Review of draft evaluation of final cover (draft) · Draft - For Review Only 1.0 Introduction I...

SDMSDocID 2029959

Draft - For Review Only

2029959

Reviewof

Draft Evaluation of Final CoverSunrise Mountain Landfill

Date: 12-12-2000

Prepared bySteve Dwyer, PE

13140BlackstoneRd.NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111

Project; Sunrise Mountain Landfill (4ft)ET Cover (4ft)

Model: HELPAn US EPA model for predicting landfill hydrologic processes and testing of effectiveness of landfill designs

Author: Steve Dwyer, PE

Client: Bureau of Land Management

Location : Las Vegas, NV

11/29/2000

1.0 Introduction

I have reviewed the "Draft Evaluation of Final Cover, Sunrise Mountain Landfill"prepared for Republic Services of Southern Nevada, Inc., prepared by SCS Engineers,dated October 2000. I have also review the associated soil data, dated November 7,2000, file no. 10.19907.01 forwarded to Mr. David Basinger, EPA from SCS Engineers.The cover was evaluated based on in-siru soil for a depth of 2-feet. The analysisperformed was for as an Evapotranspiration (ET) Cover, not as a prescriptive RCRASubtitle 'D' Cover per 40CFR258. In general, I believe SCS Engineers have done anadequate job of modeling the existing cover; however, the following concerns areaddressed.

2.0 Summary of Findings

The UNSAT-H model with the 5-wet year method is an appropriate design tool. I believethe flux rate through the cover should be the primary criteria for acceptance of the coverprofile design. The flux rate in this case simply refers to the amount of moisture thatmoves through or percolates down through the cover into the underlying waste over agiven period of time. The flux rate units are given in terms of a velocity (mm/year), but itis different than velocity because it is dependent on a number of variables other thangravity. This theory is explained further in section 3.

The flux rates derived from SCS Engineers' modeling effort (Table 1) are unacceptablyhigh. Hence, the cover is not thick enough and the soil has inadequate storage capacity.The cover has been modeled as an ET Cover. A simple way to look at the design conceptof an ET Cover is that the cover's soil acts as a sponge. The type of soil and vegetationcovering (in this case - no vegetation) determine how absorbent the sponge is. The coverdepth determines whether the sponge is thick enough to absorb the worst case or designinfiltration event(s) until the water is removed (in this case by evaporation). Refer tosections 3 through 5 for more detail.

The cover was also modeled using the "HELP" landfill water balance program. Thisprogram is the conventional model and is prevalent in much of the regulatory community.The HELP model results allowed for comparison of the UNSAT-H results. The twoprograms concur on general trends for landfill areas with high flux rates versus those withlower flux rates. Multiple depths were modeled using HELP. The cover depth wasincreased to as thick as five-feet with very little reduction in flux rate identifying thesoil's varied soil properties from landfill cover area to landfill cover area, as well as, thelimited storage capacity of the soil. Refer to sections 3 through 6 for more detail.

The cover depth modeled by SCS Engineers is two-feet. Trenching efforts from thecover characterization effort revealed that a number of the landfill cover areas have lessthan two-feet of soil cover. Refer to section 6 for more detail.

During the recent cover characterization effort, as well as, past characterization efforts,the cover soil was shown to have a high gravel/cobble content. SCS Engineers did not

address this gravel/cobble content in the design effort. The gravel/cobble content willreduce the water storage capacity of a cover profile because rock has no practical storagecapacity. Refer to sections 7 and 8 for more detail and design suggestions for inclusionof the gravel/cobble content.

Section 8 discusses my recommendations I discuss what should be included in thedesign and what constitutes an acceptable design. This reflects my opinions and does notnecessarily reflect what the governing regulatory body will dictate.

3.0 ET Cover Concept

The ET Cover consists of a single, vegetated soil layer constructed to represent anoptimum mix of soil texture, soil thickness, and vegetation cover (Dwyer, 1997a). The ETCover is a monolithic soil layer that has adequate soil water storage capacity to retain anyinfiltrated water until it can be removed via ET (Figure 1).

T . .PrecipitationTranspiration Evaporation

Lx Runoff

Figure 1. Typical ET Cover Profile

The concept relies on the soil to act like a sponge. Any infiltrated water is held in this"sponge" until it can be removed via ET. ET is defined as the combination of waterremoval due to both evaporation and transpiration through vegetation. Previous researchhas shown that a simple soil cover can be very effective at minimizing percolation anderosion, particularly in dry environments (Nyhan et al. 1990, Hauser et al. 1994, andDwyer 1998a).

An important advantage of ET Covers is that they are less expensive than their traditionalcounterparts. The soil used will, for economic reasons, generally come from a nearbyborrow site. This issue is probably the single most important driving force for thedeployment of these covers at present because they save large amounts of money duringconstruction. A comparison of constructed costs showed that the cost savings for an ETCover versus a Compacted Clay Cover is in excess of 50 percent (Dwyer 1998c).

Other advantages of an ET Cover system are low maintenance and relevant ease of repairfor such things as problems due to differential settlement. If differential settlementoccurs within an ET cover, more soil can be applied to the surface to bring the cover backto its original grade. With a prescriptive RCRA Cover that contains a geomembrane, anysignificant differential settlement may lead to tearing of the geomembrane and crackingin the underlying clay barrier layer. These potential flaws will typically occur at thelandfill's low point where ruptures or cracks act as a funnel for water to flow downwardsthrough the underlying waste.

The ET Cover is much easier to build and requires less quality assurance duringconstruction than its traditional counterpart (Dwyer 1998c). The ET Covers are usuallyless susceptible to side slope instability than a RCRA Cover containing a geomembranebecause they do not have a geomembrane which creates a slip plane. The ET Coverperformance also increases with time as the plant community becomes fully established,while the RCRA clay barrier layer continues to decline in its effectiveness due to barrierlayer deterioration (Suter et al. 1993, Waugh and Smith 1997, Mulder and Haven 1995).

A false assumption concerning the performance of traditional landfill covers (both RCRASubtitles 'C and Subtitle 'D' closures) is that water movement will occur under saturatedconditions. Saturated flow in the near surface, when it does occur is primarily downwardas the hydraulic gradient is largely due to gravity. Water movement however, generallyoccurs under unsaturated conditions. This is particularly the case in dry environments.For water movement in an unsaturated soil, the hydraulic gradient is comprised of bothgravity (acting downward) and matric potential differences (which can act either upwardor downward). Consequently, both upward and downward water movement is possible inunsaturated soil.

