Five-Year Review Report
Third Five-Year Review Report

for

Northside Landfill Super fund Site
Spokane County, Washington
September 2007

PREPARED BY:

US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, WA

AND

US Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
Seattle, WA

FOR:

US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10

Seattle, WA

Approved by:	Date:

?

Eaniei i). OpaUa, Director
Office 71 i il '• Tonmersial Cleanup
fiPA Kujou ]i;


-------
North side Landfill	Spokane, Washington

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

ti tear Review Report

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations			.							*		'

Executive Summary			—				ES-1

Five-Year Review Summary Form.	-					SF-1

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT	1

T. Introduction	-	-			*

II.	Site Chronology.....							2

III.	Background 													2

Physical Characteristics					.	2

Land and Resource Use	3

History of Contamination	3

Initial Response	3

Basis for Taking Action	4

IV.	Remedial Actions..................							.	4

Remedial Action Objectives and Remedy Selection	4

Remedy Implementation..							5

Institutional and Engineering Controls					7

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance			8

V.	Progress Since Last Review									10

VI.	Five-Year Review Process							11

Administrative Components	11

Community Notification and Involvement			11

Document Review - Record of Decision			.					11

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements							12

Contaminants of Concern	12

Cleanup Levels and Points of Compliance	13

Data Review	15

Site Inspection and Interviews	 16

VII.	Technical Assessment									18

VIII.	Issues 																					 21

IX.	Recommendations and FoJIow-L'p Actions						 21

X.	Protectiveness Statement	22

XI.	Next Review															 22

Five-year Review Report	ii	> , mber 2007


-------
Norihsi.de Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Tables

Table I
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7

Figures

.Figure I
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Appendices

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H

Chronology of Site Events

..Annual Systems Operatjons/O&M Costs

1989 ROD CGC Chemical-Specific ARARS (in ug/L)

PCE Results in Compliance Wells for 2002 through 2006

Changes in Chemical-Specific Standards

Issues Identified in this FYR

Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

Site Map

Closed and Active Landfill Features Site Map
Groundwater Monitoring Network for Closed Landfill
PCE Groundwater Concentration Limited Analysis
Groundwater Contours and Flow Direction
Conceptual Hydrogeologic Cross-sections

Detailed O&M Cost information

Community Notification of Third Five-Year Review

Risk Assessment Parameters and Toxicology Updates

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Data for 2002 through 2006

Selected Landfill Monitoring Reports

Completed Site Inspection Checklist

Site Visit Photographs - 12 July 2007

Detailed Institutional Controls Assessment

'lit Review Report

in

September 200/


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ARAR

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

AWQC

ambient water quality criteria

CAA

Clean Air Act

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

COC

contaminant, or chemical, of concern

cwa

Clean Water Act

OCA

dichloroetharie

DCE

dichioroethene

Ecology

Washington State Department of Ecology

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESD

Explanation of Significant Differences

ft

foot or feet

FYR

Five-Year Review

[C

institutional control

IRIS

Integrated Risk Information System

MCL

Maximum Contaminant Level

MFS

minimum functional standards

MOA

Memorandum of Agreement

MICA

Model Toxics Control Act

MW

monitoring well

NCP

National Contingency Plan

NPDES

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPL

National Priorities List

O&M

operation and maintenance

ou

operable unit

PEW

pilot extraction well

PERC

tctrachloroethenc (also called PCE)

PCE

tetrachloroetherie (also called PERC)

POC

point of contact

POTW

publicly-owned treatment works

PRP

potentially responsible party

Qtr

quarter

.ns

not sampled

RA

remedial action

RAO

remedial action objectives

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

R.CW

Revised Code of Washington

RDBC

RDBC

RI/FS

Remedial Investigation' Feasibility Study

ROD

Record of Decision

SARA

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

bCA^CA

Spok.:;:. County Air Pollution Control Authority

Five- Year Ke\ icw Report	i	September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Wash ington

SCHD	Spokane County Health District

SDWA	Safe Drinking Water Act

SR.CAA	Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency

t	trans

TCA	trichloroethane

TCE	trichloroethene

ug/L	microgram per liter

USACE	US Army Corps of Engineers

USC	United States Code

UU/UE	unlimited use and/or unrestricted exposure

VC	vinyl chloride

VOC	volatile organic compounds

WA	Washington

WAC	Washington Administrative Code

Five-Year Review Report

11

Sep!umber 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Executive Summary

The remedy selected in the 1989 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northside Landfill
Superfund site in Spokane, Washington, included landfill closure and capping, pumping and
treatment of contaminated groundwater, groundwater monitoring, providing an alternate drinking
water source to Joca! residents, administrative restrictions and institutional controls, and control
of landfill gas emissions. The site achieved construction completion with the Construction
Complete Report on September 2, 1993. The triggers for this five-year review (FYR) were the
completion of the second FYR dated September 30, 2002 and hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that do not allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.

This FYR found that the remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the
ROD. The remedy is functioning as designed. Releases to the environment are being controlled
with the landfill closure and cap. Immediate threats have been addressed and the remedy is
protective, as residents are on municipal drinking water. Groundwater contamination is being
further reduced through onsite treatment.

This FYR recommends an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) for four purposes:

1.	Clarify and document Federal drinking water standards as the groundwater cleanup levels
at this site for tetrachloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene. Federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) did not exist for these two contaminants of concern at the
time of the ROD.

2.	Document the change in the groundwater treatment system from offsite to onsite
treatment and discharge.

3.	Clarify that the groundwater point of compliance described in the ROD is still the landfill
boundary.

4.	Document the new surface water point of compliance given the groundwater treatment
system changes.

This FYR also recommends EPA action to assess future groundwater data to confirm that indoor
air continues to be within acceptable risk levels and to verify that ICs will be effective in the
long-term.

The FYR recommends that the City of Spokane (City) determine if contaminant concentrations
remain below MCLs in compliance well(s) for one year without the operation of extraction and
treatment system.

Five-Year Review Report

ES-1

September 2007


-------
Norths ide Landfill	Spokane, Washington

[This page intentionally kept blank.

Five-year Review Report

ES-2

September 2007


-------
Norihside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Five-Year Review Summary Form

- ["OU" refers to operable unit.]

** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]

Reruns' Report

SF-1

September 3007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Issues

Issues

Affects
Protectiveness? (Y/N)

Current

Future

Post-ROD promulgation of MCLs for PCE and t-1,2-DCE, for which
cleanup levels were unclear in ROD,

No

No

Changes to the groundwater treatment system and discharge location

No

No

Changes lo the landfill property boundary, leading to confusion as to

the point of compliance for groundwater.

No

No

The appropriate surface water point of compli ance related to change
in discharge of treated water.

No

No

The vapor intrusion pathway has not been considered until this FYR.

No

Yes

Lack of clarity regarding whether institutional controls will ensure
remedy protectiveness in the long-term.

No

Yes

Timing and approach to assessing whether cleanup levels will be met
if Dumping and treatment is discontinued, as provided in ROD.

No

No

													1	

Please see Acronyms and Abbreviations for acronyms used in the Summary Form.

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Recommendation/ Follow-Up
Action

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Mile-
stone
Date

Affects
Protectiveness?
(Y/N)

Current

Future

Clarify and document MCLs as
groundwater cleanup levels for PCE
and i-1,2-DCE in the ESD.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Mar
2008

No

No

Document changes to pumping and
treatment system in the ESD.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Mar
2008

No

No

Clarify groundwater point of
compliance in the ESD.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Mar
2008

No

No

Revise the surface water point of
compliance and any related
monitoring changes in the ESD.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Mar
2008

No

No

Evaluate future groundwater data in
light of vapor intrusion pathway, and
consider additional assessment if
groundwater concentrations rise.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Dec
2007

No

No
Yes

Conduct in-depth survey of ICs to
assess long-term protectiveness.

EPA
Region 10
and Ecology

EPA !

Mar
2008

No

Initiate suspension of pumping and
i realm en t for evaluation, including

City of
Spokane

EPA, | Sep ! No • No
Ecology ' 2008

i-'m-i't ar Revii 11¦ Report

SF-2

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokan e, Wash ington

Protectiveness Statements(s)

The remedy at the Northside Landfill Superfund Site is currently protective of human health and
the environment, because sources have been reduced through landfill closure, cleanup levels are
being achieved through interim measures (pumping and treatment), and exposure pathways are
being controlled through engineering and institutional controls. However, in order to ensure that
the remedy remains protective in the long-term, this FYR recommends that EPA further evaluate
the institutional controls to assess their long-term effectiveness and, if deemed appropriate, issue
an BSD to address any deficiencies identified. This evaluation will be perfonncd within a year
of this FYR.

Next Review

The next FYR for the Northside Landfill Superfund Site is required in September 2012, five
years from the date this review is signed.

Five-Yeur Review R p ,

SF-3


-------

-------
Nofihside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
L Introduction

The purpose of the Five-Year Review (FYR) 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 FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during
the review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR report prepared pursuant
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended,
(CERCLA) § 121 (42 U.S.C. Section 9621) 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 judgment 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 action
taken as a result of such reviews.

This requirement is further discussed in the NCP; 40 CFR § 3Q0.430(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.

This is the third post-SARA site-wide statutory FYR for the Northside Landfill Superfund site in
the City of Spokane, Spokane County, Washington. The FYR is required due to hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that do not allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The initial triggering action for FYRs was the initiation
of construction on March 16, 1992, and the trigger for this third review was the completion of
the second FYR report, dated September 30, 2002. This review was conducted from July 2007
through September 2007; this report documents the results of the review.

In addition to meeting CERCLA requirements, this document is intended to satisfy the Model
Topics Control Act (MTCA) requirement (Washington Administrative Code [\\ AC] 173-340-
-:2(. i i,or pef'odic review of post-cleanup m conditions and monitoring to assuit mat human

i, •<-ij use environment are being protected.

Five-Year Review Report

1

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is responsible for overseeing O&M at this
joint-lead site. EPA Region 10 is responsible for completing this FYR of the remedial actions.
Ecology and the City of Spokane (City) provided information and assistance for the review. The
US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) prepared the FYR report under an Interagency
Agreement with EPA.

II. Site Chronology

Table 1 Chronology of Site Events

Event

Date

Site Disco very-

01 Feb 1980

National Priorities List Listing

10 fun 1986

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study report

30 Sep 1989

Record of Decision signed

30 Sep 1989

Consent Decree for Remedial Design/Remedial Action

23 Jan 1991

Remedial Design start

11 Feb 1991

Remedial Design complete

10 Mar 1992

Remedial Action start

16 Mar 1992

Construction Completion date

02 Sep 1993

Remedial Action complete

15 Mar 1995

Remedial Action Close-Out report

17 Mar 1995

First Five-Year Review report

17 Sep 1997

Second Five-Year Review report

30 Sep 2002

III. Background

The Northside Landfill is located in the northwest portion of the City of Spokane (the City), in
Spokane County, Washington (see Figure 1). For purposes of this FYR only, the term. "Site"
refers to the fenced property owned by the City of Spokane which includes the closed landfill,
active landfill cells, and land adjacent to the landfills. The City owns the Site, operates the active
landfill, and conducts operation and maintenance for the closed landfill. The Site covers 345
acres. Contaminant sources appear to he contained within the closed landfill, although the extent
of contamination includes impacted groundwater downgradient of the Site.

