided into a total of four separate drainage subareas from which leachate generation and secondary collection system monitoring can be
performed separately. The leachate collection pipes placed within the primary leachate
collection layer and the secondary collection layer respectively, will convey collected
liquids to one of the four sumps for removal. At each sump location, leachate collection
pipes will discharge into a leachate collection tee that will be connected to the associated
primary and secondary leachate collection sideriser pipes, consisting of 18-inch diameter
HDPE pipe. The sideriser pipes provide access to the sumps from the sideriser station.
Each sump will contain a submersible pump to convey leachate through a discharge hose
into the respective perimeter conveyance system or to recirculation. The pump systems
will be equipped with level controllers to enable and disable the pumps, and a high level
alarm controller to indicate possible pump failure. The primary and secondary sideriser
pipes at each sump location will daylight into a sideriser station at the top of the perimeter
embankments.
The porewater drain system located beneath Cell 5 will also drain to dedicated sumps,
located at the same low point as the primary and secondary systems. The porewater
sumps, located beneath the primary and secondary leachate collection sumps, will consist
of a 12-inch PVC tee connected to a 12-inch sideriser pipe that will connect the sump to the
sideriser station. The porewater sump will be fitted with a submersible pump for
groundwater removal. Groundwater will be discharged into the leachate collection system.

5.8.2.3 Sideriser Stations
Each sideriser station serves to house the monitoring equipment necessary to conform to
the requirements of paragraph 360-2.7(b)(9)(iv). This citation requires that the landfill's
primary and secondary leachate collection and removal systems include leachate flow
monitoring devices and controls to effectively quantify flow rates.
Flow conveyed by each of the primary and secondary collection sumps will be
independently measured within the sideriser station prior to being combined into the sitewide leachate conveyance system. Flow sensors will transmit flow information through a
relay located within each station, and the data will be continuously recorded. At sump
locations where a porewater drain is present, the flow monitoring and recording capability
will also be provided for the porewater system. This system will also record the data
required to compute the rate of leakage into the secondary leachate collection system for
comparison with the allowable leakage rate. Sample ports will be provided to permit
independent sampling of the liquids removed from the primary, secondary and porewater
systems.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

59

During routine operations, pump on/off liquid level controllers and high level alarms for
each of the primary and secondary leachate collection sumps will provide automatic
evacuation of collected liquids. Manual "hand/off/auto" (HOA) switches will also be
provided within the sideriser stations. Level and flow controls will also be installed for the
porewater drain sumps. Leachate and groundwater conveyance will be controlled by
valving located within the individual sideriser stations. The locations of the sideriser
stations and the details are shown on the Engineering Drawings, Sheets 7 through 9, and
Sheets 25 through 27, respectively.

5.8.2.4 Flow Control and Monitoring Devices
To properly direct and monitor leachate flow, several valves, flow meters and sampling
ports have been located throughout the system. Each valve and flow meter addresses a
specific function in controlling and monitoring leachate flow for the proposed facility as
discussed below.
The purpose of flow meters is to allow CRL to record the quantities of liquid removed from
the individual collection systems installed within each landfill area. These meters will be
installed in proposed sideriser stations, manholes, and the leachate pump facility.
Quantities of flow in the secondary leachate collection zones will be used to evaluate the
leakage rate through the primary liner system. The purpose of the valves specified by the
design is to allow flow to be contained or diverted. These valves consist of check valves,
gate valves, ball valves and electrically actuated valves dependent on their location and
function. The valves will be located in each sideriser station, manhole and sump along the
leachate conveyance system, as well as the existing leachate wells and the leachate transfer
building. Valves allow the diversion of flow for cleanout and pipe maintenance purposes.
The purpose of sampling ports is to allow for the collection of samples of liquid for analysis.
Sampling ports are located in each sideriser station and select manholes along the leachate
conveyance system.
The details of the piping, valving, and controls are illustrated on the Engineering Drawings,
Sheets 25 through 28

5.8.2.5 Existing Landfill Retrofitting
The proposed overfill on the western face of the existing landfill (Area 5 and 6) will result in
waste placement over the existing cleanouts for the primary and secondary collection
systems for Areas 5 and 6. To provide the ability to clean the existing systems out in the
future, the collection sumps on the east side of the landfill will be retrofitted to provide a
clean-out port.

5.8.2.6 Leachate Conveyance System
Currently, leachate from the operating landfill cells (primarily Areas 5 and 6) flows via
pumping and gravity along the eastern side of the site to the ponds where pumping
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

60

facilities manage both the inflow and outflow from the ponds. The ponds discharge via
pumping to a force main that leaves the site at the northeast corner of the ponds and enters
a public force-main along Cohoes-Crescent Road.
As Cell 1 is proposed in the existing location of the leachate ponds, the initial Area 7
Development construction that is proposed consists of the installation of two new glass
lined steel tanks with a total combined capacity of 1,000,000 gallons. Upon relocation of the
storage facilities a new force main will be installed that will eventually surround the west,
north, and east sides of the site. Initially, a new section of force main will be installed on
the east side of the site that will be fed by Sump #1 and a new pump station at the northeast
corner of the site. The pump station, which will consist of an HDPE manhole inside a
concrete structure, will collect residual gravity flow from the former collection system that
is part of Areas 2/3 and 4 as well as continued flow from Area 5 via gravity discharge. The
pump station will send collected leachate via the force main along the existing access road
on the east side of the site to the new storage tanks. The pump station will be operated with
automatic floats for regular pumping operations and the station will be fitted with a high
level alarm. Leachate from Area 6 will continue to be pumped via force main along the east
side of the landfill. However, rather than pass through existing manhole MH-1A – where it
transitions to gravity flow - a new structure will be installed adjacent to MH-1A. The new
structure will contain valving for a new connection between the existing Area 6 force main
and the proposed force main. This detail can be seen on Sheet 22.
Eventually, leachate collected from Leachate Sumps #1, through #5, will be conveyed along
the proposed perimeter berm in a new force main along the west and north sides of the site,
discharging into the wet well at the proposed pump station. Leachate conveyance after
collection and storage is discussed in subsequent sections.
To facilitate force main access for routine maintenance and cleaning, manholes will be
located along the proposed conveyance system pipeline. Outside the landfill footprint, leak
detection risers are located along the conveyance pipe to detect the presence of liquid in the
HDPE containment pipe. The dual containment pipe will be sloped so that liquid present
in the containment pipe will gravity feed to the leak detection risers located at low points of
the system. Routine inspections of these risers will be performed as presented in the
Operation and Maintenance Plan.
The proposed Area 7 Development is designed to convey leachate to the storage and
transfer facility using the systems noted above. The design of the proposed force mains
parallels that of the existing systems. The proposed systems include heat-fused HDPE, dual
contained pipe, manholes, and leak detection risers. The location of the proposed leachate
conveyance system can be seen on Sheet 22 of the Engineering Drawings.
The ability of the new force main to accommodate the projected leachate flow was also
assessed by performing head loss calculations for the longest run of the leachate
conveyance system to the leachate storage tanks. The calculations were performed using

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

61

leachate impingement rates for initial start-up conditions (i.e., highest expected flow rate)
over the largest operational area contributing to the force main. The head loss calculations
were performed to create a system curve and then compare this system curve to typical
pump curves. These calculations and pump manufacturer’s data are presented in
Attachment 7 and illustrate that the new force main to the leachate storage tanks can
adequately handle the maximum leachate generation rate with a commercially available
pump.
The frequency of on-off cycles based on the storage capacity in the sumps was also
assessed. That is, if pumps cycle on and off too frequently, the higher energy demand on
startup can overheat and burn out the pump motors. The calculation was performed again
using the highest expected leachate flow rate to the sumps, based on initial start-up
conditions to determine the shortest expected cycle time. The calculations are shown in
Attachment 7 and indicate maximum cycle times will be a maximum of 17 starts per day,
which is well within the operating parameters for the sump pumps.

5.8.2.7 Leachate Storage/Transfer Facility
The existing leachate storage facility at the site consists of two lined ponds with a total
storage capacity of approximately 1.8 million gallons of leachate. Leachate from the
operating landfill cells (primarily Areas 5 and 6) flows via pumping and gravity along the
eastern side of the site to the ponds where pumping facilities manage both the inflow and
outflow from the ponds. The ponds discharge via pumping to a force main that leaves the
site at the northeast corner of the ponds and enters a public force-main along CohoesCrescent Road.
As Cell 1 is proposed in the existing location of the leachate ponds, the initial Area 7
Development construction that is proposed consists of the installation of two new glass
lined steel tanks with a total combined capacity of 1,000,000 gallons. The proposed volume
of the new steel tanks is discussed below. From the new tank locations, leachate will be
pumped via forcemain along landfill access roads to the south end of the site where it will
enter a new force main (using an existing, unused sewer alignment) located on Green
Mountain Drive and connect to an existing force main on Fonda Road. As a back-up
system a second force main will be installed along landfill access roads on the east side of
the site and into the same line that is currently being used along Cohoes-Crescent Road.
Head loss calculations were performed on the force main leaving the leachate tanks
connecting to Fonda Road and illustrate that the new force main can adequately discharge
the maximum inflow rate to the tanks with a commercially available pump. These
calculations are presented in Attachment 7. The back-up force main to Cohoes-Crescent
Road flows downhill with an elevation change of approximately 70 feet. As both the Fonda
Road and Cohoes-Crescent Road force mains are of similar length and construction, due to
downhill elevation change between the leachate tanks and the Cohoes-Crescent Road force

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

62

main discharge, pumps designed for the Fonda Road force main will be adequate for the
Cohoes-Crescent Road force main.
The proposed leachate tanks will be 500,000 gallon (522,000-gallon working capacity) glass
lined steel tank. The tanks will be equipped with level controls and cathodic protection.
Leachate is transferred into the tank through the four inch diameter PVC pipe discharging
near the top of the tank. Leachate is evacuated from the tank through a four inch diameter
pipe located near the bottom of the tank. The tank is covered by a domed aluminum roof
and fitted with a manway for tank access and inspection. A permanent ladder is installed
to allow access to the roof opening and leachate transfer piping. A bubbler system is
located around the perimeter of the tank to help minimize the impacts from freezing.
To monitor potential leakage from the storage tank, a leak containment and detection
system will be installed below the tank floor. This system consists of a center sloping
foundation floor, an HDPE membrane liner sloped to a floor drain and a sand bed above
the membrane liner. Liquid that collects in the floor drain would flow to the leak detection
riser located outside the tank.
A secondary containment berm and soil liner system are constructed around the tank in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph 360-6.3(b)(1). Containment is provided by
a 60 mil HDPE membrane liner. A twelve (12) inch thick layer of protective soil will be
located over the HDPE liner. In addition, an eight (8) inch thick layer of No. 2 stone will be
on top of the soil layer along the base to provide an all-weather wearing surface and
drainage of stormwater to the sump located in the southwestern corner of the containment
area. Stormwater gravity drains to a sump for discharge into the stormwater system (after
visual inspection and in accordance with the MSGP). The secondary containment capacity
is 110% of the storage tank volume in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 3606.3(b)(1).
Town owned and operated wastewater treatment plant currently has approval to accept up
to 70,000 gallon per day of leachate from the Town of Colonie landfill. Copies of the
approvals for this disposal capacity are included in Attachment 8.
Based on the calculations presented in Attachment 7 for leachate generation quantities, the
maximum estimated daily leachate generation rate, including accounting for initial
operations conditions, is 46,700 gallons per day. This generation rate is estimated to occur
during the Phase 3 construction and assumes up to 20 acres of area is either in initial startup condition or active waste placement (no intermediate cover). This is well below the
allowable capacity that the Town has established for leachate disposal. Furthermore, these
leachate generation quantities are largely based on operating data from the existing landfill,
not on estimates from other facilities or reasonable tools for projection, as would be the case
for a new facility without an operating history. Therefore, the degree of certainty in the
estimates is enhanced.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

63

CRL has demonstrated its ability to properly manage daily fluctuations in the volume of
leachate collected from the existing landfill, to properly dispose of leachate on a continuing
basis, and to maintain leachate heads at or below regulatory levels with the current storage
capacity. Therefore, the successful operating history of the leachate at the Town of Colonie
landfill is directly applicable to the projected leachate generation rates and storage capacity
proposed for the Area 7 Development.
The proposed tanks will provide more of a staging area than storage due to the relatively
rapid turnaround time between collection and disposal. The Part 360 requirements state
that the minimum design capacity must be based on the proposed leachate generation rate
and must be capable of containing a minimum of three months combined flow during the
initial start-up condition of the landfill unless otherwise approved by the Department.
However, for the reasons stated above and further discussions presented below, CRL is
proposing the use of two 500,000 gallon leachate storage tanks at the facility.
CRL's leachate management plan outlines procedures for minimizing leachate generation.
As illustrated in the design, stormwater runoff that has not contacted waste will be diverted
away from the leachate collection facilities to the maximum extent practicable. Further,
CRL, as a component of its daily operations, will place intermediate cover over inactive fill
areas. This intermediate cover placement not only reduces leachate infiltration but assists
in controlling odors. Final cover will be placed over areas as soon as practicable after they
have reached final grade.
Consistent with CRL's current operating practices, up to approximately 20 acres would
typically be under daily cover conditions (i.e., the active operating area), with the
remainder of the lined area having intermediate or final cover with interim or permanent
stormwater diversion structures in place.
CRL’s leachate management plan also outlines contingencies for leachate storage,
transportation and disposal, with the ability to use the contingency disposal facilities as
described in the Contingency Plan, made part of the O&M plan (Attachment 5).
In the event of a contingency where leachate disposal was interrupted, the two 500,000
gallon leachate tanks (1,044,000 gallons operating capacity) provide contingency storage of
twenty-two days at the maximum expected leachate generation rate. The storage time
afforded by the two 500,000 tanks will allow CRL ample time to locate additional services, if
necessary.

5.8.3 Leachate Characteristics
CRL performs routine leachate characterization and reports the data in its annual report to
the NYSDEC. Leachate in the lagoon was sampled and analyzed during three events in
2014.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

64

In 2014, concentrations of routine leachate parameters and metals were within the range of
historical results at the lagoon, with the exception of TDS. In December 2014, the TDS
concentration in the lagoon sample (6,900 mg/l) exceeded the previous maximum
concentration of 6,500 mg/l and while higher, is generally consistent with previous
sampling results. In the May 2014 sampling event, three VOCs were detected in the lagoon
(acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methylene chloride). As in previous events, the
December 2014 concentrations of parameters in the primary leachate sample (lagoon) were
different from those in the secondary leachate samples, indicating that the primary leachate
was not impacting the secondary leachate system.
In general, these data may be summarized as follows:

The various leachate indicator parameters are within the typical range for MSW
leachates with elevated TDS, generally reducing oxidation potential, and
elevated levels of typical leachate parameters such as chloride.

The inorganic constituents present are typically various cations such as sodium,
magnesium, calcium, at the highest concentrations and various metals such as
aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, manganese, potassium, vanadium, and zinc.

Organics are when present, are generally present in low concentrations

The data on leachate quality, when compared to secondary collection system data for both
quality and quantity, also support the continued effectiveness of the liner system. The
concentrations of constituents in the secondary system are generally not detectable for
organics or are at much lower levels, as would be expected.
In conclusion, there is nothing about the current leachate quality that suggests deviations
from typical MSW leachate quality nor a basis for altering leachate control, management, or
disposal practices. Leachate quality from the Area 7 Development is expected to be similar
as there is no plan to change the basic character of the waste received at the landfill for the
Development.

5.8.4 Leachate Recirculation
Leachate recirculation is the reintroduction of landfill leachate into the lined landfill cells.
Leachate recirculation provides a means of optimizing environmental conditions within the
landfill to provide enhanced stabilization of landfill waste, as well as treatment of moisture
moving through the waste mass.
CRL will potentially use leachate recirculation during the Area 7 Development consistent
with the O&M plan. CRL has previously considered various methodologies for leachate
recirculation. Leachate recirculation methodologies utilized at the facility include:

Leachate “dosing” at the working face;

Dosing of leachate in surface pits;

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

65

Injection into vertical wells

Injection into horizontal recirculation system.

Proper leachate recirculation provides benefits to the landfill beyond the offset of disposal
or treatment costs including: increased compaction and settlement, provides liquid
necessary for a more uniform degradation of waste and nutrients for the anaerobic bacteria
that generate methane.
The rationale for implementing moisture addition is primarily to take advantage of the
storage and attenuation capacity of the landfilled waste as an interim measure to manage
leachate. Moisture addition will result in the Area 7 Development waste achieving a
steady-state in moisture content, settlement and leachate quality, in a somewhat accelerated
manner, but not to the extent of a rapid acceleration program. A steady-state condition for
a large site that is landfilled relatively quickly is normally achieved subsequent to closure of
a particular area or cell. The proposed approach will simply bring the Site into a steadystate condition that would naturally be achieved over time, at an earlier date than would
otherwise have taken place.
The continued use of leachate recirculation is being specifically proposed to provide the
following benefits:

Attenuation of leachate organic strength and quantity;

Increased rate of landfill stabilization;

Immobilization of metals from landfilled material;

Improved landfill settling rates; and,

Reduced discharges to off-site treatment facilities.

The introduction of additional moisture in the waste mass leads to the improved contact
between the bacteria, the biodegradable component of the refuse, and the necessary
nutrient. The additional loss of solids, quicker decomposition and resultant consolidation
leads to a more rapid stabilization of the waste mass.

5.9 Landfill Gas Management System
Owners and operators of solid waste landfills are required to restrict emissions and obtain
permits to construct and operate control units for landfill gas. These requirements are
described primarily by 6NYCRR Parts 200, 201, 212 and 231. In addition, Part 360 Solid
Waste Management Facilities requirements govern the construction and operation of
landfill gas recovery facilities that remove gas from landfills. The Part 360 requirements
generally address gas collection and control systems and environmental monitoring
requirements.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

66

Colonie Landfill is currently not required to meet the MSW landfill New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) because the landfill is not producing greater than 50 Mg/yr
NMOC. In the event the landfill produces greater than 50 Mg/yr NMOC, the landfill
would then be required to meet NSPS operational requirements. Colonie Landfill is
required to submit a landfill gas Collection and Control (GCCS) Plan to EPA/DEC within
one (1) year of reporting NMOC emissions greater than 50 Mg/yr.
This section provides an overview of the landfill gas management system design. The
active gas collection system for the proposed landfill expansion will be similar to the system
that is currently installed, and will be designed to manage the build-up of excess LFG
pressure within the landfill and to control subsoil gas migration or surface emissions to the
atmosphere. The design will consist of features to ensure compliance (if needed in the
future) with the gas collection standards specified under NSPS for new MSW landfill sites
(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW, Standards of Performance for New Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills and 6 NYCRR Part 208). Engineering drawings that provide the landfill gas
management system design are provided in Sheets 20-21 and 35-37.
Landfill gas extraction system vacuum pipe, extraction wells, and collection trenches will be
sized based on the expected maximum flow rates determined by computer modeling of
landfill gas generation. The LandGEM model was used to determine to maximum expected
generation based on historical waste acceptance rates and predicted future waste intake
rates. Sizing requirements of the landfill gas system components and control devices are
based upon the volume of landfill gas generated within the landfill. The landfill gas
generation is based on the waste intake rate, waste composition, moisture, pH, and other
environmental factors, therefore, an engineer will update the landfill gas generation model
to determine the proper sizing of landfill gas collection and control system components
when issuing construction documents.
Landfill gas will continue to be collected from the existing landfill and proposed landfill
expansion through an active system consisting of recovery wells, horizontal collectors, and
subgrade collection trenches installed below the baseliner system where construction of the
expansion will occur over previously landfilled areas. Where the expansion of the landfill
occurs in location that have existing landfill gas extraction wells or horizontal collectors, the
existing devices will be evaluated prior to construction and an engineer will determine
whether the device will be abandoned, connected to a new horizontal collection trench, or
remotely connected to the collection system by adding solid plastic pipe to extend the
location of the well outside of the overfill area. The engineer will determine the proper
action for each existing extraction point based on the age, condition, location, landfill gas
flow and landfill gas quality for each device. These components are principally illustrated
in the Engineering Drawings.
Landfill gas will be conveyed to the landfill gas control facilities, which will consist of
landfill gas flares and the energy recovery plant. Additional controls will be added to the

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

67

system at the time the gas generation rate exceeds the capacity of the power plants and
existing flares to continuously treat the recoverable landfill gas.
Condensate generated by the gas recovery operation and leachate collected by the
extraction trenches will be collected within traps at the low points of the gas piping system,
or by the leachate collection systems at strategic locations in the proposed Development
landfills as shown in the Drawings. Condensate will be drained by gravity or pumped from
the individual tanks or transferred directly to the leachate storage tank with collected
leachate, and disposed of at an approved off-site treatment and disposal location.

5.10 Geotechnical Analysis
A geotechnical analysis of the native soils, design subgrade, and design final grades of the
proposed landfill Area 7 Development has been completed to address the suitability of the
design to maintain the integrity of the solid waste containment systems. The Geotechnical
Analysis includes slope stability, subgrade settlement, bearing capacity, and groundwater
flow. The stability analyses encompass evaluations of landfill cell excavation, berm fill, soil
subgrade under both waste and soil fill, operational conditions, baseliner (veneer), and final
cover (veneer). Settlement calculations involve assessment of anticipated subgrade settlement,
post-settlement slope baseliner and leachate collection system slope, and baseliner strain.

5.10.1 Subsurface Information
5.10.1.1 Geologic Units and Engineering Properties
The geotechnical information regarding the landfill site was obtained from geotechnical
and hydrogeologic data obtained and reduced specifically for this project, subsurface
geotechnical explorations performed to specifically address the geotechnical properties of
soil units, and from previous hydrogeologic and geotechnical studies performed at the
facility. A review of site hydrogeological and geotechnical data showed that the proposed
landfill development areas are generally underlain by five soil layers. The stratigraphy at
the site consists of the following, (See Site Investigation Report for further details):

Glaciolacustrine Silt and Clay

Alluvium

Glacial Till

Bedrock

Recent Fill Materials

Municipal Solid Waste

Further details of the soil index properties and modeled parameters can be found in Section
5.10.2.4 and Section 5.10.3.4.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

68

5.10.1.2 Field Investigations
Subsurface field investigations involving soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells
have been conducted to characterize the site of both existing and proposed landfill facilities
on the site. Sheet 6 of the Engineering Drawings shows the location of geotechnical
investigation locations in the proposed development area. These plans include locations
from this proposed development, as well as those conducted for previous investigations.

5.10.1.2.1 Previous Investigations
Numerous field investigations were conducted between 1982 and 2014 in support of
various designs relating to the construction, operation, and closure of existing landfill
facilities on the site. The bulk of the site knowledge has been obtained from these
investigations, which had been previously submitted to the NYSDEC on various occasions.
For this reason, only the 2013/2014 subsurface exploration information is included in the
2014 Site Investigation Report (Attachment 2). Described below are other studies that have
occurred, with the most recent listed first:

Area 6, Phase II Geotechnical Analyses Report

Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report

Area 5 Hydrogeologic Assessment Report

Area 5, Phase II Investigation

5.10.1.3 Area 7 Development Investigation
A 2013/2014 field investigation was completed to gather subsurface information for the
proposed development. The investigation was limited in scope to the proposed
development area and is detailed in the SIR. It involved sampling to various depths of
overburden and bedrock, as well as installation of monitoring wells. A total of 20 borings
were drilled, with monitoring wells installed in or adjacent to 4 of these completed borings.
The borings with monitoring wells are labeled as the ‘MW-2013-series’ and the borings
completed without well installation are labeled as part of the ‘B-2013-series’ on Sheet 6 of
the Engineering Drawings. The new investigations are in addition to previous geotechnical
and hydrogeologic studies that have been conducted over approximately 32 years. Boring
logs can be found in the current SIR or in previous DEC submissions from the site.

5.10.1.4 Laboratory Test Data
As part of the SIR and Geotechnical Analysis, and in support of the proposed development,
index property, shear strength, and consolidation tests were performed on samples
obtained from the recent field investigations. The results of these tests, conducted by
Cornerstone in 2013 and 2014, are included in Attachment 7. Various tests quantifying the
strength, consolidation, and plastic behaviors of the soils were performed on relatively
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

69

undisturbed soil samples taken from different soil boring locations. These tests include
one-dimensional consolidation, triaxial compression and direct shear tests.
The laboratory tests included in previous reports generally showed similar results to those
determined from the recently executed tests. It was deemed appropriate to consider
available data in designating material properties, using caution to consider possible
differences in testing methods or sample handling procedures.

5.10.1.5 Geotechnical Parameters of Fills and Improved Soils
Three instances of fills or improved soils are anticipated on site: municipal solid waste
(MSW), compacted structural fill, and ground-improvement zones.
Municipal Solid Waste
Engineering properties of waste can be quite variable with waste composition. Waste is
generally comprised of household debris, mechanically compacted, and mixed with a thin
lift of daily cover. The total in-place unit weight of waste, which includes imported waste,
Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) material, and cover sand, is estimated to be 80 pcf.
However, during placement, significant quantities of moisture can be introduced through
direct infiltration of precipitation during filling, infiltration of runoff from covered areas,
and leachate recirculation. Studies show that field capacity for waste, as encountered in
areas below the water surface can be as high as 95 pcf. In areas where leachate recirculation
is employed a unit weight of 80 pcf is employed. Shear strength of municipal solid waste
has been modeled using a shear strength-normal strength function, as described in
Attachment 7. Though mechanical compaction leads to some degree of overconsolidation
in the waste, a conservative assumption of normal consolidation of waste is made in
calculations.
Common Fill
Common fill is primarily comprised of soil obtained from on- or off-site sources that has
historically been placed for leachate pond construction and access roads. The unit weight
of existing common fill at the site is estimated to be 120 pcf based on representative blow
counts during the recent subsurface exploration program. Due to low observed moisture
content and high gravel/sand content in the common fill material, the common fill appears
to demonstrate a drained behavior. The appropriate effective stress parameters for the
unclassified fill are a friction angle of 30 degrees and no cohesion.

5.10.1.6 Piezometric Levels
As detailed in the Site Investigation Report, the groundwater in this area is generally
modeled with a downward gradient toward the Mohawk River. For this reason, the
piezometric levels in the stability models have been modeled with a static piezometric line
according to the Figure 4-6 of the SIR showing the Upper Water Bearing Zone. This level
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

70

ranges from 190 feet amsl toward the northeast end of the site to 320 feet amsl near the
southwest corner of the site. The groundwater flow on the site is generally a downward
gradient. The lowest naturally occurring piezometric elevation on the site is observed near
the existing Mohawk River.

5.10.2 Stability Analysis
5.10.2.1 Acceptable Factors of Safety for Slope Stability
The following factors of safety were considered acceptable while evaluating the results of
the slope stability analyses:
Global Stability: For deeper failure surfaces that pass through the subgrade, a factor of
safety 1.50 was required for configurations where the stability of waste was potentially
impacted. This requirement is consistent with 6NYCRR 360-2.7(b)(6). Configurations
without potential for impacting waste (i.e., perimeter berm construction) are considered
under construction stability.
Seismic Stability: A factor of safety of 1.0 is considered acceptable in accordance with
Paragraph 2.7(b)(7) of Part 360 requirements. The site is within a Seismic Impact Zone as
defined in NYCRR Part 360-2 Section 7(b), and the 2014 USGS Seismic Map of Peak Ground
Acceleration.
Veneer Baseliner Stability: A factor of safety of 1.50 was considered acceptable for veneer
peak strength baseliner stability, in accordance with 6NYCRR Part 360-2.7(b)(6)(ii). A factor
of safety of 1.25 was considered acceptable for veneer residual strength baseliner stability.
Veneer Cover Stability: A factor of safety of 1.50 was considered acceptable for veneer
cover stability, in accordance with 6NYCRR Part 360-2.7(b)(6)(iii). A factor of safety of 1.25
was considered acceptable for veneer residual strength cover stability.

5.10.2.2 Perimeter Berm and Landfill Stability Analysis Procedure
Global, liner, and cover stability analyses were performed using the computer program
SLOPE/W. The program uses the Morgenstern-Price Method, an iterative approach that
tests for moment and force equilibrium, for computing factors of safety. The program
includes options for circular, or block specified failure surfaces to allow users to specify and
optimize critical failure surfaces. Stability analyses were performed for static and
appropriate dynamic conditions.
The analysis for seismic conditions was performed using a pseudo-static load assumption
to account for inertial effects. A permanent deformation analysis was required since the
factor of safety for various pseudo-static analyses was less than 1.0. A seismic calculation is
included in Attachment 7 to show that permanent deformation is less than 1.0 foot, and
shows the USGS map of maximum horizontal acceleration anticipated to have a probability
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

71

of occurrence of 2% or less in 50 years. Based on the site location, it was determined that
the maximum anticipated horizontal acceleration is 10.9% of gravitational acceleration
(0.109 x g), which was employed in the seismic analysis conducted for each proposed crosssection for global, liner, and cover stability analyses.
An analysis was conducted by Tensar International Corporation (Tensar) for stability of the
proposed Mechanically Stabilized Embankment (MSE) perimeter berm. The design report
for the proposed MSE perimeter berm is included in Attachment 8. It should be noted that
geosynthetic materials presented in Attachment 8 are presented to show materials are
available to meet the project requirements. Alternate materials are acceptable provided
global and internal stability requirements for the design are met. Alternate materials would
be presented in the Construction Drawings for a given phase.

5.10.2.3 Short-term Analysis Versus Long-term Analysis
Short-term analyses are performed using the total stress (undrained) strength parameters.
Long-term analyses are performed using the effective stress (drained) strength parameters.
The type of analysis that is critical for design depends on the subsurface conditions and the
nature of loading. Since only appreciable difference between short-term conditions and
long-term conditions is a likely strength gain in cohesive soils, long-term conditions have
been determined to not be material for stability analyses. Short-term undrained strength
conditions are more critical than long-term strength conditions, and short-term loading
conditions assume full waste height plus final cover due to the amount of time required for
appreciable consolidation in cohesive soils.
For soils where there is limited possibility for pore pressure development during loading or
unloading (i.e., granular soils or soils with a sizable proportion of coarse-grained particles
and low moisture content), drained soil conditions are applicable. This is represented by
the use of a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, modeled with a friction angle and cohesion.
Conversely, filling at sites that are underlain by saturated cohesive soils can result in
development of excess pore pressure; therefore, undrained conditions are assumed to exist
under the stress envelope of proposed waste and fill loading. Undrained conditions
presume that the soils do not exhibit frictional behavior (φ = 0), and therefore have a shear
strength independent of applied load.
Soils that exhibit undrained behavior tend to govern slope stability, and have therefore
been the primary focus of the stability analyses herein. Undrained conditions are generally
most applicable at the completion of construction when fill heights and cut depths are
greatest. Short-term analyses included in this report have conservatively assumed
instantaneous placement of waste, final cover and compacted berm fill.
After the completion of final cover, excess pore pressures will likely dissipate and the
undrained shear strength of the soil under consideration increases. In areas of undrained
soils under existing waste loads, the soil strength has been modeled using the Stress History

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

72

And Normalized Soil Engineering Properties (SHANSEP) approach proposed by Ladd and
Foott (1974). This strength gain is governed by a tau/sigma ratio of the undrained soil in its
undisturbed state. To further support the application of the SHANSEP approach on
previously loaded undrained soil deposits, the amount of time required to realize 70%
consolidation of the in-situ undrained soil below existing waste loads has been considered
(see Attachment 7.). This computation found that approximately one year is required to
realize 70% consolidation. Existing waste on top of undrained material have been applying
loads for 10 to 30 years.
Undrained conditions for the Area 7 Development are assumed to be applicable through
the completion of final cover fill heights. This is supported based on an estimated one year
of loading required for excess pore pressures to dissipate in cohesive soils, and for the
cohesive soils to realize an increase in shear strength due to consolidation.
After complete dissipation of the excess pore pressures induced by the Area 7 Development
final cover conditions, the strength of soils exhibiting an undrained behavior are more
appropriately represented by the effective strength envelope. This case is conservatively
assumed to represent conditions one year after the landfill has been capped and no
additional loads applied. With no additional loading from short-term conditions to longterm conditions, and a likely strength gain in cohesive soils, long-term analyses have been
determined to be inconsequential to the results presented herein.

5.10.2.4 Selection of Strength Parameters
The in-situ clay units were assigned undrained shear strength parameters. Placed fills, and
in-situ tills, sands and wastes were selected to exhibit drained behaviors. The short-term
analysis presented herein corresponds to the critical final cover loading conditions.
Unless specific references are indicated, the selected strength parameters are supported by
Area 7 laboratory test data and calculations presented in Attachment 7.
The undrained strength parameters were selected based on laboratory test data, and
standard penetration resistance (N) values from field investigations. Due to the presence of
variable index properties within some of the soil units, a range of parameters has been
selected for each soil unit. In addition, the Glaciolacustrine soil has a distinct low-strength
(‘soft’) zone in some areas of the site. Undrained shear strength values were selected from
the location specific test results. The soils classified as ‘soft’ within the Glaciolacustrine
units were generally delineated as zones with SPT N-values equal to or less than 4.
The low-strength Glaciolacustrine clay demonstrates varied strengths across select areas of
the northeastern portion of the site; and representative values were chosen to
conservatively encompass estimated areas where this soil layer is present.
The Glacial Till consists of low plasticity material, and contains a large coarse-grained
fraction. With soil type and previous experience in mind, it is not likely to experience
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

73

excess pore pressure under short-term conditions. Therefore, it was assigned effective
stress parameters of friction angle (φ’=32˚) and zero cohesion (c=0) based on N value
correlations.
Kavazanjian’s study of waste strength criteria (Bachus et. al., 2004; Dixon & Jones, 2004,
Kavazanjian 2001) indicates that waste can appropriately be modeled as a frictionless
material with cohesion of 500 psf up to a normal load of 625 psf. At loads above 625 psf, an
appropriate failure criterion is modeled using an effective stress with friction angle (φ) of 33
degrees. These three studies include a comparison of other failure criteria that have been
proposed. They show that Kavazanjian’s proposed strength function summarizes the
general trend of these numerous other methods and is generally the simplest method for
accurately representing the strength of Municipal solid waste at both low and high normal
stresses. These strength parameters are also consistent with the bi-linear shear strength
envelope for MSW (after Kavazanjian, et. al. 1995) that is presented in Figure 6-3 of USEPA
RCRA Subtitle D Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities.
Further details can be found in Attachment 7.
A study completed in 2003 by Isenberg, as cited in MSW Management (Bachus et. al., 2004)
notes that no difference in shear strength properties was observed between waste in ‘wet’
bioreactors and ‘dry’ Subtitle D landfills. This implies that any case between the extremes
would also exhibit similar properties to that of the ‘dry’ landfill.
A unit weight of 80 pcf is used for existing waste above the high ground water table
(consistent with new waste), and 95 pcf used for existing waste below the high ground
water table that has likely undergone saturated water content during seasonal high water,
which similar to recirculated leachate has been shown to increase the unit weight of MSW
to a range between 95 and 110 pcf. The value of 95 pcf has been chosen to stay on the low
end when considering that existing waste is presented also as a resisting force in several
cross-sections. The unit weights were selected based on data in Table 6-1 of USEPA RCRA
Subtitle D Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, accepted
engineering practice and previous design evaluations at the site, and on our professional
experience. It is noted that previous design evaluations at the Colonie site also utilized a
unit weight of 80-pcf for new waste.
Strength tests (triaxial and direct shear) will be conducted on fill placed at proposed
locations on the site according to Structural Fill specifications in Attachment 4 for Type II.D
Select Compacted Fill. Low moisture contents in fills located in critical areas (i.e., perimeter
berms), in concert with high fractions of coarse-grained particles, will minimize the buildup of excess pore pressure in compacted fill.
Overexcavation has been designated as a slope stabilization method in select areas of the
proposed landfill development, as represented in the Engineering Design Drawings.
Overexcavation is proposed as the general method for ground improvement where existing
“soft” Glaciolacustrine soil layers will not provide adequate factor of safety.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

74

Overexcavation involves the removal of soft soils (and overlying soils) and replacement
with Type II.D Select Compacted Fill. Structural Fill specifications are located in
Attachment 4.

5.10.2.5 Stability Analyses for Area 7
5.10.2.5.1 Selection of Cross Section Locations for Evaluation
The locations for analysis were chosen with consideration for either the existing soil
conditions, as documented by field and laboratory tests, or the proposed landfill geometry.
Special attention was given to areas where soils demonstrating lower shear strengths had
been identified, and where maximum loading is proposed. A cross-section location that
was chosen for one of these reasons does not preclude its importance in consideration of the
other; it indicates the relative importance of the aspect that dictated evaluation of stability
at that location. Slope stability section locations are shown in Attachment 7.

5.10.2.5.2 Perimeter Berm Stability
The perimeter berm analyses assess the stability of the berm and subgrade at the conclusion
of berm construction. The calculations have assumed instantaneous fill placement with no
dissipation of excess pore water pressure. This case is appropriately conservative as fill will
not realistically be placed that quickly and some dissipation of pore pressures will have
occurred at the completion of construction.
Inside fills and cuts proposed for the perimeter berm does not require treatment to achieve
a factor of safety of 1.5. Outside fill slopes of the perimeter require a Mechanically
Stabilized Embankment (MSE) design where the proposed slope is 0.5 ft. horizontal to 1 ft.
(1H:2V) vertical. The MSE design report is provided by Tensar International Corporation in
Attachment 8 and shown on Sheet 23 of the Part 360 Permit Engineering Drawings. It
should be noted that geosynthetic materials presented in Attachment 8 are presented to
show materials are available to meet the project requirements. Alternate materials are
acceptable provided global and internal stability requirements for the design are met.
Alternate materials would be presented in the Construction Drawings for a given phase.

5.10.2.5.3 Global Stability
Global stability analyses assess the stability of final cover fill placement during undrained
short-term conditions with strength gain only where existing waste has been in place for 10
to 30 years (not from construction of the perimeter berm). This is conservatively reasonable
based on an estimated one year for cohesive soils to achieve 70% consolidation under an
increased loading condition. Where the existing waste is shown over undrained soil
materials, a tau/sigma strength function was modeled for undrained material.
Undrained conditions result in a factor of safety greater than 1.5, as shown in the analyses
provided in Attachment 7. Where a factor of safety less than 1.0 was computed with
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

75

seismic loading, a deformation analysis confirmed that a permanent deformation less than
1.0 feet would be anticipated. This is an acceptable threshold based on seismic design
guidance by EPA RCRA Subtitle D documentation.

5.10.2.6 Geosynthetic Parameters
Sections 5.10.2.7 and 5.10.2.8 involve the specification of required interface strengths such
that the proposed geosynthetic systems achieve a satisfactory factor of safety. These
requirements apply to geosynthetic-geosynthetic and soil-geosynthetic interfaces in the
proposed baseliner and final cover system. Once appropriate materials have been selected,
laboratory testing shall be performed to confirm that the interfaces described in Sections
5.10.2.7 and 5.1.2.89 will meet or exceed these requirements. The geosynthetic interface
data included in the calculation Attachment 7 are generally attainable with materials that
are available for these particular applications. It should be noted that residual conditions
only apply to the interface with the lowest peak strength, and therefore, not all interfaces
will be required to have the required residual strengths reported herein. Likewise, the
specified strengths assume no cohesion. Once testing has been completed, further analysis
can show that interfaces that would otherwise not meet the specifications can, when
consideration for cohesion is determined to be appropriate, be acceptable under specific
loading conditions. Based on experience, it is our opinion that suitable materials can be
obtained to possess the required material properties.

5.10.2.7 Baseliner Slope Stability Analysis
Veneer stability calculations have been performed for the proposed geosynthetic baseliner
for Area 7 development. The construction of the baseliner system will result in various
geosynthetic and soil interfaces. Minimum strength requirements for these interfaces have
been developed that will provide an acceptable factor of safety and are provided herein.
Baseliner slope stability calculations are presented in Attachment 7.

5.10.2.7.1 Design Requirements
The minimum design factor of safety for interface stability was 1.5. The baseliner system
will be installed on slopes with maximum approximate final design grade of 18.3°, which is
equivalent to a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) slope. In areas where the slope is 25% or
less, 6NYCRR Part 360-2.13(f)(2) specifies the use of a double composite liner system; this
results in additional interfaces for analysis in areas exhibiting these lesser slopes. However
the factor of safety of 1.5 or greater remains the same for these reduced slopes.
Although not addressed in the Part 360 requirements, the variations between peak and
residual shear strengths of the interfaces have been considered. Although there is not an
industry ‘standard’, it is accepted practice to design interfaces with a minimum factor of
safety of 1.5 using peak shear strengths and a minimum factor of safety of 1.25 using
residual shear strengths in areas where significant deformation could occur. Due to

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

76

construction of liner on existing waste, it is possible for interfaces or strained enough such
that the residual shear strength governs. As this situation is usually localized and can be
minimized by good construction practice, a safety factor lower than 1.5 using residual shear
strengths is considered appropriate. Calculations for both the peak and residual conditions
are presented in Attachment 7.
It is assumed that the Geosynthetic composite drainage (GCD) layer will have a similar
geotextile cover on both sides, and interface with the Secondary Leachate Collection and
Recovery System (SLCRS) as well as the Porewater Conveyance GCD, where installed. It is
recommended that interface testing be done with the representative soils (coarse sand,
secondary soil liner, and natural subgrade) to determine compliance to the interface
requirements per the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan provided in
Attachment 4.
The porewater GCD must also be capable of transmitting water that enters the porewater
collection system, as the porewater management system must provide for the effective
removal of porewater from below the liner system and manage the buildup of excess pore
pressures along the GCD-soil interface. Anticipated groundwater flux is discussed in
Section 5.10.5. Development of appropriate requirements for GCD transmissivity are
discussed in Section 5.5.3.

5.10.2.7.2 Baseliner Stability Analysis
The results have been compared to published interface friction data at the appropriate
load. This assessment has shown that the required values are attainable with materials that
are currently available for the specified application. Minimum required interface strength
parameters are as follows and need to be verified prior to installation. Refer to the Baseliner
Stability Calculation in Attachment 7.

Peak Base Liner (< 25% slope) Internal Friction Angle (φ) is 15.2 degrees

Peak Sideslope (> 25% slope) Internal Friction Angle (φ) is 21.3 degrees

Residual Base Liner (< 25% slope) Internal Friction Angle (φ) is 9.0 degrees

Residual Sideslope (> 25% slope) Internal Friction Angle (φ) is 19.4 degrees

The minimum interface shear strengths shall be determined by laboratory testing of the
actual liner materials used in construction. Materials that exhibit friction angles equal to
greater than the values listed above are acceptable. However, depending upon the amount
of cohesion (y-intercept) presented in the shear testing reports, the actual allowable friction
could be lower than the values listed. If there is physical justification, such as textured
geomembranes or geosynthetics with physical interlocking of soil having cohesions, the
cohesion can be taken into account into assessment of the failure envelope. A detailed
assessment of the shear strength laboratory results and approval by the Engineer is
required prior to acceptance of material for use at the site.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

77

Where a factor of safety less than 1.0 was computed with seismic loading, a deformation
analysis confirmed that a permanent deformation less than 1.0 feet would be anticipated.
This is an acceptable threshold based on seismic design guidance by EPA RCRA Subtitle D
documentation.

5.10.2.7.3 Placement Requirements
Construction methods used when placing liner soils is also critical in maintaining the
stability of the baseliner veneer system. It is recommended that the placement of the
baseliner soil materials on 3H:1V slopes be completed as follows:

By placing the baseliner soils from the bottom of the slope upward, a passive
stabilizing soil wedge is established at the toe of the slope prior to placement of
the soil higher on the slope. The operation of construction equipment over this
lower wedge tends to compact and strengthen the wedge.

Placement from the side of a baseliner cell area is acceptable provided the lower
wedge is in-place prior to placement equipment running on the baseliner and
provided the baseliner soils are placed in accordance with the other placement
recommendations presented herein.

Relatively small wide-track dozers (i.e., low ground pressure dozers) are
recommended for placing the baseliner soil material. This type of equipment
limits both the dynamic force imparted to the soils and geosynthetics during
acceleration and braking and sharp turns and the tractive force applied through
the dozer tracks.

Down-slope dynamic forces can be limited further by limiting the dozer speed on the slope
and by instructing the dozer operator to avoid hard braking, particularly when backing
down-slope.

5.10.2.8 Final Cover Slope Stability
Veneer stability calculations have been performed for the proposed geosynthetic cover.
The proposed cover system, which will be installed over portions of the landfill that have
been filled to final grade, will consist of the following layers (top down). The construction
of the cover system will result in various geosynthetic and soil interfaces. Minimum
strength requirements for these interfaces have been developed that will provide an
acceptable factor of safety and are provided herein. Stability analysis calculations are
presented in Attachment 7.