Darcy's Law can be used to represent the fundamental equation of flow for bothscenarios:

For saturated systems:Q - Ksat i A

where: Q = flow rateKsat = saturated hydraulic conductivity

i = hydraulic gradient; (gravity and pressure potential)A = area

For unsaturated systems:Q = Kunsat i A

where: Q - flow rateKUnsat= unsaturated hydraulic conductivity

i = hydraulic gradient; (gravity and matric potential)A = area

Water moves toward regions of higher water potential and is consequently governed bygravity and matric potential equilibrium for unsaturated flow. Under saturatedconditions, the soil's matric potential is zero.

M>Total = V|/grav + XJ/matric + M>s + Va

where: \|/Totai= total soil water potentialM>grav - gravitational potential

Vmatric = matric potential\l/s = solute potentialv|/a = air pressure potential

v|/s and v|/a are generally considered to be zero for landfill cover applications, thereforethe relationship can be simplified to:

Wotal = Vgrav + Vmatric

However, in the field water movement patterns are complicated by a number of otherfactors such as climatic conditions, plants, structural voids, secondary pathways, non-homogenous soils, and hysteresis.

ET provides the mechanism to remove stored water from the cover soil layer. Water canmove upward in response to matric potential gradients induced from ET drying the upperportions of the cover soil layer. Matric potential gradients can be many orders ofmagnitude greater than the gradient component due to gravity. Evaporation from thesurface will decrease the water content and increase the matric potential of the soil,resulting in an upward matric potential gradient and inducing upward flow.

4.0 UNSAT-H Modeling by SCS Engineers

The design tool SCS Engineers have chosen is a numerical model named "UNSAT-H".This is an unsaturated flow model that can be used to model an ET Cover system. Themodeled data took two different approaches. SCS Engineers modeled each areaseparately using the same weather data with soil data taken from samples from eachrespective area. Six areas were modeled: the top deck, top deck's side slopes, eastern

perimeter, eastern southern flats, western southern flats, and the asbestos area. The firstapproach modeled the cover areas over a 30-year period using weather data from 1977 to1990 repeated. Representative soil samples from each of the six landfill cover areas wereused as input data for the unsaturated properties of the soil. The unsaturated soilproperties found in the soil data analysis provided by SCS Engineers as tested by DBStephens seem reasonable. The unsaturated properties of soils taken from the SunriseMountain Landfill cover tested several years ago (Dwyer 1997b) are within the envelopeof the data in this report. The second approach took the wettest year and ran it fiveconsecutive years. It did not add to the precipitation in any of the years, just put the samewet year five years in a row. I prefer the five wet years approach because it is moreconservative than the first approach.

The weather data (precipitation) was inputted as a daily value. The model essentiallyintegrates this daily value over the 24-hour period. This is a conservative approach forinfiltration from a modeling perspective - not necessarily from a reality perspective. Ihave summarized the output data provided by SCS Engineers in Table 1.

Upper DeckUpper Deck with WasteEastern PerimeterEastern Perimeter with WasteEastern Southern FlatsEastern Southern Flats withWasteWestern Southern FlatsWestern Southern Flats withWasteTop Deck, Side SlopesTop Deck, Side Slopes withWasteAsbestos AreaAsbestos Area with Waste

HELP (30 year)By SF Dwyer

22.9823.222.151.520.680.56

1.381.41

86.0585.18

45.7045.03

UNSAT-H (30-year)By SCS Engineers

UNSAT-H (5 Wet Years)By SCS Engineers

Table 1. Average Annual Flux Rates (mm/year) through 2-Foot ET Cover

5.0 HELP Modeling

I modeled the cover profiles for the six landfill cover areas using the HydrologicEvaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) program v.3.08 (Schroeder et al 1994) forcomparison of the UNSAT-H results. The HELP Model is a popular water balanceprogram developed with EPA funding that many design engineers and regulatorsthroughout the country use to evaluate landfill systems. Each area modeled by SCSEngineers was modeled with the HELP program with just the two-foot cover profile aswell as that cover profile with underlying municipal waste. Sometimes the addition ofwaste significantly changes the results. It did not in these cases. The results shown inTable 1 are for a two-foot thick ET Cover. The weather data used for the HELP model

was the default parameters included in the model for the Las Vegas, Nevada area. Thesoil data used as input was taken from the same soil samples used in the UNSAT-Hmodels. The UNSAT-H model uses van Genuchten parameters derived from the soilretention curves provided in the soil data report. For the HELP model, I used the samesoil retention curves and extrapolated moisture contents from the respective curves forfield capacity taken at a matric potential head of 1/3 bar or about 330 cm and wiltingpoint taken at a matric potential head of 15 bars or about 15,000 cm. These extrapolatedparameters were then inputted into the HELP model along with the respective porosities,saturated hydraulic conductivities, initial moisture contents, surface area, slope and slopelengths. The vegetation input was default parameters provided for bare soil.

The data summarized in Table 1 reveals that the general trend of high flux rate yearscompared with low flux rate years is consistent from model to model. There issignificant difference however in the actual predicted flux rates from each model. Ibelieve that the UNSAT-H model is actually a better model for this site because it modelsthe flow as unsaturated. The difficulty of using a numerical model as a design tool for acover design such as this at Sunrise Mountain Landfill is that no model takes into accountflow through macropores where preferential flowpaths occur. This type of flow isdominant at Sunrise, especially flow through surface cracking and through localized areaswhere surface ponding has occurred.

The six landfill cover areas with and without waste were also modeled using the HELPprogram for an ET Cover thickness of 3-feet, 4-feet and 5-feet, respectively (Table 2).There was not a considerable reduction in the flux rates derived from the 2-foot coverthickness. The soil data (SCS Engineers 2000b) reveals that a number of the landfillcover areas have soil that has very little water storage capacity.

WSC = (FC- PWP)where: WSC = water storage capacity

FC = moisture content @ field capacity (1/3 bar)PWP = moisture content @ permanent wilting point (15 bars)

Landfill Cover AreaUpper DeckUpper Deck with WasteEastern PerimeterEastern Perimeter with WasteEastern Southern FlatsEastern Southern Flats with WasteWestern Southern FlatsWestern Southern Flats with WasteTop Deck, Side SlopesTop Deck, Side Slopes with WasteAsbestos AreaAsbestos Area with Waste

2 feet22.9823.222.151.520.680.561.381.41

86.0585.1845.7045.03

3 feet22.4125.14

1.871.500.750.561.381.61

86.0585.1746.1445.57

4 feet21.7724.97

1.811.500.570.681.381.71

86.0585.1845.1544.54

5 feet21.0624.17

2.341.480.560.771.382.01

86.0585.1846.3543.90

Table 2. Annual Flux Rates (mm/year) per HELP Model.

