superfund third five-year review report · figure 6 gas probe monitoring results, 3rd qtr 1997 to...

SUPERFUND THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT

for

NEWPORT DUMP Operable Unit 01

Wilder, Campbell County, Kentucky

PREPARED BY:

US Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District

for

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4

Atlanta, Georgia

June 2002

DECLARATION FOR THE NEWPORT DUMP FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Newport Dump Wilder, Campbell County, Kentucky

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This document presents the current conditions at the Site and makes recommendations regardingOperation and Maintenance activities future reviews. Section 121 (e) of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, requires thatif a remedial action is taken that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining at a site, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall review such remedialaction no less than five years after initiation of such remedial action to assure that human healthand the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

The Site was delisted from the National Priorities List in June 1996. The Site continues to beprotective of human health and the environment provided the cap is maintained in goodcondition, the Site is not developed, and the groundwater is not used for private or industrialpurposes. This document has been reviewed by the EPA Region 4, and the Commonwealth ofKentucky. The EPA will ensure that his Site remains protective by conducting Five-yearReviews in the future. The next review should be completed by June 2007.

Third Five-Year Review ReportNewport Dump, Wilder, KY

June, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

List of Acronyms Executive Summary Five-Year Review Summary Form

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1 1.1 GENERAL 1 1.2 AUTHORITY 1 1.3 PURPOSE 1 1.4 LOCAL REPOSITORY 1

SECTION 2 SITE CHRONOLOGY 2

SECTION 3 BACKGROUND 2 3.1 GENERAL 2 3.2 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3 3.3 SITE HISTORY 3 3.4 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION 4 3.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDIAL ACTIONS 5 3.6 PREVIOUS FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ACTIVITIES 6

3.6.1 First Five-year Review (July 1993) 6 3.6.2 Second Five-year Review (August 1997) 8

3.7 GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 10 3.8 MONITORING . AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES 10

3.8.1 Landfill Gas Monitoring and Sampling 10 3.8.2 Groundwater Sampling 11 3.8.3 Surface Water Sampling 12

3.9 ROUTINE O& M SITE INSPECTION PROCEDURE 13

SECTION 4 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 13

SECTION 5 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINDINGS 13 5.1 INTERVIEWS 13

5.1.1 The Honorable Tom Guidugli, Mayor, City of Newport, KY 14 5.1.2 Terry Vance, Administrator, City of Wilder, KY 14 5.1.3 Ms. Mallette 16

5.2 Site Visit/Inspection 17

i


June, 2002

SECTION 6 ASSESSMENT 17 6.1 SUMMARY OF SITE INSPECTION 17 6.2 SITE CONDITIONS 18

6.2.1 Surface/Cover Conditions 18 6.2.2 Gas and Groundwater Monitor Well Conditions 20 6.2.3 Leachate Collection System 21 6.2.4 Institutional Controls 21

6.3 DATA REVIEW 21 6.3.1 Groundwater 21 6.3.2 Surface Water 22 6.3.3 Gas Monitoring 22 6.3.4 Full Spectrum Analysis 23

6.4 SUMMARY OF ON-SITE INTERVIEWS 23 6.5 APPLICABLE or RELEVANT and APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

(ARARs) REVIEW 24

SECTION 7 ISSUES 27 7.1 SURFACE/COVER 27 7.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING 27 7.3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS 28

SECTION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 28 8.1 SURFACE/COVER 28 8.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING 28 8.3 GAS MONITORING 29 8.4 GROUNDWATER AND GAS MONITORING WELLS 29 8.5 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM 30 8.6 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS 30

SECTION 9 STATEMENT OF PROTECTIVENESS 30

SECTION 10 NEXT REVIEW 31

ii


June, 2002

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location/Vicinity Map Figure 2 Newport Quadrangle Site Map Figure 3 Location of Site Monitoring Stations Figure 4 Areas of Standing/Ponded Water, Erosion, Seeps Figure 5 Gas Well Monitoring Results, 3rd Qtr 1997 to 2nd Qtr 2001 Figure 6 Gas Probe Monitoring Results, 3rd Qtr 1997 to 2nd Qtr 2001 Figure 7 Historical Monitoring Results for Metals

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Sampling Analytical Results, 1997-2001, 2pages

Table 1.1 2002 Groundwater Monitor Well Results for TAL Inorganics Table 2 Surface Water Results for TAL Inorganics (mg/L); 1997-2001, 2 pages Table 3 Landfill Gas Measurements May 1997 - November 2001 Table 4 Methane Sample Analysis Results for Years 1997 through 2001 Table 5 Table of Alternate Concentration LimitsTable 6 Applicable Standards and CriteriaTable 7 Newport Landfill Superfund Site ARARSTable 8 2002 Full Spectrum Results for Third Five Year Review (May 10, 2002)

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Documents ReviewedAPPENDIX B Site Visit AttendeesAPPENDIX C Site Inspection ChecklistsAPPENDIX D PhotographsAPPENDIX E Typical O&M Inspection Form

iii


June, 2002

List of Acronyms

ACL Alternate Concentration Limits ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA Clean Water Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 KDEP Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection KDNREP Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection LEL Lower Explosive Limit MCL Maximum Contaminant Level mg/L milligrams per liter NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NKPA Northern Kentucky Port Authority NPL National Priorities List O&M Operation and Maintenance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OU Operable Unit PAH Polyaromatic hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated byphenals PID Photo-ionization detector PRP Principal Responsible Party ppb part per billion ppm part per million RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers VOC Volatile Organic Compound WQC Water Quality Criteria

iv


June, 2002

Executive Summary

The third five-year review of the Newport Dump Superfund Site in Wilder, Campbell County,Kentucky was completed in June 2002. The results of the five-year review indicate that theremedy is expected to be protective of human health and the environment. Overall, the landfillcap remedial actions were functioning as designed, and for the most parts were operated andmaintained in an appropriate manner. A few issues that do not immediately impact theprotectiveness of the remedy were noted.

The protection of human health and the environment by the remedial actions at Operable Unit 1(OU-1) is discussed below. Both the Health and Safety Plan and the Operation and MaintenancePlan are in place, sufficient to control risks, and properly implemented.

Operable Unit - 1

The remedy at OU-1 is protective of human health and the environment. The remedy at the Sitecurrently protects human health and the environment because it eliminates the exposurepathways relative to surface soils, surface water and groundwater in the short term.

The landfill cap is effective at containing contaminants through preventing infiltration of stormwater and preventing direct contact or exposure of landfill waste by humans and fauna. Thelandfill cap prevents further migration of hazardous substances offsite to streams, to the LickingRiver, or to the groundwater.

v


June, 2002Five-Year Review Summary Form

Site name: Newport Dump

EPA ID: KYD985066380

Region: IV State: KY City/County: Wilder/Campbell

LTRA* (highlight): Y N Construction completion date: 9/88

Fund/PRP Lead: PRP NPL status: Delisted 06/03/96

Lead agency: EPA, Region 4

Who conducted the review (EPA Region, state, Federal agencies or contractor): US Army Corps ofEngineers, Louisville District

Dates review conducted: From: 03/24/02 To: 06/30/02 Date(s) of site visit: 07/24/01

Whether first or successive review: Third

Review Circle: Statutory Policy Due date: 06/30/02

Trigger for this review (name and date): Five years from second Five-year review, 07/1997

Recycling, reuse, redevelopment site (highlight): Y N

Issues: A list of issues was identified. See attached report Section 7: Issues.

Recommendations: Recommendations are listed in the attached report, Section 8: Recommendations.

Protectiveness Statement: All elements of the remedy selected in the Record of Decision for the Newport Dump have beenput in place, are functioning properly, and remain protective of human health and theenvironment.

Other Comments: The issues noted during this review are not immediate threats to the protectiveness of theremedy. Once these items are investigated and corrected, long-term protectiveness, operation,and site safety will be improved.

vi


June, 2002

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 GENERAL

During March to May 2002, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District (USACE),on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 4 (EPA), conducted a Five-yearReview of the remedy implemented at Newport Dump located in Wilder, Campbell County,Kentucky. This report documents the results of that review. The purpose of Five-year Reviews isto determine whether the remedial action at a site remain protective of human health and theenvironment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-yearReview reports. In addition, any issues identified during the review will be presented, along withrecommendations to address them.

1.2 AUTHORITY

This review is required by statute. Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and Section 300.430 (f) (4) (ii) of theNational Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP), require that periodic reviews beconducted at least every five years for sites where hazardous substances, pollutants orcontaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestrictedexposure following the completion of all remedial actions. The EPA has determined that a LevelI analysis is appropriate for the Newport Dump site.

1.3 PURPOSE

This is the third Five-year Review for the Newport Dump. The trigger for this statutory' reviewis the passage of five years since the completion of the second Five-year Remedy Assessment in1997. All elements of the remedy for the site have been completed; the only on-going actions atthe site are operations and maintenance activities intended to maintain the integrity of theremedy, and long-term monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. This reportpresents the information collected during the review by USACE for the EPA. The review wasintended to confirm that the remedial actions and associated performance standards in the RODhave been achieved and that the current conditions remain protective of human health andenvironment. This is the third Five-year review of the Newport Dump site. The first review wassubmitted by Resource Applications, Inc., (RAI) in July 1993. The second review was submittedby Roy F. Weston, Inc.(WESTON) in August 1997.

1.4 LOCAL REPOSITORY

This review will be placed in the site files and local repositories for the Newport Dump at thefollowing locations: City of Newport Municipal Building, 998 Monmouth Street in Newport,Kentucky, 41071 and Campbell County Library, 403 Monmouth, Newport, Kentucky 41071.

1


June, 2002

SECTION 2 SITE CHRONOLOGY

The chronology of the major actions at the Newport Dump Superfund site is summarized asfollows:

ACTION ACTIONCOMPLETION

DISCOVERYSITE INSPECTIONSITE INSPECTIONAGREED ORDERPROPOSAL TO NPLREMEDIAL ACTION MASTER PLANFINAL LISTING ON NPLNPL RP SEARCHPRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AGREED ORDERRECORD OF DECISIONCOMBINED RI/FS RD/RA NEGOTIATIONSREMOVALREMEDIAL ACTION REMEDIAL DESIGNREMOVAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS PUBLIC MEETING REMOVAL ASSESSMENT LODGED BY DOJ CONSENT DECREE LODGED BY DOJ FIRST FIVE YEAR REMEDY ASSESSMENT CONSENT DECREE SECTION 107 LITIGATION EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES DELETION FROM NPL SECOND FIVE YEAR REMEDY ASSESSMENT

11/01/1979 04/01/1980 04/01/1980 07/09/1980 12/30/1982 05/11/1983 09/08/1983 02/15/1984 08/01/1984 10/30/1984 03/27/1987 03/30/1987 06/26/1987 10/30/1987 10/30/1987 10/30/1987 05/05/1989 05/08/1989 03/05/1991 08/30/1992 10/29/1992 12/29/1992 07/26/1993 07/30/1993 10/25/1993 10/25/1993 01/03/1995 06/03/1996 09/23/1997

SECTION 3 BACKGROUND

3.1 GENERAL

The Newport Dump site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.Following a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study by the EPA, a Record of Decision (ROD)was signed by the EPA Regional Administrator in March 1987. The remedial actions

2


June, 2002

implemented by the EPA commenced in June 1987, and concluded in 1988. A description of theremedial actions is presented in Section 3.4 of this document. Subsequent to completion ofremedial actions, operation and maintenance activities as required in the ROD were initiated andincluded multimedia monitoring.

3.2 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Newport Dump site, a former municipal landfill located in the City of Wilder, CampbellCounty, is situated in northern Kentucky, within three miles of Newport and Covington Figure1). Access to the 39-acre site is by way of Banklick Road, off of SR 9, which terminates at theentrance to the landfill.

As shown on Figure 2, the 39-acre site is bounded on the west by the Licking River, a tributaryof the Ohio River; on the north by the former Ceramic Coatings Corporation buildings and asmall industrial park; on the east by steep outcrops and SR 9 and on the south by an unnamedstream. A drainage culvert traverses the site running north to south, separating the site intoeastern and western sections, with the majority of the landfill material in the western section.Power transmission lines also traverse the site at the center of the western section.

The site is on the opposite side and slightly upstream of the Licking River from the mainraw-water intake for the Taylor Mill water treatment plant. This facility, which withdraws up to18 million gallons per day from the river, serves approximately 75,000 customers in both Kentonand Boone Counties.

The site is underlain by unconsolidated alluvial deposits, which consist primarily of clay, silt,sand, and gravel in a downward coarsening sequence. The thickness of the unconsolidatedmaterial ranges from 36 feet at the eastern end of the landfill to about 110 feet at the LickingRiver. Below the alluvial deposits is shale and limestone bedrock reported to be up to 250 feetthick.

The site consists of two distinct topographic areas: the lower river terrace occupies the areasadjacent to the river and is frequently flooded, while the second level is separated from the lowerterrace by an area of steep slopes and includes the landfilled portion of the site.

3.3 SITE HISTORY

The site, purchased by the City of Newport in the late 1940s, was used for disposal of residentialand commercial waste from that point until its closure in 1979. It is believed that trenching andarea filling of the waste was the most common method used to dispose of waste while the landfillwas in operation. In 1968, the Commonwealth of Kentucky instituted permitting requirementsfor landfills and, after correcting violations, the City finally received a permit in late 1969 tooperate the site as a municipal sanitary landfill.