5.10.2.8.1 Design Requirements
As required in Part 360 [Section 360-2.7 (b)(6)(iii)] the factor of safety against sliding for the
final cover system must be at least 1.5. Therefore, the required factor of safety for interface
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

78

stability is 1.5. The cover system will be installed on the waste with an approximate final
design grade of 18.3°, which is equivalent to a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) slope.
Although the majority of the cover system will consist of a relatively consistent thickness of
soil placed on a consistent slope, some portions of the final cover system may be
constructed with geosynthetics or soils being placed at a slope steeper than 3H:1V. These
cases would be exterior slopes of landfill access roads and/or side slope drainage swales
and would not impact the 3H:1V final waste grade.
Although not addressed in the Part 360 requirements, the variations between peak and
residual shear strengths of the interfaces have been considered. Although there is not an
industry ‘standard’, it is accepted practice to design interfaces with a minimum factor of
safety of 1.5 using peak shear strengths and a minimum factor of safety of 1.0 using residual
shear strengths. Due to construction traffic on the slopes and settlement of the waste, it is
possible the interfaces could be sheared or strained enough such that the residual shear
strength governs. As this situation is usually localized and can be minimized by good
construction practice, a safety factor lower than 1.5 using residual shear strengths is
considered appropriate. The interface with the lowest peak shear strength (i.e., the one that
would be the first to shear and be governed by residual shear strengths) is taken as the
critical interface for residual shear strength factor of safety consideration. Calculations for
both the peak and residual conditions are presented in Attachment 7.
The following critical interfaces have been reviewed:

Barrier Protection Layer (BPL)/Geotextile

Geotextile/ BPL (Sand Layer)

BPL (Sand Layer)/Geomembrane

Geomembrane/Landfill Gas Venting GCD

Landfill Gas Venting GCD/Intermediate Cover

The minimum required peak friction angle of the BPL/Geotextile and Geotextile/Sand
Drainage Layer is 26.4°. The minimum required residual friction angle of the
BPL/Geotextile and Geotextile/Sand Drainage Layer is 21.6° The minimum required peak
friction angle of the Sand Drainage Layer/Geomembrane interface is 26.5°. The minimum
required residual friction angle of the Sand Drainage Layer/Geomembrane interface is
21.7°. The minimum required peak friction angle of the Geomembrane/Gas Venting Layer
and Gas Venting/Intermediate Cover interface is 26.3°. The minimum required residual
friction angle of the Geomembrane/Gas Venting Layer and Gas Venting/Intermediate
Cover interface is 21.5°.
It was assumed that the gas venting GCD will be a product with a similar geotextile cover
on both sides. Therefore, interface between both GCD layers and the geomembrane
(texturing on both sides) will be the same. However, it is likely that the soil used for
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

79

intermediate cover may be from various sources. Therefore, the soil to GCD interfaces
should be tested using the actual soil source.
The cover system must also be capable of transmitting water that infiltrates the BPL such
that interface stability is not impacted. Development of appropriate transmission rates to
accomplish these objectives is shown in the Final Cover Stability Calculation in
Attachment 7.

5.10.2.8.2 Cover Stability Analysis Parameters
For the purpose of performing veneer stability calculations, final cover is assumed to be
constructed with a final slope of 3H:1V or 18.3°.
Due to the potential for pore water build-up in the soil layers above the impermeable
geomembrane, a GCD layer with an overlying 12 inch thick sand layer will be installed
directly above the geomembrane to drain stormwater impingement. In addition, a 60 foot
by 60 foot grid of 4 inch pipes will be installed in the cap drainage layer to relieve
porewater buildup. The cap drainage system will daylight at the toe of slope and be
conveyed into the stormwater drainage system. This cap drainage system is shown in the
Liner/Cap Drainage Calculation in Attachment 7. Without this layer, water would fill the
pores within the cover soils resulting in a reduction of soil-to-soil or soil-to-geosynthetic
normal forces and an increase in the driving force. The reduction in normal force is due to
the soil mass becoming buoyant. The impact to the factor of safety is based on parallel
seepage along the top surface of the geomembrane and can be seen in the calculations
(Attachment 7). The result of this seepage is a reduction to the factor of safety. Therefore,
the transmissivity of the GCD must be such that water passing through the vegetative cover
and barrier protection layer will be adequate to drain the cover soils and minimize
excessive build-up of pore pressures at the interfaces. The GCD should pass appropriate
volumes of water without becoming full. The interface calculations presented herein
assume this will be accounted for in the cover system design.
Similarly, on the underside of the relatively impermeable geomembrane, potential for the
build-up of landfill gas pressure exists. Therefore, a GCD (gas venting layer) has been
proposed to transmit gas from the underside of the geomembrane to gas collection lines
and wells. Typically, GCD's will provide a much higher degree of transmissivity for relief
of gas pressures than that associated with the NYSDEC-required gas-venting layer
(12 inches of sand exhibiting a minimum permeability of 1x10-3 cm/s). The GCD’s would
be tied to the active and passive system in accordance with the NYSDEC regulations.
During active gas collection (during operations and during a portion of the post-closure
period) the landfill gas collection system will be operated in a manner that will provide a
negative pressure below the geomembrane, minimizing the potential for positive gas
pressure to reach the underside of the cover system. The system has risers located at
regular intervals that extend down into the waste to collect/convey the gas and are also tied

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

80

to the gas-venting layer. Once active landfill gas collection is discontinued, the gas-venting
layer will transmit landfill gas to a series of passive venting wells.
It is assumed that soil-to-soil interfaces will have the strength of the weakest soil. That is,
due to intermixing of the layers during compaction there will be no defined ‘interface’
between the two soils that is weaker than the soil and that the strength of the weakest soil
will govern. Furthermore, it should be noted that the soil strengths discussed herein are
peak strengths only, as movement of the soil (i.e., residual condition) is not anticipated to
be the critical mode of instability. Based on historical soil property data at the site (both onsite and imported soils) a minimum angle of internal friction for the vegetative cover, BPL
and intermediate cover layers of 31.5° has been assumed for these calculations.

5.10.2.8.3 Cover Stability Analysis
The results have been compared to published interface friction data at the appropriate load.
This assessment has shown that the required values are attainable with materials that are
currently available for the specified application. Refer to the Cover Stability Calculation in
Attachment 7 for minimum required interface strength parameters that need to be verified
prior to installation. A factor of safety greater than 1.0 has been computed for final cover
stability with seismic loading. Refer to the Seismic Stability Calculation in Attachment 7.

5.10.2.8.4 Placement Requirements
Construction methods used when placing cover soils is also critical in maintaining the
stability of the cover system. It is recommended that the placement of the cover soil
materials be completed as follows:

By placing the cover soils from the bottom of the slope upward, a passive
stabilizing soil wedge is established at the toe of the slope prior to placement of
the soil higher on the slope. The operation of construction equipment over this
lower wedge tends to compact and strengthen the wedge.

Placement from the side of a cap area is acceptable provided the lower wedge is
in-place prior to placement equipment running on the cover and provided the
cover soils are placed in accordance the other placement recommendations
presented herein.

Relatively small wide-track dozers (i.e., low ground pressure dozers) are
recommended for placing the soil cover material. This type of equipment limits
both the dynamic force imparted to the soils and geosynthetics during
acceleration and braking and sharp turns and the tractive force applied through
the dozer tracks.

Down-slope dynamic forces can be limited further by limiting the dozer speed
on the slope and by instructing the dozer operator to avoid hard braking,
particularly when backing down-slope.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

81

Analyses of specific equipment outside of the general recommendations (i.e., small pad foot
rollers) provided herein can be performed if requested. Upon completion of the cover
system the system should be regularly inspected and maintained to minimize the impact of
subsidence and erosion on the stability of the system.

5.10.2.9 Stability of Swale Embankment
It is assumed that the waste under the cover system will generally not be steeper than a
3H:1V slope for the final condition and that the cover system will act as a veneer on that
waste at that 3H:1V slope. However, there will be cases where soils above the waste are
placed steeper than 3H:1V. The primary example of this condition is the placement of side
slope swales above the liner.
The side slope swales will be lined to minimize stormwater infiltration into the barrier
protection layer, and will generally consist of a 2-foot-high low permeable soil berm placed
at a 2H:1V slope on the top of the cover system. The limited fills required to create these
swales will increase the driving forces on the liner system and slightly reduce the factor of
safety for the cover system directly below the swale. However, it has been Cornerstone’s
experience that swales 2.5 feet in height or less have minimal impact on overall stability of
the final cover system (i.e., longer length of slopes).

5.10.2.10 Stability Recommendations For Waste at Field Moisture Capacity
A rise of pore pressure can compromise the localized stability of a portion of the landfill;
one possible cause for an increase in pore pressure within the waste is leachate
recirculation.
The heterogeneous nature of waste leads to the possibility of creating
preferential flow paths or zones of reduced permeability. When either of these conditions
occurs near the landfill slope, the increased pore pressures may lead to a reduced factor of
safety within the waste mass. It is recommended that proper precautions be taken to avoid
this condition from occurring, including reducing or eliminating the injection of leachate
near side slopes, the use of daily fill material that will allow downward flow of leachate
through the waste, and waste grading away from side slopes to minimize preferential flow
paths toward the edges of the landfill. Adhering to these procedures should reduce the
possibility of reductions in the factor of safety for localized and deep slope failures.
Control of global failures is primarily dependent on the interfaces in the baseline/leachate
collection system. The geosynthetics and/or soils chosen should have adequate capacity to
minimize the buildup of pore pressures along the interfaces in the liner system. Abiding by
this recommendation should maintain a factor of safety that will control global stability
failures due to increased leachate head along the base of the landfill.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

82

5.10.3 Settlement Analysis
5.10.3.1 General
The intent of this analysis is to support the design of the leachate collection and baseliner
systems and to verify post-settlement slopes specified in 6NYCRR Part 360-2.13(i)(2) and
6NYCRR Part 360-2.13(l)(2). Specifically, the requirements are that post-settlement slopes
for leachate collection piping are at least 1% and, for leachate collection systems (as well as
liner and subgrade), are at least 2%.

5.10.3.2 Selection of Critical Settlement Analysis Locations
The sections where post-settlement slope was evaluated, as well as the points analyzed
along the sections, have been chosen according to the same criteria. These include:

geometry - local and global subgrade minimum, local and global subgrade
maximum, change in subgrade slope, sump locations, etc.

geology - significant changes in underlying soil type, thickness of specific units,
or total overburden thickness

The landfill geometry was determined based on setback requirements and standard landfill
geometry. The location and structure of the existing landfill footprint are based on record
drawings and surveys supplied to Cornerstone by CRL. The soil conditions are based on
geotechnical borings included in the 2014 SIR. The locations of selected sections are shown
in the Settlement Calculation in Attachment 7.

5.10.3.3 Analysis Procedure
Post-settlement elevations, employed in calculation of post-settlement slope, were
determined by subtracting the expected subgrade settlement from the proposed subgrade
elevation at points along critical sections. The calculation of anticipated settlement was
implemented according to the generalized equation for settlement, which can be written as:

∆H=∆Hi+∆Hc+∆Hs
Where:
∆H = total settlement
∆Hi = immediate (elastic) settlement
∆Hc = consolidation settlement
∆Hs = secondary (consolidation) settlement

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

83

Either the elastic or consolidation settlement tends to dominate the settlement based on the
properties of the overburden found on the site. For coarse-grained materials that easily
dissipate excess pore pressures, immediate elastic settlement comprises the majority of
settlement. Conversely fine-grained soils normally require a significantly greater length of
time to dissipate excess pore water pressures created by additional loading. This renders
the soil nearly inelastic as initial loads are, as exhibited by sustained increases in pore
pressures, borne almost exclusively by water, which is relatively incompressible.
Laboratory tests generally indicate that the Glaciolacustrine units, as well as the soils used
for compacted fills generally behave as finer-grained soils and therefore consolidation
settlement will define the subgrade displacement for these soils. These soils will also
undergo secondary consolidation, indicating the long- term reorganization of soil particles
under the applied stress. The settlement in solid waste is also described well using the
consolidation settlement method. The Glacial Till, however, has consistently shown lower
plasticity, lower void volumes, and higher content of coarse-grained particles. For this
reason, the elastic (immediate) settlement analysis is most appropriate for the lowest soil
layer. The settlement in alluvial sand is also described well using the elastic (immediate)
settlement analysis. Secondary consolidation is not considered for soils exhibiting elastic
behavior. A determination of the method applicable to each soil type and the equations
used for each case are found in Attachment 7.
According to 6NYCRR Part 360-2, Section 7(b)(6)(i), the required factor of safety for landfill
subgrade settlement analyses is 2.0. The unit weight for waste was multiplied by 2.0 to
achieve the required factor of safety.

5.10.3.4 Selection of Settlement Parameters
Primary settlement parameters were derived from laboratory data as summarized below
and as seen in Attachment 7. Secondary consolidation, for the layers to which it applies,
was generally equal to 5% of primary settlement.
Due to the sizeable coarse-grained fraction and the extremely overconsolidated nature of
this soil, settlement in the Glacial Till is considered to be completely elastic (immediate).
The soil parameter necessary to calculate the settlement is the stress-strain modulus, which
has been determined from literature correlations to the moisture content and Atterberg
limits tested on the Glacial Till. This correlation results in a modulus of 1.6 x 106 psf. The
Glacial Till is not considered to have secondary settlement.
The overconsolidation ratio for the Glaciolacustrince clay was conservatively chosen as 1.0,
and is further supported by consolidation data of Area 7 borings. The consolidation data
resulted in a Cc value of 0.24. Cr of 0.04 was used from the consolidation test. The initial
void ratio of 0.9 was used from the consolidation test. The secondary consolidation
constant for the Glaciolacustrine clay was determined to be 0.012.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

84

Settlement in the alluvial sand is considered to be completely elastic (immediate). The soil
parameter necessary to calculate the settlement is the stress-strain modulus, which has been
determined from literature correlations to the field strength tests conducted in the sand. An
N value of 5 was used in the correlation found in Bowles (316), as this is roughly the
minimum observed in the sand. This correlation results in a modulus of 100,000 psf. The
sand is not considered to have secondary settlement.
The compacted fill is placed in a controlled manner with specified lift thicknesses and a
consistent compaction procedure. The consolidation index (0.08), reconsolidation index
(0.02), and secondary consolidation index (0.004) are based on the properties of a remolded
clay. The initial void ratio of 0.5 is suggested for fill with liquid and plastic limits
resembling typical fill. As the fill is placed in lifts of controlled thickness and compacted
uniformly, it is more appropriate to employ a preconsolidation pressure instead of an
overconsolidation ratio. The preconsolidation pressure was calculated according to general
practices and properties of equipment used for soil compaction. The preconsolidation
pressure of 15,000 psf is based on an expected value within a standard twelve (12) inch soil
lift.
As portions of the project will include overfilling an existing landfill, consolidation
properties for existing waste must also be considered. A number of studies quantifying the
settlement properties of waste have been published over time, as discussed in the
Settlement Calculation in Attachment 7. It is generally presumed that previous compaction
of the waste has prepared immediate settlement to be negligible in comparison to delayed
settlement. The average consolidation ratio for the existing waste is taken as approximately
0.20 as indicated in the studies presented in Attachment 7. As this is the consolidation ratio
(also known as modified consolidation index) the void ratio is not necessary. Furthermore,
it is appropriate and conservative to assume that the waste will be normally consolidated
and will therefore not require a reconsolidation index. Decompositional settlement is
generally modeled as secondary settlement for Municipal Solid Waste. A modified
secondary consolidation index (Cαε) of 0.04 was used.

5.10.3.5 Baseliner and Leachate Collection Pipe Settlement Assessment
Using the above methods and parameters, the subgrade settlement was evaluated along ten
sections located within the proposed development. The location of each section may be
found in Attachment 7. The ten critical sections (designated 1 through 10) were analyzed in
Area 7. The sections were assessed for post-settlement slope of the longest drainage path in
their respective cells. Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 show that post-settlement slopes along the
floor of Area 7 will equal or exceed 2.0%.
The remaining sections, 1, 3, 5.1, 7, and 9 were chosen to determine post-settlement slope of
leachate collection pipes. These sections show that the leachate collection pipes will have a
post-settlement slope exceeding 1.0%. The calculation is available in Attachment 7.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

85

5.10.3.6 Baseliner Strain
A concern directly related to the anticipated subgrade settlement is the elongation strain in
the proposed baseliner system geosynthetics. A generally accepted industry standard is
that the elongation strain should be limited to 5% or less. To determine the maximum
potential baseliner strain, baseliner intervals from the Settlement Calculation were
evaluated for baseliner strain.
The anticipated strain, according to the calculations included in Attachment 7, will be
1.44%. This represents the greatest value found from the settlement section, and results in
an anticipated strain less than the industry accepted 5%.

5.10.4 Bearing Capacity Analysis
The bearing capacity analysis was conducted to determine the factor of safety against
failure of the subgrade due to subsidence induced by the expected loading. The analysis
was performed at the location with the greatest waste thickness over the most subsidenceprone soils (‘soft’ Glaciolucustrine clay). The calculation method employed in the Bearing
Capacity Calculation in Attachment 7 indicates that bearing capacity failure is primarily
dependent on soil properties, while landfill height has a smaller influence on the bearing
capacity factor of safety. Thus an acceptable factor of safety in areas with low-strength soils
indicates that waste over stronger soils should not have an equal or greater factor of safety,
even with greater waste thicknesses.
The proposed waste thickness at the point chosen for analysis is approximately 288 feet,
and the calculation was conducted using the assumption that the footing area in question
will be a unit square (1 ft2) under the waste. Neglecting the slight decrease in landfill height
over the adjacent unit squares, the weight of the counteracting soil wedge ( q ) will be
approximately equal to the stress induced by the waste directly over the unit square being
analyzed.
The required factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is 2.0 for proposed landfill
configurations. This requirement is in accordance with Paragraph 2.7(b)(6) of Part 360
requirements. The factor of safety against drained bearing capacity failure is 2.8 and the
factor of safety against undrained bearing capacity is 2.02. Therefore, the regulatory
minimum is satisfied.

5.10.5 Porewater Relief System
In order to construct the proposed landfill development areas, excavations will be
performed below the groundwater level. Therefore, seepage should be expected on the
excavation face below the groundwater table. Since generally low permeability clays are
found at the site, the quantity of seepage is expected to be small. However, due to the
depth of the subgrade excavation, the potential for seepage to cause the formation of excess

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

86

pore pressures is anticipated below constructed base liner. A porewater relief system is
designed to intercept the seepage from the cut slope face and to reduce the pore pressures
below the landfill base to minimize impact to the liner system from heaving due to uplift
forces. These excess pore pressures may result in seepage forces until an equivalent
amount of waste is in place after the construction. Therefore, the pore pressure relief
system must remain in place until the waste is in place.
In order to estimate the seepage quantities, a seepage analysis has been performed for Area
7. Permeability values used in the analyses for pertinent soil layers were estimated based
on field and laboratory permeability tests. Details of the seepage analyses are provided in
Attachment 7.
As part of the porewater management program for Area 7, a drainage system is designed to
collect seepage from the slopes and the base of Area 7 excavation. This system will
generally consist of placement of geocomposites along the cut slope face and the base of the
landfill. The proposed geocomposite system on the slope will be installed below
groundwater level. The top elevation of the geocomposite drainage can be adjusted in the
field based on the actual seepage face but in no case shall the top be lower than the extents
shown on Sheet 7 of the Engineering Drawings. The porewater collected by the
geocomposite drainage system will be diverted into the toe drain system, which is diverted
to the sump(s). Porewater sump and sideriser connection details are shown in Sheet 27 of
the Engineering Drawings.
Analyses supporting the capacity of the porewater
management system are found in Attachment 7. The recommended toe drain pipe
diameters are 4 inches for Area 7.

5.11 Landscape Plan
In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.6, a Landscape Plan has been developed that
addresses the selection, planting, and maintenance of vegetation that will be used on the
landfill surfaces and perimeter berms for the following purposes:

Provide for erosion control on landfills with intermediate cover and final cover;

To minimize the duration and magnitude of operational impacts, landfilling
within each successive vertical lift would be phased in a manner that will screen
much of the day-to-day operations from off-site receptors. Upon initiating each
successive vertical lift, a berm constructed of waste material would be placed
along the perimeter of the lift area. External side-slopes would receive a final
cover of soil and would be planted with grass and herbaceous vegetation. This
interim berm will create a visual barrier that progressively screens views of
operation and construction vehicles, as well as daily operational areas of
uncovered waste material.

Provide a native grassland habitat to the extent practicable as part of the final cover
system.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

87

As landfilling is completed, closed areas would be revegetated with a mix of
native grasses and herbaceous vegetation. The intent of this mitigation is to
create the visual appearance of a natural meadow or old-field consistent with the
visual character of the surrounding region.

A Landscape Plan provides the overall basis for the landscaping and builds upon the visual
assessment performed by Saratoga Associates with respect to potential visual impacts and
recommendations on providing visual screening.

5.12 Stormwater Management/Erosion and Sediment Control
The stormwater management system for the proposed Development facility includes:

Erosion and sediment control measures and practices;

Stormwater collection and conveyance structures;

Pollution prevention measures; and

Stormwater detention/sediment basins.

The erosion and sediment control measures and practices will serve to stabilize soil surfaces
and minimize or reduce soil migration/losses due to the erosive forces of stormwater
impact and runoff. Temporary measures and practices, consistent with New York State
guidelines, will be employed during landfill operations and permanent measures and
practices will be established in a phased approach as final cover is constructed. Permanent
stabilization measures include the establishment of grass cover in open areas and linings
along open channels. Open ground areas will be stabilized initially with mulch and
ultimately with grass. Open channels used for stormwater collection will be stabilized with
grass, erosion control matting, riprap or gabions, depending on hydraulic design velocities
and channel slope.
Stormwater collection and conveyance structures include final cover sideslope swales,
downdrains, stilling basins, channels, and culverts. Final cover sideslope swales are the
first line collection structures and will be located at intervals on steep slopes to intercept
surface water runoff and reduce the development of concentrated runoff, thereby reducing
rill and gully erosion. Structures are designed to safely convey the predicted 25-year peak
discharges from the landfill areas to the detention/sediment basins. Structure designs
follow generally accepted stormwater design practices and New York State guidelines.
The detention/sediment basins are containment ponds where site runoff is detained and
stored temporarily. The existing basin on the west side of the existing landfill will be used
along with two proposed wet ponds on the south and north end of the site to accommodate
the stormwater runoff patterns for the Development. These basins will provide the
following benefits:

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

88

Extended Stormwater Detention - temporary storage and hydraulic control of
site runoff to reduce peak discharges, providing channel protection as well as
flood attenuation;

Water Quality Treatment – capture and treat the water quality volume for the
site through extended detention in an open water body; and

Sedimentation - water quality improvement by allowing suspended solids to
settle out of the stormwater prior to discharge from the Site.

Inlet structures are provided, where appropriate, at culvert entrances to reduce inlet
velocities. Outlet structures will facilitate discharge control, pond draining and emergency
overflow. Under normal operation after closure of the landfill, the basin outlets will
discharge at a relatively constant flow rate to extend the discharge period to minimize
downstream channel erosion and flooding. Basin grading and compartmentalization allow
for sediment removal and provide storage capacity in each series of ponds for runoff from a
100-year design storm.
The proposed stormwater management methods will provide for stormwater quantity and
quality control in an economic and effective manner. The operational requirements are
straight forward and the overall effectiveness of the system is easily quantified by surface
water quality monitoring. In addition, the land and operational resources required for the
proposed system are already accessible to CRL.
In the long term, this system will continue to operate with limited monitoring and
maintenance requirements while providing high quality stormwater discharge after landfill
closure.

5.12.1 General
This section provides an overview of regulatory criteria and design guidelines applicable to
stormwater management at the Town of Colonie Landfill, describes current site stormwater
management practices and discusses the proposed approach to stormwater management
during construction, operation, and closure of the landfill Development project. The site is
located within the designated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) boundary of
the Town of Colonie. The activities and controls in place at the landfill are consistent with
the requirements established by the Town and support the Town’s overall stormwater
management program being implemented for compliance with its MS4 General Permit.
The existing stormwater system, is described in more detail in the site Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by Crawford & Associates Engineering, P.C. which is
required as part of the coverage for the site under the state’s Multi-Sector General Permit
(GP-0-12-001) for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity.
As part of the proposed development, the landfill will undergo construction and
operational modifications over time. It is anticipated that these modification will result in
the need for somewhat regular updated to the SWPPP to remain compliant with the MultiEngineering Report Area 7.docx

89

Sector General Permit. The SWPPP must be updated in accordance with the MSGP
requirements.
The following sections provide a discussion of the various design components of
stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control systems to be employed as
part of the Area 7 Development. Stormwater management system features are provided in
the Engineering Drawings, Sheets 30 through 33, while operational erosion and
sedimentation control features are identified on Sheet 34.

5.12.2 Design Methodology
The primary objective of the stormwater management design is to provide a system that
effectively mitigates potential impacts to the environment through control of erosion and
off-site transport of sediments. These goals are achieved during construction and operation
of the landfill Development through the establishment of vegetation and the construction of
stormwater catch basins, channels, culverts, and wet ponds.
The overall design methodology for the site includes the following components:

Sizing of stormwater conveyance systems;

Sizing of stormwater wet ponds for the operating and post-closure condition
where final stormwater treatment will be through flow-through wet ponds.

5.12.3 Conveyance Systems
For sizing of stormwater conveyance systems, HydroCAD 10.00-12 was utilized, which uses
a USDA Soil Conservation Services (SCS), Technical Release No. 20, (TR 20), Type II
distribution. The peak discharge rates were calculated using the 25-year, 24 hour storm
event for the site (4.9 inches) and SCS curve numbers representative of the type of cover.
The conveyance system (i.e., channels, downdrains) was designed based on a 25-year
storm, in accordance with NYSDEC Part 360 requirements. Design methodologies for
conveyance components are discussed below, with additional information (i.e., calculations,
results, details) provided in Attachment 7. Where appropriate, specific engineering details
are identified.
The proposed stormwater management system development includes the design of the
following structures:

Final cover side slope swales

Corrugated HDPE downdrains

Lined channels

Culverts

Stormwater inlets

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

90

5.12.3.1 Final Cover Sideslope Swales
The design of the final cover sideslope swales used for the site will also be used for the
proposed Development. These consist of “V” Channels at standard spacing across the
landfill. Sideslope swales will be vegetated. Swales are designed to be installed on a
specified slope ranging between 2 and 8%. (Channels on the cover are generally 2 to 4%,
while roadside channels are on the order of 8%). Drainage swales installed on the landfill
face will be installed with, at a minimum, a temporary erosion control blanket, to help in
the establishment of vegetation and reduce erosion. Sideslope swales have been designed
with a drainage area such that a standard 2.0-foot-deep triangular drainage channel will
convey the 25-year storm runoff. A channel layout can be seen on Sheet 11 and details on
Sheet 31.
Grass-lined channels reduce erosion by slowing flow velocities and binding the soil
particles with roots. These grass-lined channels will generally be used on slopes of 5% or
less and where the vegetation provides suitable stability for the channel bank.
Reinforcement of grass-lined channels may be required to assist in establishment of
vegetative growth or to provide support of the vegetation once established, as noted above.
Reinforcement may include temporary erosion control blankets or permanent turf
reinforcement mats, as appropriate. Grass lined channels will be used in various locations
throughout the facility, including landfill sideslopes to provide interception and diversion
of sheet flow off of the sideslopes into downchutes or other conveyance systems such as
swales adjacent to access roads.
Grass-lined channels will be installed only after upland areas have been stabilized such that
the channel is not subject to sedimentation from disturbed areas. During initial
establishment, grass-lined channels will be repaired and grass re-established as necessary.
Should design slopes result in steeper channels and therefore greater velocities, channel
protection (i.e., rip rap, gabions, or erosion control fabrics) will be used as necessary.
However, vegetative cover will be the primary cover used in channels. Grass-lined
channels will also be used on the side slope of the capped landfills to convey stormwater off
of the landfill.

5.12.3.2 Downdrains
Corrugated HDPE downdrain pipes will be provided on the landfill to convey stormwater
down the steep side slopes (3H:1V). The downdrain design is primarily a function of the
contributory drainage area and the slope of the downdrain. Where practicable, downdrains
have been placed on the outer corners of the landfill sideslopes where slopes are less (~
25%). This practice will serve to reduce the associated velocity and shear stresses. The
downdrains will be located within the barrier protection layer of the final cover system with
a minimum of six inches of soil above and below the pipe as shown on Sheet 30. The
expected flows associated with the contributing run-off areas of each downdrain have been
used to show that 24” diameter corrugated HDPE pipe will sufficiently convey the 25 year
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

91

storm. Calculations and supporting documentation for the downdrains can be seen in
Attachment 7 and a standard detail on Sheet 30.
The downdrains are pipes that will convey concentrated stormwater collected from the
final cover of the landfill. The downdrains are laid out perpendicular to the final cover
topographic contours. The velocity of the stormwater within the downdrains is expected to
be very high and may exceed 29 feet/sec because of very steep pipe slopes. The use of
piped downdrains provides the ability to convey the stormwater at these high velocities
without the high erosion potential typically associated with the use of channelized
downchutes.

5.12.3.3 Conveyance Channels
Various lined perimeter and conveyance channels will be located around the landfill site to
collect surface water runoff and convey it safely to its final discharge point. These channels
will be either triangular or trapezoidal in shape and will be lined with grass or grass with
an erosion control mat. Consistent with New York Guidelines, the maximum design
velocity for grass-lined channels is generally 2.5 feet per second (fps) based on soil type,
while the allowable velocity for grass lining with an erosion control mat is generally on the
order of 5.0 fps, depending on the type of erosion protection. A minimum of 0.5 feet of
freeboard will be provided for the channels under normal flow conditions. The overall
layout of the conveyance channels is illustrated on Sheet 11.

5.12.3.4 Culverts
Culverts are required to convey surface water under various roadways. Culverts have been
sized using the peak discharges from their respective upstream waterways. The culverts to
be used in the landfill Development will generally be circular culverts. The design was
conducted using USDOT HY-8 Version 7.3. Culvert grades/slopes have been set such that
the hydraulic grade for the culverts does not exceed the elevation of the critical roadways or
embankments. Culvert sizing can be seen on Sheet 11 and the calculations are in
Attachment 7.

5.12.3.5 Stormwater Inlets and Piping
Stormwater inlets and piping will be required to convey final cover landfill runoff to the
wet ponds. Inlets and storm sewer piping has been sized using appropriate design tools
and methodologies. The inlets and storm sewers have been designed for the 25-year storm
event, in accordance with NYSDEC guidelines.

5.12.4 Stormwater Retention Ponds
This section provides a discussion of the proposed stormwater management ponds to be
employed to meet various stormwater management system requirements.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

92

5.12.4.1 Stormwater Wet Pond Design
Retention ponds – existing and proposed – will be used at three locations around the site to
provide for retention and passive treatment of stormwater prior to discharge during both
the operating and post-closure conditions of the site. The existing west pond, which is
within the limits of the proposed Cell 5, will remain in-place until Phase 5. The north and
south wet ponds will be constructed concurrently with the construction of Cell 2 during
Phase 2. These ponds (Type P-2 "Wet Ponds" from the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual) are designed to capture and treat the water quality volume,
and attenuate the 1-, 10-, and 100-year storms. They will be constructed in accordance with
the NYS Stormwater Design Manual with aquatic benches to promote vegetative growth.
Upon landfill closure the run-off from the landfill cap and site will be conveyed to the north
and south stormwater management pond systems. At proposed pond inlets, a forebay will
be installed as required in the New York State standards to provide additional sediment
control. The ponds will gravity discharge via engineered outlet control structures designed
to gradually discharge accumulated stormwater, and manage high peak discharges. These
outlet structures will consist of a base-flow orifice, a service spillway weir, and an auxiliary
spillway weir which are designed to detain the 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year storms,
respectively. The extended detention time will reduce discharge rates, leading to an
increase in water quality, and reduce the potential for downstream erosion. A detail of the
typical outlet structure, along with actual orifice/weir sizes and elevations can be seen on
Sheet 32.

5.12.4.2 Stormwater Discharge Rates
Both ponds will discharge into the Mohawk River via existing storm sewers. The wet pond
discharge structures are designed, as required by NYSSDM, to attenuate the rate of
discharge to levels that are at or below the pre-development levels for the 10-year and
100-year storm events. The pre-development run-off values were calculated using USDA
NRCS TR 55 and HydroCAD, and can be found in Attachment 7. The pre-development
peak stormwater discharge rates for the areas of the proposed landfill development area are
as follows:

10-year, 24-hour storm: 454 cfs

100-year, 24-hour storm: 851 cfs

These values represent the drainage areas within the footprint of the landfill development.
The same footprint area was used to calculate the post-closure discharges of the proposed
stormwater system. The areas outside of this footprint were not considered in either
calculation as they are not expected to change, and will therefore not affect the outcome of
the calculation. The post-closure peak stormwater discharge rates, which are the sum of the
discharges from both ponds, as well as two other discharges from the eastern face of the
landfill as seen in Attachment 7 are as follows:

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

93

10-year, 24-hour storm: 169 cfs

100-year, 24-hour storm: 409 cfs

As shown by the calculations, the proposed stormwater system will reduce the peak
stormwater discharge rates and attenuate the storm event discharges to the Mohawk River.

5.12.4.3 Water Quality Volume
As required by the New York State general permit for Stormwater Associated with
Construction activities the design goal is to capture and treat the water quality volume
(WQv), which is equal to 90% of the annual average stormwater runoff volume. Also, the
forebay has a capacity requirement of at least 10% of the WQv. The WQv for each of the
drainage areas/pond systems is calculated in Attachment 7. The proposed pond and
forebay volumes are greater than required for each drainage area.

5.12.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls
This section provides a discussion of the erosion and sedimentation controls to be
employed as part of the Development.

5.12.5.1 Runoff and Drainage Controls
Runoff and drainage controls employed for the landfill construction were primarily
discussed above for conveyance components, and include:

Grass-Lined Channels

Downdrains

Stilling Basins

Grading

With respect to erosion and sedimentation control, these runoff control systems have been
designed to convey stormwater in a manner that minimizes the velocity of runoff. Where
this is not applicable, appropriate measures to provide reinforced vegetation or to dissipate
erosive energies are incorporated into the design.
The purpose of land grading is to provide for erosion control and vegetative establishment
on those areas where the existing land surface is to be reshaped by grading according to
erosion and sediment control practices. Interim and final grades have been developed to
facilitate efficient and safe conveyance of stormwater from catchment areas to drainage
swales, sediment basins, and/or the CRL stormwater management pond systems. The
conveyance swales are designed to maintain non-erodable velocities based on the 25 year –
24 hour storm, and anticipated soil types on site.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

94

5.12.5.2 Erosion Control (Stabilization)
Erosion control practices will be implemented during landfill operations (e.g., intermediate
cover) and for closure (final cover) to keep surface soils in place during the entire site life.
Erosion control practices on perimeter berms, access routes, stockpiles, stormwater
management facilities and other landfill appurtenances will be installed within 14 days
after completion of construction activity and immediately upon reaching the final proposed
grades. Erosion control systems will be utilized on landfill and perimeter berm sideslopes
when access to the area can be safely achieved. Landfill sideslopes will ultimately convey
runoff to sediment basins to capture sediments prior to discharge. Requirements for the
use and installation of erosion and sedimentation controls is provided in the Technical
Specifications included as part of the CQA/CQC Plan and as outlined in the site wide
SWPPP to be updated prior to construction.
The following erosion control practices will be implemented at the site as appropriate.
Stone Check Dams
Check dams will be constructed as temporary stone dams across drainage ways to capture
sediment and reduce erosion in the channel by restricting the velocity of flow. NYSDOT
Light Stone Fill (graded stone, 2 to 9 inches in size) will be placed on a woven or nonwoven separation geotextile to appropriate lines, grades, and locations. The Light Stone Fill
will be placed at the banks to a minimum of 0.5 feet above the centerline elevation to help
minimize cutting around the channel restriction. As an alternate, where steeper channels
are required and check dams would be required every few feet, temporary channel lining
(i.e., erosion control mats or rip-rap) will be used in lieu of the check dams to reduce
erosion.
Rock Outlet Protection
Rock outlet protection will consist of a section of rip-rap placed at the outlet end of culverts
and/or channels. Rock outlet protection is intended to protect the underlying soil from the
erosive force of water such that the flow will not erode the receiving downstream reach. In
addition to placement in culverts and channels, rock outlet protection will be required at
the inlets and outlets from the sedimentation ponds and at the outlet of temporary
pumping locations. The rip-rap sizing and thickness for each application is dependent
upon the channel configuration, flow rate and pipe sizes. The required size of the rock
outlet protection, the thickness, and the rock size can be seen on the Engineering Drawings.
The subgrade for the rock outlet protection will be prepared to the required lines and
grades. Fill required in the subgrade will be compacted to at least the same density as the
surrounding undisturbed material, or according to the same requirements for the
surrounding compacted fill. The geotextile specified (as seen on the typical detail on Sheet
34) will be protected from punching, cutting, or tearing. Damage will be repaired by
placing another piece of geotextile over the damaged part or by completely replacing the
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

95

geotextile. Overlaps, whether for repairs or for joining two pieces of geotextile, will be a
minimum of one foot.
The rip-rap material will consist of durable, angular crushed stone. Rip-rap fill will be
placed by equipment to the full course thickness in one operation and in such a manner as
to avoid displacement of underlying materials. The stone will be delivered and placed in a
manner that will ensure that it is reasonably homogenous with the smaller stones and spalls
filling the voids between the larger stones. Stone fill will be placed in a manner to minimize
damage to the geotextile.
Surface Roughening
Roughening and diversions will be used to limit sheet and rill erosion, and formation of
gullies. Fill slope surfaces will be roughened to reduce erosion. Roughening can include
tracking and grooving across the slope face. The face of the fill slopes will consist of
somewhat roughened, less-compacted fill that will reduce erosion potential. Blading or
scraping the slope face to smooth the surface should be minimized to the extent the slope
surface stability and workability can be maintained.
Mulching
Mulching used for soil stabilization will consist of erosion control blankets, straw, and/or
tackifiers. Prior to mulching, specified or needed erosion and sediment control practices
such as diversions, dikes, and sediment basins will be installed. Mulch will not be applied
more than 2 inches thick on seeded areas, unless it is incorporated into the soil by tracking,
disking, or “punching in” techniques.
Erosion control blankets are typically made of straw, coconut fiber, aspen fiber, excelsior, or
synthetic materials. Erosion control blankets are well suited for steep slopes and where
vegetation is slow to establish. Blankets will be in uniform contact with the soil.
Manufacturer’s recommendations will be followed for securing the blankets to the soil
surface.
Because of its length and bulk, straw is highly effective in reducing the impact of raindrops
and in moderating the temperature and moisture conditions at the soil surface and seedbed.
Straw used for mulch will be clean wheat, barley, oat, or rice straw without significant
quantities of noxious weed seeds. Moldy, compacted straw is to be avoided due to
difficulty with clumping and uneven distribution. After application, the soil surface will be
barely visible beneath the straw.
Tackifiers are organic or polymer liquid mulch binders that can be incorporated with the
seed and fertilizer in hydroseeding operations. Application of tackifiers will be heavier at
edges, in valleys, and at crests of banks and other areas where the mulch may be subject to
more aggressive wind and water action. Other areas will have a uniform application of the
tackifier.
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

96

Mulch application will require little maintenance after proper application. After high
winds, or significant rainstorms, mulched areas will be inspected. Mulched areas will be
checked for adequate coverage and re-mulched if necessary. Mulch will be maintained
until a permanent vegetative erosion control cover is established.
Vegetation
Soil suitable for vegetative growth will be installed along embankment and fill slopes to the
limits of disturbance, and vegetation will be established.
Waterways and slopes, either natural or constructed, will be vegetated as needed for safe
conveyance of stormwater runoff. The purpose of the vegetation is to stabilize the soil
materials on the site and convey excess surface water from construction sites without
damage from erosion. Seed mixture will be applied uniformly over the final grades.
Embankment fill slopes will be vegetated within 14 days after final grades are achieved,
and channels will be vegetated within 7 days after final grading. When construction
activity on a portion of the site is temporarily suspended and earth disturbing activities will
resume within 21 days, temporary stabilization measure need not be implemented. The
temporary seed mixture is specified in the Seeding Specifications, Section 02936.
For areas where intermediate cover has been installed, an interim seed mix, “Mixture Type
1 will be utilized. This seed mixture can be found in Section 02936 of the specifications.
The mixture specified above is consistent with NY Standards and Specifications for Erosion
and Sediment Control adjusted slightly based on successful experience at other landfill sites
across New York. The seed will not be distributed if the weather does not permit
(minimum amount of precipitation and temperature greater than 40°F). In general, interim
and temporary seeding will be performed prior to March 21st, and may continue through
the end of November. When seeding in less than optimal timeframes, proper mulching
through the use of erosion control blankets or hydraulically applied mulches or equivalent
must be performed to protect the seed prior to germination. Additionally, late season
seeding will have an additional 100 lb/acre of winter wheat added to the mix listed above.
This will provide seed that will germinate until temperatures cause the ground to freeze,
while placing a temporary mix that will ideally stay dormant until the spring. Where seed
is applied at the end of the year and germination did not occur or only occurred to a limited
extent, the seeded area will be inspected, and if necessary, reseeded in spring to establish
vegetative growth.
The permanent seed mix, which will be installed upon completion of final grades, will be
installed in accordance with the specifications for the project. Temporary, interim and
permanent seeding and planting will be inspected for bare spots, washouts, and health of
growth. Repairs or replanting will be conducted as soon as appropriate growing
conditions/seasons allow.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

97

5.12.5.3 Dust Control
The landfill operators will implement dust control measures for the areas disturbed by the
landfill project. Dust control will be achieved primarily through minimizing the generation
of dust on site and the application of water or NYSDEC approved suppressants, if
necessary. In addition, personnel will be visually observing construction activities during
working hours, and will employ additional dust control measures (as needed) if visible
evidence of fugitive dust is observed. This will typically be conducted by increasing the
frequency of water or dust suppressant application as needed to control dust.

5.12.5.4 Sediment Control
Sediment control measures will be installed in locations where surface runoff may flow off
the area of construction. The following sediment control measures will be implemented at
the site.
Silt Fence
Silt fence will be installed, as shown on the Engineering Drawings down slope of areas
tributary to a stormwater ditch or natural water body before disturbance of the area by
construction activities. Silt fencing will provide temporary sediment barriers when placed
on slope contours. They will detain sediment by ponding water behind the silt fence, which
allows sediment to settle. When used in this manner, silt fence will be installed to follow
ground contours and in the locations shown on the operations drawings. Silt fences will
also be used to contain sediment within controlled areas and to divert sediment-laden runoff to a complementary control device when placed off contour. A silt fence detail can be
seen on Sheet 34.
Accumulated silt and debris will be removed from behind the face of the silt fence when the
silt deposits reach approximately one-third the height of the fence. Clogged or damaged
fabric will be immediately replaced.
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Stabilized construction entrances will be built where appropriate to reduce the tracking of
sediments onto Route 9 or Arrowhead Lane. Each stabilized construction entrance will
consist of a stabilized pad of aggregate underlain by a separation geotextile located at the
point where traffic will be entering or leaving the construction site. A detail can be seen on
Sheet 34.
Two-inch stone or equivalent will be placed at a typical minimum thickness of six inches
over a separation geotextile. The width of the stabilized construction entrances will be
approximately 32 feet at points where ingress and egress occurs, with a width reduction to
12’ approximately 12’ from the interface with State Route 9 or Arrowhead Lane (or other
paved surface). The entrance will be maintained in a condition that will minimize excessive
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

98

tracking, or flowing of sediment onto State Route 9 or other road surfaces. The length of the
construction entrances will vary depending on the location but will be a minimum of 50feet-long.
Sedimentation Basins
The proposed Stormwater Management Pond Systems will be used for sedimentation
storage during the course of the Area 7 Development. Storm sewers and temporary
drainage channels will convey runoff to the north and south ponds. The north and south
ponds will be the primary feature used to trap and store sediment during construction and
have been sized in accordance with New York State guidelines.
Each basin has been sized based on the NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion
and Sediment Control (NYSDEC, August 2010) guidance to provide adequate volume
(minimum 3,600 cubic feet per acre of area draining to the basin). In accordance with the
Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, the sediment basins will be
cleaned out when the volume remaining for sediment storage is reduced by sedimentation
to one-half the original volume, or sooner. The sediment basins will be sized to
accommodate the entire sediment loading for the site and are not dependent upon other
storage controls. However, other controls may be used where appropriate, and will reduce
the actual amount going to the ponds.
Sediment Trap
Sediment traps will be used where appropriate as a temporary control to trap and filter
water. Sediment traps will be used where appropriate and where direct or pumped
discharge to a sediment pond may not be the most effective way to manage sediment. The
sediment traps used at the site will primarily be riprap outlet sediment traps (detail on
Sheet 34) and will be sized to contain 3600 cubic feet of storage per acre of drainage area
and will be located such that the maximum drainage area is 15 acres.
Sump Pits
A sump pit will be used as appropriate as a temporary control to trap and filter water for
pumping to the sediment basins. In general, sump pits will consist of a perforated vertical
standpipe, which may be wrapped with hardware cloth and geotextile filter, or positioned
within a graded aggregate filter. The standpipe will be located in the center of a pit
positioned at the lowermost points of the excavation. A detail can be seen on Drawing D34.
Runoff associated with completed portions of landfill liner components installed above
secondary soil liner (e.g. geomembrane and/or granular drainage layers) that do not
receive runoff or leachate from a landfill cell may be direct discharged provided sedimentladen runoff does not flow onto the liner. These areas of new landfill liner construction will
be essentially clean from runoff flowing on geomembrane, geosynthetics, or granular
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

99

drainage media (sand or gravel). However, runoff from areas of constructed landfill
subgrade or secondary soil liner will be pumped into a sedimentation basin prior to
discharge.
Sump pits will generally be constructed within excavations. They will be constructed as
necessary to adequately dewater the excavation. The sump pits will enhance the
effectiveness and life of the of the sediment basins by removing a portion of the sediment
before it is pumped to a basin. Grading in the excavation will be phased so that surface
water runoff is directed toward the sump pits. Accumulated surface water runoff will be
pumped from the sump pit into one of the ponds. Pumping will only be accomplished
from the inside of the sump pit riser pipe. If required to minimize pumping of sediment,
the pump inlet may be attached to a flotation device so that only water from near the
surface of the standing pool is discharged from the sump pit.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

100

6 LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
6.1 General
This section provides an overview of the construction and operation of the landfill facilities.
Landfill construction is addressed in the Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Plan (CQA/CQC Plan), which addresses the management structure and quality assurance
program and procedures in place to document and certify landfill systems construction. An
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Plan has been developed for the Area 7 Development
and is provided in Attachment 5. The O&M Plan addresses the landfill operations
management structure, waste placement, controls, and environmental monitoring.
Landfill construction includes landfill liner systems, leachate collection/conveyance
/storage facilities, landfill gas management systems, final cover and stormwater
management features. The day-to-day operations and maintenance activities at the Landfill
generally focus on waste placement and environmental controls. Waste placement
operations include acceptance and tracking of incoming waste, inspection and compaction
of waste at the working face and the placement of daily and intermediate cover materials.
For this Development, the construction of landfill gas collection and leachate management
systems (recirculation lines) will be performed concurrent with landfill operations (e.g.,
waste placement). Other construction items noted above typically occur prior to or
following completion of waste placement within an operational area.

