Second Five-Year Review Report
for
NORTHSIDE LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
Spokane, Spokane County, Washington
SEPTEMBER 2002
Prepared by:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington
Approved by:
Date:
Michael F. Gearheard, Director
Office of Environmental Cleanup
U.S. EPA, Region 10
cj/3o/f&-
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
1
-------
Executive Summary
The remedy for the Northside Landfill in Spokane, Washington included: the closing
and capping of a 60 year old municipal landfill; controlling the groundwater contamination
in the aquifer from the landfill by a groundwater extraction and treatment system;
institutional controls; and groundwater and air monitoring. The construction completion of
the 125-acre cap occurred in 1993. The trigger for this Five-Year Review was the
completion of the First Five-Year Review that was completed on September 19, 1997.
The assessment of this Second Five-Year Review confirmed the findings of the
First Five-Year Review and found that the remedy is still functioning and operating as
specified in the Record of Decision (ROD). The operation and maintenance (O&M)
includes groundwater monitoring which is confirming a reduction in the concentration of
the contaminants of concern (COCs) at the compliance well. The remedy at Northside
Landfill is protective of human health and the environment, and exposure pathways that
could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Because the remedial actions are
protective, the site is protective of human health and the environment.
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
2
-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form
Site Identification
Site Name:
EPA ID Number:
Region:
State:
City/County:
Northside Landfill
WAD980511778
10
Washington
City of Spokane/Spokane County
Site Status
NPL Status:
Remediation Status:
Number of OUs:
Construction Completion Date:
Final
Operating under O&M
Entire Site is Single OU
September 2, 1993
Review Status
Lead Agency:
Joint Lead; EPA and Ecology
O&M Lead Ecology
Neil E. Thompson
Project Manager
EPA, Region 10
March 2002 through September 2002
July 29, 2002
Post-SARA
Author Name:
Author Title:
Author Affiliation:
Review Period:
Date of Site Inspection:
Type of Review:
Five-Year Review Number: Second
Triggering Action: Previous Five-Year Review Report
Triggering Action Date (WasteLAN): September 19, 1997
Due Date: September 19, 2002
Issues
A pilot project to discharge the extracted groundwater to the on-site storm water
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
3
-------
infiltration basin instead of the sanitary sewer line was nearly completed. A change in the
discharge location and the associated treatment of the volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) will require proper changes in the county issued landfill permit and state
compliance with groundwater recharge permit requirements. Currently the treatment of the
VOCs is in the publically owned treatment plant (POTW). If the discharge is changed to
the landfill's storm water infiltration basin, then treatment of the VOCs will have to be
documented in another system. The pilot system that was tested utilized the aeration of
the groundwater as it cascaded over rip-rap in the storm water channel as a water to air,
air stripping process. Since this site is in the operation and maintenance (O&M) phase,
the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is the lead agency to evaluate this
change in treatment and discharge location.
The groundwater monitoring is indicating concentration of the contaminants of
concern (COCs) are approaching the cleanup goals established in the Record of Decision
(ROD). The O&M of the groundwater extraction and treatment system will probably be
optimized by varying the pumping cycle of the extraction well until full compliance of the
groundwater cleanup is reached.
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
The O&M changes that will be evaluated by Ecology will be important as this site
approaches the state where the active extraction of contaminated groundwater can be
terminated.
The change in the treatment and discharge location need to be reviewed by EPA,
and EPA will need to decide if an explanation of significant difference (ESD) is required.
Protectiveness Statement
The remedy at the Northside Landfill is protective of human health and the
environment, and exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are bing
controlled. Because the remedial actions at this site are protective, the site is protective of
human health and the environment.
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
4
-------
Second Five-Year Review Report
Northside Landfill
Spokane, Washington
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is
protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions
of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review
reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to
address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this Five-Year
Review report pursuant to CERCLA §121 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
CERCLA§121 states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results In any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall
review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation
of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are
being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon
such review it is the judgement of the President that action is appropriate at such
site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require
such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which
such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a
result of such reviews.
The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 CFR §
300.430(f)(4)(ii) which states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often
than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
EPA, Region 10 conducted the first and second five-year reviews of the remedy
implemented at the Northside Landfill Superfund site in Spokane, Washington. This
review was conducted by the EPA remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the entire site from
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
5
-------
March 2002 through September 2002. This report documents the results of the review.
This is the second five-year review for the Northside Landfill site. The triggering
action for this statutory review is the completion of the First Five-Year Review Report,
dated September 19, 1997. The five-year review is required due to the fact that hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table 1 Chronology of Site Events
Event
Date
Site Discovery
NPL Listing
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study completed
ROD Signature
Consent Decree for RD/RA
Remedial Design Start
Remedial Design Complete
Remedial Action Start
Construction Completion Date (PCOR)
Remedial Action Complete March
Remedial Action Close Out Report
First Five-Year Review
February 1, 1980
June 10, 1986
September 30, 1989
September 30, 1989
January 23, 1991
February 11, 1991
March 10, 1992
March 16, 1992
September 2, 1993
15, 1995
March 17, 1995
September 19, 1997
III. BACKGROUND
The Northside Landfill is located in the northwest corner of the City of
Spokane, in Spokane County, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The landfill site covers 345
acres and is totally surrounded by a chain-link fence. The area around the landfill is being
developed as residential now that the old landfill is closed. The older landfill which covered
about 125 surface acres was closed and capped under the Superfund Program. A new
small active landfill was constructed on about 15 acres of the site to create a disposal area
for non-combustible waste and construction debris. The new landfill, which meets the
current standards for landfills, provides the City a place to store overflow municipal waste
and by-pass from the regional waste incinerator.