3


June, 2002

While the landfill was in operation, the City of Newport was repeatedly cited by the KentuckyDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (KDNRJEP) and other stateagencies for permit violations. The most frequent violations included: "open burning at thelandfill, absence of daily cover, on-site ponding of water, uncovered refuse, inadequate security,presence of leachate, lack of proper seeding, and erosion problems due to lack of vegetation."Along with citations for operational violations, the City had been cited for handling hazardouswastes without proper permits.

Owing to these landfill management problems, an Agreed Order for final closure was negotiatedbetween the City of Newport and the KDNREP Cabinet on September 26, 1978; however, thefinal closure plan was never fully implemented. Late in 1979, ownership of the landfill wastransferred to the Northern Kentucky Port Authority (NKPA) with the understanding that theNKPA would complete remediation at the site. As a part of the transfer of ownership, the NKPAwas to prepare a final closure plan and an Agreed Order between the KDNREP Cabinet andNKPA was issued on July 9, 1980. The closure required NKPA to install a leachate collectionsystem, regrade portions of the site, construct a clay cap over the waste, and seed the area withgrass. A lack of funding precluded the NKPA from fully implementing the July 9, 1980 AgreedOrder and a new Agreed Order that superseded the previous one was entered into by the Cabinetand the NKPA on October 30, 1984. A permanent vegetative cover was established on thelandfill as a result of the new agreement.

The Newport Dump site was originally considered for the National Priorities List (NPL) inDecember 1982, and was added to the list on September 8, 1983.

In June 1996, the site was delisted from the NPL for the following reasons: "The EPA, withconcurrence of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, believes that the following criterion for deletionhas been met: (1) The EPA has implemented all appropriate response actions required, and (2)All appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented." However, even if a site isdeleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the siteabove levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the EPA's policy is that asubsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of theremedial action at the site to ensure that the site remains protective of public health and theenvironment.

3.4 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION

The EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), completed in 1986 anddiscovered several inorganic contaminants, i.e., barium, chromium, nickel and organiccompound, toluene, were leaching into the Licking River slightly above health base levelsestablished by the Clean Water Act's Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The contaminatedmedia included groundwater and soil and the primary contaminants of concern included metals,polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), solvents, and polychlorinated hyphenate (PCBs). TheRecord of Decision (ROD) signed at the EPA on March 27, 1987 selected the following

4


June, 2002

response: monitoring groundwater and subsurface gas migration, construction of a leachatecollection system and regrading revegetation of the 39-acre Site to prevent erosion. An ActionMemo to authorize a removal action was signed in June 1987. This remedy was constructed andplaced into operation within seven (7) months of the signing of the ROD and completed duringDecember 1987. Groundwater, surface water, soil and sediment sampling were accomplishedduring the construction and post construction phases. Except for the waste source, the samplingresults listed negligible (well below the MCL criteria) to nondetectable contaminant levels in theadjacent Licking River, and in both on-site and off-site media demonstrated no significant orpotentially harmful migration of contaminants to off-site receptors.

3.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDIAL ACTIONS

The Remedial Investigation (RI) determined the nature and extent of contamination andevaluated the potential threats to human health and the environment at this site. The potentialhuman exposure pathways identified in the RI were withdrawal of surface water from the TaylorMill drinking water intake and accidental exposure via direct contact with contaminatedsediment or soil. The FS prepared at that time evaluated six alternatives to remove thosepotential risks to human health and the environment.

In mid 1987, the EPA, with KDNREP concurrence, implemented Alternative #3 as proposed inthe Feasibility Study (FS). The remedy selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) included: (a)regrading the landfill surface and placing a one-foot thick layer of compacted clay, a one-footlayer of topsoil, and revegetating the surface, (b) repairing or replacing the existing leachatecollection system and replacing the drainage culvert that traversed the site, and (c) monitoringunderground gas migration, surface water, and groundwater.

In 1987, the EPA installed eight gas monitor wells. Locations of these wells are shown on Figure3. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities, as required in the ROD, included monitoringthe groundwater, surface water, leachate, and underground gas migration. Five rounds ofmonitoring were performed from October 1988 through June 1990, in accordance with the O&MPlan. In 1990, the EPA shut off the power to the leachate collection system because the systemappeared to be collecting groundwater and system operation was not providing a higher level ofprotection.

On March 5, 1991, the EPA conducted a public information session to discuss the upcomingFive-year review. Representatives from the EPA and the City of Newport answered questionsabout the site at this meeting.

During the latter part of 1991 and early 1992, an area on the river terrace along the western edgeof the site was cleared and trenched for installation of a sanitary sewer line. Some miscellaneousdebris was exposed and monitoring well MW-06 was destroyed.

5


June, 2002

3.6 PREVIOUS FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ACTIVITIES

3.6.1 First Five-year Review (July 1993)

As part of the first Five-year review process conducted by Resource Applications. Inc. (RAT) forthe EPA, site visits and sampling were performed on surface water, leachate holding tank,groundwater, sediment, additional surface water (Licking River and on-site), and soil gas (probesurveys at 20 locations in addition to gas wells).

The analytical data were compared with applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and staterequirements (ARARs) and the results of previous sampling events. These evaluations werediscussed in the Five-year review report.

The report stated that the remedial actions that were performed at the Newport Dump siteremained protective of human health and the environment. The report's conclusions andrecommendations included the following:

Site Surface/Cover Conditions:

• The surface of the site had been compromised at several locations by a truck turnaroundarea and numerous all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) tracks, which were causing erosion in someareas. Some areas contained little to no vegetation. A recommendation was made tore-seed areas with stressed or inadequate vegetation, and mowing of the site twice peryear.

• Twice-per-year site inspections should be performed in accordance with the site's O&MPlan. Inspections should address adequacy of the grass cover, perimeter ditch, andculvert; status of/damage to the monitor wells (gas and groundwater) and the securityfence.

Groundwater Monitoring:

All groundwater monitor wells were in good condition, with the following exceptions:

• The well casing in MW-03 was bent, but a one inch bailer could be used.

• MW-04 was completely blocked and could not be sampled, but did not need to berepaired.

• MW-06, an off-site well, was destroyed by sewer line construction activities. It did notneed to be replaced.

None of the contaminants were detected at a level exceeding its ACL. Lead, benzene, cadmium,and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (Bis) were detected above their Maximum Contaminant Levels(MCLs). An evaluation of these compounds, for which no cleanup levels were established in the

6


June, 2002

ROD, showed that these detections posed no threat.

Leachate Collection System:

• The leachate collection system worked poorly with only one of the four sumps operatingcorrectly in March 1992. Lines between the sumps and the holding tank leaked, and theholding tank itself was suspected of leaking. (Shifting of landfill materials is believed tohave caused breaks.) A sample collected from the holding tank may not have representedactual contaminant levels in the leachate. The leachate sample data were consistent withgroundwater data. Because the waste occurred below the groundwater table, the sumpsessentially pumped groundwater into the holding tank.

• It was recommended that the leachate collection system not be repaired and restarted.

Surface Water Monitoring:

• Review of the surface water data presented in RAI's report indicates that only the March1992, surface water samples collected from the Licking River were reported. Sampleswere collected upstream of the site, midstream and adjacent to the site, and downstreamat the Taylor Mill drinking water intake. Four metals (aluminum, cadmium, iron, andmanganese) were detected above the applicable standards in the upstream and midstreamsamples and were not attributable to the site.

• On-site surface water samples were collected from the culvert that traverses the site andthe unnamed stream (see Figure 3). Aluminum, iron, and manganese exceeded theapplicable standards in the down-gradient/effluent samples, but did not exceed thehighest background concentration.

Sediment Monitoring:

• Sediment samples were collected from the culvert that traverses the site and the unnamedsteam.

• No contaminants were detected above the applicable standards from the sample collectedat the confluence with Licking River.

Subsurface Gas Monitoring:

• Six of the seven gas wells (see Figure 3) were sampled and analyzed for volatile organiccompounds (VOCs). GW-05 was full of water, but did not need to be repaired/replaced.

• Methane was detected above its lower explosive limit (LEL) in GW-03, GW-04 andGW-07. Although many other VOC gases were detected, none exceeded its LEL.

7


June, 2002

3.6.2 Second Five-year Review (August 1997):

The analytical data were compared with applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and staterequirements (ARARs) and the results of the previous five years sampling events. Theseevaluations were discussed in the Five-year review report prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc.(Western) for the EPA.

The report stated that the remedial actions that were performed at the Newport Dump siteremained protective of human health and the environment. The report's conclusions andrecommendations included the following:

Site Surface/Cover Conditions:

There were several areas of standing water surrounding and near the truck turnaround, in thevicinity of the power transmission tower, and within the leachate collection gallery at the northend of the landfill. Seepage was noted along the northern and southeastern sideslopes. Therecommendations were as follows:

• Mow the grass cover at least twice per year. • Fill, regrade, and reseed areas of erosion or stressed vegetation prevent further erosion. • Keep the leachate collection galleries free of vegetation to prevent possible damage to the

structural integrity of the clay cover. • Fill areas of standing or ponded water with appropriate clay materials and reseeded to

prevent possible leaching through the clay cover. • Inspect the site at least once quarterly to ensure that: the entrance gate is secure, there are

no areas of erosion or other types of damage on the cap, all perimeter ditches and theculvert are free of debris, and gas and groundwater monitoring wells and probes and thesecurity fence around the tank area is intact.

Gas and Groundwater Monitoring Wells:

Most gas and groundwater monitor wells were found to be in good condition except forgroundwater monitor well MW-03 which had been bent for a long period of time and onlyallows a 1-inch bailer to pass the bend, MW-04 casing was blocked above the top of the watertable and measuring or sampling equipment could not pass the obstruction, and MW-07 wasfound unlocked. In addition, and as noted in the first Five-year Report, groundwater monitorwell MW-06 was destroyed by construction activities for installation of a sewer line along thewestern toe of the landfill.

Recommendations were as follows for groundwater monitoring wells MW-03 and MW-04:

• As long as a 1-inch bailer will pass the bend in the well casing of MW-03, this wellshould be sampled since it had not been sampled in four years.

8


June, 2002

• If well MW-03 is not sampled, consider abandoning to prevent possible tampering orpotential infiltration of water from the surface and into and through the cap.

• Since MW-04 does not appear usable, consider abandonment to prevent potentialinfiltration of water around the well casing and into and through the cap.

Leachate Collection System:

According to the 1993 Five-year Review, EPA instructed the Principal Responsible Party (PRP)to discontinue operation of the leachate collection system in 1990 because the system appearedto be collecting groundwater and operating the system was not viable Weston found that thesystem was still not in operation and that the sumps and manholes as well as the leachate holdingtank area were locked and appeared to be in good condition. The Report reaffirmed the decisionthat the leachate collection system not be repaired or restarted.

Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring:

Based on the groundwater sample analytical data for the previous four years (1993-1996), thereappeared to be no continuous violation of the ACLs for the site by either inorganic or organiccontaminant. The only violation of the ACLs occurred with arsenic exceedences in the secondquarter of 1993. Inorganic contaminants have been detected in groundwater and have exceededthe MCLs continually during the review period. Therefore the 1997 Report recommended thatgroundwater sampling for inorganic compounds be continued at the Newport Dump site inaccordance with the O& M Plan and the September 1993 Amendment on an annual basis.

Surface water samples collected from Licking River showed that inorganic compounds arepresent in levels above the MCLs but have not violated the ACLs. Also, upstream concentrationsof inorganic contaminants tended to be higher or equal to the downstream concentrations. Basedupon this information, the 1997 Report recommended that surface water sampling be continuedat the Newport Dump site in accordance with the O& M Plan and the September 1993Amendment but on an annual basis only.

In addition, in order to determine the effectiveness of the landfill cap and to be protective ofhuman health and the environment, the 1997 Report recommended that one full-scan analysis ofat least two groundwater samples be conducted during a 5-year period.

Gas Monitoring:

Soil probes installed along the northeast perimeter of the site helped verify and delineate theextent of subsurface gas at the Newport Dump site. Various concentrations of gas have beendetected throughout monitoring points installed around the landfill. The current practice is for sampling of methane gas where screening data indicate gas concentrations equal to or greaterthan 100 percent of the lower explosive limit. The 1997 Report recommended this practice be

9


June, 2002

continued with each sampling event. Since there have been continued, sustained gasmeasurements, the Report recommended sampling events be maintained on a quarterly basis forgas monitoring wells GW-03, GW-06, and LFG-05 but that all other wells and probes could bereduced to a biannual basis. However, if areas around the landfill are developed and/or portionsof the landfill are developed, quarterly monitoring of all gas wells and probes should beresumed.

3.7 GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

Operation and Maintenance of the Newport Dump consist of annual site inspections,groundwater and surface water sampling, and landfill gas monitoring performed atpredetermined locations by the City's Contractor (PSARA).

The monitoring and sampling work is performed at the following locations: five (5) landfill gasmonitor wells, five (5) temporary landfill gas probes, six (6) groundwater monitor wells, three(3) surface water samples from the Licking River, and two (2) surface water samples from theintermittent stream along the southern boundary of the site.