6.2 Landfill Construction
Landfill construction involves the construction of the liner system, waste placement, and
construction of cover systems, landfill gas, leachate and stormwater management controls.
The design of these components was discussed in Section 5.
Development of the landfill footprint components will consist of earthwork/grading and
baseliner construction, followed by waste placement to interim final grade (final grade for
each Phase). Prior to achieving interim final grade in a Phase, construction of the
subsequent cell will be completed so that the landfill activities may progress from one
Phase to the next without interruption.
A typical liner area will be constructed in the following sequence:

Excavation/fill of the area to design subgrade elevation (including potential
relocation of waste and);

Construction of porewater drainage layer (as appropriate);

Placement and compaction of a low permeability soil liner (secondary);

Installation of secondary geomembrane liner;

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

101

Placement of geocomposite secondary drain system;

Placement and compaction of secondary leachate drainage layers (as
appropriate);

Installation of primary geocomposite (GCL and geomembrane) liner:

Placement of geotextile cushion; and,

Placement of leachate collection blanket drain system.

In the initial cell development area, the first step in the construction sequence will be to
remove the leachate ponds. All sediment within the ponds and geosynthetic liner materials
will be disposed of in the adjacent active landfill cells. While not anticipated due to the
presence of the lagoon liner system, the subgrade soils will be visually inspected and
contaminated soils removed and disposed of in the active landfill cells.
Landfill construction will entail the excavation of the interior portion of each cell to design
subgrade elevations coupled with the construction of perimeter embankments. Due to the
potential presence of soft soils within native overburden in areas of the site, ground
improvement is required for some soil below the perimeter embankments. In general,
ground improvement (removal and replacement of soft soil), where required, will be
performed prior to construction of the perimeter embankments. In addition to providing
containment, the perimeter embankments provide for the following critical components of
the Development:

Visual screening and noise abatement during initial filling operations;

Provides the foundation for a perimeter access road to facilitate operations and
maintenance of the facilities; and

The pitch of the berms has been designed to direct surface water runoff at the
foot of the landfill to stormwater management systems.

In areas where the proposed subgrade will potentially intercept existing waste (portions of
Area 2, 3, and 4), daily inspections/observations will be performed by the Operations
Manager at the site to verify that exposed waste is not resulting in any off-site impacts.
Should off-site impacts be identified the areas will be covered with daily cover and a
mitigation plan developed.
The overall landfill will be completed with a final cover system designed in accordance
with Part 360 requirements. Final cover will be placed at a maximum slope of three feet
horizontal for every one foot of vertical rise. This 3H:1V slope will continue to a point near
the peak elevation (the plateau). The plateau will be graded at a minimum four percent
slope from the edge of the 3H:1V slope up to the peak elevation.
The plan calls for the continued waste placement in Areas 5 and 6 concurrent with
construction of Operational Phases 1 and 2 discussed in Section 6.3.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

102

6.3 Waste Fill Progression
Following completion of liner construction, waste placement in a cell will commence.
During waste placement operations, landfill gas collection will be installed in accordance
with the configuration shown on Sheets 20 and 21. Once waste grades have been achieved,
intermediate cover and interim stormwater management systems are placed on the landfill
surface. Final cover and associated stormwater management features are placed on
completed slope and plateau areas.
The proposed Area 7 Development areas will be constructed in Phases. These Phases are
illustrated on Sheets 12 to 17 of the accompanying Engineering Drawings. These
operational drawings show the various facilities that need to be in place at a given point in
the operation, each area of new liner construction, each area of active landfill operations,
areas where preparatory activities will begin for the next phase of liner construction (e.g.,
clearing and grubbing), the stormwater and soil erosion controls for each phase, soil
stockpile areas, and cover placement. Mention of “Cell” construction within this section
will refer to construction of the double composite liner system as described in Section 5.5
including the necessary leachate collection and removal systems, siderisers, forcemains, and
other associated components of cell construction. The location of secondary and primary
leachate collection and removal pipe networks can be seen on Sheets 8 and 9 respectively
The primary considerations in developing the operational sequencing plan includes the
following:

Provide sufficient air space within each Phase to allow construction of a
subsequent Phase;

Address potential visual impacts to adjacent properties;

Minimize exposure of the liner system;

Reduce the potential for leachate generation;

Control erosion and potential sediment loading to natural water resources;

Mitigate potential impacts associated with noise, windblown litter and odor;

Maximize the rate at which outside slopes achieve final grade; and,

Fill in a manner that complements the construction of future cells and permits
relative ease of access to the working face.

Provide for 21.8 years of site life.

In addition to the above considerations, individual cells in each phase of the landfill
development will be separated by an operational berm to provide hydraulic separation
between cells to minimize leachate generation through control of stormwater. Intermediate
"rainfall flaps" will be used to the degree practical to segregate rainfall from solid waste
inside a given cell.
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

103

Further, while the fill progression depicted in the Drawings illustrates specific cell
dimensions; in practice, cells will be sized by incoming waste rate, access requirements and
practical construction considerations. Filling may begin in a partially completed cell as
liner construction continues on remaining portions of the cell. This practice generally
allows for the placement of the initial lift of select waste, or “soft trash” which requires
additional time to fill. Fill progression will typically begin at the low point, or sump area of
a particular operating cell, and proceed in an upslope direction. Areas of each cell will be
covered with intermediate cover, consisting of a minimum of twelve inches of soil, as they
are brought up to final or interim grade. When a sufficiently large area has achieved final
grade, the final cover system will be constructed.
Based on the above overall considerations, a waste fill progression was developed for the
Area 7 Development. A description of each Phase of waste fill progression as illustrated on
the engineering drawings is presented below. The Phases discussed below are presented in
overall anticipated sequence of construction/operations. The overall staging discussed
below (and presented in Sheets 12 through 17) is consistent with the anticipated sequencing
of construction and waste placement activities at that time.
Phase 1:
During Phase 1, Cell 1 which will be approximately ten acres of double composite liner, will
be constructed in the northeast area of the site where the existing leachate storage ponds are
located. Waste placement will take place within Areas 5 and 6. Stormwater from within
the Cell 1 construction area will be pumped to the former compost area where it will be
treated by use of a small sediment trap, filter bags, or any other necessary stormwater
management practices before discharging offsite to the north. Stormwater run on will be
reduced by constructing a drainage swale along the southern limits of Cell 1. Stormwater
will be redirected to the former compost area. The gravity line that is currently conveying
leachate to the leachate storage ponds will be extended north to a new wetwell. A leachate
forcemain will be installed along the eastern toe of the landfill, and will transfer the leachate
to the leachate tanks, which will be installed near the southeast corner of the landfill during
this phase. Access to the site will be from the existing entrance on the west end of the site.
Site preparation will take place south of the landfill for the future south stormwater pond,
and relocation of the scale house and entrance facilities.
Phase 2:
During Phase 2, waste placement will begin within the limits of Cell 1. Cell 2 construction
will tie-in to the western edge of Cell 1, and extend west over an area of approximately 16.4
acres. The north stormwater management pond will be constructed during initial site
preparation activities of the phase. The south stormwater management pond will be
constructed concurrently with the entrance facilities and scale house with the intent of
functioning as a sediment basin during construction, and to be fully operational upon
completion of the facilities. Stormwater from within the limits of Cell 2 construction will be

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

104

pumped to the forebay of the north pond. An access road will be constructed up the
southern face of Area 6 for waste placement and grading of Ares 5 and 6. Initial earthwork
and site preparation for the Phase 3 perimeter berm and drainage system may begin during
this phase.
Phase 3:
During Phase 3, waste will be placed in Cells 1 and 2, generally from north to south. Cell 3
will tie-in to the eastern edge of Cell 2, and will cover an area of approximately 7.5 acres.
Access to the site will use the newly constructed entrance at the south end of the property.
Stormwater within the limits of Cell 3 construction will be pumped to the forebay of the
north pond.
Phase 4:
During Phase 4, Cell 4 will be constructed along the southern edges of Cells 1, 2 and 3, over
an area of approximately 6.7 acres. Waste placement will continue within the lined areas of
Cells 1, 2 and 3. Waste placement elevations within these cells will extend approximately 0
to 20 feet higher than the grades in the Cell 4 liner construction area. Drainage swales will
allow stormwater from the Cell 4 construction area to gravity drain to the forebay of the
north pond. Initial earthwork and site preparation for the relocation and demolition of
facilities in the Phase 5 construction area may begin during this phase.
Phase 5:
Cell 5 liner construction will take place along the western edge of the site, and will tie into
the western edge of the existing Areas 5 and 6, and the southern edge of Cell 3. The
existing stormwater pond will be pumped to the south pond prior to Cell 5 subgrade
preparation. The remaining facilities within the 17.3 acre area of Cell 5 construction will be
relocated and/or demolished. During Phase 5, waste placement will take place in Cells 1-4.
Stormwater within the construction area of Cell 5 will be pumped up into the perimeter
berm conveyance system where it will gravity drain to the north pond.
Final Closure Activities:
Following completion of Phase 5, waste placement will continue until final grades are met.
Once final grades are met, the landfill will be capped. The final closure of the landfill has
an estimated duration of 12 months, and will involve construction of the remainder of the
final cover system located on the west side of the Area 7 Development.

6.4 Waste Operations
The day-to-day operations and maintenance activities at the Landfill generally focus on
waste placement and environmental controls. Waste placement operations include
acceptance and tracking of incoming waste, inspection and compaction of waste at the
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

105

working face and the placement of daily and intermediate cover materials. Operations
activities related to environmental controls include final cover placement and certification,
construction of stormwater management structures, leachate collection and landfill gas
collection/control facilities.
The Town of Colonie Landfill will accept waste for disposal between the hours of 7:00 am
and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday and Saturday from 7:00 am to 2:00 pm, or subject to
specific NYSDEC Part 360 permit requirements. In addition to Sundays, the facility is also
closed on the following holidays: New Years' Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day.
Depending upon days on which holidays fall and the actual number of Sunday’s within a
given calendar year, the actual number of operating days may vary, however, for the
purposes of this report, we have assumed it will operate a total of 312 days per year.
The landfill can accept a maximum of 820 tons of waste per operating day (tpd) (based on a
25 operating day rolling average) provided that on an annual basis, no more than 255,840
tons per year are received and disposed of in the landfill
The O&M Plan (Attachment 5) provides more detailed information and requirements for
waste characterization, identification of acceptable/unacceptable wastes, and placement
operations.

6.4.1 Select Waste
Select Waste is the waste material placed within the first 5 feet of the finished grade of the
liner system. The Select Waste consists of materials that do not contain large rigid debris or
material that will potentially blind the leachate collection layer if placed over the top of the
primary drainage layer. Select Waste generally consists of residential waste that is
transported to the site in packer trucks or transfer trailers.
Select Waste will be placed in one 5-foot thick lift as measured perpendicular to the liner
grade. Compaction equipment will not be allowed to operate over portions of the landfill
cell that do not have the minimum 5 feet of Select Waste in-place. Placement of the Select
Waste layer generally is completed simultaneously to normal landfilling. During
placement, material classified as Select Waste is directed to an area adjacent to the existing
working face. Once the waste is dumped, the piles are spread and visually inspected to
ensure no large, rigid material is contained within the waste. If unacceptable material is
present, then it is removed by the landfill laborer. The waste material is then placed in the
5-foot lift using a dozer.

6.5 Cover Materials Management
Development of the landfill during development of Area 7 will require the utilization of
various types of soil to meet the requirements for embankment, baseliner and overfill liner
system components, as well as daily, intermediate, and final cover placement. Stockpiled

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

106

cover soil material will be placed in an area that is well drained and easily accessible to
ensure availability under normal working conditions. In addition, alternative cover
materials will be utilized to supplement the supply of operational soils as permitted by
NYSDEC. The O&M Plan provides additional information on the materials management
that places emphasis on the minimization of natural resources and maximization of the use
of alternative waste materials for cover, where appropriate. The following provides a brief
summary of that plan:

Daily Cover - A minimum of six inches of cover material will be spread over the
waste on a daily basis. The objectives of daily cover are to minimize litter, odor,
vectors, and potential aesthetic impacts. CRL currently obtains cover material
from local material suppliers in close proximity to the landfill, and during the
Area 7 operation will utilize suitable materials from the excavations. Soils from
local suppliers are hauled to the site using ten-wheel dump trucks. Also, as
noted previously, CRL utilizes materials approved under the Beneficial Use
Determination (BUD) program for daily cover purposes.

Intermediate Cover - After a phase of operation is completed and no further
waste placement will occur on that area within a period of 30 days, 12 inches of
cover material will be applied in that area. Vegetative cover will be applied as
appropriate to intermediate cover to minimize erosion, promote
evapotranspiration and reduce leachate generation.

Final Cover System - Once final landfill grades are achieved in an area, the final
cover system will be sequentially constructed. The final cover systems have been
specifically designed for structural integrity and stability, to promote drainage,
impede infiltration of rain and stormwater and enhance evapotranspiration.

Approval has been granted for the beneficial use of certain waste streams as alternate daily
cover. When these waste streams are utilized beneficially as daily cover material, they are
no longer considered solid waste upon their receipt at the landfill. Each load of beneficially
used cover is categorized, weighed and reported to the Department as BUD daily cover
material. The specific materials which are approved for beneficial use as daily cover and
the restrictions which apply as identified in CRL's current Part 360 permit are as follows:
Posi-Shell
Posi-Shell is a trade name of a product consisting of a mixture of cement kiln dust,
polymers, and cellulose fiber. Additionally, latex paints and cement can be added to the
mixture to increase the durability of the material after application. Posi-Shell acts in a
similar manner as soil in terms of fire, vector, and litter control. Posi-Shell is applied at the
end of waste placement activities each day. The application of Posi-Shell prohibits bags and
papers from blowing from the working face and causing nuisance litter problems and
reduces vectors such as flies, birds and rodents from entering the waste mass.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

107

Using Posi-Shell requires specialized equipment and the purchase of Posi-Shell materials,
resulting in additional operational costs. However, the cost of Posi-Shell is offset by the
reduction in airspace consumed for soil cover makes it an economically feasible alternative.
Incinerator Ash
The types of ash that maybe used as daily or intermediate cover will be either bottom ash
from a municipal solid waste incinerator or ash from a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
sludge incinerator. Ash will not be used to construct temporary access roads within the
landfill. In accordance with 6 NYCRR 360-2.17(c), where ash is used as ADC, a minimum of
six inches of compacted cover material will be applied on all exposed surfaces of solid
waste before the close of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter
and scavenging.
Non-Hazardous Contaminated Soils
Non-hazardous contaminated soils that are disposed at the landfill are used for daily cover
to the greatest extent possible. Non-hazardous contaminated soils that are accepted as
waste into the facility are stockpiled within the landfill cell area to be used as needed for
daily cover.
Other Wastes
Paper mill sludge, processed C&D, foundry sands, and the like have been used as daily
cover previously, and may be used again for daily or intermediate cover as approved by the
NYSDEC.
Tarps
Tarps are another technology that can save landfill airspace and control odors, vectors, and
litter. Tarps can be deployed and removed from the working face by the equipment
operators, and by using them, the Facility saves on material costs (soil and Posi-Shell) and
preserves resources. The tarps would be deployed at the end of the working day and
anchored as directed by the manufacture. Just prior to placing the following day’s waste,
the tarps would be removed and stored until needed later in the day.
The above BUD daily cover materials are covered with additional waste or clean soil within
24-hours of placement. Storage of BUD daily cover materials is confined to areas of the
landfill which overlie a leachate collection system. Runoff and runon controls such as
berms and swales are provided around storage areas. Appropriate measures are taken to
minimize the materials from becoming airborne and from eroding into drainage ways.
Storage on-site is limited to 90 days. The volume of beneficially used daily cover is
reported to the Department as part of monthly and annual reporting requirements. Other
Engineering Report Area 7.docx

108

waste products considered for use as daily cover subscribe to the appropriate analytical
testing and the results are included in a request to the NYSDEC for a BUD.

6.6 Operational Controls and Monitoring
The proposed Development facilities will be routinely monitored and inspected for the
integrity of their containment systems, and overall compliance with applicable permits and
regulations. Screening and monitoring of incoming waste will be performed both as it
enters the Site and as it is managed at the working face. The following environmental
monitoring programs will be continued as part of the operation, closure, and/or postclosure activities (along with the associated document where the monitoring program is
outlined in detail):

Incoming waste screening program (O&M Plan);

Routine landfill operations monitoring (O&M Plan);

Leachate monitoring (Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP));

Surface water and sediment monitoring (EMP);

Groundwater monitoring (EMP);

Surface and subsurface landfill gas monitoring (EMP Plan); and

Condensate monitoring (O&M Plan)

The referenced plans provide the required details regarding these various monitoring
requirements for the proposed Development.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

109

LIMITATIONS
The work product included in the attached was undertaken in full conformity with
generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices and to the fullest extent
as allowed by law we expressly disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The work product was
completed in full conformity with the contract with our client and this document is solely
for the use and reliance of our client (unless previously agreed upon that a third party
could rely on the work product) and any reliance on this work product by an unapproved
outside party is at such party's risk.
The work product herein (including opinions, conclusions, suggestions, etc.) was prepared
based on the situations and circumstances as found at the time, location, scope and goal of
our performance and thus should be relied upon and used by our client recognizing these
considerations and limitations. Cornerstone shall not be liable for the consequences of any
change in environmental standards, practices, or regulations following the completion of
our work and there is no warrant to the veracity of information provided by third parties,
or the partial utilization of this work product.

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

110

TABLES

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

111

Table 1-1
HISTORICAL WASTE ACCEPTANCE
Area 7 Development - Town of Colonie Landfill
Town of Colonie, New York
Waste

Year
MSW
1973*

1974*

1975*

1976*

1977*

1978*

1979*

1980*

1981*

1982*

1983*

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002       103,741.23
2003       118,662.39
2004       100,260.35
2005       135,651.46
2006       137,257.67
2007       109,384.41
2008       134,612.03
2009       113,145.47
2010       110,731.95
2011       125,261.00
2012       129,535.00
2013       181,783.23
TOTAL       1,500,026
*estimate

C&D





























     33,996.62
     29,679.28
     24,253.01
     21,154.82
     20,906.00
     13,972.89
     21,277.02
     24,918.05
     23,192.76
     26,865.00
     25,853.00
     47,448.83

Total w/o 
Hurricane 
ADC/BUD 
Industrial POTW Sludge 
Alum
Sandy Waste
Materials




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




       76,000.00




     139,000.00




     139,000.00




     126,564.00




     153,900.00




     177,035.00




       75,584.00
     103,061.00








     116,080.00




       89,335.00




       94,026.00




       95,408.00




     121,691.00




     184,912.00




     168,692.00




     150,880.00




     107,965.00




     148,466.00




     148,848.00




     156,351.00




     137,859.00
       5,888.68       6,356.61       1,955.54

     151,938.68
       3,773.63       5,357.59       1,134.46

     158,607.35
       2,393.81       7,577.92       1,706.67

     136,191.76
       1,551.43       6,865.58       1,850.88

     167,074.17
       1,259.35       6,868.00       1,051.08

     167,342.10
       1,697.07       5,958.35       2,202.21

     133,214.93
       2,436.30       5,757.69


     164,083.04
       1,247.44       4,975.49       1,197.40

     145,483.85
       3,919.02       5,093.81          612.96

     143,550.50

     163,522.00
       4,949.00       5,467.00          980.00
       3,169.00       9,744.00       1,990.00     37,899.33      208,190.33
       8,241.93     13,801.38       1,872.20       1,626.94      254,774.51

      313,517         40,527

       83,823

       16,553

       39,526      5,312,630

Landfill 
Area 
Filled
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,2
2
2
2,3
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4,5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6

Table 5-1
LEACHATE GENERATION ESTIMATES (BY PHASE)
Area 7 Development - Town of Colonie Landfill
Town of Colonie, NY

Size of Operational Zones within Phases
2012
Expansion Operational
Stage
Initial Start-up
Active Waste Placement
Intermediate Cover
Final Cover
3
Final Cover (Area 2&3)
3
Final Cover (Area 4)
Active Waste due to Area
3
2/3 Under Construction
Active Waste due to Area
4 Under Construction3
Total Site Area

Initial Phase (Existing)

Phase 1
Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

0.0
20.0
25.6
0.0
12.0
12.0

3.6
7.1
45.2
0.0
6.0
10.2

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

69.7

69.7

69.7

Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

Shown on
Plan (acres)

Lower
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

5.4
6.0
34.3
0.0
12.0
12.0

5.4
14.6
25.6
0.0
12.0
12.0

0.0
16.6
29.0
0.0
12.0
12.0

0.0
16.6
29.0
0.0
12.0
12.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

69.7

69.7

69.7

2

Phase 2a

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
3.6
7.1
45.2
0.0
6.0
10.2

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
5.4
6.0
34.3
0.0
12.0
12.0

1

2

Phase 2b

Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

3.6
16.4
35.8
0.0
6.0
10.2

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
6.4
10.0
18.3
27.5
5.4
9.8

6.4
10.0
18.3
27.5
5.4
9.8

0.8

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.6

0.6

73.4

73.4

73.4

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
7,708
7,868
21,749
0
603
204

Phase 1
1
Lower
(gpd)
7,708
7,868
21,749
0
603
204

Phase 3

Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

6.4
13.6
14.7
27.5
5.4
9.8

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
10.0
6.4
28.3
27.5
5.2
9.5

10.0
6.4
28.3
27.5
5.2
9.5

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

78.0

78.0

78.0

Upper
(gpd)
7,708
18,304
17,246
0
603
204

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
13,725
11,150
8,799
551
536
196

Phase 2a
1
Lower
(gpd)
13,725
11,150
8,799
551
536
196

2

Phase 4

Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

10.0
10.0
24.6
27.5
5.2
9.5

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
7.5
10.0
34.7
27.5
5.2
6.0

7.5
10.0
34.7
27.5
5.2
6.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

87.0

87.0

87.0

Upper
(gpd)
13,725
15,168
7,065
551
536
196

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
21,326
7,154
13,615
551
521
189

Phase 2b
1
Lower
(gpd)
21,326
7,154
13,615
551
521
189

2

Phase 5

Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

7.5
12.5
32.2
27.5
5.2
6.0

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
6.6
4.7
32.7
42.5
5.2
2.4

6.6
4.7
32.7
42.5
5.2
2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

3.3

3.3

94.2

94.2

94.2

Upper
(gpd)
21,326
11,206
11,866
551
521
189

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
16,102
11,116
16,702
551
521
121

Phase 3
1
Lower
(gpd)
16,102
11,116
16,702
551
521
121

2

Final

Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

6.6
13.5
23.9
42.5
5.2
2.4

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
8.0
9.4
31.0
55.3
5.2
2.0

8.0
9.4
31.0
55.3
5.2
2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.4

94.3

94.3

94.3

Upper
(gpd)
16,102
13,929
15,488
551
521
121

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
14,025
5,201
15,738
850
521
47

Phase 4
1
Lower
(gpd)
14,025
5,201
15,738
850
521
47

2

Lower1
(acres)

Upper
(acres)

8.0
12.0
28.4
55.3
5.2
2.0

Shown on
Plan
(acres)
0.0
0.0
0.0
103.7
5.2
2.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
103.7
5.2
2.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
103.7
5.2
2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

110.9

110.9

110.9

110.9

110.9

110.9

Upper
(gpd)
14,025
15,011
11,505
850
521
47

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
17,130
10,525
14,925
1,107
521
39

Phase 5
1
Lower
(gpd)
17,130
10,525
14,925
1,107
521
39

Upper
(gpd)
17,130
13,393
13,687
1,107
521
39

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
0
0
0
2,075
521
39

Final
1
Lower
(gpd)
#REF!
0
0
2,075
521
39

Upper
(gpd)
0
0
0
2,075
521
39

2

2

2

Leachate Generated From Phases Based Upon Zones
Expansion Operational
Stage

Shown on
Plan (gpd)
11,498
6,641
16,523
0
1,203
240

2012
1
Lower
(gpd)
11,498
6,641
16,523
0
1,203
240

2

Upper
(gpd)
11,498
16,328
12,343
0
1,203
240

Initial Start-up
Active Waste Placement
Intermediate Cover
Final Cover
3
Final Cover (Area 2&3)
3
Final Cover (Area 4)
Active Waste due to Area
0
0
0
3
2/3 Under Construction
Active Waste due to Area
0
0
0
4 Under Construction3
Total Leachate (gpd)
36,105
36,105
41,613
Total Leachate (gpad)
518
518
597
Annual Total (gallons)
13,178,425 13,178,425 15,188,642

Initial Phase (Existing)
1
2
Shown on
Lower
Upper
Plan (gpd)
(gpd)
(gpd)
0
0
0
18,561
18,561
22,322
13,966
13,966
12,343
0
0
0
1,203
1,203
1,203
240
240
240

2

2

2

2,141
1,116
482
20
20
100

gpad
gpad
gpad
gpad
gpad
gpad

2

2

2

0

0

0

910

910

910

167

167

167

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

636

636

636

547

547

547

167

167

167

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,635
24
961,775

#REF!
#REF!
#REF!

2,635
24
961,775

33,970
33,970
36,108
39,678
39,678
45,610
35,671
35,671
37,955
43,524
43,524
45,827
45,112
45,112
46,711
36,382
36,382
41,959
44,246
44,246
45,876
488
488
518
540
540
621
457
457
487
500
500
527
479
479
496
386
386
445
399
399
414
12,398,885 12,398,885 13,179,423 14,482,391 14,482,391 16,647,775 13,019,806 13,019,806 13,853,536 15,886,129 15,886,129 16,726,807 16,465,914 16,465,914 17,049,525 13,279,486 13,279,486 15,315,178 16,149,634 16,149,634 16,744,825

Notes:
1. Lower: Assuming a maximum of 10 acres of "Initial waste Placement" and remaining is "Active Waste Placement".
2. Upper: A total of 20 acres of "open" landfill area. This includes "Inital Waste Placement" and "Active Waste Placement". If less than 20 acres is shown on plan it is assumed that some "Intermediate Cover" is "Active Waste Placement".
3. Operational stage areas that are designated as both an existing Final Cover (Area 4 or Area 2/3) and Construction Area have half of area designated as existing Final Cover and half as Active due to Construction.
4. Impingement rates determined from HELP Model runs, geomembrane final covers used 20 gpad from maximum acceptable secondary leakage rate
Impingement rates4
- Initial waste placement
- Active waste placement / daily cover
- Intermediate cover:
- Final cover:
- Final cover (Area 4):
- Final cover (Area 2/3):

2

silty clay soil (1.9x10-6 cm/s)
sideslope geomembrane cover with 24" Barrier Protection Layer
sideslope geomembrane cover with 12" Barrier Protection Layer
sideslope w/compacted clay cap

FIGURES

Engineering Report Area 7.docx

112

ATTACHMENT 1
ENGINEERING PERMIT DRAWINGS
(Full size drawings available under separate cover)

ATTACHMENT 2
SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

Building lifetime relationships with our
clients and employees.

Attachment #2
6NYCRR Part 360
Area 7 Development Application

Site Investigation Report
Town of Colonie Landfill
June 2016

Prepared for:

1319 Loudon Road
Cohoes, NY 12047

1200 Scottsville Road
Building C, Suite 320
Rochester, NY 14624
(845) 695-0200

Rev. 0, 6/1/16
Project 120076

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND DRAWINGS .......................................................................... III 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1 
1.1 
SITE INVESTIGATION HISTORY ......................................................................................... 1-1 
1.1.1 
URS Consultants Phase II Investigation............................................................... 1-2 
1.1.2 
Empire Soils Investigation, Inc. Hydrogeologic Evaluations................................ 1-2 
1.1.3 
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Area 5 Landfill Expansion .................................................... 1-2 
1.1.4 
Clough Harbor & Associates, Area 6 Hydrogeologic Investigation ...................... 1-2 
1.1.5 
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation ............................... 1-3 
1.2 
OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 1-3 

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................. 2-1 
2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 
2.5 
2.6 

LOCATION AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING......................................................................... 2-1 
SURFICIAL SOILS............................................................................................................. 2-1 
SURFACE WATERS AND DRAINAGE PATTERNS.................................................................. 2-2 
GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................................. 2-2 
PRIMARY/ PRINCIPAL AQUIFER......................................................................................... 2-3 
RESIDENTIAL WELL SURVEY ............................................................................................ 2-3 

SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................. 3-1 
3.1 
TEST PITS ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 
3.2 
TEST BORINGS AND MONITORING WELLS ......................................................................... 3-1 
3.2.1 
Test Borings .......................................................................................................... 3-2 
3.2.2 
Monitoring Wells ................................................................................................... 3-3 
3.3 
WATER LEVEL DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................... 3-4 
3.4 
MONITORING WELL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING .................................................. 3-4 
3.5 
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING .............................................................................................. 3-5 

SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT ........................................................................................ 4-1 
4.1 
REGIONAL GEOLOGY....................................................................................................... 4-1 
4.1.1 
Bedrock ................................................................................................................. 4-1 
4.1.2 
Unconsolidated Deposits ...................................................................................... 4-2 
4.2 
SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 4-2 
4.2.1 
Glaciolacustrine Silt and Clay ............................................................................... 4-3 
4.2.2 
Alluvium ................................................................................................................ 4-3 
4.2.3 
Glacial Till ............................................................................................................. 4-4 
4.2.4 
Bedrock ................................................................................................................. 4-4 
4.2.5 
Recent Fill Materials ............................................................................................. 4-4 
4.3 
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 4-5 
4.3.1 
Upper Water-Bearing Zone .................................................................................. 4-5 
4.3.2 
Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone ........................................................................ 4-6 
4.3.3 
Lower Water Bearing Zone ................................................................................... 4-6 
4.3.4 
Three-Dimensional Patterns of Groundwater Flow .............................................. 4-6 
4.4 
MONITORING WELL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................... 4-8 
4.4.1 
Slug Test Analysis ................................................................................................ 4-8 
4.4.2 
Summary of Slug Test Findings ........................................................................... 4-9 

i

Rev. 0, 6/1/16
Project 120076

4.5 
GROUNDWATER QUALITY .............................................................................................. 4-10 
4.5.1 
Up-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone ............................................................ 4-10 
4.5.2 
Up-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone ................................................. 4-11 
4.5.3 
Down-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone ....................................................... 4-13 
4.5.4 
Down-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone ............................................. 4-15 
4.6 
CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND CRITICAL STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION........................................ 4-16 
4.6.1 
Conceptual Model of the Hydrogeologic System ............................................... 4-17 
4.6.2 
Critical Stratigraphic Section .............................................................................. 4-17 

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 5-1 

SITE SUITABILITY .............................................................................................................. 6-1 

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A BORING, MONITORING WELL AND TEST PIT LOGS 
APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL DATA 
APPENDIX C SITE ANALYTICAL PLAN 
APPENDIX D HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY GRAPHS 
APPENDIX E ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS 

ii

Rev. 0, 6/1/16
Project 120076

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND DRAWINGS
Tables
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13

Monitoring Well Survey Data
November 2013 Water Level Measurements
May 2014 Water Level Measurements
Hydraulic Conductivity Values – Glaciolacustrine Silts and Clays
Hydraulic Conductivity Values – Glacial Till
Hydraulic Conductivity Values –Bedrock Interface (Intermediate Water
Bearing Zone)
Hydraulic Conductivity Values – Bedrock (Lower Water Bearing Zone)
Metals Concentrations – Up-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
General Chemistry Concentrations- Up-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
Metals Concentrations – Up-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
General Chemistry Concentrations – Up-Gradient Intermediate
Water-Bearing Zone
Organics Detections
Metals Concentrations – Down-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
General Chemistry Concentrations – Down-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing
Zone
Metals Concentrations – Down-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
General Chemistry Concentrations – Down-Gradient Intermediate
Water-Bearing Zone

Figures
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9

Site Location Plan
Proposed Landfill Area 7 Development
Site Map: Boring, Monitoring Well, Test Pit, and Cross-Section Locations
Geologic Cross-Section A-A’
Geologic Cross-Section B-B’
Geologic Cross-Section C-C’
Geologic Cross-Section D-D’
Top of Rock Contour Map
Upper Water-Bearing Zone Potentiometric Surface Map – November 2013
Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone Potentiometric Surface Map –
November 2013
Upper Water-Bearing Zone Potentiometric Surface Map – May 2014
Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone Potentiometric Surface Map – May 2014

iii

Rev. 0, 6/1/16
Project 120076

4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15

Hydrogeologic Cross-Section A-A’ – November 2013
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section B-B’ – November 2013
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section C-C’ – November 2013
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section A-A’ – May 2014
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section B-B’ – May 2014
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section C-C’ – May 2014

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation for
the proposed Area 7 development of the existing Town of Colonie Solid Waste
Disposal Facility (site), located in the Town of Colonie, Albany County, New York.
The proposed development will be to the north and west of the existing operational
landfill areas (Areas 5 and 6) with much of its footprint overlying areas previously
used for waste disposal.
The Site is bordered to the north and east by Cohoes-Crescent Road and the
Mohawk River, to the west by Loudon Rd (Route 9), and to the south by an
industrial park. The hydrogeologic investigation presented in this report builds
upon prior investigations completed at the site and addresses the entirety of the
above area. The results of the site-specific investigation are then related to the
regional geologic and hydrogeologic conditions.
The current 6 NYCRR Part 360 hydrogeologic investigation (investigation) consisted
of the installation of 7 monitoring wells, 17 soil borings, 8 exploratory test pits,
hydraulic conductivity testing, and ground water monitoring. Data collected during
this investigation has been combined with that obtained from prior investigations to
form a site wide understanding of the site hydrogeology and groundwater quality.
The resulting conclusions may be summarized as follows:
The bedrock underlying the site consists of shales and graywackes of the Austin
Glen Formation. Overlying bedrock are overburden glacial deposits consisting of
glaciolacustrine silts and clays and glacial till deposits. On the eastern edge of the
site a limited areal extent and thickness of alluvium deposits are present.
The site’s hydrology can be broken up into three main water-bearing zones: upper,
intermediate, and lower. The upper water bearing zone represents the water table
within the overburden glacial deposits while the intermediate water bearing zone is
found at the interface between the glacial deposits and top of rock. The lower waterbearing zone is found within the underlying bedrock fractures.
Groundwater flow in the vicinity of the site is primarily to the east with discharge to
the Mohawk River. Observed hydraulic heads indicate downward vertical gradients
are present within the boundaries of the site. However, the geometric mean
hydraulic conductivity of the intermediate water-bearing zone is approximately two
orders of magnitude higher than that of the underlying bedrock. This difference in

1

hydraulic conductivity, coupled with the sites proximity to the Mohawk River,
creates preferential horizontal flow through the intermediate zone with limited
infiltration into bedrock below.
Monitoring wells have been installed as part of the current investigation on both the
up-gradient and down-gradient sides of the proposed landfill development area.
These wells have been located such that they may serve as part of an environmental
monitoring well network for the proposed Area 7 development.
Groundwater quality samples obtained from monitoring wells installed as part of
this investigation indicate the presence of existing contraventions of groundwater
quality criteria likely attributable to the existing unlined landfill areas. Construction
of the proposed Area 7 baseliner will reduce infiltration across the overlay area such
that long term improvements in groundwater quality are anticipated.
The critical stratigraphic section, based upon the data collected during this and
previous investigations, is defined to extend from the upper water-bearing zone to
the intermediate water-bearing zone. The lower water-bearing zone is excluded from
the critical stratigraphic section due to its lower hydraulic conductivity and the
preferentially horizontal flow paths within the overlying intermediate water bearing
zone.

2

1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation for
the proposed Area 7 Development of the existing Town of Colonie Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities, located in Colonie, New York (Figure 1-1). The proposed
development will be generally to the north and west of the existing operational
landfill areas (Areas 5 and 6) with much of its footprint overlying areas previously
used for waste disposal. The facility is operating under a current 6 NYCRR Part 360
Permit and has been the subject of several site investigations to define the site
hydrogeology, critical stratigraphic section, and engineering properties of the
underlying soils as they relate to construction, management and operation of a solid
waste management facility. Likewise, groundwater monitoring programs are ongoing at the facility in accordance with the approved Environmental Monitoring and
Site Analytical Plans (EMSAP).
The purpose of this document is to present the findings of the work conducted in
accordance with a Site Investigation Plan (SIP) that included the collection of
additional site specific data in support of the proposed development application. A
draft SIP was presented to representatives of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or Department). Feedback on the SIP from
the Department was incorporated into the SIP, and the Site Investigation proceeded
in accordance with the modified SIP. Site specific information collected previously,
as part of the prior 6 NYCRR Part 360 applications, and the knowledge gained from
these investigations, is summarized in Section 4 and these data are integrated with
that collected during this investigation to develop a site wide characterization of the
site’s hydrogeology and suitability for solid waste landfill operations.

1.1 Site Investigation History
Historically, the site has been utilized for the purposes of managing solid waste,
with numerous hydrogeologic investigations of varying scope and purpose having
been completed over the years. The existing data was used in support of the recently
collected geologic, hydrogeologic and water quality information. Investigations
completed prior to 1994 were outlined within Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP
(CHA) Area 6 Site Investigation Report (Clough, Harbour, 1994) and are
summarized below, followed by more recent work completed by Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc.

1-1

1.1.1 URS Consultants Phase II Investigation
URS Consultants, Inc. (URS) of Buffalo, New York performed a Phase II
investigation of the closed extreme northern portion (Unnamed Area) of the Town of
Colonie Landfill in April, 1992.
The URS Phase II field investigation included the installation of seven (7) monitoring
wells and one (1) soil boring. The monitoring wells were installed with the purpose
of monitoring different geologic units beneath the site.

1.1.2 Empire Soils Investigation, Inc. Hydrogeologic Evaluations
Empire Soils Investigations, Inc. (Empire) conducted a hydrogeologic evaluation of
the site in 1988 and 1989. Complete results of this investigation are available in their
report dated January 1989. Empire's study was initiated by a request from the
NYSDEC to conduct a hydrogeologic assessment following the Town of Colonie's
application for a permit to continue landfilling operations. Empire's study included
several borings and seismic refraction work that occurred within the Area 6 landfill
expansion.

1.1.3 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Area 5 Landfill Expansion
In December 1993 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. completed their hydrogeologic assessment
report for the Area 5 Landfill Expansion. This report included the installation of six
monitoring wells (MPI-1S through MPI-4D), the decommissioning of seven wells
(MW-4 through MW-10), and groundwater sampling.

1.1.4 Clough Harbor & Associates, Area 6 Hydrogeologic Investigation
During the period March 1, 1993 through May 18, 1993, Clough Harbor Associates
(CHA) conducted an extensive hydrogeologic field investigation designed to
characterize the subsurface conditions at the proposed 43 acre Town of Colonie
Landfill Area 6 expansion site. The site investigation consisted of: twelve (12)
bedrock borings, seventeen (17) monitoring well installations (CHA-1 through CHA8 clusters), groundwater sampling and testing, geotechnical testing, geophysical
testing, test pits, and hydraulic conductivity testing. Following this investigation, a
draft Site Investigation Report was prepared and submitted to the town in April
1994. Neither this report nor the Part 360 permit application was submitted to the
NYSDEC as the town postponed the development of Area 6 so that the lateral
expansion of the adjacent Area 5 could be constructed.

1-2

1.1.5 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. conducted a supplemental site investigation from 2000 to 2001.
The purpose of the supplemental site investigation was to complete a 6 NYCRR Part
360 Permit Application for the Area 6 Landfill Expansion. This investigation
included six (6) borings (GB-1 through GB-6) within the southeastern portion of the
Area 6 Expansion as well as three (3) monitoring wells (MW-9S, MW-9I and MW10S) and one (1) piezometer (PZ-3). Groundwater sampling of seventeen (17) wells
was completed as part of this investigation, the results of which were included
within the Supplemental Site Investigation Report dated November 2001 and
submitted to the NYDEC.

1.2 Objectives
This report presents the findings and conclusions of the hydrogeologic investigation
conducted in accordance with 6NYCRR Part 360-2.11. The design and construction
of a solid waste management facility pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-2 must be
predicated upon a thorough understanding of the site-specific and regional
geologic/hydrogeologic conditions. As noted above, the site has been the subject of
multiple investigations associated with prior Part 360 solid waste applications. As
such, the site hydrogeology and groundwater quality conditions are well
understood and groundwater quality monitoring is on-going. The Area 7
investigation described herein has therefore been designed to collect additional
information specific to Area 7 and to provide a collective, site wide understanding of
the site hydrogeology and groundwater quality. Accordingly, the field investigation
included the drilling and excavation of seventeen (17) borings and eight (8) test pits,
the installation of seven (7) monitoring wells, hydraulic conductivity testing,
geologic mapping, groundwater flow mapping, and groundwater sampling and
analysis.
Specifically, the investigation described in this report was predicated upon the
following objectives:

To collect additional geotechnical data to the north and northwest of the
existing facility to assess the thickness and behavior of soft soils (glacial
lacustrine deposits) relative to loading conditions under the proposed
development. The analysis and review of this will be described in detail in
the Engineering Report.
To integrate hydrogeologic data collected under the current investigation
with that collected during previous investigations to define the site
hydrogeology and engineering characteristics of the underlying soils.

1-3

To integrate water quality data collected under the on-going environmental
monitoring programs with that collected during this investigation to define
the existing water quality.

The results of these tasks were combined with the findings of previous site
investigations to support the conclusions presented in this report.

1-4

2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following sections discuss the environmental setting in which the proposed
landfill development is located and set the stage for more detailed discussions
presented in Section 4.

2.1 Location and Physiographic Setting
The area investigated by Cornerstone Engineering and Land Surveying, PLLC
(Cornerstone) included the proposed landfill development area (Area 7), the
approximate limits of which are shown on Figure 2-1. The proposed development
area is bounded to the north and east by Cohoes-Crescent Road and the Mohawk
River, to the west by Loudon Rd. (Route 9), and to the south by Arrowhead Lane.
The site is located over glacial soils of the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands province
which were deposited by the advance and retreat of the most recent, or Wisconsin,
glacial episode. Wisconsin glaciation removed evidences of earlier glacial periods
(Van Diver, 1985). Deglaciation events in the lower Hudson valley blanketed the
previously existing bedrock with ice-contact, fluvial and lacustrine sediments. This
retreat was characterized by the deposition of melt water sediment in pro-glacial
lacustrine and deltaic environments.

2.2 Surficial Soils
As referenced in Section 1.1.4, CHA performed a surficial soils survey as part of their
Area 6 Site Investigation Report (Clough, Harbour, 1994) and their findings are
presented below. A preliminary assessment of geologic site conditions was
conducted by examining the appropriate United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute
quadrangle topographic map for the area. Drainage patterns, land forms, and
surface water occurrences were noted.
Additionally, the surficial geologic Map of New York-Hudson-Mohawk Sheet
(Cadwell & Dineen, 1987) was examined. According to this mapping, the surficial
soils on site consist of lacustrine silt and clay, glacial till, kame deposits, and recent
alluvium. Bedrock is depicted as forming outcrops in the vicinity of the site. The
borings and test pits performed by Cornerstone and others confirm the presence of
the lacustrine silts and clays, glacial till, and alluvium at the site.

2-1

2.3 Surface Waters and Drainage Patterns
The site ranges in elevation from approximately 200 feet above mean sea level (amsl)
in the eastern portion, to approximately 400 feet amsl at the current top of the Area 5
Landfill Cell. The south end of the site contains the relatively flat Area 6 Landfill Cell
at approximately 300 feet amsl with the areas adjacent to Area 6 sloping downward
to the south, west, and east. Area 5 represents the topographic high at the site,
approximately 400 feet amsl, and slopes downward to the north (Area 4), south
(Area 6), east, and west. Area 4 is located adjacent to the north slope of Area 5 and
continues the downward sloping trend to the northwest and northeast. The western
slopes of Area 4, Area 5, and Area 6 Landfill Cells slope downward to the west and
northwest from the topographic high in the center of the site. Almost the entire site
drains from west to east, towards the Mohawk River. The exception is a small area
west of the office building (outside the limits of the landfill operation) that drains to
the west and discharges into the Route 9 drainage system of ditches and driveway
culverts. Ultimately, all drainage (with the exception of a portion of the former
composting area) discharges into the Mohawk River.

2.4 Groundwater
The Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (SSIR)
(Malcolm Pirnie, 2001) included a detailed analysis of the ground water regime
beneath the site. The investigation concluded that groundwater within the area was
found within the unconsolidated glacial overburden deposits and to a lesser extent
within the underlying bedrock. The surficial geology was divided into three distinct
water-bearing zones: the upper water-bearing zone (glaciolacustrine silt and clays,
glacial till), the intermediate water-bearing zone (interface between glacial deposits
and bedrock), and the lower water bearing zone (bedrock). The Area 6 Supplemental
Site Investigation Report concluded that the upper water-bearing zone exhibited
hydraulic conductivity values an order of magnitude lower than those of the
intermediate water-bearing zone and the intermediate water-bearing zone exhibited
hydraulic conductivity values an order of magnitude higher than the lower
water-bearing zone. Downward vertical flow and, to a lesser extent, horizontal flow
is present within the upper water-bearing zone. Groundwater flow within the
intermediate water-bearing zone is primarily horizontal in an easterly direction
towards the Mohawk River. It was further concluded that infiltration into the
underlying bedrock was minimal given the higher hydraulic conductivity of the
intermediate water-bearing zone in comparison to the low hydraulic conductivity
values within the bedrock. This disparity in hydraulic conductivity between the
intermediate and bedrock water-bearing zones results in predominantly horizontal
flow within the intermediate zone with little vertical flow to the underling bedrock.

2-2

2.5 Primary/ Principal Aquifer
Primary Aquifers as defined within the Division of Water Technical & Operational
Guidance Series (TOGS) 2.1.3 are “highly productive aquifers presently utilized as
sources of water supply by major municipal water supply systems.” Principal
Aquifers are “aquifers known to be highly productive or whose geology suggests
abundant potential water supply, but which are not intensively used as sources of
water supply by major municipal systems at the present time.” No Principal or
Primary Aquifers are present at the site, however an area defined as producing 10 to
100 gallons per minute (i.e., the lower capacity category considered principal
aquifers) is mapped immediately south of Arrowhead Lane (Potential Yields of
Wells in Unconsolidated Aquifers in Upstate New York – Hudson Mohawk Sheet,
Bugliosi, et. al.).
The Town of Colonie Solid Waste Disposal Facility is located in the far eastern
portion of the mapped region of the Schenectady-Niskayuna Sole Source Aquifer.
However, the geology (consisting principally of low permeability silts and clays) is
inconsistent with productive aquifer deposits and the alluvium underlying the
northeast corner of the study area is of insufficient thickness and areal extent to meet
the definition of a Principal Aquifer. The absence of a productive aquifer is further
supported by the limited use of groundwater within the area and availability of
public water as described below.

