2014 Apex Operations Plan-Web Site-4

15
PLANS FOR LANDFILL GAS CONTROL

16
PLANS FOR LEACHATE CONTROL

16.1
BASE GRADING PLANS
MA-EAST
MA-SOUTH
MA-WEST
MA-NORTH
MA-NORTH
MA-NORTH
MA-29
(FUTURE)
MA-28
(FUTURE)
MA-SOUTH
MA-EAST
RETENTION BASIN 1 RETENTION BASIN 2
MA-2
(CONST.)
MA-4
(CONST.)
MA-1
(CONST.)
MA-0
(CONST.)
MA-22
(FUTURE)
MA-23
(FUTURE)
MA-24
(FUTURE)
MA-25
(FUTURE)
MA-26
(FUTURE)
MA-20
(FUTURE)
MA-27
(FUTURE)
MA-31
(FUTURE)
MA-30
(FUTURE)
MA-29
(FUTURE)
MA-28
(FUTURE)
MA-32
(FUTURE)
MA-5
(CONST.)
MA-6
(CONST.)
MA-7
(CONST.)
MA-8
(CONST.)
MA-10
(CONST.)
MA-12
(FUTURE)
MA-13
(FUTURE)
MA-14
(FUTURE)
MA-11
(FUTURE)
MA-9
(CONST.)
FIGURE 1-1 FIGURE 1-2
FIGURE 1-3 FIGURE 1-4 FIGURE 1-5 FIGURE 1-6
APEX REGIONAL LANDFILL
TAB 16, FIGURE 1
BASE GRADING PLAN
B
A
S
E

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
A
P
E
X

R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
T
A
B

1
6
,

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
1
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
4
M A T C H L I N E F I G U R E 1 - 2
B
A
S
E

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
A
P
E
X

R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
T
A
B

1
6
,

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
2
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
5
MATCHLINE FIGURE 1-1
B
A
S
E

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
A
P
E
X

R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
T
A
B

1
6
,

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
3
B
A
S
E

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
A
P
E
X

R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
T
A
B

1
6
,

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
4
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
1
B
A
S
E

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
A
P
E
X

R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
T
A
B

1
6
,

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
5
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
2
MA-EAST MA-EAST
RETENTION BASIN 1
RETENTION BASIN 2
MA-5
(CONST.)
MA-6
(CONST.)
MA-7
(CONST.)
MA-8
(CONST.)
MA-10
(CONST.)
MA-12
(FUTURE)
MA-13
(FUTURE)
MA-14
(FUTURE)
MA-11
(FUTURE)
MA-9
(CONST.)
TAB 16, FIGURE 1-6
BASE GRADING PLAN
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

F
I
G
U
R
E

1
-
5
(2) 22,500 GAL LEACHATE STAND TANKS
SOLIDIFICATION PONDS (LEACHATE
CAN GRAVITY DRAIN INTO PONDS FOR
DISPOSAL BY EVAPORATION)
MA-7 SUMP PUMP TO
FRAC TANK, FRAC TANK
EVACUATED BY TRUCKS
LCRS CLEANOUT
MA-21 TRUCK EVACUATION PUMP
MA-2
(CONST.)
MA-4
(CONST.)
MA-1
(CONST.)
MA-0
(CONST.)
MA-5 (CONST.)
MA-6 (CONST.) MA-8 (CONST.)
MA-10
(CONST.)
MA-9 (CONST.)
MA-7 (CONST.)
HOLDING TANK PUMPS TO LEACHATE
22,500 GAL STAND TANKS
PROJECT No. 103-97145-02
TAB 16, FIGURE 3
D
ra
w
in
g
file
: 1
0
3
9
7
1
4
5
- T
A
B
1
6
- S
IT
E
B
G
P
2
0
1
3
.d
w
g
F
e
b
7
, 2
0
1
3
- 1
1
:3
0
a
m
LEACHATE CONTROL FACILITIES
0 300 300
SCALE FEET
CALIFORNIA
LIMIT OF WASTE
PROPERTY LINE
LEACHATE PIPE
CELL LIMITS

16.2
1994 ALTERNATIVE LINER DESIGN
1001 14:14
FROIHlOAN
7026163745
T-254 P 002/003 F-134
CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT

. BOX 3902 -.6:ZS SHADOW LANE' LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 70,-.<HIS-1Z91 FAX '102 ..
28, 1998
Mr. Alan J. Gaddy, Vice President
Disposal Urban Maintenance Processing Co., Inc.
770 East Sahara Avenue
P. Q_ Box 985.Q8,_.,,,
1
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8508
Dear Mr. Gaddy:
Fila: ltJO- C1l
This is to confirm items discussed during our meeting on January 23, 1998, to review
the updated plan submitted on November 24, 1997, (identified as Revision 2) to
the Class l and Class Ill Disposal Sites at Apex, Nevada. A discussion focused on
some errors and the absence of identification of specific changes from the original
Operation Plan.
Also, as noted in the meeting, revisions listed on the page identified as
"Apex_mun.rv2," do not correspond to revised sections within the pages submitted or
to the index. Also, the "List of Revisions" for the Class Ill site on page "Apexindo.rev2"
is identical to those printed for the Class L
The Operations Plan for the Class Ill disposal site must identify that the wastes
disposed of are included within the description of "industrial solid waste" as defined in
444,585 of the District's Solid Waste Management Regulations. Industrial wastes are
permitted fo(dlsptrS'al in a municipal waste site, but municipal solid waste is not
acceptable in a permitted Class Ill disposal site.
As you are aware, there are a number of acceptable methods for document revision,
including a re-submittal of an entire document. But whichever method you use, it is
necessary that the plari'changes made are clearly defined and that the index
corresponds.
In reference to lateral expansion noted in your November 19971etter, the Apex
Regional Waste Management Center does allow new municipal waste cells as needed,
within the permitted acreage, as long as the cell is being constructed in accordance
with the design approved for M-A1 or the alternate design approved for M-A2.
In accordance with NAC 444.645, construction Quality Assurance Documents are
required before waste may be placed in the new waste cell. In order to maintain
continuity you must submit specific waste cell plans at least sixty (60) days prior to start
of construction. You state in the November 1997 correspondence that the number. of
acres now permitted at the Apex Regional Waste Center is 2400. The Permit to
Operate identifies only 1015 acres for the Class I municipal landfill and 218 acres for
the Class 1111r..:JMI':ilallandfill (see attached permits).
CLARK COUNTY LAS VEGAS NORIH LAS VE:.GA5 SOULDE:R CITY

L:vr T0, 9t
Z0d T6c
53!8010NHJ31 'nN3
2001 14:15
FROM-SLOAN
,:l -
Alan J. Gaddy,Vice President
Disposal Urban Maintenance Processing Co., Inc.
7026163745
T-254 P 003/003 F-134
January 28, 1998
Page Two
You noted that the agreement with Disposal Urban Maintenance Processing Co.
(DumpCo) and Environmental Technologies will update footprint drawings of the
Operational Plan with as-built drawings and a Certificate of Compliance for each new
cell.
Your proposed method of daily cover appears to be within the scope of maintaining a
daily cover operation .and is acceptable as long as the size of the open face is
contained at the committed 155,250 square feet and birds, disease vectors, fires,
odors, blowing litter, and scavenging does not create a hazard to public health and
safety and the environment.
This office will refer all future comments regarding permit conditions related to air
pollution to the District's Air Pollution Control Division since it is not necessary for
DumpCo to provide Environmental Health with information regarding air pollution
_.. w.kh-1
control perm1t$.
Thank you for your response to our earlier inquiry regarding the industrial landfill
exemption phase within page 4, paragraph 2.10 describing acceptable wastes.
The opportunity to discuss the revised Operational Plan with you in person was .
appreciated. We look forward to a corrected and acceptable plan being submitted within
. 60 days, as agreed to in our joint discussion. Please contact Ed Wojcik, P .E., at 383-
1256 or Vic Skaar at 383"127 4 if you have further questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,

1.\\1_ . ......
Clare A. R.E.H.S.
Environmental Health Director
CAS/rnkf
cc: L. Dodgion, Administrator, St. of NV Environmental Protection Div.
eb-10-2003 03:16pm From-
------- l! f//0-
rk
Health District
We're in Your Neighborhood
February 12, 2003
Torn Gardner, Regulatory Manager
Republic Services of Southern Nevada
770 E. Sahara Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Dear Mr. Gardner,
T-938 P.002/002 F-935
The Clark County Health District has reviewed your request to clarjfy the 200 feet setback requirement
found in NAC 444.686(5). Specifically, Republic Services of Southern Nevada asked that the setback
requirements be clarified as they pertain to the Class ill and Class I landfills located ar the Apex Regional
Landfill in Clark County Nevada.
A review of regulations pertaining to setbacks reveals that a 200 feet setback from property boundary is
not required in a Class ill landfill unit. Therefor, Republic DUMPCo. may operate the class III landfill in
accordance with previously submitted and approved plans.
In reference to the setback requirement for the Class I landfill, a 200 feet setback is required unless a
shorter distance is approved by the Solid Waste Managemem Amhority. The permit issued for the Class I
landfill is based on drawings (300-l) that establish a setback of less than 200 feet along the Eastern
property boundary of the landfill unit and waste areas. These drawings were submitted in 1993 and
served as a ba.<:i.s for approval in 1994. Based on those drawings and the associated review of the
surrounding land topography, and landfill operations, a setback of 50 feet from property boundary
was approved. All cells must be constructed in accordance with previously approved drawings. At no
time will a setback distances between waste and property boundary be less than 50 feet.
Sincerely,
Environmental Health Division

Glenn D. Savage
Environmental Health Director
G:\HOM\Joslin\SWMGTf'RO\Rqmblic Si!v<:,'\sctbacklcncr'!.wpd

' .
. --,
ID.
\elECTOR
.. :;.,:l
March 24, l994
Job No. 935015.02
Mr. Clare Schmutz, R.S.
Environmental Health Manager
Clark County Health District
625 Shadow Lane, P.O. Box: 442o
La.9 Vegas, Nevada 89127
1'\ f'4%% VENGINEERING, INC.
Rc: Alternative Liner Design - Apex Regional Waste Management Center
De.ar Mr. Schmutz:
Vector Engineering, Inc. (Vector) of Carson Cily, Nevada is in receipt of the Jetter from Mr.
Victor Skaar of your office ro Mr. Tom Isola dated March 22, 1994. This letter approved
the request from Vector to install an alternative line.r system within the boundaries of the
municipal waste areas ar llle Apex: site. Vector your timely response on r.h.is
matter.
During a meeting at your office last December, Vector presented the data and rationale
demonstrating that an alternative liner system at the Apex Landfill would meet the fedefill
requirements for design and containment. Although we discussed specifics concerning the
next phase of waste management unit development (the M-A2 area), the proposed alternative
was me.aJ1t to incll:de the entire municipal area and nm an individual landfill phase.
All of the calculations and demonstrations presented in our liner allemative study apply to the
entire Apex municipal waste site. For the same reasons that you approved the liner
alternative for the M-A1 a.re..a, we request that the alternative system be approved for the
entire municipal site.
Ag.Un, thank you for your timely response concerning thls issue. If you have any additional
questions concerning this ma!ter, please do not hesitate to call me at (916) 272-2448.
Regards,
VECTOR ENGINEERING, INC.

Vice President
cc: Victor Skaar - Clark Coumy Health, Dave Em me - NDEP, George Rogers -
D.U.M.P.Co., Doug Martin- Vector
tl :9lSO \SIWI'\ l..ll-l'fJtAL T. LET
!601 FalrvicwAvc.,Suicc H CmonCiry. NV 59i01 (i02) E8J.i065 Fi!x: (702) 88).7161
G?.r.SS CA L:TnETON. CO CH::..E
,.. ,. 1
. 1. r ..
rAi: ?G2o44:10:8 r.
( '
VENGINEERING,INC.
August 24, 1993
Job No. 935105.0
1-vfr. Thomas A. Isola
Vic.e Pte.slde.ot
Silver State Disposal Service, Inc.
7'10 Bast Sahara Avenue
.,.
I...as Vegas, Nevada 89104
Re: liner System for the Municipal CeU at tTle APex Llllt.dfi11
Dear Tom,
Vector Engineering, i'nc. (Vector) of Carson City, Nevada is currently conducting the
design of the Municipal Waste Cell at the Apex Landfill Facility. Acrording to the newly
adopted regulations of the State Environmental Commission (Chapter 44d of the Nevada
Administrntive Code), Class I landfills shall be designed with a 60-mil geomembrane with an
underlying layer of clay that i3 two feet thick and hR..!I a of les9 thnn 1 x. 10"
7
cent! meters. per second (ern/ sec). The regulations .also state that the Solid waste
Management Authority shall consider lhe hydrogeologic characteristics of the f<1cility, the
fr!ctors of the area, and the volume, physical, and chemical characteristics of the
anti.cipalcd leachate. By considering the above factors, the Solid Management
Authority may nllow fo.r designs (.including no engineered liner system) U1at meet
the prescriptive standards.
Vector js currently conducl!.ng an investigation to characterize the hydrogeology,
climatic factors, and leachate associated with the municipal site at the Apex Landfill.
Although our study is not complete, our initial indication is that an engineered liner system
will not be necessary due to the favorable ronditions at the site, including the extreme. depth
to ground water, very low rainfall, rurr-on controls, and waste screening procedures. Si.ncc
the final results of this investiga!.lon will not be available prior to the filling of the first waste
cell, an engineered lined system is proposed for this cell. The proposed liner system consists
of a GundsealTM HDPE.fbento:1ite composite liner.
Gundseal is made by attaching high quality sodium bentonite to a 60-rr,il high dcnsily
polyethylene geomembrane using a patented nontoxic adhesive appllcation system. This
forms :1 single composite liner which takes advantage of the. complementary behavior of the
synthetic liner toeetber with the bentonite clay, fanning a complete barrier. The bentonite
layer swells to several times its original volume when wet and is able to seal potential leaks
in the overlying HDPE geomembrane. The permeability of the bentonite lay_er has been
calculaletl tu be l ;.; 10"
10
while the. geomembrane has ar1 effectlve permeability of ! x
10'
11
em/sec.
t:-a:r.:ewAve .. (7J2lSS3-/C55
G:ti'.!'$\'.J..!..'.."E.'t',CA S.'\N":'I..GO.CHP .. ;:
-.,- -. - . --.:.
Mr. Thomu IsolA
AUj'U5t 24, 1993
No. 2
(
r AX
. . ..,, ... ,
I I . t.J> 11 'H
.... "1 .... \..1 - ....
Due to 'the 1\.igh tem-peratutes and arid climate at the Apex Facility, the potential for
desiccation cracking in a. conventional clay liner is high. Since the. Gundscal is
placed on top of dry .compacted soils, it is not affected by the hot and dry conditions like a
clay liner placed wet of optimum conditions. The Gundseal would noL begin
a hole was present in the overlying geomembrane allowing leachate to come in contact
with the bentonite. The bentonite would then hydrate ao.d effectively, reduce the leakage.
Gundseat is currently being utiliZed in several locations throughout tlui United States.
Stntes nccepting tho use of Gundse.."\1 as s.n alternative to the prescriptive include:
Maine, New York, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, Micrugan, lllinols, New Mexico, Colorado,
Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, Washington, Hawaii, and California. For example, a landftll
in Hawaii is curr-ently be.ing constructed under the new Subtitle D regulations using Gundseal
as the compomtc liner system. 'I11is system was approved by the Solid Waste Authority as
the SubtitleD liner.
To s\llllffiarize, U1e advantages of a pre-constructed composite liner such as Gundsea!
jncludc: no d.eslccation cracklng problems
1
less sensitivity to construction defectS, much
lower permeability, beneficial sweJling upon wetting to mare effectively seal punctures, and
ideal oontact between the clay and the geomembrane.
Bs.sed on Vector's review of.the product data, personr.el e;;perience wi9llhe
ac a landfill .in California, and our initial site jnvestigation, we bdicve that a lli1cr S)'stem
composed of 60-mil Gundseal composite liner will adequately protect the waters of the Stare
of Nevada will.PTovide n satisfactory equivalent to the prescriptive li.r!er sta.o1dards
provided in the regulations. If you require any additional Wonne.tion, please feel free to call
the undersignt!d at (702) 883-7065.
Best regards,
VECTOR ENGINEERING, lNC.

ALTERNATIVE IJNER STUDY
MUNICIPAL CELL EXPANSION
APEX REGIONAL WAST.E
..MANAGEMENT CENTER
Prepared for:
Silver State Disposal Service, Inc.
770 EaSt Sahara Ave-nue
Las Vegas, NV 89104
(702) 735-5151
Prepared by:
Vedor Engineering, Inc.
1601 Fairview Avenue, Suite H
Carson City, NV 89701
(702) 883.7065
Job l'{o. 935015. 02, Phase 1
December 1993
(
- -
r. J
. r- . : ~ ; ~ r
..... 'i {\,.
(
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.,. ..
L IN'fRODUC110N .................................. . . . . . ..... 1
H. DESIGN ELEMENTS ........ . .......................... .. . . . . . 1
A. MAl Municipal Cell Design- Overview ............ . ...... .. .. 1
B. Cell M-A2 Expansion Design, Phases I and II ........ ..-: ..... . .. . . 2
lll. LEAKAGE CALCULATIONS ..... .... .... .. .................. . ... 4
A. leakage Calculations for M-Al Using Gundseal T>( Liner System .... .. 4
1) Leachate Generation ........ .... ................. . .. 4
2) leachate Migration ....... . ... .. .. . ................ . 4
B. leakage Calculations for M-A2 Expansion Cell
Using HDPE Liner System ...... . . . ....... . ................ 5
1) Liner System for WMU Floor and Shallow Slopes Flatter
Than 2:1 ................ . . . ..... . .. ... . .. . . ..... 5
2) No Liner for Slopes Steeper than 2:1 . .... . .. . . . . .. ...... :
N. CONCLUSION . .. . ........................ . . . . ...... . .... ... 9
v. REFERENCES
!)
. . . ,
' \: " ; .. !
_ n _ . . . . ~ . --
r. s
(
J. INTRODUCTION
""'"'" The Apex Regional Waste Management Ceurer became operational on October 8, 1993
with the initial discharge of industrial and municipal waste imo two newly constructed
wasre management facilities. The liner system of the initial municipal waste cell, M
AI, was constructed using a geosynthetic composite liner, Gundseal "", in accordance
with the performance standards of the app!lcable federal and Nevada regularions. As
-part of the permit application, Veccor EngincerJng, Inc. submined the JlReport of
Design for the Apex Regional Wasre Management Center Municipal Unit
(OcLOber 1993)". This report included derailed engineering calculations and modeling
to cs.timate the volume and potential for migration of leachate durlng the operating
life of the facility.
The purpose of this report is to describe the proposed expansion design for the
municipal waste management unit, MA2, incorporating the use of a welded 60 mil
HOPE geomembrane as an alternative liner system to the previously used Gundscal rv .
rhis repon urili:Y.es the leachare generation data from the original neporr of Design in
a technical justification for the use of the HOPE geomembrane as a bottom liner
sysrem for the faciliry. This analysis demonstrates chat a 60 mil geomembrane on the
bouom c:!nd on all slopes flaner than 2:1, horizontal to vertical, and unlined slopes
greater than 2:1, horizontal ro vertical, provide adequate prorecrion of ground water
and comply with state and federal regulations.
II. DESIGN ELEMENTS
A) .MAl .Municipal Cell Design - Overview
The municipal waste cell M-Al at the Apex Regional Waste Management Center
encompasses an area of approxim:ately 12.5 acres and is sized to accommodate about
four months of incoming municipal waste. The cell was constructed by excavating ro
design elevations, followed by the grading of a thin layer of bedding material for
geomembrane placement. The cell was cut with overall 3:1 and 4:1 side slopes and a
Vector Enginccrlog. Inc. lGOl Fai.rview Ave . , Suite H CJrsoo Clry, t't"Y 89701 (702) 883-7065
-1-
..
. . -
r .
Allcrrutl"c Uner Srudy
MunlclpJI Cell f.rplnJ(on
1993
Apex 'WlJIC: Cenlcr
bottom grading of approximately 3% draining to a central leachate collection trench.
The collection trench was cut to a depth of about one foot and sloped at 0.5% toward
the leachate colleccion sump at the north end of the facility. The sump, constructed
wiLh side lengths of 19 feet, was built to a total depth of three feet with 3:1 .
side slopes. The sump was Jined with a secondary leak detection liner, a gravel
leachate collection Jayer, and capped with a primary liner.
The liner system for the muni'clpal cell MAl consists of a geosynrheric
composite liner, Gundseal',. with a 60 mil HDPE component. The GundseaP"
product Is composed of a granular bentonite layer lamjnated to one side of a HOPE
geomembrane and is manufactured by Gundle Lining Systems. The GundsealTw was
placed in the MAl cell with rhe bentonite portion directly in contact with the
subgrade and all of the seams of Lhe attached HDPE geomembrane were extrusion
welded.
Strips of a geocomposite material (a geoner material with a geotc:xtile heat
to both sides) were used as the leachate collection system, placed in
appropriate Intervals over the geomembrane material to provide conduits for the
migration of potential leachate from the waste cell inro to leachare collection sump
for subsequent removal. The liner and leachate collection system were covered with
approximately 1 foot of permeable cover material for use as a protective cover and
operations layer.
B) Cell.M-A2 Expansion Design, Phases I and II
The municipal waste expansion cell, M-J\.2, is currently being constructed to the
immediate east of the original MAl facility, as shown in Drawings 1 and 2, attached.
The construction of the cell will be conducted over two phases (Phase 1 and Phase 2),
Vector Engiuce.ri..og, lDc. lGOl Ave., Suite H Carson Ciry, NV 89701 8837065
-2-
_""' __ . . "':"._,--
:: -.-
Altcrru!IYe 1Jner Srudy
Municlp2l Cell :bp2nlon
!.
,i .-1\ . L. ...
Apex Reglorul Ce.nrc:r
....... - . .. . --....

