7407_Pitt_C&DLandfillInc_CDLF_Phase1_CAPAddendum_FID1817418_20230908

Corrective Action Plan
Addendum
Phase I Closure
C&D Landfill, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
NCDEQ Permit #74-07-CDLF-2001
Prepared by:
`�E sot
- oc2n
Q
ONMFNT & D01
ELM Site Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 97607
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624
[phone]
September 2023

r Landfill,
North Carolina
SICDEQ -- 0 r 00
Prepared by:
�\je sour
�arao�s'
ELM Site Solutions, Inc.
P.U. Box 97607
Raleigh, North Carolina 27624
[phone]
r
,i
Walter H. Eifert Roland B. Norris 11, PE, PLS, SM
Principal Hydrologist Senior Engineer
September 2023

Table of Contents
Section1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Background and Site Description.................................................................................. 7
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the ET Phytocap Pilot System .................................................. 7
1.3 Project Objectives..........................................................................................................8
Section 2 Overview of Phytotechnology Alternative...................................................................10
2.1 Site -Specific Considerations........................................................................................11
2.2 Contingency Measures................................................................................................12
Section 3 Phytocap and Drip Irrigation System..........................................................................13
3.1 Phytocap......................................................................................................................13
3.2 Drip Irrigation System..................................................................................................15
3.3 System Operation........................................................................................................16
Section 4 Performance Monitoring Program..............................................................................17
4.1 Locations and Installation of Monitoring Instrumentation............................................18
4.2 Collection and Evaluation of Field Data.......................................................................20
4.3 Reporting..................................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Project Schedule and Duration....................................................................................22
4.5 Project Safety.............................................................................................................. 22
Section 5 Literature Citations.....................................................................................................23
CAP Addendum 3 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure C1
Figure C2
Figure C3
Figure C4
Figure C5
Figure C6
Figure C7
Figure C8
Figure C9
Site Location Map
Cover Sheet
Phase 1 Landfill Existing Conditions
Site Plan
Grading Plan
Planting Plan
Irrigation Plan
Monitoring Equipment Instrumentation Plan
Landfill Drainage Areas
Phytocap Design Details
List of Appendices
Appendix A US EPA Evapotranspiration Landfill Cover Systems Fact Sheet
Appendix B Phytotechnology Web Sites
CAP Addendum 4 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

List of Acronyms
CAP
Corrective Action Plan
COC
Constituent of Concern
US EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ET
evapotranspiration
gpm
gallons per minute
ITRC
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council
MNA
Monitored Natural Attenuation
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
O&M
operation and maintenance
OM&M
operation, maintenance, and monitoring
PMP
Performance Monitoring Program
POAT
Phytoremediation of Organics Action Team
CAP Addendum 5 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

Section 1
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Addendum has been prepared on behalf of C&D
Landfill, Inc., to address exceedances of groundwater standards detected at its closed Phase 1
Landfill located in Greenville, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section (SWS)
approved the initial selected remedy of Landfill Capping and Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
on March 9, 2020. A Corrective Action Plan was prepared to address organic compounds (i.e.,
1,4-dioxane, benzene and vinyl chloride) found present at levels above North Carolina
groundwater quality standards listed in 15A NCAC 2L (21L Standards), which included the
installation of a low permeability cover and MNA as the best remediation strategy for the Site
(Smith Gardner, April 2021). The April 2021 CAP also included enhanced bioremediation and
phytoremediation as contingency strategies. A revised CAP (Smith Gardner, May 2022) was
issued for the Site with the same conclusions for remedial actions and contingent strategies to be
implemented at the Site. The SWS approved the revised CAP on August 16, 2022 and issued a
Permit for Phase I Closure on October 24, 2022.
Following subsequent internal review of the recommended remedies, and through interim
discussions with the SWS, C&D Landfill, Inc. determined that an Evapotranspiration (ET)
Phytoremediation Cap (Phytocap) in combination with MNA would provide an equally effective
closure strategy. Additionally, a phytocap would provide sustainability and habitat benefits not
found with synthetic caps.
The technical objective of this CAP Addendum is to replace the low -permeability geosynthetic
cover remedy with an ET Phytocap installed over 3.8 acres of the Phase I Landfill surface (area
shown on Figure Cl). The system would consist of 1,700 DN-34 hybrid poplar tree clones
(Populus deltoides x nigra) planted over the aforementioned 3.8 acres. Other significant system
components would include installation of a subsurface drip irrigation system and an automated
performance monitoring system. The replacement remedy is classified as a Pilot Project by the
SWS, with performance to be evaluated over a five-year timeframe.
CAP Addendum 6 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

The Site information and technical support for the MNA groundwater remedy conveyed in the May
2022 CAP Revision remains valid for the Site and is not reiterated here. It is thus the focus of
this CAP Addendum to present and describe the ET Phytocap remedy. Detailed engineering
design plans and specifications for the Phytocap will be provided to the SWS under separate
cover following approval of this CAP Addendum. The overall goal is to install the Phytocap in the
fourth quarter of 2023 followed by installation of irrigation and performance monitoring systems.
1.1 Background and Site Description
Background and site descriptions were provided in the aforementioned May 2022 CAP Revision
and are herein incorporated by reference. Generally, the C&D Landfill, Inc. property is located
approximately 12 miles east of Greenville, North Carolina. The facility contains two unlined
construction & demolition (C&D) landfill units (Phase 1 (closed) and Phase 2 (active)), with permit
numbers #74-07-CDLF-2001 and #74-07-CDLF-2009, respectively.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the ET Phytocap Pilot System
The primary purpose of the work outlined herein is to install, operate, maintain, and evaluate a
3.8-acre pilot ET Phytocap on the Phase 1 Landfill surface. The functional purpose of the project
is to minimize infiltration of rainwater through the landfill surface thus minimizing leachate
generation beneath the landfill. At maturity in five years, the ET potential provided by the trees
will meet or exceed that of a traditional low permeability geosynthetic cap. Importantly, hybrid
poplar trees have been recognized by the US EPA as a viable technology for the treatment of
1,4-dioxane, a known constituent of concern (COC) at the SiteM. The irrigation system proposed
for the project could be used to re -circulate groundwater back to the Phytocap for destruction of
this COC in the event that such a contingency becomes necessary.
A Performance Monitoring Program (PMP) will be concurrently initiated to collect and evaluate
real-time environmental data needed to assess Phytocap performance, and to minimize the
infiltration of applied water beyond the tree root zone (rhizosphere). The program will be
conducted over a five-year period to assess performance as the hybrid poplar trees mature.
Based on previous studies and reported findings, the trees are anticipated to consume
approximately 1.2 gallons of water per tree per day during the first -year growth period, increasing
CAP Addendum 7 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

to 20 gallons per tree per day at maturity in five years. The projected ET performance of the
hybrid poplar trees through the growth and maturation process is provided below:
• Year 1 — 1.2 gal/tree/day
Year 2 — 3.7 gal/tree/day
• Year 3 — 9.8 gal/tree/day
• Year 4 — 15.1 gal/tree/day
• Year 5+ — 20+ gal/tree/day
The above rates were obtained from published values(2,3) and empirical data collected by ELMSS
and others at similar sites and latitude. The water balance analyses are based on a 228-day
growing season as published by the National Weather Service for Greenville, North Carolina.
The work presented herein includes a description of the installation, operation, and maintenance
(O&M) of a 3.8-acre Phytocap, a sub -surface Drip Irrigation System installed within the Phytocap,
and the monitoring and evaluation of system performance over the five-year tree maturation
period.
1.3 Project Objectives
As noted above, the overall goal of the project is to minimize the generation of leachate beneath
the landfill. The 3.8-acre pilot Phytocap proposed for the project will capture and evapotranspire
precipitation that has infiltrated into the Phytocap back to the atmosphere thus minimizing
leachate generation. The combination of grass cover over the landfill, and the presence of 1,700
hybrid poplar trees, could potentially evapotranspire approximately 11 million gallons of rainfall
annually back to the atmosphere at system maturity in five years. The average annual volume of
rainfall (46.6 inches) delivered to the 3.8-acre Phytocap is approximately 3.2 million gallons of
water per year. Thus, the consumptive capacity of the Phytocap is anticipated to exceed average
annual rainfall by approximately 7.8 million gallons per year at system maturity in five years. The
functional result will be a long-term reduction in leachate generation beneath the landfill.
CAP Addendum 8 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

To facilitate and expedite growth and maturation of the hybrid poplar trees, a subsurface drip
irrigation system will be installed within the Phytocap. The system will be designed to provide up
to one inch of supplemental water per week to the trees during the growing season. Irrigation
source water will be obtained from an adjacent ephemeral tributary abutting the northwestern
perimeter of the landfill. Weekly volumes of irrigation water supplied will be determined through
precipitation measurements performed at the Site. The combined irrigation/rainfall objective is to
provide the trees with a minimum of 1-inch of water per week during the first two years of tree
growth. This will confirm optimal conditions are available to establish and sustain tree growth at
the Site.
Effective establishment, operation, and performance of the Phytocap and irrigation system will be
accomplished through the collection and evaluation of real-time climatologic and hydrologic data.
The data to be collected will include those variables required to assess tree performance, operate
the irrigation system, and perform real-time water balance analyses necessary to evaluate system
performance. The Phytocap will be equipped with instrumentation to measure and monitor the
following key climatologic and hydrologic variables:
a. Soil moisture levels and infiltration rates in the irrigation zone;
b. Rainfall;
C. Temperature;
d. Solar Radiation;
e. Wind Speed and Direction;
f. Evaporation;
g. Transpiration from representative trees (Sap Flow Measurements); and
h. Evapotranspiration from the herbaceous layer of the Phytocap.
Instrumentation will be equipped with continuously recording data loggers. The data will be used
to update seasonal (quarterly) and annual water budgets to assess Phytocap performance and
minimize rainfall and irrigation water infiltration into the landfill.
CAP Addendum 9 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

Section 2
Overview of Phytotechnology Alternative
The following section provides an overview of phytoremediation technology as it applies to ET
used for hydraulic control and site -specific assessments/considerations. Included below are Site -
specific considerations for the proposed remedy and contingency plans. Reference is also made
to the Site -specific drawings (Figures C1 through C9) developed for this CAP Addendum.
Much of the overview is based on summary documents published by the Interstate Technology
and Regulatory Council (ITRC)(2,3), the US EPA(4,5,6,7,8)the International Journal of
Phytotechnology and other leading researchers in the field(9,10,11,12) In addition, an
Evapotranspiration Landfill Cover Systems Fact Sheet produced by the EPA is provided in
Appendix A
A Phytocap optimizes water consumption through ET back to the atmosphere. Specially
developed hybrid poplar trees have been proven to significantly increase ET efficiency when
compared to typical tree and plant species. ET Phytocap cover efficiency is based upon the
intrinsic ability of the soil to store moisture and the rate at which the water can be extracted by
the tree and plants via evaporation and transpiration.
The EPA has been active in studying phytoremediation since at least 1997. Currently, under the
EPA Remediation Technologies Development Forum, the Phytoremediation of Organics Action
Team (POAT) is active in studying phytoremediation technology and fostering collaboration
between the public and private sectors in developing innovative solutions to hazardous waste
problems. POAT includes representatives from industry, government, and academia who share
an interest in further developing and validating the use of plants and trees to remediate organic
hazardous wastes in soil and water.
The ITRC, which is a state -led coalition working together with industry and stakeholders to
achieve regulatory acceptance of innovative environmental technologies, consists of 50 states,
the District of Columbia, multiple federal partners, regulators, industry participants, and other
stakeholders. The member groups are cooperating to break down barriers and reduce compliance
costs, making it easier to use new technologies, and helping states maximize resources. Both the
CAP Addendum 10 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

EPA and ITRC are useful resources for obtaining up-to-date regulatory information regarding
phytotechnologies (see EPA website at http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/default.htm and the ITRC
website at http://www.itrcweb.org/). A list of additional Phytoremediation Web Sites is provided
in Appendix B.
The EPA Office of Research and Development published a guide on ET Covers in the
International Journal of Phytoremediation(13)which indicated that ET covers are increasingly being
used at municipal solid waste landfills, hazardous waste landfills, industrial monofills, and at mine
sites. Instead of capping with a low hydraulic permeability material such as compacted clay, ET
cover systems are being used to minimize the vertical and horizontal migration of water. This
technology is based on a water balance rather than a physical barrier. While the ET cover
technology provides a means of minimizing (eliminating) water available for percolation, this
technology accounts for those months (winter) with reduced ET. During non -growth periods
(senescence) the soil blanket stores infiltrating water for subsequent consumption by the trees
when growth begins again in the spring.
2.1 Site -Specific Considerations
Site -specific data (e.g., water budget, growing seasons, irrigation needs, application rates, soil
agronomic analyses, etc.) were used in both the selection of the hybrid poplar clone best suited
for soil and irrigation conditions at the Site and for the design of the Drip Irrigation System. Based
on Site data, the hybrid poplar DN-34 clone was selected for use in the Phytocap. A total of 1,700
hybrid poplar trees will be planted in the 3.8-acre cap as noted previously. Drip Irrigation System
design calculations will be restricted to the 1,700 trees at an average flow rate of one gpm.
Supplemental irrigation water delivery to the trees will be limited to approximately five gallons of
water per tree per week.
During the 228-day growing season at the Site (as published by the National Weather Service),
the irrigation system will be used to provide supplemental water to the 3.8-acre Phytocap. As
noted above, average annual rainfall for the site is approximately 46.6 inches. Performance
monitoring, as discussed in Section 4 of this CAP Addendum, will be used to manage soil moisture
to optimize ET processes and minimize groundwater infiltration. The goal is to maximize ET
efficiency by maintaining optimal soil moisture conditions during active tree growth periods, while
at the same time minimizing water seepage past the rhizosphere of the trees. A plan view layout
CAP Addendum 11 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

of the Phase 1 Landfill Phytocap is provided on Figure C5. The Phase 1 Landfill Drainage Area
Map is shown on Figure C8.
2.2 Contingency Measures
The footprint of the Phase 1 Landfill encompasses an area of 12.8 acres of which 3.8 acres will
be occupied by the proposed Phytocap. While a significant component of the Landfill water
balance will be managed by the Phytocap and facilitate realization of the MNA objectives
established for the Site, three contingency actions have been identified for implementation in the
event this objective is not fully achieved. The supplemental mitigative measures are listed below
followed by a summary explanation:
1. Plant and irrigate the remaining nine acres of the closed Phase I Landfill with hybrid poplar
trees;
2. Install a compost reactive wall around the northwest and southwest areas of the landfill;
3. Collect impacted groundwater and re -circulate back onto the Phytocap via new and/or
existing irrigation lines.
The expansion of the Phytocap to encompass the entire footprint of the landfill will significantly
reduce leachate generation by minimizing the volume of infiltrating rainwater coming into contact
with landfilled wastes. The presence of the trees around the base of the landfill will also lower
groundwater levels and significantly inhibit potential off -Site migration to adjacent surface water
receptors.
The installation of the two compost reactive walls at the locations identified above would intercept
groundwater emanating from the landfill and provide in -situ reductive dehalogenation of
chlorinated solvents and the precipitation and sequestration of divalent metals not naturally
occurring. The compost walls would passively drain to a deep well lift station strategically placed
on the southwest corner of the landfill. Collected water would be recirculated back to the Phytocap
via the existing or expanded subsurface irrigation system. Intrinsic phyto treatment mechanisms
present within the tree root zones would sequester and/or destroy remaining concentrations of
1,4-dioxane, benzene, and vinyl chloride present in the water. Collectively, the above mitigative
measures would constitute a zero -groundwater discharge system and eliminate off -Site
groundwater migration to nearby surface water receptors.
CAP Addendum 12 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