The locations of all landfill gas monitor wells, probes, groundwater monitor wells, and surfacewater sampling points are depicted on Figure 3. The site inspection consists of inspecting thelandfill cap for signs of settlement, water ponding on the cap, erosion, grass height and similarissues. In addition monitor wells and gas wells and probes are inspected to evaluate integrity andthe need for repairs, if any. An example of the O&M Inspection forms used by the City'sEnvironmental contractor is provided in APPENDIX E.

3.8 MONITORING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

3.8.1 Landfill Gas Monitoring and Sampling

The five landfill gas monitor wells comprise the primary landfill gas monitoring network at theNewport Dump site. In addition, five temporary7 landfill gas monitor probes are located along aportion of the property line separating the Newport Dump and the former Ceramic CoatingsCompany (CCC) adjacent to the northeast corner of the site. These probes are intended to detectthe subsurface migration of landfill gas from the landfill toward the former CCC property. Thescope of the landfill gas monitoring involves the measurement of the Lower Explosive Limit(LEL), the concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOC) using a photo-ionization detector(PED), and the measurement of the oxygen content of the ambient atmosphere inside the wellcasing, in percent. This is performed at each monitor well, gas probe, and groundwatermonitoring well. LEL, VOC, and oxygen readings are made using a MultiRAE Multigas MonitorPGM-50.

10


June, 2002

The following general field procedures are used during the monitoring of the landfill gas probesand wells: 1. The physical condition of the well or probe is documented; 2. The protective well casing is unlocked; 3. The probe is attached to the connection fitting of the well head; 4. The initial VOC, LEL and 02 readings are recorded; 5. The well readings are monitored for a period of three (3) minutes: 6. Steady-state (sustained) VOC. LEL and 02 readings are recorded; 7. The instrument probe is released from the well head; 8. The protective well casing is secured and locked.

Historically, a total of seven gas monitor wells and seven groundwater monitor wells have beensampled during the annual monitoring/sampling event. However, two of the gas monitoringwells and one of the groundwater monitor wells were destroyed in the Fall of 2000 due todevelopment of the property immediately east of the landfill. The wells that were removed weregas wells GW-01 and GW-02, and groundwater well MW-01.

The City of Newport and their environmental contractor were not contacted concerning theremoval of these wells but they understand that the work is done with all necessary approvalsfrom the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KDEP). The removal of thesewells was reported in the Landfill Gas Monitoring Report for the second quarter FY 2000/2001,dated January 2001.

3.8.2 Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples were obtained from four (4) groundwater monitoring wells: MW-03,MW-05, MW-08, and DW-04. No purging is necessary at well MW-05 since this well isconstantly under artesian flow. Groundwater samples are sometimes not collected frommonitoring wells MW-04 and MW-07 due to damaged or obstructed casings above the watertable.

Headspace readings within the groundwater monitoring wells are measured using MultiRAEMultigas Monitor PGM-50. Water level readings are measured using a Solinist Model 101 waterlevel indicator. Water quality measurements of pH, temperature, and conductivity are measuredusing a combination water/pH/temperature probe.

The following field procedures are used to conduct groundwater monitor well gas monitoring,water purging, and sampling:

1. The physical condition of the groundwater monitor well is documented. 2. The protective well casing is opened and the well head cap is removed. 3. The well head cap is tipped to allow insertion of the VOC, LEL, and 02 probe into the

well. 4. The initial VOC, LEL and 02 readings are recorded.

11


June, 2002

5. The well readings are monitored for a period of three (3) minutes. 6. Steady-state (sustained) VOC, LEL, and 02 readings are recorded. 7. A static water level reading is obtained by measuring from the lock hasp side of the

protective well casing to the water table. The total well depth is also measured andrecorded.

8. The volume of water to be purged from the monitor well is calculated as three well borevolumes based on the well riser diameter and the standing height of water in each well.

9. The calculated volume of water is removed from the well using a 2" stainless steel bailerand poured into a 5-gallon bucket. Purge water disposal is accomplished by pouring thewater onto the ground surface away from each monitoring well.

10. During the removal of purge water, the pH, temperature, and conductivity of the waterare recorded and monitored to verify that fresh water is being pulled into the monitorwell.

11. Purging is terminated after a minimum of three well bore volumes of water have beenremoved and two consecutive pH, temperature, and conductivity readings within 10% ofone another are observed.

12. A water sample for laboratory analysis is obtained using either a 1.5" or a 2" diameterdisposable bailer.

13. Samples are placed in the appropriate containers and labeled. 14. Samples are stored and transported under chain-of-custody to a contract laboratory

(DataChem Laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio). 15. Samples are immediately transported to the lab where they are prepared and analyzed.

Monitoring well MW-05 is an exception to the above procedures since it has constantly beenobserved to flow under artesian conditions since installation. The sampling of this well involvesthe removal of the PVC end cap/flow tube assembly from the riser pipe, bailing out severalportions of water and taking the sample with another clean bailer.

3.8.3 Surface Water Sampling

The three surface water sample locations along the Licking River consist of one location justupstream of the site (SW-01), one location to the immediate west of the site (SW-02), and one atthe Kenton County water intake just downriver of the site on the opposite (west) bank of theriver (SW-03). In addition, two surface water samples are collected from the intermittent streamalong the southern boundary of the site.

Field procedures used to conduct the surface water sampling portion of this monitoring andsampling events are as follows:

1. Surface water samples are obtained using a new, 1.5" diameter disposable bailer. 2. Samples are obtained from surface water locations that are visibly free of floating surface

debris. 3. Samples are placed in appropriate containers, labeled, and chain-of-custody records are

completed for each sample. 4. Samples are stored and transported under chain-of-custody to the contract laboratory

12


June, 2002

(DataChem Laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio). 5. Samples are immediately transported to the lab where they are prepared and analyzed.

3.9 ROUTINE O&M SITE INSPECTION PROCEDURE

The scope of routine site inspection involves on-site physical inspection by the Contractor(PSARA) for the purpose of preparing recommendations, where needed, for maintenance of thelandfill cap and monitoring systems including gas monitoring wells and landfill gas probes. TheO& M site inspection forms used are in presented in APPENDIX E. Areas of visual inspectioninclude conditions of the landfill cover, drainage systems, monitoring wells, leachate collectionsystem, security, and access roads.

SECTION 4 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

The Newport Dump Site Five-year review was conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers,Louisville District for the EPA. The Remediation Project Manager (RPM) for the site is Mr.Matt Taylor. The following team members from the Corps of Engineers assisted in the review:

• Al Scalzo, P. E., Environmental Engineer • Richard Kennard, Project Geologist • Sandra Frye, Regulatory Specialist

The Five-year review consisted of the following activities: a review of relevant documents (seeAPPENDIX A); interviews with the EPA RPM, State of Kentucky Environmental ProjectManager, representatives of the site Environmental Project Management and Operations andMaintenance Contractor (PSARA Technologies, Inc.); and a site inspection. In addition a noticeregarding the forthcoming review report will be placed in the local newspaper (The KentuckyPost). The final report will be available in the information repository (City of NewportMunicipal Building and Campbell County Library). Notice of completion will be placed in thelocal newspaper and local and state contacts will be notified by letter.

SECTION 5 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINDINGS

5.1 INTERVIEWS

The following individuals were contacted by letter and phone as part of the Five-year review:

1. The Honorable Tom Guidugli, Mayor, City of Newport, KY. 2. Terry Vance, Administrator, City of Wilder, KY. 3. Susan Mallette, Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection. 4. Mr. Harold Taylor, EPA Region IV, Remedial Project Manager

13


June, 2002

5.1.1 The Honorable Tom Guidugli, Mayor, City of Newport, KY was initially contacted in April 2002 and notified that the Five-yearReview was being conducted. Mr. Guidugli and other County officials or stakeholders wereasked to clarify' or expand on the following various points of the Remedial Action for theNewport Dump site:

• What is your impression of the project? (general sentiment) • What effect have site operations had on the surrounding community or adjacent property

owners'? • Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and

administration? If so, please give details. • Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism,

trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details. • Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress? • Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's

management or operation? • Do you have any knowledge of changes in State laws and regulations and present and

prospective land uses and restrictions or any water quality, hazardous waste, orenvironmental health issues that may impact protectiveness to human health and theenvironment?

• Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiringa response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of theresponses.

• Are you aware of any shortcomings in current site operations? Please elaborate, notingwhich inadequacies, if any currently prevent the remedy from being protective.

• Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site'smanagement or operation?

(The City of Newport has not responded to this questionnaire as of the date of this report.)

5.1.2 Terry Vance, Administrator, City of Wilder, KY:

• What is your impression of the project? (general sentiment) The Newport landfill has been lying dormant for a number of years. The landfill lies in avery fast growing area with new businesses being developed all around this site. While theoverall appearance of the landfill is good, in my opinion it is a shame to have such a largeaccessible property remain vacant. There are a number of uses that could occupy thisproperty that would not be detrimental to the operation and maintenance of the landfill.

• What effect have site operations had on the surrounding community or adjacentproperty-owners? Site operations have had no affect on the community or surrounding property owners. Infact, as I mentioned before, the site has been dormant for the eleven years that I have beenwith the city during which time the surrounding area has developed quite well.

14


June, 2002

• Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation andadministration? If so. please give details. The only concern that I am aware of regarding operation was when an adjacent propertyowner. JPS construction began some site excavation on their property and were advised byNewport officials that some of the landfill monitoring equipment may have been on the JPSsite. I'm not sure of the outcome of this incident although JPS is continuing the filloperation on the adjacent site.

• Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism,trespassing, or emergency responses from local authorities? If so. please give details. I am not aware of any problems with vandalism, trespassing, or emergency response to thelandfill site. As I mentioned before, it is a relatively dormant site that is completely vacantexcept for monitoring equipment.

• Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress? The city is not completely informed as to the activities and progress of the landfill but thismay be because other than Newport's ongoing maintenance there has been no progress toreport on. Several ideas for redevelopment have surfaced over the past ten years by the Cityof Wilder, the Northern Kentucky Port Authority and the City of Newport. To myknowledge no workable redevelopment has been considered.

• Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site'smanagement or operation? As for the sites management and operation, the city is relatively happy. The site looks goodand is well maintained from an aesthetic standpoint. The site is currently zoned COConservation which is a zone that does not permit many options for development. The cityis willing to work with Newport and other state and federal officials to determine what ifany development can occur on this site.

• Do you have any knowledge of changes in State laws and regulations and present andprospective land uses and restrictions or any water quality, hazardous waste, orenvironmental health issues that may impact protectiveness to human health and theenvironment? I am not aware of any changes in laws affecting the health and environment as it relates tothe operation and maintenance of this site. The zoning that is in place has been the same forover fifteen years and is a protection by the city to better facilitate the type and nature ofdevelopment if and when such development occurs.

• Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiringa response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of theresponses. There have been no complaints or violations with regard to this site made to my office.There have been numerous inquires about possible redevelopment or reuse of the site fromrecreational uses to industrial possibilities.

15


June, 2002

• Are you aware of any shortcomings in current site operations? Please elaborate, notingwhich inadequacies, if any; currently prevent the remedy from being protective. I am not aware of any shortcomings with regard to site operations. I am also not directlyinformed as to the site operations so I'm not sure that I can satisfactorily answer thisquestion.

• Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site'smanagement or operation. The only comment I can make as to the ongoing operation is that if there are any problems,negative impact or other issues that would have a negative impact on the businesses in thearea or the community as a whole that the City of Wilder be notified. I would alsoencourage federal, state and local officials to make some reasonable accommodation toredevelop the site or permit some activity on what is a very attractive site for potentialredevelopment.

5.1.3 Ms. Mallette: Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection(KDNREP), Project Manager. Ms. Mallette was initially contacted in March 2002 and notifiedthat the Five-year Review was being conducted. Ms. Mallette described the current status of thesite, and O&M issues including permits and long-term monitoring. During the course of thereview, Ms. Mallette participated in the site visit discussions to clarity or expand on thefollowing various points of the Remedial Action. She also provided trend charts for inorganicsdata for the review period (see Figure 7).

• What is your impression of the project? (general sentiment). It's a well-maintained and monitored site.

• Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reportingactivities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose andresults. KDWM has conducted at least yearly inspections at this site, and often accompanied theconsultants during their sampling trips. Inspections were usually conducted during theearly part of the growing season to determine if additional seeding and mulching would berequired. When that was found to be the case, follow up inspections were conducted toascertain that the remedial work had been accomplished.

• Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiringa response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of theresponses. No complaints have been logged nor any Notice of Violations issued for this site.

• Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress? This office has been kept well informed about activities at the site. Both the City of Newportand their environmental consultant have contacted us as needed.

• Are you satisfied with landfill maintenance and monitoring? What aspects needimprovement or relaxation?

16


June, 2002

The maintenance and monitoring has been adequate. In future years the gas-monitoringprogram requirements may be relaxed based on the results of previous years' sampling.

• Are you aware of any shortcomings in current site operations, noting which inadequacies,if any, currently prevent the remedy from being protective? Based on available sampling data, the remedy is believed to be protective of human healthand the environment.

• Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site'smanagement or operation? No comments.