(
Dcccmbc:r 1.993
sequenced ro account for adequate timing of the !andfilling operation in the original
cell and for expansion construction.
The size and volume of the first phase of M-A2 is based on the time constraints
for the filling of cell MAl. Phase I will be appr:oxlmately 14.2 acres in size and will
be excavated to a rough elevation of 2,350 feet above mean sea level. The western
and southern sides of the cell will be cut to 2.5:1 and the northern slope will be
graded to 2.0: 1. For construction of the initial phase of expansion the -eastern slope
of the cell will be cut to approximately 1.5:1 with an access road to the floor of the
cell bisccling the slope. This eastern wall of Phase I will not be lined during the cell
construction so ongoing excavation can proceed during the Phase I Jandfilling
operation.
Phase 11 (approximately 29 acres) will be constructed to the east of Phase 1 with
the cxcavarion and liner placement taking place during the filling operation of the
'I'hasc I cell. For areas abo'l(e elevation 2,450 feet, the side slopes will be cut at an
appropriate slope, ranging from 1:1 co 2:1 and tying into the existing topography.
The bottom slope of both Phase I and Phase II portions of the M-A2 cell will be
graded at no less than 2.0% to a central leachate collection trench. The trench,
opcrarional during both phases of the M-A2 filling, will be sloped northward at a 0.5%
slope to a collection sump. A riser will be placed along the northern wall of the cell
to allow access w the sump for leachate removal. During the construction of the
Phase II portion of the cell rainwater will be diverted from the leachate collection
system and collected in a surface pond to minimize leachate volumes requiring
removal and possible treatment.
The proposed liner system for both phases of the M-A2 cell will consist of a
single welded 60 mil HOPE geomembrane liner placed on the prepared landfill floor.
Ac.lclitionally, this liner system will be placed on all slopes equal w or flatter than
Vcctoc .E.ogi.oce;rlog. 1601 F:1/.rvicw Ave., Su.ite H urson City, NV 89701 (702) 883-7065
-3
,, ... . ,. .. <. . ,
- -
f ;:.Y. HO. '!026443028
f.
(
("
Altern:lhve Liner Study
Cell fxp,mlon
December 1993
Ap<::( Jleslorul Cenrc:r
2.0:1, horizontal to vertical. No geomembrane liner wiiJ be placed on slopes with
grades steeper than 2.0:1. The following section provides the technical demonstration
which verifies that the proposed alternative liner system is adequate to protect the
waters of the state.
III. L.BAKAGE CALCUIATJONS
A) Leakage Calculations for M-Al Using Gundseal,.,. Liner System
1) Leachate Generation
The volume of Jeachare expected to be generated from rhe
municipal waste mass at the Apex Landfill was evaluated using both a
srorativity model and the HELP II model, as presented in rhe previously
submitted "Report of Design for the Apex Regional Waste Management
Center Municipal Unit (October 1993)". The results of these analyses
found that an initial, relatively dry waste Jift constructed to a thickness of
ac least 11.8 .feec can absorb the expected volume of meteoric waters
falling on rhe waste mass
1
as well as liquids contributing co the life from
overlying waste placement. Additionally, it was found that a rota! of 6
g:1llons per acre per year of liquids will be generated as leachate from
the waste mass.
2) Leachate Migration
The migration of llquids from the M-Al municipal waste cell at the
Apex Landfill was evaluated using the rusk Assessment Guidelines in the
Nevada Rural Landfill Study (Vector, 1992) and presented as part of the
"Report of Design for the Apex Regional Waste Management Center
Municipal Unic (October 1993)". The findings of that analysis indicated
Vector Lo.c. 1601 Fal..rvic:w Ave .. Suite H City, 'NV 89701 (702) 8837065
-4
_....,_ ... - ""' --
. ., . 5. ,.,
: i
.Ahem:ulvo Uncr Saudy
Munlclp:.l Celll!xp:analon
!lpe.'l: W:aJic Center
r AX . ?026443028
(
December 1.9.?3
rhat the facility has an allowable life of about 11,000 years before
impaccs to ground water are realized
1
assuming a worst case scenario.
It was concluded that the municipal facility at the Apex Reglonal
Waste Management Center does nor pose 2 significant rhreat to ground
water and adequate protection to water quality will be provided by
triple-redundant containment systems: climate, natural geologic
containment, and an engineered composite liner system. Any two of
these systems could be eliminated or defeated and ground water would
remain protected.
B) Leakage Calculations for .M-A2 Expansion Cell HDPE Liner
System
1) Liner System for WMU Floor and Slopes Flatter Than 2:1
Based on the neg!igib.le volume of leachate generation from the
studies perfom1ed as part of the Design neporc (Vector 1993) and the
capacity of the underlying geologic units ro adsorb leachate at the Apex
facility, D. U.M.P.Co., Inc. is proposing to use a single 60 mil HDPE
geomembrane as the liner system. The 60 mil HOPE geomembrane
would be installed on the bonom of the landfill and all sideslopes flatter
than two horizontal to one vertical (2:1). ne leakage potential for
slopes steeper than 2:1 is discussed in the following section.
To analyze the potential leakage from the proposed HDPE
geomembrane, Veclor assumed that rhe geocomposite leachate collection
system was fully saturated, equivalent to a head of 4 millimeters over the
geomembrane. From the EPA's "Background Document on Proposed
Liner Leak Deteclion Rule" dated May 1987, an average of one defecl per
1,000 to 3,000 linear feet of seam can be expected, given rigorous
Vc:ctor ]!'..og:incerlog, Inc. 1601 F:ai.rvicw Ave., Suire H Cuson City, 'C'o'V 89701 (702) 883-7065
-5-
P. l 0
FAX NO. 70264 43028
r. 1 1
(
Alrem:ulvc Uner Srudy
Cell
December 1.993
Rcgloml Wrc Cenrer
construction quality assurance practices. Utilizing HOPE rolls measuring
22.5 feet wide by 400 feet long, a total of approximately 2,050 linear feet
of seams would be present per acre. With the frequency of seam defects
IR the middle of the range described above, a total of 1 defect can be. ,-
expected per lined acre. Consistent with the analysis conducted in the
Report of Design (October, 1993) and with rhe above mentioned EPA
document (May, 1987), a hole diamete: of 2 mm has been used for the
typical defect size.
In a paper by Giraud and Bonaparte (1989), the equation for flow
through a defect in a geomembrane liner js as follows:
Where: q = flow ra[e
C
8
= 0.6 (flow coefficient)
a = area of hole
g :::: acceleration due to gravity
h == head
The flow through one defect in the HDPE geomembrane at the
site is then calculated as follows:
q = [ (0.6) (3.14x10..6 m
2
) (2 :x 9.8 m/s
2
x 0.004 m)
5
] x
[60 s/min x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day]
q = f5.27xlO' m
3
/s) x (86,400 s/day]
q = 0.046 m
3
/day x (3.28 gal/ft
3
)
q = 12.1 gal/acre/day/defect
Assuming a defect frequency of 1 per acre, the leakage per acre would
be 12 gallons per acre per day (gpad). Based on this assumed leakage
rate and [he allowable leachate volume determined in the Report of
Vcct.oc P..oginec:rl:og. I..oc. 1601 Fai.rvlew Ave., Suite H Canon Ciry, 1'-'V 89701 (702) BB37065
-6-
:::

.
(
: . ! -
IJrerrurlvc: Uncr Srudy
Munlcip:>l Cell E:xp:>n!lon
Decc:mba 1.993
t.pcx Rcgiorul WHrc: M;inJgcment
Design (October, 1993), the allowable operating life for the site can be
calculated as follows:
Allowable life, years == alluwable leachate volume/predicted leakage rate
Allowable leachate val. == 1,155,000 gallons/acre (from Report of Design)
Predicted leakage rare = 12 gpad
Allowable life = 1,155,000 gallons/(12 gpad x 365 days)
Allowable life = 264 years
The design life of the Apex Regional Waste Management Center is
less rhan 100 years. Therefore, the factor of safety against impacting
ground water during the operational life of the site is greater than 2.5
to l. This is quite conservative given that any area within the landfill is
expected to be filled to capacity and capped within a much shorter
period, and the probable rare of leachate generation is less than 12 gpad
per our HELP analysis.
2) No Liner for Slopes Steeper than 2:1
Lining the steeper slopes with a geomembrane or clay liner would
be very difficult and, most likely, impractical. Because the slopes
represent the outer limits of the waste management unit, the area
contributing leachate is much smaller than in the valley bottoms and the
natter interior slopes. Additionally, any leachate generated cannot pool
over the slopes creating a hydraulic head to drive seepage. Therefore, a
gcomembra ne liner on these slopes provides a much smaller benefit
Vector F.ng;inccrl:og, Inc. lGOl FalrriCI'o' Ave., Suite H Carson City, i'I"V 89701 (702) 883-7065
-7-
, r .. : n; tt
' iJ . . ..; ... ''
Ahcrrutlvo Uncr Study
Call l?.xpan1lon
(
(
December 199}
Ape< Reglorul Waste Ccnrcr
than a similar liner beneath the base of the waste management unit, at a
disproportionately higher cost.
To quantify this position, we have analyzed the potential seepage
into the slopes assuming there is no geomembrane liner insr..alled. The
"'
basis for this analysis was the HELP II simulations performed as pare of
the original design and presented in the Report of Design (October
1993). Our calculations are attached hereto as an appendix.
Our analysis incorporated rhe following steps:
1. Using the HELP predicted maximum leachate generation,
on an average annual basis, we determined the maximum
hydraulic head (flow depth) along the slopes. The
permeability of the refuse was taken as the HELP default
value (2xlO"'' em/sec). The result was a maximum head of
0.0045 feet.
2. We then calculated the maximum theoretical seepage into
native gr.ound using the hydraulic head calculated above
and the permeabilities measured by packer tests during the
hydrogeologic study as presented in the Report of Design.
The mean permeability is 5xlO'' em/sec. Because the
hydraulic head is so low, the hydraulic gradient is
essentially unity for any reasonable assumption for the
wetted front depth. The calculated theoretical maximum
seepage rate exceeds rhe leachate generation rate; however,
the seepage rate is limited to the leachate generation rate.
3. Leachate generation is a function of the depth of the
refuse, which increases in rhe down-slope direction (see
the diagram on page 5 of the calculations) . To calculate
the rotalleachare generated over the unlined slope (per
foot of slope width) the incremental leachate generation
was integrated over the length of the slope; then the
cumulative leachate generation was divided by the slope
area to yield an average on a per acre basis. The average
leachate production (and the maximum seepage rate) was
calculated to be 0.03 gpad.
Vector Eoghxcrlng. I..o<;. 1601 F-alrvit.-w Ave., Suite. H Cusoa C!ty, NV 89701 (702) 883-7065
-8-
i ;'':: I !.f
""" . ... n ..
(
FAX NO.
nr."lb' ..
!ui. !
(
Uncr Srudy
MunJclpl Cell Exp:lnslon
Decc:mbeT 1993
Reglorul Wute M:lnasemcnt Cenrer
Comparing the predicted maximum average seepage from the
slopes of 0.03 gpad ro the seepage through the geomembrane
liner along the base of the landfill (12 gpad), the calculations indicate
that the unlined steep slopes perform as well or better than the Jined
base of the landfill. "Dlerefore, no geomemf5rane liner is needed 'on the
srceper slopes.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the leakage rare calculations described in the previous section, It Js Vector's
opinion that an alternative liner syscem consisting of a 60 mil HDPE geomembrane on
the landfill bottom and on slopes flatter than 2:1 and no liner on steeper slopes, .as
proposed in the expansion area, will be adequate ro protect the waters of rhe
.
SLate and satisfy the requirements of the County, Stare, and federal regulations. At
this time, final construction and liner placement in the M-A2 waste management unit
will begin shortly after the first of the Tear. Because of this rapid time frame, your
rapid r:eview of this reporr is greatly appreciated.
V. REFERENCES
1. Giraud, J.P., and R. Bonaparte (1989), "Leakage through Uners Constructetl
with Gcomcrnbranes Parr I. Geomembranes Liners," Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol 8, pp. 27-67.
2. ''Nevada Rural Landfill Study Phase II", Vector Engineering, Inc., December
1991.
3. "Report of Design & Closure Plan for the Apex Regional Waste Management
Center, Volume 3", Vector Engineering, Inc., October 1993.
-1. "Background Document on Proposed Liner and Leak Detection Rulc'', U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, May 1987.
Vector Inc. 160 t Falcvlew Ave., Suite H CarSon City, l't'V 89701 (702) 883-70GS
-9-
--.-- .
r. i

16.3
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR ON-SITE TANK STORAGE

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
FOR ON-SITE HOLDING TANKS

REPUBLIC DUMPCO, INC.

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Prepared for
Republic Dumpco, Inc.

13550 U.S. N. Highway 93
Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada 89165

February 2014
Prepared by

7600 Dublin Blvd., Suite 200
Dublin, California 94568

Project 130355

Project 130355

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES iii
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Regulatory Requirements ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.1 Flare Station Tank Farm ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.2.2 Leachate Tank Farm ............................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FACILITY CONTACTS ................................................. 1-2
2 EQUIPMENT AND PARTS.................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 SPARE PARTS ................................................................................................................. 2-2
3 HOLDING TANKS AND PIPING ......................................................................................... 3-3
3.1 TANKS ............................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.2 LIQUID FORCEMAIN ......................................................................................................... 3-4
4 LIQUID MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 FLARE STATION TANK FARM ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.1 Secondary Containment Sump ............................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Secondary Containment Pump ............................................................................. 4-1
4.1.3 Discharge Manifold ............................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.4 Discharge Pump ................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 LEACHATE TANK FARM .................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Secondary Containment Sump ............................................................................. 4-2
4.2.2 Discharge Manifold ............................................................................................... 4-2
5 OPERATING PROCEDURES ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 MODES OF OPERATION ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 BASIC LANDFILL HEALTH AND SAFETY .............................................................................. 5-2
5.3 LEACHATE AND CONDENSATE HAZARDS AND HYGIENE ..................................................... 5-2
5.3.1 Leachate Characteristics ...................................................................................... 5-2
5.3.2 Condensate Characteristics ................................................................................. 5-3
5.3.3 Proper Hygiene ..................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3.3.1 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) .......................................................... 5-3
5.3.3.2 First Aid Measures ........................................................................................ 5-3
5.4 RECORDS AND RECORD KEEPING .................................................................................... 5-3
6 MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................. 6-5
6.1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 6-5
6.2 GENERAL INSPECTION ..................................................................................................... 6-5
6.3 HOLDING TANKS ............................................................................................................. 6-6
6.4 COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATION ................................................................................... 6-6
6.4.1 Collection System Piping ...................................................................................... 6-6

Project 130355

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

ii
6.4.2 Pumps ................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.5 MAINTENANCE RECORDS ................................................................................................ 6-6
7 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 7-7
7.1 QUARTERLY REPORTS .................................................................................................... 7-7
7.1.1 Discharge Monitoring Report ................................................................................ 7-7
7.1.2 Quarterly Sample Analysis ................................................................................... 7-7
LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... L-1

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX B TANK FARM DRAWINGS
APPENDIX C AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE PERMIT: NS2011510
APPENDIX D DAILY LOG

Project 130355

iii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables

2-1 Holding Tank Equipment List
2-2 Liquid Management Equipment List
2-3 Flare Station Tank Farm Assembly Parts List
2-4 Leachate Tank Farm Assembly Parts list
2-5 Piping System Spare Parts List
3-1 Holding Tank Limitations and Special Conditions

Project 130355

1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manual is the primary reference intended for
use by Republic Services, Inc. (Republic) for managing the leachate and condensate
holding tanks (tanks) at the Apex Regional Landfill (Apex). The manual contains
pertinent information about the physical systems, their safe and efficient operation,
limitations, monitoring, recordkeeping, emergency responses, and proper maintenance.
This manual should be read before and during the execution of O&M of the tanks.
Before operating or maintaining any equipment, this manual, the record drawings, the
specifications, and the equipment manufacturers O&M manual(s) should be thoroughly
consulted. No work of any kind should be attempted without having read the information
contained in these documents. In addition, hands-on training is also necessary before
operating or maintaining any tank equipment.
1.1 Purpose
The primary purpose of the tanks at Apex is to collect and temporarily store leachate,
condensate, and landfill process water in compliance with applicable regulations. The
installation and operation of the tanks is in accordance with the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection (NDEP), Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Permit Number:
NS2011510. This O&M manual is prepared in accordance with the permit requirements
and conditions.
1.1.1 Regulatory Requirements
The current regulations governing the operation of the tanks at Apex include the approval
of an O&M Manual per permit Section A.3, Item Number 1 and Section C.2, under
Permit Number NS2011510.
1.2 System Summary
1.2.1 Flare Station Tank Farm
The flare station tank farm consists of the following major components:
Holding Tanks 1 through 5;
The secondary containment system and sump with pump;
The discharge manifold; and

Project 130355

1-2
The associated piping and valves.
1.2.2 Leachate Tank Farm
The leachate tank farm consists of the following major components:
Holding Tanks 6 through 8;
The tanks are located within the limits of a constructed liner system, which
functions as the secondary containment system with drainage sump; and
The associated piping and valves.
1.3 Operational Responsibility and Facility Contacts
The holding tank operator has responsibility for the following tasks:
Daily inspection of the tanks for leaks;
Operation and monitoring of the pump stations and discharge manifolds;
Daily inspection of the equipment used for dust control; and
O&M of the holding tanks in accordance with permit conditions and applicable
regulations.

The primary contacts for this facility are:

Mark Clinker
General Manager
Republic Services, Inc.
PO Box 751600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89165
(702) 599-5901

Ross Grover
Environmental Manager
13550 N US Highway 93
Las Vegas, NV, 89165
(702) 599-5905

W. Todd Whittle
Area Environmental Manager
Republic Services of
Southern Nevada
Las Vegas, NV 89104
(702) 599-5537

The Engineer of Record is:

Paul Stout, P.E.
Region Vice President
Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC
7600 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 200
Dublin, CA 94568
(630) 633-5822

2-1
2 EQUIPMENT AND PARTS
2.1 Equipment
Table 2-1 and 2-2 below list the equipment for the tanks and the liquids management
equipment, respectively. The purpose of these equipment lists is to provide a quick
reference for the operator regarding the manufacturer or responsible sales representative
of the major equipment components. In the case of equipment failure, please refer to the
manufacturers operating and troubleshooting instructions for details. These equipment
lists should be used as a supplement to the manufacturer-provided operation and
maintenance manuals.