Phytocap and Dri
Section 3
Irrigation System
The following section presents and describes details of the Phytocap and Drip Irrigation systems
proposed for the Phase 1 Landfill. Preliminary (not -for -construction) engineering design drawings
of each system component are provided as figures included with this report. Final design plans
and specifications will be prepared and submitted to the SWS following approval of this CAP
Addendum.
3.1 Phytocap
A 3.8-acre Phytocap will be installed on top of the Phase 1 Landfill (Figure C3). The Phytocap
will consist 1,700 DN-34 hybrid poplar clones planted on approximate 10-foot centers in rows
spaced approximately 10 feet apart. The tree planting stock will consist of 7 to 9-foot un-rooted
"whips" obtained from Hramor Nursery located in Manistee, MI. Each whip will be placed in an 8-
inch auger hole drilled to a depth of four feet below grade. The holes will be backfilled with a
combination of the cuttings and aged organic matter to facilitate tree establishment and growth.
Each hole will also be supplied with three Agriform slow -release nutrient tablets to further confirm
the proper level of nutrients are supplied to the trees. Details of the tree layout and planting
procedures are provided on Figure C5 and Figure C9, respectively.
An initial water annual balance analysis will be performed for each year of the five-year pilot
project. The continuity equation used in the analysis is as follows:
Site ET = Rainfall + Irrigation — Runoff — Infiltration
Where:
1. Site ET (inches) = the annual volume of water evapotranspired by the existing
grass cover and hybrid poplar trees.
2. Rainfall (inches) = the average annual depth of rainfall falling on the Site.
3. Irrigation (inches) = the depth of supplemental water supplied to the Phytocap
annually.
CAP Addendum 13 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

4. Runoff = the depth of surface water (rainfall) running off the Phytocap annually;
and
5. Infiltration = the volume of water entering the Phytocap soil blanket.
Site -specific data for each of the above variables used to design the system and project
performance are provided below:
• Annual ET:
o Existing grass cover = 31.31 inches per year (3.23 million gallons);
o Hybrid poplar trees (1,700) over the 228-day growing season:
■ Year 1 — 465,000 gallons
■ Year 2 — 1,434,000 gallons
■ Year 3 — 3,798,000 gallons
■ Year 4 — 5,853,000 gallons
■ Year 5 — 7,752,000 gallons
• Average annual Site rainfall = 46.49 inches per year (4.80 million gallons);
• Supplemental irrigation — to be determined by Site climatologic conditions;
• Runoff = 0.11 inches per year (11,400 gallons); and
Infiltration = 15.07 inches per year (1.56 million gallons).
Note: Data for Site climatologic and infiltration variables obtained from Smith Gardner May 2022
Revised CAP.
Based on the hybrid poplar trees meeting the performance projections provided above, a net zero
water balance for the landfill should be achieved sometime in Year 3 of the pilot project. At this
point, the combined ET from the tree and grass cover will exceed the 15.07 inches of annual
infiltration and minimize the future generation of leachate beneath the landfill.
CAP Addendum 14 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

The Phytocap requires the presence of a soil blanket of at least four feet in thickness to support
tree establishment, growth, and structural stability, and importantly, to store infiltrating rainfall
occurring on the landfill during the non -growing tree senescence period from mid -November to
mid -March. The findings of a soil blanket thickness survey performed on the top of the landfill in
July 2023 indicated variable soil depths of from 0.5 to 2.5 feet. To confirm soil blanket
requirements are available for the Phytocap, approximately 4,900 cubic yards of supplemental
Site soils will be imported and graded to a minimum depth of four feet over the top of the landfill.
An on -Site soils borrow area is available to provide the soils needed to meet this project objective.
The volume and placement of imported soils is shown on the Grading Plan provided on Figure
C4.
During hybrid poplar tree senescence periods at the Site (mid -November to mid -March),
evapotranspiration will continue from the grass cover albeit at reduced rates. Evapotranspiration
data published by North Carolina State University for the Lewiston region reports 7.38 inches of
average potential ET occurs over the senescence timeframe. At a corresponding average
precipitation of 12.74 inches, the balance (5.36 inches) infiltrates into, and is stored within, the
soil blanket. With an approximate 40% porosity, the four -foot -thick soil blanket has the potential
to store up to 19.2 inches of water thus more than satisfying water storage needs to minimize
downward infiltration through the landfill mass. These projections are consistent with the HELP
model findings reported by Smith Gardner in their May 2022 Revised CAP.
3.2 Drip Irrigation System
A subsurface Drip Irrigation system will be installed within the Phytocap area to confirm optimal
tree establishment and growth. The system will be comprised of a pump, irrigation header and
23 rows of drip irrigation tubing fitted with custom emitters spaced approximately 10 feet apart.
The tubing will be placed in trenches abutting the tree rows at a depth of 12 inches below ground
surface. The system will be sized to deliver up to one inch of supplemental water per tree per
week during the growing season. A Plan View layout of the system is shown on Figure C6.
Additional details will be provided in the final system design documents.
Irrigation source water will be obtained from the unnamed ephemeral tributary abutting the
northwest face of the landfill. A check dam and sump will be constructed in the area shown to
supply the supplemental water. System operation and water delivery will be performed via a
manually -operated gasoline powered pump. A flow meter and totalizer will be used by the
CAP Addendum 15 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

operator to confirm the correct volume of water is delivered to the Phytocap during each
operational cycle.
3.3 System Operation
System operation will be based on maintaining a minimum soil moisture content within the
irrigated area at about 50% of field capacity. Field capacity is the maximum volume of water that
a soil can hold before deep percolation occurs. The mixed -cover soil is estimated to hold 0.40
inches of water per inch of soil (or just over 4.8 inches of water per foot). The cover soil depth
will be approximately 48 inches and can potentially hold more than 19 inches of moisture. By
using 50% of field capacity as an irrigation threshold, the remaining moisture holding capacity is
available for wet weather moisture storage. During tree senescence, excess rainfall will be stored
in the soil blanket thus limiting infiltration through the landfill mass.
The irrigation system will be flushed and back -drained throughout operations and at the end of
each growing season.
CAP Addendum 16 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

Section 4
Performance Monitoring Program
The PMP discussed below includes those work elements and activities needed to monitor and
evaluate the ability of the Phase 1 Landfill Phytocap and Drip Irrigation System to reduce or
eliminate rainfall infiltration through the landfill. This will be achieved through the use of
instrumentation to continuously measure and monitor key water balance variables within the
Phytocap area. The irrigation system will be monitored and controlled to prevent water from
infiltrating beyond the root zone of the trees. The performance objective is to consumptively
evapotranspire rainfall and applied water back to the atmosphere thus preventing the generation
of additional leachate beneath the landfill.
The following sections present and describe the work elements and activities associated with
PMP implementation. Major components include the following:
1. Locations and Installation of Monitoring Instrumentation;
2. Collection and Evaluation of Field Data;
3. Reporting;
4. Project Schedule and Duration; and
5. Project Safety.
It is important to note that while the performance data to be collected in this plan will be used to
evaluate and assess Phytocap performance, specific details associated with system operation
and maintenance will be conveyed in the Final Engineering Design Plans and Technical
Specifications package to be submitted to the SWS under separate cover. Thus, the focus of the
activities presented herein target tree performance and the collection and analysis of those
climatologic variables required to complete annual water balance analyses. Such analyses will
serve as the basis to evaluate the performance of the Phytocap for achieving the project goal of
a net zero generation of leachate within the landfill.
CAP Addendum 17 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

4.1 Locations and Installation of Monitoring Instrumentation
The monitoring instrumentation and locations selected for installation within the Phytocap will
provide the data required to evaluate real-time tree and grass ET performance from second year
growth through tree maturation in five years. The environmental media to be evaluated and
purpose is summarized below.
Media Type Monitored Purpose
1. Soil Moisture Evaluate rainfall infiltration and supplemental water
additions on and through the Phytocap.
2. Transpiration Quantify water uptake and transpiration (loss) by trees and
grass cover.
3. Precipitation Continuously measure and record rainfall at the Site.
4. Evaporation Quantify water volume lost through direct evaporation from
the landfill surface and tree canopy.
5. Leachate Generation Evaluate performance of Phytocap to reduce leachate
generation beneath the landfill.
Data obtained from the instrumentation listed below will be used to perform real-time water
balance analyses and to prepare seasonal and annual water budgets for the landfill. Ultimately,
they will serve as the basis to assess performance of the Phytocap for reducing infiltration and
landfill leachate generation. Quantification of groundwater re -charge will be determined from the
difference between rainfall, run-off, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture storage within the soil
blanket.
The monitoring locations included in this plan are shown on Figure C7. Placement of each station
was selected to represent Site conditions and facilitate data extrapolation across the Phytocap.
The number of stations deployed, instrumentation, data to be collected, and data point collection
frequency are provided below:
CAP Addendum 18 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

a. Soil Moisture:
i. Purpose: Quantify infiltration rates, soil moisture holding capacities,
consumptive use of water by trees and irrigation application rates.
ii. Number of Locations: Three Stations located across the top of the landfill.
iii. Monitoring Depth: Three depth -integrated monitoring points per location:
1. 12" depth
2. 24" depth
3. 48" depth
iv. Instrumentation: TEROS 12 Decade Moisture Sensors with EM50 Data
Loggers. The soil moisture sensors can be linked to an irrigation controller to
automate future operation of the irrigation system (if desired).
v. Parameters Monitored: Moisture content, temperature and electrical
conductivity.
vi. Data Point Collection Frequency: Measurements recorded hourly and stored
in dedicated data loggers.
vii. Data to be retrieved and evaluated weekly.
b. Precipitation
i. Purpose: Collect rainfall data needed to perform seasonal and annual water
balance analyses for the Site, to assess ET performance of the Phytocap, and
to determine weekly Phytocap irrigation needs.
ii. Number of Locations: One at the center of the Phytocap
iii. Instrumentation: One continuously recording DYNAMET-5 custom weather
station to include a DYNAMET CR1000 datalogger, relay controllers, 85-Watt
solar panel and battery back-up.
iv. Parameters Monitored: Ultrasonic wind speed and direction, Compass, Air
Temperature, Relative Humidity, Solar Radiation, Barometric Pressure, Dew
Point and Rainfall.
v. Variables Calculated: Tree and grass ET.
vi. Data to be retrieved and evaluated weekly.
c. Evapotranspiration Monitoring
i. Purpose: To quantify water consumption in the Phytocap and effects on
seasonal and annual water budgets at the Site. Real-time transpiration rates
will be determined through use of Sap Flow Sensors and analytical software
procured from Dynamax, Inc.
CAP Addendum 19 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

ii. Number of Locations and Instrumentation: One Sap Flow Sensor will be
installed on each of three representative hybrid poplar trees within the
Phytocap area. Each sensor will be linked to the weather stations data logger
and evaluated for real-time ET by supplied software.
iii. Grass ET will be similarly monitored and calculated from weather station
instrumentation and vendor supplied software.
iv. Data to be continuously recorded, retrieved weekly and evaluated monthly.
The monitoring instrumentation will be installed in accordance with manufacturer specifications
and calibrated to Site conditions. A location and elevation survey will be performed following the
installation of monitoring equipment and recorded on the project base map.
4.2 Collection and Evaluation of Field Data
At a minimum, field personnel will visit the Site monthly and perform the following activities:
1. Download data from the field instruments;
2. Evaluate drip system status and performance; perform maintenance as needed;
3. Check calibration limits for accuracy and adjust as may be necessary;
4. Replace/recharge batteries as required;
5. Perform needed maintenance;
6. Perform an ocular survey of tree health, condition and estimate of growth rate;
7. Identify required Phytocap maintenance needs (mowing, herbicide application, etc.);
8. Record observed Site conditions and activities in a dedicated field log; and
9. Collect photo documentation of representative Site conditions during each visit.
Field data obtained from the Site will be evaluated via manufacturer and commercial software,
accompanied by data analysis and review. Project data will be maintained and stored in a
database developed for the project. Monthly water balance analyses will be prepared that include
precipitation and irrigation inputs minus losses from run-off, evaporation, tree/grass transpiration,
surface water infiltration and storage within the soil blanket.
CAP Addendum 20 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

4.3 Reporting
Quarterly summary reports will be prepared to document work completed, evaluate the
aforementioned monthly water balance analyses and to convey a system operations summary
and completed OM&M activities.
The summary reports will convey the following:
• Summary conditions encountered in the previous quarter;
• Operational status of the Drip Irrigation System and monitoring instrumentation;
• Condition of the Phytocap, maintenance status, and tree development observations;
• A water balance analysis to include:
o Daily volumes of water applied through drip irrigation;
o Rainfall received at the Site;
o Daily tree and grass ET loss rates; and
o Infiltration observations.
• An interpretation of the findings; and
• Supporting figures and data tables.
The summary reports would be developed on a seasonal basis to correspond with periods of
growth and tree senescence at the Site.
An annual report conveying the findings obtained for each monitoring year will be prepared. The
annual report will compile and evaluate seasonal findings conveyed in the summary reports into
a yearly summary of Phytocap performance. The report will also summarize tree development
and growth at the Site, and convey annual totals of precipitation, ET losses, irrigation water
supplied and the volume of water stored and/or lost to groundwater infiltration.
Findings of the five-year performance monitoring study will be prepared in the form of a final
project report. The report will include summaries of the field activities performed, findings and
recommendations. Annual chronologies of tree growth versus water balance effects will be
highlighted in the report. The report will also include an updated Site Plan, supporting figures,
data tables and photographs showing key Site features, sampling points and surface water run-
off management locations. Photo documentation of Phytocap growth and development, the
irrigation system, monitoring locations and instrumentation will also be included in the report.
CAP Addendum 21 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

4.4 Project Schedule and Duration
A milestone schedule for completion of the projected five-year project is provided below.
Work Element Initiation Date Completion Date
Installation of Phytocap and Irrigation October 15, 2023 January 1, 2024
System
Installation of Field Instrumentation January 1, 2024 January 31, 2024
Equipment Calibration and Survey March 1, 2024 March 15, 2024
System Start-up and Initiation of
Field Monitoring March 16, 2024 December 31, 2029
Data Evaluation and Reporting June 1, 2024 December 31, 2029
4.5 Project Safety
Field work will be performed in accordance with an OSHA -approved Site -Specific Health and
Safety Plan (HASP) and Safety procedures and protocols. Oversight of the on -Site safety
program will be administered by personnel trained to perform safety activities. A Site -specific
HASP will be prepared to accompany the detailed design drawings and specifications following
approval of this CAP Addendum.
CAP Addendum 22 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