2.6 Residential Well Survey
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (November 2001), and current research, indicate that residents
and businesses located within a one mile downgradient and one-quarter mile
upgradient radius of the site are all on public water supply. In addition, the
downgradient perimeter of the site is proximate and parallel to the Mohawk River,
which represents the regional groundwater discharge location, and there is no
development between the facility property boundary and the River to the east. Two
privately owned wells are located approximately 1,800 feet northwest (upgradient)
and approximately 3,400 feet southeast (crossgradient) of the site.

2-3

3 SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN
The investigation completed to develop the information pursuant to Part 360
hydrogeologic investigation requirements (investigation) was conducted in
accordance with a Site Investigation Plan (SIP) prepared by Cornerstone in
September 2013. A draft SIP was presented to representatives of the Department.
Feedback on the SIP from the Department was incorporated into the SIP, and the
Site Investigation proceeded in accordance with the modified SIP and as amended to
include additional investigation in response to comments from the Department on
the draft SIR, as described below.

3.1 Test Pits
A total of eight (8) exploratory test pits were excavated on November 7, 2013 with
the objective of identifying soil types and properties in the vicinity of proposed
storm water basins and relocated support facilities, and the extent of waste within
area of the proposed overfill. The locations of these tests pits are illustrated on
Figure 3-1. The test pits were excavated to a total depth ranging between 4 and 17
feet below grade and their locations were surveyed. The test pit excavations were
completed under the observation of a representative from Cornerstone. Where hard
tills were encountered, test pits were terminated within the till to prevent damage to
the equipment and where waste was encountered, test pits were terminated prior to
digging through the waste to avoid potential damage of any liner materials under the
waste. Cornerstone recorded observations and measurements including:




Surface features prior to excavation;
Depth of relevant features (presence of waste, fill, stratigraphic changes, etc);
Description of soil features such as grain size, color, stratigraphy, and
structure;
Moisture content or evidence of seeps; and
Wall stability.

Each excavation was promptly backfilled with the excavated soil, marked with a
numbered stake, and given the prefix designation “TP”. The coordinates (x,y,z) of
the test pits were then obtained by a licensed New York State surveyor.

3.2 Test Borings and Monitoring Wells
In order to characterize the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions beneath the
proposed landfill site, four (4) locations were chosen for the installation of
monitoring wells and seventeen (17) locations were chosen for the advancement of

3-1

test borings. The completion of the test borings is discussed in Section 3.2.1 and the
completion of the monitoring wells in Section 3.2.2.
Drilling was performed under the direct supervision of Cornerstone. The drill rig
and related equipment (augers, rods, etc.) were decontaminated between each
location at a designated location on site. Decontamination included pressure
washing the equipment with potable water obtained from a nearby hydrant.
Cuttings from the boring program were disposed of in the active landfill area.
Representative portions of each split-spoon sample were placed in moisture-tight
jars for future reference. All samples were labeled to include:



Site name;
Monitoring well/Boring number;
Sample number and interval; and
Recovery.

3.2.1 Test Borings
A series of test borings were advanced at seventeen (17) locations as illustrated on
Figure 3-1. Test borings were advanced using hollow stem augers and continuous
split spoon soil sampling was conducted from the ground surface to refusal on
bedrock at all locations except B-2013-1 and B-2013-2. These two borings were
terminated at 89 ft. and 75 ft., respectively, once it was determined that sufficient
data had been collected. Split spoon samples were obtained in accordance with the
procedures of the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586). Samples were visually
described for grain size, color, stratification, moisture content and other notable
features, and representative portions were placed in moisture tight jars for future
reference. Selected samples were also delivered to RSA Geolab, LLC. for analysis of
moisture content, grain size and atterberg limits. Laboratory data generated from
the sampling program can be found in Appendix B. The analysis and review of the
data will be described in detail in the Engineering Report.
In addition to split spoon sampling, Shelby Tube samples were collected for
subsequent geotechnical laboratory testing. A total of six (6) Shelby Tubes were
collected from three (3) locations, five feet east of MW-2013-2D, eight feet east of B2013-10, and five feet west of B-2013-15. Shelby Tube samples were collected of
potentially soft, cohesive soils by pushing the tubes in one continuous motion with
the drill rig hydraulics. The sample recovery was then recorded and the ends of the
tubes were sealed with wax. The samples were delivered to RSA Geolab, LLC for
consolidation testing, CU triaxial testing, and UU triaxial testing. Shelby tubes were
collected from an offset boring after determining the presence and depth of
potentially soft, cohesive soils in the original borehole.

3-2

Upon completion, the boreholes were tremie grouted with cement/bentonite grout
to ground surface and marked with a stake identifying the boring number as “B2013-X, where “X” represents the sequential number of the test boring. Additional
care was taken in borings that encountered waste to ensure that the
cement/bentonite adequately plugged the borehole up into the waste layer. The
coordinates (x,y,z) of the borings were subsequently obtained by a licensed New
York State surveyor.

3.2.2 Monitoring Wells
Three (3) new monitoring well clusters, and a single monitoring well, were installed
at the locations illustrated on Figure 3-1. Location of the MW-2013-01 cluster serves
as an up gradient monitoring location, while the MW-2013-02 cluster, well MW2013-03, and MW-2013-4 cluster serve as down gradient locations. These wells
supplement the existing site wide monitoring well network for the collection of
water levels and existing water quality data. Pending receipt of a solid waste permit
for development into proposed Area 7, additional wells will be installed as needed
to meet the spacing requirements outlined in the 6NYCRR Part 360 regulations.
The selection of the screen interval at each location was based upon data collected
during continuous split spoon sampling at each monitoring well cluster location. At
each location, a minimum six-inch diameter borehole was advanced with continuous
split spoon samples collected from ground surface to refusal on rock. Monitoring
wells were not installed in the lower water-bearing zone as it is not within the
critical stratigraphic section. Wells were installed to monitor the upper waterbearing zone (water table), designated with an “S” suffix, and intermediate waterbearing zone (glacial deposits/top of rock interface), designated with a “D” suffix.
At locations with two wells (clusters), continuous split spoon samples were collected
in the adjacent borehole across the screen interval only. Wells screened in the
intermediate water-bearing zone were installed so that the bottoms of the well
screens were at the top of rock. Due to the limited overburden thickness at MW2013-3, it was only possible to install one well that spanned the glacial deposits/top
of rock interface (intermediate water-bearing zone). The remaining three (3)
locations included installation of wells completed in both the upper and
intermediate water-bearing zones.
All wells were installed utilizing hollow stem augers. This method is preferred over
wet-rotary since it eliminates the introduction of fines and water into the formation,
thus making well development easier. During each monitoring well installation,
6.25-inch inside diameter (ID) augers were used and the well was constructed
directly through the augers.

3-3

Wells were constructed in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 requirements and
consist of 2-inch diameter, flush thread, schedule 40 PVC riser pipe equipped with
ten foot long continuous PVC wire wrap screens with 0.006-inch slots. An
appropriately sized sand pack (90% retained by the screen) was emplaced to a
minimum of two feet above the top of the screen followed by a six-inch layer of No.
00 filter sand to prevent bentonite migration into the sand pack. Three to five feet of
bentonite pellets were then placed above the filter sand and hydrated. The
remainder of the annular space was then tremie grouted with cement/bentonite
grout and the well was completed at the surface with a locking protective casing.
Additional care was taken at monitoring wells that encountered waste to ensure that
the cement/bentonite adequately plugged the borehole up into the waste layer. A 3
x 3 foot concrete pad was constructed to secure the protective casing.
Upon completion, the wells were developed until no noticeable improvement in the
clarity of the water was observed, with the objective of producing sediment free
water, to the extent possible. Monitoring well locations, ground surface elevation
and the elevation of the outer protective casing and the inner well casing were
surveyed by a licensed New York surveyor following completion.
Survey data for the wells used for hydrogeologic data collection during this
investigation, and that meet the current 6 NYCRR Part 360 Regulations, are
summarized in Table 3-1. The locations of the exploratory data points are illustrated
on Figure 3-1. Boring logs and well construction details are presented in Appendix
A. Well drilling for the Part 360 Investigation was performed by Earth Dimensions,
Inc. of Elma, New York.

3.3 Water Level Data Collection
Two rounds of water level measurements have been collected from the available
monitoring wells and piezometers located throughout the site. The first round took
place on November 8, 2013 and the second round on May 28, 2014. Both rounds
were completed within one working day. The data collected during these rounds is
presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, respectively. Water level measurements and
calculated elevations are presented in Section 4.3 and these data have been
incorporated into the site wide database.

3.4 Monitoring Well Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
Hydraulic conductivities were measured to determine the pathways and volumetric
rates of groundwater flow beneath the site. Slug testing of wells was conducted in
January 2014. A detailed write-up of the slug test analyses and findings is presented
in Section 4.4.

3-4

Slug tests were performed by recording the static water level within each well to be
tested, followed by the introduction of a solid “slug” designed to create an
“instantaneous” change in water level. The recovery of the water level back to static
conditions was then recorded with time using a pressure transducer and water level
meter.
Both rising head and falling head slug tests were conducted. To initiate the slug test,
a pressure transducer was installed at least three feet below the water table and
programed to record measurements every 0.125 seconds. With the pressure
transducer installed, a solid PVC slug was suspended just above the groundwater
surface. The slug was then allowed to free fall until completely submerged below the
original groundwater surface to create an instantaneous positive change in volume.
Water level measurements were recorded until the water level returned to the static
water level measurement.
Following return of the water level to static conditions, a falling head slug test was
performed by pulling the slug completely out of the groundwater to create an
instantaneous negative change in volume. Once again, water level measurements
were recorded until they returned to static conditions. The pressure transducer was
then removed from the well and the results were downloaded for analysis as
described in Section 4.4.

3.5 Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater samples have been collected and analyzed to determine existing
groundwater quality in accordance with the requirements set forth in 6 NYCRR Part
360-2.11(c)(5)(i)(a). These requirements call for two rounds of sampling and analysis
from a representative number of monitoring points in each water-bearing zone
within the critical stratigraphic section. The wells included in these sampling events
include all of the wells installed during this site investigation, except for MW-20131S, which did not contain sufficient water to collect a sample during the first event
(December 2013). All of the wells were sampled with either dedicated bailers or a
submersible pump, and sampling was conducted in accordance with the currently
approved Area 6 EMSAP. Each well was purged until three to five well volumes of
standing water were evacuated or until the well was dry. The Site Analytical Plan
under which this work was completed is provided in Appendix C.
The selection of wells was developed to provide representative sampling points
located both upgradient and downgradient of the proposed development area and
the collected data will be evaluated with that collected as part of the Area 5 and 6
environmental monitoring programs.

3-5

The first round of sampling was conducted during the last week of December, 2013.
This sampling round included the collection of two samples from each well
(duplicate samples) for analysis of Part 360 expanded parameters. Samples from the
overburden well, MW-2013-1S, were not collected as this location was dry at the
time of sampling.
The second round of sampling was conducted during the second and third week of
June, 2014. One sample was collected from each of the wells installed under this
investigation and analyzed for Part 360 baseline parameters.
The objective of the two sampling events was to collect groundwater samples
representative of seasonal high (June 2014 event) and seasonal low (December 2013
event) groundwater conditions.

3-6

4 SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
The characteristics and extent of the geologic materials encountered within the area
under consideration are described in this section.
To put the proposed Town of Colonie Solid Waste Disposal facility into perspective
within the larger geologic framework of the region and to describe the geologic
history which led to the formation of the strata, a discussion of the regional geology
is presented in Section 4.1. This discussion is based upon the published geologic data
for the region, as presented in previous reports, as well as the results of the current
site investigation work. Section 4.2 then presents the site-specific geology within the
regional context.
Section 4.3 presents the hydrogeologic conditions of the site. Section 4.4 presents the
results of the borehole hydraulic conductivity testing program on the basis of both
stratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic units. Section 4.5 presents the groundwater
quality data.

4.1 Regional Geology
The regional geology has been previously described within the Area 6 Site
Investigation Report (Clough Harbour, 1994) and is reproduced below. Sections 4.1.1
and 4.1.2 describe the bedrock geology and the geology of unconsolidated deposits
within the region, respectively.

4.1.1 Bedrock
The Town of Colonie Landfill lies within the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands
physiographic province (Broughton, et al., 1966). Bedrock in the project area is
mapped as shales and graywackes of the Austin Glen Formation (Fisher et. al., 1970).
The occurrence of the Austin Glen Formation in this area is the result of landsliding
and thrust faulting which occurred during the Taconic Orogeny of the late-medial
Ordovician period.
During this time period the land to the east of the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands
province was undergoing continued uplift approaching the climax of the Taconic
Orogeny that occurred in the late-Ordovician. The end result of this orogeny was a
high standing mountain range in eastern New York, Vermont and southern New
England (Empire, 1989). This uplift caused the thrust faulting and landsliding of
bedrock and soils which transported the nappe of Austin Glen Formation to its
current location. As bedrock mapping of the area indicates (Fischer et. Al., 1970), the

4-1

formation is an oval shaped, thrust fault surrounded feature nearly 13 miles long
(north to south) and five (5) miles wide (east to west).

4.1.2 Unconsolidated Deposits
Surficial geologic mapping indicates the presence of exposed bedrock, lacustrine silt
and clay, glacial till, kame deposits, and recent alluvium in the general area of the
Town of Colonie Landfill Site (Caldwell and Dineen, 1987). With the exception of
deposits of recent alluvium that occur along the Mohawk River, overburden in this
area originated from the depositional activities that took place during the Pleistocene
apoch.
The glacial soils of the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands province were deposited by the
advance and retreat of the most recent, or Wisconsin, glacial episode. Wisconsin
glaciation removed evidences of earlier glacial periods (Van Diver, 1985).
Deglaciation events in the lower Hudson Valley blanketed the previously existing
bedrock with ice-contact, fluvial and lacustrine sediments. This retreat was
characterized by the deposition of melt water sediment in pro-glacial lacustrine and
deltaic environments.
The following six (6) stable glacial lake water levels have been defined in the
Hudson Lowlands province by De Simone and La Fleur (1986): Lake Albany, Lake
Quaker Springs, Lake Coveville, Fort Ann I, Fort Ann II, and Fort Ann III. Elevations
of the various deltaic deposits in the lowlands are considered evidence of the
various lake levels. The Lake Albany to Lake Quaker Springs transition occurred
while the active ice margin was located between Saratoga Springs and Hudson Falls.
De Simone and La Fleur (1986) site a lack of erosional escarpments or dissection
features in the northern Hudson Lowland as being indicative of the Lake Albany
level which dropped slowly to the Quaker Springs lake level. This rate has been
calculated at 2 ft./yr. based on ice retreat rates of 500-1000 ft./yr. The silts and clays
prevalent in the eastern portion of the site were deposited into Lake Albany during
the retreat period of the Wisconsin glacial episode. The glacial till predominant in
the western portion of the Town of Colonie Landfill site were deposited during the
Wisconsin glacial advance.

4.2 Site Geology
The site geology has been previously described within the Area 6 Supplemental Site
Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001). The information from the Area 6 report
has been combined with the data collected under the current 6 NYCRR part 360
Hydrogeologic Investigation and is presented in sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.3. The
unconsolidated deposits underlying the facility generally consist of an upper
glaciolacustrine, varved silt and clay unit underlain by till. Where the

4-2

glaciolacustrine unit is absent, till is present at the ground surface. Also present is a
limited area of Alluvium deposits at the northeast corner of the Site. Underlying the
unconsolidated deposits is shale bedrock. Each of these units is described below.
East-west orientated geologic cross-sections representing the northern, central and
southern portions of the site are depicted on Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. A
geologic cross-section oriented north to south through the center of the site is
presented on Figure 4-4.

4.2.1 Glaciolacustrine Silt and Clay
The glaciolacustrine deposits typically consist of an upper oxidized brown silt and
clay unit containing some silt partings, and a lower gray unoxidized silt and clay to
clay unit. These units contain minor amounts of wood fragments and both units
contain varves of either silt or fine sand. The contact between the upper brown clay
unit and the lower gray clay unit is typically gradational, with mottling occurring
above the transition to solid gray.
In addition to the color change between the upper oxidized portion and the lower
unoxidized portion of the glaciolacustrine clay unit, the lower portion is less
compact. In the brown silt and clay unit, the blow counts per six inches on a
standard split spoon ranged from four to six. The number of blows per six inches in
the gray clay unit ranged from zero (weight of hammer and drilling rods) to three.
The thickness of the glaciolacustrine deposits varies across the site from thin to
absent to as much as 60 feet. In general, the glaciolacustrine deposits are thickest to
the east, closer to the Mohawk River and thinnest to the west at higher elevations.
At the eastern edge of the site (locations CHA-5B, B-2013-10 and B-2013-12) the
glaciolacustrine deposits directly overly bedrock (i.e., the glacial till is not present).

4.2.2 Alluvium
The Alluvium deposits generally consist of medium to course grained sand and fine
gravels and are found in the northeast corner of the site. Alluvium deposits were
observed at boring locations B-2013-8, B-2013-9, B-2013-12, well cluster locations
MW-2013-2 and MW-2013-4, and well location CW-5. These deposits and are
assumed to be hydraulically connected to the Mohawk River and range in thickness
from 4 to 22 ft across an area of approximately 800 square feet.
As referenced in Section 2.5, and as detailed within the Primary and Principal
Aquifer Determinations document (NYDEC, 1990), a primary aquifer is a highly
productive aquifer presently being utilized as a source of water supply by major
municipal water supply systems. A principal aquifer is defined as an aquifer that is
known to be highly productive, but not currently being utilized as a source of water
by a major municipal system. The document further explains that a principal aquifer
is one that covers a minimum of 5 to 10 square miles of continuous area, saturated

4-3

deposits of highly permeable material with an average thickness of at least 20 ft, and
is capable of sustained yields from individual wells of 50 gallons per minute or
greater over a 2 square mile area or greater.
Based on these criteria, the Alluvium deposits found at the site do not meet the
definition of a primary or principal aquifer.

4.2.3 Glacial Till
The till unit is generally characterized as a heterogeneous mix of gravel, cobbles,
boulders, and fragments of the underlying shale bedrock, within a matrix of clay, silt
and sand. It is typically brown near the ground surface due to oxidation, and grades
to gray with depth.
The till is significantly denser than the silt and clay unit. Blow counts per six inches
on a split spoon using the standard penetration test, generally range from 25 to
greater than 100. Occasional, discontinuous sand lenses, as much as five feet in
thickness, are reported within the till unit. Reworked portions of the till have also
been noted (MPI-2 well location), that are less dense and of slightly greater
permeability than the surrounding materials.
The till varies in thickness across the site ranging from thin to not present near the
eastern portion of the site and greater than 89 feet to the west underlying the higher
elevations.

4.2.4 Bedrock
The bedrock underlying the site consists of interbedded layers of greywacke (gray,
poorly sorted sandstone) and shale, believed to be part of the Ordovician aged
Austin Glen Formation. The depth to bedrock varies from as little as 2 feet to greater
than 89 feet across the site.
Collectively, the data indicate that the bedrock surface slopes downward, from an
elevation high of approximately 260 ft msl in the southwest corner of the site
towards the Mohawk River to the east and north. A top of rock surface elevation
map is presented on Figure 4-5.

4.2.5 Recent Fill Materials
Much of the northern portion of the proposed Area 7 Landfill Development consists
of fill (waste) materials overlaying natural soils. Waste materials were found within
borings: B-2013-3, B-2013-4, B-2013-5, B-2013-6, B-2013-7, B-2013-8, B-2013-10, B-201311, B-2013-12, B-2013-13, MW-2013-2D and MW-2013-4D. Waste was found to be
overlaying glacial till, glaciolacustine deposits and alluvium deposits. All waste
encountered was covered with fill material consisting primarily of silt and clays.

4-4

4.3 Hydrogeologic Conditions
The geology of the site has been described in previous sections of this report. In this
section, the interrelationships between groundwater and various geologic deposits
are described. Groundwater elevation measurements recorded November 8, 2013
and May 28, 2014, are presented in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3, respectively.
The Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001) describes
groundwater flow beneath the facility and assigns three water-bearing zones:


An upper water-bearing zone where the water table is present.
An intermediate water-bearing zone at the glacial deposit/bedrock interface.
A lower water-bearing zone in the bedrock.

The information collected under the current investigation continues to support the
division of groundwater into the three distinct water-bearing zones as described
below. The water-bearing zones and their interrelationships within the
hydrogeologic framework of the site are discussed in Section 4.3.4.

4.3.1 Upper Water-Bearing Zone
The saturated glaciolacustrine silt and clay, as well as the till, act as a single low
permeability, unconfined, hydrogeologic zone. The water table is found within the
till in the western portion of the site (i.e., PZ-3, MW-2013-1S) and in the
glaciolacustrine silt and clay in the eastern portion of the site (i.e., MW-9S, MW2013-3). In addition, the localized alluvium deposits, described above in Section
4.2.2, are also included within the upper water-bearing zone. While the alluvium
represents materials of higher permeability, as compared to the glacial silt, clay and
till, the rate and volume of flow into the alluvium is controlled by the surrounding
lower permeability glacial deposits and surficial cover soils (i.e., flow in must equal
flow out).
Groundwater flow in the upper water-bearing zone is generally to the east toward
the Mohawk River, which represents the regional groundwater discharge area.
Historically, localized discharge points have been reported associated with
topographically low areas across the site. However, these localized areas are no
longer present following re-grading and development of the site.
Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 was used to
construct the upper water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps as presented on
Figures 4-6 and 4-8, respectively. Groundwater flow as mapped by the most
recently collected data is generally consistent (absent localized discharge points as
described above) with mapping completed as part of previous investigations.

4-5

4.3.2 Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
The interface between the saturated glacial deposits and top of bedrock acts as a
single, moderately permeable, confined, hydrogeologic zone with groundwater flow
to the Mohawk River to the east. Historically, localized upward gradients were
observed between this zone and the upper water-bearing zone near topographically
low areas of the site. However, these topographically low areas are no longer
present and downward vertical gradients now dominate with the strongest
downward gradients observed at the higher elevations to the west and decreasing to
the east towards the Mohawk River. Upward gradients are present between the
intermediate and upper water-bearing zones on the east side of the site along the
Mohawk River.
Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 were used to
construct the intermediate water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps as
presented on Figures 4-7 and 4-9, respectively. Groundwater flow as mapped by the
most recently collected data is generally consistent with mapping completed as part
of previous investigations.

4.3.3 Lower Water Bearing Zone
As described in the Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie,
2001) groundwater flow within the bedrock is primarily contained in secondary
features such as fractures, joints, bedding and cleavage planes. Groundwater flow is
to the east, with discharge to the Mohawk River. Additional investigation of the
lower (bedrock) water-bearing zone was not conducted during the Area 7
hydrogeologic investigation as it is not part of the critical stratigraphic section as
described further below.

4.3.4 Three-Dimensional Patterns of Groundwater Flow
The preceding sections have discussed each of the hydrostratigraphic sections
individually and in detail. The objective of this section is to integrate this
information in order to accurately describe and understand the three-dimensional
groundwater flow patterns beneath the site. This understanding will dictate the
definition of the critical stratigraphic section and the groundwater monitoring plan.
The two-dimensional patterns of groundwater flow are most accurately depicted on
hydrogeologic cross-sections A-A’ through C-C’. These cross-sections were
constructed using the static water levels collected from the monitoring wells and
piezometers on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 (Figures 4-10 through 4-15).

4-6

A review of the cross-sections indicates the presence of horizontal flow paths within
the intermediate water-bearing zone. Flow paths within the upper water-bearing
zone are observed to be both vertical and, to a lesser degree, horizontal, depending
on the location across the site. The relationship between horizontal flow paths in the
water-bearing zones and vertical flow paths in the lower permeability aquitards is
dictated by the contrast in hydraulic conductivity and the Tangent Law.
Groundwater flow lines prefer to use the higher permeability formations as
conduits, while traversing the lower permeability formations by the shortest
possible route. When a groundwater flow path crosses a boundary with different
values of hydraulic conductivity, it will refract in a manner similar to light rays
passing from one medium to another. The amount of refraction can be calculated
using the Tangent Law. On this basis, in aquifer-aquitard systems with hydraulic
conductivity contrasts of two orders of magnitude or more, flow lines tend to
become almost horizontal in the higher permeability materials and almost vertical in
the lower permeability materials (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). This relationship holds
true regardless of the measured hydraulic conductivity and is consistent with the
flow systems illustrated on the hydrostratigraphic cross-sections.
The cross-sections thus illustrate that a flow path originating within the proposed
development area will migrate vertically downward through the upper waterbearing zone and then horizontally in an easterly direction through the intermediate
water-bearing zone. The cross-sections also illustrate upward gradients within the
intermediate water-bearing zone on the eastern edge of the site closest to the
Mohawk River and that groundwater from each of the three water-bearing zones
discharges to the Mohawk River.
The Mohawk River elevation adjacent to the site, and within the pooled water
behind Crescent Dam, is approximately 184 feet. While the surface water elevation
will vary somewhat seasonally and in response to precipitation, this elevation is
roughly equivalent to or marginally lower than the groundwater elevations
observed in wells closest to the River and clearly lower than those observed in wells
further up gradient within the interior of the site. These data demonstrate discharge
to the Mohawk River and that as groundwater approaches the River, the hydraulic
gradients decline.
As discussed further in Section 4.5, the existing water quality data demonstrates
localized impacts associated with historical waste disposal practices. Under current
conditions, these localized impacts will discharge to the River consistent with the
flow paths described above. However, these impacts are localized and therefore do
not represent the overall groundwater quality. In the future, and under the
assumption that the Area 7 Development is approved, it is anticipated that the

4-7

overall water quality will improve since development would cut off precipitation
and leaching through the historical waste.

4.4 Monitoring Well Hydraulic Conductivity Determinations
Slug tests were conducted on each of the monitoring wells installed under the
current investigation and were analyzed using the Hvorslev Method (Horslev, 1951).
The Hvorslev method is applicable to both confined and unconfined conditions and
typically results in a slightly higher hydraulic conductivity result as compared to
values obtained using the Bouwer and Rice Method (Bouwer and Rice, 1976). The
slightly higher conductivity values offer a more conservative approach to the overall
landfill design.

4.4.1 Slug Test Analysis
The data collected from the slug tests were evaluated using the AQTESOLV
software program (Duffield) and the Hvorslev Method (Horslev, 1951).

The Hvorslev (1951) equation can be summarized as:
ln
2
Where:

K is the hydraulic conductivity of the well

r is the radius of the well casing

R is the radius of the well screen

L is the length of the well screen

T0 is the time required for the water level to rise to 37% of the initial change,
obtained from the graph of H/H(0). H/H(0) is determined by using : “H(0)”
is the distance the water level declines upon removal of the slug and “H” is
the height of the water level below the static water level at some time, “t”,
after the slug is removed.

The graphical analysis and hydraulic conductivity calculations for each test is
presented in Appendix C.

4-8

4.4.2 Summary of Slug Test Findings
Site wide hydraulic conductivity values were calculated utilizing data from
monitoring wells installed under the current investigation as well as data reported in
the Malcom Pirnie, Inc. Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (Malcolm
Pirnie, 2001). The entirety of this data has been compiled and presented within
Tables 4-1 through 4-4. Note that the lower limit of resolution for the hydraulic
conductivity tests completed during prior investigations is 1.0E-08 cm/sec.
Hydraulic conductivity data was subdivided based on the geologic unit in which the
tests were performed. These geologic units, consisting of glaciolacustrine silt and
clays, glacial till, the glacial deposits/bedrock interface, and bedrock, are discussed
below. One test was conducted in the alluvium deposits (MW-2013-4S) with a
measured hydraulic conductivity of 8.15E-4 cm/sec.
4.4.2.1 Glaciolacustrine Silt and Clays
The hydraulic conductivity for the glaciolacustine silt and clay geologic unit was
determined utilizing a total of seventeen (17) data points. The hydraulic conductivity
values of these points ranged from 5.67E-03 cm/sec to 1.00E-08 cm/sec with a
geometric mean value of 1.80E-05 cm/sec. Ranges and geometric means were
calculated utilizing all available data consisting of both rising and falling head
values and the data are summarized in Table 4-1. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the
glaciolacustrine silt and clays compose part of the upper water-bearing zone.
4.4.2.2 Glacial Till
The hydraulic conductivity for the glacial till geologic unit was determined utilizing
a total of twenty seven (27) data points. The hydraulic conductivity values ranged
from 1.00E-04 cm/sec to 1.00E-08 cm/sec with a geometric mean value of 2.70E-06
cm/sec. Ranges and geometric means were calculated utilizing all available data
consisting of both rising and falling head values and the data are summarized in
Table 4-2. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the glacial tills compose part of the upper
water-bearing zone and the combined geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of the
glaciolacustrine and glacial till deposits is 5.63E-6 cm/sec.
4.4.2.3 Glacial Deposits/Bedrock Interface
The hydraulic conductivity for the glacial deposits till/bedrock interface geologic
unit (Intermediate water-bearing zone) was determined utilizing a total of thirteen
(13) data points. The hydraulic conductivity values of the available data points
ranged from 1.47E-04 cm/sec to 1.00E-08 cm/sec with a geometric mean value of
1.91E-05-cm/sec. Ranges and geometric means were calculated utilizing all available

4-9

data consisting of both rising and falling head values and the data are summarized
in Table 4-3.
4.4.2.4 Bedrock
The hydraulic conductivity for the bedrock geologic unit was determined utilizing
twenty nine (29) data points from the Area 6 Investigation. The hydraulic
conductivity values ranged from 1.00E-04 cm/sec to 1.00E-08 cm/sec with a
geometric mean value of 1.77E-07 cm/sec. Ranges and geometric means were
calculated utilizing all available data consisting of rising and falling head values, as
well as packer testing results, and are summarized in Table 4-4. As discussed in
Section 4.3.3, the bedrock geologic unit corresponds to the lower water-bearing zone.

4.5 Groundwater Quality
Existing groundwater quality at the site was evaluated through the use of data
collected under the current Area 5 and Area 6 Environmental Monitoring Programs
(EMP), and from the first and second rounds of groundwater samples collected as
part of the current site investigation. The first round of samples under the current
investigation were collected in December 2013 and the second set in June 2014. The
collected samples were analyzed for 6 NYCRR Part 360 expanded and baseline
parameters respectively. Groundwater samples were not collected from bedrock
wells, as these locations are identified in the currently approved EMSAP as
contingency sampling locations. Likewise, based on the existing water quality data
from Areas 5 and 6, Waste Connections Inc. received a waiver of the requirement for
analysis of dioxins and furans. Analytical data reports are provided in Appendix E.
Existing water quality can be divided into four distinct regions: up-gradient upper
water-bearing zone, up-gradient intermediate water-bearing zone, down-gradient
upper water-bearing zone, and down-gradient intermediate water bearing zone.
Each of these subcategories is discussed below.

4.5.1 Up-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the up-gradient upper water-bearing zone can be derived
from three of the wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6 EMP and one well
sampled during this investigation. These wells include CW-1, MPI-4S, PZ-3 (Area
5/6 wells), and MW-2013-1S. During the December 2013 sampling round, a sample
could not be collected from the up-gradient upper water-bearing zone well, MW2013-1S, installed under the current investigation due to insufficient amount of
water in the well. However, MW-2013-1S was sampled during the subsequent June
2014 sampling round. Ranges and geometric means were calculated for the Area 5

4-10

and Area 6 wells and are used for comparison to the water quality data obtained
from the wells recently installed as part of the current investigation.
4.5.1.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for the Area 5 and 6 wells
are summarized in Table 4-5. Historical high concentrations above the 6 NYCRR
Part 703 Ground Water Quality Standards have been observed for aluminum,
antimony, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, selenium, sodium and
vanadium. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for aluminum and iron
also exceed the Part 703 standards.
The June 2014 sampling data collected from MW-2013-1S exceeded the 6 NYCRR
Part 703 Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS) for aluminum, cobalt, iron,
magnesium, manganese, and sodium. In addition, magnesium and potassium
concentrations were above the historical high concentrations observed in the Area 5
and 6 data.
4.5.1.2 General Chemistry
General chemistry parameters, along with their respective range and geometric
mean concentrations for the Area 5 and 6 wells are summarized in Table 4-6.
Historical high concentrations above the 6 NYCRR Part 703 Ground Water Quality
Standards are observed for: sulfate, phenolics, total dissolved solids (TDS) and
cyanide. Water quality data obtained from Area 7 well MW-2013-1S (see Table 4-6)
exceeded GWQS for sulfate and TDS. In addition, TDS and hardness were observed
in the MW-2013-1S sample above the historical high concentrations observed in the
Area 5 and 6 data.
4.5.1.3 Organics
VOCs were detected within the up-gradient upper water-bearing zone well
MW-2013-1S, during the June 2014 sampling event, as summarized in Table 4-9. The
detected parameters included benzene and a “J” qualified value of carbon disulfide,
indicating that this value was laboratory estimated: below the laboratory reporting
limit (RL) but above the method detection limit (MDL). Benzene, at a reported
concentration of 1.6 ug/l, was the only constituent above its GWQS (1 ug/l).
SVOCs, PCBs and Pesticides were not analyzed for during this sampling event.

4.5.2 Up-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the up-gradient intermediate water-bearing zone can be
determined from four of the wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6

4-11

Environmental Monitoring Plan and a single well from this investigation. These
wells include CHA-2I, CHA-6I, CHA-8I, MPI-4D (Area 5/6 wells) and MW-2013-1D.
Ranges and geometric means were calculated for the Area 5 and Area 6 wells and
used for comparison to the water quality data obtained from the wells recently
installed as part of the current investigation.
4.5.2.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for the Area 5 and 6 wells
are summarized in Table 4-7. Historical high concentrations above the 6 NYCRR
Part 703 Ground Water Quality Standards for metals were observed for aluminum,
antimony, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium,
sodium and vanadium. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for
aluminum, antimony, iron and sodium also exceed the GWQS.
The December 2013 sampling results for MW-2013-1D exceeded the GWQS for
aluminum, iron, and sodium. With the exception of potassium and sodium, the
detected metals concentrations were below the historic highs derived from
previously collected data. Exceedances of the GWQS for the June 2014 results were
observed for aluminum, copper, iron, and sodium. With the exception of copper and
sodium, detected metals concentrations in the MW-2013-1D sample are below the
historic highs derived from the previously collected data. These data are
summarized in Table 4-7.
4.5.2.2 General Chemistry
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for general chemistry
parameters in the Area 5 and 6 wells are summarized in Table 4-8. Historical high
concentrations above the GWQS are observed for sulfate, phenolics, TDS and
cyanide. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for phenolics, TDS and
cyanide also exceed the GWQS.
The December 2013 and June 2014 sampling results for MW-2013-1D exceed the
GWQS for TDS. Phenolics are also reported above the GWQS during the December
2013 sampling event.
4.5.2.3 Organics
VOCs and SVOCs were detected within the up-gradient intermediate water-bearing
zone well MW-2013-1D, as summarized in Table 4-9. VOC parameters detected as
part of the December 2013 sampling event included low levels or “J” qualified
values of acetone, benzene, carbon disulfide, chloroform, and toluene. VOC
parameters detected as part of the June 2014 sampling event included low levels or

4-12

“J” qualified values of 2-butanone, acetone, and chloroform. SVOC parameters
detected as part of the December 2013 sampling event included low levels or “J”
qualified values of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, and phenol.
SVOCs were not analyzed for during the June 2014 sampling event. All of the
detected VOC and SVOC concentrations were below their respective GWQS.
As part of the December 2013 sampling event, pesticides were detected in the
sample from MW-2013-1D at concentrations less than 0.02 ug/l. All of the results
were “J” qualified. Pesticides detected include 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, deltaBHC, gamma-BHC (Lindane), and heptachlor epoxide. All pesticide detections were
below the applicable GWQS. Pesticides and PCBs were not analyzed for during the
June 2014 sampling event.

4.5.3 Down-Gradient Upper Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the down-gradient upper water-bearing zone is derived
from six of the wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6 Environmental
Monitoring plan and two wells from the current investigation. These wells include
MPI-1S, MPI-2, MPI-3, CHA-8S, CHA-3S, CW-5 (Area 5 and 6 wells), MW-2013-2S,
and MW-2013-4S. Ranges and geometric means were calculated for the Area 5 and
Area 6 wells and used for comparison to the water quality data obtained from the
wells recently installed as part of the current investigation.
4.5.3.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for metals in the Area 5 and
6 wells are summarized in Table 4-10. Historical high concentrations above the
GWQS for metals are observed for aluminum, antimony, boron, cadmium, cobalt,
iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, sodium and vanadium. In
addition, the geometric mean concentrations for aluminum, antimony, iron,
magnesium and sodium also exceed the GWQS.
The December 2013 sampling results for MW-2013-2S exceed the GWQS for
aluminum, boron, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and sodium. Further,
boron, copper, manganese, potassium, and sodium were observed in the sample
from MW-2013-2S at concentrations above their respective historical high values
reported in the existing wells.
The June 2014 sampling results for MW-2013-2S exceed GWQS for aluminum, boron,
cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and sodium. Further, potassium and
sodium were observed in the sample from MW-2013-2S at concentrations above
their respective historical high values reported in the existing wells.

4-13

Exceedances of the GWQS were observed in the June 2014 sample from MW-2013-4S
for aluminum, boron, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel,
sodium and vanadium. Further, aluminum, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,
manganese, potassium and sodium were observed in the MW-2013-4S sample at
concentrations above their respective historical high values reported in the existing
wells. Data are summarized in Table 4-10.
4.5.3.2 General Chemistry
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for general chemistry
parameters are summarized in Table 4-11. Historical high concentrations above the
GWQS are observed for chloride, sulfate, ammonia, phenolics and TDS. In addition,
the geometric mean concentrations of phenolics and TDS are also above their
respective GWQS.
Exceedances of the GWQS are observed in the Area 7 sample taken in December
2013 at MW-2013-2S for chloride, ammonia, phenolics, and TDS. Reported
concentrations above the historical high concentrations reported in the existing wells
are present for bromide, chloride, ammonia, nitrogen, alkalinity and TDS.
Exceedances of the GWQS are observed in samples taken in June 2014 from
MW-2013-2S and MW-2013-4S for chloride, ammonia, phenolics, and TDS. Reported
concentrations exceeding the historical high values reported in the existing wells are
observed in both samples for chloride, ammonia, nitrogen, alkalinity and TDS.
The observed concentrations in samples obtained from MW-2013-2S and MW-20134S are likely related to these wells being completed directly below and down
gradient of historic Municipal Solid Waste.
4.5.3.3 Organics
VOCs were not detected within down gradient upper water bearing zone well MW2013-2S during the December 2013 event and only acetone was detected at a “J”
qualified concentration of 39 ug/l during the June 2014 event at this location. As
summarized in Table 4-9, several SVOC parameters were detected at “J” qualified
(trace) concentrations and below their applicable GWQS. MW-2013-2S sample was
not analyzed for SVOCs during the June 2014 sampling event.
VOCs detected during the June 2014 sampling event in the sample taken from
MW-2013-4S well, included “J” qualified benzene (0.59 ug/l) and low levels of
methylene chloride (1.5 ug/l), both at concentrations below their applicable GWQS.
Several SVOCs were also reported at “J” qualified concentrations below their
applicable GWQS.

4-14

A single pesticide, aldrin was detected in the sample from MW-2013-2S during the
December 2013 event at a “J” qualified concentration of 0.13 ug/l. The GWQS for
aldrin is not detectable (ND).
Pesticides detected during the June 2014 sampling event in the sample taken from
MW-2013-4S included “J” qualified aldrin (0.052 ug/l), 4,4’-DDD (0.055 ug/l), 4,4’DDE (0.11 ug/l), 4,4’-DDT (0.17 ug/l), dieldrin (0.058 ug/l), endosulfan sulfate (0.11
ug/l) and methoxychlor (0.093 ug/l). With the exception of aldrin and dieldrin,
pesticides were detected at concentrations below their applicable GWQS. The GWQS
for dieldrin is 0.004 ug/l.

4.5.4 Down-Gradient Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone
Existing water quality for the down gradient intermediate water-bearing zone is
derived from four wells sampled under the Area 5 and Area 6 Environmental
Monitoring Plan and three wells from the current investigation. These wells include
CTM-2, CHA-3I, CHA-8I, MPI-1D (Area 5 and 6 wells), MW-2013-2D, MW-2013-3,
and MW-2013-4D. Constituent concentration ranges and geometric means were
calculated for the Area 5 and Area 6 wells and used for comparison to the water
quality data obtained from the wells recently installed as part of the current
investigation.
4.5.4.1 Metals
The historical range and geometric mean concentrations for metals in the Area 5 and
6 wells are summarized in Table 4-12. Historical high concentrations above the
GWQS for metals are observed for aluminum, antimony, barium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, sodium
and vanadium. In addition, the geometric mean concentrations for aluminum,
antimony, iron, manganese, and sodium are also above their applicable GWQS.
As part of the December 2013 sampling event, exceedances of the GWQS are
observed in the sample from MW-2013-2D for aluminum, barium, boron, copper,
iron, magnesium, manganese, and sodium. Exceedances of the GWQS are also
observed in the December 2013 sample from MW-2013-3 for aluminum, cobalt, iron,
magnesium, manganese, and sodium. Finally, barium, boron, copper, potassium,
and sodium were observed in the sample taken from MW-2013-2D, and aluminum
and potassium in the sample collected from MW-2013-3, at concentrations above
historical high values reported in the existing wells.
As part of the June 2014 sampling event, exceedances of the GWQS are observed for
barium, boron, potassium, and sodium in the sample from MW-2013-2D and for

4-15

aluminum, iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium in the sample from MW-20133. Aluminum, iron, manganese, sodium and vanadium were also found above the
GWQC in the sample from MW-2013-4D.
Reported concentrations of the following constituents were found above their
respective historical highs reported in the existing wells during the June 2014
sampling event: aluminum in the MW-2013-3 and MW-2013-4D samples, potassium
in the MW-2013-2D and MW-2013-4D samples, and sodium in the MW-2013-2D
sample.
4.5.4.2 General Chemistry
General chemistry parameters are summarized in Table 4-13. General chemistry
constituents detected above the GWQS are observed in both the historical and
current data for phenolics (MW-2013-2D sample taken in December 2013) and TDS
(all collected samples). Chloride and ammonia were found above the GWQS in the
MW-2013-2D samples taken in December 2013 and June 2014.
The results from MW-2013-2D may reflect localized groundwater impacts associated
with historical waste disposal at the site.

4.5.4.3 Organics
VOCs detected during the December 2013 and June 2014 sampling events are
summarized in Table 4-9. Reported VOCs are present at low level (single digit) or
trace (J qualified) concentrations below applicable GWQS. Similarly, several SVOCs
are also reported at low to trace level concentrations with no exceedance of
applicable GWQS.
Several pesticides/herbicides were reported at “J” qualified concentrations. Aldrin
(0.052 J ug/l) and dieldrin (0.058 J ug/l) were reported above their respective GWQS
of not detectable (ND) and 0.004 ug/l in MW-2013-4S during the June 2014 sampling
event, and chlordane (0.094 JB ug/l) was reported in MW-2013-3 above its GWQS of
0.05 ug/l during the December 2013 sampling event.

4.6 Conceptual Model and Critical Stratigraphic Section
The data collected under the current investigation continues to support the
conclusions and critical stratigraphic section described previously as part of the Area
5 and 6 applications, and is further described below.

4-16

4.6.1 Conceptual Model of the Hydrogeologic System
A conceptual model of the hydrogeologic system underlying the Site has been
developed using the geologic and hydrogeologic data collected during this and
previous investigations. The conceptual model describes the various
hydrostratigraphic units in which lateral flow occurs, as well as the units of lower
permeability in which vertical flow dominates. The conceptual model also dictates
the critical hydrostratigraphic section and thus, the development of an
environmental monitoring plan for future site operations.
The conceptual hydrogeologic model consists of three water-bearing zones. In
descending order, the units include the upper water-bearing zone consisting
primarily of surficial glacial tills and glaciolacustrine silt and clays, with limited
alluvium in the northeast corner of the site, the intermediate water-bearing zone at
the interface between the glacial deposits and the top of bedrock, and the lower
water-bearing zone within the underlying bedrock. Groundwater flow paths are
predominately vertical through much of the overburden deposits with principally
horizontal flow within the intermediate water-bearing zone. In addition, and as
discussed in section 2.4, hydraulic conductivity values within the lower water
bearing zone are approximately two orders of magnitude lower than those
measured in the overlying intermediate water-bearing zone. Collectively, these data
indicate that a potential release from the landfill would preferentially migrate in the
horizontal direction within the upper and intermediate water-bearing zones.

4.6.2 Critical Stratigraphic Section
A “critical stratigraphic section” is defined by the NYSDEC as the geologic units into
which contaminants from the facility “might reasonably be expected to enter and
cause contamination”. On the basis of the data collected during this and previous
investigations, the critical stratigraphic section should be inclusive of the upper
water-bearing zone and the intermediate water-bearing zone. As discussed in the
previous section the lower water-bearing zone exhibits hydraulic conductivity
values approximately two orders of magnitude lower than the overlaying glacial
deposits. As a result, any potential release from the landfill would preferentially
migrate within the upper and intermediate water-bearing zones. Thus groundwater
monitoring within the upper and intermediate water-bearing zones would
adequately detect a potential release.

4-17

5 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the current and prior hydrogeologic
investigations of the site and the proposed development area:

The Town of Colonie Landfill lies within the Hudson-Mohawk Lowlands
physiographic province. Bedrock in the project area is mapped as shales and
graywackes of the Austin Glen Formation.