Table 2-1 Holding Tanks Equipment List
LOCATION
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER AND
MODEL NO.
CONTACT PHONE NO.

Flare Station
Tank Farm

Holding Tanks 1-5

Model No. VT1227 DT-FB

12-0 I.D., 27-0 H; Vinyl
Ester Resin vertical tank;
22,500 gallon
Diamond Fiberglass
1036 Industrial Park Dr
Victoria, TX 77905
(361) 572-4040

Leachate Tank
Farm

Holding Tanks 6-8
Model No. 7140-L

10-0 I.D., 12-9 H;
vertical tank; 6,500 gallon
Snyder Industries
4700 Freemont Street
Lincoln, NE 68504
(402) 467-5221

Table 2-2 Liquids Management Equipment List
LOCATION
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER AND
MODEL NO.
CONTACT PHONE NO.

Flare Station
Tank Farm

Secondary
containment sump
pump
Dayton, submersible effluent
pump
1
; Model 3BB8-
Grainger
2401 Western Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89102
(702) 385-6833
Discharge
manifold pump (2)
Grundfos CRN-64 vertical
multistage centrifugal
chemical resistant pump
Grundfos USA Sales
(913) 227-3400
1
The Dayton submersible effluent pump model 3BB8- is not intended for pumping corrosive liquids, and
therefore, a replacement pump should be available since the likelihood of pump failure is possible.
2
There are no pumps at the Leachate Tank Farm. The sump located at the gravel pad gravity drains to the
nearest condensate sump, LS-10. The J -stand at the Leachate Tank Farm is gravity fed, and equipped
with a manual valve for flow control during filling operations.

2-2
2.2 Spare parts
To minimize long-duration system shutdowns and optimize performance, an adequate
supply of spare parts should be maintained. Each manufacturers instructional literature
typically contains standard recommended spare parts and supplies for various pieces of
major equipment. Manufacturers literature for the above-mentioned equipment is
included in Appendix A. Table 2-3, 2-4 and 2-5 list recommended spare parts for the
tanks and for the associated piping.
Table 2-3 Flare Station Tank Farm Assembly Parts List
ITEM QUANTITY
1
TYPE
24 Standard side entry gasket 4 Viton
24 Standard top entry gasket 4 EPDM
Bolts, nuts and washers stainless steel 80 5/8 x 3
Bolts, nuts and washers plated 80 3/8 x 2
2 Blind Flange gasket 4 FRP/EPDM
Bolts, nuts and washers plated 16 5/8 x 3
1
Recommended minimum quantities to keep on site.

Table 2-4 Leachate Tank Farm Assembly Parts List
ITEM QUANTITY
1
TYPE
8 Flange gaskets 4 FRP/EPDM
PVC Drain Outlet 2 4-inch
1

Table 2-5 Piping System Spare Parts List for Both Tank Farms
ITEM QUANTITY
1
TYPE
HDPE SDR-17 40 feet (each) 2-inch, 4-inch, and 6-inch
HDPE flange sets, w/ gasket and hardware 4 (each) 2-inch, 4-inch and 6-inch
PVC blind flanges, w/ gasket
4 (each)
2-inch and 6-inch
PVC SCH 80 check valves
4 (each)
2-inch, 4-inch and 6-inch
PVC SCH 80 Type 21 ball valves
4 (each)
2-inch, 4-inch and 6-inch
1

2-3
3 HOLDING TANKS AND PIPING
3.1 Tanks
This chapter describes the holding tanks and piping. The purpose of the tanks is to hold
leachate, condensate, and landfill process water for discharge into on-site tanker trucks.
There are eight planned tanks for the site. Five tanks are to be located at the flare station
tank farm and three smaller tanks are located at the leachate tank farm. The holding tank
limitations and special conditions are summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Holding Tank Limitations and Special Conditions
TANK
OUTFALL
SITE DESCRIPTION
TANK VOLUME
(GALLONS)
PUMPING
FREQUENCY
INSPECTION
FREQUENCY
Tank 1 Flare Station - Tank #1 22,500 As Needed Daily
Tank 6 Leachate Farm - Tank #6 6,500 As Needed Daily
TOTAL VOLUME 132,000

The holding tanks at the flare station tank farm are vinyl ester resin core-rosion vertical
tanks. Each tank is 27-ft in height and 12-ft in diameter with a capacity of
22,500 gallons.
The holding tanks at the leachate tank farm are constructed of high density polyethylene
(HDPE). Each tank is 12-ft 9-in in height and 10-ft in diameter with a capacity of
6,500 gallons.
Tank specifications are presented in Appendix A for both tank farms. Both tank farm
areas have secondary containment in which the tanks are located. The flare station tank
farm is located on a concrete pad with a concrete curb and sump to collect spilled liquids.
The pad with curb acts as secondary containment for the tanks.
The leachate tank farm is located within a lined containment area. The spill containment
volume for the lined containment area at the leachate tank farm was calculated to be

2-4
approximately 21,500 gallons, a volume sufficient for the secondary containment.
Drawings of the tank farm configurations are presented in Appendix B.
3.2 Liquid Forcemain
HDPE forcemains are utilized to transport liquids from the landfill gas (LFG) collection
and control system (GCCS) to the holding tanks. Forcemains are also utilized to
transport liquids from the discharge manifold to the on-site tanker truck load out area.
Manually-operated butterfly valves and check valves are installed at selected forcemain
locations to allow for entire sections of the forcemain to be isolated as necessary for
repair or modification.

4-1
4 LIQUID MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The purpose of the tank farm liquid management systems is to move liquids from the
tanks to the onsite tank trucks and to collect potential liquids in the secondary
containment area. Specifications for the pumps described below can be located in
Appendix A.
4.1 Flare Station Tank Farm
The collection system for the flare station tank farm includes the following components:
A secondary sump;
Two-inch diameter HDPE forcemain;
A discharge manifold with pump; and
Four and six-inch HDPE discharge piping.
4.1.1 Secondary Containment Sump
The secondary containment area includes one containment sump. The purpose of the
sump is to collect potential liquid spills in the secondary containment area. The
containment area is comprised of a concrete pad with six-inch wide concrete curb and a
minimum height of 12 inches. The sump consists of a two-foot square by two-foot deep
sump with traffic rated lid and a close coupled drive pump. The sump is located on the
north side of the holding tank farm.

Potential liquid spills within the secondary containment area will drain by gravity to the
sump on the concrete pad. The liquid level will rise in the sump until a float switch,
internal to the pump, triggers the pump to actuate and dewater the sump. Liquid is
pumped from the sump to the holding tanks via a two-inch HDPE forcemain. Section
4.1.2 describes the pump used in this application. Specifications on the pump can be
found in Appendix A.
4.1.2 Secondary Containment Pump
A Dayton centrifugal self-priming electric pump is located at the sump for pumping the
collected liquid in the secondary containment area. The pump is made of a combination
of a thermoplastic body with 304 stainless steel and Noryl internal parts to withstand
corrosion from the slightly acidic condensate.

4-2
4.1.3 Discharge Manifold
The liquid management system includes one discharge manifold at the flare station tank
farm. The purpose of the manifold is to pump liquid from the tanks via two pumps,
through the associated piping and valves for control, to on-site tanker trucks. The
discharge manifold has two Grundfos CRN-64-1 vertical multistage centrifugal pumps.
The manifold pumps the liquid from the tanks via four inch to six inch HDPE piping
secured to a J -stand. On-site tanker trucks are loaded on a concrete load out pad. The
pad is part of the secondary containment area and drains by gravity to the secondary
containment sump at the northern side of the tank farm.
4.1.4 Discharge Pump
Two Grundfos CRN-64-1 vertical multistage centrifugal pumps are located at the
discharge manifold. The pumps are made of a combination of a thermoplastic body with
304 stainless steel internal parts to withstand corrosion from the slightly acidic
condensate. The pumps are equipped with a maintenance-free mechanical shaft seal of
the cartridge type and a totally enclosed, fan-cooled, 2-pole frequency controlled motor.
The pumps are electrically operated through a control panel located at the J -stand by the
truck driver.
4.2 Leachate Tank Farm
The collection system for the holding tank farm includes the following components:

A secondary sump;
Two-inch diameter HDPE forcemain; and
Two-inch and eight-inch HDPE discharge piping.
4.2.1 Secondary Containment Sump
The leachate tank farm is located over a lined containment area. The area has been graded
to promote drainage towards a lined containment sump located towards the southeast of
the tanks to collect any potential spills. The lined sump contains a four-inch HDPE
dripleg connected to a six-inch HDPE drain pipe connected to leachate sump LS-10.
Potential liquids within the leachate tank farm area will drain by gravity to the secondary
containment sump, where the liquids will be gravity fed to LS-10.
4.2.2 Discharge Manifold
The liquid management system includes one discharge pipe at the leachate tank farm.
Liquids are drained from the tanks via gravity, through the associated piping and valves
for control, to on-site tanker trucks. The liquids are drained through the 4-inch PVC tank
drain outlets to eight-inch HDPE piping secured to a J -stand. The J -stand overhangs an
area of lower elevation where on-site tanker trucks drive up to, and liquids are gravity fed
into the tanker trucks.

5-1
5 OPERATING PROCEDURES
5.1 Modes of Operation
Under normal operating conditions, liquids will be removed from the holding tanks via
piping to the tanker load outs. The tanker truck operator manually fills the tank of the
truck and terminates the filling operation when the tanker is filled to the desired capacity.
Applicable conditions per the permit require the following actions during operation
procedures:
a) Daily flow into each of the tanks shall not exceed its volume capacity;
b) Holding tanks and equipment used for leachate and/or landfill process water dust
control application shall be inspected daily for leaks;
c) Dust control activities shall be carried out in such a way that minimize exposure
to workers and anyone present at the facility during discharge actives;
d) Dust control discharges shall take place over the lined part of the landfill; dust
control discharges over non-lined parts of the landfill are strictly prohibited.
e) Ponding of leachate and/or landfill process water during dust control activities is
strictly prohibited.
f) There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts;
g) Holding tank flows are not required to be metered either individually or
collectively;
h) There should be no discharge of substances that would cause an exceedance of
drinking water standards in the groundwater;
i) There shall be no objectionable odors generated in the conduct of this activity;
j) In order to ensure proper leachate and/or landfill process water collection, the
daily flow into each of the tanks shall not exceed its volume capacity;
k) Spills and/or overflows from the holding tank farm is strictly prohibited; and
l) Apex shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP) provisions and
requirements as part of this O&M manual in order to ensure safe discharge
activities at this facility.
A copy of the site permit with additional permit conditions are included in Appendix C.

5-2
5.2 Basic Landfill Health and Safety
Apex is an operating municipal solid waste landfill, with a significant number of
personnel and equipment activity. The site has many of the potential hazards associated
with a large active construction site. Basic health and safety measures associated with
operation of Apex will be followed.
The following are some of the potential site specific hazards that may be encountered
when working in and around the tank farms:
Exposure to LFG, condensate, and/or leachate;
Frequent heavy earthmoving equipment operations and other vehicle traffic;
On-grade pipelines obscured by vegetation;
Confined spaces which may contain LFG or oxygen-deficient atmospheres;
Motors, blowers, pumps, and other rotating equipment;
Control panels and other energized electrical devices;
Pressurized (with compressed air) pipelines and processing equipment; and
Heat radiation from the flares.

In general, personnel should use common sense and good judgment, as around any
industrial or commercial site. Monitoring personnel should avoid breathing LFG.
Personnel shall wear protective gloves, goggles, and clothing when handling condensate
pumps or working with condensate or leachate generated from the landfill. In addition,
monitoring personnel should be completely familiar with this O&M manual, as well as
the applicable equipment manufacturers literature, before attempting any operations.
5.3 Leachate and Condensate Hazards and Hygiene
As required by Item Number 7 under Permit Number NS2011510 Special
Approvals/Conditions Table, the following sections describe the possible hazards and
proper hygiene of working with and around leachate and/or landfill process water. The
Landfill site health and safety manual also addresses leachate handling and proper
hygiene.
5.3.1 Leachate Characteristics
Leachate is an aqueous solution recovered by the leachate collection system. Its chemical
composition is variable but may contain small concentrations of dissolved metals, volatile
or semi-volatile organics and salts.

5-3
5.3.2 Condensate Characteristics
Gas condensate in the aqueous phase is collected in the GCCS and is a mixture of water
with very low concentrations of organic materials. The composite health effects of this
material may be related to the effects of these compounds at diluted or low
concentrations.
5.3.3 Proper Hygiene
5.3.3.1 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
PPE must provide adequate protection against the particular hazard(s) for which they are
designed. When handling leachate, condensate, and/or landfill process water, PPE may
include, but is not limited to, eye and face protection, head protection, foot protection,
hand protection, high visibility protection, and respiratory protection.
5.3.3.2 First Aid Measures
Eye Contact - In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for
at least 15 minutes, holding lids apart to ensure flushing of each entire eye. If
irritation persists, see your doctor.

Skin - In case of contact, flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes.
Remove contaminated clothing and footwear. Wash clothing before reuse.

Inhalation Not a known concern.

Ingestion If swallowed, do NOT induce vomiting. Give victim plenty of water.
Get medical attention. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
5.4 Records and Record Keeping
Comprehensive and clearly organized records are important for the following activities:
Evaluation of extraction system performance;
Proper design of modifications;
Construction records;
Training and guidance of new operators;
Budgeting purposes; and
Regulatory agency review.

5-4
Recordkeeping forces an operator to ask the what, when, how, and why,
questions about the collection system, ensuring the most reliable and efficient operation.
Keeping an operations log is an excellent practice followed by many operators. The log,
contributed by all operators, is a place to record daily events, maintenance activities,
summary descriptions of adjustments made, problems encountered or observed, etc. It
allows new or temporary operators coming on duty to review earlier activities,
maintenance, and adjustment history.

5-5
6 MAINTENANCE
6.1 Purpose
The Apex holding tank farms contain piping, equipment, and instrumentation that must
be periodically inspected and properly maintained to provide optimum and continuous
operation. The purpose of this section is to provide general guidance for inspecting and
maintaining the piping system and specific major equipment and instrumentation. This
guide provides the procedures for routine work only.
To maintain warranty protection, in the case of any conflicts, the manufacturers specific
instructions take precedence, and must be consulted and read before any routine or non-
routine monitoring or maintenance is performed. In addition to routine maintenance, the
manufacturers instructions contain critical information on installing, operating,
adjusting, calibrating, testing, monitoring, and troubleshooting specific equipment
components.
6.2 General Inspection
After the start-up transition period, once the tank farm systems are operational, forcemain
piping, pumps and tanks should be inspected daily. The inspection may be recorded on a
daily log (see Appendix D). This can be done in conjunction with routine LFG
monitoring, to allow for immediate implementation of minor repairs, or it may be
completed on a schedule independent of the routine LFG monitoring.
The following conditions should be inspected for, and scheduled for repair if required:
Pipe alignments which have shifted or pipe supports which have been disturbed;
Pipe locations with sounds of gurgling or surging water, indicating poor drainage;
Condensate or LFG pipe leaks; and
Tank leaks.

In conjunction with routine inspection, the following general landfill conditions should
also be noted:
Ponding of liquids from dust control activities; and
Landfill odors.

5-6
6.3 Holding Tanks
Holding tank equipment, controls, and instrumentation must be maintained in strict
compliance with manufacturers recommendations.
6.4 Collection System Operation
6.4.1 Collection System Piping
Inspect the piping for low points prior to and within holding tank farm to prevent
liquids accumulation.
Inspect the forcemain for cracks or leaks.
6.4.2 Pumps
At least monthly, check the stroke counter and pump cycling on the pumps to ensure
proper operation. Check the electric supply and adjust in accordance with manufacturer
recommendations. Pull and inspect the inlet screen for debris and blockages. Clean as
necessary.

If the pump fails to run properly, consult the manufacturers specification sheet. Be sure
that the electric supply to the pump is off before performing repairs to the equipment.
6.5 Maintenance Records
The system maintenance records should be comprehensive and clearly organized. A
good set of records and the following practices will enhance successful long term
operation of the systems and facilitate regulatory compliance:
Periodic independent evaluation of the systems overall condition and
performance;
Scheduling maintenance or repair before failures occur;
Advance budgeting of funds for maintenance and repairs;
Thorough training of maintenance personnel; and
Annual review of requirements, documentation, site conditions, and performance
with regulatory agencies.

5-7
7 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Quarterly Reports
7.1.1 Discharge Monitoring Report
Pursuant to Permit Condition A.4.3 and Condition A.4.4, Quarterly Discharge
Monitoring Reports are required to be submitted to the NDEP Bureau of Water Pollution
Control. The report shall include monitoring results obtained during the three months
within the calendar quarterly reporting period and the results shall be summarized for
each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form. The Report
shall be submitted no later than the 28
th
day of the month following the completed
reporting period.
7.1.2 Quarterly Sample Analysis
Per Item Number 8 under Permit Number NS2011510 Special Approvals/Conditions
Table, a copy of the quarterly water quality analysis results that are sent to the Southern
Nevada Health District must be submitted to the NDEP Bureau of Water Pollution
Control per the deadlines noted above.

L-1
LIMITATIONS
The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted
professional consulting principles and practices. No other warranty, express or implied,
is made. These services were performed consistent with our agreement with our client.
This report is solely for the use and information of our client unless otherwise noted.
Any reliance on this report by a third party is at such party's sole risk.
Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when
services were performed and are intended only for the client, purposes, locations, time
frames, and project parameters indicated. We are not responsible for the impacts of any
changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance
of services. We do not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, nor the
use of segregated portions of this report.
This document is meant to provide site specific information and supplement the holding
tanks and pump user manuals and the Republic Services, Inc. LFG Management Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP).