The older landfill, was closed to disposal on December 31, 1991, at which
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 6
-------
time the municipal solid waste stream was diverted to a new waste incinerator. The landfill
was operational since the 1930's using various fill and cover techniques. Initial site
investigation into water quality began in 1981. Samples taken of the groundwater
indicated the presence of low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In
1983, VOCs were found in neighboring private residential wells. The City provided
alternative water to the affected homes and later in 1984 extended the municipal water
system into the area affected by the plume.
The site was proposed for the NPL in 1984 and listed in 1986. An RI/FS
was completed in 1988 which identified a steady-state plume extending approximately
one-quarter mile down gradient of the landfill boundary which impacted domestic wells.
The ROD was signed in September 1989, and specified that the landfill be capped, and a
groundwater extraction and treatment system be installed as remedial actions. The City of
Spokane entered into a Consent Decree (signed in September 1991) with EPA and the
Washington State Department of Ecology to implement the ROD.
Construction contracts were actually awarded beginning in 1990, prior to the
completion of the ROD and Consent Decree. Although work was started outside of the
Superfund process, it became integrated into the final EPA approved work plans for
construction of the remedial actions. Five different contracts were awarded by Spokane
for construction work to close and cap the landfill and install the single extraction well.
Treatment of the extracted contaminated groundwater is done at the City's POTW. All of
the construction (extraction well, landfill cap, new solid waste cell, etc.) was completed in
1994, with the EPA final inspection done on April 1, 1994.
Basis for Taking Action
The results of the 1989 risk assessment stated that the average human exposure
due to use of an off-site well was assumed to be the mean of all the observations over
time for all of the off-site wells. For 1,1,1 -tetrachloroethylene (PERC), trichloroethylene
(TCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), these mean concentrations were 3, 1, and 1 |jg/l,
respectively. For exposure due to the use of the most contaminated off-site well, the
average concentration for PERC, TCE, and TCA is 28, 5, and 4 |jg/l respectively; and the
highest concentration observed in any off-site well was 38, 8, and 10 |jg/l for PERC, TCE,
and TCA respectively. Three other VOCs were included in the ROD contaminants of
concern (COCs). They are: 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA); trans-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE);
and vinyl chloride. However, PERC, TCE, and TCA have been the only contaminants that
have been identified regularly either on-site or off-site since the RI/FS, and the only
contaminants that have exceeded the cleanup goals. Data for the three COCs of current
interest is shown in Table 2; an entire data set is in Appendix B.
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
7
-------
Table 2 Contaminants of Concern
(Off-Site Points of Compliance)
coc
Highest Cone, ua/l Current Cone. (2002) ua/l MCL ua/l
PERC
TCE
TCA
38
8
10
4.7 (Pellow Well)
non detect
non detect
5.0
5.0
200
IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS
On September 30, 1989, the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by EPA
Closing the landfill;
Capping the landfill after closure;
Constructing an extraction and treatment system to reduce the contamination
in the aquifer;
Monitoring the ground water and performance of the extraction system;
Providing an alternate drinking water supply;
Controlling landfill gas emissions; and,
Enacting administrative restrictions to protect the remedial actions.
Negotiations with the City of Spokane, the single Potentially Responsible Party
(PRP), commenced after the ROD was signed. The city agreed to implement the
remedial actions stated in the ROD and a Consent Decree signed by the City of Spokane,
EPA, and Ecology was entered on January 23, 1991.
The construction of the cap and associated gas collection, extraction and treatment
system, and other ROD remedial action requirements were completed on September 2,
1993. Monitoring of the groundwater has been done regularly and has demonstrated that
the remedial action controls are functioning as designed. The groundwater contamination
from the landfill has been slowly decreasing since the cap was completed.
Operation and Maintenance
The City of Spokane continues to provide operation and maintenance (O&M) at this
site. There is still a portion of the landfill property that is actively receiving waste and the
requiring the following elements:
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
8
-------
gas collection system has added two generators which produce electric power to the local
system using the methane gas generated by the closed landfill. These activities require
that staff be present on a daily basis to provide O&M of the site and maintain security. The
original annual O&M budget was about $75,000 per year. In 2001 the City spent about
$950,000. This increase was due to a change in scope of the O&M and includes the study
to change the discharge from the POTW to the surface water infiltration basin located on-
site.
V. PROGRESS SINCE LAST REVIEW
There were no specific recommendations in the First Five-Year Review document
that needed to be addressed during the last five years of operation.