5.1.4 Mr. Harold Taylor, EPA Region IV. Mr. Taylor was contacted in March 2002 during the initial planning phase for this Five-year Review; dialogue took place prior to the site visit,and was followed by additional discussion during preparation of the report. Mr. Taylor providedbackground information on the Newport Dump Superfund Site, a history of site activities, and alist of potential contacts having knowledge of site activities. Mr. Taylor also provided extensivedocumentation that is maintained in Region IV's Atlanta offices as part of the Deletion Docketand CERCLA Administrative Record for the Site.

5.2 Site Visit/Inspection

The Third Five-year Review site inspection for the Newport Dump Site was held on April 15,2002. The site visit began with a meeting at the Newport City Building, which included anoverview of the review process, regulatory issues, operational status, and interviews with Mr.Richard McCandless, Senior Engineer, PSARA Technologies, Inc.; Mr. Jim McCulley,Supervisor in City Public Works Department responsible for on-site operation and maintenance;Michael Schulkens, City Solicitor, City of Newport; and Doug Roell, City of Newport IDENTCoordinator. The list of USACE and PRP personnel who participated in the meeting is providedas APPENDIX B to this report. Weather for the site visit was bright and very hot.

During the site visit, the following features were inspected or observed: the OU1 landfill cap andsurface drainage system, the leachate collection system, and general site conditions. In general,the landfill cap was found to be operating and functioning properly. A summary of the inspectionfindings is presented below. Refer to APPENDIX C for the site inspection checklists that detailthe inspection findings.

SECTION 6 ASSESSMENT

6.1 SUMMARY OF SITE INSPECTION

US ACE representative's Al Scalzo and Richard Kennard, performed a site inspection on April15, 2002. Also on-site during this visit were Michael Schulkens (Solicitor for the City ofNewport), Jim McCulley (City of Newport, Public Works Department), Richard McCardless

17


June, 2002

(PSARA Technologies, Inc.), Doug Roell (City of Newport. IDENT Coordinator); Robert Pugh(Division of Waste Management, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet,Commonwealth of Kentucky); and Susan Mallette, Geologist, KDNREP, (Commonwealth ofKentucky).

The inspection consisted of a walk-through of the entire site, locating existing gas andgroundwater monitoring wells, observing leachate collection galleries and inspecting sewermanholes and sumps. USACE noted all present site conditions. Quarterly groundwater and gassampling had not as yet been scheduled at the time of the site visit so this operation could not beobserved. The following is a summary of the activities and organizations present during theinspection visit:

• City of Newport - The City of Newport is the original owner and operator of the NewportDump site. The office of Public Works currently is responsible for facility maintenance.

• PSARA Technologies, Inc. - Consultants to the City of Newport that provide quarterlygroundwater and gas sampling services, site inspection reports, and other minor servicesto the City.

• Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet,Division of Waste management - Currently provides state review of site inspections,quarterly sampling efforts, and document reviews.

6.2 SITE CONDITIONS

The following section provides a summary of the field inspection of the surface/coverconditions, gas and groundwater monitor well conditions, and leachate collection system. Theresults of the site inspection are summarized on the checklist in APPENDIX C. Photographs ofthe site inspection landfill features on the date of the inspection are provided in APPENDIX D.

The scope of the site inspection involved on-site physical inspections for the purpose ofpreparing recommendations, where needed, for continued maintenance of the cap andgroundwater and surface water monitoring systems as well as gas monitoring wells and landfillgas probes.

6.2.1 Surface/Cover Conditions

Upon initial approach to the site, USACE found that a cable, used as a gate to the landfill, wasstretched across the road and locked in place. The road leading up to and into the landfill wascomposed of compacted dirt and gravel. The grass that covered the landfill surface had not beencut but appeared healthy. Overall, the site was observed to be in good condition the landfillgrounds appeared to be well maintained.

18


June, 2002

Measurable precipitation had been recorded several days prior to the inspection and the site waswet. The landfill cap vegetative growth had not been mowed yet this season but this did notaffect the visual inspection of the cap and adjacent areas. Weather was very sunny, clear and hot(82/ F) and humid. USACE began a site walkover in the northeast corner of the landfill adjacentto the entrance road (Photo 1) and covered the entire landfill in a clockwise direction from thatpoint. The objective was to examine the landfill grounds for any irregularities in the cover.Photographs 1 through 36 in APPENDIX D display areas photographed during the site review.Overall, USACE did not recognize any serious seeps or erosional areas within the landfill cover.

In the western sideslope of the landfill, there were areas that had been filled with clay materialand covered with grass seed and straw in the past but showed some minor erosion. However,these areas were minor, only covering approximately 100 square feet.

The cap was observed to be in good condition. The vegetative cover was thorough and relativelyabundant and measured from six to S inches (Photos 23, 24). There were no areas with sparse, orstressed vegetation, and only one small area of sparse woody plants was observed (Photo 15).The Operator indicated that the first mowing of the season will occur as soon as the landfillsurface can support mowing equipment.

There were no terraces constructed on the steep sideslopes to slow down the velocity andintercept the runoff but no serious erosion was observed. There also was no evidence of rodentburrowing. However, some seep areas and surface erosion were observed in the northern slope atthe east end of the landfill (Photos 12, 13, Figure). The site operator indicated that Public Worksis notified of any vegetative distressed or eroded sections of the cap needing repair when theyexceed several inches in depth or several square feet in areal extent and repairs are made bybackfilling with equivalent cap material and reseeding with equivalent seed mix, mulching andwatering. Repairs are usually pursued on an as-needed basis but usually in the spring or fall tofacilitate the necessary revegetation. The Operator indicated repairs to the seep shown in Photos12 and 13 has been scheduled and will be performed as soon as the spring rains cease. Erodedportions of the cap are repaired as conditions allow.

A wide depression on the landfill was observed in a north-south direction between the LeachateHolding Tank and beyond Monitoring Wells-03 and 04 (Photos 7, 21, 22).

The only evidence of slope instability was visible on the western slope of the landfill (Photo 30)but this was thought to be minor. This was a small area that had been filled with clay materialand revegetated.

Drainage channels at the toe-of-slope are lined and rip-rapped and in good repair, however,brush, weeds and saplings were observed growing in the rip-rap in the toe drain along the northside (Photo 10) and west side of the site.

With regard to site security, a cable, used as a barrier to vehicular traffic along the entrance road,was locked and secure within the fence posts. The only other fence section is a length of fallen

19


June, 2002

chainlink fence in a state of disrepair (Photo 3) along the property boundary between the landfillon the former Ceramic Coatings Corp. (now; Carlisle). One "No Trespassing" warning sign isposted at the entrance. No other fencing or warning signs were observed, or appear necessary,along the landfill's north, east, or south boundaries because of the steep terrain, and on the west,which is bounded by the Licking River. There was no evidence of trespass or vandalism at thetime of the inspection.

As displayed in Photos 2 and 4, there were several areas of standing water at the top of thelandfill due to recent rainfall events. The majority of these areas were found surrounding thetruck back-in and turnaround area near the entrance to the landfill. Another location of standingwater included an area approximately 150 feet south of the truck turnaround area (Photo 7). Eacharea of standing water was a maximum of six inches deep.

During the site walkover, USACE noted two areas of seepage along sideslopes of the landfill.The first area noted is along the northern sideslope of the landfill and is approximately 10 feetwide by 30 feet long (Photos 12, 13). The second area noted is in the western slope of the landfilland is approximately 20 feet wide and 50 feet long. Photograph 30 displays this minor seep area.USACE also reviewed the leachate collection galleries surrounding the landfill. In most cases,the galleries were free of small shrubs/or trees and similar plants. However, various plants, vinesand weeds are growing in the gaps of the riprap. The leachate collection gallery along thenorthern edge of the landfill adjacent to the former CCC was found to be heavy in shortvegetative growth (Photo 10).

6.2.2 Gas and Groundwater Monitor Well Conditions

Most of the gas and groundwater monitor wells were examined during the field review and, withtwo exceptions, were found to be in good condition. The casing for groundwater monitoring wellMW-03 has been bent for a long period of time and only allows for a 1-inch bailer to pass thebend. This condition was noted during both 1993 and 1997 Five-year Reviews and has not beencorrected. In addition, the casing in MW-04 is blocked above the top of the water table andmeasuring or sampling equipment cannot pass the obstruction. This condition was also notedduring the previous two Five-year Reviews and has not been corrected. Monitoring well MW-07was in good shape overall and has been locked as recommended in the last review. As noted inthe two previous Five-year Reviews, groundwater monitor well MW-06 was destroyed byconstruction activities for installation of a sewer line along the western toe of the landfill, has notbeen replaced and, therefore, is not a source of monitoring data. Also, groundwater monitoringwell MW-01 and gas monitoring wells GW-01 and GW-02, located on private property thatborders the landfill's eastern boundary, were abandoned in 2000 by request of the owner and notredeveloped. Gas wells have "No Smoking" signs. However, none of the gas or groundwatermonitoring wells have identification signs that can be seen from a distance. Some wells haveprotective bollards; some do not. Photographs 3, 9, 22, and 34 display wells photographed duringthe site review.

20


June, 20026.2.3 Leachate Collection System

According to the 1993 and 1997 Five-year Reviews, the EPA instructed the PRP to shut downthe leachate collection system in 1990 because the system appeared to be collecting groundwaterand operating the system was not viable. During the field review for the current Five-yearReview. USACE found that the system was not in operation but that all sumps and manholes, aswell as the leachate holding tank area, were locked and appeared to be in good condition.Photographs 6, 19 and 36 in APPENDIX D display portions of the leachate collection systemand holding tank area. This Report reaffirms the decision that the leachate collection system notbe restarted since there is no data evidence that contaminant levels are increasing in the LickingRiver due to site contribution.

6.2.4 Institutional Controls

During the field reconnaissance, site access was reviewed for security purposes. USACE foundthat the front cable gate was locked and secure. A cable, used as a fence along the entrance road,was in good condition and appeared to be held securely within the fence posts (Photo 1). A chainlink fence along the property boundary between the landfill and the former Ceramic CoatingsCorporation (CCC) is, for most of the length of the fence, lying on the ground (Photo 3). Thissection of cable gate and downed fence is the only physical security for the landfill.

6.3 DATA REVIEW

As required in the ROD, groundwater. surface water, and gas have been sampled and analyzedquarterly between the 1997 and this current Five-year Review. USACE has tabulated thisinformation and is presented in Tables 1 through 3. The following sections present a brief reviewof each media sampled.

6.3.1 Groundwater

Table 1 displays sample analysis results of groundwater samples collected from second quarter1997 to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2000/2001 and Table 1.1 shows preliminary results forTAL inorganics collected on May 10, 2002. Analytical results were compared to the MaximumConcentration Limits (MCLs) of October 1996 for inorganic compounds of the Safe DrinkingWater Act, as well as the Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs), as established in the Record ofDecision (ROD) for the Newport Dump site.

According to the data in Tables 1 and 1.1, the following compounds have exceeded the MCLsfor drinking water during at least one quarter over the past four years: aluminum, arsenic,beryllium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and thallium. These compoundshave been detected within each well sampled at least once. According to the data in Table 1, nocompounds exceeded the ACLs for groundwater during the review period.

Figure 7 shows historical groundwater monitoring plots of the data presented in Table 1 in thethree off-site compliance monitoring wells (DW-04, MW-01, and MW-05) for those metals

21


June, 2002

which had at least one exceedance of the MCL or SMCL during the review period. The remedialplan is being properly implemented. The remedial action objective of preventing direct contactor ingestion of contaminated soils and groundwater continues to be met by the intact cap. Withthe exception of nickel, monitoring results show decreased concentrations of contaminants at theoff-site compliance monitoring points since the 1999-2000 sampling events. This indicates thatcontaminant loading has decreased. Contaminant levels are falling at an unpredictable rate, however. Given the uncertainty of the trends, it is difficult to predict the overall cleanup timeframe and duration of operations. The Record of Decision for groundwater requires a ban on theinstallation of wells or use of groundwater for any purpose and continued monitoring ofgroundwater. Monitoring results indicate the MCL or SMCLs for the chemicals of concern arebeing met at this time.

6.3.2 Surface Water

As restated in the 1997 Five-year Review, "the ACLs were not established for surface water."Therefore, Drinking Water MCLs of March 1997, Water Quality Criteria (WQC), December 1992, and Kentucky Surface Water Standards, January 1992, were again used to evaluate surfacewater data for potential violations. Samples were collected from: (1) upstream of the NewportDump site (SW-01 ); (2) midstream and adjacent to the site (SW-02); (3) downstream near theKenton County water intake (SW-03), and (4) in the unnamed tributary' south of the landfill.Table 2 summarizes the annual data for 1 997 through 2001 .

Compounds were detected at concentrations greater than the MCLs for drinking water only.These compounds include aluminum, iron, manganese, and zinc. Antimony, beryllium,cadmium, and thallium exceedences, reported in the 1997 Five-year Review, were below MCLsduring the current review period.

The compounds that exceeded the MCLs were detected in the upstream sample locations SW-01,SW-02, SW-04, and SW-05. The only compounds exceeded at water intake location SW-03 werealuminum and iron, but these cannot be directly attributed to the landfill.