The surficial deposits at the site consist predominantly of glacial till and
glaciolacustrine silt and clays. The glacial till ranges from not present to
approximately 89 feet across the site, while the glaciolacustrine silt and clays
range from not present to approximately 60 feet. Alluvium deposits up to a
maximum of 22 feet thick are present over a limited areal extent at the
northeast corner of the property. A continuous water-bearing zone exists
within these deposits.

Groundwater is found throughout the geologic interval explored during this
investigation. However, the rate and volume of flow varies widely between
distinct water-bearing zones. The upper water-bearing zone is contained
principally within the glacial till and glaciolacustrine silts and clays, with
limited alluvium in the northeast corner of the site. This water-bearing zone
is underlain by the intermediate water-bearing zone which occurs at the
interface between the top of rock and the surficial glacial deposits.
Groundwater flow is generally to the east.

Hydraulic conductivity for the upper water-bearing zone is controlled by the
glaciolacustrine deposits and glacial till deposits. The glaciolacustrine
deposits have a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 1.43E-05 cm/sec,
while the glacial till deposits have a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity
of 2.70E-06 cm/sec. These two geologic units, along with the limited
alluvium in the northeast corner of the site, form the upper water-bearing
zone with an overall geometric mean hydraulic conductivity of 5.14E-06
cm/sec. The hydraulic conductivity at the glacial deposits/bedrock interface
(intermediate water-bearing zone) is 1.30E-05 cm/sec. The underlying
bedrock has a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity value of 1.77E-07
cm/sec.

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock (lower water-bearing
zone) is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the overlying
glacial deposits/bedrock interface (intermediate water-bearing zone), and

5-1

approximately one order of magnitude less than the glaciolacustrine silt and
clay (upper water-bearing zone). The vertical hydraulic conductivity of each
of these units is approximately one to two orders of magnitude less than the
respective horizontal hydraulic conductivity. As a consequence, groundwater
flow is principally vertical, with a small horizontal component in the
overburden, and principally horizontal at the overburden/top of rock
interface. Therefore, a potential release from the landfill would preferentially
migrate in the horizontal direction within the upper and intermediate waterbearing zones.

As presented within Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4, water quality samples
collected under the current investigation are generally consistent with results
that have been reported under the Area 5 and Area 6 monitoring plans.
Localized impacts to groundwater are observed and are likely associated
with the historical solid waste activities at the site.

The “critical stratigraphic section” is defined by the NYSDEC as the geologic
unit into which contaminants from the facility “might reasonably be expected
to enter and cause contamination”. Given the large differences in hydraulic
conductivity between the intermediate water-bearing zone and the lower
water-bearing zone, it is unlikely that contamination could enter the
underlying bedrock lower water-bearing zone within the proposed
development area. Because of this the critical stratigraphic section has been
defined to extend from the ground surface to the bottom of the intermediate
water-bearing zone.

5-2

6 SITE SUITABILITY
The suitability of the site for development of a sanitary landfill requires
consideration of many factors relating to engineering feasibility, hydrogeologic
considerations, and potential environmental impacts. Hydrogeologic conditions are
a particularly important consideration and are, thus, the focus of the following
discussion of site suitability.
The results of the hydrogeologic site investigation indicate that the proposed site is
suitable for development as a solid waste management facility. A key aspect in this
is the hydraulic conductivity values of the underlying geological units. Any
potential release from the proposed Area 7 development would migrate downward
vertically until reaching the intermediate water-bearing zone. Conductivity values
within the overburden materials (upper and intermediate water-bearing zones) were
within the range of one to two orders of magnitude higher than that of the
underlying bedrock. This creates preferential horizontal flow within the overburden,
particularly in the intermediate water-bearing zone, and would limit infiltration of a
potential release into the bedrock.
The water quality data collected from the wells installed as part of this investigation
indicate localized groundwater impacts likely associated with historical waste
disposal activities. The installation of an impermeable baseliner as part of the Area 7
development would serve to reduce infiltration. As a consequence, improvement in
water quality would be anticipated over the longer term.
In conclusion, the results of the current investigation continue to support the
previous findings. The hydrogeologic regime in the vicinity of the proposed landfill
development meets the requirements of Part 360 and is suitable for the development
of a Part 360 solid waste landfill facility.

6-1

LIMITATIONS
The work product included in the attached was undertaken in full conformity with
generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices and to the fullest
extent as allowed by law we expressly disclaim all warranties, express or implied,
including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The
work product was completed in full conformity with the contract with our client and
this document is solely for the use and reliance of our client (unless previously
agreed upon that a third party could rely on the work product) and any reliance on
this work product by an unapproved outside party is at such party's risk.
The work product herein (including opinions, conclusions, suggestions, etc.) was
prepared based on the situations and circumstances as found at the time, location,
scope and goal of our performance and thus should be relied upon and used by our
client recognizing these considerations and limitations. Cornerstone shall not be
liable for the consequences of any change in environmental standards, practices, or
regulations following the completion of our work and there is no warrant to the
veracity of information provided by third parties, or the partial utilization of this
work product.

L-1

REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice, 1976. A slug test method for determining hydraulic
conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating
wells, Water Resources Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 423-428.
Broughton, J.G.; Fisher, D.W.; Isachsen, Y.W.; Offield, T.W.; Richard, LV. (1961)
Geologic Map of New York, Hudson-Mohawk Sheet. Map and Chart Series No.
5, New York State Museum and Science Service.
Cadwell, Donald H.; and Dineen, Robert J. (1987) Surficial Geologic Map of New
York. Hudson-Mohawk Sheet. New York State Museum and Science Service
Map and Chart Series No. 40.
Clough, Harbour & Associates (1994) Site Investigation Report, Town of Colonie
Landfill Expansion, Colonie, New York. Albany, New York.
DeSimone, David J.; LaFleur, Robert G. (1988) Glaciolacustrine Phases in the
Northern Hudson Lowland and Correlatives in Western Vermont. Northeastern
Geology, Volume 8, Number 4, pp. 218-229.
Empire Soil Investigations, Inc. (1989) Geologic Evaluations, Town of Colonie
Landfill, Colonie, New York. Ballston Spa, New York.
Hvorslev, M.J., 1951. Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground-Water
Observations, Bull. No. 36, Waterways Exper. Sta. Corps of Engrs, U.S. Army,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, pp. 1-50.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (1993) Area 5 Landfill Expansion Hydrogeologic Assessment
Report, Colonie, NY. Albany, NY.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (2001) Area 6 Lateral Landfill Expansion Supplemental Site
Investigation Report, Town of Colonie Landfill, Colonie, NY. Latham, New
York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Primary and Principal
Aquifer Determinations. Pagano, Salvatore. October 1990.
VanDiver, Bradford B. (1985) Roadside geology of New York. Mountain Press
Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. pp 411.

R-1

TABLES

Table 3‐1
Monitoring Well Survey Data
699155.865

Ground Surface
Elevation (b)
269.8

Reference
Elevation (c)
-

1448156.335

699141.715

265.2

-

CHA-1S (d)

1448146.639

699130.394

270.3

-

CHA-2B

1447957.686

698099.5819

330.1

333.02

CHA-2I

1447966.386

698095.2291

330.1

332.37

CHA-3B

1447957.658

699561.3475

240.3

242.05

CHA-3I

1447964.876

699579.0334

239.8

241.61

CHA-3S

1447964.876

699579.0334

239.7

241.92

CHA-5B

1447698.619

699987.9252

193.7

196.32

CHA-6B

1447352.699

698475.8226

293.1

296.14

CHA-6I

1447361.114

698475.8226

293.2

295.11

CHA-7B

1447286.753

699074.28

262.5

265.46

CHA-7I

1447284.386

699079.49

262.7

264.9

CHA-7S

1447289.129

699069.542

261.9

264.94

CHA-8B

1447249.607

699682.7995

262.8

264.68

CHA-8I

1447242.607

699689.5126

263.0

265.69

CHA-8S

1447234.733

699696.2258

263.3

265.18

CTM-2

1448697.227

699955.4018

205.2

207.2

CW-1

1450340.66

698311.65

232.19

234.62

CW-5

1450703.64

699655.53

194.15

196.85

MPI-1D

1448920.958

700095.661

192.6

194.83

MPI-1S

1448918.756

700100.069

192.5

194.66

MPI-2

1448604.238

700028.415

192.2

194.35

MPI-4D

1448527.83

698143.803

327.0

329.84

MPI-4S

1448541.992

698135.772

327.9

330.16

MW-10 (d)

1448535.403

698777.209

298.0

-

MW-2013-1D

1449330.70

698073.00

303.63

306.03

MW-2013-1S

1449324.95

698070.23

303.35

305.80

MW-2013-2D

1450688.27

699605.1

198.64

201.24

MW-2013-2S

1450694.6

699599.98

198.28

201.21

MW-2013-3

1449891.44

700044.51

194.84

197.34

MW-2013-4D

1451019.72

699308.49

198.33

201.14

MW-2013-4S

1451013.99

699310.77

198.20

200.86

MW-3

1449730.488

700084.3984

191.9

196.41

MW-8
MW-9

1448672.02
1448373.195

699869.33
699717.903

222.6
228.3

224.5
230.1

Well Name

Northing (a)

Easting (a)

CHA-1B (d)

1448159.163

CHA-1I (d)

(a) based on New York State Plane Coordinate System
(b) Elevation relative to National Geodetic Vertcal Datum of 1929
(c) Measured from top of inner PVC casing
(d) Used only for geologic interpretations

Table 3‐2
November 2013 Water Level Measurements

Well Name
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2I
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3I
CHA‐3S
CHA‐5B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6I
CHA‐7B
CHA‐7I
CHA‐7S
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8I
CHA‐8S
CTM‐1
CTM‐2
CW‐1
CW‐5
MPI‐1D
MPI‐1S
MPI‐2
MPI‐4D
MPI‐4S
MW‐2013‐1D
MW‐2013‐1S
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐3
MW‐9
PZ‐3

Water-Bearing Zone

Date/ Time

Depth to Water (a)

Depth to Bottom (a) 

Ground Water Elevation (b)

Lower
Upper
Lower
Intermediate
Upper
Lower
Lower
Intermediate
Lower
Intermediate
Upper
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Lower
Intermediate

11/8/13 7:55
11/8/13 7:46
11/8/13 10:00
11/8/13 10:10
11/8/13 10:05
11/8/13 7:25
11/8/13 7:50
11/8/13 8:07
11/8/13 8:18
11/8/13 8:23
11/8/13 8:15
11/8/13 9:25
11/8/13 9:23
11/8/13 9:20
11/8/13 10:37
11/8/13 11:11
11/8/13 7:55
11/8/13 10:30
11/8/13 10:40
11/8/13 10:53
11/8/13 10:25
11/8/13 8:10
11/8/13 7:37
11/8/13 7:18
11/8/13 7:30
11/8/13 7:30
11/8/13 7:35
11/8/13 11:14
11/8/13 10:47
11/8/13 10:20
11/8/13 9:44

50.25
21.61
37.55
34
19.6
5.44
11.43
7.63
20.23
23.71
16.15
43.25
28.15
6.4
Dry
16
10.48
11.49
4.61
5.77
10.16
36.8
6.72
26.34
22.16
16.09
17.46
9.81
8.68
7.64
10.18

83.83
64.18
67.71
40.07
21.03
19.4
52.72
40.61
40.97
56.26
19.89
62.65
48.28
11.4
17.31
26.31
17.75
82.35
21.38
8.94
12.77
75.31
19.15
66.67
22.18
56.6
36.15
12.6
15.59
7.91
20.35

282.77
310.76
204.5
207.61
222.32
190.88
284.71
287.48
245.23
241.19
248.79
221.43
237.54
258.78

-

(a) measured from top of inner PVC casing
(b) calculated from reference elevations from Table 3‐1


191.2
224.14
185.36
190.22
188.89
184.19
293.04
323.44
279.69
283.64
185.15
183.75
187.53
187.73
222.46

Table 3‐3
May 2014 Water Level Measurements

Well Name
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2I
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3I
CHA‐3S
CHA‐5B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6I
CHA‐7B
CHA‐7I
CHA‐7S
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8I
CHA‐8S
CTM‐1
CTM‐2
CW‐1
CW‐5
MPI‐1D
MPI‐1S
MPI‐2
MPI‐4D
MPI‐4S
MW‐2013‐1D
MW‐2013‐1S
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐4D
MW‐2013‐4S
MW‐3
MW‐9
PZ‐3

Water-Bearing Zone

Date/ Time

Depth to Water (a)

Depth to Bottom (a) 

Ground Water Elevation (b)

Lower
Upper
Lower
Intermediate
Upper
Lower
Lower
Intermediate
Lower
Intermediate
Upper
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Upper
Intermediate
Intermediate
Upper
Lower
Intermediate

5/28/14 7:59
5/28/14 7:58
5/28/14 8:52
5/28/14 8:53
5/28/14 8:54
5/28/14 8:41
5/28/14 8:10
5/28/14 8:15
5/28/14 8:25
5/28/14 8:23
5/28/14 8:22
5/28/14 8:27
5/28/14 8:28
5/28/14 8:29
5/28/14 9:10
5/28/14 9:05
5/28/14 10:00
5/28/14 9:23
5/28/14 9:00
5/28/14 9:02
5/28/14 8:58
5/28/14 7:43
5/28/14 7:40
5/28/14 7:27
5/28/14 7:25
5/28/14 9:35
5/28/14 9:38
5/28/14 9:30
5/28/14 9:50
5/28/14 9:48
5/28/14 9:20
5/28/14 10:30
5/28/14 8:00

50.95
21.43
35.92
32.56
17.26
5.56
11.82
7.69
18.04
22.6
13.5
42.57
27.92
3.77
Dry
13.84
8.82
10.21
3.64
4.52
8.95
41.91
4.94
24.84
4.61
16.01
16.99
7.95
15.25
15.89
7.42
6.93
9.73

83.83
64.18
67.71
40.07
21.03
19.4
52.72
40.61
40.97
56.26
19.89
62.65
48.28
11.4
17.31
26.31
17.75
82.35
21.38
8.94
12.77
75.31
19.15
66.67
22.18
56.6
36.15
12.6
60.0
34.0
15.59
7.91
20.35

282.07
310.94
206.13
209.05
224.66
190.76
284.32
287.42
247.42
242.3
251.44
212.11
237.77
261.41

-

(a) measured from top of inner PVC casing
(b) calculated from reference elevations from Table 3‐1


193.36
225.8
186.64
191.19
190.14
185.4
287.93
325.22
281.19
301.19
185.23
184.22
189.39
185.89
184.97
188.99
223.17

Table 4‐1
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUES ‐ GLACIOLACUSTINE SILTS AND CLAYS

Well Name
CHA‐1S
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3I
CHA‐3S
CHA‐7B
CHA‐7B
CHA‐7I
CHA‐7S
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8I
CHA‐8S
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐2S

Test Type
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
RH
FH

High
Low
Geometric Mean

Range

Hydraulic Conductivity
(ft/day)
(cm/sec)
8.00E‐05
2.27E‐01
7.00E‐05
1.98E‐01
2.00E‐06
5.67E‐03
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
6.00E‐06
1.70E‐02
1.00E‐04
2.83E‐01
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐06
2.83E‐03
8.00E‐07
2.27E‐03
1.00E‐04
2.83E‐01
9.00E‐06
2.55E‐02
7.00E‐06
1.98E‐02
9.00E‐05
2.55E‐01
2.00E‐06
5.67E‐03
8.00E‐05
2.27E‐01
4.11E‐03 1.17E+01
5.67E‐03 1.61E+01
5.67E‐03
1.00E‐08
1.80E‐05

1.61E+01
2.83E‐05
5.11E‐02

FH= Falling Head Test
RH = Rising Head Test 
Note:  Multiple entries for wells CHA‐7B and CHA‐8B represent tests at
              different depth intervals within the silt and clay deposits.

Table 4‐2
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUES ‐ GLACIAL TILL

Well Name
CHA‐1B
CHA‐1B
CHA‐1B
CHA‐1I
CHA‐1I
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2I
CHA‐2I
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3I
CHA‐3I
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6I
CHA‐6I
CHA‐6I
CHA‐7B
CHA‐7I
CHA‐8I
CHA‐8I

Test Type
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
RH
FH
FH
RH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
RH
FH
FH
FH
FH
RH

High
Low
Geometric Mean

Range

FH= Falling Head Test
RH = Rising Head Test 

Hydraulic Conductivity
(ft/day)
(cm/sec)
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
1.00E‐04
2.83E‐01
7.00E‐06
1.98E‐02
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
5.00E‐05
1.42E‐01
8.00E‐07
2.27E‐03
3.00E‐07
8.50E‐04
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
3.00E‐08
8.50E‐05
1.00E‐05
2.83E‐02
3.00E‐06
8.50E‐03
6.00E‐06
1.70E‐02
8.00E‐05
2.27E‐01
2.00E‐06
5.67E‐03
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
6.00E‐05
1.70E‐01
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
2.00E‐06
5.67E‐03
8.00E‐06
2.27E‐02
5.00E‐07
1.42E‐03
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
1.00E‐04
2.83E‐01
2.00E‐06
5.67E‐03
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
1.00E‐04
1.00E‐08
2.70E‐06

2.83E‐01
2.83E‐05
7.66E‐03

Table 4‐3
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUES ‐ BEDROCK INTERFACE (INTERMEDIATE WATER BEARING ZONE )

Well Name
CHA‐1B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐7B
CHA‐7I
CHA‐8B
MW‐2013‐1D
MW‐2013‐1D
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐3

Test Type
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
RH
FH
RH
FH
RH
FH
RH
FH

High
Low
Geometric Mean

Range

FH= Falling Head Test
RH = Rising Head Test 

Hydraulic Conductivity
(ft/day)
(cm/sec)
3.00E‐05
8.50E‐02
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
4.00E‐06
1.13E‐02
7.00E‐05
1.98E‐01
4.00E‐05
1.13E‐01
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
4.00E‐06
1.13E‐02
9.36E‐05
2.65E‐01
7.57E‐05
2.14E‐01
1.87E‐05
5.31E‐02
7.46E‐05
2.12E‐01
1.47E‐04
4.15E‐01
1.15E‐04
3.25E‐01
1.47E‐04
1.00E‐08
1.91E‐05

4.15E‐01
2.83E‐05
5.41E‐02

Table 4‐4
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUES ‐ BEDROCK (LOWER WATER BEARING ZONE)

Well Name
CHA‐1B
CHA‐1B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐2B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐3B
CHA‐5B
CHA‐5B
CHA‐5B
CHA‐5B
CHA‐5B
CHA‐5B
CHA‐5B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐6B
CHA‐7B
CHA‐7B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B
CHA‐8B

Test Type
PT
RH
PT
RH
PT
PT
RH
PT
PT
RH
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
RH
PT
PT
PT
PT
RH
RH
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT

High
Low
Geometric Mean

Range

FH= Falling Head Test
RH = Rising Head Test 
PT= Packer Test

Hydraulic Conductivity
(ft/day)
(cm/sec)
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐05
2.83E‐02
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
3.00E‐06
8.50E‐03
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
6.00E‐05
1.70E‐01
3.00E‐05
8.50E‐02
8.00E‐06
2.27E‐02
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
2.00E‐06
5.67E‐03
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
1.00E‐04
2.83E‐01
4.00E‐05
1.13E‐01
2.00E‐05
5.67E‐02
6.0000E‐08
1.70E‐04
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐08
2.83E‐05
1.00E‐04
1.00E‐08
1.77E‐07

2.83E‐01
2.83E‐05
5.03E‐04

Table 4‐5
Metals Concentrations ‐ Up‐Gradient Upper Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS
Historical Data
High
Range
Low
Geometric Mean*
Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1S
Jun‐14

Aluminum
mg/L
0.1

Antimony
mg/L
.003

Arsenic
mg/L
.05

Barium
mg/L
1

Beryllium
mg/L
-

Boron
mg/L
1

Cadmium

Calcium

mg/L
0.005

mg/L
-

Chromium
mg/L
0.05

34.7
0.021
0.6

0.0666
0.003
0.01

0.015
0.0027
0.005

0.316
0.0159
0.068

0.005
0.0003
0.001

0.1
0.1
0.031

0.005
0.0002
0.00120

142
41.3
57.71

0.0427
0.00066
0.0028

130

0.0042

1.4

0.020

Cr(VI)
mg/L
0.05

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS
Historical Data

High
Range

Low

Geometric Mean*
Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1S
Jun‐14
0.010

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS
Historical Data
High
0.0002
Range
Low 0.00005
Geometric Mean*
0.00011
Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1S
Jun‐14
0.0002 U

0.010

U

0.027

0.002

U

0.095

B

0.001

U

Cyanide
mg/L
0.2

Cobalt
mg/L
0.005

Copper
mg/L
0.2

Iron

Lead

mg/L
0.3

mg/L

0.05

mg/L
35

mg/L
0.3

Nickel
mg/L
0.1



0.0159
0.00062
0.0024

0.05
0.0012
0.0066

65
0.01
0.93

0.0966
0.001
0.0035

67.7
10.2
22.36

1.79
0.0015
0.10

0.047
0.001
0.0043

85.1

0.76

0.011

Zinc
mg/L
-

0.399
0.0027
0.02

U 0.010

Mercury
mg/L
0.0007

U

U

0.0088

0.0088

2.8

J

0.005

Magnesium Manganese

U

Potassium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Thallium

mg/L
-

mg/L

mg/L

0.05

mg/L
20

mg/L

0.01

Vanadium
mg/L
0.014

13.5
0.261
2.49

0.038
0.0027
0.0052

0.017
0.00093
0.0022

34
4.19
10.48

0.0161
0.0026
0.00718

0.05
0.001
0.0032

20.2

0.0150

U

0.0030

U

28.2

0.020

U

0.0016

J

0.015

* Geometric means calculated using one-half of MDL of any non-detect value
- Compound not detected in historical data.

Note:  A sample from MW‐2013‐1S installed as part of the Area 7 investigation was unable to be obtained during the December 2013 event due to insufficient water.

Table 4‐6
General Chemistry Concentrations ‐ Up‐Gradient Upper Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS
Historical Data
High
Range
Low
Geometric Mean*
Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1S
Jun‐14

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS
Historical Data
High
Range
Low
Geometric Mean*
Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1S
Jun‐14

Bromide
mg/L

Chloride
mg/L
250

Sulfate
mg/L
250

Ammonia
mg/L
2

Nitrogen
mg/L

Nitrate
mg/L
10

COD
mg/L

Phenolics
mg/L
0.001

Alkalinity
mg/L

2.1
0.0076
0.13

15
1.6
4.8

1690
10
30

0.51
0.025
0.060

4.67
0.066
0.42

2.8
0.02
0.15

750
1.8
11.4

0.05
0.001
0.004

590
105
240

3.9

450

0.25

0.52

Hardness
mg/L

TDS
mg/L
200

BOD
mg/L

TOC
mg/L

Cyanide
mg/l
0.2

591
68
241

696
89
291

13.7
0.24
2.23

50.44
0.0309
2.2

10
0.0015
0.024

630

450

0.2 U

2U

5.5

0.01 U

0.05 U

30.8

0.01 U

321

`

* Geometric means were calculated using one-half of any non-detect value

Note: A sample from MW‐2013‐1S installed as part of the Area 7 investigation was not obtained during the December 2013 event due to insufficient 
water.

Table 4‐7
Metals Concentrations ‐ Up‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Cadmium

Calcium

-

Boron
mg/L
1

mg/L
0.005

mg/L
-

Chromium
mg/L
0.05

Cr(VI)
mg/L
0.05

0.981
0.0159
0.061

0.005
0.0003
0.001

0.284
0.1
0.13

0.005
0.0002
0.00130

342
41.3
64

0.0685
0.00066
0.0036



0.065
0.065

0.002 U
0.00066 J

0.17
0.18 B

Aluminum
mg/L
0.1

Antimony
mg/L
0.003

Arsenic
mg/L
.05

Barium
mg/L
1

Beryllium

60.8
0.045
0.51

0.12
0.003
0.011

0.0244
0.0027
0.0056

0.018
0.011

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1D
MW‐2013‐1D

Dec‐13
Jun‐14

1.9
0.34

0.002 U
0.002 U

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
* Geometric means calculated using one-half of any non-detect value
- Compound not detected in historical data.

0.001 U
0.001 U

38
24.4

0.013
0.0031 J

0.01 U
0.01 U

Table 4‐7
Metals Concentrations ‐ Up‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Cyanide
mg/L
0.2

Cobalt
mg/L
0.005

Copper
mg/L
0.2

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese
mg/L
0.3

mg/L
-

mg/L

0.05

mg/L
35

Mercury
mg/L
0.0007

Selenium

mg/L

Nickel
mg/L
0.1

Potassium

mg/L
0.3



0.047
0.00062
0.0039

0.103
0.0012
0.006

133
0.01
0.58

0.232
0.001
0.004

721
10.2
10.65

2.23
0.0015
0.08

0.116
0.001
0.0061

0.0003
0.00005
0.00011

34.4
0.261
2.68

0.038
0.0027
0.006

0.01

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1D
MW‐2013‐1D

Dec‐13
Jun‐14

0.01 U 0.0015 J 0.0089 J
0.01 U 0.004 U
0.26

2.5 B
0.47

0.005 U
0.005 U

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
* Geometric means calculated using one-half of any non-detect value
- Compound not detected in historical data.

14.3
1.3

0.13
0.011

0.0047 J
0.0013 J

0.0002 U
0.0002 U

67.3
25.2

0.015 U
0.015 U

Table 4‐7
Metals Concentrations ‐ Up‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Silver

Sodium

Thallium

mg/L

mg/L

0.05

mg/L
20

0.0064
0.00093
0.0019

89.9
40.5
52.31

Vanadium
mg/L
0.014

Zinc
mg/L
-

0.174
0.001
0.0038

0.415
0.0027
0.023

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1D
MW‐2013‐1D

Dec‐13
Jun‐14

0.003 U
0.003 U

131
120

0.0161
0.0026
0.0069

0.02 U
0.02 U

0.0065
0.0023 J

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
* Geometric means calculated using one-half of any non-detect value
- Compound not detected in historical data.

0.024
0.13

Table 4‐8
General Chemistry Concentrations ‐ Up‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR part 703 GWQS
Historical Data
High
Range
Low
Geometric Mean*
Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1D
Dec‐13
MW‐2013‐1D
Jun‐14

6 NYCRR part 703 GWQS
Historical Data
High
Range
Low
Geometric Mean*
Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐1D
Dec‐13
MW‐2013‐1D
Jun‐14

Bromide
mg/L

Chloride
mg/L
250

Sulfate
mg/L
250

Ammonia
mg/L
2

Nitrogen
mg/L

Nitrate
mg/L
10

COD
mg/L

Phenolics
mg/L
0.001

Alkalinity
mg/L

4.1
0.0076
0.15

80.2
0.21
3.65

1111
170
180

0.94
0.021
0.120

6.6
0.072
0.61

1.1
0.008
0.150

750
2.8
13.9

0.091
0.001
0.0050

972
85.3
137

0.21
0.14 J

24.2 B
19.4

221
183

Hardness
mg/L

TDS
mg/L
200

BOD
mg/L

TOC
mg/L

Cyanide
mg/L
0.2

Sulfide
mg/L

854
110
232

1170
185
449

25
0.87
2.91

40
0.55
2.12

10
0.0018
0.025



576
460

9.9
2.7

164
72

0.48
0.64

187
1.8

14.1
7.9

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
* Geometic means caluclted using one-half of any non-detect value

0.01 U
0.01 U

0.05 U
0.024 J

0.1 U

7.6 J
27.9

0.0067 J
0.01 U

196
154

Table 4‐9
Organics Detections
6 NYCRR Part 703
Units
GWQS

MW‐2013‐1D
Dec‐13

VOCs
1,2‐Dichloroethane
2‐Butanone
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Methylene Chloride
Toluene

0.6


1
60
7

5
50

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L



5.5
0.59
1.6
2.6


3.9

SVOCs
Bis(2‐Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di‐n‐butyl Phthalate
Phenanthrene
Phenol
3‐Methylphenol
4‐Methylphenol

50

50



ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

8.1

0.39

2.8

ND
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.004
0.04
0.05

5
35
0.04
0.09*

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L


0.015
0.014
0.012


0.013
0.012



0.0064

MW‐2013‐1D
Jun‐14

J
J

J
J


3.8
17


0.49


MW‐2013‐2S
Dec‐13

MW‐2013‐1S
Jun‐14

J

J




1.6
0.33



J

MW‐2013‐2S
Jun‐14











39





NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2.4
0.73
0.35


0.70
0.70

J
J
J

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

0.13











J

J
J

MW‐2013‐2D MW‐2013‐2D
Dec‐13
Jun‐14

J




0.49
0.95



1.2

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


0.54
0.37



NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA








0.0093




J
J

J
J




0.54




J

MW‐2013‐3
Dec‐13




0.49



NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA







NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA





0.094







J

Pesticides / PCBs
Aldrin
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chlordane
Dieldrin
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Heptachlor epoxide
PCB-1254

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
- Compound not detected.
NA: Compound not analyzed.
ND: Not detectable.
* Applies to the sum of PCBs.

JB
JB
J

J
J

J

J

JB

Table 4‐9
Organics Detections
6 NYCRR Part 703
MW‐2013‐3 MW‐2013‐4S MW‐2013‐4D
Units
GWQS
Jun‐14
Jun‐14
Jun‐14
VOCs
1,2‐Dichloroethane
2‐Butanone
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Methylene Chloride
Toluene

0.6


1
60
7

5
50

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L



3.2





SVOCs
Bis(2‐Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di‐n‐butyl Phthalate
Phenanthrene
Phenol
3‐Methylphenol
4‐Methylphenol

50

50



ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

4.8
0.69
0.49
0.43


ND
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.004
0.04
0.05

5
35
0.04
0.09*

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

0.052
0.055
0.11
0.17

0.058


0.11

0.093

0.42

J




0.59



1.5

J

J
J
J

0.35

8.4

0.83

0.36


0.36
0.36
0.53


J
J
J
J

J
J
J

CHA‐6I
Apr‐01

CHA‐8I
Apr‐01





















1





5

























Pesticides / PCBs
Aldrin
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chlordane
Dieldrin
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Methoxychlor
Heptachlor epoxide
PCB-1254

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
- Compound not detected.
NA: Compound not analyzed.
ND: Not detectable.
* Applies to the sum of PCBs.

J
J
J
J
J

J
J
J


0.081

0.086





0.32
0.17

J
J

J

Table 4‐10
Metals Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Upper Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.1
0.003
0.05

Barium
mg/L
1

Beryllim
mg/L

Boron
mg/L
1

Cadmium
mg/L
0.005

0.553
0.0341
0.1038

0.01
0.0001
0.0010

4.71
0.0152
0.1163

0.0126
0.0002
0.0014

0.00036 J
0.002 U
0.002

7
4.3
4.5

0.00053 J
0.001 U
0.0015

Calcium Chromium
mg/L
mg/L
0.05

Cr(VI)
mg/L
0.05

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐4S

Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Jun‐14

20.4
0.047
1.012

1.3
1.3
37.4

0.0561
0.0021
0.0103

0.0447
0.0027
0.0066

0.002 U 0.029
0.02 U 0.015
0.02 U 0.043

0.51
0.13
0.57

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
N : Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits.
*Geometric means calcualted using one‐half of any non‐detect value 
 ‐ Compound not detected in historical data

349
50.5
158

0.0201
0.00064
0.00361

177
45.6 B
165 B

0.0083
0.011
0.054



0.010 U
0.010 U
0.010 U

Table 4‐10
Metals Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Upper Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Cyanide
mg/L
0.2

Cobalt
mg/L
0.005

Copper
mg/L
0.2

Iron
mg/L
0.3

Lead
mg/L
0.05

Magnesium
mg/L
35

Manganese
mg/L
0.3

Mercury
mg/L
0.0007

Nickel Potassium
mg/L
mg/L
0.1



0.0375
0.00068
0.0043

0.0612
0.0018
0.0098

163
0.0072
2.8

0.0505
0.001
0.0044

222
18.7
67

8.31
0.0052
0.17

0.0002
0.00004
0.00012

2.04
0.001
0.0103

0.097
0.032
0.17 B

19.3 B
4.5
75.3

0.004 J
0.004 J
0.17

Selenium
mg/L
0.01

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐4S

Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Jun‐14

0.0059 J 0.029
0.01 U 0.018
0.0051 J 0.05

140
62.9
119

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
N : Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits.
*Geometric means calcualted using one‐half of any non‐detect value 
 ‐ Compound not detected in historical data

12.5
1.2
11.3

0.0002 U 0.16
0.0002 U 0.13
0.00015 J 0.19

91.7
0.0088
3.41

129
157
105

0.076
0.0015
0.01

0.015 U
0.015 U
0.015 U

Table 4‐10
Metals Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Upper Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Silver
mg/L
0.05

Thallium
mg/L

Sodium
mg/L
20

Vanadium
mg/L
0.014

Zinc
mg/L

0.065
0.0026
0.0090

268
7.63
45.7

0.082
0.0003
0.0036

0.491
0.0048
0.0311

Historical Data
High 0.0236
Low 0.00033
Geometric mean*
0.00215
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐4S

Dec‐13 0.003 U 0.002 U
Jun‐14 0.003 U 0.02 U
Jun‐14 0.003 U 0.02 U

699
0.0088
515
0.0046 J
548 N 0.072

0.3 B
0.024
0.20 N

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
N : Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits.
*Geometric means calcualted using one‐half of any non‐detect value 
 ‐ Compound not detected in historical data

Table 4‐11
General Chemistry Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Upper Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐4S

Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Jun‐14

Bromide
mg/L

Chloride
mg/L
250

Sulfate
mg/L
250

Ammonia
mg/L
2

Nitrogen
mg/L

Nitrate
mg/L
10

COD
mg/L

Phenolics
mg/L
0.001

4.9
0.0076
0.47

521
4.6
53.3

1200
0.928
221

63.3
0.018
0.096

68.1
0.054
0.903

6.21
0.02
0.21

750
2.64
14.64

0.112
0.001
0.013

22.6
0.20 U
0.20 U

842
658
909

5.0 U
5.0 U
5.0 U

212
159
180

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
*Geometric means caluclated using one-half of any non-detect value

203
175
196

0.050 U
0.050 U
0.050 U

561
351
336

0.026
0.042
0.056 J

Table 4‐11
General Chemistry Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Upper Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐2S
MW‐2013‐4S

Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Jun‐14

Alkalinity
mg/L

Hardness
mg/L

TDS
mg/L
200

BOD
mg/L

TOC
mg/L

Sulfide
mg/L

1090
140
431

2180
203
712

2000
190
532

94
0.24
2.55

360
0.24
3.23



2260
1840
1810

900
390
980

2750
2510
2940

14.4
15
11.9

142
139
154

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
*Geometric means caluclated using one-half of any non-detect value

0.10 U

0.10 U

Table 4‐12
Metals Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703

Aluminum
mg/L
0.1

Antimony
mg/L
0.003

Arsenic
mg/L
0.05

Barium
mg/L
1

Beryllim
mg/L

Boron
mg/L
1

Cadmium
mg/L
0.005

Calcium
mg/L

Chromium
mg/L
0.05

Cr(VI)
mg/L
0.05

2.92
0.0428
0.54

0.456
0.003
0.01

0.0495
0.0027
0.0085

1.95
0.0389
0.093

0.0471
0.0003
0.0012

0.921
0.0468
0.13

0.0155
0.0002
0.0013

330
63.7
97

0.183
0.0005
0.0035

0.183
0.0005

1
0.74
5.9
4.3
27.8

0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.026

8.2
5.7
0.19
0.15
0.34

1.4
1.4
0.89
0.83
0.21

0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
Well Name
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐4D

Date
Dec‐2013 
Jun‐2014
Dec‐2013 
Jun‐2014
Jun‐2014

U
U
U
U
U

U
U
U
U

0.00089
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.0015

J
U
U
U
J

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
N : Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits.
*Geometic means calculated using one‐half of any non‐detect value
‐  Compound not detected in historical data

U
U
U
U
U

164.00
145.00
155.00
143.00
35.30

B
B
B
B

0.0018 J
0.0035 J
0.0097
0.0063
0.039

0.011
0.01
0.01
0.010
0.010

U
UH
U
U

Table 4‐12
Metals Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703

Cyanide
mg/L
0.2

Cobalt
mg/L
0.005

Copper
mg/L
0.2

Iron
mg/L
0.3

Lead
mg/L
0.05

Magnesium
mg/L
35

Manganese
mg/L
0.3

Mercury
mg/L
0.0007

Nickel
mg/L
0.1

Potassium
mg/L

Selenium
mg/L
0.01



0.457
0.001
0.0039

0.243
0.0015
0.008

35.3
0.0484
2.03

0.026
0.0006
0.0039

92.6
7.4
28.4

6.92
0.0468
0.42

0.0002
0.00004
0.00012

0.457
0.001
0.009

23.1
0.261
3.07

0.038
0.0027
0.0069

0.45
0.36
4.30
3.60
0.68

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0020

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
Well Name
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐4D

Date
Dec‐2013 
Jun‐2014
Dec‐2013 
Jun‐2014
Jun‐2014

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0083
0.010

U 0.004 U
0.35
U 0.0006 J
0.025
U 0.0071
0.018
J 0.0042
0.0067 J
U 0.014
0.042 B

6.2
4.9
8.4 B
4.9
34.2

0.0082
0.0050 U
0.0056
0.0040 J
0.020

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
N : Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits.
*Geometic means calculated using one‐half of any non‐detect value
‐  Compound not detected in historical data

63.00
64.50
53.00
44.50
16.70

U
U
U
U
U

0.052
0.048
0.021
0.014
0.038

29.40
37.50
30.30
19.90
27.3

0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015

U
U
U
U
U

Table 4‐12
Metals Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703

Silver
mg/L
0.05

Sodium
mg/L
20

Thallium
mg/L

Vanadium
mg/L
0.014

Zinc
mg/L

0.0497
0.00073
0.002

132
19
44

0.0315
0.003
0.0088

0.463
0.001
0.003

0.479
0.003
0.028

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
Well Name
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐4D

Date
Dec‐2013 
Jun‐2014
Dec‐2013 
Jun‐2014
Jun‐2014

0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030

U
U
U
U
U

431
391
81.8
72.3
91.6 N

0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020

U
U
U
U
U

0.0029 J
0.0019 J
0.0095
0.0077
0.053

0.3
0.018
0.025 B
0.011
0.090 N

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
N : Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits.
*Geometic means calculated using one‐half of any non‐detect value
‐  Compound not detected in historical data

Table 4‐13
General Chemistry Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Bromide
mg/L

Chloride
mg/L
250

Sulfate
mg/L
250

Ammonia
mg/L
2

Nitrogen
mg/L

Nitrate
mg/L
10

COD
mg/L

Phenolics
mg/L
0.001

2
0.021
0.21

173
8.5
22

480
27.8
116

1.2
0.02
0.11

4.48
0.056
0.45

8.8
0.02
0.09

39.8
1.96
10.7

0.05
0.001
0.005

Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐4D

Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Jun‐14

13.6
0.2 U

563
544

0.24
0.2 U
0.73

116
111
25.3

5U
5U

191
101
81.1

3.3
3.5

4.4
5.3

0.32
0.38
1.9

1.5
5.4
3.8

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
* Geometric means calculated using one-half of any non-detect value
- Compound not detected in historical data.

0.52
55.2
0.05 U 42.2
0.058 H 35.8
0.051
35.7
0.050 U 6.7 J

0.01
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010

U
U
U
U

Table 4‐13
General Chemistry Concentrations ‐ Down‐Gradient Intermediate Water‐Bearing Zone

6 NYCRR Part 703 GWQS

Alkalinity
mg/L

Hardness
mg/L

TDS
mg/L
200

BOD
mg/L

TOC
mg/L

Sulfide
mg/L

604
95
291

1200
190
378

1280
170
521

11
0.24
1.75

40.7
27.8
2.0



Historical Data
High
Low
Geometric Mean*
Range

Area 7 Data
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐2D
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐3
MW‐2013‐4D

Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Dec‐13
Jun‐14
Jun‐14

951
809
468
446
188

760
680
1380
540
130

1800
1570
864
795
623

12.4
5.2
2.9
4.1
2.0 U

15.5
12
11
11.9
5.5

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
H : Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time
J : Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL
U : Indicates analyzed for but not detected.
* Geometric means calculated using one-half of any non-detect value
- Compound not detected in historical data.

0.10
5
0.10
101
0.10

U
U
U
U

FIGURES

SITE
LOCATION

1-1
SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN

SITE LOCATION PLAN

RELOCATE EXISTING SUPPORT STRUCTURES
SCALES / RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF
PERIMETER
BERM

PROPOSED STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT AREA / POLISHING AREA

ESTIMATED CAP
CREDIT AREA
PROPOSED
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
AREAS

LECHATE STORAGE FACILITY
TWO TANKS 64' DIAMETER X 48' HEIGHT
WITH CONTAINMENT BERM

PROPOSED
ESTIMATED
TOTAL CAP LIMITS

NOTE: SMALLER PERIMETER BERMS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

ESTIMATED AIR SPACE = 10,363,987 CU.YD.
ESTIMATED TOTAL CAP AREA = 3,456,702 SQ. FT.
ESTIMATED CAP CREDIT AREA = 822,764 SQ. FT.

2-1

A

A'

B-2013-13
MW-2013-3
82-14
MW-9
TP-8
A

A'

3-1
SITE MAP: BORING, MONITORING WELL,
TEST PIT AND CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS

A

300

A'

Elevation (feet)

260

220

180

140

100

4-1
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'

B

B'

320

Elevation (feet)

290

260

230

200

170

4-2
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B'

4-3
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C'

D

D'

370
340

Elevation (feet)

310
280
250
220
190
160
130

4-4
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D-D'

5
24

5

15

155

133.85

4-5

170
TOP OF ROCK CONTOUR MAP

0

0

22

300

23

24
0

250

(283.22)

270
260

280

290

300

310

(224.14)

(323.44)

21
0

320
0
32

310

(310.76)

290

280

0

20

270

0

0
26

19

(248.79)

(183.75)

(222.32)
(258.78)

(185.36)

0
20

(188.89)

0

0

21

19

0
22

24
0
23
0

25

0

(184.19)

B-2013-13
MW-2013-3
82-14
MW-9
TP-8
A

A'

4-6

200
(206.61)

UPPER WATER-BEARING ZONE

290

0

28

0
0

22

23

0

25

0

26

0

24

(293.04)

27

0

(279.31)

290

0

21

(287.48)

0

20

280

0

270
260
0
25

19

(241.19)

0

24

(207.61)
(222.46)

(237.54)

(185.15)

(191.2)
0

20

0
23 20
2 10
2

(190.22)

(187.11)

190

B-2013-13
MW-2013-3
82-14
MW-9
TP-8
A

A'

4-7

200
(206.61)

INTERMEDIATE WATER BEARING ZONE

2
23 40
0

28
0
27
0
26
25 0
0

29
0

30
0

31
0

32
0

(225.8)

A

0

32
0

(325.22)

20

(310.94)

21
0

22

0

(300.77)

30

0

31

0

190

2 29
27 80 0
0

(251.44)
(184.97)

(184.64)
(261.41)
(224.66)

A'

(190.14)

19
0

20

21

0

0

(185.4)
22
0

26
25 0
24 0
23 0
0

(186.64)

B-2013-13
MW-2013-3
82-14
MW-9
TP-8
A

A'

4-8

200
(206.61)

UPPER WATER BEARING ZONE

280
(281.19)
(287.93)

270

260
250

A

240
230

220
210
(287.42)

200
190

0
28 270

26

0

(242.3)

0
25

(185.89)
(209.05)
(185.23)

(223.17)

0
24

(237.77)

A'

(193.36)

0
(191.19) 190

21
0

22

0

23
0

20

(189.39)

B-2013-13
MW-2013-3
82-14
MW-9
TP-8
A

A'

4-9

200
(206.61)

INTERMEDIATE WATER BEARING ZONE

A

A'

300

Elevation (feet)

260

220

180

140

100

HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
(NOVEMBER 8, 2013)

4-10

B

B'

320

Elevation (feet)

290

260

230

200

170

HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B'
(NOVEMBER 8, 2013)

4-11

HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C'
(NOVEMBER 8, 2013)

4-12

A

A'

300

Elevation (feet)

260

220

180

140

100

HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'
(MAY 28, 2014)

4-13

B

B'

320

Elevation (feet)

290

260

230

200

170

HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B'
(MAY 28, 2013)

4-14

HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C'
(MAY 28, 2014)

4-15

APPENDIX A
BORING, MONITORING WELL AND TEST PIT LOGS

APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL DATA

APPENDIX C
SITE ANALYTICAL PLAN

SITE ANALYTICAL PLAN
TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL
COLONIE, NEW YORK

Reproduced from the Area 6
Enviromental Monitoring Plan.