Section 5
Literature Citations
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Fact Sheet — 1,4-Dioxane. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 505-F-14-011. January 2014.
2. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council Work Group. Decision Tree -
Phytoremediation. 1999.
3. Interstate Technology Regulatory Council. Technical/Regulatory Guidelines. 2009.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (Twelfth Edition). s.l.: Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 2007.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Introduction to Phytoremediation. Cincinnati:
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
2000.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Phytoremediation Resource Guide.
Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1999.
7. Pivetz, B.E. Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Ground Leachate at Hazardous
Waste Sites. s.l.: United States EPA, 2001.
8. Use of Trees for Hydraulic Control of Ground leachate Plumes. Nelson, S. Ft. Worth:
Workshop on Phytoremediation of Organic Wastes, 1996.
9. Banks, M.K. Phytotechnology Project Profiles. United States EPA CLU-IN. [Online]
January 2006. [Cited: May 29, 2008.] http://www.clu-in.org/products/phyto/search/.
10. Assessment of Ground leachate Use by Phreatophytic Trees and Sap Flow
Measurements. Ferro, A. M., F. Thomas, C. Olson, and D. Tsao. 2002, Internal Progress
Report for the Phytoremediation System at the C-Plant Site, Texas City, TX.
11. Phytoremediation. Pilon-Smits, Elizabeth. s.l.: Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2005,
Annual Review of Plant Biology, Vol. 56, pp. 15-39.
12. Salt, D.E., Smith, R.D., Raskin, I. s.l.: Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant
Molecular Biology, 1998, Vol. 49.
13. Rock, S., Myers, B., and Fiedler, L. 2012. Evaporation (ET) Covers. International J. of
Phytoremediation, 14(S1): 1-25.
CAP Addendum 23 Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

Figures
CAP Addendum Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

GLOWS IN
girei5/T A!,
74
at
f J
V
_ � w
Pactoh"
wW N
C&D LANDFILL SITE l
ff low a Imo 2000 ]ON 4wo 5coo 6007 7030 mm 9000 im
SCALE: 1" = 3,000'
FIGURE 1- SITE LOCATION MAP
�je so/
5 �0 SITE NAME: C&D Landfill, Inc.
-A 802 Recycling Lane, Greenville, North Carolina
N�
� o
,po z
err■ 2021 USGS Quads o
"Grimestead" and "Leggets Crossroads"

PROJECT
AREA
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
C1 COVER SHEET
C2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
C3 PHYTOCAP SITE PLAN
C4 TOP OF LANDFILL GRADING PLAN
C5 HYBRID POPLAR PLANTING PLAN
C6 PHYTOCAP IRRIGATION PLAN
C7 MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION PLAN
C8 PHASE 1 LANDFILL DRAINAGE AREA MAP
C9 DETAIL SHEET
v
i
Aw-
_ 9
�.T e
� E
f'
4 p . y ;
a
r. s, l r -
C
r
"t-
_
,
,
,
,,+^r
r. '�,I -# is-.. a -_. .� -:� .,.---'�k� _�_. - — - -- -- --- __ -- --- ---- -- - -- -- - - -- "- — - - --- . - - - - i •, �' __ - ...
S
g.
J _
4
j,
,r I
r s „
dop
,
m - --
a
,
, .
' Z
EJE RECYCLING DISPOSAL, INC. r -�.� \ t
Op
FRS 4�NF PARCEL # 56923
w �''�79.45± AC. 1gt,
i
s
_ is.'a` � � �:r�itl..b. F, L.,. ;r>d ._. ..._ .. - / l°.''- sc i-�- iix , tba�l .r.•
-77t -_
\ ,
PHASE 3 -------- ------ ----
- LANDFILL U.C.
i
It I
t
\ MW-17
mw
MW-19' �\ i
C&D LANDFILL, INC.
i` MW-i6 PARCEL # 79231
111.02± AC.
SW-4
GP-3
ol
n
All,
r,, Alms r
-1
f
•E, ( ..:
y r -GP4 a
A
mwAs MW-14D �\ \
2
LANDFILL
MW-iD -
l
P.
'1S
tiF
SW-3
GRINDLE CREEK
100 YR FLOOD
ZONE
UN -NAMED
TRIBUTARY
UN-NAMED
TRIBUTARY
100 YR FLOOD
ZONE
C&D LANDFILL, INC.
PARCEL # 62642
34.21 ± AC.
%
EXTENT OF PHASE.'
ONE LANDFILL WASTE
12.8± ACRES.
PHASE ONE
LANDFILL (CLOSED)
REFERENCES:
1) BASE MAPPING INCLUDING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN DIGITAL CAD FORMAT BY SMITH
GARDNER & ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023
2) AERIAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS
PROVIDED BY PITT COUNTY GIS (NC ONE MAPS). PRELIMINARY ONLY
3) TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS OF TOP PORTION OF PHASE I LANDFILL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROVIDED BY SMITH GARNDER & ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2025.
4) GAS WELL LOCATIONS VISUALLY FIELD VERIFIED MAY , 2023.
5) 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONES PROVIDED BY INC ONE MAPS.
This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
Inc and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
or in part. It is only to be used for the project and
site specifically identified herein and is not to be
used on any other project. It is to be returned
upon request.
Wes~
Z
w
me z
LU
ti O w
C0 0
06
Iii-
w
z
Z
OO
Lill C/)>
w U Cl)
� � M
N r`
t/7 M
C) N
U
o rn Z
X 2 rn
� b oJ
wawa
V)
z
ED
F�
W('��
LL
-1
W
0
C
0-
m
U
�
o
z
W
Q
L
(D
—
J
>
o
O
v
U
J
0
N
(n
O
C6
00
a_
1v
WE
DESIGNED
KW
DRAWN
RN
CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
- -
Q
DATE 8/29/23
z
'••-
0
PROJECT NO.
0
0 300 600 900 1200
1 R� R� C 1
Scale 1 " = 300' SHEET NO.

PHASE 2 '
•
0000
LANDFILL _ -- r
GENERALIZED -
SURFACE WATER
FLOW DIRECTION /
a —
EPHEMERAL -11 15
STREAM
100 YR FLOOD
ZONE
MW-8
1 DIRECTION OF =• - -
i
REFERENCES
r4 �� ' 1 �`� 1. TOPOGRAPHY FROM 2014 LIDAR DATA PROVIDED BY NC FLOODPLAIN
MAPPING PROGRAM, RALEIGH, NC.
2. FLOOD HAZARD ZONES FROM FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM)
. , , NUMBER 3720562800LREVISED JUNE 192020
PRELIMINARY ONLY
'r 3. PARCEL BOUNDARIES FROM PITT COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT ONLINE PARCEL
74 1•�• INFORMATION SYSTEM (OPIS). (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
+►,ir; t ": �_ ' �,� .,,4� �' 4. MONITORING WELL, SURFACE WATER SAMPLING, AND STREAM LOCATIONS
^•' �L'i+�` • r - FROM DRAWING "MONITORING WELL AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
MW-1 S' 1"�'.d!'�` ' „ �' = -, ' LOCATION MAP" FIGURE 2, DATED 5/1/19, PREPARED BY WOOD
_? -�; .*±, , �, ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS, INC., DURHAM, NC.
mr-�� `'~ ' ` ''ir 5. WETLAND AREAS AND ADJACENT STEAM LOCATIONS FROM FIELD DATA
' r DATED APRIL 2021 PROVIDED BY CAROLINA ECOSYSTEMS, CLAYTON, NC.
s -- .t ' �' ` ♦ --G_ ' `. 6. PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS FROM FIELD SURVEY DATED 5/17/21 PERFORMED
4.
"% +, ►'' `►�� _ BY SURVEYING SOLUTIONS, YOUNGSVILLE, NC.
-. • - .. �' r.
♦ This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
• - ;d.— y ♦� Inc and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
`t ,� 1` 1 ; ,L ;., •, ` • '..,� Y or in part. It is only to be used for the project and
site specifically identified herein and is not to be
-- y ' ♦ ` \ used on any other project. It is to be returned
upon request.
EXTENT OF PHASE - •'� \\ `r
ONE LANDFILL WASTE
12.8± ACRES.
J ` 4 z
w
a
O
_ vQ' + • ilr Q w
, . is w
'S
s{ y CO 06
LU
-' LEGEND Q
GROUNDWATER \ ._ _ �: �.
LU m z
W U co
MOVEMENT t
. _ - _ , . � � { r � � � �\ -- - - - APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY "I� N
_ .
° . f' ': `� PHASE 1 LANDFILL EXTENT OF WASTE ' � N
°r—za'
05
x = OJ
i %! O
200 LANDFILL SETBACK - F
�° ss ►: _ __ o w o
— — — — — STREAM a ,
, TOP OF LANDFILL
GENERALIZED SURFACE RUNOFF
FLOW DIRECTION
TOP OF LANDFILL / G
.0e \ ` ` 1.37± ACRES. / WELL WITH WATER LEVEL ELEVATION
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER MONITORING
\ v, '7_7yIle
�� �� / 0.10± ACRES v'
MW 3S SEDIMENT POND
-� �� v
' � i� � / DEEP GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL 0
.� �i \
MW-3D 15 ��r \ s 10 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION LL1
3 /� LANDFILL GAS MONITORING LOCATION
/�1 v �� A ,' \HP10696' \ 7S
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ISOCONTOUR
ACCESS HP101.45' / O (1 FT INTERVAL)
0.11± ACRES ROAD.
SEDIMENT POND
' �'� /
'/ — SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ISOCONTOUR
HIP101.12' �� ' i -
/ INFERRED (1 FT INTERVAL)
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
i i i i q
•tiF• a
off-
i
♦O
i i
0 r
FLOOD
100 YR
100 YR FLOOD
N,- SW-1
0.38± ACRES - /
t
/
s SEDIMENT POND
_
PIP
4•
9
2
UN -NAMED
TRIBUTARY ' J
W-2 D
18
MW-2S ^�
ro
. J �
.9t 1• :_r 7r _
..Y
•_'� •1Y f I �
_ / Q?OQ
UN -NAMED
TRIBUTARY
100 YR FLOOD
ZONE
AIL1i
0 60 120 180 240
Scale 1 " = 60'
0
o
z
U
a_
-_
�
U
0
o
�
U
�
J
U
W
L)
J
0
N
N
00
WE KW RN
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
DATE 8/29/23
PROJECT NO
C2
SHEET NO.

MW-12
- � e' 1 f
P
. - PHASE 2
r,
LANDFILL . M;W-1 D
t'� Y
IRRIGATION PUMP WATER SOURCE IS Tr' �A-1
y
i ,'� ' -ice• r'
CREATED BY INSTALLING 4'X4' BLOCK -. `
MW 1S
RISER BOX AT PIPE CULVERT INLET AND ,� ., -
iMPOUNDING EPHEMERAL STREAM.
ITGP-10..
IRRIGATION PUMP y
CONNECTION TO SUPPLY LINE
MW-11-IN UNDERGROUND VALVE
- BOX IN ACCESS ROAD
SHOULDER.
41
k.. --
pROpER� LANE
100 YR FLOOD MW-$ �R'PVC
ZONE SUPPLYIRRIGATION
M W-3 D.M►
N-3A
SEDIMENT
POND
MW-5
<iy\
F
100 YR FLOOD
ZONE
•r •
O
1-6
PHASE 1 LANDFILL
(CLOSED)0000,
00000
EXTENT OF PHASE
ONE LANDFILL WASTE
40000
SAP FLOW SENSOR ACRES.
PHYTOPLOT AREA 3.80 ACRES. LOCATION (TYP). N. • ...
2.81 ACRES ON SLOPES. OOOOP` ` r �''�. • .�`
0.99 ACRES ON CAP. / - V, .:.
(SHADED AREA) �k 1 INSTRUMENTATION SHED _
// TOP OF LANDFILL
�/ (DASHED LINE) -"
/j/
// I
//
O
- - ACCESS � O - . - POND
MENT
ROAD. IN
%,-% O / v '00000
�0 /
/ -
/
00010
No, 0000,
/ x`
\ SOIL MOISTURE SENSOR NEST �, Y
LOCATION (3 NESTS TOTAL) '-'
0000,
TRIPOD MOUNTED
WEATHER STATION
_ 100 YR FLOOD '
r ZONE
/ M W-7 i
/
y
SEDIMENT
POND
00
MW-2D
MW-2S M_ W-6
s
100 YR FLOOD / -
ZONE _ -
ih- Y
PRELIMINARY ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
EX. PROPERTY LINE
EX. PH 1 LANDFILL EXTENT OF WASTE
EX. 200' LANDFILL SETBACK
EX.STREAM
EX. LOCATION OF EXISTING SHALLOW AND
DEEP GROUNDWATER AND GAS MONITORING
WELLS z
0
— — — — — — — — TOP OF LANDFILL
W
10' WIDE ROWS HYBRID POPLAR
PHYTO TREE AREA
OUTLINE OF PHYTO PLANTING AREA
IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINE & FLOW ARROW
LOCATION OF WEATHER STATION
® LOCATION OF SOIL MOISTURE SENSOR NEST
QS LOCATION OF SAP FLOW SENSOR
❑I LOCATION OF INSTRUMENTATION SHED
0 60 120 180 240
Scale 1 " = 60'
drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
part. It is only to be used for the project and
specifically identified herein and is not to be
i on any other project. It is to be returned
i request.
z
z
W
Z(L
tl
O
O
w
n
LLI
o
�06
>
z
z
w
z
Oo
Z
Ll m
W
U Cl)
� � M
N �
y M
N�
C)
U
0 Z �
) co a)
�nmw
b J O
wawa
4-0
U
a)
0
O
m
U
0
O
J
U
-0
o
06
c
=
U
—J
C
J
0
N
N
(n
O
C6
00
a_
WE KW RN
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
DATE 8/29/23
PROJECT NO
C3
SHEET NO.