6.3.3 Gas Monitoring

The gas monitor and probes (installed in 1995) on-site were sampled for methane and gascontent over the past four years. Table 3 displays the compilation of steady-state measurementsfor percent of lower explosive limit (LEL) and oxygen, as well as methane content for eachon-site gas monitoring well and probe. Gas monitoring wells GW-03, GW-06, and GW-07 haveconsistently shown high methane levels since the second quarter readings of the fiscal year 1994and 1995. GW-03 is located adjacent to the property boundary with the CCC building andGW-06 and GW-07 are located at the toe of the landfill along the western boundary.

in accordance with the Final Operations and Maintenance Plan dated February 1988 and theAmendment to the Plan dated September 1993, methane sampling is performed at gas wellswhere LEL screening data indicate sustained gas concentrations equal to or greater than 100

22


June, 2002

percent of the LEL. Table 4 presents the sampling results collected from 1997 through 2001 forthe wells sampled. Results from GWS-03 samples indicate methane concentrations have rangedfrom IS to 35 percent by volume, GW-06 samples have ranged from 32 to 51 percent by volume,GW-07 has ranged from 36 to 91 percent by volume, and LFG-5 from 6.4 to 17.

Figure 5 is a plot of historical LEL data for the seven gas monitoring wells and Figure 6 presentsthe same data for the five landfill gas probes. Results show that none of the gas wells or probesproduced a sustained LEL reading of 100 percent.

6.3.4 Full Spectrum Analysis

Analysis for organics has not been part of the annual monitoring program. However, full scananalytical is performed for each Five-year review. Table 8 displays preliminary analysis resultsfor full spectrum organics in groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples taken at theNewport landfill on May 10, 2002.

6.4 SUMMARY OF ON-SITE INTERVIEWS

The Five-year Review process recommends that key individuals involved with the site becontacted for interviews. The interview process is intended to ascertain any new applicableinformation regarding the selected remedy, site history, and other site-specific issues. In additionto the Section 5.1 interviews, the USACE met on April 15, 2002 with Mike Schulkens, City ofNewport Solicitor, Jim McCulley, Public Works Supervisor for the City of Newport, DougRoell, IDENT Coordinator for the City of Newport, Richard McCandless, PSARA Technologies,Inc., and Robert Pugh, KDNREP, to discuss the Newport Dump site. These gentlemen have beenheavily involved with the site over the past four to five years. Mr. Schulkens stated that the Cityhas taken responsibility regarding the facility and takes pro-active steps toward maintaining andmonitoring all aspects of the facility. He added that the City has had monitoring aspects of thesite reduced principally because of the lack of contaminants in the various media and also forfinancial reasons. He stated that the site environmental contractor used for sampling andmonitoring (PSARA) has been fair, responsive and responsible. The City also inquired, again, asto whether or not there would be a possibility of further reduction of monitoring frequency or ingetting a determination that the ROD remedy requirements have been fulfilled and the facilityconsidered clean-closed. USACE stated that would be the decision for the EPA.

Robert Pugh, the State's former Project Manager for the site, stated that the site has improvedvastly with the change in landfill management and consultant. According to Mr. Pugh, previousproblems with erosion of the cap have been taken care of, locations where ponding of wateroccurred frequently were reduced, brush and small plants and trees were removed from theriprap in the leachate collection galleries at the toe of the landfill, and in general, a more seriousattitude toward maintenance of the landfill continues by the City, hi addition, he felt thatmethane monitoring of the site was improved with the decision to install methane probes alongthe boundary with the adjacent property to the north.

23


June, 2002

On the question of landfill maintenance and monitoring, Mr. Pugh restated that landfillmaintenance should be continued on an as-needed basis and, depending upon the past five yearsof sample analytical results, the monitoring could possibly be reduced to semiannual activity.

USACE also contacted Richard McCandless, P. E., of PSARA Technologies, Inc. PSARA iscurrently a contractor/consultant for the City of Newport for monitoring and sampling of the gasand groundwater monitoring wells and surface water at the landfill. Mr. McCandless stated thatthe characteristics of the site have met the monitoring needs. Also, landfill maintenance andother actions by the City of Newport have been conscientious and seem to have been responsiblefor upkeep. The City has also apparently been responsible toward adjacent landowners. Mr.McCandless also noted that maintenance of site facilities, monitor wells, locks, and generalupkeep has been prompt in most cases. When asked about the current sampling plan, Mr.McCandless stated that he believed that the scope of landfill gas monitoring has been scaledback sufficiently for certain well locations. He stated that pressure to develop adjacent propertywas low; therefore, the decision to scale-back some of the gas sampling made a lot of sense.With regard to the groundwater sampling plan, Mr. McCandless stated that samples over the pastfew years have shown limited or infrequent levels of heavy metals, therefore, groundwatersampling could feasibly be scaled back.

A problem with the registration of the groundwater monitor wells was noted during theseinterviews. Apparently the wells have not been registered with the State of Kentucky Departmentof Natural Resources as required by State law. This problem is apparently a result of a lack ofdata including no boring logs and well construction records. Kentucky Monitoring Well RecordForms were prepared by Foppe Technical Group in January 1997 for only four (4) of thefourteen gas and groundwater wells (MW-05, MW-06, MW-07 and DW-04). Records ofabandoned, destroyed, and remaining wells are generally incomplete, unavailable or unreadable.Well records provide important information at such time that wells are decommissioned.

6.5 APPLICABLE or RELEVANT and APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS(ARARs) REVIEW

Section 12 1 (d)(2)(A) of CERCLA incorporates into the law the CERCLA Compliance Policy,which specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet any Federal standards, requirements,criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements (ARARs). Also included is the provision that State ARARs must be met if they aremore stringent than Federal requirements.

The ARARs identified and considered in the Feasibility Study and the 1987 ROD and at the timeof the 1997 Review for the remedial action included the newly promulgated or modifiedrequirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)(March 1997), the Clean Water Act (CWA) Water Quality Criteria (December 1992), andKentucky Administrative Regulations Surface Water Standards (January 1992), as presented inTable 6.

24


June, 2002

Other surface water quality criteria, advisories, and guidance listed in the ROD but not identifiedas ARARs included:

• Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Warmwater Aquatic Habitat Criteria, • Clean Water Act, Water Quality Criteria for Human Health, Fish and Drinking, Water; • Clean Water Act, Water Quality Criteria for Human Health Adjusted for Drinking Water

Only; • Clean Water Act, Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria; • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for groundwater cleanup level; • Floodplain Management Executive Order II 988, May 24, 1977; • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for on-site worker safety; • Groundwater Protection Strategy; and • Department of Transportation for collection and transportation of leachate.

Table 5 presents the ACLs for groundwater. Groundwater Alternate Concentration Limits(ACLs) were established in the ROD for seven contaminants of concern that were identified inthe RI/FS. These contaminants identified were: arsenic, barium, chromium, nickel, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), toluene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and the ACLs were calculated bymultiplying the highest contamination level observed for each contaminant in the RI/FS data bya factor often. This technique was considered to be conservative as the projected dilutionconcentration for the Licking River is 1 to 40,000.

One of the purposes of the Five-year Review is to review Federal and state requirementspromulgated or modified after ROD signatures to determine if they are applicable or relevant andappropriate and whether they are necessary to ensure protection of human health and theenvironment. Only those criteria identified as ARARs were evaluated for the current Review,namely,

• Safe Drinking Water Act (SOW A) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and • Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Surface Water Standards.

The following Table 7 lists both the original MCLs and KY State surface water quality values(as listed in the 1987 ROD) and the current values. Since 1987, the following changes have beenmade to the MCLs and KY surface water quality standards:

• The MCL for arsenic has changed from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. • The MCL and KY surface water quality standard for barium has changed from 1000 ppb

to 2000 ppb. • The total chromium MCL has changed from 50 ppb to 100 ppb. • A KY surface water quality standard for nickel has been established at 100 ppb. • MCLs have been established for toluene (1000 ppb), benzo(a) pyrene (0.2 ppb) and PCBs

(0.5 ppb). • KY state surface water quality standards for drinking water sources have been established

for toluene (1.0 mg/L), benzo(a) pyrene (4.4 x 10-6 mg/L) and PCBs (7.9 x 10-5 mg/L).

25


June, 2002

Sampling data from 2000 and 2001 were compared to the regulatory-values to determine if anyexceedances are occurring at the site. The following was noted:

2001 groundwater sampling data

• Arsenic detection limit was 50 µg/l, which is well above the current MCL. Therefore, nodetermination of compliance can be made.

• The 2001 Annual Monitoring. Sampling and Site Inspection Report indicates nickelexceeded its MCL. However, no MCL has been established for nickel.

• No other exceedances of MCLs were detected for inorganic chemicals of concern. • No sampling was done for organic contaminants.

2000 groundwater sampling data

• MCL for arsenic was exceeded in MW-03 and -05 and in DW-04. • The detection limit for chromium was twice that of the MCL, so no determination of

compliance can be made. • No other exceedances of inorganic MCLs were detected. • No sampling was performed for organic contaminants.

2001 surface water sampling data

• No exceedances of KY domestic water supply surface water standards occurred forinorganic contaminants.

• No sampling was done for organic contaminants.

2000 surface water sampling data

• The total chromium detection limit was twice that of the surface water quality standardand therefore no determination of compliance can be made.

• The detection limit for nickel was also twice that of the surface water quality standard sono determination of compliance can be made.

• No sampling was done for organic contaminants.

There are several issues that need to be addressed prior to making a determination of compliancewith ARARs and protectiveness of the remedy. No organic sampling has been done for severalyears and therefore it is unknown as to whether or not Kentucky State standards for drinkingsource surface water are being exceeded. As the site is a landfill with known PCB and otherorganic contamination and is located immediately upstream of a drinking water intake, it isrecommended that surface water sampling include analysis of organic compounds.

Several detection limits for inorganic parameters exceeded MCLs and surface water standardsfor both the 2000 and 2001 sampling events. Prior to making any compliance with ARARs or

26


June, 2002

protectiveness statements, sampling should be done with low enough detection limits todetermine if MCLs or State surface water quality standards are being exceeded.

SECTION 7 ISSUES

Several issues or deficiencies were discovered during the Five-year review and are noted belowand on Figure 4. None of these are sufficient to render a finding of "not protective" as long ascorrective action is taken. The following summarizes the conditions observed on April 15, 2002.

7.1 SURFACE/COVER

1. Weeds, brush and saplings are growing in the rip-rap leachate collection galleries atseveral locations around the site.

2. Minor truck tire ruts and standing water at the south end of the gravel turnaround at theentrance.

3. Minor truck tire ruts and standing water on access road leading from the gravelturnaround south around gas wells GW-03 and GW-04.

4. A surface depression approximately 20-ft. by 25-ft. in size off the west end of the gravelturnaround.

5. The concrete pad around groundwater monitor well MW-03 was partially underminedperhaps by animal burrows.

6. The concrete pad around landfill gas probe LFG-4 appeared to be partially underminedby animal burrows.

7. An area of apparent leachate seepage, approximately 20-ft. by 30-ft. in size was observedat mid-slope along the north slope of the cap at the east end of the landfill (Photo's 12,13).

8. Minor slope instability was observed on the west slope of the landfill. 9. Settlement of the landfill surface and ponding was observed around the southeast pier of

the power transmission tower (Photo 35). 10. Several areas of standing water averaging 6-inches in depth were observed. 11. A depression or settlement of the landfill exists in a north-south direction between the

Leachate Holding Tank and beyond groundwater monitoring wells MW-03 and MW-04.

7.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING

1. Several organic contaminants were identified as contaminants of concern in the ROD andyet no organic monitoring/sampling has been done for several years. USACE could notfind documentation stating that organic sampling was waived or no longer necessary.

2. Several of the detection limits during the sampling events were well above ARAR levels,so no real determination for compliance or protectiveness pertaining to ARARs can bemade.

27


June, 2002

7.3 GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS

Off site groundwater wells MW-06 and DW-04 (Figure 3), located adjacent to the Licking Riverat the western end of the landfill appear to have been installed to monitor possible contaminationreaching the river from the landfill. Since MW-06 was destroyed during a sewer constructionproject, off-site well DW-04 is the only "compliance well" being monitored. Wells MW-07 andMW-08 are included in the monitoring program, but are not located immediately adjacent to thesite boundary and Licking River to be considered "compliance monitoring wells." Well MW-07was last sampled in 1997. Reasons given as to why this remaining well has not been sampled forthe last five years are (1) that it is dry most of the time (in the May 2002 sampling event, forexample, the well had only 1.0-ft. of water at about 32.2-ft.), and (2) this well is obstructed (willnot pass a l/2-in. bailer) at about 17-ft. The PRP recommends this well "should be abandoned."

The problem with this is that the ROD specifically states that one of the primary threats of thesite is a direct discharge of contaminants into the Licking River from the landfill. If MW-07 isnot sampled, and MW-08 is not located immediately adjacent to the Licking River, and MW-06is no longer monitored then there is no means, other than sampling DW-04, of determiningwhether or not contaminants are leaching into the river.

SECTION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 SURFACE/COVER

Maintenance of the cover should continue as currently scheduled. The grass cover should bemowed at least twice per year. Areas of erosion or stressed vegetation identified on Figure 4should be filled with appropriate cover materials, graded to drain, and reseeded to prevent furthererosion. The leachate collection galleries should be kept free of vegetation to prevent possibledamage to the structural integrity of the clay cover. Areas of standing or ponded water should befilled with appropriate cover material, regraded to drain, and reseeded to prevent possibleleaching through the clay cover and for mosquito control. Inspection of the site should beperformed at least once quarterly to ensure that the entrance gate is secure, that there are no areasof erosion, seepage, or other types of damage on the cap, that all perimeter ditches and theculvert are free of debris, and that gas and groundwater monitoring wells and probes and thesecurity fence around the leachate tank area is intact. All activities should be performed inaccordance with the Newport Dump Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan), July 1988and the September 1993 Amendment to the O&M Plan until a decision is made by the EPA thatthe site is considered "clean-closed" and suitable for appropriate beneficial reuse.