APPENDIX A

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

APPENDIX B

TANK FARM DRAWINGS
SHEET INDEX
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
AUGUST 2013
1
PLANS FOR THE
7600 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 200
Dublin, CA 94568
Tel. (877) 633-5520
Fax (925) 560-9879
CORNE S R T N O E
E n v n n i r o e m t , L C L
2
l a G u r o p
PREPARED FOR APEX REGIONAL LANDFILL
TANK FARM IMPROVEMENTS
DETAIL INDICATOR
WELLHEAD
DETAIL
DS1
1
SHEET ON WHICH DETAIL APPEARS
SHEET ON WHICH DETAIL IS REFERENCED
1
DS1
TANK FARM CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN
EXISTING SITE PLAN
LOCATION MAP
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
PR1
DS1
15
93
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
7
PROJECT SITE
U
N
IO
N
P
A
C
IF
IC
R
A
IL
R
O
A
D
DS2
TANK FARM ELEVATION / STANDARD DETAILS
STANDARD DETAILS
STANDARD DETAILS
FLARE STATION
SECTION INDICATOR:
SHEET ON WHICH SECTION IS CUT:
SHEET ON WHICH SECTION APPEARS:
SECTION
3
A-A'
A'
3
A
3
IND6012 (3 SHEETS)
CONDENSATE TANK SPECIFICATION
(BY DIAMOND FIBERGLASS)
S-###
STRUCTURAL EQUIPMENT
FOUNDATION DRAWINGS
FLARE STATION TANK FARM IMPROVEMENTS
CORNE S R T N O E
E n v n n i r o e m r o t a l G u p , L L C
EXISTING SITE PLAN
1
LEGEND
CORNE S R T N O E
TANK FARM CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN
2
LEGEND
A'
PR1
A
PR1
B'
PR1
2
PR1
5
DS2
1
DS1
2
DS2
1
PR1
1
PR1
2
DS2
1
DS2
3
DS2
2
DS1
B
PR1
CORNE S R T N O E
TANK FARM ELEVATION / STANDARD DETAILS
PR1
CONDENSATE TANK FARM
A-A'
PR1
2
DS2
1
PR1
INLET AND OVERFLOW CONFIGURATION
1
PR1
TIE IN TO VERTICAL RISER OF TANK 2 INLET
2
PR1
3
DS2
3
DS2
B-B'
PR1
1
PR1
1
DS2
4
DS2
CORNE S R T N O E
STANDARD DETAILS
DS1
HDPE TO PVC TRANSITION
WITH VALVE
1
DS1
OUTLET MANIFOLD
2
DS1
CORNE S R T N O E
STANDARD DETAILS
DS2
BLIND FLANGE
DETAIL 1
DS2
FLANGE ASSEMBLY
DETAIL 2
DS2
UNISTRUT POST BASE
DETAIL 5
DS2
6
DS2
UNISTRUT POST BASE MODEL P2073A SQ
DETAIL 6
DS2
LFG LATERAL TIE-IN WITH TEE
DETAIL 3
DS2
UNISTRUT OR ANGLE IRON
DETAIL 4
DS2
PIPE SUPPORT
SUPPORT FRAME PRODUCT TABLE
5
DS2

APPENDIX C

AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE PERMIT: NS2011510

APPENDIX D

DAILY LOG

D
A
T
E
T
a
n
k
s
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
P
u
m
p
s
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
P
u
m
p
P
i
p
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
M
a
n
u
a
l
H
o
l
d
i
n
g
T
a
n
k
s
A
p
e
x
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
,
L
a
s
V
e
g
a
s
,
N
e
v
a
d
a
D
a
i
l
y
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
o
g

16.4
LEACHATE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
A world of
capabilities
delivered locally

LEACHATE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Apex Regional Landfill

Submitted To: Republic DUMPco Inc.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104

Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.
1000 Enterprise Way, Suite 190
Roseville, CA 95678

June 2014 Project No. 103-97145

L
E
A
C
H
A
T
E

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T

P
L
A
N

J une 2014
i
Tab 16.4 Leachate Mgmt. Plan
Project No. 103-97145

n:\projects\_2010\103-97145 (apex 2010 services)\2014 op plan\2014 leachate ops plan\apex leachate management plan rev4.docx

Table of Contents
1.1 Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Base Liner System Description .................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Leachate Collection System Design ............................................................................................ 2
1.4 Leachate Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Leachate Disposal ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.6 Leachate Tanks ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.7 Leachate Handling and Precautions ............................................................................................ 7
1.7.1 Duties of Employer Section 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act ......................... 7
1.7.2 Duties of a Supervisor Section 27 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act .................... 7
1.7.3 Duties of a Worker Section 28 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act .......................... 7
1.7.4 General Requirements ............................................................................................................. 7
1.7.5 Personal Hygiene ..................................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Safety Requirements .................................................................................................................... 8
1.8.1.1 Eye and Face Protection ...................................................................................................... 8
1.8.1.2 Head Protection ................................................................................................................... 9
1.8.1.3 Foot Protection ..................................................................................................................... 9
1.8.1.4 Hand Protection ................................................................................................................. 10
1.8.1.5 High Visibility Protection for Workers Exposed to Traffic ................................................... 10
1.8.1.6 Respiratory Protection ........................................................................................................ 10
1.9 Training ...................................................................................................................................... 11

List of References
Appendix A Leachate Analytical Data
Tab 3.6 Air Control Approval
Tab 16.1 Base Grading Plans
Tab 16.3 Operations and Maintenance Manual for On-site Holding Tanks

J une 2014
1 of 11


1.1 Objective
This plan has been prepared to provide guidance for the monitoring, testing and handling of leachate at
the Apex Regional Landfill to ensure the proper training, documentation, disposal, and compliance with all
Federal, State, and Local regulations. These procedures supersede all previous submittals regarding
leachate management at the site.
NAC 444.692 states that liquids which are in bulk or not in containers may not be placed in a municipal
solid waste landfill unit unless:
a) The waste is household waste other than septic waste; or
b) The waste is leachate or gas condensate from the municipal solid waste landfill unit and the new
or existing unit or lateral expansion is designed with a composite liner and system for the
collection of leachate as described in NAC 444.681.
Leachate is formed when water passes through the waste in the landfill cell. The precipitation can be from
rain, melted snow or the waste itself. As the liquid moves through the landfill many organic and inorganic
compounds, like heavy metals, are transported in the leachate. This moves to the base of the landfill cell
and collects. Generally leachate has a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and high concentrations
of organic carbon, nitrogen, chloride, iron, inorganics and phenols. Many other chemicals may be present,
including pesticides, solvents, and heavy metals. Employees may come into contact with leachate while
working around the leachate collection ponds or the leachate collection system manholes or while
working around dust control activities.
Leachate collected is currently returned to the landfill through dust control operations or evaporated within
the on-site evaporation ponds. The leachate utilized for dust control is predominantly evaporated prior to
infiltrating into the waste mass. Provided below is the monthly pan evaporation rates for the region
provided by the Western Region Climate Center.
Monthly Average Pan Evaporation (inches)
Boulder City| 1931-2004 |
J an. Feb. March April May J une J uly Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total
3.71 4.68 7.56 10.67 13.79 16.57 16.45 14.41 11.51 8.11 4.87 3.69 116.02

Therefore, the base liner system only needs to protect against the leachate generated within the waste
mass as it was designed for.
J une 2014
2 of 11


1.2 Base Liner System Description
The base liner system of the Class I area is comprised of the following from bottom to top:
Prepared subgrade
6-inch thick subgrade preparation layer (k<5x10
-3
cm/sec)
60-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane
6-inch thick select fill layer (k>0.2 cm/sec)
12-inch thick random fill layer
The current Class III industrial disposal area was constructed with a double composite liner system to
provide enhanced protection of a release to the environment. The liner system consists of the following
components from bottom to top of:
Prepared subgrade
6-inch thick subgrade preparation layer (k<5x10
-3
cm/sec)
60-mil HDPE geomembrane
Geocomposite drainage layer
60-mil HDPE geomembrane
6-inch thick select fill layer
12-inch thick random fill layer
Refer to tab 16.1 for the base liner base grading plans.
1.3 Leachate Collection System Design
Leachate drains through the select fill layer across the face of the landfill on top of the geomembrane liner
until it intercepts collection trenches. These trenches consist of one foot deep v-ditches filled with highly
permeable drainage gravel that surrounds a 6-inch perforated HPDE pipe. The v-ditches containing the
pipe and surrounding gravel are sloped to convey leachate to dedicated sumps for extraction. Minimum
base slopes are 2 percent with a minimum 2 percent slope along drainage pipe segments.
Two existing sumps are located in MA-7 and MA-10, however, leachate collected in the MA-10 sump
gravity drains to the MA-7 sump for extraction. Leachate collected in the MA-7 sump (MA6 through MA
10) is currently pumped to a Frac tank and then pumped into a leachate tanker truck. However, Apex
Landfill is proposing to use solar power to pump from MA 7 to a series of three above ground storage
tanks located near the northeast corner of MA10.
MA-0 through MA-5 drain to a leachate tank in the northwest corner of MA-0 and in the future will drain to
the sump in MA-26 once constructed. Cell MA-21 gravity drains to a dedicated sump within the cell.
J une 2014
3 of 11


Leachate generated within the previously permitted Class III IA modules 1 and 2 gravity flows into the
Class I MA-21 leachate collection system. The liner systems of these two areas were connected during
the construction of MA21.
Other sumps are planned for MA-12, MA-14, MA-20, MA-27, MA-28-29, MA-30-31, MA-32 and two
sumps in MA-north for a total of 12 sumps for the entire site at closure.
1.4 Leachate Monitoring
Leachate that is extracted from the sumps is analyzed quarterly for the following constituents:
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Inorganics/Metals
Chloride Total Suspended
Nitrate Arsenic
Sulfate Barium
Alkalinity Cadmium
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Calcium
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Chromium
Hardness Iron
Ammonia Nitrogen Lead
pH Magnesium
Total Organic Nitrogen Mercury
Phosphate, Ortho Potassium
Total Phosphorus Selenium
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN
Sodium
TOC (Total Organic Carbon) Zink
Total Dissolved Solids Silver

Volatile Organic Compounds
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Bromodichloromethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane Bromoform
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Bromomethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane Chlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane Chlorodibromomethane
1,1-Dichloroethene Chloroethane
J une 2014
4 of 11


1,1-Dichloropropene Chloroform
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Chloromethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Dibromomethane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane Di-isopropyl ether
1,2-Dibromoethane Ethylbenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
1,2-Dichloroethane Isopropylbenzene
1,2-Dichloropropane Methyl tert-butyl ether
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Methylene Chloride
1,3-Dichlorobenzene Naphthalene
1,3-Dichloropropane n-Butylbenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene n-Propylbenzene
2,2-Dichloropropane p-Isopropyltoluene
2-Butanone (MEK) sec-Butylbenzene
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether Styrene
2-Chlorotoluene tert-Butylbenzene
4-Chlorotoluene Tetrachloroethene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) Toluene
Acetone trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Acrolein trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Acrylonitrile Trichloroethene
Benzene Trichlorofluoromethane
Bromobenzene Vinyl chloride
Pentachlorophenyl Xylenes, Total

Silver and Pentachlorophenyl have been added to the constituents list for testing.
All records associated with leachate testing will be kept in the operating record and the results of leachate
monitoring will be submitted to the Southern Nevada Health Department (SNHD). A copy of the most
recent leachate monitoring results for the site is provided in Appendix A. Please note the analytical data
refers to samples taken from disposal cell MA8, the samples are actually taken from cell MA7. This will
J une 2014
5 of 11


be corrected on future analytical data reports. There shall be no release of liquids or substances that
would cause a violation of water quality standards.
Sampling is conducted by a contractor who is a Nevada certified environmental manager (CEM) and
follows Nevada sampling requirements.
1.5 Leachate Disposal
The leachate tank located in the northwest corner of MA-0 is pumped to the two 22,500 gallon tanks
located north of H2S facility (this area is permitted for a total of 5 22,500 gallon tanks). Leachate from
these tanks is used for dust control or gravity fed to the solidification ponds for evaporation.
Water trucks evacuate the leachate from the MA-21 sump periodically and use it as dust control. Trucks
and other equipment used to collect, transport and apply leachate are properly identified as such and
cannot carry potable water. Signage at the active phase will be employed to direct the general public that
leachate is being used as dust control and to avoid contact.
The MA-7 sump leachate is proposed to be pumped using an existing solar pumping system to the three
6,500 gallon tanks equipped with secondary containment located near the northeast corner of MA10. A
gravity outlet pipe from the tanks enables water pulls or water trucks to load the leachate from overhead
for use as dust control on site. The current and future pumps are equipped with pressure transducers that
are set to turn the pump on when the sump is filled to a point where the head over the liner is just below
one foot. In addition, a float control system will be installed within the 6,500 gallon tank farm to shut the
pump off when the tanks are full and alert employees to evacuate tanks to provide storage capacity.
Leachate will be discharged in a manner to prevent ponding and prohibit a release from the site that
would cause a water quality violation during a storm event or otherwise. Additionally, leachate spray shall
be conducted to inhibit aerosol drift and cease when a wind velocity exists that is greater than 20 miles
per hour for a duration greater than 5 minutes. There shall be no runoff beyond the lined disposal site
boundary. Leachate will be sprayed a minimum of 100 feet away from employees and any other
personnel to limit exposure to aerosols. Additionally, leachate will be sprayed downwind from the active
working face to further limit worker exposure.
Approximately 40 to 50 gallons per acre per day (gpad) of leachate is produced and disposed of by using
it as dust control over lined areas of the landfill or evaporating it within the existing soil treatment facility
ponds. To date, approximately 295 acres of landfill have been developed for refuse disposal. Therefore,
approximately 15,000 gallons of leachate is produced per day. If this leachate is spread over a five acre
area (the top deck area is approximately 60 acres), 0.11 inches of leachate would be applied to this area
J une 2014
6 of 11


per day. Based on the minimum average pan evaporation rate of 3.71 inches in J anuary (refer to Section
1.1), a minimum daily average pan evaporation of 0.116 inches is achieved. Therefore, the leachate used
for dust control under these minimum conditions will not exceed the minimum evaporation rate at the site.
Additionally, the area in which leachate is used could be increased to further limit the depth at which the
leachate is applied. No leachate application will occur during or just after any significant precipitation
event. Additionally, leachate will not be applied that will result in any erosion of landfill cover.
The existing landfill baseliner is not classified as a composite system. Therefore, liquids which are in bulk
or not in containers cannot be placed in the landfill without a variance. However, based on evaporation
rates at the site, leachate is disposed of by using it for dust control which results in the leachate being
evaporated and should not require a variance.
The Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management permit is presented in Tab
3.6.
1.6 Leachate Tanks
There are a current total of seven holding tanks on site designed to hold leachate, condensate, and
landfill process water for discharge into on-site water trucks. Two 22,500 gallon tanks (permitted for five
total) are located at the flare station and one 2,500 gallon tank at the northwest corner of MA0 are
permitted for leachate storage. The Frac tank located near the MA7 sump is temporary and will be
replaced with the three 6,500 gallon tanks located at the northeast corner of MA10 once permitted. The
total planned capacity for the on-site tank storage is 132,000 gallons.
The flare station tank farm consists of the following major components:
Two 25,500 gallon holding tanks (permitted for an additional three tanks)
Secondary containment system and sump with pump
Discharge manifold
Associated piping and valves
The leachate tank farm consists of the following major components:
Three 6,500 gallon holding tanks
Tanks are located within the limits of a constructed liner system, which functions as the
secondary containment system with a drainage sump
Associated piping and valves
The leachate tanks shall be operated and maintained following the Operations and Maintenance Manual
for On-Site Holding Tanks prepared by Cornerstone in February 2014, refer to Tab 16.3.
J une 2014
7 of 11


1.7 Leachate Handling and Precautions
1.7.1 Duties of Employer Section 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
Two important responsibilities of the employer under Section 26 of the Act are to provide information,
instruction and supervision to a worker to protect the health and safety of the worker, and to take every
precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker. The employer has put in
place worker awareness and training initiatives for this Division. Additional duties of the employer can be
referenced under Section 26.
1.7.2 Duties of a Supervisor Section 27 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, a supervisors health and safety responsibilities are to
ensure:
workers carry out work in a safe and responsible manner
workers wear the required safety equipment
workers receive information on all workplace hazards
safe work practices are in place and used when work is done
the health and safety of all workers under their supervision
1.7.3 Duties of a Worker Section 28 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
The Occupational Health and Safety Act details a workers responsibilities. A worker must:
comply with the Act and its regulations governing work procedures
wear the required protective equipment provided by the employer
neither remove or make ineffective any protective device(s)
not engage in pranks or inappropriate conduct
report to a supervisor any hazards
1.7.4 General Requirements
The following general requirements shall be followed when handling leachate on site:
Do not drink the leachate
Do not use the leachate for washing
Always wash hands and face with clean water and soap before eating, smoking, or
drinking after being involved with leachate activities
Avoid contact with leachate on skin and clothes as much as possible
Always treat cuts immediately before continuing with work around leachate
Ensure areas to be sprayed with leachate are clear of people that may be exposed to the
spray or drift before using leachate for dust control
J une 2014
8 of 11


Report any issues to the on-duty supervisor that may pose a risk
Personal protective equipment must provide adequate protection against the particular
hazard(s) for which they are designed
Personnel must wear long pants below the ankle, shirts with at least a 4-inch sleeve,
and socks with their safety shoes
Personal protective equipment must be reasonably comfortable when worn under the
designated or intended conditions
Personal protective equipment must be durable
Personal protective equipment must be easily cleanable
The limitations of the personal protective equipment must be known
Any hazards, which the personal protective equipment may pose, must be
understood
Inform personnel of the PPE requirements for each hazard
1.7.5 Personal Hygiene
Section 134.(a),(b), of Regulation 516/92 for Industrial Establishments states that a worker who is
exposed to a substance that is poisonous by ingestion, or that may contaminate the skin, shall be
provided with shower rooms and lockers for work and street clothes. These facilities are located within the
Maintenance Building.
ln case of accidental contact with leachate, wash the affected area with soap and water as soon as
possible. ln case of accidental contact with the eyes, flush with water or eyewash solution.
1.8 Safety Requirements
1.8.1.1 Eye and Face Protection
The requirement to wear eye protection is dependent on the results of the job/task specific hazard
assessment.
Eye and/or face protection (as required by 29 CFR 1910.133 Eye and Face Protection) will be worn
whenever fine particles are produced by leachate disbursement, pumping activities, welding, grinding,
sanding, chipping, power washing, sorting refuse, recyclables or other operations. Eye protection will also
be issued and used during operations when dust, splash, or other hazards to the face and eyes are
apparent or may be anticipated including applying tarp straps to roll-off containers. Refer to the Republic
document Safe Actions for Excellence Handbook for guidance on wearing protective glasses. Safety
glasses are required at all times in Republic maintenance facilities.
Personnel who are required to wear eye protection and need corrective lenses are required to wear one
of the following types of eye protection:
J une 2014
9 of 11


Spectacles with protective lenses providing optical correction that comply with
ANSI Z87.1
Goggles worn over corrective spectacles or contacts without disturbing the adjustment of
the spectacles
Goggles that incorporate corrective lenses mounted behind the protective lenses
Prescription lenses, including safety lenses which are mounted in (non-ANSI Z87.1)
dress frames are not appropriate protection. In such cases, an approved Z87.1 goggle
must be worn over the corrective glasses when the job assignment requires eye
protection
Protective eye and face devices must comply with ANSI Z87.1 "American National Standard Practice for
Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection," or be equally effective.
1.8.1.2 Head Protection
The requirement to wear head protection is dependent on the results of the job/task specific hazard
assessment.
All personnel are required to wear hardhats in areas where there are potential hazards from falling,
swinging, or flying objects. Head protection is also available to provide protection from electric shock and
burns. When selecting head protection, know if there are potential electrical hazards in the work area.
High-visibility lime-yellow hardhats are required to ensure the visibility of personnel. They must be worn
by drivers/operators or other personnel(s) at the following locations when they are not protected by an
enclosed cab:
Landfill Operations
Material recovery facilities
Transfer stations
Protective helmets must comply with ANSI Z89.1, "American National Standard for Personnel Protection -
Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers Requirements," or be equally effective.
1.8.1.3 Foot Protection
The requirement to wear foot protection is dependent on the results of the job/task specific hazard
assessment.
Protective footwear should be worn when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to
falling or rolling objects, objects piercing the sole, or where there may be electrical hazards.
J une 2014
10 of 11


1.8.1.4 Hand Protection
The requirement to wear hand protection is dependent on the results of the job/task specific hazard
assessment.
Personnel whose hands are exposed to hazards must be provided hand protection as required by
29 CFR 1910.138. Personnel must wear hand protection when the following conditions may occur:
Absorption of hazardous substances through the skin (i.e., using parts cleaner)
Cuts/scrapes/abrasions (during leachate discharge to water trucks)
Punctures (such as needlesticks)
Injury from extreme temperatures (hot or cold)
Gloves should fit comfortably and should be inspected before use. Glove size must be considered when
purchasing gloves. Chemical protective gloves should be washed prior to removal. Gloves are replaced
as needed due to normal wear or due to permeation, degradation or penetration of chemical materials.
1.8.1.5 High Visibility Protection for Workers Exposed to Traffic
The requirement to wear protective clothing is dependent on the results of the job/task specific hazard
assessment.
The outer most garments of all drivers, helpers, laborers (regular and temporary), operators, mechanics,
and any personnel working in an area exposed to motor vehicles will be high visibility clothing that meets
the ANSI 107-2004 class II standard. (Spotters in landfills, MRFs, and transfer stations must wear ANSI
Class III).
Company authorized high visibility clothing and hardhats will be lime-yellow in color with safety triangle
logo on the back of the vest and hardhat and have the Republic Services logo on the front of both.
ANSI Class II and III Compliant Options include:
ANSI Class II and III compliant uniform shirts, jackets, raincoats, or sweatshirts
ANSI Class II and III compliant T-shirts
ANSI Class II and III compliant safety vests worn on outside of regular uniforms
1.8.1.6 Respiratory Protection
Respiratory protection will be issued to and used by operating personnel whenever they are exposed to
airborne contaminants that exceed permissible exposure limits or oxygen deficient atmosphere or where
respirator use is required in a manufacturers MSDS due to specific application and use of the individual
product. Refer to the onsite Respiratory Protection Program for more details.
J une 2014
11 of 11


1.9 Training
Employee training will be carried out to inform site personnel about the characteristics of the leachate to
be used as dust control, how it is to be handled, how it is to be disposed of and the necessary
documentation needed to allow for disposal. Employees will be notified of the potential hazards and
special handling requirements for this process.