Physical Characteristics

The Northside Landfill is situated approximately one-half mile east of the Spokane River. The
eastern two-thirds of the landfill overlie unsaturated glaciofluvial sands and gravels with less
permeable glacial lake deposits and basalt occurring at depth. The western one-third of the
hs.'.Ufi11 oT'er; ies i portion of the Spokane V ulicy-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. This	was

ucsigna.e-j ?s ? source of w m i . ipply for the Spokane-Coeur D'Alcnc area b> in

I ivc-Ilw Review Report

2

September 2007


-------
Norlhside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

1978, Highly permeable sands and gravels deposited by glacial meltwatcr streams (glaciofluvial
deposits) make up the majority of the aquifer, with subordinate lenses of clay and zones of
cobbles. The depth to groundwater is approximately BO feet below ground surface in the area.

Land and Resource Use

Portions of the Site are actively used as a permitted municipal solid waste landfill. As active
cells are filled and closed, new cells are constructed, permitted, and opened for use. The City
plans to continue landfill operations at this site until all remaining landfill cells are filled. At this
time, the landfill will be permanently closed.

All of the residences which previously drew water from the contaminated plume now use the
Spokane municipal system, which was extended into the area in 1984. The municipal system
also supplies drinking water for new residences in the area. Offsile groundwater and/or
potentially impacted surface water near the landfill are not used for drinking water. No changes
in groundwater use are expected given that residences use the municipal water system. The Site
perimeter is fenced. The Site is bordered by residential developments on three sides, and on the
fourth side a road separates the Site from residential developments.

History of Contamination

The City's Northside Landfill began operating in the 1930s. Various fill and cover techniques

were used. The older landfill was closed to disposal on December 31, 1991, at which time the
municipal solid waste stream was diverted to anew waste incinerator.

The initial site investigation into water quality related to the landfill began in 1981. Site
groundwater samples indicated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in low
concentrations. In 1983, VOCs were found in neighboring private residential wells. The City of
Spokane provided alternate water to the affected homes and, in 1984, connected homes near the
landfill to the municipal water system.

Initial Response

The site was proposed for the NPL in 1984 and listed on the NPL in 1986. A Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) conducted in 1988 identified a contaminant groundwater
plume extending approximately 1300 feet downgradient of the landfill boundary. The plume
was found to have impacted private residential wells. That finding led the City of Spokane to
provide water to the local residents. The ROD was signed in September 1989. The ROD
specified remedial actions, including capping the landfill and installing a groundwater extraction
and treatment system. The City was found to be the sole potentially responsible party (PRP).
The City entered into a Consent Decree in September 1991 to implement the ROD with EPA and
** <: 'vv; v crsight.

Five-Year Review Report

3

September 2007


-------
North-side Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Construction contracts to conduct the Remedial Design/Remedial Action had been awarded,
prior to the signing of the ROD in 1989 and the Consent Decree jn 1991. The initiated work was
integrated into the final construction work plans for Remedial Action that EPA approved. Five
different contracts were awarded by the City for construction to close and cap the landfill and
install a single groundwater extraction well. Treatment of the extracted groundwater was
performed at the City's publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The site met the EPA
Construction Completion requirements September, 1993, with all remaining punch list items
completed in early 1994. EPA conducted a final inspection on April 1, 1994.

Basis for Taking Action

Contaminated site media identified in the remedial investigation include soils below the landfill
and groundwater impacted by contaminants of concern, specifically chloroform, TCA, TCE,
PCE, t-1,2 PCE, 1,1-DCA, and vinyl chloride. Tetrachloroethene (PCE or PERC) and
trichloroethylenc (TCE) were present in groundwater both on site and offsite at levels which
exceeded EPA's existing or proposed maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Based on the
human health risk assessment, ingestion and inhalation of groundw ater containing these
contaminants were the exposure pathways of greatest concern. Exposure via other media,
including soil and surface water, was not considered to be significant. Under a residential
scenario, based on data from the most contaminated offsite well and on the most contaminated
onsite well, the risk assessment estimated excess cancer risks in the range of 10E-4.

IV. Remedial Actions

Remedial Action Objectives ami Remedy Selection

On September 30, 1989, the ROD for the Northside Landfill Superfund Site was signed by EPA.
The remedial action objectives in the ROD are to restore groundwater downgradient of the
landfill property boundary to MCLs through source control and natural attenuation and to
prevent human exposure to contaminated groundwater.

To accomplish these objectives, the ROD calls for the following:

•	Closing the landfill, except new landfill units that meet the State Minimum Functional
Standards,

•	Capping the landfill to contain the refuse units and to provide a barrier to reduce
infiltration into the waste, thereby reducing groundwater contaminant loadings,

•	Pumping and treatment of groundwater, as an interim measure to control contamination
migrating from the landfill,

•	Monitoring the groundwater,

•	Providing alternative water,

FiVt-YuarRe\i t(c.por!

4

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

•	Enacting administrative restrictions (institutional controls) to protect the landfill cap,

monitoring wells, and pumping and treatment system and to prevent construction of new
wells or the use of existing wells in the contaminated plume, and

•	Controlling landfill gas emissions to prevent offsite migration, according to MFS
requirements.

The ROD described the groundwater treatment system as "an interim measure to control
contamination migrating from the landfill until such time as other remedial actions,
principally the cap, have demonstrated their effectiveness at reducing the groundwater
contamination," The installation of a pumping and treatment system was to be designed to
serve two functions:

1.	"Establish a system which will control the migration of contaminants down gradient
from the landfill. The system must effectively control the concentration for
contaminants of concern so that the groundwater downgradient from the point of
compliance meets ARARS [applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements]; e.g.
the Maximum Contaminant Levels [MCLs] of the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA],
The point of compliance is the landfill property boundary with performance
monitoring to be located downgradient but beyond the zone of influence of the
extraction wells."

2.	'Treatment of the extracted groundwater. The treatment facility for the extracted
contaminated groundwater will have to reduce the levels of all contaminants to
required levels prior to discharge to the Spokane River. If the discharge from this
facility is through the sewage treatment plant, the pretreatment requirements will also
have to be met. The river discharge is considered offsite and, therefore, must meet all
Federal, State, and local requirements such as obtaining a NPDES [National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System] permit."

The ROD estimated that the extraction and treatment system would likely be needed for five to
ten years and stated "The pumping and treatment can be discontinued when one year of
groundwater monitoring indicates that groundwater does not exceed the MCLs at the point of
compliance for the contaminants of concern, without running the pump and treat system. The
pumping and treatment system cannot be dismantled for an additional five years after monitoring
indicates it can be discontinued." Also "As soon as other remedial measures, specifically the
cap, become effective in consistently lowering the contaminant levels to below MCLs at the
point of compliance, then (he pumping system can be evaluated for shutdown,"

Remedy implementation

Negotiations for remedial work with the City commenced after the ROD was signed. The City
as eed to implement the remedial actions stated in the ROD, and a Consent Decree signed by the
Cim >t Spokane, EPA .^d Ecology was entered on January 23, 1991, i lie Site achieved
"lit	CompK ion in 1993.

5

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Components of the remedy successfully implemented were:

•	Landfill closure. The existing landfill was closed to all new refuse disposal on December
31, 1991, Closure met the requirements of the Record of Decision and State MFSs for
landfills. Figure 2 shows post-RA closed landfill and currently active landfill features

overlaying an aerial photograph. Components of the remedy successfully implemented
were:"

•	Landfill capping. The cap met the requirements of the ROD and State MFSs for landfills.
The cap was designed to minimize infiltration of precipitation into the refuse and reduce
leachate production and future contamination of the groundwater, stabilize slopes,
prevent surface erosion and control surface water runoff discharge. The cap includes a
high density polyethylene liner, a surface water collection system, 18 inches or more of
granular cover material, 12 inches or more of topsoil and low maintenance vegetation.

•	Groundwater extraction and treatment system. A pilot extraction well (PEW) was placed
on the western boundary of the landfill to remove contaminated groundwater for
treatment and prevent further off-site migration of contaminants of concern. From 1993
to 2003 groundwater treatment was performed offsite at the PQTW with discharge to the
Spokane River. Since 2003, at the request of the City and with the approval of EPA and
Ecology, treatment and discharge have been performed within the landfill property
boundary downgradient the closed landfill as described below under "System
Operations."

•	Quarterly groundwater monitoring for the contaminants of concern. Compliance
monitoring is performed at monitoring wells MW-BB, MW-T, MW-M, pilot extraction
well (PEW), MW-C, MW-U, MW-G, MW-P, and MW-Q. Recently, monitoring of

unused domestic wells has been reduced or discontinued. The groundwater monitoring
network for the closed landfill is displayed on Figure 3.

•	Alternative water supply. This was provided in the form of connection to the City-
provided water system.

•	Institutional controls. (See the following subsection and. for greater detail. Appendix H).

•	Landfill gas emission collection and destruction. This work is ongoing, as required by
the permit and the MPS.

In 1997, the Consent Decree was terminated, with a termination order requiring the City to
continue to fulfill requirements forO&M, Long-Term Monitoring, Institutional Controls, access,
and the funding of Ecology oversight pursuant to a memorandum of agreement.

The Site will be eligible for deletion from the National Priorities List (NPL) once monitoring
documents that the cleanup goals have been met at the groundwater point of compliance for one

Five-Year Review Report

6

September 2007


-------
Northside landfill

Spokane, Washington

year without operating the extraction well and EPA confirms (hat effective institutional controls
have been implemented.

Institutional and Engineering Controls

Access to the landfill and exposure to groundwater are currently controlled through a
combination of engineering and institutional controls that satisfy the ROD requirement for
"administrative restrictions." The primary engineering control is a fence along the Site
boundary. The fence is maintained by the City. The City also provides Site security, currently
including overnight patrols five nights a week on random evenings.

The ICs in place to protect the landfill cap, monitoring wells, and the pumping and treatment
system are as follows:

•	The 1990 Consent Decree, paragraph 29, set forth specific obligations: notify EPA and
Ecology of any potential, changes in Site ownership. It also requires the City to record a
deed notice for the landfill property to notify future owners of the presence of hazardous
substances, to restrict land uses that may "disturb the integrity of the cap or any other
component of any containment system, pump and treat system, or the function of the
Site's monitoring system" with specified exceptions, and to restrict groundwater use in
compliance with the City of Spokane and Spokane County.

•	As noted above, the Consent Decree was terminated in 1997, but the termination order
requires the City to continue to comply with restrictions on conveyance and use of the

property as specified in paragraph 29 of the Consent Decree. [A title search was not
performed for this FYR to verify that the restrictions continue to be in place.]