For example, referring to the areas with the highest average flux rates, the net waterstorage capacity of the soil is very small. The storage capacity of the top deck, side slopesoil is only 1.8% while the asbestos area soil has a storage capacity of only 3%. Addingthickness to these areas with a consistent soil type will not help reduce the flux rate verymuch. Soil with a much higher water storage capacity should be used to significantlyreduce the flux rates.

Refer to the appendices for the HELP modeling results (both input and output data).Appendix A contains the cover modeled as a 2-foot thick soil cover, Appendix B - 3-footcover profile, Appendix C - 4-foot cover profile, Appendix D - 5-foot cover profile. Thecover profiles used soil properties from the same soil samples as those modeled by SCSEngineers. The weather data used was default data for the Las Vegas, Nevada areacontained in the HELP model.

6.0 Actual Cover Depth per Cover Characterization Data

The cover depth modeled by SCS Engineers is uniformly 2-feet. As can be seen fromTable 3 (Dwyer 2000a), there are a number of locations that do not have 2-feet of coversoil on them. Six locations found the bulk of waste at depths less than two-feet, anothertwo found discolored soil at depths less than two-feet, while two more found intermittentwaste at depths less than two-feet. That equates to 50% of the locations trenched on theexisting landfill cover as questionable for having sufficient soil depth to be consideredtwo-foot thick as was modeled.

Trench

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115

Intermittent WasteDepth (inch)

34-----6--

Discolored SoilDepth (inch)

--------

34-----

Bulk of WasteDepth (inch)

22423224522214403430222513222636

Table 3. Summary of Waste Depths in Trenches (Dwyer 2000b)

7.0 Other Observations

A key piece of information omitted from the cover evaluation report (SCS Engineers2000a) is the gravel/cobble content removed from the soil samples. The laboratorytesting performed generally requires larger stones (e.g. greater than %-inch) be removed.Consequently, results are based on a soil condition without the gravel content that wasremoved. There were also large cobbles in the soil samples. The percentage of gravel/cobble removed from the soil samples must be quantified so that it can be addressed inthe cover evaluation and design.

The UNSAT-H modeling for this site is better suited than the HELP Model because of itshandling of unsaturated flow. The HELP Modeling was performed only for comparisonof the results. HELP is generally considered to be more conservative than unsaturatedmodels used.

The UNSAT-H output does have some odd results. One example centers on Runs Bl andB2. Run Bl has a flux rate of 10.1 mm/year for year 13. Run Bl is a 30-year run. RunB2 is a 5-wet year run of the same area. This flux rate of 10.1 mm/year from run Bl isgreater than all of the flux rates in run B2 even though the precipitation used for that yearin Bl is less than all of the years used in run B2.

8.0 Recommendations

I believe the modeling format approach that SCS engineers have undertaken is adequate.I think the 5-wet consecutive years approach should be used for the design basis since itis more conservative than the 30-year run method.

The flux rates revealed in the output are unacceptably high for the 2-foot cover depthmodeled. I believe that 3 mm/year is easily achievable and a minimum value that shouldbe used for acceptance of a cover depth. Refer to Table 4 below, for the flux ratesmeasured from my research site (Dwyer 2000b) in Albuquerque, NM. The ET Cover inthis project is 3.5 feet thick with typical arid vegetation covering.

1997 (May 1 -Dec 31)199819992000 (Jan 1 - Jun 25)Average

Flux rates (mm/year)

Subtitle D

10.624.963.120.004.82

1.510.384.310.001.81

Subtitle C

L 0.120.300.040.000.13

CapillaryBarrier

1.620.820.850.000.87

AnisotropicBarrier

0.150.140.280.000.16

ET Cover

0.220.440.010.000.19

Table 4. Annual Flux Rates Measured at Alternative Cover Demonstration,Albuquerque, NM (Dwyer, 2000b)

The cover depth should be determined as follows: take the depth determined by theUNSAT-H modeling that yields a flux rate of not more than 3 mm/y ear for all modeledyears - not the overall average. This depth should then be increased by the percentage ofgravel by volume determined to have been removed from the soil samples prior to theirlaboratory testing. Then take this increased depth and increase it by a factor of safety of25%. This added factor of safety would help offset inherent faults due to surfacecracking, ponding, construction inconsistencies, soil property inconsistencies, unusuallywet years, etc. The following is an example of my suggested design procedure.

EXAMPLE:

Modeling: 5 wettest year method with no annual flux rate exceeding 3 mm/year.

Depth determined = 3 ft

Gravel Content removed: 20%

Gravel content Adjusted Depth = 3 * 1.2 = 3.6 ft

Factor of safety (25%)

Design Depth = 3.6 * 1.25 = 4.5ft

References:

1. Dwyer, SF. 1997a. Large-Scale Field Study of Landfill Covers at Sandia NationalLaboratories, in Conference Proceedings: Landfill Capping in the Semi-Arid West:Problems, Perspectives, and Solutions, edited by T.D. Reynolds and R.C. Morris,held in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, May 1997. Sandia NationalLaboratories, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 87-107.

2. Dwyer, SF. 1997b. Sunrise Mountain Landfill Final Cover Evaluation. Report toBLM.

3. Dwyer, SF. 1998a. Alternative Landfill Covers Pass the Test, in Civil Engineering,pp. 50-52, 1998.

4. Dwyer, SF. 1998b. Construction Costs of Six Landfill Cover Designs, SAND98-1988. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.

5. Dwyer, SF. 1998c. Construction Overview of Six Landfill Cover Designs, SAND99-1988, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.

6. Dwyer, SF. 2000a. Sunrise Mountain Landfill Cover Characterization. DraftReport.

7. Dwyer, SF. 2000b. Alternative Landfill Cover Demonstration, FY2000 Annual DataReport. SAND2000-2427.

8. EPA. 1991. Environmental Protection Agency, Seminar Publication: Design andConstruction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. EPA/625/4-91/025, May 1991.

9. Hauser, V.L., Shaw, MA, Weand, B.L. 1994. Effectiveness of Soil-VegetativeCovers for Waste Sites. In SUPERFUND XV: 15th Environmental Conference and

Exhibition for the Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste Management Industry,Washington DC, Dec 1994, pp. 368-374.