APPENDIX A
LEACHATE ANALYTICAL DATA
Email: veritaslabs@msn.com
(702) 597-2098 Fax
(702) 321-8315 Phone
6245 Harrison Drive, Suite 4, Las Vegas, NV 89120
Mar-05-2014 12:50
Apex Leachate, Quarterly
Ross Grover
13550 N. US Highway 93
Las Vegas, NV 89165
Republic Services, Apex Landfill
Presented herein are the analytical results for samples received from the above referenced project.
Unless otherwise indicated on the chain of custody or in the report case narrative, samples submitted for this project
were recieved by Veritas Laboratories in good condition, properly preserved, within the proper temperature range,
and within the recomended holding time for the requested analyses.
All laboratory analytical data presented herein was generated by a laboratory certified by the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection for each constituent and media reported for which a certification is required and
offered.
DATE RECEIVED AT LAB:
VERITAS LAB ORDER ID:
CLIENT PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MGR:
CLIENT NAME:
V14C016
1st Qtr. 2014 CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER:
4/28/14
Date
Nevada Lab Certification ID NV00918
Veritas Laboratories
Bruce G. Cunningham
Laboratory Director
Page 1 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
6245 Harrison Drive, Suite 4, Las Vegas, NV 89120 Email: veritaslabs@msn.com
CLIENT COMPANY NAME:
V14C016
CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER: 1st Qtr. 2014
CLIENT SAMPLE ID VERITAS SAMPLE ID MATRIX DATE/TIME COLLECTED DATE/TIME RECEIVED
SAMPLE SUMMARY
MA8 V14C016-01 3/5/14 10:55 3/5/14 12:50 Aqueous
MAO V14C016-02 3/5/14 11:25 3/5/14 12:50 Aqueous
Page 2 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MA8
V14C016-01 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 10:55
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
PARAMETER RESULT (MRL) UNITS DF METHOD CAS NO.
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
Inorganics
QUAL
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 21000 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 2320B 20 1 71-52-3
Total Organic Nitrogen 380 mg/L 3/13/14 Calculation 10 1 7727-37-9
Ammonia Nitrogen 820 mg/L 3/12/14 EPA 350.1 20 200 7664-41-7
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 1200 mg/L 3/13/14 EPA 351.2 10 100 7727-37-9
COD 11000 mg/L 3/8/14 EPA 410.4 500 50 NA
Chloride 6300 mg/L 3/6/14 EPA 9056 100 100 16887-00-6
Nitrate ND mg/L 3/6/14 EPA 9056 10 100 14797-55-8
Sulfate ND mg/L 3/6/14 EPA 9056 500 100 14808-79-8
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 8000 mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 9060A 100 100 NA
Hardness, Total 630 mg/L 3/18/14 SM 2340B 0.50 500 NA
pH 8.26 pH Units 3/5/14 SM 4500 H+B 0.10 1 NA
Phosphorus, Total 18 mg/L 3/12/14 Hach 8190 2.5 25 7723-14-0
Othrophosphate 7.7 mg/L 3/6/14 SM 4500P-E 0.25 10 NA
BOD 1300 mg/L 3/11/14 SM 5210 B 5.00 1 NA
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 20900 mg/L 3/6/14 SM 2540C 15 1 NA
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 27 mg/L 3/6/14 SM 2540D 15 1 NA
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
Total Metals
QUAL
Arsenic, Total 1.4 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.060 2 7440-38-2
Barium, Total 0.45 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.0060 2 7440-39-3
Cadmium, Total ND mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.0060 2 7440-43-9
Calcium, Total 7.5 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.20 2 7440-70-2
Chromium, Total 1.1 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.010 2 7440-47-3
Mercury, Total ND mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 7470A 0.00040 2 7439-97-6
Iron, Total 1.8 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.20 2 7439-89-6
Lead, Total 0.20 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.030 2 7439-92-1
Magnesium, Total 150 mg/L 3/18/14 EPA 6010B 50 500 7439-95-4
Potassium, Total 2100 mg/L 3/18/14 EPA 6010B 50 500 7440-09-7
Selenium, Total ND mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.10 2 7782-49-2
Sodium, Total 4700 mg/L 3/18/14 EPA 6010B 100 500 7440-23-5
Zinc, Total 1.8 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.010 2 7440-66-6
Page 3 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MA8
V14C016-01 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 10:55
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
QUAL
Total TPH (C6-C40) 11.3 1.0 mg/L 1 Calculation 3/10/14 NA
TPH-GRO (C6-C12) 4.9 mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1.0 1 NA
TPH-DRO (>C12-C28) 6.4 mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1.0 1 NA
TPH-ORO (>C28-40) ND mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1.0 1 NA
3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1 460-00-4 Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene 70-130 % Recovery 83.2
3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1 629-99-2 Surrogate: Pentacosane 70-130 % Recovery 82.7
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
Volatile Organic Compounds, GC/MS
QUAL
Acetone 15000 ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 2000 200 67-64-1
Benzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 71-43-2
Bromobenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 108-86-1
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-27-4
Bromoform ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-25-2
Bromomethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 74-83-9
2-Butanone 9200 ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 2000 200 78-93-3
sec-Butylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 135-98-8
n-Butylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 104-51-8
tert-Butylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 98-06-6
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-15-0
Carbon Tetrachloride ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 56-23-5
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 108-90-7
Chloroethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-00-3
Chloroform ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 67-66-3
Chloromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 74-87-3
2-Chlorotoluene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 95-49-8
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 96-12-8
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 124-48-1
1,2-Dibromoethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 106-93-4
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 74-95-3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 541-73-1
Page 4 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MA8
V14C016-01 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 10:55
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
QUAL
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-71-8
1,2-Dichloroethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 107-06-2
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 156-59-4
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-35-4
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 156-60-5
2,2-Dichloropropane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 594-20-7
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 10061-02-6
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 10061-01-5
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 563-58-6
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 100-41-4
Hexachlorobutadiene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 87-68-3
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 200 20 591-78-6
Isopropylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 98-82-8
p-Isopropyltoluene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 99-87-6
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 1634-04-4
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-09-2
4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 200 20 108-10-1
Naphthalene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 91-20-3
n-Propylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 103-65-1
Styrene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 100-42-5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 79-34-5
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 127-18-4
Toluene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 108-88-3
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 87-61-6
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 71-55-6
Trichloroethene (TCE) ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 79-01-6
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-69-4
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 96-18-4
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 526-73-8
Page 5 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MA8
V14C016-01 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 10:55
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
QUAL
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 40 20 75-01-4
m,p-Xylene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 7816-60-0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 95-47-6
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 460-00-4 Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-130 % Recovery 111
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 1868-53-7 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 70-130 % Recovery 81.8
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 10706-07-0 Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 70-130 % Recovery 71.6
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 2037-26-5 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 70-130 % Recovery 87.1
Page 6 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MAO
V14C016-02 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 11:25
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
Inorganics
QUAL
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate 9455 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 2320B 20 1 71-52-3
Total Organic Nitrogen 200 mg/L 3/13/14 Calculation 10 1 7727-37-9
Ammonia Nitrogen 2100 mg/L 4/17/14 EPA 350.1 50 200 7664-41-7
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 2300 mg/L 4/17/14 EPA 351.2 50 200 7727-37-9
COD 4800 mg/L 3/8/14 EPA 410.4 500 50 NA
Chloride 5500 mg/L 3/6/14 EPA 9056 100 100 16887-00-6
Nitrate ND mg/L 3/6/14 EPA 9056 10 100 14797-55-8
Sulfate 2400 mg/L 3/6/14 EPA 9056 500 100 14808-79-8
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 3900 mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 9060A 100 100 NA
Hardness, Total 1200 mg/L 3/18/14 SM 2340B 120 500 NA
pH 8.20 pH Units 3/5/14 SM 4500 H+B 0.10 1 NA
Phosphorus, Total 7.8 mg/L 3/12/14 Hach 8190 1.0 10 7723-14-0
Othrophosphate 4.4 mg/L 3/6/14 SM 4500P-E 0.25 10 NA
BOD 460 mg/L 3/11/14 SM 5210 B 5.00 1 NA
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 16900 mg/L 3/6/14 SM 2540C 15 1 NA
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ND mg/L 3/6/14 SM 2540D 15 1 NA
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
Total Metals
QUAL
Arsenic, Total 0.44 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.060 2 7440-38-2
Barium, Total 0.20 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.0060 2 7440-39-3
Cadmium, Total ND mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.0060 2 7440-43-9
Calcium, Total 73 mg/L 3/18/14 EPA 6010B 50 500 7440-70-2
Chromium, Total 0.30 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.010 2 7440-47-3
Mercury, Total ND mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 7470A 0.00040 2 7439-97-6
Iron, Total 0.48 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.20 2 7439-89-6
Lead, Total ND mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.030 2 7439-92-1
Magnesium, Total 240 mg/L 3/18/14 EPA 6010B 50 500 7439-95-4
Potassium, Total 1100 mg/L 3/18/14 EPA 6010B 50 500 7440-09-7
Selenium, Total ND mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.10 2 7782-49-2
Sodium, Total 3900 mg/L 3/18/14 EPA 6010B 100 500 7440-23-5
Zinc, Total 0.012 mg/L 3/17/14 EPA 6010B 0.010 2 7440-66-6
Page 7 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MAO
V14C016-02 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 11:25
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
QUAL
Total TPH (C6-C40) 5.7 1.0 mg/L 1 Calculation 3/10/14 NA
TPH-GRO (C6-C12) 1.4 mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1.0 1 NA
TPH-DRO (>C12-C28) 4.3 mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1.0 1 NA
TPH-ORO (>C28-40) ND mg/L 3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1.0 1 NA
3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1 460-00-4 Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene 70-130 % Recovery 87.0
3/10/14 EPA 8015M 1 629-99-2 Surrogate: Pentacosane 70-130 % Recovery 83.2
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
QUAL
Acetone 1400 ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 200 20 67-64-1
Benzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 71-43-2
Bromobenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 108-86-1
Bromodichloromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-27-4
Bromoform ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-25-2
Bromomethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 74-83-9
2-Butanone 1400 ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 200 20 78-93-3
sec-Butylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 135-98-8
n-Butylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 104-51-8
tert-Butylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 98-06-6
Carbon disulfide ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-15-0
Carbon Tetrachloride ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 56-23-5
Chlorobenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 108-90-7
Chloroethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-00-3
Chloroform ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 67-66-3
Chloromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 74-87-3
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 96-12-8
Dibromochloromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 124-48-1
1,2-Dibromoethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 106-93-4
Dibromomethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 74-95-3
Page 8 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MAO
V14C016-02 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 11:25
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
QUAL
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-71-8
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 156-59-4
1,1-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-35-4
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 156-60-5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 10061-02-6
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 10061-01-5
1,1-Dichloropropene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 563-58-6
Ethylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 100-41-4
Hexachlorobutadiene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 87-68-3
2-Hexanone ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 200 20 591-78-6
Isopropylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 98-82-8
p-Isopropyltoluene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 99-87-6
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 1634-04-4
Methylene Chloride ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-09-2
4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 200 20 108-10-1
Naphthalene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 91-20-3
n-Propylbenzene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 103-65-1
Styrene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 100-42-5
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 127-18-4
Toluene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 108-88-3
Trichloroethene (TCE) ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 79-01-6
Trichlorofluoromethane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 75-69-4
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 96-18-4
Page 9 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
CLIENT SAMPLE ID:
VERITAS SAMPLE ID:
DATE/TIME SAMPLED:
DATE/TIME RECEIVED:
MAO
V14C016-02 3/5/14 12:50
3/5/14 11:25
Matrix: Aqueous
Analysis:
DATE
ANALYZED
RL
QUAL
Vinyl chloride ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 40 20 75-01-4
m,p-Xylene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 7816-60-0
o-Xylene ND ug/L 3/17/14 EPA 8260B 100 20 95-47-6
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 460-00-4 Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-130 % Recovery 111
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 1868-53-7 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 70-130 % Recovery 82.9
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 10706-07-0 Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 70-130 % Recovery 72.2
3/17/14 EPA 8260B 1 2037-26-5 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 70-130 % Recovery 87.5
Page 10 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Qualifier Analyte
Inorganics - Quality Control
Batch 1410032 - EPA 3010A
Analyzed: 05-Mar-14 LCS (1410032-BS1)
pH
7.03 0.10 7.00 97-103 100
pH Units
Analyzed: 05-Mar-14 LCS Dup (1410032-BSD1)
pH
7.05 0.10 7.00 20 97-103 101
pH Units
0.284
Analyzed: 05-Mar-14 Source: V14C016-02 Duplicate (1410032-DUP1)
pH
8.18 0.10 8.20 20 pH Units
0.244
Batch 1410045 - No Prep - Wet Chem
Analyzed: 06-Mar-14 Blank (1410045-BLK1)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
ND 15
mg/L
4016 15 4000 90-110 100
mg/L
3464 15 3488 20 mg/L
0.690
Batch 1411003 - No-Prep Anions
Sulfate
ND 5.0
mg/L
Sulfate
52 5.0 50.0 90-110 104
mg/L
Page 11 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Sulfate
52 5.0 50.0 90-110 105
mg/L
Sulfate
52 5.0 50.0 90-110 104
mg/L
Analyzed: 07-Mar-14 Source: V14B071-13 Matrix Spike (1411003-MS1)
Sulfate
61000 5000 25000 33000 80-120 111
mg/L
Analyzed: 07-Mar-14 Source: V14B071-13 Matrix Spike Dup (1411003-MSD1)
Sulfate
60000 5000 25000 33000 20 80-120 109
mg/L
1.03
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
ND 15
mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
ND 15 ND 20 mg/L
0.00
Phosphorus, Total
ND 0.10
mg/L
Phosphorus, Total
ND 0.10
mg/L
Page 12 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Phosphorus, Total
0.50 0.10 0.500 90-110 100
mg/L
Phosphorus, Total
0.52 0.10 0.500 90-110 104
mg/L
Phosphorus, Total
0.50 0.10 0.500 20 90-110 100
mg/L
0.00
Phosphorus, Total
0.53 0.10 0.500 20 90-110 106
mg/L
1.90
Phosphorus, Total
ND 0.10 ND 20 mg/L
0.00
Batch 1412005 - EPA 3010A
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate
ND 20
mg/L
90 20 100 90-110 90.0
mg/L
100 20 100 20 90-110 100
mg/L
10.5
20909 20 21000 20 mg/L
0.434
Page 13 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyzed: 03-Apr-14 Blank (1414016-BLK1)
Chloride
ND 5.0
mg/L
Analyzed: 03-Apr-14 LCS (1414016-BS1)
Chloride
49 5.0 50.0 90-110 98.2
mg/L
Analyzed: 03-Apr-14 LCS (1414016-BS2)
Chloride
50 5.0 50.0 90-110 99.5
mg/L
Analyzed: 03-Apr-14 Source: V14D007-01 Matrix Spike (1414016-MS1)
Chloride
290 25 125 170 80-120 102
mg/L
Analyzed: 03-Apr-14 Source: V14D007-01 Matrix Spike Dup (1414016-MSD1)
Chloride
300 25 125 170 20 80-120 103
mg/L
0.583
Page 14 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Total Metals - Quality Control
Batch 1412026 - EPA 3010A
Barium, Total
ND 0.0030
mg/L
Cadmium, Total
ND 0.0030
mg/L
Calcium, Total
ND 0.10
mg/L
Chromium, Total
ND 0.0050
mg/L
Iron, Total
ND 0.10
mg/L
Lead, Total
ND 0.015
mg/L
Potassium, Total
ND 0.10
mg/L
Selenium, Total
ND 0.050
mg/L
Sodium, Total
ND 0.20
mg/L
Zinc, Total
ND 0.0050
mg/L
Arsenic, Total
ND 0.030
mg/L
Magnesium, Total
ND 0.10
mg/L
Barium, Total
0.47 0.0030 0.500 85-115 94.1
mg/L
Cadmium, Total
0.50 0.0030 0.500 85-115 100
mg/L
Calcium, Total
0.50 0.10 0.500 85-115 99.8
mg/L
Chromium, Total
0.50 0.0050 0.500 85-115 100
mg/L
Iron, Total
0.49 0.10 0.500 85-115 98.3
mg/L
Lead, Total
0.48 0.015 0.500 85-115 95.5
mg/L
Potassium, Total
4.5 0.10 5.00 85-115 90.9
mg/L
Selenium, Total
0.47 0.050 0.500 85-115 94.1
mg/L
Sodium, Total
0.44 0.20 0.500 85-115 87.6
mg/L
Zinc, Total
0.48 0.0050 0.500 85-115 95.5
mg/L
Arsenic, Total
0.50 0.030 0.500 85-115 100
mg/L
Magnesium, Total
0.48 0.10 0.500 85-115 95.7
mg/L
Barium, Total
0.47 0.0030 0.500 20 85-115 94.8
mg/L
0.825
Cadmium, Total
0.49 0.0030 0.500 20 85-115 98.8
mg/L
1.62
Calcium, Total
0.49 0.10 0.500 20 85-115 98.1
mg/L
1.77
Chromium, Total
0.49 0.0050 0.500 20 85-115 98.8
mg/L
1.40
Iron, Total
0.48 0.10 0.500 20 85-115 97.0
mg/L
1.40
Page 15 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Total Metals - Quality Control
Batch 1412026 - EPA 3010A
Lead, Total
0.47 0.015 0.500 20 85-115 94.9
mg/L
0.587
Potassium, Total
4.6 0.10 5.00 20 85-115 91.1
mg/L
0.281
Selenium, Total
0.46 0.050 0.500 20 85-115 91.5
mg/L
2.75
Sodium, Total
0.44 0.20 0.500 20 85-115 87.7
mg/L
0.0756
Zinc, Total
0.47 0.0050 0.500 20 85-115 93.8
mg/L
1.70
Arsenic, Total
0.48 0.030 0.500 20 85-115 95.8
mg/L
4.44
Magnesium, Total
0.48 0.10 0.500 20 85-115 95.4
mg/L
0.348
Page 16 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID - Quality Control
Batch 1411006 - TNRCC Method 1005
TPH-GRO (C6-C12)
ND 1.0
mg/L
TPH-DRO (>C12-C28)
ND 1.0
mg/L
TPH-ORO (>C28-40)
ND 1.0
mg/L
2.00 70-130 Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene 90.4 1.8 mg/L
2.00 70-130 Surrogate: Pentacosane 91.0 1.8 mg/L
TPH-GRO (C6-C12)
9.5 1.0 10.0 70-125 94.9
mg/L
TPH-DRO (>C12-C28)
9.9 1.0 10.0 70-125 98.5
mg/L
2.00 70-130 Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene 96.0 1.9 mg/L
2.00 70-130 Surrogate: Pentacosane 92.9 1.9 mg/L
Page 17 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Volatile Organic Compounds, GC/MS - Quality Control
Batch 1412015 - No Prep VOA
Acetone
ND 10
ug/L
Benzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Bromobenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Bromodichloromethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
Bromoform
ND 5.0
ug/L
Bromomethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
2-Butanone
ND 10
ug/L
sec-Butylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
n-Butylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
tert-Butylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Carbon disulfide
ND 5.0
ug/L
Carbon Tetrachloride
ND 5.0
ug/L
Chlorobenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Chloroethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
Chloroform
ND 5.0
ug/L
Chloromethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
2-Chlorotoluene
ND 5.0
ug/L
4-Chlorotoluene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
ND 5.0
ug/L
Dibromochloromethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2-Dibromoethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
Dibromomethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Dichlorodifluoromethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2-Dichloroethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethene
ND 5.0
ug/L
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ND 5.0
ug/L
2,2-Dichloropropane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND 5.0
ug/L
Page 18 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
1,3-Dichloropropane
ND 5.0
ug/L
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND 5.0
ug/L
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,1-Dichloropropene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Ethylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Hexachlorobutadiene
ND 5.0
ug/L
2-Hexanone
ND 10
ug/L
Isopropylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
p-Isopropyltoluene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
ND 5.0
ug/L
Methylene Chloride
ND 5.0
ug/L
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
ND 10
ug/L
Naphthalene
ND 5.0
ug/L
n-Propylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Styrene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
ND 5.0
ug/L
Toluene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
Trichloroethene (TCE)
ND 5.0
ug/L
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene
ND 5.0
ug/L
Vinyl chloride
ND 2.0
ug/L
m,p-Xylene
ND 5.0
ug/L
o-Xylene
ND 5.0
ug/L
40.0 70-130 Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 111 45 ug/L
40.0 70-130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 80.4 32 ug/L
Page 19 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Reference
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
40.0 70-130 Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 71.4 29 ug/L
40.0 70-130 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 85.4 34 ug/L
Page 20 of 21
(702) 321-8315 Phone
(702) 597-2098 Fax
V14C016
Report Definitions
- Dilution Factor. Represents the factor applied to the reported data due to the dilution of the sample aliquot
- Duplicate Sample
- Laboratory Control Sample
- Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
- Method Detection Limit
- Method Reporting Limit
- Matrix Spike
- Matrix Spike Duplicate
- Analyte Not Detected at or above the Reporting Limit (MRL)
- Percent Recovery
- Reporting Limit
- Relative Percent Difference
- Result is outside of acceptable limits and not reportable due to size constraints of the associated field
DF
DUP
LCS
LCSD
MDL
MRL
MS
MSD
ND
% REC
RL
RPD
NR
Qualifier Definitions
Page 21 of 21
Veritas Lab Order 10:
, \, 'Vl'4Cf1lb
(702) ,2 J-8,15 Fhone r ...
Verit Lab t
"(J: - Truth in Truth in Service
(702) 597-2098 Fax
(/1
"
:l-- '). ).- r.
.::or
Total # of Containers
I , 62+5 Harrison Drive, Suite+, Las Vegas, NV 89120
Lmail: veritaslabs@msn,com

tJ-
:)
\-\ 1\\ f
:iy Preservation Code
2
,(
Iv P lAb 1 P
{J -9
Container Code'
Company: f2q)u. bIre nUtA Arv.,..L. "j)4;1 ( Telephone: f:h'l \'571'1-- SCflct
.'
ATTESTATION OF

-
AUTHORITY
Address:
'1
Fax:

t"-
V

By signing this Chain of
13sw N. u.s 13
e;
Email:
;.,
;

Custody, the sampler attests
NV

i

to the validity and authenticity
Project NamelProject Number:
I
of submitted sample(s).

e:\
r-
....