The ICs in place to restrict the construction of new wells and the use of existing wells in the
contaminated plume are as follows:

•	No groundwater wells are to be drilled within 1000 feet of landfills as per State law,
WAC 173-160.

o As part of WAC 173-160, Ecology enforces the State law through their "Start Card"
program. This program requires well drijlcrs to submit well location information
prior to the initiation of the well drilling. The Start Card process allows Ecology to
check the proposed location against landfill boundaries and deny permission to drill if
the location is within 1000 feet of the landfill. [This FYR did not assess whether this
procedure would be followed indefinitely after landfill closure).

o In addition, the Spokane County Health District (SCITD) has responsibilities pursuant
to WAC 246-290. SCBD does not approve permits for buildings with groundwater

wells proposed in the landfill property overtax. Also, SCHD has t>..; -lulhorily to
require sampling and analysis if a proposed \ o :s near a landfill ?one. Permits in a

l-'iv. ¦ I ear Review Report

7

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

landfill zone require use of municipally supplied water. SCHD also provides
information 011 landfill-related contamination during the new well permitting process.
[As above, specifics of this requirement, including the duration, were not fully
evaluated in this FY'R review.]

These restrictions appear to be effective at least as long as the City is operating the landfill. The
City does not have an estimated timeframe for closure of the active cells, hut City representatives
stated that closure would not occur before the next FYR.

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance

The City continues to perform operation and maintenance (O&M) at the Site pursuant to the

Consent Decree termination order and the O&M plan. Ecology oversight is provided under a
Memorandum of Agreement between the City and Ecology. Many of the O&M measures are
also required under the permit for the active landfill.

*	The Operations and Maintenance Plans specify inspection frequency and requirements
for maintenance and repairs for the cover system, pursuant to the City's Washington State
Landfill Permit to maintain the closed landfill for 30 years. [This FRY review did not
determine how the 30-year timeframe applies to the Site given that parts of the landfill
are active and parts are closed. In any case, O&M may be needed beyond this timeframe
and should be evaluated].

The landfill is visually inspected on a daily basis, coincident with daily inspections of the gas

monitors, to assess:

*	Landfill surface conditions for settling, cracks, erosion, holes, bulges, wet areas/water
damage, slope instability, and vegetative cover needs.

*	Benches (or berm) integrity.

*	Conditions of cover penetrations (gas collection system, gas monitoring probes,
groundwater monitoring wells, and several wells through the closed landfill cover that are
part of the leach ate extraction system for the active landfill cell).

*	Cover drainage and surface water infiltration basin.

Monitoring of the landfill cover is also conducted using landfill gas data. The gas generation
data is monitored for system contributions of methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen as the
collected gas is burned in the flares. Oxygen concentration data also serve to determine potential
leakage through the landfill cap liner. Site personnel provided examples in the site interviews of
how the gas data has been used to make repairs to the liner. The gas collection system is
reguL.' ."o.ui.ijd cwd : -paired as needed.

Ftvt fear Review Report	8	September 200?


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

The second FYR noted that the gas collection and treatment system had been modified in 2001 to
produce energy via methane gas-fired generators. However, prior to the current FYR, energy
production was discontinued, based on an assessment by the Spokane Regional Clean Air
Agency (SRCAA, formerly Spokane County Air Pollution Control Agency [SCAPC A]). The
assessment determined that the system was not meeting Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The
CAA requirements are more stringent for energy production than for burning the gas in the
flares. Therefore, the collected landfill gas is again being burned in flares as originally
constructed.

Until this year, groundwater compliance monitoring under this remedial action has also been
used to monitor the active landfill cell and includes field parameters (e.g., groundwater
elevations), conventional parameters (e.g. alkalinity), dissolved and total rnetals, and VOCs. The
City has taken steps to develop separate monitoring plans for the active cells and the closed
landfill.

At remedy startup, the extraction system pumped groundwater to the City of Spokane PQTW for
treatment. The POTW releases all treated water directly to the Spokane River. Over time, the
contribution of 1 million gallons per day from the landfill to the POTW system became viewed
by I he City as too demanding on the POTW, and an alternative groundwater treatment was
sought.

To address the strain on the POTW, the City proposed onsite ex-situ air stripping as the
alternative to POTW treatment. In late 2003, discharge of extracted groundwater to the landfill

surface water collection system was initiated. Contact with ambient air strips the VOCs from the
water as it flows in a lined surface drain approximately 1000 feet to an infiltration basin on Site
(see Figure 2). The system's removal efficiency was calculated by comparing sample results
from the extraction well and at the infiltration basin. The removal efficiency was demonstrated
to be near 80 percent. Based on the contaminant removal results, EPA and Ecology approved
[his change to the remedy. The groundwater treatment change was described in the second FYR
report. The system has been operating in cycles of three days on/four days off since onsite
treatment was initiated. The rationale for system cycling is to reduce operation costs while
maintaining hydraulic control of the contaminated groundwater.

Yearly O&M costs for the review period are included in Table 2 below. The O&M costs for the
closed portion of the landfill are significantly higher than the annual amount estimated in the
ROD. Appendix A contains the detailed cost information provided by the City. This FYR report
recommends that EPA work with Ecology and the City to review this information and costing
assumptions in the ROD and to determine the reason for the discrepancy.

Five-Year Mi-view Report

9

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Table 2 Annual Systems Operations/O&M Costs

Year

Cost in Dollars

(not adjusted for inflations and rounded to nearest thousands)

Original estimate

75,000

2002

1,218,000

2003

1,255,000

2004

1,221,000

2005

1,247,000

2006"

1,229,000

While costs savings to the City of Spokane may not be evident with respect to pumping the
groundwater, the City regained capacity at its POTW when it switched to treating Northside
Landfill groundwater on site, which may allow the POTW to generate revenue Jljom treating
other water. There also may be some cost savings for a reduced cycling schedule of waier
treatment. Such savings may not bring O&M costs down to what was originally estimated for
this site; see Table 2 above.

V. Progress Since Last Review

No recommendations were made and no issues were raised in the first FYR. EPA made a single
recommendation in the second FYR report. This recommendation was with respect to the
change from offsite treatment in the POTW with discharge to the Spokane River to treatment and
discharge within the landfill property boundary. The Report stated that such changes would have
to be evaluated by the City and then reviewed and approved by EPA and Ecology. The Report
also said that if such a change was approved, EPA would need to decide if an Explanation of
Significant Difference (ESD) would have to be issued. The treatment and discharge system
changes were evaluated and submitted by the City and were approved by EPA and Ecology in
2003.

The revised treatment system is now fully operational and both landfill groundwater treatment
and discharge occur at the Site. At the time of the remedial action change approval, EPA and
Ecology determined that the changes could be documented in a Memorandum for File rather than
an ESD. However, to ensure the public is aware of the changes, this FYR recommends that the
system change be presented to the public and added to the Administrative Record as part, of an
ESD for the Site.

A review of the groundwater data for the last five years indicates that the majority of quarterly
samples meet the cleanup levels in the ROD. Tetrachloroctbene (PCE) has been below the MCL
of 5 ug/L in all quarterly well samples since the (bird quarter of2004. All COC sampling results
have been below MCLs since the third quarter of 2004 and below CWA cleanup levels in the
proposed surface water compliance wells (MW-E and MW-F) for the last five years. In 2002
and 2003, TCE was detected in MW-BB at 0.6 ug/L; all results for TCE since 2003 have been
¦ ¦ •1 ^ 1 • S -C. (as compared to the TCE MCL of 5.0 ug.- L). No other COCs have been
detected in groundwater in the review period.

Five- hear Ktivtav Report

10

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

The City has indicated that, as part of phased shutdown based on reductions in groundwater COC
concentrations, it may propose further reduction of the pumping and treatment schedule to two
days on/five days off. EPA and Ecology evaluation of the compliance monitoring data indicate
that the remedial actions have demonstrated their effectiveness at reducing Hie groundwater
contamination and that it may be appropriate to discontinue pumping and treatment tor a year, as
provided in the ROD. EPA and Ecology will notify the City of this and will assure that the
City's groundwater monitoring plan is appropriate to assess proposed operational changes or
suspensions.

VI. Five-Year Review Process
A dm in istrative Components

In June 2007, the third FYR team was assembled: Mr. Tim Brincefield of EPA Region 10,

supported by Ms. Sheri Moore and Ms. Lisa Cass of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
District. The project representatives for Ecology and the City were notified in July 2007 that the
next FYR was required arid would be initiated in July 2007. The review included site
inspections, site interviews, published document review, and site record review. The schedule
for completion was September .2007. Ms. Ellen Hale was assigned as RPM in September 2007
and joined in reviewing and revising final drafts. Inspection and interview report and site visit
photographs are provided in Appendices F and G, respectively.

Community Notification and Involvement

The City of Spokane is responsible for the interactions with the community on a regular basis
through the City of Spokane Solid Waste Management office. Community notification and
involvement is part of the site O&M for both the closed Superfund site and the active landfilling
operation. Community involvement and concern for the site has decreased over time since
remedy implementation.

In July 2007, EPA sent postcard notices to those listed on EPA's Northside Landfill mailing list
and published a public notice in the Spokane Review on July 12, 2007 that this FYR was being
initiated. Copies of both are attached as Appendix B. Within 30 days of signature on this FYR,
EPA will publish another notice and summary of the FYR.

Document Review - Record of Decision

Document review for this FYR focused on the 1989 ROD, the first two PYRs, and groundwater

monitoring results for the last five year period, fn addition, the following documents were

I*..*" 1 :e 1990 Consent Decree, 1997 Order Graining Mea.ua Terminate Consent
the Remedial Action Report, and the Preliminary and Final CIoscout Reports.

Five-Year Review Report

U

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

The ROD identified the following site ARARs to be attained by the remedy:

•	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA? 42 USC SS 690) et seq.') regulations.

•	Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC Sections 173-303 and Section
70.105 RCW).

•	Washington State Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling (WAC 173-
304 and 70.95 RCW).

•	State Board of Health (WAC 248-54).

•	MTCA, refeiTcd as "pending promulgation" and therefore not applicable.

•	Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 USC 300 ct seq.), and its primary drinking water
standards (40 CFR 141).

•	CAA (72 USC 7401).

•	Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1251 et seq).

•	Offsite regulations, such as storm drainage and discharge of treated water to the Spokane
River under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) effluent limits
(40 CFR Section 122), NPDES permit program (WAC Section 173-220), and Water
Pollution Control Act (RCW Section 90-48), as a minimum.

The detailed FYR ARARs analysis is carried out in detail in Appendix C. The results of the
analysis are described in Section VII - Technical Analysis.

Contaminants of Concern

The 1989 risk assessment was summarized in the ROD. The risk assessment estimated risk from
human exposure to contaminated groundwater in an offsite domestic well, using the arithmetic
mean of all contaminant values measured for all sampling events at all offsite wells as exposure
point concentrations. Three chemicals were consistently detected: PCE, trichlorocthene (TCE),
1,1,1-trichloroelhane (1J ,1-TCA). The mean concentrations for those three chemicals were: 3,
1, and I ug/L, respectively. The risk assessment also calculated risk associated with the use of
the most contaminated offsite well. The average concentrations for PCE, TCE, and 1,1,1-TCA
in that well were 28, 5, and 4 ug/L, respectively. The highest concentrations observed at the time
o f the risk assessment in any offsite well for PCE, TCE, and 1,1,1 TCA were 38, 8, and 10 ug/L,
-	_ . Ineeother VQCs ,v : i.eluded in the risk assessment scenarios: t,1-

tJicJ'lo.ha.ic i 1,1-DCA), trans-1,2-dichlorocthcne (M,2-DC£), and vinyl chloride (VC). A

Five-Year Review Report

12

Scptcmh-.-r 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

seventh VOC, chloroform, was also detected in some offsite wells. The ROD states that
exposures via surface water or direct contact with soils arc not significant risks.