VI. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
The representatives for City of Spokane and Washington Department of Ecology
were notified in February 2002 that a Five-Year review was required. The review team
would be lead by Neil Thompson the EPA Project Manager for the Northside Landfill site.
The review consisted of:
Document Review
Data Review
Site Inspection
Five-Year Review Report and Its Review
The schedule was for completion during September 2002.
Community Involvement
The Spokane Solid Waste Department takes care of the interactions with the
community on a regular basis. This is part of the O&M for the site. The results of this Five-
Year Review will be contained in a Fact Sheet that will be delivered to the community. The
community was very active during the planning and implementation of the remedy.
However, since the landfill has been capped and the current activities at the small new
landfill are very limited, the residential community has grown around the landfill. The
capped landfill is viewed as open space that will not block the territorial views from the
houses built on the property line.
Document and Data Review
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
9
-------
Groundwater monitoring is done quarterly and the data is submitted to EPA. The
contamination trends have been consistently decreasing in concentration. The
contaminant concentrations in the groundwater off-site are right at the cleanup goals which
are the MCLs. This fact has lead to a field study by Spokane to evaluate a future
discharge and treatment location at the on-site infiltration basin and to evaluate the
possibility of cycling the extraction pump into on-and-off periods. The results of these
studies will have to be approved by Ecology and EPA prior to implementation beyond the
study phase.
The groundwater data summary report for the last year of data is contained in
Appendix B. The primary groundwater compliance well is Monitoring Well BB located just
downgradient from the Pollution Extraction Well (PEW), see Figure 2. Several private
domestic wells are still monitored. All of these private wells have been replaced with
municipal water, but several wells are used for monitoring the groundwater quality in the
plume downgradient from the landfill property. PERC is the one contaminant that
is not well below the MCL and cleanup goal for the site. All other COCs are consistently
below their MCL and cleanup goal.
As part of the landfill closure, a gas collection system was installed. This system
was approved by the Spokane County Air Pollution Authority and has functioned as
designed. In 2001, two gas fired turbines were installed to utilize the methane generated
by the landfill. These have added about 75 KWH of power to the local system.
Site Inspection
The inspection was conducted on July 29, 2002, by the EPA Project Manager (See
Site Inspection Checklist, Appendix A). The purpose of the inspection was to assess the
protectiveness of the remedy, including site security, access restrictions, institutional
controls, and the integrity of the cap and its structures. The participants included:
Site Cleanup Unit #4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-7177
thompson.neil@epa.gov
Bill Fees, Environmental Engineer Ecology
Toxics Cleanup Program
Eastern Regional Office
Inspection Participants
Representing
Neil Thompson, Project Manager
EPA
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
10
-------
Department of Ecology
N. 4601 Monroe, Spokane, WA 99205-1295
509-625-5190
Dean Fowler, Project Manager PRP, City of Spokane
City of Spokane, Solid Waste Management
1225 E. Marietta Avenue
Spokane WA 99207-2787
509-625-7890
dfowler@spokanecitv.ora
There were no significant issues identified regarding the cap, surface drainage,
gas collection and treatment/power generation, or access/security. The closure met and
continues to meet all of the permit requirements of the county and state for both the closed
and operating landfills. Some minor repairs are needed in the old closed landfill to correct
a narrow separation trench that is occurring along the northwest perimeter of the cap. The
gap is about one inch wide and runs for approximately 25 feet. This separation in the
topsoil layer of the cap did not compromise any of the protectiveness of the cap.
The institutional controls are in place. The fence surrounding the site is intact and
the entrance/security gate is locked each night. The city has zoning that currently identifies
the landfill property and restricts its use. All of these controls are actions which continue to
protect the cap.
VII. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended bv the Decision Document?
The review of documents and data, ARARs, and the results of the site inspection
indicates that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. The cap on the landfill is
controlling the release of contaminants to the groundwater as seen by the decreasing trend
in the monitoring data. The cap also prevents the dermal, ingestion, and respiratory routes
of exposure from the landfill contents.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
actions objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
There are no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the
protectiveness of the remedy. The remedy is still protective even though the surrounding
area is becoming residential because the cap is intact and all of the new residences are
served by municipal water. No wells in the contaminated portion of the aquifer are currently
being used.
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
11
-------
Changes in Standards and To Be Considereds
Since the signing of the ROD, the only ARAR that has changed is the MCL for
arsenic. The new MCL for arsenic of 10 ug/l is more stringent than the previous
concentration limit of 50 ug/l. This is not a problem at this site. Arsenic never has been a
concern and the monitoring data indicates less than 10 ug/l for current sample results.
Question C: Has anv other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
No issues have come to light that would indicate that the remedy as it has been
implemented is not protective.
Technical Assessment Summary
According to the data reviewed and the site inspection, the remedy is functioning as
intended by the ROD. There have been no physical changes of the site that would affect
the effectiveness of the implemented remedial actions. The change in the arsenic MCL
does not change any of the RAOs for the site. There is no other information that calls into
question the protectiveness of the remedy.