-- / ' / - # -� • w-- •i ' s ♦ t t vW
_ / /- / � ii• S1 t, .- *� . - •
MW=l
REFERENCES:
CES:
1) AS MAPPING INCLUDING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
_B•, ., , s ,' S 4 •
` • t I ,' ' •, i
/ r - �� r _ i ""�` Y tom• : ' '' ,
�� '� .ems L
' - r
LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN DIGITAL CAD FORMAT BY SMITH GARDNER
& ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023
2) AERIAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS PROVIDED
PITT COUNTY GIS (NC ONE MAPS).
♦ k P. �'
- �' ZJ
GP-10" ♦ �►� �• • , .
BY
3) TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS OF TOP PORTION OF PHASE I LANDFILL
PRELIMINARY ONLY
,�
'•� ,
_ •� , 1 `i _ •t
PROVIDED BY SMITH GARNDER & ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023.
4) GAS WELL LOCATIONS VISUALLY FIELD VERIFIED MAY , 2023.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
'f\ ` _
` y
•;• ''�' . c
5) 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONES PROVIDED BY NC ONE MAPS.
*40
AN
41
'{ ' '�'q� I '� \ +' .
♦ �% _ + I '
'! �. _ r
\.
This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
Inc and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
or in part. It is only to be used for the project and
/ —+ OO tte •
t�Ap
site specifically identified herein and is not to be
mW_1 1 r w ' / / \ \ ' , Y
1. 4�
used on any ther project. It is to be returned
upon request.
5 ��
� \
AAA
v .
CD
y♦
1 •�� _
• ♦ . s� • 1 it
tZ
W
0
•� f- ` 1
.y . i
40
>
W, sk� W��
co
06
Sol 41
NJ
MW-8 u�1 �' • \ .• \ 1 �y '
W
-
s
= a �� ' \ \ ' o 's 1 *41
t� O
LU W ci Cl)
t
C
O
\ •80
\_
�x=
\
_ T \ PHASE 1 LANDFILL
LEGEND
O (D
2 o Q 0
W a a
6p -E (CLOSED) `'
/ / \
— — EX. PROPERTY LINE
EX. PH 1 LANDFILL EXTENT OF WASTE
a► _ \ \ ,-
f r r 49' \
— — EX. 200' LANDFILL SETBACK
s•' \ t
— EX. STREAM
ti '�y- •. \ \' \ \ \ - \ \
EXTENT OF PHASE
\ \ \ \ ..
EX. LOCATION OF EXISTING
GROUNDWATER AND GAS MONITORING
z
' -• \ \ \ \ \ \ ONE LANDFILL WASTE
WELLS
\ \
12.8± ACRES.
/ LOD \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
°o� \ \JAW \ \ \ \ \ \
s \''\ � \ '�'
EX. V AND 2' CONTOURS
X. 5' AN 10' CONTOURS
W
00�
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. \' \ \ �• �.
• �' �
� (=
2+ - � � 9� BRK98.4' INSTALL SILT FENCE ALONG
1 / _ - �►+. -,= - - i '� a \ CONTOUR FOLLOWING THE \ \ ,� ,•�- ;- '
-r �. �! LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. \ \ \_�\ \ �^' \ \ \ _ _
\ _t / / <
\ \ 1F- \ \ .� \ . _ -�.
• '°o kv ELEVATION CONTOURS '
TOP OF LANDFILL
LOD LOD LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE &SILT
FENCE
/ BRK INSTALL BERM ALONG \ '\\ \:
J IN \ \.• � � IN LOWER REGION OF -
\
103 1' CONTOUR W/ TIE POINT
\
CONTOUR FOLLOWING THE \.
` LANDFILL ARE ON 1
\ \ \ •� 1 00 eQ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. \ \ \ t \' L
\ \ � INTERVAL.
BRK98.0 <\ \
,3•2� —) LOCAL SURFACE GRADIENT
I
\ V
TOP OF LANDFILL \ \
`HP103.21' BRK1o1.2'�' SPOT ELEVATIONS
V
\ \ \ \ \ BRK 96.8' °O \ \ \�
BRK96.3' (DASHED LINE) \ �• \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ BRK97.0'
AT,
P
U
'RT BRK 101.2'
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
O
\ \ \
Z
`H 03.45' / Op
UO
ELEVATION CONTOURS ; / / J J
\ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \I2, IN UPPER REGION OF ✓ / %
HIP 1
_ +� CD
\ \ \ \ \ L _ BRK99.0' / / LANDFILL ARE ON 2 / /
/ /
^° \ / INTERVAL. / / / /
\ \ \ \ ACCESS \ ` / / II _ . , / / / /
ROAD. \ \ \ \
C
06 ca
U J
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ BRK100.5' //
MW-5
( U
BRK99.4'
° I / LANDFILL FILL SOIL VOLUME = 4,900 C.Y. rW11 j •
/
N
TO BE SOURCED FROM ONSITE BORROW / ,, f '
/ /00
,,�
(n
.�
AREA. TOP 12" TO BE AMENDED WITH / / / / / /�ti�` ''%'-� �0
CP `-
/ FERTILIZER AND LIME AT SPECIFIED .1/
00� \ oo^ / / COMPOSITION AND APPLICATION RATES. / / / /
\ t'
AM
\ \ \ \ / / _ r�•�1i ,.y ', 4 ` _ /
• •
c \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / / r►1' � � 4 w
N
WE
DESIGNED
KW
DRAWN
RN
CHECKED
_ \ \
\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \\ � / / � j / / / / 'S, -°� � t _
\ �
+ 1
ti \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / '/ / / / / / _ / /u,. '"Mi. • _
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
DATE 8/29/23
00 Q
- - SEDIMENT
\ \ \ / / / Y JY /
�. _
POND ` \ \ \ \ / / / j
\ \ \ / /
PROJECT N0.
mw
1z
0 40 80 120 160
C4
A41 A
Scale 1 " = 40'
SHEET NO.

-11
MW-8
MW-5
`+ MW-is
-it 1%
G 0
_�.
rs
s
so %IF -0
PERIMETER OF PHYTOPLOT AREA 3.80 ACRES.
1,702 TOTAL HYBRID POPLAR TREES
2.81 ACRES ON SLOPES (1,281 TREES).
0.99 ACRES ON CAP (421 TREES).
(SHADED AREA)
v
1000009
O N
L/
,
15 SEPARATION BETWEEN
PHYTO TREES AND TRIPOD
ACCESS ` MOUNTED WEATHER STATI
ROAD.
r
rr
r i .►.
r,
r
s�
,
P
i
r �, • ♦ E
all
- to v ` ti
►W-W, •,
a •
ib
40.
1
i
` t r
- PHYTO PLANTING AREA OUTLINE
(HEAVY DASHED LINE) ouACC ol t Anlnl-tt t - - - - i -'' r , ►]
i
1
MW-7
,
REFERENCES:
1) BASE MAPPING INCLUDING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN DIGITAL CAD FORMAT BY SMITH
GARDNER & ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023
2) AERIAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS
PROVIDED BY PITT COUNTY GIS (NC ONE MAPS). PRELIMINARY ONLY
3) TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS OF TOP PORTION OF PHASE I LANDFILL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROVIDED BY SMITH GARNDER a ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023.
4) GAS WELL LOCATIONS VISUALLY FIELD VERIFIED MAY , 2023.
5) 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONES PROVIDED BY NC ONE MAPS.
LEGEND
Cd I %m
L %
t<:11m
EX. PROPERTY LINE
EX. PH 1 LANDFILL EXTENT OF WASTE
EX. 200' LANDFILL SETBACK
EX.STREAM
This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
Inc and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
or in part. It is only to be used for the project and
site specifically identified herein and is not to be
used on any other project. It is to be returned
upon request.
Wes~
Z
W
0
O
ti O W
C0 ILLI
0
06
H
Z
W
OLillZ I.L
cl) NO
z
Z
W U Cl)
� � M
N �
t/7 101.1
SO U -
O r- z
ui x X:
m tJ O
wawa
EX. LOCATION OF EXISTING GROUNDWATER z
z
AND GAS MONITORING WELLS o
L7
L1J
TOP OF LANDFILL 00�
10' WIDE ROWS HYBRID POPLAR
PHYTO TREE AREA
OUTLINE OF PHYTO PLANTING AREA
LOCATION OF WEATHER STATION AND
PRECIPITATION RECORDING GAUGE
® EXAMPLE HYBRID POPLAR TREE
LOCATION SHOWING SPACING
00
t�
Q
Z
l�
0
a--+
0
C
O
M
(B
U
_O
O
U
U
O
C
Co
Q
�
J
C)
C
U
(.)
=
�
O
0)
�
J
U
�
N
00
C6
a_
WE KW RN
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
DATE 8/29/23
0 40 80 120 1 60
1 R� R�
C5
Scale 1 " = 40' SHEET NO.

MW-5
IMPOUNDMENT OF MINIMUM 6,000 C.F. OF
WATER FOR IRRIGATION W/ 275 S.F. WASHED
SAND AND STONE INFILTRATION BED W/ 35 L.F.
OF 4" PERFORATED CPP FOR SUPPLYING 45
GAL/MIN IRRIGATION FLOWRATE W/ 1.5X
SAFETY FACTOR. SEE DETAIL.
4'X4' BLOCK RISER BOX INSTALLED AT PIPE
CULVERT INLET ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF ACCESS
ROAD W/ CLEAR WATER SUMP CONNECTED TO
FILTER BED AND SEPARATE BYPASS FOR
EXCESS STREAM FLOWS. SEE DETAIL. j
MW -11 �.
WW-8
top,
C]
41v.
.�
.' 4%
Z it
STANDARD VALVE BOX INSTALLED IN
,
SHOULDER OF ROAD W/ UPTURNED:_
THREADED PVC PIPE W/ REMOVABLE CAP
FOR IRRIGATION PUMP CONNECTION.
SEE DETAIL
y-
JUMBO VALVE BOX INSTALLED IN
SHOULDER OF ROAD W/ PRESSURE
GAUGE, FLOW METER -ACCUMULATOR,
CHECK VALVE AND BALL VALVE WITH
HANDWHEEL. SEE DETAIL.
PORTABLE GAS
POWERED WATER
PUMP RATED FOR 50
GPM @ 80 PSI MIN.
4'X4' BLOCK MASONRY RISER FOR
SEPARATING FILTERED IRRIGATION WATER
AND BYPASSING EXCESS STORMWATER
EPHEMERALSTREAM '7
6,000 C.F. STORAGE
!4 SIDE SLOPE PHYTOPLOT ROWS ARE
SEPARATED INTO THE PRESSURE ZONES W/ BYPASS
CHAMBER
j J EACH ZONE CONTROLLED BY BALL VALVE AND 4" PERFORATED HDPE W/GRAVEL AND SANDFILTER IRRIGATION
PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE INSTALLED IN CHAMBER
STANDARD VALVE BOX ALLOWING THE USE OF
A SINGLE DIFFUSER TYPE RATED FOR 25-30 PSI.
�' rM MOW
- ; SEE DETAIL.
PHYTO PLANTING AREA OUTLINE
:RIMETER OF PHYTOPLOT AREA 3.80 ACRES. // 'I—�. \ \ ` (HEAVY DASHED LINE)
'02 TOTAL HYBRID POPLAR TREES "0'
31 ACRES ON SLOPES (1,224 TREES). / / / / \ \ \
U.99 ACRES ON CAP (421 TREES). / / / \ \ \ \
(SHADED AREA) / I'll/ DRIP IRRIGATION LINE
/ / "I,
(DASHED LINE) SEE DETAIL.
EXTENT OF PHASE
/ / / / / / _ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` _ ONE LANDFILL WASTE
� / / / / // / "\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ STANDARD VALVE BOX W/ AIR 12.8± ACRES.
/ / \ `'
/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ RELEASE VALVE INSTALLED AT HIGH I . . -
/ POINT IN SUPPLY LINE SEE DETAIL Alit
". ..
DRIP IRRIGATION LINE
BRANCHES SPACED 10'
JUMBO VALVE BOX W/
O.C. W/ PHYTO TREES
PRESSURE GAUGE
VALVE BOX W/ 2" INLINE FLOW METER
2" THREADED PIPE 2" CHECK VALVE
CONNECTION 2" BALL VALVE
EXISTING
\1 ACCESS ROAD
EXISTING CULVERT
loll \000<
�i ,�C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ TOP OF LANDFILL
�
i / - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (MAGENTA DASHED LINE)
ACCESS
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ >0e% �\\ ` / / / / / / / / / /
ROAD. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / // / /
� / / //
// ///
\ \ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / / // / / / SIDE SLOPE PHYTOPLOT ROWS ARE
SEPARATED INTO THE PRESSURE ZONES W/
\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ // / / EACH ZONE CONTROLLED BY BALL VALVE AND
\ / / / / PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE INSTALLED IN
/ /
STANDARD VALVE BOX ALLOWING THE USE OF
/
/ A SINGLE DIFFUSER TYPE RATED FOR 25-30 PSI.
\ \ \ \ \ '00> / / / / �/ / / � SEE DETAIL.
ftummumm low
''' sue'_
\ \_/
s
EFERENCES:
1) BASE MAPPING INCLUDING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN DIGITAL CAD FORMAT BY SMITH
GARDNER 8, ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023
2) AERIAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS
PROVIDED BY PITT COUNTY GIS (NC ONE MAPS).
3) TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS OF TOP PORTION OF PHASE I LANDFILL PRELIMINARY ONLY
PROVIDED BY SMITH GARNDER & ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2025. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
4) GAS WELL LOCATIONS VISUALLY FIELD VERIFIED MAY , 2023.
5) 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONES PROVIDED BY INC ONE MAPS.
TOP OF LANDFILL
ZONE 4
�3
PHASE ONE C&D LANDFILL
2" SCH 40 PVC
IRRIGATION
SUPPLY LINE
EPHEMERALSTREAM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM LINE DIAGRAM
4
LEGEND
DRIP IRRIGATION LINE
This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
BRANCHES SPACED 10'
Inc and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
O.C. W/ PHYTO TREES
or in part. It is only to be used for the project and
site specifically identified herein and is not to be
/
used on any other project. It is to be returned
upon request.
tO
S�Op
�o�Fa R LU Cl) Z
w
me Doti z
O W
CO LU
0
06
H
z
W
z
Z
OO
LU to '
W U Cl)
� � M
N �
y Lo M
N 0)
O z
05xX:
m w o
wawa
EX. PROPERTY LINE
EX. PH 1 LANDFILL EXTENT OF WASTE
EX. 200' LANDFILL SETBACK
0
EX. STREAM
v�
LLJ
EX. LOCATION OF EXISTING GROUNDWATER
AND GAS MONITORING WELLS
MW-7
TOP OF LANDFILL
10' WIDE ROWS HYBRID POPLAR
PHYTO TREE AREA
OUTLINE OF PHYTO PLANTING AREA
IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINE & FLOW ARROW
---------- IRRIGATION DRIP LINE
0
o
L
U
U
z
O
C)
o
a;
ca
�
—
U
a�
•�
p
CIS
(D
—
J
(�
°6
�
U
J
0
N
CN
00
a_
WE KW RN
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
DATE 8/29/23
PROJECT NO
�0 40 80 120 160
C6
I,
1 Scale 1 " = 40' SHEET NO.