8.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING

1. Based on the groundwater sample analytical data for the past five years, there appears tobe no continuous violation of the ACLs for the site by either inorganic or organiccontaminant. The only organic compound to be analyzed for recently is bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. The only violation of the ACLs occurred with arsenic detections in the second

28


June, 2002

quarter of 1993. No violation of the ACLs has occurred since. Inorganic contaminantshave been detected in groundwater and have exceeded the MCLs continually. Therefore,USACE recommends that groundwater sampling for inorganic compounds be continuedat the Newport Dump site in accordance with the O&M Plan and the September 1993Amendment on an annual basis.

2. Surface water samples collected from the Licking River have shown that inorganiccompounds are present in levels above the MCLs but have not violated the ACLs.Furthermore, upstream concentrations of inorganic contaminants have tended to behigher or equal to the downstream concentrations. Based upon this information. USACErecommends that surface water sampling be continued at the Newport Dump site inaccordance with the O&M Plan and the September 1993 . Amendment; however, this canbe on an annual basis only.

3. In addition, since the site is a landfill with known PCB and other organic contaminationand is located immediately upstream of a drinking water intake, it is recommended thatsurface water sampling include analysis of organic compounds.

8.3 GAS MONITORING

Soil probes installed along the northeast perimeter of the site have helped verify and delineatethe extent of subsurface gas at the Newport Dump site. Various concentrations of gas have beendetected throughout monitoring points installed around the landfill. The current practice is forsampling of methane gas where screening data indicate gas concentrations equal to or greaterthan 100 percent of the lower explosive limit. This practice should be continued with eachsampling event. As a result of continued sustained gas measurements, sampling events should bemaintained on a quarterly basis for gas monitoring wells GW-03, GW-06. and LFG-05. All otherwells and probes could be reduced to a biannual basis. However, if areas around the landfill aredeveloped and/or portions of the landfill are developed, quarterly monitoring of all gas wells andprobes should be resumed.

8.4 GROUNDWATER AND GAS MONITORING WELLS

1. During the 1993 Five-year Review period, monitoring well's MW-03 and MW-04 weredescribed as not needing repair. This recommendation is also followed here. However,the following action items should be considered for these two wells:

• As long as a 1-inch bailer will pass the bend in the well casing of MW-03. thiswell should continue to be sampled as it has the past five years.

• Since MW-04 was determined to be usable and has not been sample for fiveyears, this well should be abandoned in accordance with Kentucky Water Wellprocedures in order to prevent a potential pathway of water around the wellcasing and into the cap.

29


June, 2002

2. Rectify the potential groundwater data gap in the west end of the landfill by restoring,replacing, or developing an on-site groundwater monitoring well adjacent to the LickingRiver.

8.5 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM

In May 1990, the EPA discontinued the leachate collection system since it appeared that thesystem collected groundwater and operating the system would not provide a higher degree ofprotection to the environment. Apparently, the system has not operated since 1991; however,there are no apparent leachate seeps entering the Licking River and no subsequent increases incontamination in surface water have been encountered. As stated in the 1993 Five-year Reviewand reaffirmed here, "it is recommended that the leachate collection system not be restarted. Thesystem would require much repair work to run at its full capacity. Repair work would create anexposure pathway to workers because searching for broken collection lines would requireexcavation into the waste material. If contaminant levels increase in the Licking River due to sitecontribution, then consideration should be given to redesigning the leachate collection system tointercept leachate before it reaches the site boundaries and the Licking River."

8.6 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

1. At the time of the site inspection, the site and areas around the site have not beendeveloped or renovated. The only property potentially impacted by the landfill is theformer CCC property, which has recently been purchased by the Carlisle ConstructionCo. and is currently being used for heavy construction equipment maintenance. Anobjective of the Record of Decision was to ensure that future renovation activities wouldbe delayed for at least three years after the response action was implemented. Thisconstraint has expired. At the time of the current inspection, there was no indication thatthe new owners have been apprized of the potential impact the adjacent inactive landfillmay have on their employees or operation.

2. During the past five years, local and State regulators have engaged the EPA indiscussions concerning the redevelopment of the site. In order to be protective of thecurrent landfill structure and monitoring system, it is recommended that local and stateauthorities continue to consult with, or consider petitioning the EPA before agreeing toany redevelopment of the Site for beneficial reuse.

SECTION 9 STATEMENT OF PROTECTIVENESS

Based upon a review of analytical data for the groundwater, surface water, and gas sampled andthe site visit, the remedial action taken by the City of Newport has been effective in protectinghuman health and the environment. As long as the cap remains in good condition, the site is keptfree of development, no penetrations through the cap are made, and groundwater is not used forprivate or industrial purposes, the remedial action should remain effective. The remedy at OU 1currently protects human health and the environment because the 39-acre landfill cap prevents

30


June, 2002

infiltration and subsequent migration of contaminated groundwater off-site. Also, institutionalcontrols (ICs) have been implemented to prevent disturbance or penetration of the cap, anddevelopment on the cap.

Mowing and cap maintenance activities are ongoing and adequate and there is no evidence ofcracking or sliding. Settlement and ponding of the cap is confined to one small area in the southcentral part of the landfill and a minor seep area in the northeast slope. Both areas are scheduledfor repair during the current 2002 construction season.

There is no evidence of any human or ecological exposure from chemicals of concern and,therefore, the remedy is considered protective in the short-term because there is no evidence of acap breach and thus no current exposure. However, in order for the remedy to remain protectivein the long-term, institutional controls, monitoring and maintenance should be kept in place untilcriteria for closure can be determined and established by the EPA. Prior to making anycompliance with ARARs or protectiveness statements, surface water sampling should includequarterly or annual analysis of organic compounds and sampling should be conducted with lowenough detection limits to determine whether or not MCLs or State surface water qualitystandards are being exceeded.

SECTION 10 NEXT REVIEW

Due to the presence of buried waste and to continue to be protective of human health and theenvironment, USACE suggests another review of a similar format and level of effort occur byJune 2007 unless the EPA finds that the remedy in place satisfies clean-closure criteria for fullcontainment. If the EPA determines that another Five-year review is required, then groundwatersampling should also be performed for verification of PRP contractor data.

— END—

31

a f ~ - £i":|f ,4 .^MW^'^V:-, .

1*5' • '£' 'f^f •' ' \ \\ * | -=c^£_^. \ [B -niVStt.•'••.'! ~- 7= 1 V .' v

•. i'U "« - I^^ 'JS^S-^^ rfl!i"*6 •-•Ht^^k>A^.43J!fe±^^^i&-- V.^.^i-

^^'

550 000 FEET

!KY.;

84C3C' 1 930 000 "£E" I K Y . )t WALTPN 13 ML

SCALE 1:24000o

100C 20Dj 3000 ?~CC 6C€C' 700 j FEET

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEETNATIONAL GEODE' iC V E R T I C A L DATUM OF 1929

Figure 2Newport Dump Site

3RIC AN;. !?s: WAGNE-IC NJNA-IO* AT CENTES OF SHE

THIS MA3 COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDSFOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DENVER, COLORADO 80225 OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092,

KENTUCKY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40506,AND KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40601

r

l .FG-1

ti-BO n i

l f G - 2

Detail A

CeramicCoating

Company

Lh'G-3 LKG-4 I.FG-5

. - . . . ._ _J

ClcclrlcTr«nsDiljixlao /

1 1/

K.nlon I i OW04C«iuitjrW.lrr ' , •'nl«k« f-W Mtkv ; CjYI-OO

\ / ^

SW, ;

-o:i,A /

/ MW--07/' M W - 0 8 ,

UGW-OG/GW-07

law 02

» I» f

X1W-06

A SW 1)1I I

Note: MW-01 and AAW-06 were destroyed during off-site construction activities

', GW - O I / G W - 0 2

1 •', MW-01

i

LEGEND• Uni Monitor Wclli

(V) (im Monitor I'rnhes

t j i ( ; r o u n d w n l n r Muiii lor Hclli

A Surfaca Wala r Sample Locallont

LOCATIONS OF SITEM O N I T O R I N G AND S A M P L I N G STATIONS

N E W P O R T D U M P SUPEKFUNI) SITEW I L D E R , K E N T U C K Y

Figure 3

SW-03

o:

>C£

o2

o

DRAWING N.T.S.

DW-4

SW-C

SW-01

LANDFILLPERIMETER

GW-05

D SUMP

12

GW-06 /~>GW-07 ^

D

GW-03-JGW-04-V

c0- MW-07 ^ClS

0. MW-08 1 | 1

LEACHA1EM TAN

^ MW-04xt\ fT\

\J7 vj?1

MW-03

a

LEGEND

BANKLICK ROAD

CERAMIC COATINGCOMPANY

^n ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

LINE

& GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

• GAS MONITORING WELLA SURFACE WATER AND /OR SEDIMENT SAMPLE

UNNAMED STREAM

V\H£

AREAS OF STANDING WATER C^g^AREAS OF EROSION/SEEPAGEFigure Adapted from Roy F. Weslon, Inc.

NEWPORT DUMP SITEWILDER, KENTUCKY

Figure 4

AREAS OF EROSION, SEEPAGEand

STANDING/PONDED WATER

DRAWN

CHIMED

DATE

DATE

DES. ENO.

APPROVED

DATE

PATE

V. 0. NO.

nun. wn.

Figure 5: Gas Well Monitoring Results, 3rd Qtr 1997 to 2nd Qtr 2001Newport Landfill Superfund Site

4th

-GW-01 I

-GW-02 '•

-GW-03

-GW-04

-GW-05

-GW-06

-GW-07

100

90

80

70 !

0/1

.5"3 60OJ

oi

I 5°1/13

t/5

uj 40

30 ---

Figure 6: Gas Probe Monitoring Results, 3rd Qtr 1997 to 2nd Qtr 2001Newport Landfill Supcrfund Site

'SARA

10

0 I-

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

1997-98

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

1998-99

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

1999-00

1st

•L17G-01

•LFG-02

•LFG-03

• LFG-04

•LFG-05

2nd 3rd 4th

2000-01

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

2001 -02

Fiscal Quarters

Table 4 Methane Sample Analysis Results for Years 1997 through 2001Newport Dump Site

Well SampleCollection Point

GW-03

MW-04

GW-06

LFG-4

GW-06

GW-07

GW-03

LFG-5

GW-07

LFG-5

LFG-5

Date of SampleCollection

May 5, 1997

May 5. 1997

Sept. 3, 1997

Sept. 3, 1997

Dec. 5, 1997

Dec. 5, 1997

Sept. 22, 1998

Sept. 22, 1998

Sept. 22, 1998

Nov.23, 1999

May 22, 2000

MethaneConcentration(% by Volume)

18

10

51

2.2

32

36

35

12

91

17

6.4

Table 5 Table of Alternate Concentration Limits, Newport Dump Site

IndicatorChemicals

Arsenic

Barium

Chromium

Nickel

Benzo(a)pyrene

Toluene

PCBs

Alternate ConcentrationLimit

0.640

74

15

24

—

0.170

—

Diluted Concentration inLicking River

0.01 6 x KV(1

l . S S x lO'6

0.375x K)-6

0.600 x Kr''

~

0.0043 x 1 0-6

-

Notes:All values in the table are in mg/L.(1) Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs'l derived from the Record of Decision, March 1987.(2) These concentrations are ten times those in the preceding column as described below.(3) Diluted concentrations based on 40,000 to 1 dilution of ACL values.

The dilution rate for groundwater discharge to the Licking River is 40,000 to 1. It is considered conservative to set the ACLs atten times the highest observed concentration from the RI sampling data in the Record of Decision.

Table 6 Applicable Standards and Criteria, Newport Dump Site

Indicator

Chemical

Arsenic

Bar ium

Chromium +6

Chromium +1

Chromium (Total)

Nickel.

Bcnzo(a)pyrcnc

Toluene

Polychlorinnted Biphenyls

A|>|)licablc or Relevant and Appropr ia te Requirements

Safe Drinking Water Act

Maximum Contaminant Levels"

1987

50 ug/lc

l,000f.ig/l--

--

50 ug/1

—

1997

50 ug/r2,000 ug/1

—

--

100 ug/1 •

140 ug/I

1 0.2 ug/I—

--

1,000 ug/1

0.5 ug/1

KY Adminis t ra t ive Regulations

Surface Water Standards'1

1987 1992

50 j.ig/1 | 50 u.g/1

1 ,000 ug/1--

--

50 ug/l ...100 ug/1

—

1,000 ug/1

1 1 ug/1

I**]33 mg/150 ng/1

[**]6 10 ug/1

| 2.8 ng/1--

1.4 ng/1

14.3 mg/1

1.4 ng/10.079 ng/1

Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance

Clean Water Act

Water Quality Criteria for Human Health

1987C

0 (2.2 ng/l)f

--

50 ng/1

170 mg/1

-- •

13.4 ng/1

0 (2.8 ng/1)

14.3 mg/1

0

(0.079 ng/l)f

1987d

0 (2.3 ng/l)(

—

50 ug/1

179 mg/1

--

15.4 ug/1

1992

.018mg/r

2,000 mg/!'