10. Mulder, J. H., E. L. Haven. 1995. Solid Waste Assessment Test "SWAT" Program.Document No.: 96-1CWP, Report to the Integrated Waste Management Board,Division of Clean Water, Water Resources Control Board, California EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

11. Nyhan, J. W., T. E. Hakonson and B. J. Drennon. 1990. A Water Balance Study ofTwo Landfill Cover Designs for Semiarid Regions, in Journal of Environmental Quality,Vol. 19, pp. 281-288.

12. Schroeder, P., C. Lloyd and P. Zappi. 1994. The Hydrologic Evaluation of LandfillPerformance (HELP) Model User's Guide for Version 3.0. EPA/600/R-94/168a, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

13. SCS Engineers. 2000a. Draft Evaluation of Final Cover, Sunrise Mountain Landfill,prepared for Republic Services of Southern Nevada, Inc., prepared by SCS Engineers,dated October 2000.

14. SCS Engineers. 2000b. Draft Evaluation of Final Cover, Sunrise Mountain Landfillassociated soil data, dated November 7, 2000, file no. 10.19907.01 forwarded to Mr.David Basinger, EPA from SCS Engineers.

15. Suter, G. W., R. J. Luxmoore, and E. D. Smith. 1993. Compacted Soil Barriers atAbandoned Landfills will Fail in the Long Term, in Journal of EnvironmentalQuality, Vol. 22, pp. 217-226.

16. Waugh, W. J., G. M. Smith. 1997. Effects of Root Intrusion at the Burrell,Pennsylvania, Uranium Mill Tailings Disposal Site. GJO-97-5-TAR, GJO-LTSM-4.

Appendices

Appendix A

2-Foot Thick ET Cover

Landfill Areas:1. Upper Deck with waste2. Upper Deck3. Eastern Perimeter4. Eastern Perimeter with Waste5. Eastern Southern Flats6. Eastern Southern Flats with Waste7. Western Southern Flats8. Western Southern Flats with Waste9. Top Deck, Side Slopes10. Top Deck, Side Slopes with Waste11. Asbestos Area12. Asbestos Area with Waste

Project: Sunrise Mountain Landfill (2ft)ET Cover (2ft)

Model: HELPAn US EPA model lor predicting landfill hydrologic processes and testing of effectiveness of landfill designs

11/29/2000

1. Profile. Upper Deck w/Waste

Model Settings[HELP] Case Settings

ParameterRunoff MethodInitial Moisture Settings

ValueModel calculatedModel calculated

Units(-)(-)

[HELP] Surface Water Settings

I ParameterI Runoff Area| Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

jllj Sample SB-D63-B3

HS Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.rrj)

Top ( ft)0.0000

-2.0000

Bottom { ft)-2.0000

-10.0000

Thickness { ft)2.0000

8.0000

1.1. Layer. Sample SB-D63-B3

Top Slope Length: 2000.0000Bottom Slope Length: 0.0000Top Slope: 1.7500Bottom Slope : 0.0000

[HELP] Vertical Perc. Layer Parameters

Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3930.1620.096

0.000220

Units(vol/vol)(vol/vol)(vol/vol)(cm/sec)

(mm/year)

1.2. Layer. Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(vol/vol)(vol/vol)(vol/vol)(cm/day)(cm/day)

2. Profile. Upper Deck

Units(-){-)

ParameterRunoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

Layer Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom (ft)-2.0000

Thickness (ft)2.0000

Top Slope Length: 2000.0000Bottom Slope Length. 0.0000Top Slope: 1.7500Bottom Slope : 0 0000

i Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting point

( sat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

3. Profile. Eastern Perimete

Value0.3930.1620.096

0.000220

(mm/year)

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-A10-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

Thickness ( ft)2.0000

3.1. Layer. Sample SB-A10-B3

Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting point

• sat.hydr.conductivity'subsurface inflow

4. Profile. Eastern Perimeter w/ Waste

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

j Parameter| Runoff Method| Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Parameter• Runoff Area'Vegetation Class

i Value! 100i Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-A10-B3

H Municipal Waste (312 kgteufajn)

_j Top ( ft)i 0.0000

: -2.0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

-10.0000

8.0000

Parametertotal porosity

'field capacity; wilting pointsat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting pointsathydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

5. Profile. Eastern Southern Flats

Units(-)(-)

I ParameterRunoff Area

; Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

M Sample SB-B8-C3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

5.1. Layer. Sample SB-B8-C3

Value0.4390.2230.075

0.000120

(mm/year)

6. Profile. Eastern Southern Flats w/ Waste

! Parameter] Runoff Method' Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

ParameterRunoff Area

Value100

Units(%%)

Vegetation Class Bare soil

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-B8-C3WjMunicipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000-2.0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

-10.0000

Thickness ( ft)2.00008.0000

Top Slope Length: 2125.0000Bottom Slope Length: 0.0000Top Slope: 2.8200Bottom Slope: 0.0000

' ParameterI total porosityi field capacity| wilting pointj sat.hydr.conductivity{subsurface inflow

Value0.4390.2230.075

0.000120

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.292000770

86.40000000.0000

7. Profile. Western Southern Flats

Units(-)(-)

| Parameteri Runoff Area[Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

Bottom (ft)-2.0000

7.1. Layer. Sample SB-C76-C3

Value0.3340.180.08

0.0000510

(mm/year)

8. Profile. Western Southern Flats w/ Waste

Units(-)(-)

'. Parameteri Runoff Area[ Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

fUj Sample SB-C76-C3

H Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000

-2.0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

-10.0000

8.0000

Value0.3340.180.08

0.0000510

(mm/year)

r8.2. Layer. Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Parameteri total porosityi field capacityi wilting pointi sat.hydr.conductivityi subsurface inflow

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

9. Profile. Top Deck, Side Slopes

i ParameterRunoff MethodInitial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

W Sample SB-E22-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

9.1. Layer. Sample SB-E22-B3

10. Profile. Top Deck w/ Wa

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

\ Layer

i ||i Sample SB-E22-B3iHl Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000-2.0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

-10.0000

j ParameterI total porosityi field capacity,' wilting point; sat.hydr.conductivity•subsurface inflow

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

11. Profile. Asbestos Area

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

; Layer

lH Sample SB-I3-B3

Top ( ft)00000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

11.1. Layer. Sample SB-I3-B3

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

12. Profile. Asbestos Area w/Waste

Units(-)(-)

j ParameterRunoff Area

| Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

p| Sample SB-I3-B3

MM Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-2 0000

Bottom ( ft)-2.0000

-10.0000

8.0000

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Time (years)Kuribff-raTeWater budget balance-rate

Precipitation-rate * Ihange in watenstorage-rate

-rfc- Evapotranspiratibn-rale-x- Soil water-rate

Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Upper Deck with Waste

Steve Dwyer Sunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (2 foot)

Time (years)~=G- Percoiatibn~bneakance"through LayerTfrate"

Evapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rate

recipifafion-rateange in waterfstorage-rate> > t -J Water budget balance-rate

Sunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (2 foot)

3^T>re.;Jprtetfon-rate, »».-—..•-——..— .. in J. mn^m.-p...!..)