The RJ/FS determined PCI:, TCE, and 1,1,1-TCA to be the site COCs based on their frequency
of occurrence and concentrations in both onsite and offsite wells. However, the ROD indicates
that all seven VOCs were considered COCs, and chemical-specific ARARs were listed in the
ROD for the seven VOCs listed above.

Cleanup Levels and Points of Compliance

Protection o f Groundwater

For groundwater, the ROD described the selected remedy to include pumping and treatment of
groundwater "so that the groundwater downgradient from the point of compliance meets
ARARs, e.g. MCLs of the Safe Drinking Water Act." The ARARs discussion for the SDWA
(Statutory Determinations, page 37 of the ROD) states, "groundwater will meet MCLs, the
appropriate health based standards" and describes the remedial action operating "until the aquifer
no longer exceeds drinking water levels." Table 3 (below) shows the information presented in
the ROD as "Table 5 Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs for Organic Contaminants at the
Northside Landfill," which includes SDWA MCLs, CWA Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC), and Reference Dose Based Criteria (RDBC).

Table 3 1989 ROD COC Chemical-Specific ARARS (in ug/L)



Groundwater

Surface Water

SDWA

Reference

CWA







Dose













MCL

Based

Fish and



Acute

Chronic

COC

MCL

Goal

Criteria

Water

Fisli Only

Toxicity

Toxicity

PCE

-

0

10

0.8

8.85

5,280

450

TCE

5

-

260

2.7

80.7

45,000

-

1,1,1-TCA

200

-

1,000

18400

1,030,000

-

-

Chloroform

100

-

350

0.19

15.7

28,900

1,240

1,1-DCA

-

-

4,500

0.94

243

-

-

1-1,2-DCE

-

-

350

0.33

1.85

11,600

-

VC

2

0

46

2.0

525

-

-

The ROD clearly stated, both in the Selected Remedy and Statutory Determinations sections, that
cleanup levels at the groundwater point of compliance were the Maximum Contaminant Levels
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Thus, cleanup levels for the four COCs that had MCLs at the
time of the ROD are clear. Three other COCs—PCE. l.l-DCA, and M ,2-DCE—did not have
promulgated groundwater standards at the time of the ROD and as a result groundwater cleanup
levels for these COCs arc not as clear. MCLs had not been promulgated for these contaminants.
a'id ihr i' • -.f d ¦' ngton had not promulgated MTCA or State surface water quality

KitlVuS,

tire- 1 :ir Review Report

13

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Subsequent to the ROD, iti 1992, the MCL for PCE was established at 5.0 ug/L. The March
1995 Final Close Out Report states on page 11".. .concentrations ... are now approaching the
performance criteria (also the MCL for PCE) of 5 ug/1" and "The cleanup standards for the
general aquifer are the Safe Drinking Water Act, Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)." This
value is also cited in the 1997 and 2002 five year reviews as the cleanup level for PCE.

However, there is no record of the MCL being formally adopted as the cleanup level in a
CERCLA decision document.

The groundwater point of compliance is referenced in Lire ROD in two different ways: the
landfill property boundary (Site) and the landfill boundary. At the time of the ROD, these were
the same. Following the ROD, the City acquired property for the infiltration basin, which, is
outside the landfill boundary. This FYR review recommends clarification that the point of
compliance is the landfill boundary, not the property boundary.

The ROD required performance monitoring "downgradient but beyond the zone of influence of
the extraction wells." According to Ecology, the compliance wells documented in the
"Summary of Post Closure Monitoring" CH2M Hill, 2007 are MW-BB, MW-T, MW-M, PEW,
M W-C, MW-U, MW-G, MW-P, and MW-Q. MW-BB is the only one of these wells that is
outside the Site, The other compliance wells are located downgradient along the edge of the
landfill itself. PEW, considered one of the compliance wells, also is the extraction well and is
thus not strictly "beyond the zone of influence of the extraction wells." No action is
recommended to remove PEW from the list of compliance wells, however, as it may be used for
compliance monitoring once extraction is discontinued.

This FYR concludes that at the compliance wells, the applicable cleanup levels are MCLs.

While the ROD also cites the CWA as an ARAR, the reference (quoted below in the discussion
of discharge to surface water) appears to address discharge to surface water, while the SDWA
citation was clearly meant to apply at the groundwater/drinkirig water point of compliance near
The landfill boundary.

This FYR concludes that the ROD did not clearly identity- groundwater cleanup levels for the
COCs which did not have MCLs in 1989: PCE, 1,1 -DCA, arid t-l,2-DCE.

Protection of Surface Water

The basis for cleanup levels for protection of surface water is found in the ROD's ARARs
citation for the CWA. ft reads as follows:

"The selected remedy treats the extracted water to meet MCLs, health-based standards, or water
quality criteria prior to discharge, whichever is lower. Therefore there will be no adverse impact
on surface waters from discharge of treated groundwater." Table 5 of the ROD identifies the
CWA criteria for the seven site COCs.

v jciccu'! "i T.ed involved groundwater trcalrnunt he POTW v* dischaigc k> ihc
Sp-.-kane Riv;r, die PQ'i ' discharge point was the appropriate point of comp, sneo for surface

Five-Year Review Report

14

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

water. However, treated water now infiltrates to groundwater on Site (outside the landfill
footprint). While a change in point of compliance for surface water was not discussed in the
previous FYR. this FYR concludes that it is appropriate to apply surface water standards where
groundwater affected by the site "daylights" to surface water.

There is some uncertainty regarding where groundwater from the Site emerges to surface water,
but it is likely that it emerges in the Spokane River northwest of the Site. Figure 5 shows the
groundwater contours and the inferred flow direction to Che northwest. For well monitoring data
from 2002 - 2006, the detection limits for chloroform, 1,1-DCA, and t-1,2-DCIi are slightly
higher than their respective CWA criteria for consumption of fish and water. However, given
that these COCs are undetected in all of the wells tested, it is likely that their concentrations are
sufficiently diluted on the way to the Spokane River to meet the CWA cleanup levels for these
COCs. In monitoring wells F, H, 1, and K, which lie between the Site and the Spokane River, the
CWA standards are clearly met for the four other COCs,

Data Review

Quarterly groundwater reports provided by the City over the past five years were reviewed
during this FYR. The City has conducted groundwater monitoring of compliance and
performance monitoring wells on a quarterly basis. Validated and verified results are reported to
Ecology and EPA. PCE and "I CE are the only COCs that have been detected in the past five
years. PCE has not been detected above the MCI, of 5.0 ug/L since the third quarter of 2004.

Table 4 below shows the PCE results in the compliance wells MW-BB, MW-C, PEW, MW-M,
MW-T, MW-G, MW-P, and MW-U over die past five years. Figure 4 shows an analysis of PCE
concentration trends (based on the data shown in Table 4). MW-Q is still used for water level
measurements but was not sampled for COCs in the review period, "I CE has not exceeded the
cleanup level in any wells during that time period. In fact, TCE has not been detected in the
groundwater compliance wells above the detection limit of 0.5 ug/L since first quarter 2003.
Downgradient wells MW-E and MW-F have been non-detect for all COCs for the entire review
period. Appendix D provides the groundwater monitoring data from all wells sampled in the
past five years for all COCs. Figure 5 shows the groundwater contours and flow directions.
Monitoring wells are also shown., including those used for a conceptual hydrogeologic cross
section drawing, Figure 6.

Table 4 PCE Results In Compliance Wells for 2002 through 2006

Qtr

Year

MW-BB

MW-C

MW-PEW

MW-M

MW-T

MW-C

MW-JP

MW-U

Isi

2002

3.6

3.9

4.1

<0,5

2.7

ns

ns

ns

2nd

2002

2.8

<0 5

3.7

4.3

2.8

<0.5

<0.5

1.9

3rd

2002

5.8

0.7

5.4

6.0

3.6

ns

ns

ns

4th

2002

3.1

0.7

2.8

2.7

.1.1

¦'0.5

<0.5

• 0.5

Is.

H

3.2

<0.5

3.5

: .0

2.4

IK

ns

i ¦

2n.» | 2i k

5.1



4.7

.<)

<2

<0.5

-0.5



Fr.y- Year Review Report

15

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

Qtr

Year

MW-BB

MW-C

MW-PEW

MW-M

MW-T

MW-G

MW-P

MW-U

3rd

2003

3.2

0.5

3.8

4.2

2.8

ns

ns

ns

4th

2003

2.2

0.5

3.0

3.9

3.0

<0.5

<0.5

t.4

1st

2004

2.4

<0.5

2.3

0.9

1.8

ns

ns

ns

2nd

2004

3.7

0.6

3.9

4.0

2.4

<0.5

<0.5

<0,5

3rd

2004

4.7

0.5

5.4

5.4

2.7

ns

ns

ns

4th

2004

3.9

0.5

3.7

4.1

3.7

<0.5

<0.5

0.7

1st

2005

3.1

<0.5

2.9

1.7

2.1

ns

11 s

ns

2nd

2005

3.5

0.6

3.4

3.7

1.9

<0.5

<0.5

0.8

3rd

2005

2.8

0.6

3.1

3.5

2.1

ns

ns

ns

4 th

2005

2.9

< 0,5

ns

Ns

2.6

as

ns

ns

1st

2006

3.2

0.6

3.6

2.0

2.3

ns

ns

us

2nd

2006

2.9

<0.5

ns

Ns

1.7

ns

ns

ns

3rd

2006

3.5

0.6

3.3

3.7

2.2

ns

OS

ns

4th

2006

4.2

0,6

4.2

4.1

3.1

ns

ns

ns

Table Notes:

"Qtr" quarter (calendar year)	"<" less than "ns" not sampled

As shown in Figure 4, seasonal oscillations in concentrations are evident through 2005. Perhaps
more importantly, the data show that PCE concentrations in the down gradient point of compliance
well MW-BB track very closely the concentrations in the extraction well PEW. The effect of
extraction at PEW is not evident in contaminant concentrations at the down gradient POC well
MW-BB, and the effect of the change in the PEW pumping schedule in 2003 is not readily
apparent. The similarity in concentrations at MW-BB and PEW suggests that groundwater at
MW-BB comes from an area of the contaminant plume beyond the capture zone of PEW, but that
both are showing attenuating contaminant levels, possibly due to effects of the landfill cover.

Documents reviewed also included randomly selected reports summarizing data from landfill
flare station monitoring, gas probe monitoring, and interior gas collection wells. The reports
were provided by the City at the time of the site inspection. These data were reviewed to assure
that monitoring data are being collected with regular frequency, that the data are properly
reviewed, and appropriate responses are being taken by the City. The reviewed reports arc
included as Appendix B.