\
EFERENCES:
1) BASE MAPPING INCLUDING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN DIGITAL CAD FORMAT BY SMITH
\
PVC IRRIGATION — \ I
SUPPLY LINE. \
GARDNER & ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023
2) AERIAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS
PROVIDED BY PITT COUNTY GIS (NC ONE MAPS).
3) TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS OF TOP PORTION OF PHASE I LANDFILL
PRELIMINARY ONLY
\ \
�
/ \
PROVIDED BY SMITH GARNDER & ASSOC. FEBRUARY, 2023.
4) GAS WELL LOCATIONS VISUALLY FIELD VERIFIED MAY , 2023.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5) 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONES PROVIDED BY INC ONE MAPS.
PHASE 1 LANDFILL PLANTING AREA OUTLINE
\ \ HEAVY DASHED LINE
(CLOSED) � \ \ ( )
/ / / \ \
/ \ \ \
/
/
METEORLOGICAL STATION WITH
ULTRASONIC WIND SPEED &DIRECTION SENSOR
COMPASS SENSOR
This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
Inc and tnot to be reproduced or copied in whole
or in part.. It is only to be used for the project and
be
site specifically identified herein and is not
used any other project. It is to be returned re
upon request.
�
PHYTOPLOT AREA 3.80 ACRES. / / � \ \
2.81 ACRES ON SLOPES. / / / / \ \
/ / / \
SOLAR PANELS
f AIR TEMPERATURE SENSOR
SENSOR
RELATIVEHCPRE PRESSURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE SENSOR
/ � PHASE 1 LANDFILL
0.99 ACRES ON CAP. \
/ / / / ` \ \
(SHADED AREA) ` \ (CLOSED)
/ / / / / / \ \ \ \
\
PYRANOMETER SENSOR
CRX DATA DEW POINT SENSOR
LOGGER RAIN GAUGE SENSOR HYBRID POPLAR
PHYTO TREE.
� � Z
/ / \ \ \
\
/ / \ \
CRX MULTIPLEXER
O®®
W
a0
00�'1--/ /
/
/ / / �r \ \ \ \
\
SHED SECURED TO WS
GROUND WI SHELVING Oco
AND LOCKABLE DOOR.
WJ
O W
0
� °�
/'00/
4FL
Z
O
\ \ \ \
\ \ \
SOLAR CHARGE
CONTROLLER AND III I SSAP EN< SOR.
BATTERY BANK.
I SOIL MOISTURE
O
LUZ
C W c N
M
0<0\
\
TOP OF LANDFILL SENSOR.
N �
o r- N rn
140
/ / \ \ \ \
\ \ \
\
II�IIII L—--- — — — —J
LIL————————— --—— — — — — —�
�o(
�mw�
O
1
w a W a
\ \ \ \ \ TOP OF LANDFILL \ \
\ ��\ � \ MAGENTA DASHED LINE \ SAP FLOW SENSOR ( ) \
\ \ \
MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM LINE DIAGRAM
LOCATION (TYP). \ \
\ SOIL MOISTURE SENSOR NEST \ INSTRUMENTATION \
\ LOCATION 3 SENSORS PER NEST \ \ \ SHED W/ SHELVING \ \
\ SOLAR POWER AND \ \ \ \
\
\s..\
z
\
\ \ \ \ BATTERY BANK. \ \ \
\ \
o
\ \ \
\ \
LEGEND
W
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
TOP OF LANDFILL
OUTLINE OF PHYTO PLANTING AREA
\\ \ \ \ \ SOIL MOISTURE \ \ \ \ \ GENERALIZED ROUTE \ \ \
\ \ SENSOR LOCATION \ OF POWER AND \
\
10' WIDE ROWS HYBRID POPLAR
PHYTO TREE AREA
SIGNALIZATION WIRING.
\ \ \ \
U
\ \
IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINE & FLOW ARROW
IRRIGATION DRIP LINE
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ J
LOCATION OF TRIPOD MOUNTED
WEATHER STATION
O
m
}' U
/
\ \ \
LOCATION OF SOIL MOISTURE SENSOR NEST
®
O LOCATION OF SAP FLOW SENSOR
(n
0 z
U U
\
\ \ WEATHER STATION WITH \ \ /
\ \ \ \ \ \ /
\ \ METEORLOGICAL RECORDING \ / /
LOCATION OF INSTRUMENTATION SHED
� (�
`
\ \ INSTRUMENTATION. NO \ \ \
\ ` \ TREES WITHIN 15'. \ \ / / /
❑I W/ SOLAR PANEL AND BATTERY POWER
SYSTEM
L) N
— O a)
0) �' co (D
\ \ \ \ \
\
GENERALIZED ROUTE OF POWER AND INSTRUMENTATION SIGNAL WIRING
N
•L C
06 m
O = U
ACCESS
ROAD. ` \ \ \ / /
0 C
>1
N
O
U)
\ \
U
m 00
O
00>
e i
WE
KW
RN
PHASE 1 LANDFILL /
DESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE
(CLOSED)
CO
SEE PLAN
\ / /
DATE g 29 23
PROJECT N0.
PHASE 1 LANDFILL
(CLOSED)
\ \ i
0 20 40 60 80 I �� ��
C7
Scale 1 " = 20'
SHEET N0.

REFERENCES
1. TOPOGRAPHY FROM 2014 LIDAR DATA PROVIDED BY NC FLOODPLAIN
_.• �/�F,- l ; N MAPPING PROGRAM, RALEIGH, NC.
-••~ �' / / / / / �__ a•.• .- 2. FLOOD HAZARD ZONES FROM FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FIRM
<,� _ �?' ,, al ! NUMBER 3720562800E REVISED JUNE 19 2020.
41' �`" PRELIMINARY ONLY
:q,.`a„ f - / j•,' '} :: ' \ ' �:� t 3. PARCEL BOUNDARIES FROM PITT COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT ONLINE PARCEL
INFORMATION SYSTEM (OPIS). NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MW-1 0' /3 .. ' f ` 1/ r " \ 4. MONITORING WELL, SURFACE WATER SAMPLING, AND STREAM LOCATIONS
f FROM DRAWING MONITORING WELL AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
> /:-- :- --- �\-; / / / '' (•• '+''''\'`;, LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2, DATED 5/1/19, PREPARED BY WOOD
�;`y� �'* � ��L�S-` <`•", x_ ENVIRONMENT &INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS, INC., DURHAM, NC.
// / // / / / f " �' , ;; `t.:; • ytIN 5. WETLAND AREAS AND ADJACENT STEAM LOCATIONS FROM FIELD DATA
l WWI
DATED APRIL 2021 PROVIDED BY CAROLINA ECOSYSTEMS, CLAYTON, NC.
PHASE 2 / / / / /4,4 '� ;�•, .= \ 6. PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS FROM FIELD SURVEY DATED 5/17/21 PERFORMED
LANDFILL `- / / �/ / / / / ti. ' / ,^ _ ,. '�' j �' BY SURVEYING SOLUTIONS, YOUNGSVILLE, INC.
This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
I I / / / / / / / •; ;r • ' J y _? • i �� �. >•� iJ+ zrC \ - I \ \ \ / Inc and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
\ \ ✓ I _ _ / - / i' /' / / < \ or in part. It is only to be used for the project and
/ A . - ��' l \\ \ \` I sitespecifically identified herein and is not to be
\ \ \ \ I\ — — — — _ — _ / / , / / / , i • , r' y! •�, .S ► • "'� , . ( \ / / used on any other project. It is to be returned
MWAD ` ';at \ �\ \ a} // �i % r?, upon request.
J.
\ \ \\ \` Jam.-,.`— 1 -- __------- ---/ i'/ /' // // / .I 'Ta'��J I �` - f, \ / «• // �/
LINEAR VEGETATED AREA fa r MW-1S:�
ALONG EPHEMERAL STREAM;—
�\_ \\\------ _ RECEIVES RUNOFF FROM DA-N,— ..-.y'.:aea�. GP-10.•
\--------------_ w1 , f WOODED AREA �, 4 w ''A`• J/
RECEIVES RUNOFF
FROM DA-NE.
4 1 Ir
_... MW-1 1�1�1.:' - `zl'Y' o\\__.�,r--—
EPHEMERAL ;
STREAM.
100 YR FLOOD 1 'c - �,.,ri ° •? _ i \ \ \\ 1 . t '�,'.
ZONE 4MW-12 �All MW-8 .�'� l \ \ \\ \ \ � , •-.:\• �` J \ r .;�;
♦. +.- - w ` f
QIAI 1)
I
\ \ A\- M-k
Iwo
EXTENT OF PHASE
ONE LANDFILL WASTE
DA-NE \\ \ \ \\\\ _\� 12.8± ACRES. r :- .,
•
\ \ 3.41 AC. �° _ \ \ \ \ \ \ -— — — — — — — — — — — —
Amili \ \ \ — \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� r. 0.10± ACRES
-----------------
SEDIMENT POND
/ ., . ^ ,,• \\ \\ \\ 1\ \ g° / \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\ \\ \, �\ - /\\ /�, RECEIVES RUNOFF
:�\ ' • ` '.;� \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ 1\ 1 \ I /�/ ___%'� \ \\ \\ \ \� \\ \\\�� \ \� \ ��• y' /r FROM DA-E.
MW-3D 0.56 AC. \\\ I\ \ �.
0.11±ACRES _-� \\\\\\\\ \� � \ �\ \\ \ \ \ � / / J �� �' 2.80 AC.
SEDIMENT POND
RECEIVES RUNOFF �� /� �' �� // ,, \ \\\\ ACCESS \ \ \ \ \ / / / /
FROM DA-NW. \ \ > \ / / /?,
.. - MW-5 \\\\40 ROAD.
DA-SE / /// //// // //-"l' wi/i' i/.\/ 1i.' — MW-�F ���1►� �,R' a•
1.95 AC. /
,w
\ \ s�♦ M W 7 , S -
y� .., �ip
\ \ \ \ \ 60 i / / / ' �' �' '\ ;�- 100 YR FLOOD
\ ,� h° / o' / o'/ / / �1ff 1. 'N:r= i L 'I ZONE
100 YR FLOOD
ZONE 0.38± ACRES
SEDIMENT POD \\ \ \ \ \\ J/ / / / / // //' -- �,► ,. /
N
�..: ;-
/ RECEIVES RUNOFF
FROM DA-SW. \ \ \� — —' /X,
\ _3
xvil.
EPHEMERAL : ,� „.•� }, '.+;:
STREAM
— — M W-2 D �, ,• .�.
MW-2S Q�oe
LINEAR VEGETATED AREA
- / ALONG EPHEMERAL STREAM
RECEIVES RUNOFF FROM DA-SE.
/rw "Oox
c l _ ••
Nev
r' 100 YR FLOOD , �., > ��+ . \\► /'/ / _',.'.� �~.. +i•°• `y i
Wes~
z
w
0
a
0
ti O w
CO o
06
Z
w
z
z
OO
Q'
UJ co
z
w
LEGEND co
� � M
C L M
O n N m
EX. PROPERTY LINE _ "
O Z m
EX. PHASE 1 LANDFILL EXTENT OF WASTE 2 o u
�n co
EX. 200' LANDFILL SETBACK o a 0
wli�a
EX.STREAM
EX. LOCATION OF EXISTING
GROUNDWATER AND GAS MONITORING
WELLS
EX. 1' AND 2' CONTOURS
EX. 5' AND 10' CONTOURS
EX. LANDFILL DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY Z
O
EX. LANDFILL DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION
w
00
Q
z
_o
Of
ZONE
��. 0 80 160 240 320
-' +.,.- Scale 1 " = 80'
a--/
L.L
•0,
C
O
(B
U
JIM
0
O
•
U
y
JIM
_�
0
CL
U
>
O
_
i
0
c
—
U
U
0
J
JIM
N
� /A,
V /
co
w
a_
WE KW RN
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
DATE 8/29/23
PROJECT NO
C 8
SHEET NO.

DETAIL D1/C9- PLAN VIEW TYPICAL LAYOUT OF HYBRID
POPLAR TREES IN PHYTOPLOTS
(NTS)
STANDARD GRADE RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX JUMBO RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX
NDS 113BC OR EQUIVALENT NDS 117BC OR EQUIVALENT
DETAIL D5/C9- PLASTIC IRRIGATION VALVE BOXES
(NTS)
AN AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE
SHALL BE PLACED AT HIGH POINT OF
SUPPLY LINE AT TOP OF LANDFILL
- 6' METAL FENCE POST
(1.25 LB./FOOT)
TWO POSTS DRIVEN IN 24"
AT VALVE BOX
MODEL # 12" DEEP BY 18" BY 12"
ARV200-EPT-PV (APPROX) STANDARD
AIR / VACUUM GRADE VALVE BOX.
RELEASE VALVE\ NDS 113BC OR
OR EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT.
SOIL
BACKFILL
GROUND
\GRAVEL BACKFILL
2" SCH40 PVC SOCKET X SOCKET X FNPT TEE
DETAIL D6/C9- IRRIGATION AIRNACUUM RELIEF VALVE INSTALLATION
(NTS)
ONE YEAR OLD SEE DETAIL D4/--
CULTIVAR POLES FOR INDIVIDUAL
10' O.C. ROWS -g' TALL TYP. PLANTING DETAIL
7' — — —
(TYP.) A
TREES ARE
PLANTED 10' O.C.
ALONG ROWS
8" AUGER FILL PLACED
BORE HOLE FOR 4' MIN. @ 4' SOIL
(TYP.) SOIL DEPTH DEPTH TOTAL
TOP OF LANDFILL
LU
U
now 0
� %L ,- 111 � ✓ 11 L .
EX. LANDFILLWASTE
8" AUGER
BORE HOLE
(TYP.)
DETAIL D2/C9- TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF HYBRID POPLAR TREE
(NTS) PHYTO PLANTING ON TOP OF LANDFILL
10' O.C. ROWS
TREES ARE
PLANTED 10' O.C.
ALONG ROWS
ONE YEAR OLD
CULTIVAR POLES
7'-9' TALL (TYP.)
SOIL DEPTH
VARIES
�O P�NVPR/
EX. LANDFILL WASTE
SEE DETAIL D4/--
FOR INDIVIDUAL
PLANTING DETAIL r— —
DETAIL D3/C9- TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF HYBRID POPLAR TREE
(NTS) PHYTO PLANTING ON SIDE SLOPES OF LANDFILL
A SPRING CHECK VALVE AND BALL VALVE TO BE INSTALLED AT
EACH ZONE SUPPLY LINE.
6' METAL FENCE POST (1.25
LB./FOOT) - DRIVEN IN 24" - TWO
POSTS AT EVERY VALVE BOX
12" DEEP BY18"BY12"
(APPROX) STANDARD 2" PVC SPRING CHECK
GRADE VALVE BOX. VALVE (FNPT)
NDS 113BC OR
EQUIVALENT. 2" SCH40 PVC THREADED
//CHECKOVALVE IDE OF
BACKFILL
�•:, "•:�
DETAIL D7/C9- IRRIGATION CHECK VALVE INSTALLATION
(NTS)
DRIP MANIFOLD CONNECTION DETAIL
FOR BOTH SUPPLY AND RETURN MANIFOLDS
FINISHED GRADE
VROOTED HYBRID POPLAR
'HIP T-9' TALL
\MPED AND MOUNDED
D DRAIN WATER
0 AUGER HOLE (TYP.)
NCKFILL HOLE WITH
DMPOST AND
UGER CUTTINGS
,CE TWO AGRIFORM
ILETS IN HOLE AS SHOWN
BLETS SHALL NOT BE IN
ECT CONTACT WITH WHIP)
DETAIL D4/C9- TYPICAL PLANTING DETAIL
OF HYBRID POPLAR TREES IN PHYTOPLOTS
(NTS)
1f.
1$„ ",— 3/4" FLEXIBLE SCH40 PIPE (APPROXIMATELY 18" LENGTH)
DRIP LATERAL CONNECTOR - JAIN IRRIGATION, MODEL PL-SSP1
/ MANIFOLD PIPE (2" SCH40 PVC)
2" SCH40 TEE (2" X 3/4" REDUCING TEE - SOCKET)
DETAIL D8/C9- IRRIGATION MANIFOLD CONNECTION FOR SUPPLY LINES
(NTS)
PRELIMINARY ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
This drawing is the property of ELM Site Solutions,
Inc and is not to be reproduced or copied in whole
or in part. It is only to be used for the project and
site specifically identified herein and is not to be
used on any other project. It is to be returned
upon request.
Wes~
Z
W
0
a
O
0 LU
c
CO
z
w
z
z
00
W w
40
0
Z
O
`H^
V J
W
W
T
m
M
a)
Ca
n
U co
M
N r`
y Lo M
n0 N
80 U
�oMZ-
-
x=
U) co a)
b
J
J Q L
wawa
co
c
O
L
U
0
Z
U aj
C
0
c �
J
C
06 CU
U
U
U
N
O
00
WE KW RN
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED
HORIZONTAL SCALE SEE PLAN
DATE 8/29/23
PROJECT NO
C9
SHEET NO.