Time (years)~=&z'_Percolation~orfeal<ance"through LayerTraTe"

Upper Deck

i ri <

i«i!Time (years)

<^~\ P(eije6Ta]l oi|joii|eaT(ance/thro'ugh~LayeriJ-rate

Upper Deck

Time (years)- Runoff-rate

Water budget balance-rateEvapotranspiratiori rateSoil water-rate

recipifation-ratehange in water storage-rate

ate Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

Eastern Perimeter

Time (years)— Runoff-rate

Water budget balance-rateEvapotranspfratfon-rateSoil water-rate

Eastern Perimeter with Waste

jSteve Dwyer Sunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (2 foot)

Time (years)^^"Tercola'tion or )eakance1thrbugri 'Layer~"2-rate

Steve Dwyer feunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (2 foot)

recipitation-ratein water|stoirage-rate

"RunorFrafeWater budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

ivapotranspi ration-rateSoil water-rate

Eastern Southern Flats

Time (years)~PercoWori~brTeakance~througri Layer~1 -rate"

JSteve Dwyer Sunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (2 foot)

hangel in watertstorage-rate

Runott-rateWater budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Fvapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rate

Eastern Southern Flats with Waste

10Time (years)

"Pjercolation o"rlea"kahce"lhrough Layer~2-rate~

Time (years)" ""Percolation or leakance through Layer l-rate n

Western Southern Flats

Steve Dwyer

3recTpitatfon-rateChange in water>storagepra

ateiirate

Time (years)RunoTf-fateT """ ~Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

-~Tv¥p6transpTratibh-rate- Soil water-rate

Western Southern Flats with Waste

Time (years)Percolation or leakance through Cayer~2-rate

Time (years)RunofPraleWater budget balance-rate

EvapotranspTralioh-rafeSoil water-rate

recipitatibn-rateChange in water .storage-rate

Top Deck, Side Slopes

Time (years)PefcoTatiori~b71eakancelhrough Layer~1-rate

Steve Dwyer [Sunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (2 foot)

pecipTfation-ratein water|storage-rate

vapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rate

Kunorr-rateWater budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Top Deck, Side Slopes with Waste

recTpilatibn-rali;hange in waterfstoj-age-rate L

iter-rate.

•^""Runoff-ratef- Water budget balance-rate

Percolation or.leakance through Layer 1-rate

-jfc^~Evapolransplration-rateSoil water-rate

Asbestos Area

Time (years)

^- Percoratron~bflea"kance~~fhroughTayer 1-rate

Asbestos Area

Time (years)- Runoff-rale

Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

vapo transpiration-raleSoil water-rate

tion-rate |hangeS in waterstorage-rate

Asbestos Area with Waste

Time (years)

Percolation or.leakance througTrLayef~2-rate~

Appendix B

Landfill Areas:1. Upper Deck with Waste2. Upper Deck3. Eastern Perimeter4. Eastern Perimeter with Waste5. Eastern Southern Flats6. Eastern Southern Flats with Waste7. Western Southern Flats8. Western Southern Flats with Waste9. Top Deck, Side Slopes10. Top Deck, Side Slopes with Waste11. Asbestos Area12. Asbestos Area with Waste

11/29/2000

1. Profile. Upper Deck w/ Waste

| Parameteri Runoff Method! Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

HI Sample SB-D63-B3

m JWujiicipjJl Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-3.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

-10.0000

7.0000

Value0.3930.1620.096

0.000220

(mm/year)

I Parameter'total porosity'field capacitywilting pointsathydr.conductivity

[subsurface inflow

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

! ParameterRunoff Method

1 Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

i Parameter•Runoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

! Layer

WW Sample SB-D63-B3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

| Parameter{total porosityj field capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivity

[subsurface inflow

Value0.3930.1620.096

0.000220

(mm/year)

\ ParameterI Runoff Methodj Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Parameter.Runoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

'. Layer

t^A Sample SB-A10-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

Parameteri total porosityfield capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

4. Profile. Eastern Perimeter w/Waste

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

Units(-)(-)

Parameter, Runoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

P| Sample SB-A10-B3H Municipal Waste (312 kq/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000-3.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

-10.0000

'. Parametertotal porosity.field capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

pie SB-B8-C3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom (ft)-3.0000

\ Parameter| total porosity.field capacity'wilting point: sat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.4390.2230.075

0.000120

(mm/year)

6. Profile. Eastern Southern Flats w/ Waste

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Units(%%)

! Vegetation Class Bare soil

Profile Structure

!|ij Sample SB-B8-C3Irfqjuiunieipai Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000-3.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

-10.0000

Value0.4390.2230.075

0.000120

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

Bottom (ft)-3.0000

Top Slope Length: 2750.0000Bottom Slope Length: 0.0000Top Slope: 4.0000Bottom Slope : 0 0000

I ParameterI total porosityI field capacityj wilting point• sat.hydr.conductivity^subsurface inflow

Value0.3340.180.08

0.0000510

(mm/year)

'• ParameterRunoff MethodInitial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

pi Sample SB-C76-C3

fiM Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000

-3.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

-10.0000

7.0000

i field capacity, wilting point1 sathydr.conductivity1 subsurface inflow

Value0.3340.180.08

0.0000510

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

WH Sample SB-E22-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

| Parameter'total porosity! field capacity! wilting pointi sat.hydr.conductivity^subsurface inflow

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

10. Profile. Top Deck w/Waste

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

P§ Sample SB-E22-B3

P j Mqnicipal Waste .(3.1 2 kqtoub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-3.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

-10.0000

7.0000

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

\ Layer

iW_S.arrjDle SB-I3-B3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

12. Profile. Asbestos Area w/ Waste

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

\ Layer

fail Sample SB-I3-B3

!rW Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000

-3.0000

Bottom ( ft)-3.0000

-10.0000

7.0000

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

i precipitation-rateEvapotranspiration-rate

,So,l,water-rate j

Time (years)' V- Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Change in water storage-rateSnowwater-rate