VIII. ISSUES
There were no issues identified that will require follow up action. The site is well
managed and O&M actions are taken as needed.
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
The only follow-up actions that were identified are the potential future changes in the
discharge and treatment location and the shift from continuous to cycled pumping of the
extraction well. These will have to be acceptable to Ecology as well as EPA. For O&M
issues such as these, Ecology is the designated lead agency. If the treatment location is
changes, EPA will have an ESD that will have to be issued.
X. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Because the remedial actions at this site are protective, the site is protective of
human health and the environment.
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
12
-------
XI. NEXT REVIEW
The next Five-Year review for the Northside Landfill Superfund site is required by
September 2007, five years for this review.
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
-------
APPENDICES
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
-------
APPENDIX A
Site Inspection Checklist
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
15
-------
APPENDIX B
Groundwater Monitoring Data
Fourth Quarter 2001
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
16
-------
APPENDIX B
Groundwater Monitoring Data
NORTH LANDFILL
FOURTH QUARTER 2001
MW-208 10/08/01 10:15_) RPS
<0.02
73.34 85
30
56.66 534 7.47
206 206
MW-BB 10/15/01 10:40_) RPS
<0.02
116.17 124 15 57.02 640 7.23
233 233
MW-C 10/15/01 09:30_) RPS
<0.02
83.77 100 15 55.76 485 7.38
174 174
P.E.W. 10/09/01 09:30_) RPS 128.99 141 15 57.92 803 7.09
MW-E 10/02/01 11:45_) RPS 55.17 105
0.07
60
55.40 427 7.48
MW-F 09/25/01 09:45_) RPS 48.18 68
40
54.32 409 7.41
MW-G 09/24/01 09:25_) RPS 67.64 80
30
55.04 421 7.35
MW-H 09/24/01 09:10_) RPS 34.26 60
30
53.60 460 8.02
MW-I 09/26/01 09:40_) RPS 63.62 80
30
54.50 463 7.78
MW-J 09/26/01 12:45_) RPS 75.57 81 25 56.12 603 7.08 QC DUP
MW-J 09/26/01 12:45_) RPS
81
25
QC DUP
MW-K 10/02/01 09:30_) RPS 61.22 80
0.06
40
53.78 472 7.57 QC DUP
MW-K 10/02/01 09:30_) RPS
0.07
80
40
QC DUP
MW-L 09/26/01 09:00_) RPS 74.30 81 25 54.86 532 7.58
MW-M 10/09/01 08:50_) RPS 127.63 140 15
58.82 997 6.83 QC DUP
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
17
-------
MW-M 10/09/01 08:50_) RPS 140 15 QC DUP
MW-N 09/25/01 11:35_) RPS 47.53 124 60 56.12 491 7.49 QC DUP
MW-N 09/25/01 11:35_) RPS 124 60 QC DUP
MW-P 09/24/01 09:00_) RPS 67.19 113 40 55.04 402 7.62
MW-T 10/08/01 08:45_) RPS 137.26 144 15 54.68 1007 6.92 QC DUP 463 463
<0.02
MW-T 10/08/01 08:45_) RPS 144 15 QC DUP 474 474
<0.02
MW-U 09/24/01 10:00_) RPS 68.74 113 60 55.58 322 7.67
GRUVER 10/01/01 11:40_) RPS NA NA 15 54.68 448 7.82
LINDSKOG 10/01/01 11:20_) RPS NA NA 15 57.20 460 7.41
PELLOW 10/01/01 10:55_) RPS 72.05 NA 15 57.20 635 7.26 QC DUP
PELLOW 10/01/01 10:55_) RPS NA 15 QC DUP
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
18
-------
§l
ol
-SI
col
a I
MW-208 <5
<0.001
13.4 393 <0.1 259 3.3 <0.1 331 27.7 <0.5
MW-BB <5
0.002
18.3 477 <0.1 319 3.6 <0.1 417 35.6 0.9
MW-C <5
0.005
13.2 429 <0.1 237 3.0 <0.1 361 29.4 0.7
P.E.W.