Appendices
CAP Addendum Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

Appendix A
US EPA Evapotranspiration Landfill
Cover Systems Fact Sheet
CAP Addendum Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

ED sTATFs
z yv
� z
w
O 0
o�
PRO
INTRODUCTION
Evapotranspiration Landfill
Cover Systems Fact Sheet
Alternative final cover systems, such as
evapotranspiration (ET) cover systems, are
increasingly being considered for use at waste
disposal sites, including municipal solid waste
(MSW) and hazardous waste landfills when
equivalent performance to conventional final cover
systems can be demonstrated. Unlike
conventional cover system designs that use
materials with low hydraulic permeability (barrier
layers) to minimize the downward migration of
water from the cover to the waste (percolation), ET
cover systems use water balance components to
minimize percolation. These cover systems rely
on the properties of soil to store water until it is
either transpired through vegetation or evaporated
from the soil surface. Compared to conventional
cover systems, ET cover systems are expected to
be less costly to construct. While ET cover
systems are being proposed, tested, or have been
installed at a number of waste disposal sites, field
performance data and design guidance for these
cover systems are limited (Benson and others
2002; Hauser, Weand, and Gill 2001).
This fact sheet provides a brief summary of ET
cover systems, including general considerations in
their design, performance, monitoring, cost,
current status, limitations on their use, and project -
specific examples. It is intended to provide basic
information to site owners and operators,
regulators, consulting engineers, and other
interested parties about these potential design
alternatives. An on-line database has been
developed that provides more information about
specific projects using ET covers, and is available
at http://cluin.org/products/a/tcovers. Additional
sources of information are also provided.
The information contained in this fact sheet was
obtained from currently available technical
literature and from discussions with site managers.
It is not intended to serve as guidance for design
or construction, nor indicate the appropriateness of
using ET final cover systems at a particular site.
The fact sheet does not address alternative
materials (for example, geosynthetic clay liners) for
use in final cover systems, or other alternative
cover system designs, such as asphalt covers.
Online Database:
http://cluin.org/Products/a/tcovers
BACKGROUND
Final cover systems are used at landfills and other
types of waste disposal sites to control moisture
and percolation, promote surface water runoff,
minimize erosion, prevent direct exposure to the
waste, control gas emissions and odors, prevent
occurrence of disease vectors and other
nuisances, and meet aesthetic and other end -use
purposes. Final cover systems are intended to
remain in place and maintain their functions for an
extended period of time.
In addition, cover systems are also used in the
remediation of hazardous waste sites. For
example, cover systems may be applied to source
areas contaminated at or near the ground surface
or at abandoned dumps. In such cases, the cover
system may be used alone or in conjunction with
other technologies to contain the waste (for
example, slurry walls and groundwater pump and
treat systems).
The design of cover systems is site -specific and
depends on the intended function of the final cover
— components can range from a single -layer
system to a complex multi -layer system. To
This fact sheet is intended solely to provide general information about evapotranspiration covers. It is not intended, nor can it be
relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. Use or mention of trade names does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
United States Solid Waste and EPA 542-F-03-015
Environmental Protection Emergency Response September 2003
Agency (5102G) www.epa.gov
http://cluin.org

minimize percolation, conventional cover systems use
low -permeability barrier layers. These barrier layers
are often constructed of compacted clay,
geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners, or
combinations of these materials.
Depending on the material type and construction
method, the saturated hydraulic conductivities for these
barrier layers are typically between 1x10-5 and 1x10-9
centimeters per second (cm/s). In addition,
conventional cover systems generally include
additional layers, such as surface layers to prevent
erosion; protection layers to minimize freeze/thaw
damage; internal drainage layers; and gas collection
layers (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1991;
Hauser, Weand, and Gill 2001).
Regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) for the design and construction
of final cover systems are based on using a barrier
layer (conventional cover system). Under RCRA
Subtitle D (40 CFR 258.60), the minimum design
requirements for final cover systems at MSW landfills
depend on the bottom liner system or the natural
subsoils, if no liner system is present. The final cover
system must have a permeability less than that of the
bottom liner system (or natural subsoils) or less than
1x10-5 cm/s, whichever is less. This design
requirement was established to minimize the "bathtub
effect," which occurs when the landfill fills with liquid
because the cover system is more permeable than the
bottom liner system. This "bathtub effect' greatly
increases the potential for generation of leachate.
Figure 1 shows an example of a RCRA D cover at a
MSW landfill with a 6-inch soil erosion layer, a
geomembrane, and an 18-inch barrier layer of soil that
is compacted to yield a hydraulic conductivity equal to
or less than 1x10-5 cm/s (EPA 1992).
Figure 1. Examples of Final Cover Systems
Geomembrane
0.15 m:�i^t Erosion layer
Compacted clay layer Composite barrier
0.45. m k < 10 5 crnls
(a) MSW Landfill
As required r. ti;5 Topsoil layer
7r..._
> Frost penetration Cover soil layer
As required *N Sand drainage lay
k > 90 cmis
Compacted clayiayer r .
os m k < 1 o cmrs Composite barrier
As required <c ` Gas drainage layer
(b) Hazardous Waste Landfill
For hazardous waste landfills, RCRA Subtitle C (40
CFR 264 and 265) provides certain performance
criteria for final cover systems. While RCRA does not
specify minimum design requirements, EPA has issued
guidance for the minimum design of these final cover
systems. Figure 1 shows an example of a RCRA C
cover at a hazardous waste landfill (EPA 1989).
The design and construction requirements, as defined
in the RCRA regulations, may also be applied under
cleanup programs, such as Superfund or state cleanup
programs, as part of a remedy for hazardous waste
sites such as abandoned dumps. In these instances,
the RCRA regulations for conventional covers usually
are identified as applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for the site.
Under RCRA, an alternative design, such as an ET
cover, can be proposed in lieu of a RCRA design if it
can be demonstrated that the alternative provides
equivalent performance with respect to reduction in
percolation and other criteria, such as erosion
resistance and gas control.
DESCRIPTION
ET cover systems use one or more vegetated soil
layers to retain water until it is either transpired through
vegetation or evaporated from the soil surface. These
cover systems rely on the water storage capacity of the
soil layer, rather than low hydraulic conductivity
materials, to minimize percolation. ET cover system
designs are based on using the hydrological processes
(water balance components) at a site, which include
the water storage capacity of the soil, precipitation,
surface runoff, evapotranspiration, and infiltration. The
greater the storage capacity and evapotranspirative
properties, the lower the potential for percolation
through the cover system. ET cover system designs
tend to emphasize the following (Dwyer 2003;
Hakonson 1997; Hauser, Weand and Gill 2001):
• Fine-grained soils, such as silts and clayey silts,
that have a relatively high water storage capacity
• Native vegetation to increase evapotranspiration
• Locally available soils to streamline construction
and provide for cost savings
In addition to being called ET cover systems, these
types of covers have also been referred to in the
literature as water balance covers, alternative earthen
final covers, vegetative landfill covers, soil -plant
covers, and store -and -release covers.
Two general types of ET cover systems are monolithic
barriers and capillary barriers. Monolithic covers, also
referred to as monofill covers, use a single vegetated

soil layer to retain water until it is either transpired
through vegetation or evaporated from the soil surface.
A conceptual design of a monolithic cover system is
shown in Figure 2. Exhibit 1 provides an example of a
full-scale monolithic cover at a MSW landfill.
Capillary barrier cover systems consist of a finer -
grained soil layer (like that of a monolithic cover
system) overlying a coarser -grained material layer,
usually sand or gravel, as shown conceptually in
Figure 3. The differences in the unsaturated hydraulic
properties between the two layers minimize percolation
into the coarser -grained (lower) layer under
unsaturated conditions. The finer -grained layer of a
capillary barrier cover system has the same function as
the monolithic soil layer; that is, it stores water until it
is removed from the soil by evaporation or transpiration
mechanisms. The coarser -grained layer forms a
capillary break at the interface of the two layers, which
allows the finer -grained layer to retain more water than
a monolithic cover system of equal thickness.
Capillary forces hold the water in the finer -grained
Figure 2. Conceptual Design of a Monolithic ET
Final Cover
Vegetation
Fine-grained Layer
Interim Cover
Waste
layer until the soil near the interface approaches
saturation. If saturation of the finer -grained layer
occurs, the water will move relatively quickly into and
through the coarser -grained layer and to the waste
below. Exhibit 2 provides an example of a capillary
barrier field demonstration at a MSW landfill (Dwyer
2003, Stormont 1997).
Exhibit 1. Monolithic ET Cover at Lopez Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Los Angeles, CA
Site type: Municipal solid waste landfill
Scale: Full-scale
Cover design: The ET cover was installed in 1999 and consists of a 3-foot silty sand/clayey sand layer, which
overlies a 2-foot foundation layer. The cover soil was placed in 18-inch lifts and compacted to 95 percent with
a permeability of less than 3xl0' cm/s. Native vegetation was planted, including artemesia, salvia, lupines,
sugar bush, poppy, and grasses.
Regulatory status: In 1998, Lopez Canyon Sanitary Landfill received conditional approval for an ET cover,
which required a minimum of two years of field performance data to validate the model used for the design. An
analysis was conducted and provided the basis for final regulatory approval of the ET cover. The cover was
fully approved in October 2002 by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region.
Performance data: Two moisture monitoring systems were installed, one at Disposal Area A and one at
Disposal Area ABplus in May and November 1999, respectively. Each monitoring system has two stacks of
time domain reflectometry probes that measure soil moisture at 24-inch intervals to a maximum depth of 78
inches, and a station for collecting weather data. Based on nearly 3 years of data, there is generally less than
a 5 percent change in the relative volumetric moisture content at the bottom of the cover compared to nearly 90
percent change near the surface. This implies that most of the water infiltrating the cover is being removed via
evapotranspiration and is not reaching the bottom of the cover.
Modeling: The numerical model UNSAT-H was used to predict the annual and cumulative percolation through
the cover. The model was calibrated with 12 months of soil moisture content and weather data. Following
calibration, UNSAT-H predicted a cumulative percolation of 50 cm for the ET cover and 95 cm for a
conventional cover over a 10-year period. The model predicted an annual percolation of approximately 0 cm
for both covers during the first year. During years 3 through 10 of the simulation, the model predicted less
annual percolation for the ET cover than for the conventional cover.
Maintenance activities: During the first 18 months, irrigation was conducted to help establish the vegetation.
Once or twice a year, brush is cleared to comply with Fire Department regulations. Prior to the rainy season,
an inspection is conducted to check and clear debris basins and deck inlets. No mowing activities or fertilizer
applications have been conducted or are planned.
Cost: Costs were estimated at $4.5 million, which includes soil importation, revegetation, quality control and
assurance, construction management, and installation and operation of moisture monitoring systems.
Sources: City of Los Angeles 2003, Hadj-Hamou and Kavazanjian 2003.
More information available at http://cluin.org/products/aitcovers
3

Figure 3. Conceptual Design of a Capillary
Barrier ET Final Cover
Fine-grained Layer
Coarse -grained Layer
Interim Cover
Waste
In addition to being potentially less costly to construct,
ET covers have the potential to provide equal or
superior performance compared to conventional cover
systems, especially in arid and semi -arid
environments. In these environments, they may be
less prone to deterioration from dessication, cracking,
and freezing/thawing cycles. ET covers also may be
able to minimize side slope instability, because they do
not contain geomembrane layers, which can cause
slippage (Weand and others 1999; Benson and others
2002; Dwyer, Stormont, and Anderson 1999).
Capillary barrier ET cover systems may also eliminate
the need for a separate biointrusion and/or gas
collection layer. The coarser -grained layer can act as
a biointrusion layer to resist root penetration and
animal intrusion, due to its particle size and low water
content. The coarser -grained layer also can act as a
gas collection layer, because the soil properties and
location within the cover system are comparable to a
typical gas collection layer in a conventional cover
system (Dwyer 2003, Stormont 1997).
LIMITATIONS
ET cover systems are generally considered potentially
applicable only in areas that have arid or semi -arid
climates; their application is generally considered
limited to the western United States. In addition, site -
specific conditions, such as site location and landfill
characteristics, may limit the use or effectiveness of ET
cover systems. Local climatic conditions, such as
amount, distribution, and form of precipitation,
including amount of snow pack, can limit the
effectiveness of an ET cover at a given site. For
example, if a large amount of snow melted when
vegetation was dormant, the cover may not have
sufficient water storage capacity, and percolation might
occur (EPA 2000a; Hauser, Weand, and Gill 2001).
Further, landfill characteristics, such as production of
landfill gases, may limit the use of ET covers. The
cover system may not adequately control gas
emissions since typical ET cover designs do not have
impermeable layers to restrict gas movement. If gas
collection is required at the site, it may be necessary to
modify the design of the cover to capture and vent the
gas generated in the landfill. In addition, landfill gas
may limit the effectiveness of an ET cover, because
the gases may be toxic to the vegetation (Weand and
others 1999; EPA 2000a).
Limited data are available to describe the performance
of ET cover systems in terms of minimizing percolation,
as well as the covers' ability to minimize erosion, resist
biointrusion, and remain effective for an extended
period of time. While the principles of ET covers and
Exhibit 2. Capillary Barrier ET Cover at Lake County Landfill, Poison, Montana
Site type: Municipal solid waste landfill
Scale: Field demonstration under Alternative Cover Assessment Program (ACAP)
Cover designs: The capillary barrier test section was installed in November 1999. From the surface
downward, it is composed of 6 inches of topsoil, 18 inches of moderately compacted silt, and 24 inches of
sandy gravel. The cover was seeded in March 2000 with a mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, including
bluegrass, wheatgrass, alfalfa, and prickly rose shrubs. A conventional composite cover test section was also
constructed at the site.
Performance data: Percolation is being measured with a lysimeter connected to flow monitoring systems, soil
moisture is being measured with water content reflectometers, and soil matric potential and soil temperature
are being monitored with heat dissipation units. From November 1999 through July 2002, the capillary barrier
cover system had a cumulative percolation of 0.5 mm. Total precipitation was 837 mm over the 32-month
period. Additional field data are expected to be collected through 2005.
Modeling: Numerical modeling was conducted using HYDRUS 2-D, which simulated the wettest year on
record over the simulation period of 10 years. The model predicted approximately 0.6 mm of percolation during
the first year, and 0.1 mm per year for the remaining 9 years.
Sources: Bolen and others 2001, Benson and others 2002.
More information available at http://cluin.org/products/aitcovers
4