Runott-rateWater budget balance-rate

Time (years)"Percolation orTea"karice througrf L~ayer~2:rlfe~

L L L_ L L

hangem wat-*- Snowwater-rate

Water budget balance-rate-_ Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

Evapotransplrafibn-rateSoil water-rate

Upper Deck

-percoTaliori~6rTeakance through CayeTTrate

Upper Deck

Change in water storage-ratSnow water-rate

• 3—i—S Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

Hvapotranspiration-rafeSoil water-rate

Eastern Perimeter

L I _. l , _ _ L L L

Time (years)"Percolation orTeakaricelhrough Layer~1 rate~

Eastern Perimeter

—H rr —r~~~ strrrar" ~^~£- -s rr-—T^recTpltafitfrFrafei**"!"'v g;."»»»*'•Change in water storage^fate ~"™«sH" -Snowwater-rate a *

Time (years)

"Runoff-rate"Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Evapotranspiration-rafeSoil water-rate

_ L L_ L

Time (years)3ercoTaTion"orTeal<anceTh"rough Layer 2-fate"

Steve Dwyer Sunnse Mountain LandfillET Cover (3 foot)

L _ L L L_ L . . I _

Evapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rateChange in water storage-rateiM4=JE

Snow water-rateWater budget balance-rate _Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

astern Southern Flats

L_ L _ I ,. L _

-»*| PrecTpTfatlotfrate

Time (years)"Percolafron~brTeakance~fhrougrTLayer"T-rate~

Change in water storage-rafe *|_ -*- Snow water-rate I -4»

-&- Evapotranspiration-rafe"Water budget balance-rate -*- Soil water-rate

—^__ Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Time (years)

efco(alion"br"reakance trTrough LayeT~2Trate

' Freclpltatiorf-raTeT1 Change in water storage-rate1" *rJls

J Snowwater-rate _ ' ''

' -9-L Runoff-rate-' Water budget balance-rate- Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

Evapotranspiratioh-rateSoil water-rate

Time (years):)ercoTatio7i or leakance thTougrt Layef~T-rate~

L L _ I __ I L L_ L _ L

-llF-'Tre'cTpitation-rateChange in water storage-rateSnow water-rate

'Evapofranspiratron-rafe"Soil water-rate

L _ L _ L

Time (years)

~Percolatiori~brTeakanceThrough Layer 2-rate~

L _ I L_ L _ L I

"Ffecipitation-rate-V1-' Change in water storage-rate-*- Snow water-rate

"•"Runoff-rate"Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

EvapotranspiratTon-raTe""Soil water-rate

Steve Dwyer ISunrise Mountain LandfillT Cover (3 foot)

L I _ L

Precipitation-rate

Time (years)

"PercolaHorToTTeakance through Layer 1-rate

L L _ L_ L _

Precipitation-rateChange in water storage-rateSnow water-rate

10Time (years)

"RuribfPrate"Water budget balance-rate 'Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

"Percolation oiTea'kance through Layer 2-rate

Li.,,.

jTop Deck, Side Slopes with Waste

L_ L l__ L _

~m\ Frddiplfafibn-rate-'isi ^^S i Evapotranspiratfon-rafeSoil water-rate^Water budget balance-rate

.Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate-*•}1 Snow water-rate , , ^Jbrnt

Asbestos Area

Steve DwyerSunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (3 foot)

L _ L _ _ L L _ L

Time (years)

"Pe1icbTafiori"oTTeakariceTh"rough CayeT'T-rate~

Asbestos Area

" " •" -t *i_ i""tf

FrecipTtatTon-rateChange in water storage-rateSnow water-rate

Time (years)20

"RunofPrateWater budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

fcvapotranspirafioh-rafeSoil water-rate

L i L L_

Time (years)leakanceTfirough Layers-rate""

\sbestos Area with Waste

L L. L

Appendix C

Landfill Areas:1. Upper Deck with Waste2. Upper Deck3. Eastern Perimeter4. Eastern Perimeter with Waste5. Eastern Southern Flats6. Eastern Southern Flats with Waste7. Western Southern Flats8. Western Southern Flats with Waste

_,9._ Top Deck, Side Slopes10. Top Deck, SideJSlopes with Waste11. Asbestos Area12. Asbestos Area with Waste

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

IS Sample SB-D63-B3H Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000

-4 0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000-10.0000

6.0000

i Parameter' total porosity.field capacity| wilting point; sat.hydr.conductivityi subsurface inflow

Value0.3930.1620.096

0.000220

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

Parameter•Runoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

ES Sample SB-D63-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

Parameteri total porosityfield capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3930.1620.096

0.000220

(mm/year)

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

Sample SB-A10-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom (ft)-4.0000

! - Parameter.•total porosityfield capacity'wilting pointsat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

I Parameter. Runoff Method'initial Moisture Settings

' Units(-)(-)

i ParameterI Runoff Area'Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

i HI Sample SB-A10-B3

iH Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000

-4.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

-10.0000

6.0000

Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivity

'subsurface inflow

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Parameter; Runoff Method'. Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

• Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

8 Sample SB-B8-C3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

Top Slope Length: 2125.0000Bottom Slope Length: 0 0000Top Slope: 2.8200Bottom Slope: 0.0000

Parameteri total porosity'field capacity! wilting point' sat.hydr.conductivity[subsurface inflow

Value0.4390.2230.075

0000120

(mm/year)

6. Profile. Eastern Southern Flats w/Waste

[ Parameter\ Runoff MethodInitial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

\Runoff Area

Parameter Value100

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

; Layer

; PH Sample SB-B8-C3

iH Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-4.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

-10.0000

6.0000

Value0.4390.2230.075

0.000120

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Value.Model calculatedModel calculated

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

HI Sample SB-C76-C3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

j Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting pointsat. hy dr. conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3340.180.08

0.0000510

(mm/year)

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

I Layer

! IS Sample SB-C76-C3

I SSI Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000

-4.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

-10.0000

6.0000

Value0.3340.180.08

0.0000510

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

i Parameterj Runoff MethodI Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

Bottom (ft)-4.0000

Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivity^subsurface inflow

10. Profile. Top Deck w/Wa

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

i Parameter; Runoff Method! Initial Moisture Settings

Units "">(-)(-)

! Parameterj Runoff Area(Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-E22-B3lil Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-4.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