1 1 ug/1'1

117.32 mg/111

--

87.71 ug/lh

0 (3.1 ng/1) | .0044 ug/1'

15 mg/1

0 (12.6ng/ l ) f

6,800 ug/11

.00044 ug/11

a Nat ional Primary Drinking Water Regulations promulgated in accordance with the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, PL 93.023.b Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Title 401, Chapter 5, established under provisions of Kentucky Revised Statutes 224.020 and 224.060.c Water Qual i ty Criteria for Human Health - Fish and Drinking Water established under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977, PL 95-217, published in 45 Federal Register

Table 6 Applicable Standards and Criteria, Newport Dump Site (continued)

Indicator

Chemical

Arsenic +3BariumChromium +6

Nickel (C)Benzo(a)PyrencToluenePCBs

Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance

CLEAN WATER ACT

Freshwater Aquat ic Life Criteria ''1987

24 Hour Average

Uig/I)--

0.2956--

.014

Maximum

(Hg/D440

-

21

1,100-

17,500-

CLEAN WATER ACT

Freshwater Aquat ic Life Criteria1992

Maximum Cone.

(M8/1)360

-

16 b

789"--

Continuous Cone.

(US/1)190

-

1 1 "87.71'

--

| .014

KENTUCKY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONSWarmwatcr Aquatic Habi ta t Criteria

Maximum(ng/n

50-

100-

--

.0014

Chronic

(ng/D50-

11*

--

.0014\'(ites:- Not establisheda Water quality criteria cstabHslu:d under provisions of the Clean Walcr Act of 1977 (PL 95-217), published in Federal Register 79318-79379, November 28, 1980.b Kentucky Administrat ive Regulations, Title 401, Chapter 5, established under provisions of Kentucky Revised Statutes 224.020 and 224.060.c Hardness equivalent lo 50 mg/1 of CaCOi* Hardness dependent.

Table 7 NEWPORT LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE ARARS1 :

Change?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Contaminant

Arsenic

Barium

Chromium +6

Chromium +3

Chromium (Total)

Nickel

Benzo(a)pyrene

Toluene

PolychlorinatedBiphenyls (PCBs)

SDWA MCL

1987

50

1000

—

—

50

—

—

—

—

2002

0.010

2

—

—

0.10

—

0.002

1

0.005

KY Surface WaterStandards3

1987

0.05

1

—

—

0.050/0.100

—

—

1.4x 10'6

2002

0.050

2

—

0.100

0.100

4.4 x 10'6

1

7.9 x 10'8

1 -- As identified in the 1987 ROD and compared to 2002 values.2 — All units are in mg/1.3 — Values are for maximum allowable in-stream concentrations to be applicable at the point of withdrawal for usefor domestic water supply from surface water sources. [Title 402, Chapter 5, Regulation 031, KAR 5:031]

Table 8 2002 Full Spectrum Results for Third Five Year ReviewNewport Dump Superfund Site, May 10, 2002

MW-03 MW-05Analyte (mg/L) (mg/L)

All Analytes ND ND

All AnalytesMethylphenol (3- and 4-)

All Analytes ND ND

All Analytes

All Analytes ND ND

All Analytes

All Analytes ND ND

MW-08 DW-04 SW-01 SW-02(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

VOC Method 8260ND ND

SVOC Method 8270ND NDND ND

Total Phenolics Method 9065ND ND

Cyanide Method 335.2ND ND

PCBs Method 8082ND ND

Pesticides Method 8081

Herbicides Method 8151ND ND

SW-03 SW-04 SW-05 SD-01 SD-02(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

ND ND

ND ND ND NDND ND ND 0.39

ND ND ND ND

ND ND

ND ND1 ND indicates thai the specified analyte was not detected in the sample.

Blank cell indicates no analysis performed.

APPENDIX A DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Note: Throughout this report, text has been extracted, summarized, and/or edited from thefollowing Newport Dump Superfund Site documents:

1. Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit -1 (OU-1) dated March 27, 1987.

2. NPL Site Narrative for Newport Dump: http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/sites/npl/nar455.htm.

3. Notice of deletion of Newport Dump Superfund Site, Wilder, Kentucky, from theNational Priorities List: http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/sites/npl/d960603.htm.

4. Archived Site Information: http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/sites/arcsites/reg04/a0403906.htm.

5. ROD Abstract Information: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rodsites/0405547.htm.

6. Final Newport Dump Site Operation and Maintenance Manual, July 1988.

7. Annual O&M Reports, FY1996/1997, FY1998/1999 and 2000, for OU's 1 and 2.

8. (First) Five-Year Review Final Report, Newport Dump, Resource Applications, Inc., July1993.

9. (Second) Five-Year Review Final Report, Newport Dump, Roy F. Weston, Inc., August1997

APPENDIX B

5-Year Review Site VisitDate: April 15, 2002

Location: Newport Dump Site, Wilder, KY

A I T K N D K K SName/TitleAl Scalzo, P.E.,Env. Engineer

Richard Kennard,Env. Geologist

Mike SchulkensCity Solicitor

Doug RoellIDENT Coordinator

Jim McCulleySupervisor of PublicWorksRichard McCandlessSr. Engineer, P.E., P.G.

Susan MallerteGeologist

Robert Pugh

OrganizationUSAGE Louisville

USAGE Louisville

City of Newport, KY

City of Newport, KY

City of Newport, KY

PSARA Technologies,Inc.

KY Department forEnvironmentalProtectionKY Department forEnvironmentalProtection

AddressP.O. Box 59Louisville, KY40201-0059P.O. Box 59Louisville, KY40201-0059998 Monmouth St.Newport, KY41071-2184998 Monmouth St.Newport, KY41071-2184998 Monmouth St.Newport, KY41071-218410925 ReedHartmanHwy, Cincinnati, OH4524214ReillyRoadFrankfort, KY40601-119014 ReillyRoadFrankfort, KY40601-1190

Phone502-315-6309

502-315-6323

859-292-3666

859-292-3637

859-292-3670

513-791-4418

502-564-6716

502-564-6716

Fax502-315-6309

502-315-6309

859-292-3669

859-292-3663

859-292-3671

513-791-5797

502-564-5096

502-564-5096

E-mailalbert. m.scalzoto'LRI. 02. usace.armv.mil

richard.a.kennardw>LRL02. usace.armv.mil

mschulkensto'citvofnewportkv.org

droellfa''Cityofnewportky.org

rmmccandlessf<v!psara.com

susan.malletteto'mail. state. kv. us

robert.pughfa'mail. state, k v.us

APPENDIX C

Site Inspection Checklists

Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist

Purpose of the Checklist

The site inspection checklist provides a method for collecting essential information during thesite inspection portion of the five-year review. The checklist serves as a reminder of whatinformation needs to be gathered and provides the means of checking off information obtainedand reviewed, or information not available or applicable. The checklist is divided into sections asfollows:

I. Site Information II. Interviews III. Onsite Documents & Records Verified IV. O& M Costs V. Access and Institutional Controls VI. General Site Conditions VII. Landfill Covers VIII. Vertical Barrier Walls IX. Ground water/Surface Water Remedies X. Other Remedies XI. Overall Observations

Please provide or have available the following at the time of the Site Visit/Inspection: Samplingresults, costs, and maintenance reports. The attached checklist focuses on the two most commontypes of remedies that are subject to five-year reviews: landfill covers, and groundwater pumpand treatment remedies. Sections are also provided for surface water collection and monitorednatural attenuation. Sections of the checklist that are not applicable to your site will not becovered.

Please complete and have backup information for as many sections in advance of the siteinspection. This is important to document site status. Please note that the checklist is not meantto be completely definitive or restrictive; additional information may be supplemented asnecessary. Also, we may document actual site conditions with photographs.

Using the Checklist for Types of Remedies

The checklist has sections designed to capture information concerning the main types ofremedies, which are found at sites requiring five-year reviews. These remedies are landfillcovers (Section VII of the checklist) and groundwater and surface water remedies (Section IX).The primary elements and appurtenances for these remedies are listed in sections that can bechecked off as the facility is inspected. The opportunity is also provided to note conditions, writecomments on the facilities, and attach additional information.

Considering Operation and Maintenance Costs

Unexpectedly widely varying or unexpectedly high O&M costs can be early indicators ofremedy failure. For this reason, it is important to provide a record of the original O&M cost

1

estimate and of annual O&M costs during the years for which costs are available. Section IV ofthe checklist provides a place for documenting annual costs and for commenting onunanticipated or unusually high O&M costs. A more detailed categorization of costs may beattached to the checklist if available. Examples of categories of O&M costs are listed below.

Operating Labor - This includes all wages, salaries, training, overhead, and fringe benefitsassociated with the labor needed for operation of the facilities and equipment associated with theremedial actions.

Maintenance Equipment and Materials - This includes the costs for equipment, parts, and othermaterials required to perform routine maintenance of facilities and equipment associated with aremedial action.

Maintenance Labor - This includes the costs for labor required to perform routine maintenanceof facilities and for equipment associated with a remedial action.

Auxiliary Materials and Energy - This includes items such as chemicals and electricity neededfor plant operation, water and sewer service, and fuel costs.

Purchased Services - This includes items such as sampling costs, laboratory fees, and otherprofessional services for which the need can be predicted.

Administrative Costs - This includes all costs associated with administration of O&M notincluded under other categories, such as labor overhead.

Insurance, Taxes and Licenses - This includes items such as liability and sudden and accidentalinsurance, real estate taxes on purchased land or right-of-way, licensing fees for certaintechnologies, and permit renewal and reporting costs.

Other Costs - This includes all other items that do not fit into any of the above categories.Discuss and cost effective measures implemented in the past and/or recommendations for costsavings to owner or Government without sacrificing protectiveness.

2

Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist

(Information may be completed by hand and attached to the five-year review report as supportingdocumentation of site status. Some information will be completed by COE. "N'A" refers to "notapplicable.")

I. SITE INFORMATION

Sitename:Location and Region:Agency, office, or company leading the five-yearreview: [\£ kyw\ LA Co-Tps 0

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)v/\ Landfill cover/containment\/\Access controls (j> &** ")v_ Institutional controls_ Groundwater pump and treatment_ Surface water collection and treatment_ Other

Date of inspection:EPA ID:Weather/temperature: -. ^\cn\£>~i

Attachments: _ Inspection team roster attached _ Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1 . O&M site manager IDOOQ £p&(\ __ I "DQ^T" Qcof^^!^ Af>A\/ Name

Interviewed v at site _ at office _ by phone Phone no.Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached

Title Date

J l W\ C2. O&M staff _Name Title DateInterviewed v at site at office by phone Phone no.Problems, suggestions; Report attached

3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State offices, emergency response office,police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, orother city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency _Contact

Name / Title Date Phone no.Problems; suggestions; VL Report attached \Q

Silc Inspection Checklist

Agency cf? fixContact 3 /5OZ- S^'S^ - 1 7 / C.

Name ^ Title Date Phone no.Problems: suggestions: ^Report attached < H *ksf*T & \~

AgencvContact ~P

Name Title Date Phone no.Problems; suggestions; J^Report attached / •*? ^f^Tty^-- j^£t9o^ \~

Agency G\~^f\ KJi IcJgV"Contact

Name Title Date Phone no.Problems; suggestions; _\XReport attached I*"* 4^4*

4. Other interviews (optional) /Report attached,

HI. ONSITE DOCI^VIENTS & RECORDS VTRIFIED (Check all that apply)

1. O&MDpcuments x-" /v^Readily available ^ U^O&M manual v^Readily available ^ Up to date _ N/A

_ As-built drawings _ Readily a\railable _ Up to date \XN/Av/Klaintenance logs vXReadily available v^tlp to date _ N/A

Remarks

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ^_ Readily available jAjp to date _ N/AyXContingency plan/emergency response plan tX/Readily available j^Up to date _ N/ARemarks

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records _ Readily available _ Up to date ^_ N/ARemarks

4. Permits and Service AgreementsAir discharge permit Readily available Up to dateEffluent discharge Readily available Up to date \XN/AWaste disposal, POTW Readily available Up to date ^ „,,Other permits Readily available Up to date i/N/A

Remarks

5. Gas Generation Records ^Readily available Up to date N/ARemarks

S//f Inspection Checklist

6. Settlement Monument Records Readily available Up to dateRemarks NJC?

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records /Readily available lip to date N/ARemarks

S. Leachate Extraction Records Readily available Up to dateRemarks

9. Discharge Compliance Records_ Air _ Readily available _ Up to date _vf N/A_ Water (effluent) _ Readily available _ Up to date J^N/A

Remarks

10. Daily Access/Security Logs _ Readily available _ Up to date _Remarks

IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization^State in-house __ Contractor for State

y_PRP in-house \XContractor for PRPOther

p.B .O&M Cost Records_ Readily available _ Up to date ^L Mcrf_ Funding mechanism/agreement in placeOriginal O&M cost estimate Hga<rv ["