Attention: /[,.., c:, S (Yf"() lr<..r
A-p<x

Sampler is aware that
.-:-

...
tampering with or intentionally
Invoice To: b.a. .:/, "011<-1
)
t'"
mislabeling the sample(s)
---
tf""
d
Sampled By: '1ltv P.O. Number:

:i

location, date, or time of

t-
collection may be considered
Sample f'\:eritas Sample Date Time Com- Matrix

fraud and subject to legal action.
Identification Identification Sampled Sampled _posite
Grab
Code'
{,';!!mmeng
\ 0 r 3/oh'1 IOi55J V
(;tJ f!
V
,/
t.-
V V- V
v .....
Ie;
lVtAO \ J D1
tl ;;2S
k V

V V
/ v V
v
V V
As/!J4..)
I' /
C.1 Co.) Uj Fe)
Ph,

a"
k 2:.1" ,./
NP..I "J. V't;
--'------
All Data Reported on
---
a Wet-Weight Basis
Unless Otherwise
Specified
---
e:
Turnaround Time: IMatrix Code 2Preservation Code 'Container For La!! Use Only
q
__SameDay
Code
I --..vl)
. '/
GW Groundwater
I = Iced Received in Good

Date/Tme: __ 1 Day WW = Wastewater
H HCL
A=Amber
:3 / ))/1;
2 Days DW = Drinking Water
N HNO,
G Glass
es 0
....
S Soil/Solid
S = H2SO4
P Plastic
Relinquished b1Signature) Date/Time: 5 Days (Normal) SL= Sludge
X = NaOH
ST = Sterile

__Other OL = Organic Liquid T NfuS20, V=VOA Vial
Yes 0

A=Air
Z =ZnAc T = Tedlar Bag
Received by: (Signature) Daterrime: W=Wipe NO None W=Wipe
Temperature
Da eN eded 0 Other 0= Other a Other
c
-
By signing this Chain ofCustody, the Client Agrees to Veritas Laboratories' Published Standard Terms and Conditions.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Page ,
,

To Reorder call SMR Printing, LLC (702) 8962223 Fonn No. VLCOC3

17
PLANS FOR WATER MONITORING

17.1
WELL LOCATIONS AND BORING LOGS
MW-1 (ABANDONED)
RETENTION BASIN 1 RETENTION BASIN 2
MA-EAST
MA-11
MA-9
MA-12 MA-10 MA-8 MA-7 MA-6 MA-5
MA-13
MA-14
(FUTURE)
(CONST.)
(CONST.)
(FUTURE) (CONST.) (CONST.) (CONST.) (CONST.)
(FUTURE)
(FUTURE)
MA-2
(CONST.)
MA-4
MA-1
(CONST.)
MA-0
(CONST.)
MA-22
(FUTURE)
MA-23
(FUTURE)
MA-24
(FUTURE)
MA-25
(FUTURE)
MA-26
(FUTURE)
MA-20
(FUTURE)
MA-SOUTH
R
A
IL
R
O
A
D
MA-WEST
MA-27
(FUTURE)
MA-31
(FUTURE)
MA-30
(FUTURE)
MA-29
(FUTURE)
MA-28
(FUTURE)
MA-NORTH
MA-32
(FUTURE)
LEGEND
MW-6
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN
FIGURE 17
Well 1abandoned
WELL 2
Well 3
Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Well 8