<0.1
5.0
MW-E <5
9.4 562 <0.01 224 2.9 <0.1 396 24.5 0.6
MW-F
MW-G
MW-H
MW-I
MW-J
MW-J
MW-K
<5
11.4
490
<0.01
3.7
<0.1
330
25.9
0.7
MW-K
<5
12.4
397
<0.01
3.9
<0.1
294
24.5
MW-L
MW-M
<0.01
5.0
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 19
-------
MW-M
MW-N
MW-N
MW-P
MW-T
MW-T
MW-U
GRUVER
LINDSKOG
PELLOW
PELLOW
<0.01
5.0
<5 6.1 631 <0.1 547 8.6 <0.1 531 23.0 2.1
<0.001
<5
7.2 1371 lab error <0.1 540
<0.001
3.7 <0.1 515 22.9 2.2
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 20
-------
w
rc
(/>
(/>
If)
If)
if)
if)
if)
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
o
X
-------
MW-P
MW-T 0.002 0.049 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 <0.001 0.002 0.27 <0.01 <0.001 0.001
0.002
MW-T 0.002 0.051 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.002 0.28 <0.01 <0.001 0.001
<0.001
MW-U
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
22
-------
o
<
-------
MW-P
MW-T <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.013
0.002 0.054
<0.001 123 0.005
MW-T <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.014
0.002 0.054
<0.001 120 0.003
MW-U
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 24
-------
MW-208 0.001
0.21
<0.001 31.7
0.003
<0.0002
4.3
<0.001 <0.001 6.6
MW-BB <0.001 0.19 <0.001 32.1 <0.001 <0.0002 4.7 <0.001 <0.001 7.6
MW-C 0.001 0.23 <0.001 25.7 0.002 <0.0002 3.6 <0.001 <0.001 6.2
P.E.W. 0.001 <0.0002 0.001 <0.001
MW-E <0.001 0.22 <0.001 20 0.004 <0.0002 3.3 <0.001 <0.001
MW-F
MW-G
MW-H
MW-I
MW-J
MW-J
MW-K 0.001 0.43 <0.001 22.3 0.003 <0.0002 3.4 0.001 <0.001
MW-K 0.001 0.36 <0.001 21.7 0.003 <0.0002 3.5 <0.001 <0.001
MW-L
MW-M <0.001 <0.0002
MW-M <0.001 <0.0002
MW-N
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
25
-------
MW-N
MW-P
<0.001 6.6
<0.001 6.6
MW-U
GRUVER
LINDSKOG
PELLOW
PELLOW
MW-T 0.002 0.28 <0.001 58.2 <0.001 0.0001 8.2 0.002
MW-T 0.002 0.28 <0.001 58.3 <0.001 <0.0002 8 <0.001
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 26
-------
<
o
Q
<
O
LU
O
Q
ai
o
o
a
3
W
LU
O
ai
¦o
MW-208 0.012 <2
<0.5
<2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5
MW-BB 0.008 <2
<0.5
<2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5
MW-C 0.013 <2
<0.5
<2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5
P.E.W. <2
<0.5
<2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5
MW-E 0.01 <2
<2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-F
< 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-G
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-H
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-I
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-J
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.9 <0.5 0.5 <0.3
MW-J
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.8 <0.5 0.5 <0.3
MW-K 0.012 <2 <2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-K 0.01 <2 <2
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-L
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
27
-------
MW-M 4 <2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.3
MW-M 17 <2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5.2 <0.5 0.6 <0.3
MW-N <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.1 <0.5 0.5 <0.3
MW-N <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.1 <0.5 0.5 <0.3
MW-P <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
MW-T 0.013 <2 <2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 4.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3 <2.5 <0.5
<0.5
MW-T 0.014 <2 <2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 4.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5
<0.5
MW-U <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
GRUVER <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
LINDSKOG <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3
PELLOW <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 4.7 <0.5 0.5 <0.3
PELLOW <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 4.8 <0.5 0.5 <0.3
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
28
-------
MW-208 <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-BB <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-C <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
P.E.W.
MW-E
MW-F
MW-G
MW-H
MW-I
MW-J
MW-J
MW-K
MW-K
MW-L
MW-M
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
29
-------
MW-M
MW-N
MW-N
MW-P
<0.5 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5
GRUVER
LINDSKOG
PELLOW
PELLOW
MW-T <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5
MW-T <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5
MW-U
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 30
-------
MW-208 <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-BB <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-C <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
P.E.W. <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-E
MW-F
MW-G
MW-H
MW-I
MW-J
MW-J
MW-K
MW-K
MW-L
MW-M
MW-M
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
31
-------
MW-N
MW-N
MW-P
<0.5 <0.5
<0.5 <0.5
GRUVER
LINDSKOG
PELLOW
PELLOW
MW-T <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5
MW-T <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
<0.5
MW-U
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 32
-------
MW-208 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-BB <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-C <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
P.E.W. <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-E
MW-F
MW-G
MW-H
MW-I
MW-J
MW-J
MW-K
MW-K
MW-L
MW-M
MW-M
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02 33
-------
MW-N
MW-N
MW-P
MW-T <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-T <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
MW-U
(volatile organics in |jg/L...others in mg/L)
2nd 5-Year Review
Northside Landfill 9/02
34
-------
APPENDIX C
35
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Superfund Program
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Type I
Northside Landfill
Spokane, Washington
I. Introduction
Authority Statement.
EPA Region 10 conducted this review pursuant to CERCLA Section 121 (c),
NCP Section 300.44(f)(4)(ii), and OSWER Directives 9355.7-02 (May 23, 1991), and
9355.7-02A (July 26, 1994). This is a statutory review. The purpose of a five-year review
is to ensure that a remedial action remains protective of public health and the environment
and is functioning as designed. This document will become a part of the Site File.
Site Characteristics.