Site Inspection and interviews

The site inspection took place over two days, July 11 and July 12, 2007, at the Northside
Landfill. Those who participated in the site visit on July 11, 200? were Mr. Bill Fees, Ecology;
Mr. Dean Fowler, City of Spokane; and Ms, Sheri Moore, Seattle District USAGE. Activities
included driving the site to look at general and specific conditions of the closed landfill and the
operating portions of the landfill, as well as an inspection of the onsite groundwater pumping and
treatment system. This inspection provided an overall understanding of the site functions and
personnel. The site visit was extended to the City of Spokane Department of Solid Waste Office,
where Mr. Fowler provided monitoring data to USACE.

Five-Year Re\ n n> Report

September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

The site visit on July 12, 2007 was conducted to complete the site inspection checklist (attached
as Appendix F; site visit photographs are attached as Appendix G) with onsite personnel. Two
City employees were available to participate in the site inspection, Mr. Steve Anderson and Mr.
Rick Deibel. Both are in the position of "laboratory technicians,1' where Mr. Anderson manages
the groundwater monitoring systems for the closed and active landfills and Mr. Deibel manages
the landfill gas collection and treatment system. The site inspection checklist was completed by
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Deibel and site photographs were taken. Later that day, Mr. Fowler also
gave input to the checklist. Mr. Fowler stated that the City would likely propose to change the
extraction frequency to two days on/five days off cycle in the near future, as the PCE levels
continue to be below 5 ug/L.

The site is in good condition and appears to be well managed by the City. There were no
significant issues identified regarding the remedy: concerning the cap, surface drainage, gas
collection and treatment, groundwater collection and treatment, or ICs (fencing, security).
Regulatory requirements for the active cell contribute to the good management of the remedy via
onsite personnel, ICs, administrative controls, groundwater monitoring, leachate monitoring,
safety, and employee training. Routine O&M and irregular events (such as an act of vandalism
in 2003) appear to be addressed in a timely manner by the City based on documentation and
Ecology oversight. Mr. Fowler indicated that the closed and active landfills continue to meet all
applicable county and state permit requirements. A review of necessary permits was conducted
by the City when the groundwater treatment system was changed from releasing to the POTW to
releasing on site.

The close monitoring of the gas collection system is an effective way to assess the prevention of
surface water infiltration. Onsite personnel described the procedures they use to monitor to the
gas collection system due to system sensitivity to oxygen input. Oxygen concentrations directly
correspond to the presence of damage to the landfill cover and/or liner. According to the
technicians, the level of liner damage of concern to the gas collection and treatment system is
lower that that for infiltration and groundwater source control.

The revised extraction and treatment system was visited. The site visit occurred on a day when
groundwater was being extracted. The extracted water was seen to be discharged to the surface
water collection system near the extraction well and to flow down hill to the surface water
collection and infiltration basin. Tall grasses and birds were noted at the basin.

A follow up interview was conducted by Ms. Moore with Mr. Fees on July 20, 2007. On that
call, Mr. Fees provided his insight on the information gained during the site inspections and
document review,

No other interviews were deemed necessary. EPA did receive one phone call requesting
information in response to the public announcement, which EPA addressed by directing the
caller to site information documents on the EPA web site and the Administrative Record
Information Repositories,

Five-Year Review Report

17

September 2007


-------
North side Landfill

Spokane, Washington

VII. Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Yes, the remedial action is functioning as intended by the ROD, Based on visual inspection and
other information provided by the City, the cap is well maintained and functions to prevent
infiltration of surface water. The decreasing COC concentrations apparent in the groundwater
data review indicated that the cap is working to prevent the releases of landfill contaminants to
the underlying groundwater. As demonstrated by quarterly groundwater monitoring, COC levels
are below chemical-specific ARARs in the ROD, as well as current drinking water standards.

Other observations with respect to remedy function include the following:

« Operating procedures, as implemented, are maintaining the effectiveness of the response
actions. Both the gas collection and destruction operation and the active landfill
operation ensure that the landfill is appropriately maintained by the City.

•	Opportunities for groundwater monitoring optimization as part of a typical FYR are not

easily applied to this site. This site includes an operating landfill, and MPS requirements
apply, such as quarterly groundwater monitoring. According to the City, however, the
City intends to submit a groundwater optimization plan to Ecology and EPA which is
likely to recommend reducing the operation of the groundwater treatment system to two
days a week.

•	O&M personnel appear to be well aware of landfill cap maintenance issues - settling,
cracks, erosion, boles, sufficient vegetative cover, and gas collection system sensitivity -
and take regular actions to repair and mitigate impacts as described in the site inspection
report.

•	Institutional and engineering controls are in place and functional to prevent direct contact
with landfill material and contaminated groundwater. Engineering controls, mainly
fencing and security services, serve to protect the cap and treatment equipment, ICs in
place include State MFSs restricting the placement of any groundwater well within 1000
feet of a landfill, as well as requirements 011 drillers to report proposed well drilling
locations prior to State approval for drilling and local zoning to prevent development on
the landfill site. A summary and evaluation of the ICs is presented as Appendix :L

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and
RAOs used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

No; however the remedy remains protective as discussed below.

, . ,\	iu e.. t. .evols since (he ROD is the promumvoion of \'Cr -• r r P(' E : 1

t ;,2- "C£. ilirtv COCs did not have MCLs at the lime of the ROD. While this i	s

Five-1 e«r Review Report

18

September 2007


-------
Norihside Landfill

Spokane, Washington

the ROD as not clearly specifying cleanup levels in groundwater for PCE, 1,1-DCA, and t-1,2-
DCE, the ROD listed noncancer reference dose criteria for those COCs (see Table 5). The
MCLs for PCE and t-1,2-DCA are significantly lower than the reference dose criteria, are based
on cancer effects, and are enforceable drinking water standards, EPA and Ecology agree that an
ESD should be prepared to formally adopt the MCLs for PCE and C-L2-DCE as cleanup levels.

PCE and TCE are the only COCs that continue to be detected in compliance monitoring wells.
Quarterly monitoring indicates PCE concentrations from 0.5 to 5 ug/L since 2004 and TCE
concentrations at or near the detection limit of 0-5 ug/L since 2002.

Because there is no MCL for 1,1-DCA, EPA reviewed the MTCA B noncarcinogenic standard
formula value of 800 ug/L for groundwater as a comparison value. Given that 1,1 -DCA has been
undetected in the compliance wells at a detection limit of 0,5 ug/L, this FYR does not make any
recommendations related to this COC.

Table 5 Changes in Chemical-Specific Standards and TBCs

COC

Medium

Standard

Citation/Tear

PCE

Ground-
water

Previous

] 0 ug/L

"Reference Dose Based Criterion" in the
ROD.

New

5 ug/L

SDWA MCL. Promulgated 1991, posl-ROD

t-1,2-
DCE

Ground-
water

Previous

350 ug/L

"Reference Dose Based Criterion" in the
ROD.

New

100 ug/L

SDWA MCL. Promulgated 1991, post-
ROD

Other related assessments:

• Ecological Exposures: Since 2003, water extracted from the extraction well (PEW) has
been aerated on site and allowed to infiltrate in an area of the Site adjacent to the landfill.

As a result, an area of grassy vegetation has developed, which attracts birds, small
mammals, and wildlife that can cross the fence!ine. The RI/FS did not assess ecological
risk, and the ROD did not contemplate discharge to the ground surface. While ecological
exposures are now occurring that were not addressed by the ROD, EPA does not believe
that current conditions pose a significant ecological risk. Concentrations of COCs in the
water being extracted at the PEW are below ecological screening levels for aquatic life
(see Ecological Screening Levels in Appendix C). According to the City, treatability
testing of onsite aeration indicated that contaminant concentrations following aeration
were reduced by up to 80%. In addition, the vegetation is expected to decrease or to
disappear entirely after groundwater extraction is discontinued (see EPA
recommendations below). If pumping is not discontinued by the next five year review, it
may be appropriate to collect plant and soil samples to confirm that conditions are
protective.

Five- Year Review Report

Si'plttmi\ r 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, iVashington

*	CWA Point of Compliance: As noted, groundwater extracted at the Site is no longer sent
to the POTW for treatment but is aerated and allowed to infiltrate on Site. Thus, the
point of compliance for surface water is no longer the POTW discharge to the Spokane
River. Rather, because groundwater flows toward the Spokane River, the point of
compliance with the CWA should be in the aquifer prior to discharge. Monitoring wells
located between the groundwater compliance wells and the Spokane River are available
to evaluate compliance with the CWA. While it appears that monitoring at some of these
wells has been discontinued or reduced in frequency since 2005, COCs have not been
detected at these wells in monitoring from 2002 through 2006. This review recommends
that monitoring of well E be continued to assess compliance with the CWA,

¦ TCE slope factor: The inhalation slope factor for TCE has been withdrawn from the
Integrated Risk Information System, and a replacement value has not been published.
However, the TCE slope factor withdrawal does not affect this FYR review, as the MCL
has not changed. In addition, the only recent detection of TCE in groundwater
monitoring from 2002 through 2006 was at 0.5 ug/L, ten times below the MCL,

•	Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Vapor intrusion is a process whereby volatile contamination in
the subsurface enters buildings, where humans may be exposed through the inhalation
pathway. Vapor intrusion is an emerging concern, and it was not evaluated in the RI/FS.
To support this FYR, EPA performed a screening level evaluation for PCE using recent
vapor intrusion guidance [OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating Vapor Intrusion to
Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance,
2002)]. Based on a reasonably protective attenuation factor of 0.001 (and assuming that
the chemical in groundwater obeys Henry's Law), a risk level of 1E-6 is associated with a
groundwater screening concentration of 0.54 ug/L PCE. Measured concentrations of
PCE in groundwater monitoring data from 2002 through 2006 range from <0.5 ug/L to a
maximum of 5,9 ug/L (in 2003, at compliance well MW-M), indicating potential risks
between 1E-6 and 1E-5. This is an order of magnitude below the unacceptable risk
threshold of IE-4. Based on this evaluation, EPA concludes that current levels are
acceptable and are expected to remain so. Additional action under CERCLA is not
required at this time. Future quarterly groundwater data should be reviewed with this
pathway in mind, however, as pumping and treating may be reduced or discontinued. If
future groundwater CGC concentrations increase or if other information suggests that the
vapor intrusion paUiway could pose unacceptable risk, additional data collection may be
appropriate. Monitoring at nearby domestic wells should periodically be assessed,

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into
question the protecti vert ess of the remedy?

No. This FYR indicates that the remedy as it has been implemented is protective at this time.
However, in light of the increasing emphasis on the adequacy of institutional controls, including
• guidance for five year renews, an in-depth review should be performed to evaluate how

20

September 2007


-------
Norths ide Landfill

Spokane, Washington

institutional controls at this site will be maintained in future, particularly after the active landfill
units are closed.

VIII. Issues

Issues identified during the FYR are listed in Table 6.

EPA recommends that an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) be prepared to address
some of the issues and that a review be undertaken to assess the long-term protectiveness of
current institutional controls.