17.2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN

APPENDIX C
C1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN
The groundwater monitoring program described in this plan is established in accordance
with NAC 444.683 for Class I sites and NAC 444.741 for Class III sites. Under these
regulations, the location, depth, and number of background and downgradient monitoring
wells, as well as the methods of well construction, installation, and development are
addressed.
The groundwater monitoring plan was initially developed by Vector in 1993 to initiate
procedures for collecting background groundwater quality at the site. This document
updates that earlier plan.
C1.1 Description of Monitoring System
The groundwater monitoring system at the Apex Regional Landfill consists of four wells
located and screened to provide groundwater samples from the uppermost water-
producing horizon. A multi-unit monitoring system was designed to monitor the waste
management units (WMUs) at the Apex Regional Landfill.
C1.2 Location and Construction of Monitoring Points
C1.2.1 Well Locations, Area MA (municipal Area A)
The groundwater monitoring system is illustrated on Figure C-1. One upgradient well
(Well #6) is at the south-central boundary of the WMU; two downgradient wells (Wells )
#2 and #7) are at the northern boundary, farther downgradient (Well ( t.clbLL 8'
, latulfill The northerly groundwater gradient for areas MA and lA is coincident
with the regional flow direction as documented in later discussions in this report. Based
on the site hydrogeologic information acquired during drilling, it is expected that water is
sampled from fractured bedrock. The "aquifer" is a water-bearing structural zone,
probably hosted by limestone. Thickness of this producing zone is approximated to range
from 30 to 100 feet. Monitoring well yields range from 5 to 200 gallons per minute
(gpm). Static water levels are at depths greater than 450 feet, and, currently, the
production zones sampled are at depths greater than 700 feet. However, sampling
intervals in all wells coincide with the uppermost "aquifer" encountered.
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3 808c.doc-99\ms :4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-1
Based on the available data, the four wells tap the same source of water, regardless of the
depth below surface at which the first water-bearing zones were encountered. The
shallowest water-bearing zone in each hole that produced usable quantities of water was
screened and sampled. Because of this, screened intervals are not at the same depth in
upgradient and downgradient wells.
C1.2.2 Well Locations, Area lA (Industrial Area A)
The groundwater monitoring system for WMU IA consists of two downgradient wells
along the northern boundary (Wells #2 and #7, shown on Figure C-1). Essentially this is
the same monitoring system described for WMU MA, because of the proximity of the
two WMUs. The groundwater gradient is generally northerly, coincident with the
regional flow direction. Characterization for area MA is based on field pressure tests,
field mapping, and local structural analyses. The hydrogeologic setting is similar for area
lA. It is expected that water will be sampled from fractured bedrock that will consist of a
water-bearing structural zone. The monitoring wells will be collared in the Permian red
bed sequence. However, the stratigraphic unit, which will host the water-bearing
structures, may be either the Permian red beds or the underlying Callville limestone.
Based on the rock pressure test performed in this area (DH 2), well yields are expected to
exceed 20 gallons per minute. Projected static water levels are at depths in excess of 400
feet; thus, an unsaturated thickness of at least 400 feet may be expected above the water-
bearing structure.
As explained for the WMU MA monitoring program, it is expected that all three wells tap
the same ultimate source of water, regardless of the depth below surface at which the
water-bearing structures or lithologic "aquifer" is encountered. The sample interval are,
and will be, screened at depths appropriate for evaluating the uppermost "aquifer"
encountered. The uppermost aquifer will consist of the first saturated zone that will yield
a recoverable volume of groundwater.
C1.3 Monitoring Parameters and the Frequency of Monitoring
Constituents currently monitored at the site are taken from Appendix 1 of 40 CFR Part
258. These are presented in Table 1 and will be referred to as "Phase 1" constituents in
this report. These include VOC, trace metals, and selected inorganic constituents.
Recommended analytical methods are also listed on Table 1. Baseline groundwater
quality data through the fourth quarter 1999 was submitted to the CCHD in a letter dated
January 3, 2000. Republic-DUMPCo has requested continued collection of baseline
groundwater samples quarterly, through the second quarter 2001 (as requested in the
January 3, 2000, letter). At that time, baseline groundwater quality will be statistically
evaluated until the detection monitoring phase will begin.
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms :4
Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-2
Table 1: Phase 1 Monitoring Constituents*
Chemical Name Suggested Chemical Name Suggested
EPA Test Method EPA Test Method
Inorganic Constituents
Antimony 60l0
1
,7040,7041 Lead 6010,7420,7421
Arsenic 6010,7060,7061 Nickel 6010,7520
Barium 6010,7080 Selenium 6010,7740,7741
Beryllium 6010,7090,7091 Silver 6010,7760,7761
Cadmium 6010,7130.7131 Thallium 6010,7840,7841
Chromium 6010,7190,7191 Vanadium 6010,7910,7911
Cobalt 6010,7200,7201 Zinc 6010,7950,7951
Copper 6010,7210,7211
Organic Constituents
Acetone 8260
2
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 8010,8021,8260
Acrylonitrile 8030,8260 Chloroform; Trichloromethane 8010,8021,8260
Benzene 8020,8021,8260 Dibromochloromethane; 8010,8021,8260
Chlorodibromomethane
Bromochloromethane 8021 ,8260 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; 8011,8021,8260
DBCP
Bromodichloromethane 8010,8021,8260 1 ,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene 8011,8021,8260
Dibromide; EDB
Bromoform; Tribromomethane 8010,8021,8260 o-Dichlorobenzene; I ,2- 8010,8020,8021'
Dichlorobenzene 8120,8260,8270
Carbon disulfide 8260 p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4- 8010,8020,8021 '
Dichlorobenzene 8120,8260,8270
Carbon tetrachloride 8010,8021,8260 trans-! ,4-Dichloro-2-butene 8260
Chlorobenzene 8010,8020,8021' 1, 1-Dichloroethane; 8010,8021 ,8260
8260 Ethylidenechloride
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3 808c.doc-99\ms :4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-3
Table 1 (Continued): Phase 1 Monitoring Constituents*
Chemical Name Suggested Chemical Name Suggested
EPA Test Method EPA Test Method
Organic Constituents
1 ,2-Dichloroethane; 8010,8021 ,8260 4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl 8015,8260
Ethy lenedichloride isobutyl ketone
1, 1-Dichloroethylane; 8010,8021 ,8260 Styrene 8020,8021 ,8260
1, 1- Dichloroethene; Vinylidene
chloride
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene; cis- 8021,8260 1, 1, 1 ,2,-Tetrachloroethane 8010,8021,8260
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trans-! ,2-Dichloroethylene; 8010,8021 ,8260 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 8010,8021,8260
trans-! ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene 8010,8021,8260 Tetrachloroethylene; 8010,8021 ,8260
dichloride Tetrachloroethene;
Perchloroethylene
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene 8010,8260 Toluene 8020,8021 ,8260
Trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene 8010,8260 1,1 , 1,-Trichloroethane; 8010,8021,8260
Methylchloroform
Ethylbenzene 8020,8021 ,8260 1, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane 8010,8260
2-Hexanone; 8260 Trichloroethylene; 8010,8021 ,8260
Methly butyl ketone Trichloroethene
Methyl bromide; 8010,8021 Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC- 8010,8021 ,8260
Bromomenthane 11
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 8010,8021 1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane 8010,8021,8260
Methylene bromide; 8010,8021,8260 Vinyl acetate 8260
Dibromomethane
Methylene chloride; 8010,8021 ,8260 Vinyl chloride 8010,8021,8260
Dichloromethane
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2- 8015,8260 Xylenes 8020,8021 ,8260
Butanone
Methyl iodide; Iodomethane 8010,8260
This list contains 47 volatile organics for which possible analytical procedures provided in EPA Report SW-846 "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste," third edition, November 1986, as revised December 1987, includes Method
8260; and 15 metals for which SW-846 provides either Method 6010 or a method from the 7000 series of methods.
* From 40 CFR Part 258, Appendix 1
1. Selected Test Method for all Inorganic Elements
2. Selected Test Method for all Organic Elements
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms :4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-4
C1.4 Quality Assurance for All Field and Laboratory Work
Quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures will be applied to both field
and laboratory activities. Quality control on field activities will be used to evaluate the
data with respect to field conditions and sampling procedures. QA/QC in laboratory
methods is essential in the determination of data validity.
C1.4.1 Field QA/QC
Use of the field quality assurance procedures will aid in the characterization and
interpretation of the water quality data. The procedures will serve as documentation for
data variability and will assist in the detection of false positive or negative results in the
analyses. Quality control field checks will consist ofthe use of the following:
1. Trip blanks. These will consist of clean water taken to the field in containers that
have been cleaned and sealed in a manner consistent with the procedures to be used in
the field. They will be taken to the site, handled, and stored according to sampling
protocol, and they will be returned unopened.
2. Field blanks. The field blanks will consist of clean water taken to the site, and they
will be collected in the appropriate sample containers at the field location and
handled, stored, and transported with the monitoring well samples. Field blanks will
not be identified as such and will be submitted to the laboratory and analyzed as if
they were part of the actual sample group.
3. Field duplicates. Duplicate field samples will be taken from the same well location
and sample interval as the original sample. One duplicate sample will be taken per
sampling event. They will be sequential water samples collected in separate
containers. Field duplicates will not be identified as quality control samples and will
be analyzed for the same parameters as identified in the sample program.
C1.4.2 Laboratory QA/QC
Internal quality control checks are standard procedure for analytical laboratories. The
QA/QC procedures commonly include the use of blanks, duplicates, and spikes, as well
as additional checks if apparent anomalous values are returned during analysis. The
laboratory selected to perform the sample analyses will provide Republic-DUMPCo with
documentation of its internal QA/QC procedures, and the laboratory will include methods
for routine calibration of instruments, statistical analyses of precision and accuracy data,
sample and data handling, control of sample integrity during analytical procedures, and
quality review of analysis work sheets. Only EPA-approved methods will be used for
laboratory testing.
:N:\WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-5
C1.5 Semiannual Submittal of Monitoring Data
The frequency of sampling will be at least semi-annually throughout the active life of the
landfill, including the closure and post-closure periods. Through 2003 , quarterly
groundwater samples will be obtained, until 2004, when groundwater sampling will be
semi-annual.
C1.6 Procedures in Case of Leachate Migration
Initiation of an assessment of corrective measures is required as an expansion of the
assessment monitoring program if one or more of the Phase 2 (from Appendix 2 of 40
CFR Part 258) constituents sampled is determined to be at a statistically significant level
above the defined groundwater protection standards. The owner or operator must begin
this assessment within 90 days of the finding of Phase 2 constituents in excess of
groundwater protection standards. The solid waste management authority will specify
the time frame in which the assessment must be completed and submitted. Monitoring in
accordance with the assessment monitoring program di scussed in NAC 444.749 will
continue during the period of assessment of corrective measures.
C1.7 Suspension of Monitoring Requirements
Republic-DUMPCo understands the NAC provisions for suspension of monitoring
requirements but plans to continue the groundwater monitoring program at the Apex
Regional Waste Management Center at this time.
C1.8 System for Monitoring Groundwater (NAG 444.7 483)
The groundwater monitoring system for areas MA and !A were described in Sections
D 1.1 and D 1.2. The monitoring system includes one well up gradient of the WMUs to
obtain samples representative of the background water quality, and three wells
downgradient of the landfill to detect potential contaminants released to the uppermost
aquifer.
C1.9 Multi-Unit Monitoring System
A multi-unit monitoring system is cunently in place for areas MA and !A. It is possibl e
that as hydrogeologic data is developed through drilling, application may be made to the
Solid Waste Management Authority for approval of revised monitoring program. If
results of monitoring indicate that representative upgradi ent or downgradi ent sampl es for
more than one WMU can be taken from a single upgradient or downgradient well , then a
reduction in the number of wells to be installed in the future may be requested.
: F :\apex opsdcsign\dch 3808c doc -99\tg:4 Rev . 0 0 I !<)8104
C-6
C1.10 Casing
An air rotary drill rig equipped with a casing hammer was used to drill and install the
monitoring wells. The drilling procedure minimized the use of drilling additives, such as
water, in order to better evaluate the occurrence of water-bearing zones. Small amounts
of water or a clean water mist were used on occasion if clayey materials adhered to the
bit, prohibiting the removal of drill cuttings. The water mist was used only to facilitate
the removal of cuttings from the boring, and was shut off as drilling continued. Any
changes to the well construction and well installation procedures discussed below are in
accordance with the Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling as defined by the
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 534, revised and adopted in January, 1990.
C1.1 0.1 Well Construction
The well borings were completed approximately 15 feet into the water bearing zone. The
monitoring wells were constructed of Schedule 40, flush threaded PVC casing and
screen. The inside diameter of the casing and screen is 4 inches. Adequate control over
slot sizes and material strength was assured by the use of a factory manufactured product;
field slotted screens were not used. A screen slot size of0.010 inch was installed.
The well casing and screen were decontaminated at the site before installation with a
steam cleaner. Before lowering the screen in the boring, a 6- to 12-inch-thick section of
sand filter pack was placed at the bottom of the hole to ensure complete contact with the
well screen and to minimize screen contact with any backfill material. The screen and
blank casing were then assembled in sections as it was lowered into the hole.
Centralizers were used to keep the screen and blank casing centered in the boring.
The sand filter pack consists of an acid-resistant, washed, and graded silica sand, sized
according to the screen slot size and the aquifer materials encountered. The sand filter
was supplied in sacks and was clean and free of oil, acid, organic matter, or other
deleterious substances. Lonestar mesh #1/20, or similar, was used for the wells
completed with 0.010 inch slot size. The sand filter pack was added until it was three
feet above the top of the screen after the drive casing has been pulled back to that level.
A minimum three-foot thick sodium bentonite seal (as manufactured by American
Colloid Company, or equivalent) was placed directly on top of the sand pack. This seal
was composed of bentonite pellets. Potable water was added to the hole after setting the
plug to activate the pellets. The thickness of the bentonite plug was verified by sounding.
The remaining annular space was filled with a cement-bentonite grout mixture (5 percent
bentonite) or Volclay grout from the top of the bentonite plug to 50 feet below the ground
surface. The grout was pumped into the drive casing until the grout filled the drive
casing within two feet of the ground surface. The upper 50 feet of the annular space was
filled with cement grout. The drive casing was then pulled while additional grout was
added to the boring to keep the grout surface level with the ground surface.
C-7
A locking protective steel riser was placed over the top of the well casing to maintain the
integrity of the wellhead. The riser was set in concrete.
C1.1 0.2 Well Development
After completion of well construction, the well seal cured for a minimum of 24 hours
prior to well development. The well was then developed by surging with a vented surge
block or a bailer to remove fines. Development began slowly to allow the filter pack to
consolidate. Potable water was added to the well in cases where aquifer production rates
were too slow to adequately recharge the well. Groundwater pH, temperature, and
electrical conductivity were measured for each saturated well volume removed during
development.
Well development continued until no appreciable silts or fine sand were present in the
water removed from the well and three consecutive measurements of pH, temperature
and electrical conductivity were achieved with no significant variation. The volume of
the water removed was not less than three casing volumes irrespective of the test results.
The water quality measurements were reported along with the estimated quantity of
groundwater removed during well development.
C1.11 Documentation
Republic-DUMPCo will maintain, in the operating records at the site, documentation
concerning the design, installation, development, and decommission of all monitoring
wells, piezometers, and other measuring, sampling, and analytical devices. Republic-
DUMPCo will notify the solid waste management authority of the placement of this
documentation in the operating record.
C1.12 Aquifer Thickness and Flow Characteristics
The Apex Regional Waste Management Center is located within the topographically
closed Dry Lake Valley Drainage Basin (BLM, 1989). The basin is underlain by a thick
sequence of dominantly unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial deposits. Groundwater is
found in both unconsolidated and semi-consolidated alluvium, as well as in fractures and
cavities in bedrock. In general, direction of groundwater movement is reflected by
surface topography; the gross groundwater flow direction is north towards Dry Lake.
The mean sea level (MSL) groundwater elevation for Dry Lake, which acts as the center
of the basin sink, is depicted as approximately 1,800 feet by Thomas et.al., 1986. Depth
to groundwater is estimated to be 400 to 600 feet below the surface of the topographically
lowest parts of the project area, at elevations ranging from 1,630 to 1840 feet.
Groundwater in the Dry Lake Valley appears to be only marginally suitable for drinking
water. It generally has a relatively high total dissolved solid (TDS) concentration, which
ranges from 700 to 1,000 mg/1 (BLM, 1989). It is characterized as a calcium
:N:\WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/10/00
C-8
bicarbonate-bearing water, which is common in alluvial aquifers whose recharge areas
are underlain by carbonate rocks or carbonate-rich sediments. Chemical analyses for
total dissolved solids in the bedrock aquifers of the Dry Lake Basin are not available.
C1.12.1 Hydrogeology and Well Data
The Apex Regional Landfill is not underlain by a high water table, nor is it subject to a
seasonally high water table. A review of well drillers' reports recorded at the Nevada
Division of Water Resources indicates that only six wells have been drilled within a two-
mile radius of the property site. Four of these wells are within the boundary of the Apex
Regional Landfill. One lies at the extreme northern tip of the property; two are centrally
located; and the third is in the south-central part of the property.
The well at the northern property boundary (W-1) was first drilled in 1"975 and was
redrilled in 1976. Its total depth is unknown. Well driller's reports indicate that water
was first encountered at a depth of 390 feet (1,71 0 feet MSL) during drilling in 1975. In
1976, the water level had dropped to a depth of 470 feet (1,630 feet MSL). Water had
stabilized in the well at a depth of 340 feet in 1975 (1760 feet MSL) and at 332 feet in
1976 (1768 feet MSL). This well reportedly was abandoned and subsequently sealed.
Pilot Hole 1 (PH-1), in the southern part of the property, was drilled in December 1988,
to a total depth of 985 feet. The hole was collared in Permian red beds. Sandstone with
minor interbedded shale was recorded as the dominant lithology from the ground surface
to a depth of 390 feet. From 390 feet to 410 feet, variations in rock type include
interbedded limestone and sandstone (390 to 400 feet) and limestone and shale (400 to
410 feet). From 410 to 985 feet, the lithology becomes dominantly limestone with minor
shale. After completion of drilling, the piezometric surface was measured at 493 feet
(1795 feet MSL). The presence of water was not noted in the drill log above depths of
490 feet. However, "significant" water was noted in the 710 to 790 foot interval;
lithology of that interval is recorded as fractured limestone with minor shale. Estimated
water production in 1988 was recorded as 5 to 30 gpm, between depths of 725 and 850
feet below surface. There are no comments in the drill log regarding the presence of
water from 850 to 985 feet. PH-1 subsequently went dry and was permanently sealed.
Pilot Hole 2 (PH-2), also drilled in 1988, reached a total depth of 1,004.5 feet. Lithology
for the entire drill depth was logged as interbedded sandstone and shale. Groundwater
was initially detected during drilling at a depth of 475 feet and was noted to increase at
490 feet. A notation on the log of "rig jolting" at 485 feet indicates that the "production"
zone is probably structurally controlled at that depth. Groundwater air-lifted to the
surface during drilling is reported as a continuous flow of approximately 60 gpm,
sustained to total drill depth. Depth to groundwater was measured with an electric
sounder when the hole was drilled to 530 feet and again when it reached total depth.
Groundwater depths were recorded as 452.5 feet and 453 feet, respectively, below the
surface. These depths correspond to an elevation of 1,840 feet. Based on observations
during drilling and a constant head test, the water level in PH-2 represents the fluid head
:N:\WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-9
of a water-bearing zone at a depth of 490 to 540 feet and a flow rate of approximately 60
gpm.
These data suggest that the water-bearing horizons encountered in PH-1 and PH-2 are
structurally controlled, which is consistent with our understanding of the geology. PH-1
was drilled into a fractured bedrock aquifer with an apparent thickness of 125 feet.
Estimated water production indicates a flow rate of 5 to 30 gpm from depths of 725 to
850 feet below the surface. The water level measured at a depth of 493 feet after drilling
was completed represents a static head and is unlikely to constitute an aquifer. PH-2 also
appears to have encountered a fractured bedrock aquifer. In this instance, the
"aquifer"/water-bearing structural zone has an apparent thickness of 50 feet, with a flow
rate of 60 gpm from a depth of 490 to 540 feet. As with PH-1 , the static head of
groundwater, measured at 453 feet, is unlikely to produce usable quantities of water.
Republic-DUMPCo drilled hole MW-3 in August, 1993, to a total depth of 983 feet; the
collar elevation is unknown. The Permian red bed sequence was encountered from 0 to
700 feet, and the host lithology was limestone from 700 to 983 feet. The driller's report
indicates that the water-bearing zone has an apparent thickness of 80 feet and was
encountered at 883 to 963 feet below the surface. Static water was reported at 596 feet.
Additional information is not available, but it is assumed that the water-bearing zone is
structurally controlled in limestone host rock.
It is assumed that the water-bearing structures on the Apex Regional Landfill tap the
same aquifer/water-bearing lithologic horizons or structural traps at depth, although there
is no evidence of the depth or thickness of these projected horizons. Variations in
subsurface elevations of the water-bearing structures are more likely to reflect the
element of chance in the drill depth at which the structures were encountered than to be
reflective of depth to an "aquifer". Therefore, although discrete flow paths may exist
locally, it is possible that all water-bearing structures ultimately tap the same large-scale
flow regime.
The elevations of the piezometric surfaces listed above for W-1, PH-1 , and PH-2
correspond with the large scale groundwater elevation contour of 1,800 foot (MSL) for
the Dry Lake area delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey (Thomas et.al. , 1986).
Ground surface elevations of the alluvial areas on the Apex Regional Landfill range from
2,200 feet to 2,400 feet MSL. Therefore, the average depth to static groundwater in the
topographically lowest parts of the property could be expected to be 400 to 600 feet (this
is generally consistent with depth-to-water measurements at the site). This suggests that
the thickness of the unsaturated zone is a minimum of 400 feet.
C1.12.2 Hydraulic Characterization
A characterization of the hydraulic properties of bedrock was undertaken to assist in the
evaluation of fluid movement through the subsurface. Controls on fluid movement may
be defined by some combination of the lithologic controls on primary permeability (rock
types, character, and orientation of bedding planes) and on structurally induced zones of
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms: 4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-10
secondary permeability (fault zones, axis and plunge of anticlinal, and synclinal folds).
The characterization study consisted of two parts: determination of hydraulic
conductivity through field testing of rock permeabilities and field analysis of small-scale
structures.
C1.12.3 Permeability Testing
A reverse circulation drill and packer testing program was initiated in August 1993 by
Drilling Services Company for Vector Engineering in order to gather field information on
bedrock permeability. An Ingersoll-Rand TH-60 reverse circulation drill rig was
employed, and both hammer and tricone bits were utilized. The average hole diameter
was five inches, and all holes were vertical. In order to minimize the creation of fractures
during drilling, minimum possible down-pressure was applied to the hammer. Water was
injected as necessary, and drill cuttings were logged on site. Logs were prepared by
Vector Engineering and included in the original Plan for Water Monitoring.
C1.12.4 Methods and Procedures
Packer tests utilizing a single packer were performed over vertical intervals of bedrock
selected on site. Locations were targeted to test fractured and unfractured equivalents of
all lithologic units identified to date. Procedures used for the test are standard practices
for the performance of packer tests, and are summarized as follows:
1. Friction losses were determined for the pipe used during testing; calibration testing
was performed in the field (flow rate versus head loss was measured, and plotted on
log-log paper to develop a reference curve).
2. The hole was drilled to desired depth, and surged to remove debris.
3. The maximum allowable gauge pressure (MGP) was determined according to the
following formula: MGP = Zk, where Z = depth from top of packer to ground
surface, and k = 0.75 (constant).
4. The packer was set and inflated at the desired depth.
5. Water was pumped into the system; a submersible pump was utilized in order to
minimize any turbulence in the flow. After the MGP was attained, the flow rate
required to maintain the MGP as measured by an in-line flow meter, was recorded
over time.
6. All additional appropriate field data for evaluation of results was recorded during the
packer test procedure.
Following the completion of each test, hydraulic conductivity was calculated according to
the following formula:
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-11
K=_Q_xLn L
2nLH r
Where: K = hydraulic conductivity, gpd/ft
2
Q = average flow rate, gpd
L = length of test interval, feet
r = radius of hole, feet
H = gauge pressure+ column pressure - friction losses, feet
The formula was derived from standard equations for permeability and constant head
testing for which the documentation can be found in AASHTO, 1988.
C1.12.5 Results
Drilling Service Company drilled eight holes during the program, and performed
16 packer tests over 133 cumulative feet of rock. Host rocks for these tests included gray
limestone, calcareous sandstone, gypsum, and sandy siltstone of the Permian Red Bed
sequence and the Callville Limestone (Permian, Pennsylvanian, and Mississippian).
Rocks of the younger Permian Toroweap limestone and overlying Kaibab Limestone
(Permian) were not sampled because of unstable hole conditions.
Results of the packer tests are presented in Table 2. In some cases, the calculated
hydraulic conductivity (K) values represent a lower limit to the conductivity in that test
location. A more precise number could not be obtained in instances in which the test
could not be stabilized or the computed maximum gauge pressure could not be attained.
In general, these conditions were a result of the high intensity of fracturing in the rock,
which induced flow rates that exceeded the capacity of the input water pump. Other tests
could not be stabilized because the rock experienced fracture failure at pressures less than
the computed MGP.
: N :\ WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-12
Drill
Hole
DHI
DH2
DH3
DH4
DH4
DH4
DH5
DH5
DH5
DH6
DH6
T)H 6
~ r : l
DH7
DH7
DH8
DH8
Table 2: Rock Pressure Tests - Summary of Results
Test Depth of Length of Rock Type Flow K, Pg Pc F H
No. Test Test Volume Calculated (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.)
I
I
---
I
2
3
I
2
3
I
2
3
I
2
3
I
2
Section Section (GPM) Hydraulic
(feet) (feet) Conductivity
(GPD/Ft
2
)
45-60 15 Permian Calc. at > II > I X 10
1
10.4 45 > 5 50.4
Sandstone
10-20 10 Permian Calc. at > 20 > 2 X 10
2
< 2.31 10 > 6 > 6.31
Sandstone at > 45 > 6 X 10
2
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
5 - 15 10 Callville Limestone 1.4 9 8.66 5 0 13.63
15-25 10 Callville Limestone 1.1 2 26.1 1.5 0 41.1
25-30 10 Callville Limestone 0.16 2 x 10
1
43.42 25 0 68.42
2 - 10 8 Permian Gypsum > 9.3 >> 2 X 10
2
4.62 2 < I 6.62
10-20 10 Permian Sandy < 0.1 << 3 x 10
1
17.32 10 0 27.32
Siltstone
20-30 10 Permian Sandy < 0.1 << 2 x 10
1
34.64 20 0 54.64
Siltstone
5 - 15 10 Permi an Limestone > 20 > 6 X JQ
2
0 5 1.5 3.5
25-30 5 Permian Limestone > 20 > 2 X JQ
1
34.6 25 > 2 57.69
40-50 10 Permian Sandy 0.17 1 x 10
1
69.3 40 0 109.2
Siltstone
15-20 5 Callville Limestone 3.6 I X 10
1
25.4 15 1.95 38.5
30- 35 5 Callville Limestone 1.4 2 51.96 30 0 81.96
45-50 5 Callville Limestone 0.2 2 X 10
1
77.36 45 0 122.37
35-40 5 Permian Sandy > 45 > 2 X 10
2
32.33 30 18 44. 33
Siltstone
70-75 5 Permian Sandy 0 ~ o 52 70 0 191.25
Siltstone
C1.12.6 Area MA:
Three holes were drilled in Area MA: DH4, DH5, and DH6. These are discussed below.
DH4 was collared near the southern projection of the nose of an anticline, and was drilled