-10.0000

6.0000

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

j Parameter| Runoff Area.Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

Bottom (ft)-4.0000

Afield capacity'wilting point' sat.hydr.conductivity'subsurface inflow

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

| Parameter1 Runoff Methodi Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Parameter.Runoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

iLayer

Sample SB-I3-B3.Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-4.0000

Bottom ( ft)-4.0000

-10.0000

6.0000

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.292000770

86.400000000000

10Time (years)

Precipitation-rateChange in water storage-rate*- *Snow water-rate l - /

Runott-rateWater budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Evapotranspiration-raleSoil water-rate

L L_ L_ _ L_

'TrecTplfafioh-raleT

Time (years)"Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

L _ l _ _ L L _ L

I T||> Change in water fetSrag'ePra.teSnow water-rate

Eva~potrans~piratiori-rafeSoil water-rate

Upper Deck

L L_ . L

Time (years)FercoTafiori or leakarice througrTLayer 'Rate""

Upper Deck

L _ L L L _ l_

Change in water storages-rate1 *M i1|ifl

Jif Snow water-rate 4

—^= _=__—„ Time:(yearS)t;;:;_-::-:

Runoff-rate" ~~^ ~^~ "~"^t- Evapotranspiratiori-rateT• iWater budget balance-rate -x- Soil water-rate^Percolation;or jeakance through Layer 1-rate

Eastern Perimeter

__ L L ._ i. : L : L_

Eastern Perimeter

jSteve Dwyer Sunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (4 foot)

L _ _ I L_ L_ L

Precipitation-rateEvapotranspiration-rate

I - .Snowwater-rate B

10 20Time (years)

^"Change in water storage-rate -A- RunoWateWater budget balance-rate -*- Soil water-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Time (years)^Percolation orTeakance through Layer~2-rate

L [ L L L L I

PrecTpitatibn-raTe"1 fChange in water storage-rateSnow water-rate

1 - - - Time (years) = :

""Runoff-rate ~ " ~ ""~ ^ r- . -- ; - :

Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer. 1-rate

EvalDotranspiratrori-ra'feSoil water-rate

FrecTpTtatTon-rate

Time (years)~PercoTation"orTeaKance througti Layer~~T-rate~

L L_ I .

-» Precipitation-rale's|, Change in water i;torage-rat.e

-*!•' Snowwater-rate-I** -_ , —

Time (years)

"RuriofPrate ~i— Water budget balance-rateh- Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

i"Evapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rate

^_ L L L _

fecipitation-raTaT

=.~ 10 _ ::.Time (years)

" ""Percolation orTeaToriceThrough Layef~2-rate~

L , L L L L L_

Time (years)

Runoff-rateWater budget balance-rateChange in water storage-rate.!

-*k' Snowwater-rate

i- Evabbtran'spiration-rateSoil water-rate

L.:...; L L.

L L _ , L L ., L i

^ ' ! f !! ^w7*^ "~*£js. ."w*~ Time (years)

PrecTpTtaTioTRW**| Change in water storage-rate 1" [^_"_

Snowwater-rate ! _r.

Runoff-raleWater budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Evapotranspiratibn-rateSoil water-rate

L L L __

— Time (years)JPeTcolation orjeakance through Layers-rate

[ __ L.

*1& -V

i j,,_

Till1 Precipitation-rate "* '"t tlp Change in water storage-rate|f; Snowwater-rate

Time (years)"Runoff-rate ~"' "~^Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

~Evapotrans"piratroh-fa"feSoil water-rate

~PercoTa1ion~or7eakanceTh76TigTi Layer 1-rate

L ^ L._ L L _ _ L

' Change in water storage-rate'Snow water-rate^

-Water budget balance-rate- Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

vapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rate

L L . L L L L

reciprcat(on-rate «S7^^^, \

•Xifeff -, •*!

Time (years)"Percolation orTeakance through Layer~2-rate""

I-T PrecTpffatIbn-rafe""B

Change in water storage-rate-x— Snow water-rate

"-•- c Runoff-rate—l— Water budget balance-rate

_ -*- _Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

-at- Evapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rate

Asbestos Area

L I L _

Precipitat[6r[-rafe;

" 10Time (years)

^"Percolation or leakance fhrougTTUayer 1-rate"

r. - Time (years)*"-^r

Rurioff.rafe

-T- Change in water storage-rate-*- Snow water-rate

Water budget balance-rate. Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

vapotranspiratfon-rafeSoil water-rate

L. I L.. L.

Time (years)rough LayeT"2-rate

L _ L_

Appendix D

Landfill Areas:1. Upper Deck with Waste2. Upper Deck3. Eastern Perimeter4. Eastern Perimeter with Waste5. Eastern Southern Flats6. Eastern Southern Flats with Waste7. Western Southern Flats8. Western Southern Flats with Waste9. Top Deck, Side Slopes10. Top Deck, Side Slopes with Waste11. Asbestos Area12. Asbestos Area with Waste

11/29/2000

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-D63-B3

ill Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-5.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

-10.0000

5.0000

Value0.3930.1620.096

0.000220

(mm/year)

I Parameteri total porosityfield capacity'wilting pointI sathydr.conductivity[subsurface inflow

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

ParameterRunoff Method

' Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

i Parameter1 Runoff Area! Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

I Sample SB-D63-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom (ft)-5.0000

j ParameterI total porosityi field capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3930.1620.096

0 000220

(mm/year)

3. Profile. Eastern Perimeter

i ParameterRunoff Method

, Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

'. ParameterRunoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

M9 Sample SB-A10-B3

Top (ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting pointsathydr.conductivity

.subsurface inflow

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

| ParameterI Runoff Method; Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Parameter1 Runoff AreaVegetation Class

I Valuei 100I Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-A10-B3

Rij Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-5.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

-10.0000

5.0000

Value0.3460.250.13

0.000150

(mm/year)

Parameter•total porosity, field capacity1 wilting point' sathydr.conductivity' subsurface inflow

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

< Layer

Kl Sample SB-B8-C3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

Value0.4390.2230.075

0.000120

(mm/year)

6. Profile. Eastern Southern Flats w/Waste

i Parameter: Runoff MethodInitial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

i Parameter• Runoff Area

Value100

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

PH Sample SB-B8-C3B Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000-5.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

-10.0000

Value0.4390.2230.075

0.000120

(mm/year)

', Parameter| total porosity'field capacity( wilting point.' sat.hydr.conductivity' subsurface inflow

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Parameter.Runoff MethodInitial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