Table 6 Issues Identified ill this FYR

Issue

Affects
Protectiveness? (Y/N)

Current

Future

Post-ROD promulgation of MCLs for PCE and t-1.2-DCE, for which
cleanup levels were unclear in ROD.

No

No

Changes to the groundwater treatment system and discharge location.

No

No

Changes to the landfill property boundary, leading to confusion as to
the point of compliance for groundwater.

No

No

The appropriate surface water point of compliance related to change
in discharge of treated water.

No

No

The vapor intrusion pathway has not been considered until this FYR

No

Mo

Lack of clarity regarding whether institutional controls will ensure
remedy protectiveness in the long-term.

No

Yes

Timing and approach to assessing whether cleanup levels will be met
if pumping and treatment is discontinued, as provided in ROD. -

No



IX. Recommendations and FoIlow-lJp Actions

Table 7 presents the recommendations and follow-up actions necessary to address the issues
identified in this FYR. These recommendations and follow-up actions would address the issues
identified above.

"able 7 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

Recommendation/ Follow-Up

, Party

Oversight

Action

! Responsible

Agency

'larify and document MCLs as

EPA

EPA

;roundwatcr cleanup le^ d$ for PCE

Resiion 10



,mu •:-! "MX H in the GSJ.

I



Mile-
stone
Date

2007

I Affects

Protect! veriest
	(Y/N)

Current Future

No

No

Five-Year Rt new Report	21	.	September 2007


-------
Northside Landfill

Spokane, Washington









Affects
Protectiveness?
(Y/N)

Document changes to pumping and

treatment system in the ESD.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Dec
200?

No

No

Clarify the groundwater point of
compliance in the ESD.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Dec
2007

No

No

Revise the surface water point of
compliance and any related,
monitoring changes in the ESD.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Dec
2007

No

No

Evaluate future groundwater data in
light of vapor intrusion pathway, and
consider additional assessment if
groundwater concentrations rise.

EPA
Region 10

EPA

Dec
2007

No

No

Conduct in-depth survey of ICs to

assess long-term protectiveness.

EPA
Region 10,
Ecology

EPA

Dec
2007

No

Yes

Initiate suspension of pumping and
treatment for evaluation, including
appropriate data gathering.

City of
Spokane

EPA,
Ecology

Sep
2008

No

No

X, Protectiveness Statement

The remedy at the Northside Landfill Superfund Site is currently protective of human health and
the environment, because sources have been reduced through landfill closure, cleanup levels are
being achieved through interim measures (pumping and treatment), and exposure pathways are
being controlled through engineering and institutional controls. However, in order to ensure that
the remedy remains protective in the long-term, this FYR recommends that EPA further evaluate
the institutional controls to assess their long-term effectiveness and, if deemed appropriate, issue
an ESD to address any deficiencies identified. This evaluation will be performed within a year
of this FYR.

XL Next Review

The next FYR for the Northside Landfill Superfund Site is required by September 30, 2012, five
years from the date this review is signed.

b'tvc-icar Review Report

September 2007


-------
NQRTHSIDE LANDFILL LOCATION

Figure 1
Site Map

Third FYR Report
September 2007

Figure source:

City of Spokane
report, "Northside
Landfill Groundwater
Monitoring Plan
Revision 2 March
2007." Report
prepared by
CH2MHill.

MILES

FIGURE 1-1
Vic'nify

Wori'/'sWe l and fill
March 2C07

CH2IVT? 'ILL


-------
Well s/Boctotj?; ¦
StaUi$

^ lancfff Ur\r*s:

n roT,^'
.

Ota P

\

3M*
A'jtt-

A

'¦ '•."
*.. : . •

\%

\\

\\
¦7 -

J \\

A

\ '

Skhnmlrex UhJt
(HiaIde?

sSl

OMfolitsaVm

{C--JHOI

-. 11v-1 i»*r*Jo"	******* expansion ' • ¦ : ¦

VSWJM / j -+?SW r	1 *!*&>

' I V/ ¦ ' --V

t -

v.--1

WStim L'nJf ' 7''l',7
££A?js*k/J

'-. "v , •)

y'r.'	" -J ™	:¦

Jr 1

.)

\

.r»i
» * '¦<

\

i&':" '"

v -s.

y-- ~-'f. 1 * :-fe "x,
.¦:'-	M-;*-

V-'

\ \

*

\

^ 'j&dsSP*¦-'*Vv, ¦•''•¦

¦":~v Fv-v-.y -fliBWteB

# • ;r;v: ; - .f --; -:

"O 1-); «.

t!a n'-r /• •- - []•¦.- ¦ ¦

V

• i ¦

P '



- 'r-



Note: Crty property extends to Nine Mile Road-
adjacent to the compliance groundwater welis as
shown by the shape outlined by dashed line

*f t\cto t	_		__	" ¦	; >	^ w

Figure 2

Closed and Active Landfill Features Site Map
Third FYR Report	September 2007

Adapted from City of Spokane report, "Northside Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Plan Revision 2,
March 2007." Report prepared by CH2MHil(.


-------
M?n?
s vsrz o

; ©!
i O VXKUf. h
\*4W L

W.V

a ca??eu/*ii

APPXOXMATe EDGE OF $°Ot£	fSWC/ l

KGRTKSiQE LAWOflL.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY

\ ! .
pfaort. »1

KWC D^Vr

X s4*\

-vwse

• W>V/>* '•
I —. -Pf.*

jA.	\«sy-c

- -vsy-u
¦ «»£=
'AW-f

*rPi»iKCMlLL4r>£
M¥C*6*£
-------
PCE
2002 - 2006

I 7.0

6.0

5.0

v>
B

Vv

U>

o

4.0

I 3-0

I 2.0

o

! 1.0

0.0 -	

Jan-02

Jan-03

Jan-04

Jan-05

Date

MW-M

MW-T

O MW-BB
Compliance

-~—MW-PEW
Extraction

- - Linear (MW-PEW
Extraction)

Linear (MW-BB
Compliance)

Figure 4

PCE Groundwater
Concentration Limited
Analysis

Third FYR Report
September 2007


-------
f'AJfAAY R

••/ATia
SYSTEM

MW-K

• VOiKV,'. .7

yw-i

Km-j



r^Fcb^ai ©

*• d'VAO

^ © CisseLunu

U'iOSKCO

v>v r\*\

V, iM<-.
\

W»?<>rr*v

£0C£ Of SPOJCAMF VAU£V-
^ TNDRVM PfWRIZ ACl'fF£P fBVRPAi

WORfHSIOs LANDFILL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY

5-JO* l^tX> J40C

f-nxx:

i-

~ ® v

t'CMt-k ,

mw-he i

\ 1

PZUCWQ . ! •

K!RK ® M f^r-		

!r | i	- M'*-r

>£•> x /V^rsow© , i l _ - mw.m

! iP^Sf

Infiltration Gallery

".pLiWHi'.LSD:

*rD£Ot5£OlC«3^
^EEvore Ji

f £MK15f?JU&? H^CtCQlOlr^

C c^^-Socnwi ivv, i sfl

&<3MM i'2

CLdl&OREFUSglWT

M5^

OCt^i

©-cjsia;-

Leq»rs;f

Note: City property extends to Nine Mile Road adjacent to the compliance groundwater wells as shown by the shape
outlined by dashed line	.

Figure 5
Groundwater

Contours and Flow
Direction

Third FYR Report
September 2007

Adapted from City of
Spokane report,

"Northside Landfill
Groundwater Monitoring
Plan Revision 2 March
2007." Report prepared by
CH2MHI1I.


-------
A
South

A'

North

Spokane Valley -
Rathdrum Prafie
Aquifer

Tertiary
Basalt

or
Latah
Formation
Sediments

1750

1700

1S50

1600

- 1550

a)

a
w
(3

ay

ZD

c
o

s

&
Hi

1500

1450

1400

1350

LEGEND

'V GrounJwater evel(Ap-iS K 199;

Approximate screened irtervs! afwsil

Base of Spokane VaPty-RaiMtum

Prairie Aquifer

NOTES"

1,	Hydrcgeoiogic conddions at the rr.-r* '-c-ri-.g v;ei s
a-e projected

2,	S<»« figure 2-' forplaovew tecsnon ofw«t«
shown,

3,	Cross-sedicp modified from "P>(ot Groird.-.-aie-
extraction Test, North Lafid'ill Spokane,
Wa;,hjigternCh2M HILL 1993}.

500 Feci

I	1

Hofkanta1 Scsic

FIGURE 2-2

Conceptual Hydroceoiogic Cross-
Norihside Landfill
March 2007

Figure 6

Conceptual
Hydrogeologic Cross-
sections

Third FYR Report
September 2007

Figure source

City of Spokane report,

"Northside L 'fill

Groundwater Monitoring

Plan Revision 2, March

2007," Report prepared by

CH2MHMI.


-------
Appendix A - Detailed O&M Cost Information

Five-Year Review Report	September 2007


-------
Appendix A - Detailed O&M Cost Information

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
A;r

B

C

D

E

1







Acct 4500-44850-*****-*****-00000

2 J

Code

Description

Actual FFF

Actual FFF

Actual FFF

3





0/13 2002/2002

0/13 2003/2003

0/13 2004/2004

4

37080 !

OTHER NONOPERATING EXPENSE







5

54101 |

PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTS



15,000.00



6

55124 I

WA STATE DOE

1,056.00

480.88!

679.00

7

59101

INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

63,160.00

61,781.00

65,205.00

8



Total

64,216.00

77,261,88f

65,884.00

9

A i





|



10

3714,3

DEPRECIATION/^MORT/DEPLETION







11

61020 •

AMORTIZATION / \

.<¦$71,474,00

871,474.00'

871,474,OQ.^-

12



Total. 7 Vv-—

871,474.00

\ . 871',474.00

\ / S71,4-7] 172.24

46

52500

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

838.0C



!

47

53101

OFFICE SUPPLIES



189.8:

5 169.71

48

53103

POSTAGE

125.4E

82. i;

2> 110.83

49

53201

OPERATING SUPPLIES

1,053.55

i! 1,452.9

D 2,596.11

50

53502

MINOR EQUIPMENT

5,009.5^

|f 3.300.18 5,618.93

51

54201

CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

38,498.2'

39,174.24 43,409.33)

52

54302

CELL PHONE



480.02j

53

54401

TRAVEL

1,137.1;

>1 1,625.70; 3,628.63

54

54451

ADVERTISING

151.2(

);



55

54501

OPERATING RENTALS/LEASES

483.9<

31

I 324.30

56

54602

RETIREES' INSURANCE BENEFIT

69.6

31 69.6

0 63.60

57

54701

PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE

591.08: 361.4

4 123.24

i


-------
-

A,

B J

C

D

E

1J	





Acct 4500-44850-*****-*****-00000

2

Code

Description

Actual FFF

Actual FFF

Actual FFF

3





0/13 2002/2002

0/13 2003/2003

0/13 2004/2004

58

54702

UTILITY LIGHT/POWER SERVICE

37,317.22

35,387.52

29,890.52

59

54902

REGISTRATION/SCHOOLING

765.00

845.00



50

54908

PERMITS/OTHER FEES

4,191.32

4,399.18!