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND DRAWINGS

iii

1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1

2

SAMPLE ANALYTICAL PROGREM .................................................................................. 2-1
2.1
LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1
Certification ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2
Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures ........................................................ 2-1
2.1.3
Analytical Parameters, Methods/Procedures ....................................................... 2-2

3

ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ......................................... 3-1
3.1
GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2
QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL .................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1
Quality Assurance Manager ................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.2
Analytical Laboratory Director .............................................................................. 3-2
3.2.3
Data Validator ....................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3
QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 3-2
3.4
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE .............................................................................................. 3-3

4

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 4-4
4.1
GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.2
DATA VALIDATION ........................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.1
General ................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.2.2
Completeness Review .......................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3
Compliance Review .............................................................................................. 4-5
4.2.4
Validation Report .................................................................................................. 4-5
4.3
DATA USABILITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 4-6

5

FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES .................................................................................... 5-1
5.1
5.2

6

GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 5-1
SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROCEDURES ........................................................................... 5-1

FIELD QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES ............................................................................ 6-1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 6-1
TRIP BLANKS .................................................................................................................. 6-1
FIELD BLANKS................................................................................................................. 6-1
MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATES....................................................................... 6-1
FIELD DUPLICATES .......................................................................................................... 6-2

7

SAMPLE DESIGNATION .................................................................................................... 7-1

8

FIELD DOCUMENTATION.................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 8-1
DOCUMENT OF FIELD ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 8-1
GENERAL SITE INFORMATION........................................................................................... 8-2
SAMPLE ACTIVITIES......................................................................................................... 8-2

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

i

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
8.5
9

SAMPLE DISPATCH INFORMATION .................................................................................... 8-3

SAMPLE DOCUMENT CUSTODY PROCEDURES ........................................................... 9-1
9.1
SAMPLE HANDLING ......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2
COMPLETION OF CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD ................................................................ 9-2
9.2.1
Chain-of-Custody Record ..................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.2
Transferring Custody from Town of Colonie Shipper to Common Carrier ........... 9-2
9.2.3
Transferring Custody from Town of Colonie Sampler Directly to Carrier ............. 9-3

10

CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY ............................................................ 4
10.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 4
10.2 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES FOR FIELD EQUIPMENT ............................................................ 4
10.2.1 Field Equipment ....................................................................................................... 4
10.2.2 General Procedures ................................................................................................. 1

TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... 2

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

ii

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND DRAWINGS
Tables
4-1

Analytical Parameters Methods/Protocols

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

iii

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Site Analytical Report (SAR) describes the program and procedures for
collecting representative samples and generating useful analytical data. Subsequent
subsections

describe

sample

collection

requirements,

analytical

quality

assurance/analytical quality control (QA/QC) requirements, quality control objectives,
data quality objectives and field sampling and documentation requirements.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

1-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

2 SAMPLE ANALYTICAL PROGREM
2.1 Laboratory requirements
2.1.1 Certification
Laboratory analyses will be performed by a laboratory currently certified under the
appropriate approval categories by the New York State Department of Health's
Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP).
2.1.2 Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures
The Town will contract with an analytical laboratory qualified to perform the required
analyses. Upon selection, the laboratory will submit documentation of their standard
operating procedures to the Town and the NYSDEC. At a minimum, the standard
operating procedures will include:

Receipt, storage and handling of samples;

Sample scheduling to ensure that holding time requirements are met;

Reagent/standard preparation;

General laboratory teclmiques such as glassware cleaning procedures,
operation of analytical balances, pipetting teclmiques and use of volumetric
glassware;

Description of how analytical methods are actually to be performed including
precise reference to the analytical method used and not a simple reference to
standard methods;

Listing of Target Analytical Quality Control limits for accuracy, precision and
completeness;

Standard operating procedures for equipment calibration and maintenance to
ensure that laboratory equipment and instrumentation are in working order,
including, but not limited to procedures and schedules for calibration and
maintenance in accordance with manufacturers' specifications;

For a corrective action, standard operating procedures must be established for
identifying and correcting deficiencies in the laboratory procedures.
The

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

2-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

standard operating procedure shall specify that each corrective action must be
documented in the sampling event report submitted to the Town with a
description of the deficiency, the corrective action taken, and the person
responsible for implementing the corrective action. Any alterations to the
laboratory procedures shall be included as an amendment to the site analytical
plan.
2.1.3 Analytical Parameters, Methods/Procedures
Groundwater, surface water, and leachate will be sampled in accordance with the
currently approved Environmental Monitoring Plan. Sample containers, holding times,
and preservation methods are presented on Table 4-1.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

2-2

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

3 ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
3.1 General
This section establishes the quality assurance objectives (QAO) that have been
established for environmental monitoring activities. Quality assurance objectives are the
requirements specifying the quality of the environmental data needed to support the
decision-making process.
Establishment of QAO's identifies the target levels of
measurement for various laboratory and field activities and also serves to identify the
uncertainty that will be inherent in these measurements.

3.2 Quality Assurance Personnel
3.2.1 Quality Assurance Manager
It is the responsibility of the Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) to ensure adherence
to the methods and protocols described herein. The QAM will discuss sampling
methods, analytical requirements, quality control, and associated record- keeping
procedures with affected employees and subcontractors so that the methods and
procedures are understood and properly implemented. The QAM will be responsible for
submitting technically-accurate data to the NYSDEC.
During sampling events, the QAM will supervise and evaluate implementation of
sampling and monitoring procedures and quality control protocols. Where deficiencies or
deviations are found, the QAM will determine the cause for the deficiency or deviation
and immediately take steps to remedy it. Where field conditions warrant deviations from
established protocols, the QAM will document the necessary deviations and provide the
reasons and rationale for the modifications. In all instances, the QAM will try to ensure
compliance with the procedures described herein. The QAM will employ typical field
quality control forms, presented in Appendix B, during field quality control audits. These
forms will be submitted with a final data report.
The QAM will supervise the review of submissions from the analytical laboratory
subcontractor to determine compliance with contract requirements. The QAM will
coordinate and review the work of the independent data validator. Where deficiencies are
noted in analytical submissions, the QAM will seek to determine why and what remedies
may be implemented.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

3-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

3.2.2 Analytical Laboratory Director
The Analytical Laboratory Director, or a designee, will review the raw data, QC data and
analytical results produced by the laboratory to identify any deficiencies, determine
conformance with contract requirements and assure that the data are technically
accurate. Where deficiencies are noted, the Analytical Laboratory Director shall institute
corrective actions. Such corrective actions shall include, but are not limited to, any of the
following: repair or recalibration of equipment; re-evaluation of sample preparation and
analytical procedures, instituting changes
as required; rev1ew of operator's
performance or retraining; independent verification of results by alternative methods; and
re-analyzing samples for which holding times have not been exceeded.
3.2.3 Data Validator
For Baseline and Expanded parameter sampling data, a qualified third-party data
validator will review the submitted laboratory documentation and the quality control
objectives. The data validator will summarize all the submitted data and describe in
detail deficiencies in the submitted information. The data validator may request
additional information from the laboratory, as required, to properly assess the data. Data
validation is discussed in Section 4.4.

3.3 Quality Control Objectives
When data meet the project quality assurance objectives, as set forth below, quality
data are assured. Data quality is measured by how well the data meet the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) goals of the project. Quality control elements include
comparability, accuracy, precision, sensitivity, representativeness, and completeness.
Definitions of the QC objectives are as follows:
• Comparability: Comparability will be achieved by utilizing standardized
sampling and analysis methods and data reporting format. Both the analytical
procedures
and the sample collection techniques will maximize the
comparability of this new data to the previous data (i.e., the groundwater data).
Additionally, consideration will be given to seasonal conditions and other
environmental conditions that could influence analytical results.
• Accuracy: The accuracy objectives for the project require that surrogate spike
recoveries fall within the contract required recovery limits. Accuracy is also
monitored by the analysis of field, trip and laboratory blanks. False positives can
be detected through the evaluation of the blanks. Accuracy requirements as
measured by matrix spike or surrogate spike recovery are as follows:
Method 300 Series: ±I 0 percent of actual
Method 6010 Series: ±75 to 125 percent of actual
Method 7000 Series: ±75 to 125 percent of actual
Method 8000 Series: Accuracy criteria shall be as specified in
methods employed.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

3-2

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

Method 9000 Series: Accuracy criteria shall be as specified in
methods employed.

Precision: Precision is expressed as the relative-percent difference (RPD) of
matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates or two duplicates. RPD limits are
provided for the matrix spiking compounds in the SW-846, 3rd Edition and
shall be consistent with the following:
Method 300 Series: RPD ± 20 percent. Recoveries 75 to 125
percent of actual value
Method 6010 Series: RPD ± 20 percent. Recoveries 75 to 125
percent of actual value Method 7000 Series: ±75 to 125 percent of
actual
Method 7000 Series: RPD ± 20 percent. Recoveries 75 to 125
percent of actual value
Method 8000 Series: Precision criteria shall be as specified in
methods employed.
Method 9000 Series: Precision criteria shall be as specified in
methods employed.

Sensitivity: The sensitivity objectives for the project require that data
generated by the analytical laboratory achieve detection levels low enough for
meaningful use of the data. Detection levels for the analytes are presented in
Appendix A.

Completeness: The completeness objectives for this project will require that
100 percent of the QNQC data meet the quality assurance objectives for this
project, as stated in this section. Where data does not meet the requirements, an
explanation or justification for the failure will be given, and corrective action,
such as repeat sampling and analysis, may be conducted as necessary.

3.4 Data Quality Objective
The data quality objective (DQO) for the Area 7 Lateral Landfill Expansion monitoring is
to indicate contamination, if any, in the groundwater and wetlands due to the Area 7
operations. The analytical results of groundwater and surface water samples will be
evaluated against the pre-operational environmental quality concentrations and the
Groundwater Protection Standards to determine the degree and extent of any
contamination.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

3-3

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

4 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
4.1 General
Following each round of sampling, a data quality assessment report will be generated and
transmitted with the results of the sampling round to the NYSDEC. Pursuant to 6
NYCRR Part 360 requirements, data will undergo validation to assess laboratory
performance and verify data quality as well as a data usability analysis.

4.2 Data Validation
4.2.1 General
Data validation will be performed on not less than five percent of the analytical data
generated for each matrix sampled. When samples are analyzed for Routine parameters,
data validation may be performed by the QA Officer of the analytical laboratory. When
Baseline and Expanded samples are analyzed, data validation will be performed by a
third party, qualified to conduct a validation for the matrices and parameters analyzed.
The data validator will review analytical data to determine if they are accurate and
defensible. The data validator will review all analytical quality assurance/analytical
quality control (QNQC) information in addition to reports of any corrective actions taken
during sample analyses. Data summaries generated during the validation process will
clearly show any data qualifiers required.
Data validation will be performed in two steps: completeness and compliance. The
following procedures are adapted from the Data Validation Scope of Work NYSDEC RIIFS Program.
4.2.2 Completeness Review
The Validator shall review the data package to determine completeness. A complete data
package will consist of the following components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

All sample chain-of-custody forms.
The case narrative(s).
QNQC summaries, including all supporting documentation.
All relevant calibration data, including all supporting documentation.
Instrument and method performance data
Documentation showing the laboratory's ability to attain the contract specified
method detection limits for all target analytes in all required matrices.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

4-4

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

7. All data report forms, including examples of the calculations used in
determining final concentrations.
8. All raw data used in the identification and quantitation of the contract
specified target compounds for not less than five percent of the data
generated for each matrix analyzed.
All deficiencies in the requirement for completeness shall be reported to the QAM
immediately. The laboratory shall be contacted by the QAM and shall be given ten
calendar days to produce the documentation necessary to remove the deficiencies.
4.2.3 Compliance Review
The Validator shall review the submitted data package to determine compliance with
those portions of the Environmental Monitoring and Site Analytical Plan that pertain to
the production of laboratory data. Compliance is defined by the following criteria.
1. The data package is complete as defined in the Completeness Review.
2. The data has been produced and reported in a manner consistent with the
requirements of the Environmental Monitoring and Site Analytical Plan.
3. All protocol required QA/QC criteria have been met.
4. All instrument tune and calibration requirements have been met for the time
frame during which the analyses were completed.
5. All protocol required initial and continuing calibration data is present and
documented.
6. All data reporting forms are complete for all samples submitted. This will
include all requisite flags, all sample dilution/concentration factors and all
premeasurement sample cleanup procedures.
7. All problems encountered during the analytical process have been reported in
the case narrative along with any and all actions taken by the laboratory to
correct these problems.
The data validation task requires that the Validator conduct a detailed comparison of the
reported data with the raw data submitted as part of the supporting documentation
package. It is the responsibility of the Validator to determine that the reported data can
be completely substantiated by applying protocol defined procedures for the
identification and quantitation of the individual analytes.
4.2.4 Validation Report
The Validator shall submit a final report covering the results of the data review process.
This report shall be submitted to the QAM or his designee and shall include the
following:

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

4-5

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

1. A
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

general assessment
of
the
data package as
determined by
the accomplishment of the completeness and compliance reviews.
Detailed descriptions of any and all deviations from the required protocols
(These descriptions must include references to the portions of the
protocols involved in the alleged deviations).
Any and all failures in the Validator's attempt to reconcile the reported data
with the raw data from which it was derived (Specific references must be
included). Telephone logs should be included in the validation report.
A detailed assessment by the Validator of the degree to which the data has
been compromised by any deviations from protocol, QNQC breakdowns,
lack of analytical control, etc., that occurred during the analytical process.
The report shall include, as an attachment, a copy of the laboratory's case
narrative.
The report shall include an overall appraisal of the data package.
The validation report shall include a chart presented in a spreadsheet format,
consisting of site name, sample numbers, data submitted to laboratory,
year of analytical protocol used, matrix, fractions analyzed (i.e., volatiles,
semi- volatiles, metals, conventional chemistry parameters).

4.3 Data Usability Analysis
A data usability analysis will be performed on the validated analytical data. As specified
in 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.ll(d)(5)(ii), the data usability analysis will include the following:

An assessment to determine if the data quality objectives were met.

Comparison of the analytical data for consistency with the results from
previous sampling events.

An evaluation of
representative.

A comparison of the results of all field blanks, trip blanks, equipment rinsate
blanks, and method blanks with full data sets to provide information
concerning contaminants that may have been introduced during sampling,
shipping, or analysis.

An evaluation of matrix effects to assess the performance of the analytical
method with respect to the sample matrix, and determine whether the data
have been biased high or low due to matrix effects.

Integration of the field and laboratory data with geological, hydrogeological,
and meteorological d a t a to provide information about the extent of
contamination, if it occurs.

field duplicate

results

to

indicate the

samples

are

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

4-6

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

Comparison of precision, accuracy, representativeness,
comparability,
completeness, and defensibility of the data generated with that required to
meet the data quality objectives established in the Site Analytical Plan.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

4-7

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

5 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES
5.1 General
Field sampling procedures required for the Area 7 Lateral Landfill Expansion monitoring
program include: water level monitoring and groundwater sampling

5.2 Special Groundwater Procedures
Groundwater samples collected for metals analysis during operation and closure phases
with turbidity greater than 50 nephalometric units (NTU) will be filtered prior to
preservation to mitigate the effects of the high turbidity in the samples and to initiate a
procedure that promotes analytical reproducibility and consistency. This procedure is
recommended to limit repetitive false positive indications.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

5-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

6 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
6.1 General
Quality control procedures will be employed to check that sampling, transportation,
and laboratory activities do not bias sample analytical quality. Trip blanks, field
blanks, duplicate samples, matrix spike samples and matrix spike duplicates will provide
a quantitative basis for validating the analytical data.

6.2 Trip Blanks
The trip blanks will be prepared by the laboratory by filling 40 ml vials with a Teflonlined septum with deionized, analyte-free water. The trip blank will accompany the day's
sample containers at all times. One trip blank will be returned to the laboratory with each
cooler containing aqueous samples for VOC analysis. The trip blank will be analyzed for
volatile organic compounds, to detect possible contamination during shipment. One trip
blank will be shipped on each day that samples are collected for baseline or expanded
parameter analyses.

6.3 Field Blanks
A field blank consists of an empty set of laboratory-cleaned sample containers. At the
field location, deionized, analyte-free water is passed through decontaminated sampling
equipment and placed in the empty set of sample containers for analysis of the same
parameters as the samples collected with the sampling equipment. One field blank will
be collected per sampling event for each non-dedicated piece of sampling equipment.

6.4 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates
Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) sample pairs are analyzed by the
laboratory to provide a quantitative measure of the laboratory's precision and accuracy.
When performing volatile organic or organic extractable analysis, the labora- tory must
be supplied with triple sample volume for each Sample Delivery Group (SDG) in order to
perform matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses. This does not include field or
trip blanks. Blanks do not require separate matrix spike or duplicate analyses regardless
of their matrix. The limits on an SDG are:
• Each field sample event (quarterly or twice annually sampling), or

Each 20 field samples within an event, or

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

6-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

Each fourteen calendar day period during which field samples in an event are
received (said period beginning with receipt of the first sample in the SDG),
whichever comes first.

Field personnel will specify samples for MS/MSD analysis. Aqueous samples for
extractable organics (semi-volatiles and pesticides/PCBs) require that three times the
volume of the sample selected for each MS/MSD sample be collected and submitted to
the laboratory for analysis. Extra sample volume is not required for volatile organic
analysis unless low-level detection methods are used. One MS/MSD sample pair will be
collected for each SDG.

6.5 Field Duplicates
A field duplicate groundwater sample will be collected at a rate of one sample per 20
environmental samples. The duplicate sample is collected at the same location as the
environmental sample.
The field duplicate sample is identified using the sample
designation system described in Section 4.7. The identity of the field duplicate is not
revealed to the laboratory. The analytical results of the environmental sample will be
compared to the field duplicate sample, to evaluate field sampling precision.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

6-2

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

7 SAMPLE DESIGNATION

A sample numbering system will be used to identify each sample. This system will
provide a tracking procedure to allow retrieval of information about a particular sample,
and will assure that each sample is uniquely numbered. The sample identification
will consist of at least three components as described below.
• Project Identification:
The first component consists of a three letter
designation which identifies the project site. For this project, the three letter
designation will be COL.

Sample Type: The second component, which identifies the sample type, will
consist of a two letter code as follows:
MW: Monitoring Well

Sample Location: The third component identifies the sample location using a two
digit number.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples
following suffixes:

will be

labeled

with

the

FB: Field Blank
MS: Matrix Spike
MSD: Matrix Spike Duplicate
TB: Trip Blank

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

7-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

8 FIELD DOCUMENTATION
8.1 Introduction
Documentation of a sampling field activities often provides the basis for technical site
evaluations and other such related written reports. Field documentation must provide
sufficient information and data to enable reconstruction of field activities. The following
information must be provided on the inside front cover of each field logbook:
Project Name (Site Name)
Site Location
Site Manager
Date of issue
Control and maintenance of field logbooks is the responsibility of the QAM.

8.2 Document of Field Activities
Field logbook entries must be legibly written and provide an unbiased, concise, detailed
picture of all field activities. Use of preformatted data reporting forms must be
identifiable and referenced to field notebook entries.
Step-by-step instructions and procedures for documenting field activities are provided
below and in following subsections. These instructions and procedures are organized as
follows:
Leave the first two pages blank.
They will provide space for a table of
contents to be added when the field logbook is complete.
The first written page for each day identifies the date, time, site name,
location, MPI personnel and their responsibilities, other non-personnel and
observed weather conditions.
Additionally, during the course of site
activities, deviations from the work plan must also be documented.
Entries are to be made on a new page at the start of each day's field activities.
All photos taken must be traceable to field logbook entries.
recommended to reference photo locations on the site sketch or map.

It is

All entries must be made in ink. Waterproof ink is recommended.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

8-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

All entries must be accompanied by the appropriate military time (such as 1530
instead of3:30).
Errors must be lined through and initialed. No erroneous notes are to be made
illegible.
Additions, clarifications, or corrections made after completion of field
activities must be dated and signed.

8.3 General Site Information
General site characteristics must be recorded. Information may include:
Type of access into facility (locked gates, etc.).
Anything that is unexpected on site.
Information obtained from interview with Town personnel (if applicable), or other
interested party contact on site.
A site map or sketch may be provided. It can be sketched into the logbook or
attached to the book. If it is attached, make sure that the project name is on the
map.

8.4 Sample Activities
A chronological record of each sampling activity will be kept and may include:
Explanation of sampling at the location identified in the sampling plan (e.g.,
discolored soil, stressed vegetation).
Exact sample location, using permanent recognizable landmarks
and
reproducible measurements.
Sample matrix.
Sample descriptions, i.e., color, texture, odor (e.g., soil type, murky water)
and any other important distinguishing features.
Decontamination procedures, if used.
As part of chain-of-custody procedures, recorded on-site sampling information must
include sample number, date, time, sampling personnel, sample type, designation of
sample as a grab or composite, and any preservative used. Sample locations should be

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

8-2

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

referenced by sample number on the site sketch or map. The offer and/or act of
providing sample splits to a third party (e.g., environmental and/or health agency, etc.)
must be documented.

8.5 Sample Dispatch Information
When sampling is complete, all sample documentation such as chain-of-custody forms
shall be copied and placed in the project files. A notation of numbers of coolers shipped,
carrier and time delivered to pick-up point should be made in the field notebook.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

8-3

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

9 SAMPLE DOCUMENT CUSTODY PROCEDURES
9.1 Sample Handling
The analytical laboratory will provide the sample containers necessary for all soil and
groundwater samples. Container closures will be screw-on type, made of inert materials.
Sample containers will be cleaned and prepared by the laboratory prior to being sent to
the site. Trip blanks will be used to check any false positives for Volatile Organic
Compounds due to laboratory cleaning procedures or cross contamination during sample
shipment.
All samples collected will be identified with a sample label. A label will be attached to
each bottle and each sample will be identified with a unique sample number.
Immediately following sample collection, each sample container will be marked with
the following information:
Sample Code
Date/Time
Sample Type
Preservative, if used
Sampler's Initials
The sample code will indicate the site location, media sampled and the sample station.

After all sample identification information has been recorded, each sample label will
be covered with waterproof clear plastic tape to preserve its integrity. All samples
will be recorded and tracked under strict chain-of-custody protocols. In the field,
each sample will be checked for proper labeling. The samples will then be packed
into coolers with ice and shipped to the laboratory. A chain-of-custody form will
be completed for each cooler. The form will be signed and dated by the person who
collected the samples, the person the samples were relinquished to for transport to
the laboratory, and the laboratory sample controller/custodian who receives the
samples.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

9-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

9.2 Completion of Chain-of-Custody Record
9.2.1 Chain-of-Custody Record
A chain-of-custody record is a printed form that accompanies a sample or group of
samples as custody is transferred from person to person. A sample chain-of-custody form
is included in Appendix B. It documents custody transfer from person to person and
sample information recorded on bottle labels. A chain-of-custody record is a controlled
document.
As soon as practicable after sample collection, preferably after decontamination, the
following information must be entered on the chain-of-custody form. All information is
to be recorded in black ink.
1. Town of Colonie project number. Enter the alphanumeric designation
assigned by Town of Colonie that uniquely identifies the project site.
2. Project name. Enter site name.
3. Samplers. Sign the name(s) of the sampler(s).
4. Station number. Enter the sample number for each sample in the shipment.
This number appears on the Town of Colonie sample identification label.
5. Date. Indicate the day, month, and year of sample collection.
6. Time. Enter a four-digit number indicating the military time of collection; for
example, 1354.
7. Composite or grab. Indicate the type of sample.
8. Number of containers. For each sample number, enter the number of sample
bottles that are contained in the shipment.
9. Remarks. Enter any appropriate remarks.

9.2.2 Transferring Custody from Town of Colonie Shipper to Common Carrier
Instructions for Town of Colonie shipper transferring custody of samples to a common
carrier are given below.
1. Sign, date, and enter time under "Relinquished by" entry.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

9-2

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

2. Enter name of carrier (e.g., UPS, Federal Express) under Received by."
3. Enter bill-of-lading of Federal Express airbill number under "Remarks."
4. Place the original of the chain-of-custody form in the appropriate sample
shipping package. Retain a copy with field records.
5. Sign and date the custody seal. The custody seal is part of the chain-ofcustody process and is used to prevent tampering with samples after they
have been collected in the field.
6. Wrap the seal across filament tape that has been wrapped around the package
at least twice.
7. Fold the custody seal over on itself so that it sticks together.
8. Complete other carrier-required shipping papers.
Common carriers will usually not accept responsibility for handling chain-of-custody
forms; this necessitates packing the record in the sample package.
9.2.3 Transferring Custody from Town of Colonie Sampler Directly to Carrier
To transfer custody of samples from the Town of Colonie sampler directly to a carrier,
proceed as above, except eliminate the Town of Colonie shipper's signature.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

9-3

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

10 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY
10.1 Introduction
Instruments must be properly calibrated to produce technically valid data. Documented
calibration and calibration check results verify that the instruments used for measurement are
in proper working order and the data produced is reliable. The calibration requirements
described or referenced in this section are necessary to support the data quality objectives for
this project. When calibration requirements are met, the data will support decisions dealing
with the nature and extent of contamination and safety concerns.

10.2 Calibration Procedures for Field Equipment
10.2.1 Field Equipment
The following table provides a list of the field equipment that will be used for each task.
TASK

FIELD INSTRUMENT

Water Level Measurements
Groundwater Sampling

Specific Conductivity Meter
Water Level Probe
pH
Meter
Temperature Probe
Specific Conductivity Meter
Turbidimeter

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast
1/12/15

4

Printed:

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

10.2.2 General Procedures
The operation and maintenance of the field equipment to be used during these tasks are
provided in Appendix D. General calibration procedures and requirements are described
below:
All instruments will be calibrated at least once a month.
All instruments will have the calibrations checked at a minimum at the start of
each day before measurements are made.
The calibration and calibration checks will indicate that the sensitivity of the
instrument (practical detection limit) is adequate to meet project needs and
that the instrument is accurate over the working range.
All calibration information will be recorded in the field log book. This
includes date and time, technician signature, calibration procedure, calibration
results, calibration problems, recalibration and maintenance, and instrument
serial numbers.
All calibration standards will be of National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
quality and their sources listed and documented so that standards are
traceable.
In addition, only technicians trained in the use of the
field instruments will operate them. If the instrument readings are incorrect at
the time of the initial calibration, the instrument will either be calibrated by
the technician or returned to the manufacturer for calibration.
If the
instrument readings are incorrect after a continuing calibration check, the
preceding sample results will be reviewed for validity, and reanalyzed if
necessary.

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

T-1

Rev. 0, 1/12/15
Project (enter #)

TABLES

X:\PROJECTS\Waste Connections - Colonie LF\120076 - AREA 7 DEVELOPMENT\_Project Design\Reports\SIR\Appendix C - Site Analytical Plan\Site_Analytical_Plan.docxLast Printed: 1/12/15

T-2

`
`
TABLE4-1

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS METHODS/PROTOCOLS
AQUEOUS
PRESERVATION

AQUEOUS
CONTAINER

(Note 3)

(Note 4)

METHOD

METHOD
REFERENCE

MAXIMUM
DETECTION
LIMITS

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN)

Note6

Note6

Note?

28 days

Cool to 4·c
H2SO4 to pH <2

500 ml plastic or glass

Ammonia

Note6

Note6

Note?

28 days

Cool to4"C
H2S04 to pH <2

500 ml plastic or glass

Nitrate

Note6

Note6

Note?

48 hours

Cool to 4·c
H 2S04 to pH <2

I 00 ml plastic or glass

Arsenic

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HN0 3 topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Potassium

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HN03 topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Sodium

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HN03 topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Iron

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HNO, topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Cyanide

Note6

Note6

Note?

14 days

Cool to 4·c
NaOH to pH >12

100 ml plastic or glass

Volatile Organics

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note l

Cool to 4·c

2-40 ml glass VOA bottles
with Teflon septums

Manganese

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HN03 topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Magnesium

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HNO, topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Lead

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HN03 topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Cadmium

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HN03 topH<2

500 ml plastic or glass

Aluminum

Note6

Note6

Note?

Note2

HNO, to pH <2

500 ml plastic or glass

Sulfate

Note6

Note6

Note?

28 days

Cool to 4·c

50 ml plastic or glass

Alkalinity

Note6

Note6

Note?

14 days

Coolto4·c

I 00 ml plastic or glass

Phenols

Note6

Note6

Note?

28 days

Cool to 4·c
H 2SO4 to pH <2

500 ml plastic or glass

PARAMETER

F:\PROJECT\2042022\Doc\Arca 6 EMSAP\Final\4~LTBLdoc

Page 1 of3

HOLDING
TIME

APPENDIX D
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY GRAPHS

10.

Displacement (ft)

1.

0.1

0.01
0.

400.

800.

1.2E+3

1.6E+3

2.0E+3

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: X:\...\MW-2013-1DFH.aqt
Date: 01/24/14

Time: 10:30:42
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-1D
Test Date: 01/08/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 42.86 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MY-2013-1D)

Initial Displacement: 1.756 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 40.63 ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 40.63 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Unconfined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 7.802E-5 cm/sec

y0 = 0.7229 ft

10.

Displacement (ft)

1.

0.1

0.01
0.

400.

800.

1.2E+3

1.6E+3

2.0E+3

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\MW-2013-1DRH.aqt
Date: 09/25/14

Time: 15:57:52
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-1D
Test Date: 01/08/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 42.86 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MY-2013-1D)

Initial Displacement: 1.588 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 40.63 ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 40.63 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 9.357E-5 cm/sec

y0 = 0.938 ft

Displacement (ft)

10.

1.

0.1
0.

400.

800.

1.2E+3

1.6E+3

2.0E+3

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: X:\...\MW-2013-2DRH.aqt
Date: 01/24/14

Time: 10:33:28
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-2D
Test Date: 01/08/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 38.51 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2013-2D)

Initial Displacement: 2.968 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 40.51 ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 40.51 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 1.873E-5 cm/sec

y0 = 0.5528 ft

10.

Displacement (ft)

1.

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: X:\...\MW-2013-2SFH.aqt
Date: 01/24/14

Time: 10:34:02
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-2D
Test Date: 01/08/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 37.02 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2013-2S)

Initial Displacement: 2.436 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18.69 ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 18.69 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 0.005666 cm/sec

y0 = 0.7464 ft

10.

Displacement (ft)

1.

0.1

0.01
0.

40.

80.

120.

160.

200.

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\MW-2013-2SRH.aqt
Date: 09/25/14

Time: 14:45:34
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-2D
Test Date: 01/08/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 37.02 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2013-2S)

Initial Displacement: 1.581 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18.69 ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 18.69 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 0.004774 cm/sec

y0 = 0.938 ft

Displacement (ft)

10.

1.

0.1
0.

600.

1.2E+3

1.8E+3

2.4E+3

3.0E+3

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: X:\...\MW-2013-3SFH.aqt
Date: 01/24/14

Time: 10:35:01
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-3
Test Date: 01/07/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5.36 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2013-3)

Initial Displacement: 2.223 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 5. ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 5.96 ft
Screen Length: 5. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft

SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 1.174E-5 cm/sec

y0 = 0.2017 ft

10.

Displacement (ft)

1.

0.1

0.01
0.

400.

800.

1.2E+3

1.6E+3

2.0E+3

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: X:\...\MW-2013-3SRH.aqt
Date: 01/24/14

Time: 10:35:40
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-3
Test Date: 01/07/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5.36 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2013-3)

Initial Displacement: 3.537 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 5. ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 5.96 ft
Screen Length: 5. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft

SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 5.404E-5 cm/sec

y0 = 0.1759 ft

Displacement (ft)

10.

1.

0.1
0.

600.

1.2E+3

1.8E+3

2.4E+3

3.0E+3

Time (sec)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\MW-2013-3SFH.aqt
Date: 09/25/14

Time: 16:04:43
PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: Cornerstone
Client: Waste Connections
Project: 120076
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-3
Test Date: 01/07/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5.36 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2013-3)

Initial Displacement: 2.223 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 5. ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 5.96 ft
Screen Length: 5. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 0.0001148 cm/sec

y0 = 0.4119 ft

1.

Displacement (ft)

0.1

0.01

0.001

1.0E-4
0.

600.

1.2E+3

1.8E+3

2.4E+3

3.0E+3

Time (sec)
FALLING HEAD
Data Set: C:\Users\daniel.wheeler\Desktop\Colonie\MW-2013-4S-FH.aqt
Date: 09/28/14
Time: 17:17:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: Cornerstone
Client: Colonie LF
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-4S
Test Date: 09/24/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18.82 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (mw-2013-4S)

Initial Displacement: 0.4192 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 35. ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 18.82 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 0.0007423 cm/sec

y0 = 0.2879 ft

1.

Displacement (ft)

0.1

0.01

0.001

1.0E-4
0.

1000.

2.0E+3

3.0E+3

4.0E+3

5.0E+3

Time (sec)
RISING HEAD
Data Set: C:\Users\daniel.wheeler\Desktop\Colonie\MW-2013-4S-RH.aqt
Date: 09/28/14
Time: 17:16:50
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: Cornerstone
Client: Colonie LF
Location: Colonie, NY
Test Well: MW-2013-4S
Test Date: 09/24/2014
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 16.48 ft

Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (MW-2013-4S)

Initial Displacement: 0.335 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 28.82 ft
Casing Radius: 0.083 ft

Static Water Column Height: 18.82 ft
Screen Length: 10. ft
Well Radius: 0.083 ft
SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Confined

Solution Method: Hvorslev

K = 0.000815 cm/sec

y0 = 0.3914 ft

APPENDIX E
ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS

ANALYTICAL REPORT
Job Number: 480-52521-1
SDG Number: 52521
Job Description: Colonie Landfill
For:
Waste Connections, Inc.
1319 New Louden Road
Cohoes, NY 12047
Attention: Don Hallock

_____________________________________________

Approved for release.
Christina M Dosier
Project Mgmt. Assistant
1/15/2014 2:56 PM

Designee for
Ryan T VanDette, Project Manager II
10 Hazelwood Drive, Amherst, NY, 14228-2298
(716)504-9830
ryan.vandette@testamericainc.com
01/15/2014

The test results in this report meet all NELAP requirements for analytes for which accreditation is required or available.
Any exceptions to the NELAP requirements are noted in this report. Pursuant to NELAP, this report may not be
reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. All questions regarding this test report should
be directed to the TestAmerica Project Manager who has signed this report.
TestAmerica Buffalo NELAC Certifications: CADPH 01169CA, FLDOH E87672, ILEPA 200003, KSDOH E-10187,
LADEQ 30708, MDH 036-999-337, NHELAP 2973, NJDEP NY455, NHDOH 10026, ORELAP NY200003, PADEP 6800281, TXCEQ T-104704412-10-1

TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.
TestAmerica Buffalo 10 Hazelwood Drive, Amherst, NY 14228-2298
Tel (716) 691-2600 Fax (716) 691-7991 www.testamericainc.com

Page 1 of 218

Job Narrative
480-52521-1
Comments
No additional comments.
Receipt
The samples were received on 12/24/2013 11:30 AM and 12/27/2013 12:00 PM; the samples arrived in good condition, properly
preserved and, where required, on ice. The temperatures of the 7 coolers at receipt time were 2.4º C, 2.4º C, 2.7º C, 2.8º C, 2.9º C, 3.1º
C and 3.2º C.

Except:
The following sample was received outside of holding time for hexachrome analysis: X-2 (480-52521-4).
The following samples were received outside of holding time for hexavalent chromium analysis: MW-3 (480-52601-3), X-1 (480-52601-2).
The following sample was received outside of holding time for nitrate, color and ph analysis: MW-3 (480-52601-3).
GC/MS VOA
Method(s) 8260C: The laboratory control sample (LCS) and / or the laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) for batch 160283
recovered outside control limits for the following analytes: 2-Hexanone, 3-Chloro-1-propene, Methyl Methacrylate, Acetonitrile and Vinyl
Acetate. These analytes were not requested spiking compounds; therefore, the data have been qualified and reported.

Method(s) 8260C: The following volatiles sample(s) was diluted due to foaming at the time of purging during the original sample analysis:
MW-2S (480-52521-2), X-2 (480-52521-4). Elevated reporting limits (RLs) are provided.
No other analytical or quality issues were noted.
GC/MS Semi VOA
Method(s) 8270D: Surrogate recovery for the following sample was outside control limits: X-2 (480-52521-4). Evidence of matrix
interference is present; therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis was not performed.

Method(s) 8270D: The continuing calibration verification (CCV) for 3,3'-Dicholorbenzidine associated with batch 160568 recovered above
the upper control limit. The samples associated with this CCV were non-detects for the affected analytes; therefore, the data have been
reported.
Method(s) 8270D: The following sample contained one acid and/or one base surrogate outside acceptance limits: MW-3 (480-52601-3).
The laboratory's SOP allows one acid surrogate and/or one base surrogate to be outside acceptance limits; therefore,
re-extraction/re-analysis was not performed. These results have been reported and qualified.
No other analytical or quality issues were noted.
HPLC
Method(s) 300.0: The following samples were diluted to bring the concentration of target analytes within the calibration range: MW-2S
(480-52521-2), X-2 (480-52521-4). Elevated reporting limits (RLs) are provided.

Method(s) 300.0: The following sample was diluted due to the abundance of non-target analytes: X-3 (480-52521-5). Elevated reporting
limits (RLs) are provided.
Method(s) 300.0: The following samples were diluted to bring the concentration of target analytes within the calibration range: MW-2D
(480-52601-1), X-1 (480-52601-2). Elevated reporting limits (RLs) are provided.
No other analytical or quality issues were noted.
GC Semi VOA
Method(s) 8081B: The following sample(s) was diluted due to the nature of the sample matrix : MW-2S (480-52521-2), X-2 (480-52521-4).
As such, surrogate recoveries are below the calibraton range or are not reported, and elevated reporting limits (RLs) are provided.

Method(s) 8081B: The following sample was diluted due to the nature of the sample matrix: X-1 (480-52601-2). Elevated reporting limits
(RLs) are provided.
Method(s) 8081B: All primary data is reported from the RTX-CLPII column.
Method(s) 8081B: The method blank MB 480-159809/1-A contained multiple analytes above the method detection limit. These target
analyte concentrations were less than the reporting limit (RL); therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis of samples was not performed.
Method(s) 8082A: All primary data is reported from the ZB-35 column.

Page 2 of 218

Method(s) 8082A: The surrogate percent difference in the associated continuing calibration verification (CCV 480-159833/37) for
Decachlorobiphenyl exceeded 20% on the ZB-35 column, indicating a high bias.
Method(s) 8082A: The percent difference in a multi-component continuing calibration verification is assessed on the basis of the total
amount, individual peak calculations are only listed for completeness.
Method(s) 8082A: The surrogate percent difference in the associated continuing calibration verification CCV 480-159833/48 for
Tetrachloro-m-xylene and Decachlorobiphenyl exceeded 20% on the ZB-35 column, indicating a high bias.
Method(s) 8151A: The opening continuing calibration verification (CCV) (CCV 480-160069/3) recovered slightly outside control limits for
Dinoseb. The closing continuing calibration verification (CCV) is compliant, all batch spike recoveries are within acceptance limits, and
there are no positives in the associated samples, therefore the data has been reported
Method(s) 8151A: Surrogate recovery for the following sample is outside control limits: X-3 (480-52521-5) RE. Evidence of matrix
interference is present; therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis was not performed.
Method(s) 8151A: The following samples need to be re-extracted out of holding time due to low surrogate and spike recoveries in the
associated Method Blank, Laboratory Control Sample & Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate: (LCS 480-159550/2-A), (LCSD
480-159550/3-A), (MB 480-159550/1-A), MW-1D (480-52521-1), MW-2S (480-52521-2), MW-3 (480-52521-3), X-2 (480-52521-4), X-3
(480-52521-5). The re-analysis data has the "RE" suffix appended to the sample IDs, and is flagged with the "H" qualifier indicating such.
Both sets of data are reported and are to be considered estimated.
Method(s) 8151A: All primary data is reported from the RTX-CLPI column.
Method(s) 8151A: Surrogate recovery for the following sample(s) was outside control limits: MW-2D (480-52601-1), X-1 (480-52601-2).
Evidence of matrix interference is present; therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis was not performed.
No other analytical or quality issues were noted.
Metals
Method(s) 6010C: The Method Blank for batch 480-159796 contained total calcium above the method detection limit. This target analyte
concentration was less than the reporting limit (RL); therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis of samples MW-2D (480-52601-1), X-1
(480-52601-2) was not performed.

Method(s) 6010C: The Method Blank for batch 480-159377 contained total iron and zinc above the method detection limits. These target
analyte concentrations were less than the reporting limits (RLs); therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis of samples MW-1D
(480-52521-1), MW-2S (480-52521-2), MW-3 (480-52521-3), X-2 (480-52521-4), X-3 (480-52521-5) was not performed.
Method(s) 6010C: The recoveries of Post Spike, (480-52521-1 PDS), in batch 480-159377 exhibited results outside the quality control
limits for total aluminum, boron, potassium, and tin. However, the Serial Dilution of this sample was compliant. Therefore, no corrective
action was necessary
Method(s) 6010C: The Low Level Continuing Calibration Verification (CCVL 480-160333/36) contained total manganese above the
reporting limit (RL). The reported sample (480-52521-1 MSD) associated with this CCVL was either below the laboratory's standard
reporting limit for this analyte or contained this analyte at a concentration greater than 10X the value found in the CCVL; therefore,
re-analysis of the sample was not performed.
Method(s) 6010C: The Low Level Continuing Calibration Verification (CCVL 480-160563/16) contained total silver above the reporting
limit (RL). All reported samples (480-52521-1 MS), (480-52521-1 MSD), (480-52521-1 PDS), (480-52521-1 SD), (LCS
480-159377/2-A), (MB 480-159377/1-A), MW-1D (480-52521-1) associated with this CCVL were either below the laboratory's standard
reporting limit for this analyte or contained this analyte at a concentration greater than 10X the value found in the CCVL; therefore,
re-analysis of samples was not performed.
Method(s) 6010C: The recoveries of Post Spike, (480-52521-1 PDS), in batch 480-159377 exhibited results outside the quality control
limits for total silver and barium. However, the Serial Dilution of this sample was compliant. Therefore, no corrective action was
necessary
No other analytical or quality issues were noted.
General Chemistry
Method(s) SM 2120B: The following sample(s) was received outside of holding time for color analysis: MW-3 (480-52601-3).

Method(s) SM 2540C: Due to the matrix, the initial volume(s) used for the following sample(s) deviated from the standard procedure:
MW-2S (480-52521-2), X-2 (480-52521-4). The reporting limits (RLs) have been adjusted proportionately.
Method(s) SM 2540C: Due to the matrix, the initial volume(s) used for the following sample(s) deviated from the standard procedure:
MW-2D (480-52601-1), X-1 (480-52601-2). The reporting limits (RLs) have been adjusted proportionately.
Method(s) 351.2: This method uses a dilution applied during the preparation portion of the procedure. The dilution factor (DF) presented

Page 3 of 218

on the final report represents only the analytical dilution, not the dilution factor applied in the preparation batch. MW-2S (480-52521-2),
X-2 (480-52521-4)
Method(s) 353.2: The following sample(s) was received outside of holding time: MW-3 (480-52601-3).
Method(s) 353.2: The following sample(s) was received outside of holding time: MW-3 (480-52601-3).
Method(s) 410.4: The matrix spike recovery for batch 159722 was outside control limits. Sample matrix interference is suspected
because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits. (480-52521-2 MS)
Method(s) 410.4: The method blank for batch 160222 contained chemical oxygen demand above the method detection limit. This target
analyte concentration was less than the reporting limit (RL); therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis of samples was not
performed.MW-2D (480-52601-1)
Method(s) SM 5210B: The USB dilution water D.O. depletion was greater than 0.2 mg/L but less than the reporting limit of 2.0 mg/L. The
associated sample results are reported.
Method(s) 7196A: The following sample(s) was received outside of holding time: X-2 (480-52521-4).
Method(s) 7196A: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for batch 159325 were outside control limits. Sample
matrix interference is suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits.
(480-52521-5 MS)
Method(s) 7196A: The following sample(s) was received with greater than 50% of holding time expired: X-1 (480-52601-2). As such, the
laboratory had insufficient time remaining to perform the analysis within holding time.
Method(s) 7196A: The following sample(s) was received outside of holding time: MW-3 (480-52601-3).
Method(s) 7196A: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for batch 159669 were outside control limits. Sample
matrix interference is suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits.
(480-52601-1 MS)
Method(s) 9038: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for batch 160304 were outside control limits. Sample
matrix interference is suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits.
(480-52521-2 MS)
Method(s) 9251, SM 4500 Cl- E: The method blank for batch 160303 contained Choride above the method detection limit. This target
analyte concentration was less than the reporting limit (RL); therefore, re-extraction and/or re-analysis of samples was not
performed.MW-1D (480-52521-1)
Method(s) SM 4500 S2 D: The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for batch 159896 were outside control limits.
Sample matrix interference is suspected because the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits.
(480-52601-3 MS)
No other analytical or quality issues were noted.
Organic Prep
Method(s) 8151A: The following sample formed emulsions during the extraction procedure: MW-3 (480-52521-3). The emulsions were
broken up using the centrifuge..

Method(s) 8151A: Re-extraction of the following samples was performed outside of the preparation holding time due to LCS recoveries in
the original extraction batch being outside of method limits: MW-1D (480-52521-1), MW-2S (480-52521-2), MW-3 (480-52521-3), X-2
(480-52521-4), X-3 (480-52521-5).
No other analytical or quality issues were noted.