The Northside Landfill is located in the northwest corner of the City of
Spokane, in Spokane County, Washington. The landfill covers 345 acres and is totally
surrounded by a chain-link fence. The older landfill which covered about 125 surface acres
was closed and capped under the Superfund Program. A new small active landfill was
constructed on about 15 acres of the site to create a disposal area for non-combustible
waste and construction debris. The new landfill, which meets the current standards for
landfills, provides the City a place to store overflow municipal waste and by-pass from the
regional waste incinerator. A caretaker lives on-site and provides after hours security.
The landfill was closed to disposal on December 31, 1991, at which time the
municipal solid waste stream was diverted to a new waste incinerator. The landfill was
operational since the 1930's using various fill and cover techniques. Initial site
investigation into water quality began in 1981. Samples taken of the groundwater
indicated the presence of low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In
36
-------
1983, VOCs were found in neighboring private residential wells. The City provided
alternative water to the affected homes and later in 1984 extended the municipal water
system into the area affected by the plume.
The site was proposed for the NPL in 1984 and listed in 1986. An RI/FS
was completed in 1988 which identified a steady-state plume extending approximately
one-quarter mile down gradient of the landfill boundary which impacted domestic wells.
The ROD was signed in September 1989, and specified that the landfill be capped, and a
groundwater extraction and treatment system be installed as remedial actions. The City of
Spokane entered into a Consent Decree (signed in September 1991) with EPA and the
Washington State Department of Ecology to implement the ROD.
Construction contracts were actually awarded beginning in 1990, prior to the
completion of the ROD and Consent Decree. The City began contracts which were part of
the landfill closure process. Although they were started outside of the Superfund process,
they became integrated into the final EPA approved work plans for construction of the
remedial actions. Five different contracts were awarded by Spokane for construction work
to close and cap the landfill and install the single extraction well. Treatment of the extracted
contaminated groundwater is done at the City's POTW. All of the construction (extraction
well, landfill cap, new solid waste cell, etc.) was completed in 1994, with the EPA final
inspection done on April 1, 1994.
Community relations activities kept the local residents appraised of the
construction activities and solicited their input into some design issues such as:
landscaping, future use, public access, etc. During the construction period, a quarterly
newsletter was published by the City for the residents located around the site.
The cost of constructing the remedial action was about $22 million in
contracts. Additional costs are being incurred during the operation and maintenance
phase of the project. O&M manuals have been written for the continued operation of the
project to assure compliance with the Consent Decree. Groundwater monitoring is done
on a quarterly basis for the on-site and off-site monitoring wells.
The remedial actions are functioning properly and human health and the
environment are being protected. No changes to the O&M or long-term monitoring plan
are being proposed at this time.
II. Discussion of Remedial Objectives; Areas of Non-compliance
The groundwater cleanup criteria established in the ROD are the EPA Drinking
37
-------
Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). These MCLs are considered protective of
public health and have not changed for the contaminants of concern for this site.
The goal of the remedial actions are to control contamination from the old landfill
and to restore the groundwater in the area to drinking water quality. Before the remedial
actions, contaminant concentrations of tetrachloroethylene at the site (landfill property)
boundary was between 20-30 ug/l. After the landfill cap and extraction system control
systems were in place, the tetrachloroethylene concentrations in the monitoring wells along
the site boundary and the down gradient compliance monitoring well, ranged from 5-10
ug/l. The concentrations of tetrachloroethylene normally don't vary much throughout the
year.
Based on the groundwater monitoring data, the concentration of contaminants in the
groundwater is decreasing. There was an initial drop when the extraction system began
pumping. The next major decrease in the groundwater contamination will be after the
impact of the cap is realized as a source control. It was initially predicted that the cap
would be effective at controlling the contaminant leaching into the groundwater in
approximately five to ten years. It is anticipated that the cap will provide sufficient control
that the extraction system can be turned off.
All of the monitoring data from the quarterly groundwater monitoring is compiled
and sent to EPA and the state in an electronic format. There have been no non-
compliance issues since the construction was completed in 1994. The 1 ug/l
concentration line does not extend as far down gradient as it did before the remedial
actions.
All systems are being maintained and are currently operating as they were
designed. The cap shows no signs of aging or lack of care. Small repairs such as
reseeding occur as needed. Maintenance of the mechanical systems especially the active
gas flare system requires a trained staff to operate effectively. The City has personnel
assigned and an adequate budget to operate and maintain these systems. The
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has taken over the oversight of the
operations and maintenance of this site. Ecology and the City have a formal agreement to
operate the closed landfill for 30 years.
III. Recommendations
Based on the file review and Five-Year Review site inspection on August 14, 1997,
no specific recommendations are being made. The operation and maintenance of the
facility is being adequately managed and funded by the City. They are making every effort
38
-------
to keep this project from becoming an operational or community relations problem.
IV. Statement on Protectiveness
I certify that the remedies selected for this site remain protective of human health
and the environment.
V. Next Five-Year Review
Since there are no compliance or operations issues, I conclude that the next
statutory Five-Year Review should be conducted by September, 2002.
Is/ Randall F. Smith September 19, 1997
Randall F. Smith, Director Date
Office of Environmental Cleanup
39
-------
Figure '1
Vicinity Map
-------
L-H L F h 11 J> L4 >MUtI L ft |
-------
ri v A
Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name:
fa O (~ fX\ S / ¦!., r( £ As
Date of inspection:
"7 f zei ! ^ i~
Location and Region:
O f £.