31

54940

EMISSION TESTING



10,823.95



32

54999

OTHER MISC CHARGES

363.21

561.54

841.68

33

59201

INTERFUND COMMUNICATIONS

1,386.34

1,394.39

1,693.87

34

59303

INTERFUND OPERATING SUPPLIES

22.48





35

59602

INTERFUND UNEMPLOYMENT



2,543.00

29.00

36

59603

INTERFUND WORKERS COMPENSATION

1,868.00

2,393.00

2,714.00

37

59901

INTERFUND-MIS

8,859.96

8,859.96

9,540.96

38

59903

INTERFUND-REPROGRAPH1CS



32.00



69



Total

269,100.75

283,977.28

257,115.73

70











71

94000

CAPITAL OUTLAY







72

56201

BUILDING ACQUISITION

3,948.79





73

56203

BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

859.99





74

56401

MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT





6,384.12

75

56408

OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT

0.00





76



Total

4,808.78

0.00

6,384.12

77











78



Total

1,217,648.64

1,255,026.69

1,221,277.46


-------


'A

if -§» :f f



311?



i





Acct 4500-44850

• r • •

""*-00000

2

Cods

Description

Actual FFF Actual FFF

III

i



0/13 2008/2005 j 0/13 2006/2006

4

37080

OTHER NONOPERATING EXPENSE







Bits

551 "4

WA STATE DOE

1,164.00)



	2,403.20

6

59101

INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

68,608.00



22,630.49





Total

69,772.00!



25,033.69

37143

DEPRECIATION/AMORT/DEPLETION

	:	-	1	



	

||i|

'61020

\ AJIOttJIZATION, \ ' s

871,474.001 • ..



871,4|4-00

ill

,

Total

871,474.00)



8?Y^?4.00

S3

37145

"	MAINTENANCE									I





	

SI

54803

EQUIPMENT REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE

2,735 22



18.656.83

flu

54850

OTHER REPAIRS/MAINT SUPPLIES

1,302.00



906.39



59801

INTERFUND REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE

1,215.31



14,654.52



59910

MISC INTERFUND

262.58









Total

5,515.11



34,217.74



37148

OPERATIONS-GENERAL







,< 1

02330

SENIOR ENGINEER

25,684.98!



24.382.66

22

05010

LABORER 1

20,086 49



26.712.05

111

05020

LABORER II

2 619 21





Uf

05550

SW DISPOSAL SUPERINTENDENT-

18,263 22



17,311.22

iH5!

06540

LABORATORY TECHNICIAN

49,754.10!



51,910.34

m

51210

OVERTIME

2,264.46



3,201.03

MS

51220

OUT Or GRADE

122.00



686.70

|||

51230

SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL PREMIUM

40.75!



72.31

liR

51250

TERMINATED SICK LEAVE PAY

852.02





30

51260

TERMINATED VACATION LEAVE PAY

1,497.94!



	|

ii

51290

LONGEVITY PAY

304 ->?



3i7.46j

81

51400

SPECIALTY PAY

152 36



. ——

ill

51600

AUTO ALLOWANCE

884.27 .



	947,58

Stf

51610

CLOTHING ALLOWANCE

450.00!



	450.00

ill

51640

DEFERRED COMPENSATION-MATCHING

3.656.00



2.628.00



52110

SOCIAL SECURITY

9,545 36



9.682.51 j

i®:!

52210

RETIREMENT

8,020.36!



8.389.88

sa

52270

HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT

78.43!



78.43

lif

52280

LONG TERM CARE

20.07



19.32

15*,'

i 52310

MEDICAL INSURANCE

21,610 60



21.968.05]

51

52320

DENTAL INSURANCE

3,708.39



3 645 86,

r 2

52330

LIFE INSURANCE

654.82!



652 95'

II;

52340

DISABILITY INSURANCE

137.021



126.77

Sf*'~

52400

INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE

175.29!



168.78



53101

OFFICE SUPPLIES

282.40,



157.50

li

53103

POSTAGE

98.66}



260.04

J7

53201

OPERATING SUPPLIES

2,310.05i



2,572.52 (

ii*

53501

SMALL TOOLS

205.69!



93.33

49

53502

MINOR EQUIPMENT

8,872.39!



1,833.38

S#

54101

PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTS

I



4,081.50

51;

54201

CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

42,047.071



32,588.45

52

54302

CELL PHONE

493.61 j



399.47

53'

54401

TRAVEL

2,990.79!



2.887.91

s

54501

! OPERATING RENTALS/LEASES

55.001



11.78

55

i 54602

RETIREES' INSURANCE BENEFIT

64.60:



66.35

5i

, 54731

PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE

278.30!



908.19

5?

f54702

UTILITY LIGHT/POWER SERVICE

30,534.46i



24,976.10


-------


A







:f S





Acct 4500-44850-*****-*****-00000

2

Code i

Description

Actual FFF

Actual FFF

3





0/13 2005/2005

;

0/13 2006/2006

SfiS

54850

OTHER REPAIRS/MAINT SUPPLIES

5.86



ill

54902

REGISTRATION/SCHOOLING

1,390.00

2,010.00

m

54903

PERMITS/OTHER FEES

3,845.98

3,923.01

HE

54940

EMISSION TESTING

7,295.001



62

54999

OTHER MISC CHARGES

1,345 72

7,355.66

jS^,/

59201

iNTERFUND COMMUNICATIONS

1,765.94

1,621.50

SI

59602

INTERFUND UNEMPLOYMENT

1,174.00.

1,265.00

r\r«

59603

INTERFUND WORKERS COMPENSATION

3,206 00

4,081.00

iff

59901

INTERFUND-MIS

10,695 00

11,619.96

HP!

59903

INTERFUND-REPROGRAPHICS

122.76:

0.00

Mi

59910

MISC INTERFUND

30.00!

I

69



Total

289,752.141

276,324.30

!|pl







iff

94000

CAP"AL O'JTLAY



72

56401

MACH!NERY;EQUIPMENT

10,272.18'

21,362.74

Iftff

56408

OFFICS FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT

0.00





Total

10,272 18

21,362.74

7 r.









"8

97180

OPERATING TRANSFER TO MIS





fpjl

80101

OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT



480.64

ill



Total

I 0.00

480.64

Sfi!









ijft

i

Total

| 1,246,785.43

1.228,893.11


-------
Appendix B - Community Notification of Third Five-Year Review

Five-Year Review Report	September 2007


-------
Appendix B - Community Notification of Third Five-Year Review

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
#Em

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, ETPA-081
Seattle. Washington 98101-11128

Northside Landfill
5-Year Review
Spokane County
July 2007

::: "

EPA to Review Northside Landfill

Superfund site In Spokane County

The U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency (EPA) is doing the third Five-Year Review of the
Northside Landfill Superfund site, located on a 345-acre of parcel of land northwest of Spokane.

The review will insure the waste cleanup put in
place by the city of Spokane in 1993 remains
effective. The cleanup included closure, capping
and landscaping of the landfill; treatment to reduce
groundwater contaminants, installation of a gas
collection system to control landfill gas, and
restriction and monitoring of the site from
unauthorized access. Reviews are required at least
every five years when a remedy leaves waste in
place above levels that allow for unrestricted use
and unlimited exposure.

How You Can Get Involved:

EPA welcomes your participation during our
review, in July and August, 2007. If you have
information that may help EPA with the review,
contact Tim Brincefield, EPA Project Manager, by
phone at 206-553-2100 or toll free at 800-424-
4372. Email: brincefield.timothy@epa, sov.

TTY users max cull the Federal Relay Service at
800 877-8339 and give the operator Mr.
Brincefield's phone number.


-------
No winner. Next jackpot: 5390,000.
5-* Wed Powerba!!; 8-20-29-42-43.
Power Be

cccS	'

£55S-
£
Ei

Wed. Hit 5:3-11-13-18-20.

J^CCWV EPA to Review Northside Landfill Superfund site
\ |n Spoitane County

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing the third Five-
Year Review of the Northside Landfill Superfund site, located on a 345-acre
of parcel of land northwest of Spokane.

The review will insure the waste cleanup put in place by the city of Spokane
in 1993 remains effective. The cleanup included closure, capping and
landscaping of the landfill: treatment to reduce groundwater contaminants,
installation of a gas collection system to control landfill gas, and restriction
and monitoring of the site from unauthorized access. Reviews are required at
least every five years when a remedy leaves waste in place above levels that
allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.

How You Can Get Involved:

EPA welcomes your participation during our review, in July and August,
2007. If you have information that may help EPA with the review, contact
Tim Brincefield, EPA Project Manager, by phone at 206-553-2100 or toll free
at 800-424-4372, Email: brincefield.timothv@epa.gov.

TTY users may call the Federal Relay Service at 800 877-8339 and give the
! operator Mr, Brincefield's nhone number.


-------
Appendix C - Risk Assessment Parameters and Toxicology Updates

Five-Year Review Report	September 2007


-------
Appendix C - Risk Assessment Parameters and Toxicology Updates

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
Table 1. Updated ARAR Information for Northside Landfill COCs.

Chemical

MCL (MCLG),
Hg/L

NRWQC: Human Health by
Consumption of Fish and
Water, ng/L

NRWQC: Human Health by
Consumption of Fish Only,
Hg/L

Comparison to ROD Values (Table 5)

Chloroform

100 (none)

5.7

3.3

•	MCL has not changed

•	NRWQC > ROD

•	Surface water driver would be 3.3 ng/L

Dichloroethane, 1,1-

None (none)

No Value

No Value

•	No MCL has been established

•	NRWQC withdrawn

•	Surface water driver would be 5 pig/L

Dichloroethene, 1,2-trans-

100(100)

140

10000

•	MCL established post-ROD

•	NRWQC now higher than ROD

•	Surface water driver would be 140 pig/L

T etrachloroethene

5 (none)

0.69

3.3

•	MCL established post-ROD

•	NRWQC now lower than ROD

•	Surface water driver would be 0.69 pig/L

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-

200 (20)

No Value

No Value

•	No change in MCL

•	NRWQC withdrawn

•	Surface water driver would be 200 pig/L

T richloroethylene

5(0)

2.5

30

•	No change in MCL

•	NRWQC slightly lower

•	Drivers would be 5 ]_ig/L (groundwater) or 2.5
|ig/L (surface water)

Vinyl Chloride

2(0)

0.025

2.4

•	No change in MCL

•	NRWQC much lower

•	Drivers would be 2 |_ig/L (groundwater) or
0.025 |ig/L (surface water)

MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level; MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal.
NRWQC = National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html.

No values for chronic or acute toxicity were found at this site.


-------
Table 2. Current Toxicity Value Information for Northside Landfill COCs.