their corresponding soil properties have been
understood for many years, their application as final
cover systems for landfills has emerged only within the
past 10 years. Limited performance data are available
on which to base applicability or equivalency decisions
(Dwyer 2003; Dwyer, Stormont, and Anderson 1999;
Hauser and Weand 1998).
Numerical models are used to predict the performance
and assist in the design of final cover systems. The
availability of models used to conduct water balance
analyses of ET cover systems is currently limited, and
the results can be inconsistent. For example, models
such as Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) and Unsaturated Water and Heat Flow
(UNSAT-H) do not address all of the factors related to
ET cover system performance. These models, for
instance, do not consider percolation through
preferential pathways; may underestimate or
overestimate percolation; and have different levels of
detail regarding weather, soil, and vegetation. In
addition, HELP does not account for physical
processes, such as matric potential, that generally
govern unsaturated flow in ET covers. Further
information about numerical models is provided under
the Performance and Monitoring section of this fact
sheet (Dwyer 2003; Weand and others 1999; Khire,
Benson, and Bosscher 1997).
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The design of ET cover systems is based on providing
sufficient water storage capacity and
evapotranspiration to control moisture and water
percolation into the underlying waste. The following
considerations generally are involved in the design of
ET covers.
Climate — The total amount of precipitation over a
year, as well as its form and distribution, determines
the total amount of water storage capacity needed for
the cover system. The cover may need to
accommodate a spring snowmelt event that causes the
amount of water at the cover to be relatively high for a
short period of time or conditions during cool winter
weather with persistent, light precipitation. Storage
capacity is particularly important if the event occurs
when local vegetation is dormant, yielding less
evapotranspiration. Other factors related to climate
that are important to cover design are temperature,
atmospheric pressure, and relative humidity (Benson
2001; EPA 2000a; Hauser, Weand, and Gill 2001).
Soil type — Finer -grained materials, such as silts and
clayey silts, are typically used for monolithic ET cover
systems and the top layer of a capillary barrier ET
cover system because they contain finer particles and
provide a greater storage capacity than sandy soils.
Sandy soils are typically used for the bottom layer of
the capillary barrier cover system to provide a contrast
in unsaturated hydraulic properties between the two
layers. Many ET covers are constructed of soils that
include clay loam, silty loam, silty sand, clays, and
sandy loam.
The storage capacity of the soil varies among different
types of soil, and depends on the quantity of fine
particles and the bulk density of the soil. Compaction
impacts bulk density, which in turn affects the storage
capacity of the soil and the growth of roots. One key
aspect of construction is minimizing the amount of
compaction during placement. Higher bulk densities
may reduce the storage capacity of the soil and inhibit
growth of roots (Chadwick and others 1999; Hauser,
Weand, and Gill 2001).
Soil thickness — The thickness of the soil layer(s)
depends on the required storage capacity, which is
determined by the water balance at the site. The soil
layers need to accommodate extreme water
conditions, such as snowmelts and summer
thunderstorms, or periods of time during which ET
rates are low and plants are dormant. Monolithic ET
covers have been constructed with soil layers ranging
from 2 feet to 10 feet. Capillary barrier ET covers have
been constructed with finer -grained layers ranging from
1.5 feet to 5 feet, and coarser -grained layers ranging
from 0.5 foot to 2 feet.
Vegetation types — Vegetation for the cover system is
used to promote transpiration and minimize erosion by
stabilizing the surface of the cover. Grasses
(wheatgrass and clover), shrubs (rabbitbrush and
sagebrush), and trees (willow and hybrid poplar) have
been used on ET covers. A mixture of native plants
consisting of warm- and cool -season species usually
is planted, because native vegetation is more tolerant
than imported vegetation to regional conditions, such
as extreme weather and disease. The combination of
warm- and cool -season species provides water uptake
throughout the entire growing season, which enhances
transpiration. In addition, native vegetation is usually
planted, because these species are less likely to
disturb the natural ecosystem (Dwyer, Stormont, and
Anderson 1999; EPA 2000a).
Soil and organic properties — Nutrient and salinity
levels affect the ability of the soil to support vegetation.
The soil layers need to be capable of providing
nutrients to promote vegetation growth and maintain
the vegetation system. Low nutrient or high salinity
levels can be detrimental to vegetation growth, and if
present, supplemental nutrients may need to be added
to promote vegetation growth. For example, at Fort
Carson, Colorado, biosolids were added to a
monolithic ET cover to increase organic matter and
provide a slow release of nitrogen to enhance
vegetation growth. In addition, topsoil promotes
5

growth of vegetation and reduces erosion. For ET
covers, the topsoil layer is generally a minimum of six
inches thick (McGuire, England, and Andraski 2001).
Control layer types — Control layers, such as those
used to minimize animal intrusion, promote drainage,
and control and collect landfill gas, are often included
for conventional cover systems and may also be
incorporated in ET cover system designs. For
example, a proposed monolithic ET cover at Sandia
National Laboratories in New Mexico will have a
biointrusion fence with 1/4-inch squares between the
topsoil layer and the native soil layer to prevent
animalsfrom creating preferential pathways, potentially
resulting in percolation. The biointrusion layer,
however, will not inhibit root growth to allow for
transpiration. At another site, Monticello Uranium Mill
Tailings Site in Utah, a capillary barrier ET design has
a 12-inch soil/rock admixture as an animal intrusion
layer located 44 inches below the surface, directly
above the capillary barrier layer.
In addition, a capillary barrier cover demonstration at
Sandia National Laboratories has a drainage layer
located above the capillary break. A drainage layer
consisting of an upper layer of sand and a lower layer
of gravel is located directly below the topsoil layer.
The sand serves as a filter to prevent topsoil from
clogging the drainage layer, while the gravel allows for
lateral drainage of water that has infiltrated through the
topsoil (Bolen and others 2001, Dwyer 2003).
In more recent applications, several types of ET cover
designs also have incorporated synthetic materials,
such as geomembranes, which are used to enhance
the function of minimizing water into the waste. For
example, the Operating Industries Inc. Landfill in
California has incorporated a soil layer with a
geosynthetic clay liner in the design. The cover
system for this site will reduce surface gas emissions,
prevent oxygen intrusion and percolation, and provide
for erosion control (EPA 2000b).
PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING
Protection of groundwater quality is a primary
performance goal for all waste containment systems,
including final cover systems. The potential adverse
impact to groundwater quality results from the release
of leachate generated in landfills or other waste
disposal units such as surface impoundments. The
rate of leachate generation (and potential impact on
groundwater) can be minimized by keeping liquids out
of a landfill or contaminated source area of a
remediation site. As a result, the function of minimizing
percolation becomes a key performance criterion for a
final cover system (EPA 1991).
Monitoring the performance of ET cover systems has
generally focused on evaluating the ability of these
designs to minimize water drainage into the waste.
Percolation performance typically is reported as a flux
rate (inches or millimeters of water that have migrated
downward through the base of the cover in a period of
time, generally considered as 1 year). Percolation
monitoring for ET cover systems is measured directly
using monitoring systems such as lysimeters or
estimated indirectly using soil moisture measurements
and calculating a flux rate. A more detailed summary
on the advantages and disadvantages of both
approaches can be found in Benson and others 2001
(EPA 1991, Benson and others 2001).
Percolation monitoring can also be evaluated indirectly
by using leachate collection and removal systems. For
landfills underlain with these systems, the amount and
composition of leachate generated can be used as an
indicator of the performance of a cover system (the
higher the percolation, the more leachate that will be
generated) (EPA 1991).
Although the ability to minimize percolation is a
performance criterion for final cover systems, limited
data are available about percolation performance for
final cover systems for both conventional and
alternative designs. Most of the recent data on flux
rates have been generated by two federal research
programs, the Alternative Landfill Cover Demonstration
(ALCD) and the Alternative Cover Assessment
Program (ACAP); see Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively,
for further information on these programs. From these
programs, flux rate performance data are available for
14 sites with demonstration -scale ET cover systems
(Dwyer 2003, Benson and others 2002).
In addition, previous studies have been conducted that
monitored the performance of ET covers. Selected
studies include the following: integrated test plot
experiment in Los Alamos, NM, which monitored both
types of ET covers from 1984 to 1987 (Nyhan,
Hakonson, and Drennon 1990); Hill Air Force Base
alternative cover study in Utah, which evaluated three
different covers (RCRA Subtitle D, monolithic ET, and
capillary barrier ET) over a 4-year period (Hakonson
and others 1994); and Hanford field lysimeter test
facility in Richland, WA, which monitored ET covers for
6 years (Gee and others 1993).
Additional demonstration projects of ET covers
conducted in the 1980's and early 1990's are
discussed in the ACAP Phase I Report, which is
available at http://www.acap.dri.edu.
1.1

Exhibit 3. Alternative Landfill Cover Demonstration (ALCD)
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has sponsored the ALCD, which is a large-scale field test of two conventional
designs (RCRA Subtitle C and Subtitle D) and four alternative landfill covers (monolithic ET cover, capillary barrier ET
cover, geosynthetic clay liner cover, and anisotropic [layered capillary barrier] ET cover). The test was conducted at
Sandia National Laboratories, located on Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with cover design
information available at http://www.sandia.govISubsurfacelfactshtslertlalcd.pdf. The ALCD has collected information on
construction, cost, and performance that is needed to compare alternative cover designs with conventional covers. The
RCRA covers were constructed in 1995, and the ET covers were constructed in 1996. All of the covers are 43 feet wide by
328 feet long and were seeded with native vegetation. The purpose of the project is to use the performance data to help
demonstrate equivalency and refine numerical models to more accurately predict cover system performance (Dwyer 2003).
The ALCD has collected data on percolation using a lysimeter and soil moisture to monitor cover performance. Total
precipitation (precip.) and percolation (perc.) volumes based on 5 years of data are provided below. The ET covers
generally have less percolation than the Subtitle D cover for each year shown below. More information on the ALCD cover
performance can be found in Dwyer 2003.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
(May 1 - Dec 31)
(Jan 1 - Jun 25)
Precip.
Perc.
Precip.
Perc.
Precip.
Perc.
Precip.
Perc.
Precip.
Perc.
Precip.
Perc.
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
Monolithic
267.00
0.08
291.98
0.22
225.23
0.01
299.92
0.00
254.01
0.00
144.32
0.00
ET
Capillary
267.00
0.54
291.98
0.41
225.23
0.00
299.92
0.00
254.01
0.00
144.32
0.00
barrier ET
Anisotropic
267.00
0.05
291.98
0.07
225.23
0.14
299.92
0.00
254.01
0.00
144.32
0.00
(layered
capillary
barrier) ET
Geosynthetic
267.00
0.51
291.98
0.19
225.23
2.15
299.92
0.00
254.01
0.02
144.32
0.00
clay liner
Subtitle C
267.00
0.04
291.98
0.15
225.23
0.02
299.92
0.00
254.01
0.00
144.32
0.00
Subtitle D
267.00
3.56
291.98
2.48
1225.23
1 1.56
299.92
1 0.00
1254.01
1 0.00
1 144.32
0.74
Monitoring systems - Lysimeters are installed
underneath a cover system, typically as geomembrane
liners backfilled with a drainage layer and shaped to
collect water percolation. Water collected in the
lysimeter is directed toward a monitoring point and
measured using a variety of devices (for example,
tipping bucket, pressure tranducers). Lysimeters have
been used in the ALCD and ACAP programs for
collecting performance data for ET cover systems.
Soil moisture monitoring can be used to determine
moisture content at discrete locations in cover systems
and to evaluate changes over time in horizontal or
vertical gradients. Soil moisture is measured using
methods to determine relative humidity, soil matrix
potential, and resistance. Table 1 presents examples
of non-destructive techniques that have been used to
assess soil moisture content of ET cover systems. A
high soil moisture value indicates that the water
content of the cover system is approaching its storage
capacity, thereby increasing the potential for
percolation. Soil moisture is especially important for
capillary barrier ET cover systems; when the finer -
grained layer becomes saturated, the capillary barrier
can fail resulting in water percolating through the highly
permeable layer to the waste below (Hakonson 1997).
Maintaining the effectiveness of the cover system for
an extended period of time is another important
performance criterion for ET covers as well as
conventional covers. Short-term and long-term
performance monitoring of a final cover system
includes settlement effects, gas emissions, erosion or
slope failure, and other factors.
Numerical models - While there are limitations to
numerical models, as previously described, they have
been used to predict cover performance and assist in
the design of ET cover systems. Numerical models
have been used to compare the expected performance
of ET cover systems to conventional cover systems.
By entering multiple parameters and evaluating the
design of cover systems, designs can be modified until
7

Exhibit 4. Alternative Cover Assessment Program (ACAP)
EPA is conducting the ACAP to evaluate the performance of alternative landfill covers. ACAP began in 1998, and cover
performance is currently being evaluated at 13 sites. The sites are located in eight states from California to Ohio, and
include a variety of landfill types, such as MSW, construction and demolition waste, and hazardous waste landfills. At eight
sites, conventional and ET covers are being tested side by side. At the remaining five sites, only ET covers are being
tested.
The alternative covers typically were constructed with local soils and native vegetation. At two facilities, however, hybrid
poplar trees were used as vegetation. At 11 sites, percolation performance is being evaluated by lysimeters. At the other
two sites, performance is being evaluated indirectly by monitoring leachate production. Soil moisture is also being
evaluated at all 13 sites. Below is an example of the field data for precipitation (precip.) and percolation (perc.) volumes at
3 of the sites. A summary of field cover performance for all 13 sites through July 2002 is provided in Albright and Benson
2002. More information about ACAP is available on the Desert Research Institute website at http://www.acap.dri.edu/.
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Precip.
Perc.
Precip.
Perc.
Precip.
Perc.
Start
Site
Cover Design
Date
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
Monolithic ET
11/00
225
negligible
300
1.5
Altamont, CA
(semi -arid)
Composite/
11/00
225
negligible
300
negligible
compacted clay
Capillary barrier ET
11/99
300
0.05
300
0.05
250
0.45
Polson, MT
(semi -arid)
Composite/
11/99
300
0.5
300
0.5
250
0.5
compacted clay
Capillary barrier ET
10/00
600
55
200
negligible
(thick)
Capillary barrier ET
10/00
600
100
200
negligible
Omaha, NE
(humid)
(thin)
Composite/
10/00
600
5
200
negligible
compacted clay
Table 1. Examples of Non -Destructive Soil Moisture Monitoring Methods
Method
Description
Instrumentation
Tensiometer
Measures the matric potential of a given soil,
Commonly consists of a porous ceramic cup
which is converted to soil moisture content
connected to a pressure measuring device
through a rigid plastic tube
Psychrometer
Measures relative humidity (soil moisture)
Generally consists of a thermocouple, a
within a soil
reference electrode, a heat sink, a porous
ceramic bulb or wire mesh screen, and a
recorder
Electrical resistance blocks
Measures resistance resulting from a gradient
Consists of electrodes embedded in a
between the sensor and the soil; higher
gypsum, nylon, or fiberglass porous material
resistance indicates lower soil moisture
Neutron attenuation
Emits high-energy neutrons into the soil that
Consists of a probe inserted into access
collide with hydrogen atoms associated with
boreholes with aluminum or polyvinyl chloride
soil water and counts the number of pulses,
casing
which is correlated to moisture content
Time domain reflectrometry
Sends pulses through a cable and observes
Consists of a cable tester (or specifically
the reflected waveform, which is correlated to
designed commercial time domain
soil moisture
reflectrometry unit), coaxial cable, and a
stainless steel probe
W