I! ParameterRunoff AreaVegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

i Layer

M Sample SB-C76-C3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

Top Slope Length' 2750.0000Bottom Slope Length: 0.0000Top Slope. 4.0000Bottom Slope: 0.0000

[HELP] Vertical Perc Layer Parameters

| Parameterj total porosity.field capacitywilting pointsat.hydr.conductivity

[subsurface inflow

Value0.3340.180.08

0 0000510

(mm/year)

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

[S Sample SB-C76-C3Bl Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)00000-5.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

-10.0000

Thickness ( ft)5000050000

Top Slope Length: 2750.0000Bottom Slope Length: 0.0000Top Slope: 4 0000Bottom Slope : 0 0000

Value03340180.08

0.0000510

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

I Parameteri Runoff Area| Vegetation Class

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-E22-B3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

Parametertotal porosityfield capacitywilting point

, sat.hydr.conductivitysubsurface inflow

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

10. Profile. Top Deck w/Waste

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

§Sample SB-E22-B3Municipal Waste (312 kg/cub.m)

Top ( ft)0.0000-5.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

-10.0000

Value0.3750.1180.10

0.000410

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

H Sample SB-I3-B3

Top ( ft)0.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

| Parameter! Runoff Method! Initial Moisture Settings

Units(-)(-)

Value100

Bare soil

Units(%%)

Profile Structure

pf Sample SB-I3-B3

W Municipal Waste (3J2 kg/cub.m)

Top (ft)0.0000

-5.0000

Bottom ( ft)-5.0000-10.0000

Value0.3810.110.08

0.00480

(mm/year)

Value0.67100.29200.0770

86.40000000.0000

Change in water storage-rateSnowwater-rate

EvapotranspfratioTvrafeSoil water-rate

L L. L L

I • i 1 1 li r—TJ~»k< PrecTpTfatfon-rate- < -

Time (years)IPeccoTa'tion or leakariceThrough LayeT"2-rate~

^uriofPraTeTime (years)

nJ4 TWatfon-Wvl Change in water storage-rate*1 *™ $"" _|_ Water budget balance-rate

-J- Snowwater-rate — •—^J^~— - -Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

Upper Deck

L- L I L L

Time (years)PercoTatiorfbrTeakance ffifougrTLayer 1-rate

Upper Deck

Change in water storage-rate***" *' 4 J (>i —H^ Water budget balance-rate'Evapotranspiration-rateSoil water-rate

-*- Snow water-rate Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

*s -v AH «• - - «f.i ^

Eastern Perimeter

L_ L .

, Time (years)

peTc"6TaTJon~orleakance fhrougri Layer 1-rate"1

Eastern Perimeter

Change in water storage-rate^ ^?y± -' Water budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

L . I ,

Time (years)PercolatioTCorneakance through Layer" 2-ratPrecipitation-rate- - - - =• 3~-;•-=

astern Perimeter with Waste

Sunrise Mountaui LandfillET Cover (5 foot)

j Change in water storage-rate--*-" Snowwater-rate

EvapofranspTratioh-rateSoil water-rate

L "*" PreclrjitatTo'rprate15

Time (years)

"Pe7^a¥orCoTTeaRance frTrough

Change in—#*•' Snowwater-rate . a •- '_?t '

jf?T;!Evapotran.spTrafi6TT-rafeii i—l—^Water budget balanc&Tate -*-;,Soil water-rate

H* ''j-^-siPercolation or leakaoc.e through Layer-2-rate 3

L:...;: L :

i, ,»• ar4ft«- T vis;'• - '5^ --;;fF-

10Time (years)

[_ -B^_ Precipifatlon-rate

L, L _ L_ .

u-_-~i- _ . .recipitation-rate^ .sri™' „

Change in water storage-rate _ _J-*-. Snow water-rate

Evapofransplration-rateSoil water-rate

Precipitation-rate'

Time (years)""Perc6Iatiori~br7eakance through LayefTTate"

ISteve Dwyer [Sunrise Mountain LandfillpT Cover (5 foot)

-T- Change in water storage-rate*-#- Snow water-rate *

—(— Water budget balance-rate™_^_^ Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

,«**-!• -Percolation oneakance through Layer 2Frate

'recipitation-rateChange in<Snow water-rate

!'i i ?-•" v- -^-9-1 Runoff-rateiiifl- i ' "i" Water budget balance-rate

Steve Dwyer Sunnse Mountaui LandfillET Cover (5 foot)

L L . L L._ L_

-_ ~ - — - Time (years)Evapotranspiration-rateSoil water-ratei Change in water stora^&rateflBK 4 SS5Sh—SWater budg^n>a[ahce-rate

i Snow water-rate • ' iSE£' 1 S?lSr*-lf Percolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Steve DwyerSunrise Mountain LandfillET Cover (5 foot)

L . L _ L_ L

Time (years)

Pe>c6Tafion~or7e"akan~cethrougrTLayer~2-rate

fop Deck, Side Slopes with Waste

,«,_,, «„ ,,™w;i,, Time,'(years)-•JfRunofFfafe

' Change in water storage-rate3*1

Snowwater-rate ™r*-5feWater budget Balance-rate-^Percolation or leakance through Layer 1-rate

Evapotranspiraflon'-rale"Soil water-rate

«*•»»*:-•* - •**• -• " '",' "T" " ' -

Asbestos Area

- = ~^Time (years)v Percolation oTTeakance'through Layer"T-rate~

Asbestos Area

I _ L ,

ipprecipitation-rateChange in water storage-rateSnow water-rate

" -0-ifKunofr-rateWater budget balance-ratePercolation or leakance through Layer 2-rate

Evapotranspiration-rafeSoil water-rate

L_ L. L _

Time (years)Percolation or leaRa!Tcelh>oug>il¥yeT~2rrate

.sbestos Area with Waste

„ L.™ L ........ LI.,,,; LI ... L_ L. _ L

Review of draft evaluation of final cover (draft) · Draft - For Review Only 1.0 Introduction I...

Documents

Front cover first draft

Mag cover draft 2

Album Cover Preview/Draft

Final Draft Evaluation

Evaluation (Draft 2)

Draft front cover final

Draft evaluation 6

Magazine cover draft

Draft of front cover

Evaluation q1 - DRAFT

Cd cover evaluation

Cover to Obama Draft

Front Cover Evaluation

Draft Beer Services & Draft System Evaluation

Evaluation final draft

Draft cover

Magazine Cover Draft 2

Draft Front Cover

Cover Evaluation

Draft Music Mag Cover