Page 4 of 218

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

MW-1D
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Toluene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bromide
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia as N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
Sulfate
TOC Result 1
TOC Result 2
TOC Result 3
TOC Result 4
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Color
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids

Result

Qualifier

5.5
0.59
1.6
2.6
3.9
8.1
0.39
2.8
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.013
0.012
0.0064
1.9
0.018
0.065
0.17
38.0
0.013
0.0015
0.0089
2.5
14.3
0.13
0.0047
67.3
131
0.0065
0.024
0.21
196
0.48
187
7.6
0.0067
221
14.0
14.0
14.2
14.3
14.1
24.2
200
164
576

J
J

Reporting
Limit

Units

10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.20
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
1.0
0.0050
0.010
0.20
50.0
0.020
10.0
10.0
0.010
50.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
25.0
4.0
10.0

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Color Units
mg/L
mg/L

Method

480-52521-1

TestAmerica Buffalo

J
J
JB
JB
J
J
J
J

J
J
B

J

B

J
J

B

Page 5 of 218

8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8270D
8270D
8270D
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
300.0
310.2
350.1
351.2
410.4
420.4
9038
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9251
SM 2120B
SM 2340C
SM 2540C

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

MW-2S
3-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Aldrin
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bromide
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia as N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
Cyanide, Total
TOC Result 1
TOC Result 2
TOC Result 3
TOC Result 4
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Color
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Result

Qualifier

9.9

Reporting
Limit

Units

Method

2.0

mg/L

SM 5210B

9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
0.96
0.20
0.010
0.0020
0.0020
0.020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
1.0
0.0050
0.010
1.0
400
4.0
10.0
10.0
0.010
0.010
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
20.0
25.0
10.0
40.0
2.0

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Color Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D
8081B
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
300.0
310.2
350.1
351.2
410.4
420.4
9012B
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9251
SM 2120B
SM 2340C
SM 2540C
SM 5210B

480-52521-2

TestAmerica Buffalo

0.70
0.70
2.4
0.73
0.35
0.13
1.3
0.029
0.51
0.00036
7.0
0.00053
177
0.0083
0.029
0.097
19.3
0.0040
140
12.5
0.16
129
699
0.0088
0.30
22.6
2260
212
203
561
0.026
0.0059
136
147
138
146
142
842
300
900
2750
14.4

J
J
J
J
J
J

J
J

B
J

B

J

Page 6 of 218

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

MW-3
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Result

Qualifier

Reporting
Limit

Units

Method

0.20
0.0020
0.020
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
1.0
0.0050
0.010
20.0
10.0
2.0

mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
SM 2340C
SM 2540C
SM 5210B

480-52521-3

TestAmerica Buffalo

5.9
0.19
0.89
155
0.0097
0.0071
0.018
8.4
0.0056
53.0
4.3
0.021
30.3
81.8
0.0095
0.025
1380
864
2.9

B

B

Page 7 of 218

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

X-2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Aldrin
Chlordane (technical)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bromide
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia as N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
Cyanide, Total
TOC Result 1
TOC Result 2
TOC Result 3
TOC Result 4
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Color
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Result

Qualifier

1.9
0.69
0.46
0.15
1.5
0.63
0.027
0.52
7.1
178
0.0070
0.029
0.075
18.5
140
12.7
0.16
130
695
0.0082
0.24
22.7
2240
214
196
599
0.038
0.0054
136
145
139
153
143
809
350
1340
2590
13.9

J
J
J
J
JB

Reporting
Limit

Units

4.7
4.7
4.7
0.96
9.6
0.20
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
1.0
0.0050
0.010
1.0
400
4.0
10.0
10.0
0.010
0.010
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
20.0
50.0
20.0
40.0
2.0

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Color Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

Method

480-52521-4

TestAmerica Buffalo

B

B

J

Page 8 of 218

8270D
8270D
8270D
8081B
8081B
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
300.0
310.2
350.1
351.2
410.4
420.4
9012B
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9251
SM 2120B
SM 2340C
SM 2540C
SM 5210B

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

X-3
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Toluene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bromide
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia as N
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
Sulfate
TOC Result 1
TOC Result 2
TOC Result 3
TOC Result 4
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Color
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Result

Qualifier

5.3
0.58
1.5
2.5
0.37
3.9
7.0
0.39
2.8
0.0060
1.9
0.019
0.066
0.18
37.3
0.011
0.0015
0.0085
2.5
14.1
0.13
0.0046
65.3
129
0.0064
0.025
0.19
193
0.54
49.4
0.0063
235
14.0
14.4
14.1
14.3
14.2
25.8
60.0
330
587
9.6

J
J

Reporting
Limit

Units

10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.7
4.7
4.7
0.049
0.20
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
1.0
0.0050
0.010
0.40
50.0
0.020
10.0
0.010
50.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.00
10.0
10.0
2.0

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Color Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

Method

480-52521-5

TestAmerica Buffalo

J

J
J
J

J
J
B

J

B
J

J

Page 9 of 218

8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8270D
8270D
8270D
8081B
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
300.0
310.2
350.1
410.4
420.4
9038
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9251
SM 2120B
SM 2340C
SM 2540C
SM 5210B

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

MW-2D
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Toluene
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bromide
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia as N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Cr (VI)
TOC Result 1
TOC Result 2
TOC Result 3
TOC Result 4
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Color
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Result

Qualifier

0.49
0.95
1.2
0.54
0.42
0.0069
0.0093
1.0
8.2
0.00089
1.4
164
0.0018
0.35
6.2
0.0082
63.0
0.45
0.052
29.4
431
0.0029
0.30
13.6
951
3.3
4.4
0.52
55.2
0.011
15.5
15.6
15.6
15.5
15.5
563
50.0
760
1800
12.4

J
J

Reporting
Limit

Units

1.0
1.0
1.0
4.8
4.8
0.048
0.048
0.20
0.0020
0.0020
0.020
0.50
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
1.0
0.0050
0.010
1.0
200
0.040
1.0
0.050
10.0
0.010
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
15.0
5.00
20.0
20.0
2.0

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Color Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

Method

480-52601-1

TestAmerica Buffalo

J
J
JB
J

J
B
J

J

B

Page 10 of 218

8260C
8260C
8260C
8270D
8270D
8081B
8081B
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
300.0
310.2
350.1
351.2
353.2
410.4
7196A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9251
SM 2120B
SM 2340C
SM 2540C
SM 5210B

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

X-1
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Toluene
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bromide
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia as N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate
Chemical Oxygen Demand
TOC Result 1
TOC Result 2
TOC Result 3
TOC Result 4
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Color
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Result

Qualifier

0.52
0.99
1.2
0.57
0.37
0.84
8.5
0.0010
1.5
168
0.0021
0.31
6.1
0.0084
65.1
0.46
0.051
30.0
444
0.0024
0.31
10.6
986
4.8
4.8
0.19
56.5
16.0
16.0
15.6
15.7
15.8
567
50.0
700
1740
6.7

J
J

Reporting
Limit

Units

1.0
1.0
1.0
4.8
4.8
0.20
0.0020
0.0020
0.020
0.50
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
1.0
0.0050
0.010
1.0
200
0.10
1.0
0.050
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
15.0
5.00
10.0
20.0
2.0

ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Color Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L

Method

480-52601-2

TestAmerica Buffalo

J
J

J
B
J

J

Page 11 of 218

8260C
8260C
8260C
8270D
8270D
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
300.0
310.2
350.1
351.2
353.2
410.4
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9251
SM 2120B
SM 2340C
SM 2540C
SM 5210B

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Sample ID
Analyte

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Client Sample ID

MW-3
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane (technical)
Bromide
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia as N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Sulfate
TOC Result 1
TOC Result 2
TOC Result 3
TOC Result 4
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Color

Result

Qualifier

0.49
0.094
0.24
468
0.32
1.5
0.058
35.8
191
11.4
10.8
10.9
10.9
11.0
116
15.0

J
JB

Reporting
Limit

Units

1.0
0.50
0.20
100
0.020
0.20
0.050
10.0
25.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.00

ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Color Units

Method

480-52601-3

TestAmerica Buffalo

H

H

Page 12 of 218

8260C
8081B
300.0
310.2
350.1
351.2
353.2
410.4
9038
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9251
SM 2120B

METHOD SUMMARY
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Description

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
Lab Location

Method

Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS
Purge and Trap

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 8260C

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)
Liquid-Liquid Extraction (Separatory Funnel)

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 8270D

Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)
Liquid-Liquid Extraction (Separatory Funnel)

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 8081B

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
Liquid-Liquid Extraction (Separatory Funnel)

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 8082A

Herbicides (GC)
Extraction (Herbicides)

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 8151A

Metals (ICP)
Preparation, Total Metals

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 6010C

Mercury (CVAA)
Preparation, Mercury

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 7470A

Anions, Ion Chromatography

TAL BUF

MCAWW 300.0

Alkalinity

TAL BUF

MCAWW 310.2

Nitrogen, Ammonia

TAL BUF

MCAWW 350.1

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

MCAWW 351.2

Nitrate

TAL BUF

EPA 353.2

COD

TAL BUF

MCAWW 410.4

Phenolics, Total Recoverable
Distillation, Phenolics

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

MCAWW 420.4

Chromium, Hexavalent

TAL BUF

SW846 7196A

Cyanide, Total andor Amenable
Cyanide, Total and/or Amenable, Distillation

TAL BUF
TAL BUF

SW846 9012B

Sulfate, Turbidimetric

TAL BUF

SW846 9038

Organic Carbon, Total (TOC)

TAL BUF

SW846 9060A

Chloride

TAL BUF

SW846 9251

Color, Colorimetric

TAL BUF

SM SM 2120B

Hardness, Total

TAL BUF

SM SM 2340C

Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)

TAL BUF

SM SM 2540C

Sulfide, Total

TAL BUF

SM SM 4500 S2 D

BOD, 5-Day

TAL BUF

SM SM 5210B

Matrix:

Preparation Method

Water

Lab References:
TAL BUF = TestAmerica Buffalo

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 13 of 218

SW846 5030C

SW846 3510C

SW846 3510C

SW846 3510C

SW846 8151A

SW846 3005A

SW846 7470A

MCAWW 351.2

Distill/Phenol

SW846 9012B

METHOD SUMMARY
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Description
Method References:

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
Lab Location

Method

Preparation Method

EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency
MCAWW = "Methods For Chemical Analysis Of Water And Wastes", EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1983 And Subsequent Revisions.
SM = "Standard Methods For The Examination Of Water And Wastewater"
SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its
Updates.

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 14 of 218

METHOD / ANALYST SUMMARY
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Method

Analyst

SW846 8260C

Hill, Leah C

LCH

SW846 8270D
SW846 8270D

McKernan, Ryan M
Rimmer, Aaron

RMM
AR1

SW846 8081B

Wolf, Leah M

LMW

SW846 8082A

Michalek, Jason M

JMM

SW846 8151A
SW846 8151A

Evers, David L
Rudz, Gary S

DLE
GSR

SW846 6010C
SW846 6010C

Hanks, Lisa M
Hawrysiak, Allison M

LMH
AMH

SW846 7470A

Setang, Steven

SS1

MCAWW 300.0

Clark, Kyra R

KRC

MCAWW 310.2
MCAWW 310.2

Bubb, Richard M
Hacic, Nicole C

RMB
NCH

MCAWW 350.1

Schrader, Robert

RS

MCAWW 351.2
MCAWW 351.2
MCAWW 351.2

Hacic, Nicole C
Nyznyk, Elizabeth G
Thomas, Christine L

NCH
EGN
CLT

EPA 353.2

Thomas, Christine L

CLT

MCAWW 410.4
MCAWW 410.4

Brado, James M
Ferguson, Katelyn M

JMB
KMF

MCAWW 420.4

Hacic, Nicole C

NCH

SW846 7196A
SW846 7196A

Nyznyk, Elizabeth G
Schrader, Robert

EGN
RS

SW846 9012B

Schrader, Robert

RS

SW846 9038
SW846 9038

Bubb, Richard M
Hacic, Nicole C

RMB
NCH

SW846 9060A

Clark, Kyra R

KRC

SW846 9251
SW846 9251

Bubb, Richard M
Hacic, Nicole C

RMB
NCH

SM SM 2120B
SM SM 2120B

Schrader, Robert
Sobol, Kevin

RS
KS

SM SM 2340C
SM SM 2340C

Jones, Kyle W
Leader, Michael D

KWJ
MDL

SM SM 2540C

Sobol, Kevin

KS

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 15 of 218

Analyst ID

METHOD / ANALYST SUMMARY
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Method

Analyst

SM SM 4500 S2 D

Nyznyk, Elizabeth G

EGN

SM SM 5210B
SM SM 5210B

Leader, Michael D
Sobol, Kevin

MDL
KS

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 16 of 218

Analyst ID

SAMPLE SUMMARY
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Client Matrix

480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-6TB
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3
480-52601-4TB

MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3
Trip Blank
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3
Trip Blank

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 17 of 218

Date/Time
Sampled
12/23/2013
12/23/2013
12/23/2013
12/23/2013
12/23/2013
12/23/2013
12/26/2013
12/26/2013
12/23/2013
12/26/2013

1215
1545
1430
1100
1600
0000
1300
1100
0000
0000

Date/Time
Received
12/24/2013
12/24/2013
12/24/2013
12/24/2013
12/24/2013
12/24/2013
12/27/2013
12/27/2013
12/27/2013
12/27/2013

1130
1130
1130
1130
1130
1130
1200
1200
1200
1200

SAMPLE RESULTS

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 18 of 218

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0152
01/03/2014 0152

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.5
40
20
5.0
1.0
0.59
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 19 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
J
U*
U
U
U*
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74
0.28

HP5973C
C35724.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0152
01/03/2014 0152

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
3.9
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
95
95
99

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 20 of 218

U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

HP5973C
C35724.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
10
01/03/2014 0218
01/03/2014 0218

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
50
100
400
200
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 21 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
3.5
8.2
2.1
2.3
3.8
2.9
7.2
8.9
4.1
3.9
7.3
7.9
2.1
7.2
7.8
7.5
8.4
4.0
12
13
21
30
260
180
8.3
4.4
4.1
8.7
3.9
2.6
6.9
1.9
2.7
7.5
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.5
4.9
8.1
3.6
4.1
6.8
5.9
7.4
2.8

HP5973C
C35725.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
50
100
400
200
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
10
01/03/2014 0218
01/03/2014 0218

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
10
400
50
10
10
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
50
10
20
20
10

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
94
95
98

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 22 of 218

MDL
3.0
200
6.9
6.1
4.4
4.3
3.4
58
7.3
3.6
5.1
9.0
3.7
21
4.6
8.8
8.5
9.0
6.6
6.6
7.6

HP5973C
C35725.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
10
400
50
10
10
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
50
10
20
20
10
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
10
01/03/2014 0243
01/03/2014 0243

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
50
100
400
200
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 23 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
3.5
8.2
2.1
2.3
3.8
2.9
7.2
8.9
4.1
3.9
7.3
7.9
2.1
7.2
7.8
7.5
8.4
4.0
12
13
21
30
260
180
8.3
4.4
4.1
8.7
3.9
2.6
6.9
1.9
2.7
7.5
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.5
4.9
8.1
3.6
4.1
6.8
5.9
7.4
2.8

HP5973C
C35726.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
50
100
400
200
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
10
01/03/2014 0243
01/03/2014 0243

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
10
400
50
10
10
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
50
10
20
20
10

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
95
96
100

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 24 of 218

MDL
3.0
200
6.9
6.1
4.4
4.3
3.4
58
7.3
3.6
5.1
9.0
3.7
21
4.6
8.8
8.5
9.0
6.6
6.6
7.6

HP5973C
C35726.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
10
400
50
10
10
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
50
10
20
20
10
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0308
01/03/2014 0308

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.3
40
20
5.0
1.0
0.58
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
0.37
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 25 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
J
U*
U
U
U*
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74
0.28

HP5973C
C35727.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0308
01/03/2014 0308

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
3.9
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
95
96
100

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 26 of 218

U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

HP5973C
C35727.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

Trip Blank

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-6TB
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0333
01/03/2014 0333

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 27 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74
0.28

HP5973C
C35728.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

Trip Blank

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-6TB
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0333
01/03/2014 0333

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
96
97
101

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 28 of 218

MDL
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

HP5973C
C35728.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0630
01/03/2014 0630

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
0.49
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 29 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U*
J
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74
0.28

HP5973C
C35735.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0630
01/03/2014 0630

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
100
102
107

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 30 of 218

U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

HP5973C
C35735.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0655
01/03/2014 0655

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
0.52
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.99
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 31 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U*
J
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74
0.28

HP5973C
C35736.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0655
01/03/2014 0655

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
96
98
101

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 32 of 218

U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

HP5973C
C35736.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0720
01/03/2014 0720

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.49
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 33 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74
0.28

HP5973C
C35737.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0720
01/03/2014 0720

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
98
99
102

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 34 of 218

MDL
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

HP5973C
C35737.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

Trip Blank

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-4TB
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0746
01/03/2014 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Analyte
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 35 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74
0.28

HP5973C
C35738.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

Trip Blank

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-4TB
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8260C
5030C
1.0
01/03/2014 0746
01/03/2014 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160283
N/A

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Analyte
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

Result (ug/L)
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Qualifier
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U*
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

%Rec
96
96
100

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 36 of 218

MDL
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

HP5973C
C35738.D
5 mL
5 mL

RL
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
Acceptance Limits
66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0031
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (ug/L)
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
19
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
39
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 37 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.56
0.43
0.39
2.4
0.47
0.80
0.45
0.24
1.3
0.31
0.47
0.59
0.50
0.49
2.2
0.43
0.45
0.39
2.2
0.45
0.51
0.58
0.39
2.4
0.41
0.47
1.4
0.39
2.4
2.4
0.47
2.1
0.79
0.44
0.44
0.57
0.34
0.24
1.5
0.60
0.40
0.37
0.39
0.52
0.27
0.35

HP5973W
W03379.D
257.5 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
19
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
39
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0031
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

Result (ug/L)
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
19
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
8.1
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
0.39
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
39
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
49
49
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 38 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.46
0.33
0.34
0.71
0.43
0.34
0.39
0.35
0.50
1.7
0.41
0.32
2.4
0.41
0.50
0.21
0.52
0.35
0.30
0.46
0.80
0.41
0.38
1.8
0.39
0.35
0.50
0.66
0.57
0.57
2.4
0.46
0.17
0.42
0.56
1.7
1.7
2.4
0.45
0.37
0.74
0.28
0.64
0.35
2.1
0.58

HP5973W
W03379.D
257.5 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
19
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
39
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
4.9
9.7
49
49
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0031
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160060
480-159564

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

Analyte
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Chlorobenzilate
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o,o',o''-Triethylphosphorothioate
Parathion ethyl
Parathion-methyl
p-Dimethylamino azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylene diamine
Pronamide
Pyrene

Result (ug/L)
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
19
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
2.8
9.7
780
9.7
4.9

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
p-Terphenyl-d14
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol

%Rec
73
85
92
37
53
98

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 39 of 218

MDL
0.52
0.50
2.4
2.4
0.65
2.4
0.42
0.62
0.36
0.73
0.51
2.4
2.1
0.59
0.43
0.38
0.49
190
2.4
0.33

HP5973W
W03379.D
257.5 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.9
4.9
9.7
9.7
19
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
4.9
4.9
9.7
780
9.7
4.9

Acceptance Limits
46 - 120
48 - 120
67 - 150
16 - 120
20 - 120
52 - 132

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0054
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (ug/L)
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
38
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
0.70
4.7
4.7
4.7

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 40 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U

MDL
0.55
0.42
0.38
2.4
0.45
0.78
0.43
0.23
1.2
0.30
0.45
0.58
0.48
0.47
2.1
0.42
0.43
0.38
2.2
0.43
0.50
0.57
0.38
2.4
0.40
0.45
1.4
0.38
2.4
2.4
0.45
2.1
0.77
0.43
0.43
0.56
0.33
0.24
1.4
0.59
0.39
0.36
0.38
0.51
0.26
0.34

HP5973W
W03380.D
264.4 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
38
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0054
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

Result (ug/L)
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
19
4.7
4.7
0.70
4.7
2.4
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
0.73
9.5
4.7
0.35
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
38
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
47
47
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 41 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.44
0.32
0.33
0.69
0.42
0.33
0.38
0.34
0.49
1.7
0.40
0.31
2.4
0.40
0.48
0.21
0.51
0.34
0.29
0.44
0.78
0.40
0.37
1.8
0.38
0.34
0.48
0.64
0.56
0.56
2.4
0.44
0.17
0.41
0.55
1.7
1.7
2.4
0.43
0.36
0.72
0.27
0.62
0.34
2.1
0.57

HP5973W
W03380.D
264.4 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
19
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
38
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
47
47
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0054
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160060
480-159564

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

Analyte
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Chlorobenzilate
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o,o',o''-Triethylphosphorothioate
Parathion ethyl
Parathion-methyl
p-Dimethylamino azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylene diamine
Pronamide
Pyrene

Result (ug/L)
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
760
9.5
4.7

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
p-Terphenyl-d14
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol

%Rec
79
89
93
44
59
105

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 42 of 218

MDL
0.51
0.48
2.4
2.4
0.63
2.4
0.41
0.61
0.35
0.71
0.50
2.4
2.1
0.58
0.42
0.37
0.47
190
2.4
0.32

HP5973W
W03380.D
264.4 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
760
9.5
4.7

Acceptance Limits
46 - 120
48 - 120
67 - 150
16 - 120
20 - 120
52 - 132

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0118
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (ug/L)
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
19
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
38
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 43 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.55
0.42
0.38
2.4
0.45
0.77
0.43
0.23
1.2
0.30
0.45
0.58
0.48
0.47
2.1
0.42
0.43
0.38
2.2
0.43
0.50
0.57
0.38
2.4
0.40
0.45
1.4
0.38
2.4
2.4
0.45
2.1
0.76
0.42
0.42
0.56
0.33
0.24
1.4
0.59
0.39
0.36
0.38
0.51
0.26
0.34

HP5973W
W03381.D
264.9 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
19
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
38
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0118
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

Result (ug/L)
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
19
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
1.9
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
0.69
9.4
4.7
0.46
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
38
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
47
47
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 44 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.44
0.32
0.33
0.69
0.42
0.33
0.38
0.34
0.49
1.7
0.40
0.31
2.4
0.40
0.48
0.21
0.51
0.34
0.29
0.44
0.77
0.40
0.37
1.8
0.38
0.34
0.48
0.64
0.56
0.56
2.4
0.44
0.17
0.41
0.55
1.7
1.7
2.4
0.43
0.36
0.72
0.27
0.62
0.34
2.1
0.57

HP5973W
W03381.D
264.9 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
19
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
38
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
4.7
9.4
47
47
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0118
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Chlorobenzilate
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o,o',o''-Triethylphosphorothioate
Parathion ethyl
Parathion-methyl
p-Dimethylamino azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylene diamine
Pronamide
Pyrene

Result (ug/L)
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
19
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
9.4
760
9.4
4.7

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
p-Terphenyl-d14
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol

%Rec
75
84
87
0.3
55
102

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 45 of 218

*

MDL
0.51
0.48
2.4
2.4
0.63
2.4
0.41
0.60
0.35
0.71
0.50
2.4
2.1
0.58
0.42
0.37
0.47
190
2.4
0.32

HP5973W
W03381.D
264.9 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
4.7
9.4
9.4
19
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
4.7
4.7
9.4
760
9.4
4.7

Acceptance Limits
46 - 120
48 - 120
67 - 150
16 - 120
20 - 120
52 - 132

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0141
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (ug/L)
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
38
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 46 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.55
0.42
0.38
2.4
0.45
0.78
0.44
0.23
1.2
0.30
0.45
0.58
0.48
0.47
2.1
0.42
0.44
0.38
2.2
0.44
0.50
0.57
0.38
2.4
0.40
0.45
1.4
0.38
2.4
2.4
0.45
2.1
0.77
0.43
0.43
0.56
0.33
0.24
1.4
0.59
0.39
0.36
0.38
0.51
0.27
0.34

HP5973W
W03382.D
263.9 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
38
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0141
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160060
480-159564

Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

Result (ug/L)
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
19
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
7.0
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
0.39
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
38
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
47
47
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 47 of 218

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.45
0.32
0.33
0.69
0.42
0.33
0.38
0.34
0.49
1.7
0.40
0.31
2.4
0.40
0.48
0.21
0.51
0.34
0.29
0.45
0.78
0.40
0.37
1.8
0.38
0.34
0.48
0.64
0.56
0.56
2.4
0.45
0.17
0.41
0.55
1.7
1.7
2.4
0.44
0.36
0.72
0.27
0.62
0.34
2.1
0.57

HP5973W
W03382.D
263.9 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
19
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
38
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
4.7
9.5
47
47
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/01/2014 0141
12/27/2013 0754

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160060
480-159564

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

Analyte
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Chlorobenzilate
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o,o',o''-Triethylphosphorothioate
Parathion ethyl
Parathion-methyl
p-Dimethylamino azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylene diamine
Pronamide
Pyrene

Result (ug/L)
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
2.8
9.5
760
9.5
4.7

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
p-Terphenyl-d14
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol

%Rec
73
88
87
39
55
93

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 48 of 218

MDL
0.51
0.48
2.4
2.4
0.63
2.4
0.41
0.61
0.35
0.71
0.50
2.4
2.1
0.58
0.42
0.37
0.47
190
2.4
0.32

HP5973W
W03382.D
263.9 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.7
4.7
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.7
4.7
9.5
760
9.5
4.7

Acceptance Limits
46 - 120
48 - 120
67 - 150
16 - 120
20 - 120
52 - 132

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1620
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Analyte
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (ug/L)
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
19
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
38
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 49 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.55
0.42
0.38
2.4
0.46
0.78
0.44
0.23
1.2
0.31
0.46
0.58
0.49
0.48
2.1
0.43
0.44
0.38
2.2
0.44
0.51
0.57
0.38
2.4
0.40
0.46
1.4
0.38
2.4
2.4
0.46
2.1
0.77
0.43
0.43
0.56
0.33
0.24
1.5
0.59
0.39
0.36
0.38
0.52
0.27
0.34

HP5973W
W03490.D
261.4 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
19
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
38
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1620
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

Result (ug/L)
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
19
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
0.54
9.6
4.8
0.42
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
38
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
48
48
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 50 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.45
0.33
0.33
0.70
0.42
0.33
0.38
0.34
0.50
1.7
0.40
0.32
2.4
0.40
0.49
0.21
0.52
0.34
0.30
0.45
0.78
0.40
0.37
1.8
0.38
0.34
0.49
0.65
0.56
0.56
2.4
0.45
0.17
0.41
0.55
1.7
1.7
2.4
0.44
0.36
0.73
0.28
0.63
0.34
2.1
0.57

HP5973W
W03490.D
261.4 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
19
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
38
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
4.8
9.6
48
48
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1620
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

Analyte
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Chlorobenzilate
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o,o',o''-Triethylphosphorothioate
Parathion ethyl
Parathion-methyl
p-Dimethylamino azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylene diamine
Pronamide
Pyrene

Result (ug/L)
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
19
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
9.6
770
9.6
4.8

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
p-Terphenyl-d14
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol

%Rec
76
83
78
36
57
96

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 51 of 218

MDL
0.52
0.49
2.4
2.4
0.64
2.4
0.41
0.61
0.35
0.72
0.51
2.4
2.1
0.58
0.42
0.37
0.48
190
2.4
0.33

HP5973W
W03490.D
261.4 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.8
4.8
9.6
9.6
19
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
4.8
4.8
9.6
770
9.6
4.8

Acceptance Limits
46 - 120
48 - 120
67 - 150
16 - 120
20 - 120
52 - 132

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1643
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Analyte
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (ug/L)
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
38
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 52 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.55
0.42
0.38
2.4
0.46
0.78
0.44
0.23
1.2
0.30
0.46
0.58
0.49
0.48
2.1
0.43
0.44
0.38
2.2
0.44
0.50
0.57
0.38
2.4
0.40
0.46
1.4
0.38
2.4
2.4
0.46
2.1
0.77
0.43
0.43
0.56
0.33
0.24
1.4
0.59
0.39
0.36
0.38
0.51
0.27
0.34

HP5973W
W03491.D
262.8 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
38
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1643
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

Result (ug/L)
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
19
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
0.57
9.5
4.8
0.37
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
38
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
48
48
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 53 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.45
0.32
0.33
0.69
0.42
0.33
0.38
0.34
0.49
1.7
0.40
0.31
2.4
0.40
0.49
0.21
0.51
0.34
0.29
0.45
0.78
0.40
0.37
1.8
0.38
0.34
0.49
0.65
0.56
0.56
2.4
0.45
0.17
0.41
0.55
1.7
1.7
2.4
0.44
0.36
0.72
0.28
0.62
0.34
2.1
0.57

HP5973W
W03491.D
262.8 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
19
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
38
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
4.8
9.5
48
48
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1643
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

Analyte
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Chlorobenzilate
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o,o',o''-Triethylphosphorothioate
Parathion ethyl
Parathion-methyl
p-Dimethylamino azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylene diamine
Pronamide
Pyrene

Result (ug/L)
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
9.5
760
9.5
4.8

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
p-Terphenyl-d14
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol

%Rec
74
82
75
39
57
92

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 54 of 218

MDL
0.51
0.49
2.4
2.4
0.64
2.4
0.41
0.61
0.35
0.71
0.50
2.4
2.1
0.58
0.42
0.37
0.48
190
2.4
0.32

HP5973W
W03491.D
262.8 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.8
4.8
9.5
9.5
19
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
4.8
4.8
9.5
760
9.5
4.8

Acceptance Limits
46 - 120
48 - 120
67 - 150
16 - 120
20 - 120
52 - 132

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1707
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Analyte
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene

Result (ug/L)
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
20
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
39
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 55 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.57
0.43
0.39
2.5
0.47
0.81
0.45
0.24
1.3
0.32
0.47
0.60
0.50
0.49
2.2
0.44
0.45
0.39
2.3
0.45
0.52
0.59
0.39
2.5
0.41
0.47
1.5
0.39
2.5
2.5
0.47
2.2
0.80
0.44
0.44
0.58
0.34
0.25
1.5
0.61
0.40
0.37
0.39
0.53
0.28
0.35

HP5973W
W03492.D
253.8 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
20
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
39
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1707
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160568
480-159730

Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine

Result (ug/L)
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
20
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
39
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
49
49
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 56 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

MDL
0.46
0.33
0.34
0.72
0.43
0.34
0.39
0.35
0.51
1.8
0.41
0.33
2.5
0.41
0.50
0.22
0.53
0.35
0.31
0.46
0.81
0.41
0.38
1.9
0.39
0.35
0.50
0.67
0.58
0.58
2.5
0.46
0.18
0.42
0.57
1.8
1.8
2.5
0.45
0.37
0.75
0.29
0.65
0.35
2.2
0.59

HP5973W
W03492.D
253.8 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
20
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
39
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
4.9
9.9
49
49
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8270D
3510C
1.0
01/06/2014 1707
12/28/2013 0741

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

480-160568
480-159730

Analyte
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Chlorobenzilate
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
o,o',o''-Triethylphosphorothioate
Parathion ethyl
Parathion-methyl
p-Dimethylamino azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
p-Phenylene diamine
Pronamide
Pyrene

Result (ug/L)
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
20
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
790
9.9
4.9

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
p-Terphenyl-d14
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribromophenol

%Rec
75
85
62
39
58
95

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 57 of 218

*

MDL
0.53
0.50
2.5
2.5
0.66
2.5
0.42
0.63
0.36
0.74
0.52
2.5
2.2
0.60
0.43
0.38
0.49
200
2.5
0.33

HP5973W
W03492.D
253.8 mL
1 mL
5 uL
RL
4.9
4.9
9.9
9.9
20
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
790
9.9
4.9

Acceptance Limits
46 - 120
48 - 120
67 - 150
16 - 120
20 - 120
52 - 132

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8081B
3510C
1.0
12/31/2013 1100
12/30/2013 0941

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159961
480-159809

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Chlordane (technical)
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Result (ug/L)
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.48
0.013
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.012
0.048
0.0064
0.048
0.48

Qualifier
JB
JB
J
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
J
U
U

Surrogate
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

%Rec
68
31

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 58 of 218

MDL
0.0088
0.011
0.011
0.0063
0.0063
0.024
0.028
0.0096
0.014
0.0094
0.011
0.012
0.015
0.013
0.016
0.0058
0.0082
0.0051
0.014
0.12

HP6890-6
260.2 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.48
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.48

Acceptance Limits
36 - 120
20 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8081B
3510C
20
12/31/2013 1117
12/30/2013 0941

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159961
480-159809

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Chlordane (technical)
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Result (ug/L)
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.13
0.96
0.96
9.6
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
9.6

Qualifier
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

%Rec
0
0

Qualifier
*
*

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 59 of 218

MDL
0.18
0.22
0.21
0.13
0.13
0.48
0.56
0.19
0.28
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.30
0.27
0.31
0.12
0.16
0.10
0.27
2.3

HP6890-6
260.1 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
9.6
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
9.6

Acceptance Limits
36 - 120
20 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8081B
3510C
20
12/31/2013 1135
12/30/2013 0941

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159961
480-159809

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Chlordane (technical)
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Result (ug/L)
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.15
0.96
0.96
1.5
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
9.6

Qualifier
U
U
U
J
U
U
JB
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

%Rec
0
0

Qualifier
*
*

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 60 of 218

MDL
0.18
0.22
0.21
0.13
0.13
0.47
0.56
0.19
0.28
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.30
0.26
0.31
0.11
0.16
0.10
0.27
2.3

HP6890-6
261.1 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
9.6
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
9.6

Acceptance Limits
36 - 120
20 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8081B
3510C
1.0
12/31/2013 1152
12/30/2013 0941

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159961
480-159809

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Chlordane (technical)
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Result (ug/L)
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.49
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.0060
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.49

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

%Rec
69
43

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 61 of 218

MDL
0.0091
0.011
0.011
0.0065
0.0065
0.024
0.029
0.0099
0.015
0.0097
0.011
0.012
0.016
0.014
0.016
0.0059
0.0084
0.0052
0.014
0.12

HP6890-6
253.2 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.49
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.049
0.49

Acceptance Limits
36 - 120
20 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8081B
3510C
1.0
12/31/2013 1210
12/30/2013 0941

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159961
480-159809

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Chlordane (technical)
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Result (ug/L)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.0069
0.048
0.48
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.0093
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.48

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
JB
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

%Rec
75
39

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 62 of 218

MDL
0.0089
0.011
0.011
0.0064
0.0064
0.024
0.028
0.0096
0.014
0.0094
0.011
0.012
0.015
0.013
0.016
0.0058
0.0082
0.0051
0.014
0.12

HP6890-6
259.5 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.48
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.48

Acceptance Limits
36 - 120
20 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8081B
3510C
5.0
12/31/2013 1227
12/30/2013 0941

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159961
480-159809

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Chlordane (technical)
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Result (ug/L)
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
2.4
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
2.4

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

%Rec
88
59

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 63 of 218

MDL
0.045
0.056
0.053
0.032
0.032
0.12
0.14
0.048
0.072
0.047
0.053
0.058
0.076
0.067
0.079
0.029
0.041
0.026
0.068
0.58

HP6890-6
258.2 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
2.4
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
2.4

Acceptance Limits
36 - 120
20 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8081B
3510C
1.0
12/31/2013 1407
12/30/2013 0941

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159961
480-159809

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Chlordane (technical)
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene

Result (ug/L)
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.094
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.50

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
JB
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

%Rec
64
38

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 64 of 218

MDL
0.0093
0.012
0.011
0.0066
0.0066
0.025
0.029
0.010
0.015
0.0099
0.011
0.012
0.016
0.014
0.016
0.0060
0.0086
0.0053
0.014
0.12

HP6890-6
248.3 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.50
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.50

Acceptance Limits
36 - 120
20 - 120

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8082A
3510C
1.0
12/30/2013 2006
12/28/2013 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159833
480-159731

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCB-1262

Result (ug/L)
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro-m-xylene

%Rec
28
84

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 65 of 218

MDL
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.24
0.24
0.24

HP5890-12
257.1 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Acceptance Limits
19 - 126
23 - 127

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8082A
3510C
1.0
12/30/2013 2021
12/28/2013 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159833
480-159731

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCB-1262

Result (ug/L)
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro-m-xylene

%Rec
50
82

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 66 of 218

MDL
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.23
0.23
0.23

HP5890-12
267.7 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47

Acceptance Limits
19 - 126
23 - 127

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8082A
3510C
1.0
12/30/2013 2105
12/28/2013 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159833
480-159731

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCB-1262

Result (ug/L)
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro-m-xylene

%Rec
47
89

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 67 of 218

MDL
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.24
0.24
0.24

HP5890-12
261.7 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Acceptance Limits
19 - 126
23 - 127

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8082A
3510C
1.0
12/30/2013 2119
12/28/2013 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159833
480-159731

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCB-1262

Result (ug/L)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro-m-xylene

%Rec
34
97

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 68 of 218

MDL
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.25
0.25

HP5890-12
249.3 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Acceptance Limits
19 - 126
23 - 127

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8082A
3510C
1.0
12/30/2013 1853
12/28/2013 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159833
480-159731

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCB-1262

Result (ug/L)
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro-m-xylene

%Rec
52
76

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 69 of 218

MDL
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.24
0.24
0.24

HP5890-12
263.2 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47

Acceptance Limits
19 - 126
23 - 127

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8082A
3510C
1.0
12/30/2013 1907
12/28/2013 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159833
480-159731

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCB-1262

Result (ug/L)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro-m-xylene

%Rec
43
76

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 70 of 218

MDL
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.25
0.25

HP5890-12
250.7 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Acceptance Limits
19 - 126
23 - 127

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8082A
3510C
1.0
12/30/2013 1922
12/28/2013 0746

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159833
480-159731

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
PCB-1262

Result (ug/L)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Qualifier
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
Tetrachloro-m-xylene

%Rec
24
40

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 71 of 218

MDL
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.25
0.25

HP5890-12
251 mL
2 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Acceptance Limits
19 - 126
23 - 127

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
12/31/2013 1739
12/27/2013 0604

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160069
480-159550

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Qualifier
U*
U*
U*
U*

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
91

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 72 of 218

MDL
0.14
0.39
0.17
0.35

HP5890-13
1032.3 mL
10 mL
1 uL
SECONDARY
RL
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
01/09/2014 1452
01/03/2014 0543

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160609
480-160305

Run Type:

RE

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Qualifier
UH
UH
UH
UH

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
89

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 73 of 218

MDL
0.14
0.38
0.17
0.35

HP5890-13
1042.6 mL
10 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
12/31/2013 1808
12/27/2013 0604

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160069
480-159550

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60

Qualifier
U*
U*
U*
U*

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
85

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 74 of 218

MDL
0.18
0.48
0.22
0.43

HP5890-13
835.1 mL
10 mL
1 uL
SECONDARY
RL
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
01/08/2014 1616
01/03/2014 0543

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160609
480-160305

Run Type:

RE

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Qualifier
UH
UH
UH
UH

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
125

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 75 of 218

MDL
0.14
0.38
0.17
0.34

HP5890-13
1044.9 mL
10 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1430
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
12/31/2013 1838
12/27/2013 0604

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160069
480-159550

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Qualifier
U*
U*
U*
U*

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
107

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 76 of 218

MDL
0.14
0.39
0.17
0.35

HP5890-13
1033.3 mL
10 mL
1 uL
SECONDARY
RL
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1430
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
01/08/2014 1646
01/03/2014 0543

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160609
480-160305

Run Type:

RE

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53

Qualifier
UH
UH
UH
UH

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
116

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 77 of 218

MDL
0.16
0.42
0.19
0.38

HP5890-13
947.4 mL
10 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
12/31/2013 1907
12/27/2013 0604

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160069
480-159550

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.53

Qualifier
U*
U*
U*
*

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
105

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 78 of 218

MDL
0.14
0.38
0.17
0.34

HP5890-13
1055.6 mL
10 mL
1 uL
SECONDARY
RL
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
01/08/2014 1715
01/03/2014 0543

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160609
480-160305

Run Type:

RE

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Qualifier
UH
UH
UH
UH

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
87

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 79 of 218

MDL
0.14
0.38
0.17
0.35

HP5890-13
1041.9 mL
10 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
12/31/2013 1937
12/27/2013 0604

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160069
480-159550

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Qualifier
U*
U*
U*
U*

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
92

Qualifier

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 80 of 218

MDL
0.15
0.40
0.18
0.36

HP5890-13
992.9 mL
10 mL
1 uL
SECONDARY
RL
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
01/08/2014 1745
01/03/2014 0543

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160609
480-160305

Run Type:

RE

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Qualifier
UH
UH
UH
UH

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
227

Qualifier
*

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 81 of 218

MDL
0.15
0.39
0.18
0.35

HP5890-13
1026.8 mL
10 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
01/01/2014 0556
12/30/2013 0931

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160069
480-159801

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Qualifier
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
136

Qualifier
*

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 82 of 218

MDL
0.15
0.39
0.18
0.35

HP5890-13
1023.3 mL
10 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
8151A Herbicides (GC)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

8151A
8151A
1.0
01/01/2014 0625
12/30/2013 0931

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160069
480-159801

Instrument ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:
Result Type:

Analyte
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
Dinoseb
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)

Result (ug/L)
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Qualifier
U
U
U
U

Surrogate
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

%Rec
139

Qualifier
*

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 83 of 218

MDL
0.15
0.39
0.18
0.35

HP5890-13
1026.2 mL
10 mL
1 uL
PRIMARY
RL
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49

Acceptance Limits
40 - 135

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
6010C Metals (ICP)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

6010C
3005A
1.0
01/02/2014 1317
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Result (mg/L)
1.9
0.020
0.018
0.0020
0.17
0.0010
38.0
0.013
0.0015
0.0089
2.5
0.0050
14.3
0.13
0.0047
67.3
0.015
131
0.020
10.0
0.0065
0.024
6010C
3005A
1.0
01/03/2014 1757
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Barium
Silver

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160333
480-159377

Qualifier
U
U
U

J
J
B
U

J
U
U
U
B

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160563
480-159377

Result (mg/L)
0.065
0.0030

MDL
0.060
0.0068
0.0056
0.00030
0.0040
0.00050
0.10
0.0010
0.00063
0.0016
0.019
0.0030
0.043
0.00040
0.0013
0.10
0.0087
0.32
0.010
0.0051
0.0015
0.0015

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00070
0.0017

ICAP1
I1010214A-5.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.20
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.0030
0.010
0.50
0.015
1.0
0.020
10.0
0.0050
0.010
ICAP1
I1010314A-9.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.0020
0.0030

7470A Mercury (CVAA)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

7470A
7470A
1.0
12/26/2013 1436
12/26/2013 1000

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159490
480-159416

Analyte
Mercury

Result (mg/L)
0.00020

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 84 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00012

LEEMAN2
H12263W1.PRN
30 mL
50 mL

RL
0.00020

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
6010C Metals (ICP)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

6010C
3005A
1.0
01/02/2014 1340
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Result (mg/L)
1.3
0.020
0.029
0.00036
7.0
0.00053
177
0.0083
0.029
0.097
19.3
0.0040
140
0.16
129
0.015
0.0030
699
0.020
10.0
0.0088
0.30
6010C
3005A
1.0
01/10/2014 1214
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Barium
Manganese

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160333
480-159377

480-161118
480-159377

Result (mg/L)
0.51
12.5

Qualifier
U
J
J

B
J

U
U
U
U
B

MDL
0.060
0.0068
0.0056
0.00030
0.0040
0.00050
0.10
0.0010
0.00063
0.0016
0.019
0.0030
0.043
0.0013
0.10
0.0087
0.0017
0.32
0.010
0.0051
0.0015
0.0015

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier

MDL
0.00070
0.00040

ICAP1
I1010214A-5.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.20
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.010
0.50
0.015
0.0030
1.0
0.020
10.0
0.0050
0.010
ICAP1
I1011014A-1a.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.0020
0.0030

7470A Mercury (CVAA)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

7470A
7470A
1.0
12/26/2013 1441
12/26/2013 1000

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159490
480-159416

Analyte
Mercury

Result (mg/L)
0.00020

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 85 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00012

LEEMAN2
H12263W1.PRN
30 mL
50 mL

RL
0.00020

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-3
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1430
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
6010C Metals (ICP)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

6010C
3005A
1.0
01/02/2014 1343
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Result (mg/L)
5.9
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.89
0.0010
155
0.0097
0.0071
0.018
8.4
0.0056
53.0
0.021
30.3
0.015
0.0030
81.8
0.020
10.0
0.0095
0.025
6010C
3005A
1.0
01/10/2014 1217
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Barium
Manganese

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160333
480-159377

480-161118
480-159377

Result (mg/L)
0.19
4.3

Qualifier
U
U
U
U

B

U
U
U
U
B

MDL
0.060
0.0068
0.0056
0.00030
0.0040
0.00050
0.10
0.0010
0.00063
0.0016
0.019
0.0030
0.043
0.0013
0.10
0.0087
0.0017
0.32
0.010
0.0051
0.0015
0.0015

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier

MDL
0.00070
0.00040

ICAP1
I1010214A-5.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.20
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.010
0.50
0.015
0.0030
1.0
0.020
10.0
0.0050
0.010
ICAP1
I1011014A-1a.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.0020
0.0030

7470A Mercury (CVAA)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

7470A
7470A
1.0
12/26/2013 1443
12/26/2013 1000

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159490
480-159416

Analyte
Mercury

Result (mg/L)
0.00020

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 86 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00012

LEEMAN2
H12263W1.PRN
30 mL
50 mL

RL
0.00020

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
6010C Metals (ICP)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

6010C
3005A
1.0
01/02/2014 1346
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Result (mg/L)
0.63
0.020
0.027
0.0020
7.1
0.0010
178
0.0070
0.029
0.075
18.5
0.0050
140
0.16
130
0.015
0.0030
695
0.020
10.0
0.0082
0.24
6010C
3005A
1.0
01/10/2014 1220
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Barium
Manganese

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160333
480-159377

480-161118
480-159377

Result (mg/L)
0.52
12.7

Qualifier
U
U
U

B
U

U
U
U
U
B

MDL
0.060
0.0068
0.0056
0.00030
0.0040
0.00050
0.10
0.0010
0.00063
0.0016
0.019
0.0030
0.043
0.0013
0.10
0.0087
0.0017
0.32
0.010
0.0051
0.0015
0.0015

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier

MDL
0.00070
0.00040

ICAP1
I1010214A-5.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.20
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.010
0.50
0.015
0.0030
1.0
0.020
10.0
0.0050
0.010
ICAP1
I1011014A-1a.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.0020
0.0030

7470A Mercury (CVAA)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

7470A
7470A
1.0
12/26/2013 1444
12/26/2013 1000

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159490
480-159416

Analyte
Mercury

Result (mg/L)
0.00020

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 87 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00012

LEEMAN2
H12263W1.PRN
30 mL
50 mL

RL
0.00020

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
6010C Metals (ICP)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

6010C
3005A
1.0
01/02/2014 1349
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Result (mg/L)
1.9
0.020
0.019
0.0020
0.18
0.0010
37.3
0.011
0.0015
0.0085
2.5
0.0050
14.1
0.0046
65.3
0.015
0.0030
129
0.020
10.0
0.0064
0.025
6010C
3005A
1.0
01/10/2014 1223
12/26/2013 1010

Analyte
Barium
Manganese

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160333
480-159377

480-161118
480-159377

Result (mg/L)
0.066
0.13

Qualifier
U
U
U

J
J
B
U
J
U
U
U
U
B

MDL
0.060
0.0068
0.0056
0.00030
0.0040
0.00050
0.10
0.0010
0.00063
0.0016
0.019
0.0030
0.043
0.0013
0.10
0.0087
0.0017
0.32
0.010
0.0051
0.0015
0.0015

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier

MDL
0.00070
0.00040

ICAP1
I1010214A-5.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.20
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0050
0.20
0.010
0.50
0.015
0.0030
1.0
0.020
10.0
0.0050
0.010
ICAP1
I1011014A-1a.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.0020
0.0030

7470A Mercury (CVAA)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

7470A
7470A
1.0
12/26/2013 1446
12/26/2013 1000

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-159490
480-159416

Analyte
Mercury

Result (mg/L)
0.00020

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 88 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00012

LEEMAN2
H12263W1.PRN
30 mL
50 mL

RL
0.00020

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
6010C Metals (ICP)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