From

From

From

From

From

^-/^ notd {\CjcufS «4-3 O $ ? 9, 0^Total annual cost by year for review peri

ToDate

Date

Date

Date

Date

To

To

To

To

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Breakdown attached

if availableBreakdown attached

Breakdown attached

Breakdown attached

Breakdown attached

Breakdown attached

Site Inspection C'hccklisi

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review PeriodDescribe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS _ Applicable _ N AA. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged j/Location shown on site map J^uates secured N/ARemarks

B. Other Access Restrictions

1 . Signs and other security measures _ Location shown on site mapRemarks Ovlf, VJ(? Tr&W»^ "S\< <7M

C. Institutional Controls

1. Implementation and enforcement /Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented _ Yes J^No _ N/ASite conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced _ Yes j/No _ N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)FrequencyResponsibleparty/agency C~cContact p-lc-Wfc/d l '1e dct^\d t^*> ^S*"-^

Name * Title .. Date Phone no~~v

Reporting is up-to-date _v/^'es _ No _ N/A y /Reports are verified by the lead agency _ Yes _^No _^_ N/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met _v/Yes _ No _ N/AViolations have been reported _ Yes _ No >XN/AOther problems or suggestions: _ Report attached

2. Adequacy j>/ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate N/ARemarks

Inspeclinn Checklist

D. General

1. Vandalism/trespassing^ Location shown on site map No vandalism evidentRemarks CvJ 1L-" r - r' '' " •*" - - r -.-J-x». ... \

2. Land use changes onsite _ N/ARemarks _ M ® [

3. Land use changes offsite _ N/ARemarks &t,rce\ •*& €GS? Co C^XTC U

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONSA. Roads ^/Applicable _ N/A

1 . Roads damaged _ Location shown on site map J^Roads adequate _ N/ARemarks

B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

MI. LANDFILL COVERS _ Applicable _ N/AA. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots) ^_ Location shown on site map Settlement not evidentAreal extent {OO&J^c7' DepthRemarks

2. Cracks Location shown on site map tx Cracking not evidentLengths Widths DepthsRemarks

3. Erosion ^_ Location shown on site map Erosion not evident.Areal extent DepthRemarks \J\ [ n-crv

Inspection Checklist

4. Holes Location shown on site map ^Holes not evidentAreal extent DepthRemarks

5. Vegetative Cover \/_ Grass j^Cover properly established ^_ No signs of stress^/Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)Remarks ^>*/i'ltiu£s( Ct^^i^t7^<^^? JJ (AJTT^^-j pld^^ &~w. L > .

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ^/N/Remarks

7. Bulges _ Location shown on site map ^./Bulges not evidentAreal extent _ Height _Remarks

8. WeJ. AreasAVater Damage Wet areas/water damage not evidentj/Wet areas ^location shown on site map Areal extent_yXPonding _>XLocation shown on site map Areal extent_\XSeeps wxLocation shown on site map Areal extent_

Soft subgrade ^ Location shown on site map Areal extent_Remarks k)&4/ *£&9. Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map j/'No evidence of slope instability

Areal extentRemarks

B. Benches Applicable v ^ N / A(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope inorder to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map ^ N/A or okayRemarks

2. Bench Breached Location shown on site map _ N/A or okayRemarks

3. Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map j^N/A or okayRemarks

spection Checklist

C. Letdown Channels Applicable ^ N/A(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep sideslope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfi l lcover without creating erosion gullies.)

1. Settlement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlementAreal extent Depth

Remarks

2. Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradationMaterial type Areal extent

Remarks

3. Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosionArea] extent Depth

Remarks

4. Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence of undercuttingAreal extent Depth

Remarks

5. Obstructions Type No obstructionsLocation shown on site map .Areal extent

SizeRemarks

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth TypeNo evidence of excessive growthVegetation in channels does not obstruct flowLocation shown on site map Areal extent_

Remarks

D. Cover Penetrations v/Applicable N/A

1. Gas Vents Active PassiveProperly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good conditionEvidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M y N/A

Remarks

2. Gas Monitoring Probes / /^/Properly secured/locked ^Functioning ^Routinely sampled ^ Good condition

Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M^rN/ARemarks

Site Inspection Checklist

3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) /^/Properly secured-'locked ^/Functioning v/Routinely sampled i/Good condition

Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M N/ARemarks

4. Leachate Extraction WellsProperly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good conditionEvidence of leakage at penetration Needs O&M

Remarks

d copditiV/N A

5. Settlement MonumentsRemarks

Located Routinelv surveyed i/N/A

E.

1.

Gas Collection and Treatment Applicable v^N/

Gas Treatment Facilities M / AFlaring Thermal destructionGood condition

Remarks

Collection for reuseNeeds O&M

Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and PipingGood condition Needs O&M

N/A

Remarks

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g._\/Good condition

Remarks

. gas monitoring of adjacent_ Needs O&M

homes or buildings)_ N/A

F. Cover Drainage Layer

1 . Outlet Pipes InspectedRemarks

Applicable

Functioning

•IN/A

_ N/A

2. Outlet Rock InspectedRemarks

Functioning _ N/A

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds

1. Siltation Areal extent_Siltation not evident

Remarks

Applicable ^_ N/A

Depth N/A

Site Inspection Checklist 10

2. Erosion Areal extent Depth_Erosion not evident

Remarks

3. Outlet Works Functioning N/ARemarks

4. Dam Functioning N/ARemarks

H. Retaining Walls Applicable ^_ N/A

1. Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evidentHorizontal displacement Vertical displacementRotational displacement

Remarks

2. Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evidentRemarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Qff Site Discharge ^Applicable N/A

1. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evidentAreal extent Depth

Remarks

Vegetative Growth '^Location shown on site map _ N/A_ Vegetation does not impede flow

Area! extent _ Type _ f ,Remarks C>r^Sh . !/£<<£ /£>fv^-t qrtjvVtt^. -h^C~4 L TV)

3. Erosion _ Location shown on site map ^Erosion not evidentAreal extent _ Depth _

Remarks

4. Discharge Structure _ Functioning i/N/ARemarks

Site Inspection Checklist ] ]

\TII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS _ Applicable \/N A

1. Settlement Location shown on site map Settlement not evidentAreal extent Depth

Remarks

2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoringPerformance not monitored

Frequency Evidence of breachingHead differentialRemarks

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES _ Applicable j J A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable _\/N/A

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and ElectricalGood condition All required wells located Needs O&M G N/A

Remarks

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other AppurtenancesGood condition Needs O&M

Remarks

3. Spare Parts and EquipmentReadily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided

Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable v/N/A

1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and ElectricalGood condition Needs O&M

Remarks

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other AppurtenancesGood condition Needs O&M

Remarks

Site Inspection Checklist ] 2

3. Spare Parts and EquipmentReadily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided

Remarks

C. Treatment System Applicable y N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)Metals removal Oil/water separation BioremediationAir stripping Carbon adsorbers

FiltersAdditive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)

OthersGood condition Needs O&MSampling ports properly marked and functionalSampling/maintenance log displayed and up to dateEquipment properly identifiedQuantity of groundwater treated annuallyQuantity of surface water treated annually

Remarks

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)N/A Good condition Needs O&M

Remarks

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage VesselsN/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs O&M

Remarks

4. Discharge Structure and AppurtenancesN/A Good condition Needs O&M

Remarks

5. Treatment Building(s)N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repairChemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition

_ All required wells located _ Needs O&M _ N/ARemarks

Site Inspection Checklist \ 3

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

1 . Monitoring \Vells (natural attenuation remedy)_ Properly secured'! ocked _ Functioning_ All required wells located _ Needs O&M

Remarks

Routinely sampled _ Good condition'-•-''' N/ A

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describingthe physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soilvapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

B. Adequacy of O&MDescribe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. Inparticular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protect] veness of the remedy.

Inspection Checklist ] 4

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy FailureDescribe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a highfrequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggests that the protectiveness of the remedy may becompromised in the future.

D. Opportunities for OptimizationDescribe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

Site Inspection Checklist ] 5

APPENDIX D

Photographs

APPENDIX E

Typical Inspection Form

1

3

ANNUAL SITE INSPECTIONSummary of Field ObservationsNewport Dump Superfund Site

PSARA Project No. 30415.01

Field Personnel?

Weather Information:

JLPSARATECHNOLOGIES. INC

Date:

<j£/A>*/i^ f (A/4l4~vr7 A t^-Tlfft^,

TOPSOIL AND GRASS COVER

1 . Minor settlement of cover2. Major settlement of cover3. Evidence oferosiorOwales, or cracks4. Grass coverTna3equate5. Ponded water on cover6. Grass height greater than 4"7. Scrub brush vegetation growing on CAP8. Areas of possible seepage through CAP

PERIMETER DRAINAGE DITCH SYSTEM

9. Inadequate slope of ditches causing sloughing or erosion10. Vegetation growth in ditch11. Ponded water, impairment of flow, or sedimentation12. Rip Rap slope inadequate

DRAINAGE CULVERTS, HEADWALLS AND MANWAY

1 3. Integrity of culvert walls deficient14. Damage to culvert grilles15. Damage to headwalls structures16. Junction box damaged1 7. Manway cover and rungs damaged18. Insufficient rip rap at inlets and/or outlets

MONITORING WELLS

19. Weils unlocked20. Deteriorated components2 1 . Excessive rust or corrosion on inner/outer well casings22. Protective casing missing or damaged23. Identification labels missing or not readable24. Concrete pads damaged or cracked // n^. o*d & r4<*S0 325. Possible surface water infiltration into wells

Yes

0"""nDDDa0"n .0^

Yes

a0"~

an

Yes

annana

Yes

aaana

Ir

NotNo Observed

n a&r an ag- D0" Dn a0"" Da a

NotNo Observed

B^ D.a a j

0^ D

NotNo Observed

0"" D0" DQ^ D

0^" DC3^ D

NotNo Observed

0"" a0"~ D0- D0"~ D0" — Da aa a

1

]

ANNUAL SITE INSPECTIONSummary of Field ObservationsNewport Dump Superfund Site PSARA

TECHNOLOGIES, INC

LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM

26. Inadequate loading area due to erosion or rutting27. Damage to holding tank or plumbing connections28. Main control panel not operable29. Sump pumps not operating properly30. Individual sump pump control panels not operable31. Excessively high leachate level32. Electrical wiring or grounding defective33. Leachate collection lines damaged34. Surface water infiltration35. Damage to gas vent pipe

SECURITY FENCE AND PUMP STATION

36. Holes in fence37. Structural Deficiencies38. Gate unlocked39. Broken or missing lock

ACCESS ROAD

40. Site not accessible due to road conditions41. Access road entry security cable intact

Yes

DDDDDnnnnn

Yes

nnnn

Yes

n0^

No

Dnnnnnnnnn

No

0^[2K~Q- —B-"

No

B^n

NotApplicable

Q"~Q~B-0^Q"~O"Q-"Q^Q-"\2T

NotObserved

nnnnNot

Observed

nn

• *--#£?*?i$&::$3^iLf''-''

llf!i!IK:C (u Novxpor! I ' J imip SlU

\:&M'.^- ' ^•'•:• •.•:^;'^i'^r-r'-':';:" ;T§^^^fe:':-, -'.'" -!-W"%l>^^

VlC'.t iool. 111!.'. \V<.--Vl iK'His-. IOjM'1

^v;;:5^>;v- v^ lP^^^^^ ,' > t -j."- ' . -V s * .* r- • •/>< xv *-• J ;" • w*1 . •• ' v1*. v^- •<af.. *:<-j>'1.• v . - .*f :'- * ' ' • -.'y,* V 'VV--*, fe/:-.. v " .''^9yw&:'--.-'-'-&*~i''<-:~&-*ss^x-?-s-\'~i-,Y-&^

r-^,.,, •-'•'.•,'%/:. ^-;-; «Viv v»! ?^f^^^^^^^'^^^^^

s.sr*c:». >."*-**:

to«;»^s-..- jfr,-™*-1-- .

i ,>r i 5

\h;uid<nK:<l pump siaiK«n tn It-fK-o

;k,ri>-^ I u kin>; ki\ c.t limn Konfon (. o \V;if i-(

1 ;i!uHl!i i'.H'-fn^hc I.I < i - l

I. - J l U i i i l i l -.'!(.':s piohf | 1:(",- I

i;i-i Iti'.HUlor \vtli (.iW'-O)

Minor humming niuior cmKTek- i i m l ;t! M \ V - n ;

'V,£>. • i ^-'

1 1 of I

1

'*"•"'-\V- »'.'" " ;

• - • - . ^'X**'.-*/ '"&*':**-r^k '^P^~

- ">^--V->.^*.^s^- *n .,-••, . :; -; .;-- 'V**^

* if iMiTuhvafv-'t !Tt<'ntfUir u t.|l [ )\\ -

of 1 5

G\\ • ' (> r,n N(,r!}, ^H1L. ,,|

• . ' . i - c t - ! - - • ; - : - • - - . . . • • : - - " - ; . : - - . . - j - -

:/;-^lV^^^^''•^•^^^^I'y^^-.-^'.^v:-Sill rfQl

14 Of1 5

V(.-!.'cl:ttiori n ;ttani aUmj!

X'C'J.CtariiH! !H !l(1 Kip !(>C JfiltH c ' J ) N(i!ll' -ilo

J ' /Kf ol tlu: (. ciamic ('o;finuv-. t'i>inp;!!iy i ( ' < . '