to a total depth of 35 feet in Callville Limestone. Packer tests were performed at the 5 to
15 feet (Test 1), 15 to 25 feet (Test 2), and 25 to 35 feet (Test 3) intervals. Although all
tests resulted in conductivity values indicative of fracture flow; they decrease by an order
of magnitude from the surface to the 25 to 35 feet interval (Test 3). The value for Test 3,
approximately 0.2 gpd/ft
2
range, is within a range of values appropriate for weakly
fractured crystalline limestone. The decreasing values of K with increasing depth are
likely to result from a decrease in the intensity of oxidation, with a corresponding
decrease in the secondary enlargement of fracture and bedding planes.
:N:\WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07110/00
C-13
R
(Ft.)
.208
.21
---
.203
.203
.203
.203
.203
.203
.208
.208
.208
.208
.208
.208
.208
.208
DH5 was collared near the projected nose of a syncline in the north-central portion of
MA. Test 1 was performed in an eight-foot-thick interval of Permian gypsum near the
topofthe drill hole (2 to 10 feet). Approximately 350 gallons ofwater were pumped into
the gypsum bed, and no pressure could be generated in the test interval. Although the
extremely high hydraulic conductivity of the gypsum allowed all of the water to flow
through the eight-foot bed, a perched water horizon was created at the contact between
the gypsum and the underlying sandy siltstone. There was no evidence that the water
penetrated the underlying rock. Two permeability tests were done in the underlying
siltstone bed. Test 2 (10 to 20 foot interval) exhibits a permeability in a range equivalent
to friable sandstone (K is less than 0.3 gpd/ft
2
). With increasing depth, however,
permeability of this unit approaches zero (Test 3, 20 to 30 feet). This indicates that
where the unfractured Permian sandy siltstone beds are present (frequency and thickness
are unknown), relatively impermeable barriers to fluid migration may exist.
DH6 was collared in the nose of the same synclinal structure as DH5. Grey limestone
(Permian) was encountered from 0 to 40 feet. Two permeability tests were performed in
the limestone, in the 10- to 15-foot and 25- to 30- foot intervals. Because of the fractured
nature of the limestone, it was not possible to stabilize the tests or generate the
appropriate gauge pressure in the test intervals. Best estimates based on the available
data are K greater than 100 gpd/ft
2
from a depth of 5 to 15 feet, and K greater than 20
gpd/ft
2
from 25 to 30-feet. The limestone is underlain by a sandy siltstone (Permian) at
40 feet below the surface. This unit exhibits a K value of 0.1 gpd/ft
2
between 40 to 50
feet below the surface, which is in the high end of the range of values for crystalline
limestone or friable sandstone.
C1.12.7 Area MB:
Two holes and three packer tests were completed in the east side of Area M-B. DH1 was
drilled to 60 feet and encountered 30 feet ofthe Permian Red Bed sequence under a cover
of caliche and alluvial material. The dominant lithology is calcareous sandstone to sandy
limestone, similar to that encountered in DH2. A packer test was done in the 45- to 60-
foot interval but was never stabilized, as the flow rate exceeded the capacity of the pump
and generator on site. Minimum flow rate was not measurable, but is estimated at greater
than 20 gpm.
The second hole, DH8, was drilled to 75 feet and encountered 55 feet of Permian silty
sandstone beneath 20 feet of gravel. A packer test in the Permian rock at the 35- to 40-
foot interval (Test 1) reveals a hydraulic conductivity of greater than 150 gpd/ft
2
. In
contrast, the same rock unit, tested at a depth of 70 to 75 feet, has a flow rate that
approaches zero. These variations in values for hydraulic conductivity appear to reflect
the degree of structural influence on flow rate. Drill conditions indicate that the rock is
moderately fractured from 20 to 60 feet; high secondary permeabilities may be expected.
For example, between 50 to 60 feet, the rock was so incompetent that there was no
percussion to the hammer. Yet at 70 to 75 feet, there was no evidence of structures, and
the flow rate was negligible. There is no data available that would indicate the degree of
: N :\ WP\ PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-14
persistence of structures with depth. However, the large-scale geologic setting IS
indicative of pervasive structural control.
C1.12.8 Design Area MC:
One hole, DH7, was drilled to a total depth of 50 feet in the Callville Limestone in Area
M-D. Three packer tests were completed:
Test 1, 15-20', K = 10 gpd/ft
2
;
Test 2, 30-35', K = 2 gpd/ft
2
; and,
Test 3, 45-50', K = 0.2 gpd/fe.
The decrease by an order of magnitude between the value for Test 2, and the value for
Test 3 is probably related to the bottom of the oxidized zone, which was logged at a depth
of 45 feet.
C1.12.9 Design Area lA:
One hole, DH2, was drilled in the northwest corner of Design Area IA. Host rock in the
area is highly fractured calcareous sandstone with minor interbedded quartzite and
siltstone. The sandstone locally grades to sandy limestone. A packer test was attempted
in the 10 to 20 foot interval. However, although approximately 3 50 gallons of water
were introduced in a 10 minute time interval, the test zone could not be pressurized.
Field indications are that flow rates are greater than 45 gpm, which would give a
minimum estimated K value of 600 gpdlft
2
. Most of the bedrock exposed in this area
appears to be of similar composition and is similarly fractured.
One hole, DH3, was attempted on the northeast boundary of Area IA in the younger
Permian limestone units, but the test was abandoned due to unstable hole conditions.
C1.12.1 0 Discussion of Results
The results of these tests are indicative ofthe following:
1. Hydraulic conductivity values are strongly indicative of fracture flow. This suggests
that secondary permeability exhibits a stronger influence on fluid movement than
does porosity of the rock matrix. It is likely that flow is controlled by both bedding
and structurally induced flow paths.
2. Permeability of the limestone units may decrease with increasing depth, to a point
that may stabilize coincident with the bottom of the oxidized zone.
3. Permeability of the Peimian sandy siltstone beds appears to approach zero in
unfractured areas. In highly fractured areas, it appears to have a permeability of one
or more orders of magnitude less than similarly located limestone units.
:N :\ WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-15
4. The calcareous sandstone/sandy limestone portion of the Permian Red Bed sequence
is generally highly fractured within 60 feet of the surface and exhibits flow rates of
greater than 45 gpm.
C1.12.11 Structural Analysis
Bedding and fracture plane orientations were taken from exposed outcrops in areas
adjacent to drill holes DH3, DH4, DH7, and DH8, in an attempt to characterize any
trends in joint set or fracture orientation. A statistically representative data set was
obtained at each outcrop using a Klarr compass.
Primary and secondary fracturing was observed at all outcrops. A statistical count was
performed at the DH8 and DH4 outcrops to determine the characteristics of the fractures.
At the outcrop near DH8, the only outcrop of Permian red bed studied over a five-square-
foot area, there were twice as many fractures measured, which followed the bedding
planes rather than cutting through vertically. This indicates that bedding plane fractures
are dominant at this location. All of the fractures in this outcrop were filled with calcium
carbonate and exhibited an easterly plunge which averaged approximately 45 degrees.
At the outcrops near DH4, the results were reversed. The majority of the fractures were
vertical rather than horizontal, but only a few of them were actually through-going
fractures which traversed the entire outcrop. Again, most of the fractures were filled with
calcium carbonate. The three sites examined near DH4 were on the limbs and axis of an
anticline and showed nearly vertical fracturing and gently dipping bedding planes.
Bedding plane fractures at these outcrops tended to display wider separation and in many
cases were not filled with secondary minerals. This fairly dominant bedding plane
separation might be explained by the initiation of flexural slip during the regional folding
episode.
An outcrop just east of DH7 showed relatively random fracturing in massive limestone,
with no apparent bedding. Most fractures were filled with calcite. An outcrop northeast
of DH3 displayed numerous filled vertical fractures accompanied by relatively widely
separated bedding plane fractures. Fracture sets were generally vertical in contrast to the
gently dipping bedding plane separations.
In general, fractures examined in the limestone units at the site were steeply-dipping,
filled with calcium carbonate, and discontinuous with fairly small separation. Bedding
plane fractures tended to display a wider separation with less filling by secondary
minerals. Surface weathering of the limestone units created the appearance of numerous
open fractures due to surface water channeling along the more soluble fracture fills.
However, most fractures were closed and filled with calcium carbonate. The Permian red
bed outcrop that was examined displayed extensive bedding plane fracturing, and open
spaces were commonly filled with secondary calcite.
Results of this study indicate that subsurface control on fluid movement is dominantly
structural and consists of both bedding plane and sub-vertical faults. The secondary
: N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-16
fracture systems do not seem to be vertically continuous. The documented orientation of
these features indicates that flow direction is anisotropic. Direction of flow is likely to be
highly dependent on the degree of interconnection of the multiple fracture sets. The high
conductivities seen in the rock pressure tests are probably reflective of multiple flow
directions and may be strongly controlled by bedding orientations. On a larger scale,
however, gross fluid movement may appear to follow a consistent gradient in a northerly
direction.
C1.12.12 Geologic Units
The Apex Regional Waste Management Center is located in the southeast comer of the
Great Basin portion of the Basin and Range physiographic province. The Great Basin
consists of an elevated plateau with internal drainage and, in this area, is transitional to
the Colorado Plateau physiographic province. The Apex Regional Landfill is situated in
the central part of the Dry Lake Range, which is composed of folded upper Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks.
The stratigraphic sequence in the area is as follows:
Undifferentiated active channel and alluvial fan deposits (Quaternary);
Undifferentiated Kaibab limestone overlying Toroweap limestone (Permian);
Red bed sandstone, with interbedded limestone, gypsum, and minor shale
(Permian); and
Callville limestone (Permian, Pennsylvanian, and Mississippian).
The Dry Lake thrust fault, located near the western edge of the Apex Regional Landfill
boundary, has caused intense folding in the area. Beds of the Callville limestone exposed
on the western portion of the facility are commonly overturned. Although the beds
generally strike to the north and have steep eastern dips, both strikes and dips may be
highly variable locally. A nearly symmetrical anticlinal fold in the Callville limestone is
exposed in the south-central part of the facility. It is visible along a northern strike for a
distance of 3,000 feet, with gently dipping (30 degrees) east and west limbs.
A prominent feature in the east-central part of the facility is a northeast-striking ridge
composed of synclinally folded limestones of the Kaibab and Toroweap Formations.
This fold may also have been formed during the compressional events associated with the
Dry Lake thrust. Permian red bed sandstones are exposed at the base of the folded
Kaibab and Toroweap sequence. Together with the interbedded limestone and gypsum
beds, the red bed sequence is overlain by or exposed through an apron of Quaternary
deposits (channel and alluvial fan) which skirts the synclinal ridge. Bedrock is generally
at shallow depths under the alluvial cover. Caliche is common in the area, is fairly well
indurated, and is composed of strongly cemented silty gravel containing fragments of
limestone and minor sandstone.
:N :\ WP\PJ2\deh3 808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/10/00
C-17
In addition to the Dry Lake thrust, two north-northeast striking faults are also suspected.
An attempt was made to field-verify their locations, but bedrock exposures were not
located within a distance that could reasonably be projected across the alluvium (SEA,
1988). Therefore, the locations were inferred from stratigraphic relationships and
published maps. The western of these two faults offsets the Callville limestone, and has
been reported to be a reverse fault (Longwell et.al., 1965). The eastern fault is also of
reverse displacement (SEA, 1988). It is likely that both of these faults are related to the
compressional events associated with the Dry Lake thrust.
Approximately 6,500 feet of trenching has been performed to date, utilizing a backhoe
and D-9, D-1 0, and D-11 bull dozers. Results of this trenching have confirmed the
geologic assessment described above.
C1.12.13 Certification
The number, spacing, and depths of the future monitoring systems will be certified by a
qualified groundwater scientist and will be approved by the solid waste management
authority.
C1.13 Program for Sampling and Analysis (NAC 444.7484)
C1.13.1 Documentation
As required by NAC 444.7484, documentation for the sampling and analytical program is
hereby placed in the operating record, including procedures and techniques for: a)
sample collection; b) sample preservation and shipment; c) analytical procedures; d)
chain-of-custody control; and d) quality assurance and quality control.
The following documents have been used as guidelines for the development of the
sampling procedures:
Procedures Manual for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities, EPA-530/SW-611, August 1977
RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document,
OSWER9950.1, September 1986
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA
SW-846, 3rd edition, November 1986
Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater, EPA-600/4-82-057, July 1982
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4
C-18
Rev. 0 07/10/00
Methods for Chemical Analysis ofWater and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020,
revised March 1983
C1.14 System for Monitoring Groundwater
C1.14.1 Representation of Background and Downgradient Groundwater
Quality
The sampling and analytical procedures described below will be followed to ensure that
representative water quality samples are consistently collected during the baseline
groundwater monitoring program.
C1.14.2 Procedures and Techniques
C 1.14.2.1 The collection, preservation and shipment of samples
Sample Collection
Sample collection procedures include equipment cleaning, well purgmg, and water
sampling.
Equipment Cleaning
The analytical laboratory chosen to perform the chemical analyses will be notified prior
to the proposed sampling date and will provide the appropriate sampling containers. The
number and nature of sampling sites and types of tests to be performed will be specified,
and extra containers may be requested. Sample containers, caps, and septa will be stored
in a clean environment, preferably in their shipping container. Sample bottles, bottle
caps, and septa will be used only once and discarded after the analyses are complete.
Dedicated pumps are currently employed for each well. If in the future a single pump
would need to be used for multiple wells, equipment will be cleaned between sampling
events according to the following procedures. Before the sampling event starts, all
equipment that will be placed in the well or will come in contact with groundwater will
be disassembled and cleaned thoroughly with Alconox and water, rinsed with tap water,
and then rinsed with deionized water. Any parts that might adsorb contaminants, such as
plastic pump valves, bladders, and so forth, will be cleaned as described above or will be
replaced. The inside surfaces of the sample pump tubing will be cleaned by rinsing first
with detergent and water, then tap water, and then deionized water. Once the sample
pump is cleaned and reassembled, a pump blank will be obtained by pumping organic-
free water through the sample pump assembly. The pump effluent will be sampled and
analyzed by the same method used for the groundwater samples. The results of the pump
effluent analysis will either be below the method reporting limit for each parameter or be
noted in the sampling report.
: N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/10/00
C-19
During field sampling, all equipment surfaces that are placed in the well or that come into
contact with groundwater will be cleaned with Alconox and water, then rinsed with tap
water, and then rinsed with deionized water before the next well is purged or sampled.
Well Purging
Before sampling each well, standing water in the casing and gravel pack will be purged
from the well using a sampling pump, submersible pump, or a bailer. This will ensure
that the sample consists of fresh formation water.
The quantity of water purged before sampling will be equal to or greater than three times
the volume of standing water inside the well casing and filter pack. The volume of water
inside the well can be calculated as follows: the volume in liters equals 0.154 times the
square of the inside diameter of the well (in inches) times the height of the water (in feet) .
Prior to purging each well, water level measurements will be taken as described in this
section. Additionally, the pH, specific conductance, and temperature meter will be
calibrated before beginning field activities. As specified by NAC 444.7484(2)(c), the
groundwater samples will not be field-filtered prior to laboratory analysis.
Groundwater Well Sampling
A bailer or sampling pump will be the only equipment acceptable for groundwater
sampling. Appropriate sampling containers will be used. For volatiles the container will
be inverted to verify that no bubbles are present. A positive meniscus forms when the
bottle is completely full. After the bottle is capped, it is inverted and tapped to verify that
it does not contain air bubbles. If air bubbles are present, another bottle must be filled
and used for that sample. No part of the sample containers, septa, or caps that come in
contact with groundwater will be allowed to come in contact with any possible sources of
contamination.
Sample Containers, Handling, and Preservation
Sample containers vary with each type of analytical parameter. Container types and
materials will be selected by the analytical laboratory to be nonreactive with the
particular analytical parameter tested.
All sample containers will be labeled immediately following collection. Samples will be
kept cool with cold packs until received by the laboratory. Cold packs will be replaced
each day to maintain refrigeration. At the time of sampling, each sample will be logged
on a chain-of-custody record that will accompany the sample to the laboratory.
The sampler will transfer all samples from the site to a selected state-certified laboratory
for analysis. The laboratory personnel who receive the samples will assign a unique
sample identification number to each sample container. This number will be recorded on
the chain-of-custody form and will be used to identify the sample in all subsequent
internal chain-of-custody and analytical records.
:N:\WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ ms:4 Rev. 0 07/10/00
C-20
C1.14.2.2 Analyzing samples
Constituents to be monitored for are listed in Table 1. These constituents include VOCs,
trace metals, and selected inorganic constituents. Only approved methods will be
employed in the analyses of these parameters. Should assessment or corrective action
programs be required, this list will be expanded to include constituents defined on
Appendix 2 of 40 CFR Part 258 (referred to as "Phase 2" constituents)
Cl.14.2.3 The control of the chain-of-custody
The following procedures will be used during sampling and analysis to provide chain-of-
custody control during sample handling from collection through storage. Sample
will include the use of the following:
1. Water Quality Sampling Field Sheets or field log books to document sampling
activities in the field
2. Labels to identify individual samples; and
3. Chain-of-custody record sheets for documenting possession and transfer of samples.
Water Quality Sampling Field Sheets or Field Log Book
In the field, the sampler will record the following information on the water quality
sampling field sheet or in the log book for each sample collected, and the sampler will
sign the field sheet or log book:
Project number;
Client name;
Location;
Name of sampler;
Date and time;
Well accessibility and integrity;
Pertinent well data (e.g. casing diameter, depth to water, and well depth);
Calculated and actual purge volumes;
Purging equipment used;
Sampling equipment used;
Appearance of each sample (e.g. color, turbidity, and sediment);
Results of field analyses (e.g. temperature, pH, and specific conductance); and
General comments (e.g. weather conditions).
Labels
Sample labels will contain the following information:
Project number;
Project name;
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-21
Sample number (i.e. , well number);
Sampler's name or initials; and
Date and time of collection.
Chain-of-Custody Record
The sampling and analysis chain-of-custody record is initiated at the time of sampling,
and contains, but is not limited to, the well number, sample type, analytical request, date
of sampling, and name of the sampler. The record sheet will be signed, timed, and dated
by the sampler when transferring the samples. Custody transfers will be recorded for
each individual sample. For example, if samples are split and sent to more than one
laboratory, a chain-of-custody record sheet will accompany each sample. The number of
custodians in the chain of possession will be minimized.
C1.14.2.4 Quality assurance and quality control
Quality control and quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures will be applied to both field
and laboratory activities. Quality control on field activities will be used to evaluate the
data with respect to field conditions and sampling procedures. QA/QC in laboratory
methods is essential in the determination of data validity.
Field QA/QC
Use of the field quality assurance procedures will aid in the characterization and
interpretation of the water quality data. The procedures will serve as documentation for
data variability and will assist in the detection of false positive or negative results in the
analyses. Quality control field checks will consist of the use ofthe following:
1. Trip blanks. These will consist of clean water taken to the field in containers that
have been cleaned and sealed in a manner consistent with the procedures to be used in
the field. They will be taken to the site, handled, and stored according to sampling
protocol, and they will be returned unopened.
2. Field blanks. The field blanks will consist of clean water taken to the site, and they
will be collected in the appropriate sample containers at the field location and
handled, stored, and transported with the monitoring well samples. Field blanks will
not be identified as such and will be submitted to the laboratory and analyzed as if
they were part of the actual sample group.
3. Field duplicates. Duplicate field samples will be taken from the same well location
and sample interval as the original sample. One duplicate sample will be taken per
sampling event. They will be sequential water samples collected in separate
containers. Field duplicates will not be identified as quality control samples and will
be analyzed for the same parameters as identified for the sample program.
:N :\ WP\P J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/1 0100
C-22
Laboratory QA/QC
Internal quality control checks are standard procedure for analytical laboratories. The
QAIQC procedures commonly include the use of blanks, duplicates, and spikes, as well
as additional checks if apparent anomalous values are returned during analysis. The
laboratory selected to perform the sample analyses will provide Republic-DUMPCo with
documentation of its internal QA/QC procedures, and the laboratory will include methods
for routine calibration of instruments, statistical analyses of precision and accuracy data,
sample and data handling, control of sample integrity during analytical procedures, and
quality review of analysis work sheets. Assurance will also be given to Republic-
DUMPCo that the laboratory will use only approved analytical procedures for the
required constituent analysis.
C1.14.3 Methods for Sampling and Analysis
The methods for sampling and analyzing groundwater at the Apex Regional Landfill
described in this Plan are appropriate for sampling groundwater and accurately measuring
monitored parameters in the groundwater. Samples collected in the field will be shipped
to a specified laboratory for analysis.
C1.15 Groundwater Elevation
Groundwater is measured using an air pressure gauge method. A sounding, or pressure,
tube has one end at the bottom of the well (below groundwater) and the other end at the
top of the well. The tube is pressurized typically to over 80 psi, using an air compressor.
The depth of water submersion of the end of the pipe is proportional to the pressure in the
tube. Groundwater elevation is calculated given the known bottom of the borehole, depth
of submersion, and top of borehole. Information is recorded on the Groundwater
Sampling log.
C1.16 Quality of Background Groundwater
Concentration limits (background values) need to be established for each monitored
parameter. Concentration limits in groundwater at the landfill will be established by
statistically evaluating water quality collected during baseline testing. The statistical
method for determining background concentration limits will be determined from the
distribution, variability, and appropriateness of statistical tests following USEP A
guidance and the literature (for example papers and books by Robert Gibbons).
C1.17 Statistical Methods for Evaluating Data (NAC 444.7 485)
As required by NAC 444.7485, statistical methods will be used in the evaluation of
groundwater monitoring data. The amended regulations provide a wide variety of
C-23
statistical methods that may be used to evaluate water quality data. Selection of the most
appropriate methodology and analysis of the data cannot be performed until adequate
monitoring data has been obtained (i.e., during the baseline monitoring period). Criteria
used for determining which method is most suited for a particular parameter include the
number of observations, variability and distribution, and number of nondetects for each
parameter. Statistical analyses will conform to the methods outlined in the guidance and
training documents published by-the USEPA for groundwater monitoring.
C1.18 Determination of Statistically Significant Increase
Once background water quality has been statistically evaluated and the site begins its
detection monitoring program, the groundwater quality at downgradient wells will be
compared to background values and assessed for a statistically significant increase. The
determination of a "statistically significant increase" applies to Phase 1 monitoring
parameters for detection monitoring, as listed in Table 1. It also applies to any of the
Phase 2 parameters that would be required under an assessment monitoring program.
A program for any additional retesting (i.e. , resampling) will be developed on the basis of
the statistical test employed for evaluating groundwater detection monitoring results.
Retesting procedures for notification and resampling will follow state regulations (NAC
444.7486) and applicable statistical guidance.
C1.19 Program for Detection Monitoring
Detection monitoring is required at all Class I and Class III waste management units.
Implementation of the detection monitoring program will allow the establishment of
background values of common groundwater constituents, metals, and VOCs. It will also
allow the determination of the presence or absence of impact to groundwater from
landfill activities.
Detection monitoring samples will be taken at required upgradient and downgradient
groundwater monitoring wells. The detection monitoring program will include analyses
for the Phase 1 constituents defined by Appendix 1 of 40 CFR Part 258 and listed on
Table 1 of this report, or an alternative list as described in NAC 444.7487. The
frequency of sampling for these constituents will be at least semiannually throughout the
active life of the landfill, including the closure and post-closure periods.
C1.20 Procedures Upon Determination of Statistical Significant
Increase (NAC 444.7489)
Republic-DUMPCo will place a notice in the operating records within 14 days of finding
a statistically significant increase of a constituent. The notice will indicate which
parameters have increased over background values. Additionally, Republic-DUMPCo
: N :\ WP\PJ2\deh3 808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-24
will inform the Solid Waste Management Authority when such a notice is placed in the
operating records.
If Republic-DUMPCo cannot successfully demonstrate that the contamination was not
caused by the landfill unit, or that the anomalous analytical value is an invalid number, an
assessment monitoring program will be developed within 90 days. The assessment
monitoring program will be consistent with NAC 444.749 and NAC 444.7491.
Republic-DUMPCo may demonstrate, within 90 days, that the statistically significant
increase in constituent concentration was caused by a source other than the landfill unit.
Similarly, Republic-DUMPCo may demonstrate that it was caused by an error in
sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality. If a
successful demonstration is made and approved, Republic-DUMPCo will continue the
detection monitoring program as outlined above; otherwise, Republic-DUMPCo will
perform assessment monitoring-as discussed below.
C1.21 Program for Assessment Monitoring (NAC 444.7 49)
C1.21.1 Program
The purpose of an assessment monitoring program is to evaluate whether specific waste
constituents, in addition to the Phase 1 parameters, are present at statistically significant
levels above background. Should it be necessary, the assessment monitoring program
will also establish groundwater protection standards for each anomalous element, and
determine if those standards have been exceeded.
C1.21.2 Phase 2 Constituents
Initiation of an assessment monitoring program is required within 90 days of the
detection of a statistically significant increase over background concentration of any
Phase 1 constituent discovered during the detection monitoring program. In addition to
assessing the cause of potential impacts to groundwater from the facility, assessment
monitoring will define a program for evaluating whether or not Phase 2 constituents pose
a significant threat in groundwater at the site. The Phase 2 constituents are defined by
Appendix 2 of 40 CFR Part 258.
C1.21.3 Notification
Within 14 days, Republic-DUMPCo will place a notice in the operating record
identifying the Phase 2 constituents that have been detected. The sampling results will be
submitted to the Solid Waste Management Authority.
: N :I WPIP J2\deh3808c.doc-99\ms:4 Rev. 0 07/ 10/00
C-25
C1.21.4 Resampling
The assessment monitoring program will propose sampling frequency and parameters to
be tested. The approved plan may in include resampling within 90 days, and minimally
on a semiannual schedule, upgradient and downgradient wells Results of the analyses
will be recorded in the facility operating records.
:N:\WP\PJ2\deh3808c.doc-99\ ms:4 Rev. 0 07/10/00
C-26

2014 Apex Operations Plan-Web Site-4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Apex Operations Plan-Web Site-4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15

PLANS FOR LANDFILL GAS CONTROL

You might also like