£¦%/
EPA ID:
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: (£4pA ^ ^
7
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
jZkLandfill cover/containment
{^Access controls
pf Institutional controls
^Groundwater pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
~ Other
W eather/temp eratur e:
M. e-t ^
T
O Monitored natural attenuation
~ Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments:
~ Inspection team roster attached
~ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager
T>
C I
< I
Name
Interviewedjs(at site ~ at office 0-by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached
Title
l/z--,
Date
O&M staff lrf~ Sfrtr«sf4~-e h- £\
' Name ~ Title Date
Interviewed ~ at site ~ at office ~ by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; ~ Report attached
cL- Is) I * b La J
Site Inspection Checklist -1
-------
3.
Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency ql, h v / .
Contact />i-U feej> i / }~T-Ci I02~
Name Title . Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached C/^in
AJ, *•/0 i f* - i
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; ~ Report attached
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; O Report attached
4. Other interviews (optional) ~ Report attached.
"fy'Lsj /ttf-i K-f 0 C
Site Inspection Checklist - 2
-------
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS A RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1, O&M Documents
JSfb&M manual JsfReadily available EfUp to date ~ N/A
J^As-built drawings ^Readily available ^3 Up to date ~ N/A
^Maintenance logs Q'Readily available pdp to date O N/A
Remarks
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
j3CContingency plan/emergency response plan
Remarks
~ Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A
O Readily available ~ Up to date ~ N/A
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks /H/m
Steadily available
J
h>
(3 Up to dgte U N/A.
ccsk-A r\^> f St-|
Permits and Service Agreements
^Air discharge permit
£ jElEffluent discharge
\ ~ Waste disposal, POTW
~ Other permits
Remarks ^
~fReadily available
S Readily available
^Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ N/A
ON/A
~ N/A
~ N/A
Gas Generation Records
Remarks aJ.
ISfReadily available
0,Up to date ~ N/A
X- > -7 PI t, oj s~ i
Site Inspection Checklist - 3
-------
IV. O&M COSTS
I. O&M Organization
~ State in-house ~ Contractor for State
p&ERP in-house ~ Contractor for PRP
O Federal Facility in-house ~ Contractor for Federal Facility
~ Other
2. O&M Cost Records
Readily available ^Up to date
jSCFunding mechanism/agreement ill place
Original O&M cost estimate 7C tfOo L.y ~ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From.
To
~ Breakdown attached
From
Date
"Zioo /
To
Date
Total cost
M ^"2" trirv
fi. ^ ^ ~
U Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
From
To
~ Breakdown attached
Date
Date
Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V, ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS -^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged ocation shown on site map fS^&ates secured D N/A
Remarks
B. Other Access Restrictions
1, Signs and other security measures GTLocation shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks o ( l<- / ft.
Site Inspection Checklist - 4
-------
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICyjtffproperly implemented
Site conditions imply ICsjwfbeing fully enforced
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _
Frequency J^ S"Xu/V _
H Yes ~ No DN/A
H^Yes ~ No ~ N/A
Responsible party/agency
Contact
Z..J (¦/> ¦r*''*
cLs"i,
^*-y
'*J"! 1 7 ft f ¦ r-
Name Title
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date
B^Yes ~ No
~ N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency
&.Yes DNo
~ N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
B^Yes ~ No
~ N/A
Violations have been reported
~ Yes ~ No
JBSVA
Other problems or suggestions:
~ Report attached
2. Adequacy
Remarks
BClCs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate
~ N/A
\/Zs*r d f..L J
D. General
1, Vandalism/trcspassing ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks
jSj^No vandalism evident
Land use changes on site J^TN/A
Remarks
Land use changes otf site SS'/A
Remarks
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads
[^Applicable ~ N/A
Roads damaged
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map ^i^Kjioads adequate
~ N/A
Site Inspection Checklist - 5
-------
B.
Other Site Conditions
Rnnaflf<
VII. LANDFILL COVERS 0 Applicable
~ N/A
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map
Area! extent Depth
Remarks
j^Settlement not evident
2.
Cracks r ~ Location shown on site map
Lengths "L-o Widths '' Depths £
~ Cracking not evident
Remarks
3,
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
^Erosionnot evident
4.
Holes ~ Location shown on site map
Area! extent Depth
Remarks
jf^Holes not evident
5.
Vegetative Cover J2jGrass Plover properly established ~ No signs of stress
~ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks
6.
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) IJ£N/A
Remarks
7.
Bulges ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Iieieht
Remarks
J^Bulges not evident
Site Inspection Checklist - 6
-------
8.
1
Wet Areas/Water Damage jf£j¥et areas/water damage not evident
~ Wet areas
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
~ Ponding
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
~ Seeps
~ Soft sub grade
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
t
<~C 1. ly~~1 '"fm— ( L^j SzL>—, .
9.