6010C
3005A
1.0
01/02/2014 2110
12/30/2013 1025

Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Result (mg/L)
1.0
0.020
0.010
8.2
0.00089
0.0010
164
0.0018
0.0040
0.35
6.2
0.45
0.052
29.4
0.015
0.0030
431
0.020
10.0
0.0029
0.30
6010C
3005A
1.0
01/03/2014 2017
12/30/2013 1025

Analyte
Boron
Lead
Magnesium

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160373
480-159796

480-160984
480-159796

Result (mg/L)
1.4
0.0082
63.0

Qualifier
U
U
J
U
B
J
U

U
U
U
U
J

MDL
0.060
0.0068
0.0056
0.00070
0.00030
0.00050
0.10
0.0010
0.00063
0.0016
0.019
0.00040
0.0013
0.10
0.0087
0.0017
0.32
0.010
0.0051
0.0015
0.0015

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier

MDL
0.0040
0.0030
0.043

ICAP2
I2010214A-7.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.20
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.0020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0030
0.010
0.50
0.015
0.0030
1.0
0.020
10.0
0.0050
0.010
ICAP2
I2010314D-80.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.020
0.0050
0.20

7470A Mercury (CVAA)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

7470A
7470A
1.0
12/31/2013 1156
12/31/2013 0900

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160057
480-159966

Analyte
Mercury

Result (mg/L)
0.00020

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 89 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00012

LEEMAN3
J12313W1.PRN
30 mL
50 mL

RL
0.00020

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.
Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
6010C Metals (ICP)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

6010C
3005A
1.0
01/02/2014 2113
12/30/2013 1025

Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Result (mg/L)
0.84
0.020
0.010
8.5
0.0010
0.0010
168
0.0021
0.0040
0.31
6.1
0.46
0.051
30.0
0.015
0.0030
444
0.020
10.0
0.0024
0.31
6010C
3005A
1.0
01/03/2014 2019
12/30/2013 1025

Analyte
Boron
Lead
Magnesium

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160373
480-159796

480-160984
480-159796

Result (mg/L)
1.5
0.0084
65.1

Qualifier
U
U
J
U
B
J
U

U
U
U
U
J

MDL
0.060
0.0068
0.0056
0.00070
0.00030
0.00050
0.10
0.0010
0.00063
0.0016
0.019
0.00040
0.0013
0.10
0.0087
0.0017
0.32
0.010
0.0051
0.0015
0.0015

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier

MDL
0.0040
0.0030
0.043

ICAP2
I2010214A-7.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.20
0.020
0.010
0.0020
0.0020
0.0010
0.50
0.0040
0.0040
0.010
0.050
0.0030
0.010
0.50
0.015
0.0030
1.0
0.020
10.0
0.0050
0.010
ICAP2
I2010314D-80.asc
50 mL
50 mL

RL
0.020
0.0050
0.20

7470A Mercury (CVAA)

Analysis Method:
Prep Method:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:

7470A
7470A
1.0
12/31/2013 1158
12/31/2013 0900

Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:

480-160057
480-159966

Analyte
Mercury

Result (mg/L)
0.00020

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 90 of 218

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

Qualifier
U

MDL
0.00012

LEEMAN3
J12313W1.PRN
30 mL
50 mL

RL
0.00020

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

MW-1D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-1
Water

Analyte
Bromide

Result
0.21
Analysis Batch: 480-160004
Alkalinity, Total
196
Analysis Batch: 480-160302
Ammonia as N
0.48
Analysis Batch: 480-160391
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
187
Analysis Batch: 480-160402
Prep Batch: 480-160257
Nitrate
0.050
Analysis Batch: 480-159347
Chemical Oxygen Demand
7.6
Analysis Batch: 480-160032
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
0.0067
Analysis Batch: 480-160396
Prep Batch: 480-160270
Cr (VI)
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-159325
Cyanide, Total
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160250
Prep Batch: 480-160098
Sulfate
221
Analysis Batch: 480-160304
TOC Result 1
14.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 2
14.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 3
14.2
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 4
14.3
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Total Organic Carbon
14.1
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Chloride
24.2
Analysis Batch: 480-160303
Total Hardness
164
Analysis Batch: 480-160248
Total Dissolved Solids
576
Analysis Batch: 480-159529
Sulfide
0.10
Analysis Batch: 480-159896
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
9.9
Analysis Batch: 480-159299
Analyte
Color

Result
200
Analysis Batch: 480-159329

TestAmerica Buffalo

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1215
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
Qual

Units
MDL
mg/L
0.073
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 1828
mg/L
20.0
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0100
mg/L
0.0090
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1126
mg/L
7.5
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1407
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 1558
U
mg/L as N
0.020
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1654
J
mg/L
5.0
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 0937
J
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1051
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 1949
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1205
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1424
Prep Date: 12/31/2013 1620
mg/L
15.0
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0108
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 2256
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 2256
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 2256
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 2256
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 2256
B
mg/L
0.34
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0001
mg/L
1.1
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1200
mg/L
4.0
Analysis Date: 12/26/2013 2342
U
mg/L
0.052
Analysis Date: 12/30/2013 1252
mg/L
2.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1013
Qual

Units
RL
Color Units
25.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1253

Page 91 of 218

RL
0.20

Dil
1.0

Method
300.0

50.0

5.0

310.2

0.020

1.0

350.1

10.0

50

351.2

0.050

1.0

353.2

10.0

1.0

410.4

0.010

1.0

420.4

0.010

1.0

7196A

0.010

1.0

9012B

50.0

10

9038

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9251

4.0

1.0

SM 2340C

10.0

1.0

SM 2540C

0.10

1.0

SM 4500 S2 D

2.0

1.0

SM 5210B

RL
25.0

Dil
5.0

Method
SM 2120B

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

MW-2S

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-2
Water

Analyte
Bromide

Result
22.6
Analysis Batch: 480-159680
Alkalinity, Total
2260
Analysis Batch: 480-160302
Ammonia as N
212
Analysis Batch: 480-160073
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
203
Analysis Batch: 480-160767
Prep Batch: 480-160631
Nitrate
0.050
Analysis Batch: 480-159347
Chemical Oxygen Demand
561
Analysis Batch: 480-159722
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
0.026
Analysis Batch: 480-160396
Prep Batch: 480-160270
Cr (VI)
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-159325
Cyanide, Total
0.0059
Analysis Batch: 480-160250
Prep Batch: 480-160098
Sulfate
5.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160304
TOC Result 1
136
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
TOC Result 2
147
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
TOC Result 3
138
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
TOC Result 4
146
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
Total Organic Carbon
142
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
Chloride
842
Analysis Batch: 480-160303
Total Hardness
900
Analysis Batch: 480-161115
Total Dissolved Solids
2750
Analysis Batch: 480-159529
Sulfide
0.10
Analysis Batch: 480-159896
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
14.4
Analysis Batch: 480-159299
Analyte
Color

Result
300
Analysis Batch: 480-159329

TestAmerica Buffalo

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1545
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
Qual

Units
MDL
mg/L
0.37
Analysis Date: 12/28/2013 0543
mg/L
160
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0502
mg/L
1.8
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 1412
mg/L
7.5
Analysis Date: 01/08/2014 1102
Prep Date: 01/07/2014 0516
U
mg/L as N
0.020
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1655
mg/L
5.0
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2205
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1051
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 2002
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1205
J
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1426
Prep Date: 12/31/2013 1620
U
mg/L
1.5
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0341
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1448
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1448
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1448
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1448
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1448
mg/L
6.8
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0454
mg/L
2.6
Analysis Date: 01/10/2014 1015
mg/L
16.0
Analysis Date: 12/26/2013 2343
U
mg/L
0.052
Analysis Date: 12/30/2013 1254
mg/L
2.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1013
Qual

Units
RL
Color Units
25.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1253

Page 92 of 218

RL
1.0

Dil
5.0

Method
300.0

400

40

310.2

4.0

200

350.1

10.0

1.0

351.2

0.050

1.0

353.2

10.0

1.0

410.4

0.010

1.0

420.4

0.010

1.0

7196A

0.010

1.0

9012B

5.0

1.0

9038

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

20.0

20

9251

10.0

1.0

SM 2340C

40.0

1.0

SM 2540C

0.10

1.0

SM 4500 S2 D

2.0

1.0

SM 5210B

RL
25.0

Dil
5.0

Method
SM 2120B

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-3
Water

Analyte
Total Hardness

Result
1380
Analysis Batch: 480-160299
Total Dissolved Solids
864
Analysis Batch: 480-159529
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
2.9
Analysis Batch: 480-159299

TestAmerica Buffalo

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1430
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
Qual

Units
MDL
mg/L
5.3
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0130
mg/L
4.0
Analysis Date: 12/26/2013 2344
mg/L
2.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1013

Page 93 of 218

RL
20.0

Dil
1.0

Method
SM 2340C

10.0

1.0

SM 2540C

2.0

1.0

SM 5210B

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

X-2

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-4
Water

Analyte
Bromide

Result
22.7
Analysis Batch: 480-159680
Alkalinity, Total
2240
Analysis Batch: 480-160302
Ammonia as N
214
Analysis Batch: 480-160073
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
196
Analysis Batch: 480-160767
Prep Batch: 480-160631
Nitrate
0.050
Analysis Batch: 480-159347
Chemical Oxygen Demand
599
Analysis Batch: 480-159722
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
0.038
Analysis Batch: 480-160396
Prep Batch: 480-160270
Cr (VI)
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-159325
Cyanide, Total
0.0054
Analysis Batch: 480-160250
Prep Batch: 480-160098
Sulfate
5.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160304
TOC Result 1
136
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
TOC Result 2
145
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
TOC Result 3
139
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
TOC Result 4
153
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
Total Organic Carbon
143
Analysis Batch: 480-161100
Chloride
809
Analysis Batch: 480-160303
Total Hardness
1340
Analysis Batch: 480-160299
Total Dissolved Solids
2590
Analysis Batch: 480-159529
Sulfide
0.10
Analysis Batch: 480-159896
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
13.9
Analysis Batch: 480-159299
Analyte
Color

Result
350
Analysis Batch: 480-159329

TestAmerica Buffalo

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
Qual

Units
MDL
mg/L
0.37
Analysis Date: 12/28/2013 0553
mg/L
160
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0502
mg/L
1.8
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 1416
mg/L
7.5
Analysis Date: 01/08/2014 1102
Prep Date: 01/07/2014 0516
U
mg/L as N
0.020
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1656
mg/L
5.0
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2205
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1051
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 2014
UH
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1205
J
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1425
Prep Date: 12/31/2013 1620
U
mg/L
1.5
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0341
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1519
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1519
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1519
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1519
mg/L
17.4
Analysis Date: 01/09/2014 1519
mg/L
6.8
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0454
mg/L
5.3
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0130
mg/L
16.0
Analysis Date: 12/26/2013 2345
U
mg/L
0.052
Analysis Date: 12/30/2013 1256
mg/L
2.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1013
Qual

Units
RL
Color Units
50.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1253

Page 94 of 218

RL
1.0

Dil
5.0

Method
300.0

400

40

310.2

4.0

200

350.1

10.0

1.0

351.2

0.050

1.0

353.2

10.0

1.0

410.4

0.010

1.0

420.4

0.010

1.0

7196A

0.010

1.0

9012B

5.0

1.0

9038

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

40.0

40

9060A

20.0

20

9251

20.0

1.0

SM 2340C

40.0

1.0

SM 2540C

0.10

1.0

SM 4500 S2 D

2.0

1.0

SM 5210B

RL
50.0

Dil
10

Method
SM 2120B

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

X-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52521-5
Water

Analyte
Bromide

Result
0.19
Analysis Batch: 480-160004
Alkalinity, Total
193
Analysis Batch: 480-160302
Ammonia as N
0.54
Analysis Batch: 480-160232
Nitrate
0.050
Analysis Batch: 480-159347
Chemical Oxygen Demand
49.4
Analysis Batch: 480-159706
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
0.0063
Analysis Batch: 480-160396
Prep Batch: 480-160270
Cr (VI)
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-159325
Cyanide, Total
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160250
Prep Batch: 480-160098
Sulfate
235
Analysis Batch: 480-160304
TOC Result 1
14.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 2
14.4
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 3
14.1
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 4
14.3
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Total Organic Carbon
14.2
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Chloride
25.8
Analysis Batch: 480-160303
Total Hardness
330
Analysis Batch: 480-160299
Total Dissolved Solids
587
Analysis Batch: 480-159529
Sulfide
0.10
Analysis Batch: 480-159896
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
9.6
Analysis Batch: 480-159299
Analyte
Color

Result
60.0
Analysis Batch: 480-159329

TestAmerica Buffalo

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 1600
Date Received: 12/24/2013 1130
Qual
Units
MDL
J
mg/L
0.15
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 1838
mg/L
20.0
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0222
mg/L
0.0090
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1215
U
mg/L as N
0.020
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1657
mg/L
5.0
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 1931
J
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1051
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 2027
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1205
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1427
Prep Date: 12/31/2013 1620
mg/L
15.0
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0223
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0031
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0031
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0031
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0031
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0031
mg/L
0.34
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0217
mg/L
2.6
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0130
mg/L
4.0
Analysis Date: 12/26/2013 2346
U
mg/L
0.052
Analysis Date: 12/30/2013 1258
mg/L
2.0
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1013
Qual

Units
RL
Color Units
5.00
Analysis Date: 12/24/2013 1405

Page 95 of 218

RL
0.40

Dil
2.0

Method
300.0

50.0

5.0

310.2

0.020

1.0

350.1

0.050

1.0

353.2

10.0

1.0

410.4

0.010

1.0

420.4

0.010

1.0

7196A

0.010

1.0

9012B

50.0

10

9038

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9251

10.0

1.0

SM 2340C

10.0

1.0

SM 2540C

0.10

1.0

SM 4500 S2 D

2.0

1.0

SM 5210B

RL
5.00

Dil
1.0

Method
SM 2120B

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

MW-2D

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-1
Water

Analyte
Bromide

Result
13.6
Analysis Batch: 480-160217
Alkalinity, Total
951
Analysis Batch: 480-160302
Ammonia as N
3.3
Analysis Batch: 480-160073
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
4.4
Analysis Batch: 480-160460
Prep Batch: 480-160294
Nitrate
0.52
Analysis Batch: 480-159710
Chemical Oxygen Demand
55.2
Analysis Batch: 480-160222
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160396
Prep Batch: 480-160270
Cr (VI)
0.011
Analysis Batch: 480-159669
Cyanide, Total
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160255
Prep Batch: 480-160205
Sulfate
5.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160304
TOC Result 1
15.5
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 2
15.6
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 3
15.6
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 4
15.5
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Total Organic Carbon
15.5
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Chloride
563
Analysis Batch: 480-160303
Total Hardness
760
Analysis Batch: 480-160299
Total Dissolved Solids
1800
Analysis Batch: 480-159696
Sulfide
0.10
Analysis Batch: 480-159896
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
12.4
Analysis Batch: 480-159725
Analyte
Color

Result
50.0
Analysis Batch: 480-159723

TestAmerica Buffalo

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1300
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
Qual

Units
MDL
mg/L
0.37
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 2038
mg/L
80.0
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0222
mg/L
0.018
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 1418
mg/L
0.75
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 2006
Prep Date: 01/03/2014 0228
mg/L as N
0.020
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2116
B
mg/L
5.0
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1028
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1051
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 2104
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 1245
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1519
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 1109
U
mg/L
1.5
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0102
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1344
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1344
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1344
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1344
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1344
mg/L
5.1
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0231
mg/L
5.3
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0130
mg/L
8.0
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 1722
U
mg/L
0.052
Analysis Date: 12/30/2013 1314
mg/L
2.0
Analysis Date: 12/28/2013 0012
Qual

Units
RL
Color Units
5.00
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2245

Page 96 of 218

RL
1.0

Dil
5.0

Method
300.0

200

20

310.2

0.040

2.0

350.1

1.0

5.0

351.2

0.050

1.0

353.2

10.0

1.0

410.4

0.010

1.0

420.4

0.010

1.0

7196A

0.010

1.0

9012B

5.0

1.0

9038

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

15.0

15

9251

20.0

1.0

SM 2340C

20.0

1.0

SM 2540C

0.10

1.0

SM 4500 S2 D

2.0

1.0

SM 5210B

RL
5.00

Dil
1.0

Method
SM 2120B

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

X-1

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-2
Water

Analyte
Bromide

Result
10.6
Analysis Batch: 480-160217
Alkalinity, Total
986
Analysis Batch: 480-160302
Ammonia as N
4.8
Analysis Batch: 480-160232
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
4.8
Analysis Batch: 480-160460
Prep Batch: 480-160294
Nitrate
0.19
Analysis Batch: 480-159710
Chemical Oxygen Demand
56.5
Analysis Batch: 480-160222
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160396
Prep Batch: 480-160270
Cr (VI)
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-159669
Cyanide, Total
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160250
Prep Batch: 480-160098
Sulfate
5.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160304
TOC Result 1
16.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 2
16.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 3
15.6
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 4
15.7
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Total Organic Carbon
15.8
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Chloride
567
Analysis Batch: 480-160303
Total Hardness
700
Analysis Batch: 480-160299
Total Dissolved Solids
1740
Analysis Batch: 480-159696
Sulfide
0.10
Analysis Batch: 480-159896
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
6.7
Analysis Batch: 480-159725
Analyte
Color

Result
50.0
Analysis Batch: 480-159723

TestAmerica Buffalo

Date Sampled: 12/26/2013 1100
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200
Qual

Units
MDL
mg/L
0.37
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 2048
mg/L
80.0
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0233
mg/L
0.045
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1240
mg/L
0.75
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 2006
Prep Date: 01/03/2014 0228
mg/L as N
0.020
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2117
mg/L
5.0
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1028
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1058
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 2117
UH
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 1245
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1432
Prep Date: 12/31/2013 1620
U
mg/L
1.5
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0102
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1416
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1416
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1416
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1416
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1416
mg/L
5.1
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0231
mg/L
2.6
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0130
mg/L
8.0
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 1723
U
mg/L
0.052
Analysis Date: 12/30/2013 1316
mg/L
2.0
Analysis Date: 12/28/2013 0012
Qual

Units
RL
Color Units
5.00
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2246

Page 97 of 218

RL
1.0

Dil
5.0

Method
300.0

200

20

310.2

0.10

5.0

350.1

1.0

5.0

351.2

0.050

1.0

353.2

10.0

1.0

410.4

0.010

1.0

420.4

0.010

1.0

7196A

0.010

1.0

9012B

5.0

1.0

9038

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

15.0

15

9251

10.0

1.0

SM 2340C

20.0

1.0

SM 2540C

0.10

1.0

SM 4500 S2 D

2.0

1.0

SM 5210B

RL
5.00

Dil
1.0

Method
SM 2120B

Analytical Data
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521
General Chemistry

Client Sample ID:

MW-3

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:

480-52601-3
Water

Analyte
Bromide

Date Sampled: 12/23/2013 0000
Date Received: 12/27/2013 1200

Result
0.24
Analysis Batch: 480-160006
Alkalinity, Total
468
Analysis Batch: 480-160395
Ammonia as N
0.32
Analysis Batch: 480-160073
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
1.5
Analysis Batch: 480-160460
Prep Batch: 480-160294
Nitrate
0.058
Analysis Batch: 480-159710
Chemical Oxygen Demand
35.8
Analysis Batch: 480-160222
Phenolics, Total Recoverable
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160396
Prep Batch: 480-160270
Cr (VI)
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-159669
Cyanide, Total
0.010
Analysis Batch: 480-160250
Prep Batch: 480-160098
Sulfate
191
Analysis Batch: 480-160393
TOC Result 1
11.4
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 2
10.8
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 3
10.9
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
TOC Result 4
10.9
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Total Organic Carbon
11.0
Analysis Batch: 480-160406
Chloride
116
Analysis Batch: 480-160394
Sulfide
0.10
Analysis Batch: 480-159896

Units
MDL
mg/L
0.073
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 2352
mg/L
40.0
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0949
mg/L
0.0090
Analysis Date: 12/31/2013 1337
mg/L
0.15
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1906
Prep Date: 01/03/2014 0228
H
mg/L as N
0.020
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2118
mg/L
5.0
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1028
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1058
Prep Date: 01/02/2014 2129
UH
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 1245
U
mg/L
0.0050
Analysis Date: 01/02/2014 1433
Prep Date: 12/31/2013 1620
mg/L
7.5
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0941
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0755
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0755
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0755
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0755
mg/L
0.43
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 0755
mg/L
1.7
Analysis Date: 01/03/2014 1020
U
mg/L
0.052
Analysis Date: 12/30/2013 1318

RL
0.20

Dil
1.0

Method
300.0

100

10

310.2

0.020

1.0

350.1

0.20

1.0

351.2

0.050

1.0

353.2

10.0

1.0

410.4

0.010

1.0

420.4

0.010

1.0

7196A

0.010

1.0

9012B

25.0

5.0

9038

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

1.0

1.0

9060A

5.0

5.0

9251

0.10

1.0

SM 4500 S2 D

Analyte
Color

Qual
Units
RL
H
Color Units
5.00
Analysis Date: 12/27/2013 2248

RL
5.00

Dil
1.0

Method
SM 2120B

Result
15.0
Analysis Batch: 480-159723

TestAmerica Buffalo

Qual

Page 98 of 218

DATA REPORTING QUALIFIERS
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Section

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Qualifier

Description

U

Analyzed for but not detected.

J

Indicates an estimated value.

*

LCS or LCSD exceeds the control limits

U

Analyzed for but not detected.

J

Indicates an estimated value.

*

Surrogate exceeds the control limit

U

Analyzed for but not detected.

J

Indicates an estimated value.

*

LCS or LCSD exceeds the control limits

H

Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time

*

Surrogate exceeds the control limit

B

The analyte was found in an associated blank, as well as in the
sample.

B

Compound was found in the blank and sample.

U

Indicates analyzed for but not detected.

4

MS, MSD: The analyte present in the original sample is greater than 4
times the matrix spike concentration; therefore, control limits are not
applicable.

J

Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL

GC/MS VOA

GC/MS Semi VOA

GC Semi VOA

Metals

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 99 of 218

DATA REPORTING QUALIFIERS
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Lab Section

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Qualifier

Description

B

Compound was found in the blank and sample.

U

Indicates analyzed for but not detected.

4

MS, MSD: The analyte present in the original sample is greater than 4
times the matrix spike concentration; therefore, control limits are not
applicable.

J

Sample result is greater than the MDL but below the CRDL

H

Sample was prepped or analyzed beyond the specified holding time

N

Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits.

General Chemistry

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 100 of 218

QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 101 of 218

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C
8260C

GC/MS VOA
Analysis Batch:480-160283
LCS 480-160283/5
MB 480-160283/7
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-6TB
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3
480-52601-4TB

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
Trip Blank
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3
Trip Blank

Report Basis

T = Total

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 102 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

GC/MS Semi VOA
Prep Batch: 480-159564
LCS 480-159564/2-A
MB 480-159564/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C

Prep Batch: 480-159730
LCS 480-159730/2-A
LCSD 480-159730/3-A
MB 480-159730/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C

Analysis Batch:480-160060
LCS 480-159564/2-A
MB 480-159564/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D

480-159564
480-159564
480-159564
480-159564
480-159564
480-159564

Analysis Batch:480-160568
LCS 480-159730/2-A
LCSD 480-159730/3-A
MB 480-159730/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D
8270D

480-159730
480-159730
480-159730
480-159730
480-159730
480-159730

Report Basis

T = Total

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 103 of 218

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

GC Semi VOA
Prep Batch: 480-159550
LCS 480-159550/2-A
LCSD 480-159550/3-A
MB 480-159550/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A

Prep Batch: 480-159731
LCS 480-159731/2-A
LCSD 480-159731/3-A
MB 480-159731/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C

Prep Batch: 480-159801
LCS 480-159801/2-A
LCSD 480-159801/3-A
MB 480-159801/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A

Prep Batch: 480-159809
LCS 480-159809/2-A
MB 480-159809/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C
3510C

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 104 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

GC Semi VOA
Analysis Batch:480-159833
LCS 480-159731/2-A
LCSD 480-159731/3-A
MB 480-159731/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8082A
8082A
8082A
8082A
8082A
8082A
8082A
8082A
8082A
8082A

480-159731
480-159731
480-159731
480-159731
480-159731
480-159731
480-159731
480-159731
480-159731
480-159731

Analysis Batch:480-159961
LCS 480-159809/2-A
MB 480-159809/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B
8081B

480-159809
480-159809
480-159809
480-159809
480-159809
480-159809
480-159809
480-159809
480-159809

Analysis Batch:480-160069
LCS 480-159550/2-A
LCSD 480-159550/3-A
MB 480-159550/1-A
LCS 480-159801/2-A
LCSD 480-159801/3-A
MB 480-159801/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A

480-159550
480-159550
480-159550
480-159801
480-159801
480-159801
480-159550
480-159550
480-159550
480-159550
480-159550
480-159801
480-159801

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 105 of 218

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

GC Semi VOA
Prep Batch: 480-160305
LCS 480-160305/2-A
LCSD 480-160305/3-A
MB 480-160305/1-A
480-52521-1RE
480-52521-2RE
480-52521-3RE
480-52521-4RE
480-52521-5RE

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A

Analysis Batch:480-160609
LCS 480-160305/2-A
LCSD 480-160305/3-A
MB 480-160305/1-A
480-52521-1RE
480-52521-2RE
480-52521-3RE
480-52521-4RE
480-52521-5RE

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample Duplicate
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A
8151A

Report Basis

T = Total

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 106 of 218

480-160305
480-160305
480-160305
480-160305
480-160305
480-160305
480-160305
480-160305

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

Metals
Prep Batch: 480-159377
LCS 480-159377/2-A
MB 480-159377/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-1MS
480-52521-1MSD
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
Matrix Spike
Matrix Spike Duplicate
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

3005A
3005A
3005A
3005A
3005A
3005A
3005A
3005A
3005A

Prep Batch: 480-159416
LCS 480-159416/2-A
MB 480-159416/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A

Analysis Batch:480-159490
LCS 480-159416/2-A
MB 480-159416/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A

Prep Batch: 480-159796
LCS 480-159796/2-A
MB 480-159796/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

3005A
3005A
3005A
3005A

Prep Batch: 480-159966
LCS 480-159966/2-A
MB 480-159966/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A

Analysis Batch:480-160057
LCS 480-159966/2-A
MB 480-159966/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

7470A
7470A
7470A
7470A

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 107 of 218

480-159416
480-159416
480-159416
480-159416
480-159416
480-159416
480-159416

480-159966
480-159966
480-159966
480-159966

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

Metals
Analysis Batch:480-160176
LCS 480-159377/2-A
MB 480-159377/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-1MS
480-52521-1MSD
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
Matrix Spike
Matrix Spike Duplicate
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C

480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377

Analysis Batch:480-160333
LCS 480-159377/2-A
MB 480-159377/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-1MS
480-52521-1MSD
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
Matrix Spike
Matrix Spike Duplicate
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C

480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377

Analysis Batch:480-160373
LCS 480-159796/2-A
MB 480-159796/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C

480-159796
480-159796
480-159796
480-159796

Analysis Batch:480-160563
LCS 480-159377/2-A
MB 480-159377/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-1MS
480-52521-1MSD

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
Matrix Spike
Matrix Spike Duplicate

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C

480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377

Analysis Batch:480-160984
MB 480-159796/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

6010C
6010C
6010C

480-159796
480-159796
480-159796

Analysis Batch:480-161118
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

6010C
6010C
6010C
6010C

480-159377
480-159377
480-159377
480-159377

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 108 of 218

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Report Basis

T = Total

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 109 of 218

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-159299
LCS 480-159299/2
USB 480-159299/1
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Unseeded Control Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 5210B
SM 5210B
SM 5210B
SM 5210B
SM 5210B
SM 5210B
SM 5210B

Analysis Batch:480-159325
LCS 480-159325/4
MB 480-159325/3
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-5DU
480-52521-5MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
Duplicate
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A

Analysis Batch:480-159329
LCS 480-159329/4
MB 480-159329/3
480-52521-1
480-52521-1DU
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
Duplicate
MW-2S
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B

Analysis Batch:480-159347
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

353.2
353.2
353.2
353.2

Analysis Batch:480-159529
LCS 480-159529/2
MB 480-159529/1
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-3
480-52521-4
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
MW-3
X-2
X-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 2540C
SM 2540C
SM 2540C
SM 2540C
SM 2540C
SM 2540C
SM 2540C

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 110 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-159669
LCS 480-159669/4
MB 480-159669/3
480-52601-1
480-52601-1DU
480-52601-1MS
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A
7196A

Analysis Batch:480-159680
LCS 480-159680/75
MB 480-159680/76
480-52521-2
480-52521-4

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2S
X-2

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0

Analysis Batch:480-159696
LCS 480-159696/2
MB 480-159696/1
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 2540C
SM 2540C
SM 2540C
SM 2540C

Analysis Batch:480-159706
LCS 480-159706/4
MB 480-159706/3
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
X-3

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

410.4
410.4
410.4

Analysis Batch:480-159710
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

353.2
353.2
353.2

Analysis Batch:480-159722
LCS 480-159722/4
MB 480-159722/3
480-52521-2
480-52521-2DU
480-52521-2MS
480-52521-4

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2S
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
X-2

T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4

Analysis Batch:480-159723
LCS 480-159723/4
MB 480-159723/3
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B
SM 2120B

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 111 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-159725
LCS 480-159725/2
USB 480-159725/1
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Unseeded Control Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 5210B
SM 5210B
SM 5210B
SM 5210B

Analysis Batch:480-159896
LCS 480-159896/4
MB 480-159896/3
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-2DU
480-52601-3
480-52601-3MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
Duplicate
MW-3
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D
SM 4500 S2 D

Analysis Batch:480-160004
LCS 480-160004/44
MB 480-160004/45
480-52521-1
480-52521-5

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
X-3

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0

Analysis Batch:480-160006
LCS 480-160006/68
MB 480-160006/69
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-3

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

300.0
300.0
300.0

Analysis Batch:480-160032
LCS 480-160032/52
MB 480-160032/51
480-52521-1

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

410.4
410.4
410.4

Analysis Batch:480-160073
LCS 480-160073/100
LCS 480-160073/148
MB 480-160073/147
MB 480-160073/99
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52601-1
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
MW-2S
X-2
MW-2D
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 112 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

General Chemistry
Prep Batch: 480-160098
LCS 480-160098/2-A
MB 480-160098/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-5MS
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
Matrix Spike
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B

Prep Batch: 480-160205
LCS 480-160205/2-A
MB 480-160205/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-1MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B

Analysis Batch:480-160217
LCS 480-160217/27
MB 480-160217/28
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0

Analysis Batch:480-160222
LCS 480-160222/28
LCS 480-160222/52
MB 480-160222/27
MB 480-160222/51
480-52601-1
480-52601-1MS
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
MW-2D
Matrix Spike
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4
410.4

Analysis Batch:480-160232
LCS 480-160232/28
LCS 480-160232/52
MB 480-160232/27
MB 480-160232/51
480-52521-5
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
X-3
X-1

T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1
350.1

Analysis Batch:480-160248
LCS 480-160248/28
MB 480-160248/27
480-52521-1

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 113 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-160250
LCS 480-160098/2-A
MB 480-160098/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-5MS
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
Matrix Spike
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B

480-160098
480-160098
480-160098
480-160098
480-160098
480-160098
480-160098
480-160098
480-160098

Analysis Batch:480-160255
LCS 480-160205/2-A
MB 480-160205/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-1MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

9012B
9012B
9012B
9012B

480-160205
480-160205
480-160205
480-160205

Prep Batch: 480-160257
LCS 480-160257/2-A
MB 480-160257/1-A
480-52521-1

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

351.2
351.2
351.2

Prep Batch: 480-160270
LCS 480-160270/2-A
MB 480-160270/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol
Distill/Phenol

Prep Batch: 480-160294
LCS 480-160294/2-A
MB 480-160294/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

351.2
351.2
351.2
351.2
351.2

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 114 of 218

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-160299
LCS 480-160299/28
LCS 480-160299/52
MB 480-160299/27
MB 480-160299/51
480-52521-3
480-52521-3MS
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-2DU

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
MW-3
Matrix Spike
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
Duplicate

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C

Analysis Batch:480-160302
LCS 480-160302/10
LCS 480-160302/30
MB 480-160302/11
MB 480-160302/31
480-52521-1
480-52521-1DU
480-52521-1MS
480-52521-2
480-52521-2DU
480-52521-2MS
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-5DU
480-52521-5MS
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
MW-1D
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
MW-2S
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
X-2
X-3
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 115 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-160303
LCS 480-160303/29
LCS 480-160303/6
LCS 480-160303/65
MB 480-160303/30
MB 480-160303/66
MB 480-160303/7
480-52521-1
480-52521-1DU
480-52521-1MS
480-52521-2
480-52521-2DU
480-52521-2MS
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-5DU
480-52521-5MS
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
Method Blank
MW-1D
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
MW-2S
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
X-2
X-3
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251
9251

Analysis Batch:480-160304
LCS 480-160304/38
LCS 480-160304/6
LCS 480-160304/62
MB 480-160304/39
MB 480-160304/63
MB 480-160304/7
480-52521-1
480-52521-1DU
480-52521-1MS
480-52521-2
480-52521-2DU
480-52521-2MS
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52521-5DU
480-52521-5MS
480-52601-1
480-52601-2

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
Method Blank
MW-1D
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
MW-2S
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
X-2
X-3
Duplicate
Matrix Spike
MW-2D
X-1

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038
9038

Analysis Batch:480-160391
LCS 480-160391/4
MB 480-160391/3
480-52521-1

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

350.1
350.1
350.1

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 116 of 218

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-160393
LCS 480-160393/6
MB 480-160393/7
480-52601-3
480-52601-3DU
480-52601-3MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-3
Duplicate
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

9038
9038
9038
9038
9038

Analysis Batch:480-160394
LCS 480-160394/6
MB 480-160394/7
480-52601-3
480-52601-3DU
480-52601-3MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-3
Duplicate
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

9251
9251
9251
9251
9251

Analysis Batch:480-160395
LCS 480-160395/6
MB 480-160395/7
480-52601-3
480-52601-3DU
480-52601-3MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-3
Duplicate
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2
310.2

Analysis Batch:480-160396
LCS 480-160270/2-A
MB 480-160270/1-A
480-52521-1
480-52521-2
480-52521-4
480-52521-5
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D
MW-2S
X-2
X-3
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

420.4
420.4
420.4
420.4
420.4
420.4
420.4
420.4
420.4

480-160270
480-160270
480-160270
480-160270
480-160270
480-160270
480-160270
480-160270
480-160270

Analysis Batch:480-160402
LCS 480-160257/2-A
MB 480-160257/1-A
480-52521-1

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-1D

T
T
T

Water
Water
Water

351.2
351.2
351.2

480-160257
480-160257
480-160257

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 117 of 218

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

General Chemistry
Analysis Batch:480-160406
LCS 480-160406/20
LCS 480-160406/4
MB 480-160406/19
MB 480-160406/3
480-52521-1
480-52521-5
480-52521-5DU
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3
480-52601-3MS

Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
Method Blank
MW-1D
X-3
Duplicate
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A

Analysis Batch:480-160460
LCS 480-160294/2-A
MB 480-160294/1-A
480-52601-1
480-52601-2
480-52601-3

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2D
X-1
MW-3

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

351.2
351.2
351.2
351.2
351.2

Prep Batch: 480-160631
LCS 480-160631/2-A
MB 480-160631/1-A
480-52521-2
480-52521-4

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2S
X-2

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

351.2
351.2
351.2
351.2

Analysis Batch:480-160767
LCS 480-160631/2-A
MB 480-160631/1-A
480-52521-2
480-52521-4

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2S
X-2

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

351.2
351.2
351.2
351.2

Analysis Batch:480-161100
LCS 480-161100/4
MB 480-161100/3
480-52521-2
480-52521-4

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2S
X-2

T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water

9060A
9060A
9060A
9060A

Analysis Batch:480-161115
LCS 480-161115/4
MB 480-161115/3
480-52521-2
480-52521-2DU
480-52521-2MS

Lab Control Sample
Method Blank
MW-2S
Duplicate
Matrix Spike

T
T
T
T
T

Water
Water
Water
Water
Water

SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C
SM 2340C

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 118 of 218

480-160294
480-160294
480-160294
480-160294
480-160294

480-160631
480-160631
480-160631
480-160631

Quality Control Results

Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

QC Association Summary
Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

Report
Basis

Report Basis

T = Total

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 119 of 218

Client Matrix

Method

Prep Batch

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Surrogate Recovery Report
8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS
Client Matrix: Water

Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

DCA
%Rec

TOL
%Rec

BFB
%Rec

480-52521-1

MW-1D

95

95

99

480-52521-2

MW-2S

94

95

98

480-52521-4

X-2

95

96

100

480-52521-5

X-3

95

96

100

480-52521-6

Trip Blank

96

97

101

480-52601-1

MW-2D

100

102

107

480-52601-2

X-1

96

98

101

480-52601-3

MW-3

98

99

102

480-52601-4

Trip Blank

96

96

100

MB 480-160283/7

77

77

79

LCS 480-160283/5

80

78

80

Surrogate
DCA = 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
TOL = Toluene-d8 (Surr)
BFB = 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

Acceptance Limits
66-137
71-126
73-120

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 120 of 218

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Surrogate Recovery Report
8270D Semivolatile Organic Compounds (GC/MS)
Client Matrix: Water

Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

NBZ
%Rec

FBP
%Rec

TPH
%Rec

PHL
%Rec

2FP
%Rec

480-52521-1

MW-1D

73

85

92

37

53

98

480-52521-2

MW-2S

79

89

93

44

59

105

480-52521-4

X-2

75

84

87

0.3*

55

102

480-52521-5

X-3

73

88

87

39

55

93

480-52601-1

MW-2D

76

83

78

36

57

96

480-52601-2

X-1

74

82

75

39

57

92

480-52601-3

MW-3

75

85

62*

39

58

95

MB 480-159564/1-A

77

90

99

39

55

87

MB 480-159730/1-A

78

85

93

39

53

70

LCS 480-159564/2-A

75

86

90

38

51

97

LCS 480-159730/2-A

84

86

96

46

62

101

LCSD
480-159730/3-A

76

80

87

40

57

92

Surrogate
NBZ = Nitrobenzene-d5
FBP = 2-Fluorobiphenyl
TPH = p-Terphenyl-d14
PHL = Phenol-d5
2FP = 2-Fluorophenol
TBP = 2,4,6-Tribromophenol

Acceptance Limits
46-120
48-120
67-150
16-120
20-120
52-132

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 121 of 218

TBP
%Rec

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Surrogate Recovery Report
8081B Organochlorine Pesticides (GC)
Client Matrix: Water

Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

TCX2
%Rec

DCB2
%Rec

480-52521-1

MW-1D

68

31

480-52521-2

MW-2S

0*

0*

480-52521-4

X-2

0*

0*

480-52521-5

X-3

69

43

480-52601-1

MW-2D

75

39

480-52601-2

X-1

88

59

480-52601-3

MW-3

64

38

MB 480-159809/1-A

83

49

LCS 480-159809/2-A

72

53

Surrogate
TCX = Tetrachloro-m-xylene
DCB = DCB Decachlorobiphenyl

Acceptance Limits
36-120
20-120

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 122 of 218

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Surrogate Recovery Report
8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
Client Matrix: Water

Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

DCB2
%Rec

TCX2
%Rec

480-52521-1

MW-1D

28

84

480-52521-2

MW-2S

50

82

480-52521-4

X-2

47

89

480-52521-5

X-3

34

97

480-52601-1

MW-2D

52

76

480-52601-2

X-1

43

76

480-52601-3

MW-3

24

40

MB 480-159731/1-A

80

98

LCS 480-159731/2-A

55

73

LCSD
480-159731/3-A

54

68

Surrogate
DCB = DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
TCX = Tetrachloro-m-xylene

Acceptance Limits
19-126
23-127

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 123 of 218

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Surrogate Recovery Report
8151A Herbicides (GC)
Client Matrix: Water

DCPA1
%Rec

Lab Sample ID

Client Sample ID

480-52521-1

MW-1D

91

480-52521-1 RE

MW-1D RE

89

480-52521-2

MW-2S

85

480-52521-2 RE

MW-2S RE

125

480-52521-3

MW-3

107

480-52521-3 RE

MW-3 RE

116

480-52521-4

X-2

105

480-52521-4 RE

X-2 RE

87

480-52521-5

X-3

92

480-52521-5 RE

X-3 RE

227*

480-52601-1

MW-2D

136*

480-52601-2

X-1

139*

MB 480-159550/1-A

34*

MB 480-159801/1-A

124

MB 480-160305/1-A

79

LCS 480-159550/2-A

40

LCS 480-159801/2-A

113

LCS 480-160305/2-A

94

LCSD
480-159550/3-A

40

LCSD
480-159801/3-A

109

LCSD
480-160305/3-A

134

Surrogate
DCPA = 2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid

Acceptance Limits
40-135

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 124 of 218

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Method Blank - Batch: 480-160283

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:
Leach Date:

MB 480-160283/7
Water
1.0
01/02/2014 2355
01/02/2014 2355
N/A

Method: 8260C
Preparation: 5030C
Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:
Leach Batch:
Units:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A
N/A
ug/L

HP5973C
C35720.D
5 mL
5 mL

Analyte

Result

Qual

MDL

RL

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloropropene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane
2-Hexanone
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloroprene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylbenzene

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

0.35
0.82
0.21
0.23
0.38
0.29
0.72
0.89
0.41
0.39
0.73
0.79
0.21
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.84
0.40
1.2
1.3
2.1
3.0
26
18
0.83
0.44
0.41
0.87
0.39
0.26
0.69
0.19
0.27
0.75
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.49
0.81
0.36
0.41
0.68
0.59
0.74

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
40
20
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 125 of 218

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Method Blank - Batch: 480-160283

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:
Leach Date:

MB 480-160283/7
Water
1.0
01/02/2014 2355
01/02/2014 2355
N/A

Method: 8260C
Preparation: 5030C
Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:
Leach Batch:
Units:

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

480-160283
N/A
N/A
ug/L

HP5973C
C35720.D
5 mL
5 mL

Analyte

Result

Qual

MDL

RL

Hexachlorobutadiene
Iodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachloroethane
Propionitrile
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, Total
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

1.0
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

0.28
0.30
20
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.34
5.8
0.73
0.36
0.51
0.90
0.37
2.1
0.46
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.66
0.66
0.76

1.0
1.0
40
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

TestAmerica Buffalo

% Rec

Acceptance Limits

77
77
79

66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Page 126 of 218

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Lab Control Sample - Batch: 480-160283

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:
Leach Date:

LCS 480-160283/5
Water
1.0
01/02/2014 2305
01/02/2014 2305
N/A

Method: 8260C
Preparation: 5030C
Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:
Leach Batch:
Units:

480-160283
N/A
N/A
ug/L

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:

HP5973C
C35718.D
5 mL
5 mL

Analyte

Spike Amount

Result

% Rec.

Limit

1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene

25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0

24.8
23.9
24.0
23.6
23.9
24.3
23.9
24.1
26.2
24.5
24.5
24.7
24.6
24.6

99
96
96
94
95
97
96
96
105
98
98
99
98
98

71 - 129
58 - 121
80 - 124
75 - 127
71 - 124
72 - 120
74 - 124
77 - 123
74 - 122
80 - 122
73 - 127
74 - 123
76 - 122
76 - 122

Surrogate
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr)
Toluene-d8 (Surr)
4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)

TestAmerica Buffalo

% Rec

Acceptance Limits

80
78
80

66 - 137
71 - 126
73 - 120

Page 127 of 218

Qual

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Method Blank - Batch: 480-159564

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:
Leach Date:

MB 480-159564/1-A
Water
1.0
12/31/2013 1816
12/27/2013 0754
N/A

Method: 8270D
Preparation: 3510C
Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:
Leach Batch:
Units:

480-160060
480-159564
N/A
ug/L

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

HP5973W
W03363.D
250 mL
1 mL
5 uL

Analyte

Result

Qual

MDL

RL

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Toluidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
3-Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
3-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Anthracene

5.0
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
10
5.0
40
10
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

0.58
0.44
0.40
2.5
0.48
0.82
0.46
0.24
1.3
0.32
0.48
0.61
0.51
0.50
2.2
0.45
0.46
0.40
2.3
0.46
0.53
0.60
0.40
2.5
0.42
0.48
1.5
0.40
2.5
2.5
0.48
2.2
0.81
0.45
0.45
0.59
0.35
0.25
1.5
0.62
0.41
0.38
0.40
0.54
0.28

5.0
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
5.0
10
5.0
40
10
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 128 of 218

Quality Control Results
Client: Waste Connections, Inc.

Job Number: 480-52521-1
Sdg Number: 52521

Method Blank - Batch: 480-159564

Lab Sample ID:
Client Matrix:
Dilution:
Analysis Date:
Prep Date:
Leach Date:

MB 480-159564/1-A
Water
1.0
12/31/2013 1816
12/27/2013 0754
N/A

Method: 8270D
Preparation: 3510C
Analysis Batch:
Prep Batch:
Leach Batch:
Units:

480-160060
480-159564
N/A
ug/L

Instrument ID:
Lab File ID:
Initial Weight/Volume:
Final Weight/Volume:
Injection Volume:

HP5973W
W03363.D
250 mL
1 mL
5 uL

Analyte

Result

Qual

MDL

RL

Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
4-Methylphenol
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
Safrole
Thionazin
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-Nitro-o-toluidine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
10
40
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
10
50
50
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
10
10

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

0.36
0.47
0.34
0.35
0.73
0.44
0.35
0.40
0.36
0.52
1.8
0.42
0.33
2.5
0.42
0.51
0.22
0.54
0.36
0.31
0.47
0.82
0.42
0.39
1.9
0.40
0.36
0.51
0.68
0.59
0.59
2.5
0.47
0.18
0.43
0.58
1.8
1.8
2.5
0.46
0.38
0.76
0.29
0.66
0.36

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
10
10
40
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10
5.0
10
5.0
10
50
50
10
10
10
5.0
5.0
10
10

TestAmerica Buffalo

Page 129 of 218

Quality Control Results