specific performance results are achieved. The
numerical model HELP is the most widely used water
balance model for landfill cover design. UNSAT-H and
HYDRUS-21D are two other numerical models that have
been used frequently for the design of ET covers.
HELP and UNSAT-H are in the public domain, while
HYDRUS-21D is available from the International Ground
Water Modeling Center in Golden, CO
http://typhoon.mines.edu (Dwyer 2003; Khire, Benson,
and Bosscher 1997).
Recent studies have compared available numerical
models and found that cover design depends on site -
specific factors, such as climate and cover type, and
that no single model is adequate to accurately predict
the performance of all ET covers. Several of the
studies identified are: intercode comparisons for
simulating water balance of surficial sediments in semi-
arid regions, which compared results of seven
numerical models for nonvegetated, engineered
covers in semiarid regions; water balance
measurements and computer simulations of landfill
covers, which evaluated ALCD cover performance and
predicted results from HELP and UNSAT-H; and field
hydrology and model predictions for final covers in the
ACAP, which compared performance results with those
predicted by HELP and UNSAT-H (Scanlon and others
2002; Dwyer 2003; Roesler, Benson, and Albright
2002).
COST
Limited cost data are available for the construction and
operation and maintenance (O&M) of ET cover
systems. The available construction cost data indicate
that these cover systems have the potential to be less
expensive to construct than conventional cover
systems. Factors affecting the cost of construction
include availability of materials, ease of installation,
and project scale. Locally available soils, which are
usually less costly than imported clay soils, are
typically used for ET cover systems. In addition, the
use of local materials generally minimizes
transportation costs (Dwyer 2003, EPA 2000a).
While the construction cost for an ET cover is expected
to be less than that for a conventional cover,
uncertainty exists about the costs for O&M after
construction. Several factors affecting the O&M cost
include frequency and level of maintenance (for
example, irrigation and nutrient addition), and activities
needed to address erosion and biointrusion. In
addition, when comparing the costs for ET and
conventional covers, it is important to consider the
types of components for each cover and their intended
function. For example, it would generally not be
appropriate to compare the costs for a conventional
cover with a gas collection layer to an ET cover with no
such layer. Additional information about the costs for
specific ET cover systems is provided in project
profiles, discussed below under Technology Status.
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
A searchable on-line database has been developed
with information about ET cover systems and is
available at http://cluin.org/products/a/tcovers. As of
September 2003, the database contained 56 projects
with monolithic ET cover systems and 21 projects with
capillary barrier ET cover systems; these systems have
been proposed, tested, or installed at 64 sites located
throughout the United States, generally from Georgia
to Oregon. Some sites have multiple projects, and
some projects have multiple covers and/or cover types.
The database provides project profiles that include site
background information (for example, site type,
climate, precipitation), project information (for example,
purpose, scale, status), cover information (for example,
design, vegetation, installation), performance and cost
information, points of contact, and references. Table
2 provides a summary of key information from the
database for 34 recent projects with monolithic ET or
capillary barrier ET covers.
In addition to this on-line database, several ongoing
federal and state initiated programs are demonstrating
and assessing the performance of ET cover systems.
The following programs provide performance data,
reports, and other useful information to help evaluate
the applicability of ET designs for final cover systems.
• Alternative Landfill Cover Demonstration — See
Exhibit 3 for more information or
http://www.sandia.govISubsurfacelfactshtslertl
alcd.pdf
• Alternative Cover Assessment Program — See
Exhibit 4 for more information or
http://www.acap.dri.edu
• Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council —
Published a report called Technology Overview
Using Case Studies of Alternative Landfill
Technologies and Associated Regulatory
Topics; March 2003. For further information,
see http://www.itrcweb.org
9

Table 2. Selected Sites Using or Recently Demonstrating Evapotranspiration (ET) Covers
Site Name and Location
Site Type
Status of Project
Date Installed
Monolithic ET Covers - Full Scale Projects
Barton County Landfill, Great Bend, KS
MSW landfill
Installation
NA
Coyote Canyon Landfill, Somis, CA
MSW landfill
Operational
April 1994
Duvall Custodial Landfill, Duvall, WA
MSW landfill
Operational
1999
Fort Carson, Colorado Springs, CO
MSW landfill
Operational
October 2000
Hastings Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site,
MSW landfill
Design
NA
Hastings, NE
Horseshoe Bend Landfill, Lawrenceburg, TN
Industrial waste landfill
Operational
1998
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
Radioactive waste site
Proposed
NA
Superfund Site, Idaho Falls, ID
Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site, OH
Industrial waste landfill
Proposed
NA
Johnson County Landfill, Shawnee, KS
MSW landfill
Installation
NA
Lakeside Reclamation Landfill, Beaverton, OR
Construction debris
Operational
1990
Lopez Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Los Angeles, CA
MSW landfill
Operational
1999
Marine Corps Logistics Base Superfund Site, GA
MSW and hazardous waste landfill
Proposed
NA
Municipal Waste Landfill at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM
MSW landfill
Operational
2002
Operating Industries Inc. Landfill Superfund Site, CA
MSW landfill
Operational
May 2000
Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX
Construction debris
Operational
2000
Site Name and Location
Site Type
Status of Project
Date Installed
Capillary Barrier ET Covers - Full Scale Projects
Gaffey Street Sanitary Landfill, Wilmington, CA
MSW landfill
Installation
NA
Hanford Superfund Site, Richland, WA'
Radioactive waste site
Operational
1994
McPherson County Landfill, McPherson, KS
MSW landfill
Operational
2002
Site Name and Location
Site Type
Status of Project
Date Installed
Monolithic ET Covers
- Demonstration Projects
Altamont Landfill, Livermore, CA (ACAP project)
Non -hazardous waste site
Operational
November 2000
Bluestem Landfill #2, Marion, IA (ACAP project)
MSW landfill
Operational
October 2000
Finley Buttes Regional Landfill, OR (ACAP project)
MSW landfill
Operational
November 2000
Green II Landfill, Logan, OH (ACAP project)
MSW and hazardous waste landfill
Operational
2000
Kiefer Landfill, Sloughhouse, CA (ACAP project)
Non -hazardous waste site
Operational
July 1999
Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA (ACAP project)
MSW and hazardous waste landfill
Operational
March 2000
Milliken Landfill, San Bernadino County, CA (ACAP project)
MSW landfill
Operational
1997
Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Marina, CA (ACAP project)
Non -hazardous waste site
Operational
May 2000
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site, Denver, CO
Hazardous waste site
Complete
April 1998
Sandia National Laboratories, NM (ALCD project)
Non -hazardous waste site
Operational
1996
Site Name and Location
Site Type
Status of Project
Date Installed
Capillary Barrier ET Covers - Demonstration Projects
Douglas County Landfill, Bennington, NE (ACAP project)
MSW landfill
Operational
August 2000
Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, UT
Hazardous waste landfill
Operational
1994
Lake County Landfill, Polson, MT (ACAP project)
MSW landfill
Operational
November 1999
Lewis and Clark County Landfill, MT (ACAP project)
Non -hazardous waste site
Operational
November 1999
Sandia National Laboratories, NM (ALCD project)
Non -hazardous waste site
Operational
1996
Uranium Mill Tailings Repository, UT (ACAP project)
Hazardous waste landfill
Operational
July 2000
Notes:
Project conducted as Superfund treatability test study with cover constructed over an existing waste site
NA Not Applicable
ALCD Alternative Landfill Cover Demonstration; program supported by DOE
ACAP Alternative Cover Assessment Program; program supported by EPA
10

REFERENCES
Albright, W.H. and C.H. Benson. 2002. "Alternative
CoverAssessment Program 2002 Annual Report."
Desert Research Institute. Publication No. 41182.
October.
Benson, C.H. 2001. "Alternative Earthen Final Covers
(AEFCs) or `ET' Caps." GEO Institute.
Proceedings, Liners and Covers for Waste
Containment Facilities. Atlanta, Georgia.
November 14 through 16.
Benson, C.H. and others. 2001. "Field Evaluation of
Alternative Earthen Final Covers." International
Journal of Phytoremediation. Volume 3, Number
1. Pages 105 through 127.
Benson, C.H. and others. 2002. "Evaluation of Final
Cover Performance: Field Data from the
Alternative Landfill Cover Assessment Program
(ACAP)." Proceedings, WM 2002 Conference.
Tucson, Arizona. February 24 through 28.
Bolen, M.M. and others. 2001. "Alternative Cover
Assessment Program: Phase II Report."
University of Wisconsin -Madison. Madison,
Wisconsin. September. Geo Engineering Report
01-10.
Chadwick, Jr., D. and others. 1999. "Field Test of
Potential RCRA-Equivalent Covers at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Colorado." Solid Waste
Association. Proceedings, North America's 4m
Annual Landfill Symposium. Denver, Colorado.
June 28 through 30. GR-LM 0004. Pages 21
through 33.
City of Los Angeles. 2003. E-mail Message
Regarding Lopez Canyon Landfill. From Doug
Walters, Sanitary Engineer, Department of Public
Works. To Kelly Madalinski, EPA. September 25.
Dwyer, S. 2003. "Water Balance Measurements and
Computer Simulations of Landfill Covers."
University of New Mexico, Civil Engineering
Department. May.
Dwyer, S.F., J.C. Stormont, and C.E. Anderson. 1999.
"Mixed Waste Landfill Design Report." Sandia
National Laboratories. SAND99-2514. October.
Gee, G. and others. 1993. "Field Lysimeter Test
Facility Status Report IV: FY 1993." Pacific
Laboratory, Richland, Washington. PNL-8911,
UC-902.
Hadj-Hamou, T. and E. Kavazanjian, Jr. 2003.
"Monitoring and Evaluation of Evapotranspirative
Cover Performance." GeoSyntec Consultants.
Hakonson, T.E. 1997. "Capping as an Alternative for
Landfill Closures -Perspectives and Approaches."
Environmental Science and Research Foundation.
Proceedings, Landfill Capping in the Semi -Arid
West: Problems, Perspectives, and Solutions.
Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. May 21
through 22. ESRF-019. Pages 1 through 18.
Hakonson, T. and others. 1994. "Hydrologic
Evaluation of Four Landfill Cover Designs at Hill
Air Force Base, Utah." Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. LAUR-93-
4469.
Hauser, V.L., and B.L. Weand. 1998. "Natural Landfill
Covers." Proceedings, Third Tri-Service
Environmental Technology Workshop. San Diego,
California. August 18 through 20.
Hauser, V.L., B.L. Weand, and M.D. Gill. 2001.
"Natural Covers for Landfills and Buried Waste."
Journal of Environmental Engineering.
September. Pages 768 through 775.
Khire, M.V., C.H. Benson, and P.J. Bosscher. 1997.
"Water Balance Modeling of Earthen Final
Covers." Journal of Geotechnica/ and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. August. Pages
744 through 754.
McGuire, P.E., J.A. England, and B.J. Andraski. 2001.
"An Evapotranspiration Cover for Containment at
a Semiarid Landfill Site." Florida State University.
Proceedings, 2001 International Containment &
Remediation Technology Conference. Orlando,
Florida. June 10 through 13.
Nyhan, J., Hakonson, T., and Drennon, B. 1990. "A
Water Balance Study of Two Landfill Cover
Designs for Semi -arid Regions." Journal of
Environmental Quality. Volume 19. Pages 281
through 288.
Roesler, A.C., C.H. Benson, and W.H. Albright. 2002.
"Field Hydrology and Model Predictions for Final
Covers in the Alternative Cover Assessment
Program-2002." University of Wisconsin -Madison.
Geo Engineering Report No. 02-08. September
20.
Scanlon, B.R., and others. 2002. "Intercode
comparisons for simulating water balance of
surficial sediments in semiarid regions." Water
Resources Research. Volume 38, Number 12.
11

Stormont, John C. 1997. "Incorporating Capillary
Barriers in Surface Cover Systems."
Environmental Science and Research Foundation.
Proceedings, Landfill Capping in the Semi -Arid
West: Problems, Perspectives, and Solutions.
Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. May 21
through 22. ESRF-019. Pages 39 through 51.
EPA. 1989. Technical Guidance Document: "Final
Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface
Impoundments." EPA/530-SW-89-047. July.
EPA. 1991. "Seminar Publication, Design and
Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers."
EPA/625/4-91/025. May.
NOTICE
Preparation of this fact sheet has been funded wholly
or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract Number 68-W-02-034. For more
information regarding this fact sheet, please contact
Mr. Kelly Madalinski, EPA, at [phone] or
[e-mail].
This fact sheet is available for viewing or downloading
from EPA's Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information
(CLU-IN) web site at http://cluin.org. Hard copies are
available free of charge from:
U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: [phone] or [phone]
Fax: [phone]
EPA. 1992. "Subtitle D Clarification." 40 CFR 257 &
258. Federal Register pages 28626
through28632. June.
EPA. 2000a. Introduction to Phytoremediation. Office
of Research and Development. Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-99/107. February.
EPA. 2000b. "Operating Industries Inc. Final
Construction As Built Report." May.
Weand, B.L., and others. 1999. "Landfill Covers for
Use at Air Force Installations." AFCEE. Brooks
Air Force Base, Texas. February.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special acknowledgment is given to the following
individuals for their review and thoughtful suggestions
to support the preparation of this fact sheet: David
Carson (EPA), Steve Rock (EPA), Ken Skahn (EPA),
Steve Wall (EPA), Greg Mellama (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers), Joey Trotsky (U.S. Navy), Bill Albright
(Desert Research Institute), Craig Benson (University
of Wisconsin -Madison), Steve Dwyer (Sandia National
Laboratory), Glendon Gee (Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory), Tanya Goldfield (City of Los Angeles),
Charles Johnson (Colorado Department of Public
Health), Doug Walters (City of Los Angeles), and Tom
Hakonson (Environmental Evaluation Services, LLC).
12

Appendix B
Phvtoremediation Web Sites
CAP Addendum Phytocap Pilot System Remedy
C&D Landfill, Inc. - Greenville, North Carolina September 2023

PHYTOREMEDIATION WEB SITES
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council: www.itrcweb.org Phytotechnologies
Team Public Page:www.itrcweb.org/teampublic_Phytotechnologies.asp
2. Remediation Technologies Development Forum: Phytoremediation of Organics Action
Team: www.rtdf.org//public/ph34o/phylinks.htm#Resources
3. Field study protocol for the phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil put
together by the Phytoremediation Action Team (1999):
www.rtdf.org/PUBLIC/ph3qo/protocol/Trotocol99.htm
4. Evaluation of Phytoremediation for Management of Chlorinated Solvents in Soil and
Groundwater: www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/chlor_solv_management.pdf
Federal Remediation Technologies —Roundtable Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and Reference Guide Version 4.0:
www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top pa eg html, www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-3.html,
www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-33.html
6. International Journal of Phytoremediation: www.aehs.com/joumals/phytoremediation
7. Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance Research Center, a 14-institution
consortium led by Kansas State University —see list -sere and additional links:
www.engg.ksu.edu/HSRC/Th3qorem/home.html
"Phytopet," a database of plants that play a role in the phytoremediation of petroleum
hydrocarbons from the University of Saskatchewan:
www.12h3lopet.usask.ca/mainpg.php
9. "Phytorem," the searchable database of plants that that remediate metals, created by
Environment Canada: www.ec.gc.ca/publications/index.cfin?screen=PubDetail
&PubID=546&CategoryID=O&showimage=False&order_by=pubyear&search=phyto
rem &lang=e&start=l
10. International resources: International Phytotechnology Society, host of International
Conference on Phytotechnologies: www.ph3qosocieiy.org/index.htm PHYTONET
Phytoremediation
11. Electronic Newsgroup Network: www.dsa.unipr.it/phytonet Cost 859, anetwork of 29
European countries' coordinated research projects: http://w3.gre.ac.uk/cost859
Phytolink Australia: www.phytolink.com.au
12. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service: USDA PLANTS National Database:
http://www.plants.usda.gov Plant Materials Program: http://plant-
materials.nres.usda. _gov

13. U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Clean -Up Information: www.clu-in.org Phytotechnology
Project Profiles Searchable Database: www.cluin.org//products/phi
Phytoremediation Technology Focus Overview
14. "Citizen's Guide to Phytoremediation": http://clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/67
15. "Status Report on Use of Field -Scale Phytotechnology for Chlorinated Solvents,
Metals, Explosives and Propellants, and Pesticides":
www.cluin.org/download/remed/542-r-05- 002.pdf
Source: ITRC, 2009