Slope Instability
Area! extent
Remarks
~ Slides ~ Location shown on site map @<$Io evidence of slope instability
B. Benches [Applicable ~ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map CkfJ/A or okay
2,
Bench Breached
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map p4^"/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
Remarks
~ Location shown on site map B^A or okay
C.
Letdown Channels G^Applicable ~ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the ^unoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
I.
Settlement
~ Location shown on site map JifNo evidence of settlement
Area! extent
Depth
Remarks
2.
Material Degradation
Material type
~ Location shown on site map l*CNo evidence of degradation
Areal extent
Remarks
3.
Erosion
0 Location shown on site map Ofio evidence of erosion
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
4.
Undercutting
~ Location shown on site map J2$fo evidence of undercutting
Areal extent
Depth
Remarks
Site Inspection Checklist - 7
-------
5.
Obstructions Type BTNo obstructions
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
.Size
Remarks
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type
evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
~ Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
D.
Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents J^Active ~ Passive
fiSjfroperly secured/locked Bjunctioning gfRoutinely sampled
~ Evidence of leakage at penetration 0 Needs Maintenance
~ N/A
Remarks
pJ-Qood condition
2,
Gas Monitoring Probes
"KProperly secured/locked Sanctioning
~ Evidence ofleakage at penetration
Remarks
^Routinely sampled
~ Needs Maintenance
J^fGood condition
~ N/A
3,
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Evidence ofleakage at penetration
Remarks
~ Routinely sampled
~ Needs Maintenance
~ Good condition
^Jj/A
4.
Leachate Extraction Wells
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning
~ Evidence ofleakage at penetration
Remarks
~ Routinely sampled
~ Needs Maintenance
~ Good condition
pctoA
5.
Settlement Monuments ~ Located
Remarks
~ Routinely surveyed
J0&/A
Site Inspection Checklist - 8
-------
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment j3y-\pplicable ~ N/A
1,
Gas Treatment Facilities
^Flaring 0i hernial destruction JECCollection for reuse
jS-Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
£ X 7>"2>
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
iS^Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
P-TGood condition ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
F.
Cover Drainage Layer O Applicable
~ N/A
1,
Outlet Pipes Inspected jH^unctioning
Remarks
~ N/A
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected ^Functioning
Remarks
~ N/A
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds JS^Applicable
~ N/A
I.
Sillation Area! extent Depth
P^I/A
^S^Siltation not evident
Remarks
*
2_
Erosion Areal extent Depth
^H43rosion not evident
Remarks
3.
Outlet Works ~functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
4.
Dam n Functioning pfiiJA
Remarks
Site Inspection Checklist - 9
-------
H, Retaining Walls
~ Applicable j?£*N/A
1 Deformations ~ Location shown on site map ~ Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks
2
Degradation ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks
~ Degradation not evident
I.
Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge J^Applicable
~ N/A
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent /) Depth
/PCSiltaiion not evident
Remarks
2
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
•^Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks
~ N/A
3.
Erosion ~ Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
j^Erosion not evident
4.
Discharge Structure ^^Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
~ Applicable J^f^I/A
1.
Settlement 0 Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
~ Settlement not evident
2.
Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring
~ Performance not monitored
Frequency ~ Evidence of breaching
Head differential
Remarks
Site Inspection Checklist - 10
-------
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines ^Applicable O N/A
1, Piynps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
^(Ciocxi condition J3KA11 required wells properly operating ~ Needs Maintenance ~ N/A
Remarks
2
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
^Qood condition Q Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
[^Readily available KXJood condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines QsApplicable ~ N/A
1.
CoUectio^Structur^, Pu«*f»».-aiid Ekclrteitl-
i^Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance ,
Remarks A-y^
3,
Spare Parts and Equipment
~ Readily available ~ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks aJ//\
Site Inspection Checklist -11
-------
C. Treatment System
^'Applicable ~ N/A
1, Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
~ Metals removal ~ Oil/water separation ~ Bioremediation
B'Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
~ Filters
O Additive (e.g., chelation agent, tlocculent)
~ Others
~ Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
~ Sampling ports properly marked and functional
^Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
S Equipment properly identified
~ Quantity of groundwater treated annually / /H & f)
~ Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
~ N/A S^Good condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
J^N/A ~ Good condition ~ Proper secondary containment
Remarks
~ Needs Maintenance
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
~ N/A ^Hjiood condition ~ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
5,
Treatment Building(s)
0^/A ~ Good condition (esp, roof and doorways) ~ Needs repair
~ Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
^Properly secured/locked .^^Functioning B^Routinely sampled
B^All required wells located 0 Needs Maintenance
Remarks
0Npood condition
~ N/A
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
jSls routinely submitted on time 2^Is of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring data suggests:
^Groundwater plume is effectively contained ^Contaminant concentrations are declining j
Site Inspection Checklist - 12
-------
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked O Functioning ~ Routinely sampled 0 Good condition
~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance JEF^/A
Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which tire not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. Ail example would be soil
vapor 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&iYI
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
Site Inspection Checklist - 13
-------
C, Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the future.
D, Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Site Inspection Checklist - 14
-------
KANK
%
------- |