Last
Significant

Comment

Dermal

Dermal

Dermal

Inhalation

Inhalation

Inhalation

Oral

Inhalation

Oral

Chemical

Revision in
IRIS



RfD -

Chronic

(mg/kg-day)

RfD -

Subchronic

(mg/kg-day)

SF

(mg/kg-day)-l

RfC -
Chronic
(mg/m3)

RfD -

Chronic

(mg/kg-day)

RfD -

Subchronic

(mg/kg-day)

RfD -

Chronic

(mg/kg-day)

SF

(mg/kg-day)-l

SF

(mg/kg-day)-l

Chloroform

10/19/2001



2.00E-03

2.00E-03 e

3.05E-02 w







1.00E-02

8.05E-02 u

6.10E-03 w

Dichloroethane, 1,1











5.00E-01 £

1.43E-01c



2.00E-01





Dichloroethylene, 1,2-trans-

1/1/1989



2.00E-02

2.00E-01



6.00E-02

1.71E-02



2.00E-02





Tetrachloroethylene

3/1/1988



1.00E-02

1.00E-01

5.40E-01 ai

6.00E-01 v

1.71E-01 v



1.00E-02

2.07E-02 u

5.40E-01 ai

Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-

2/1/1996

RfDo
withdrawn; Class
D carcinogen

1.80E-01 v





2.20E+00 v

6.29E-01 v

6.3E+00 v

2.00E-01 v





Trichloroethylene

CSF
withdrawn
7/1/1989

Values are from
8/1/2001 Draft
Reassessment

4.50E-05 ah



2.67E+00 ah

4.00E-02 ah

1.14E-02 ah



3.00E-04 ah

4.00E-01 u

4.00E-01 ah

Vinyl Chloride

8/7/2000



3.00E-03



1.50E+00

1.00E-01

2.86E-02



3.00E-03

3.08E-02 u

1.50E+00

Shading: Gray - updated since ROD; yellow - caveat as to use

MCLs are from htti)://www.ei)a.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#listmcl 8/2007 accession.

Footnotes (from RAIS)

c - These subchronic and chronic non-cancer toxicity values are found in Agency documents, but were calculated by alternative methods that are not currently practiced by the RfD/RfC Work Group. These values are considered to be adequate provisional values for risk
assessment purposes at Superfund and RCRA sites, but are subject to be reviewed by the RfD/RfC Work Group and revised when necessary to reflect current work group practices,
e - The chronic oral RfD was adopted as the subchronic oral [RfD], (HEAST)

u - The Inhalation Slope Factor was calculated from inhalation unit risk as described in Supplemental Guidance from R. I (IS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment (Interim Guidance) (November 1995).
v - The Risk Assessment Program has contacted Superfund and been given provisional values which should be used for DOE-ORR projects. This value should be clearly documented as provisional.

w - This value was withdrawn by NCEA. "The cancer slope factor was withdrawn because of the re-evaluation of the rodent data which does not support genotoxic mode of action based on our proposed cancer guidelines. This chemical is now being reassessed for IRIS
which automatically flags further use of any provisional cancer or non-cancer assessments." If this chemical is identified as a risk driver, the risk assessor should consult The EPA Superfund Technical Support Center. All withdrawn values should be clearly documented
when used in any risk assessment activity.

ah - These toxicity values present EPA's most current evaluation of the potential health risks from exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE). The citation presented is as follows: 2001. TR1CHLOROETHYLENE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: SYNTHESIS AND
CHARACTERIZATION (EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT). USEPA EPA/600/P-01/002A. 01 AUGUST 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington,
DC, . This NCEA report can be viewed here. EPA Region IX and Region III have adopted these toxicity values as well.

ai - Tetrachloroethylene cancer toxicity values are taken from California EPA and EPA Region 9. ~ See the letter (PDF below) justifying the use of these values. EPA Regions VI and III have adopted these toxicity values as well:

htti)://rais.ornl.gov/homei)age/Southerland.i)df Tetrachloroethylene is stated in the ROD to be a Class B carcinogen. In a recent recommendation from the EPA Science Advisory Board, it was suggested that the classification be C-B2. That is, between a possible
and a probable human carcinogen. htti)://rais.ornl.gov/tox/i)rofiles/tetrachloroethvlene f Vl.shtml#t44


-------
Showering Inhalation, Ingestion, and Dermal Contact

Exposure parameters selected in accordance with USEPA (1991), USEPA (1997), USEPA
(1998), and USEPA (2004) are listed in Table 2.

Table 3.	Summary of Exposure Parameters for Human Health Receptors

Exposure Paranieler

I nils

Adult Residential
KMC

Industrial
Worker KM I'.

General







Groundwater Concentrations

mg/L

SS

SS

Exposure Frequency - EF

day/year

350

250

Body Weight - BW

kg

70

70

Averaging Time - AT







Carcinogens

years

70

70



total days

70*350 =24,500

70*250=17,500

Noncarcinogens

years

24

25



total days

24*350=8,400

25*250=6,250









Ingestion of Groundwater







Groundwater Ingestion Rate - IR

L/day

2

2

Groundwater Ingestion During Shower

L/day

0.015

0.015

Exposure Duration - ED

yr

30

25









Inhalation of Constituents Volatilizing from
Groundwater







Inhalation Rate - InhR

m3/day

20

20

Exposure Time - ET

hr/day

0.25

0.25









Dermal Contact with Groundwater







Contact Rate

hr

0.25

0.25

Dermal Surface Area - SA

cm2/event

18,000

18,000

Dermal Permeability Constant - PC



CS

CS

Exposure Time - ET

hr/day

0.25

0.25

Volatility Factor - VF

m3/kg

CS

CS

CS - Chemical Specific; SS - Site Specific

This shows the exposure assumptions for residential and industrial contact with groundwater.


-------
Tables 4a-4 Equations Used For Groundwater Calculations

Table 4a

Residential Ingestion Of Groundwater Pathway

CDI (mg/kg-d)-CWxIRxB=xED
1 ' BWxAT



Variable

Value used

Explanation/source

AT = Averaging time

365 days/year ED

Averaging time for noncarcinogens
(EPA 1989a, 1991b)

365 days/year 70 years

Averaging time for carcinogens (EPA
1989a, 1991b)

BW = Body weight

70 kg

Adult (EPA 1991b)

CW = Concentration in water

Chemical-specific (mg/L)

Concentration is obtained from sample
data

ED = Exposure duration

30 years

Residential exposure for a 30-year
duration (OSWER Directive, EPA
1991b)

EF = Exposure frequency

350 days/year

OSWER Directive (EPA 1991b)

IR = Ingestion rate

2 L/day

EPA 1989a; OSWER Directive (EPA
1991b)

Table 4b

Residential And Industrial Dermal Contact With Groundwater While Showering Pathway



fr-fci * 1 ~= cta c-t ca i/ f L 1 (10,000 cm2
CW EF ED ET SA K x x '

, p 11,000 cm3 , m2 ,
TDT fmn^kn-d^— - y v J



imcxkgaj bwat

Variable

Value used

Explanation/source

AT = Averaging time

365 days/year ED

Averaging time for noncarcinogens
(EPA 1989a, 1991b)

365 days/year 70 years

Averaging time for carcinogens (EPA
1989a, 1991b)

B W = Body weight

70 kg

Adult (EPA 1991b)

CW = Concentration in water

Chemical-specific (mg/L)

Concentration is obtained from sample
data

ED = Exposure duration

30 years

Residential exposure for 30-year
duration (OSWER Directive, EPA
1991b)

EF = Exposure frequency

350 days/year

OSWER Directive (EPA 1991b)

ET = Exposure time

0.58 hours/day

RAGs Part E

Kp = Permeability constant

Chemical-specific (cm/hour)

Dermal Exposure Assessment (EPA
1992a)

SA = Available surface area

1.8 m2

RAGs Part E


-------
Table 4c

Industrial Ingestion Of Groundwater Pathway

CDI (m0/kg-d)-CWxIRxffxED
1 J' a ' BWxAT



Variable

Value used

Explanation/source

AT = Averaging time

365 days/year ED

Averaging time for
noncarcinogens (EPA 1989a,
1991b)

365 days/year 70 years

Averaging time for carcinogens
(EPA 1989a, 1991b)

BW = Body weight

70 kg

Adult (EPA 1991b)

CW = Concentration in water

Chemical-specific (mg/L; pCi/L)

Concentration is obtained from
sample data

ED = Exposure duration

25 years

Residential exposure for a 30-
year duration (OSWER
Directive, EPA 1991b)

EF = Exposure frequency

250 days/year

OSWER Directive (EPA 1991b)

IR = Ingestion rate

1 L/day

OSWER Directive (EPA 1991b)

Table 4d

Residential And Industrial Inhalation Of VOCs From Groundwater During Indoor Use Pathway

( v CWxHRxbhxLDxK

CDI (mg/kg-day)-

* } BW x AT



Variable

Value used

Explanation/source

AT = Averaging time

365 days/year ED

Averaging time for
noncarcinogens (EPA 1989a,
1991b)

365 days/year 70 years

Averaging time for carcinogens
(EPA 1989a, 1991b)

CW = Concentration in water

Chemical-specific (mg/L)

Concentration is obtained from
sample data

ED = Exposure duration

30 years

Residential exposure for a 30-
year duration (OSWER Directive,
EPA 1991b)

EF = Exposure frequency

350 days/year

OSWER Directive (EPA 1991b)

HR = Inhalation rate

20 m3/d

Region IV Supplemental
Guidance to RAGS (EPA 1995a)

K = Volatilization factor

0.0005 x 1000 L/m3

(EPA 1991a)


-------
Ecological Screening Levels

Freshwater Screening Benchmarks

CAS#

Analyte

Screening
Value (ug/l)

Ref

End Note

Class of
Compound

Bioaccumulative-Bq

67-66-3

Chloroform

1.8

b

2

Volatile



75-34-3

1,1-Dichloroethane

47

c

1

Volatile



156-60-5

1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene

970

g

5

Volatile



127-18-4

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE)

111

b

2

Volatile



71-55-6

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

11

a

1

Volatile



79-01-6

1,1,2-Trichloroethene (TCE)

21

b

2





75-01-4

Vinyl chloride

930

d

3

Volatile



Note: Values are expressed in terms of dissolved analyte in the water column except for those indicated with endnote 2
which are expressed in terms of total concentration.

Source: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/eco/btag/sbv/fw/screenbench.htm
Accessed on line: 25 September 2007


-------
Appendix D - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Data

2002 through 2006

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
Appendix D - Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Data - 2002 through 2006

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

















C

^omDliance Wells



























Qtr

Year

coc

208

208 QC

BB

BB QC

C

CC QC

PEW

PEW QC

M

M QC

T

T QC

G

P

U

E

E QC

F

H

I

J

J QC

1st

2002

PERC

<0.5

3.6

3.8

<0.5

4.1

3.9

2.7

3.0

















2nd

2002

PERC

<0.5

2.8

<0.5

<0.5

3.7

4.3

4.3

2.8

<0.5

<0.5

1.9

<0.5

0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

2.2

2.2

3rd

2002

PERC

<0.5

5.8

5.8

0.7

5.4

5.4

6.0

3.6

















4th

2002

PERC

<0.5

3.1

0.7

2.8

2.7

2.7

3.1

3.1

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1.2

1.2

1st

2003

PERC

<0.5

2.9

3.2

<0.5

3.4

3.5

1.0

2.4

















2nd

2003

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

5.1

<0.5

4.7

5.8

5.9

3.2

<0.5

<0.5

1.3

0.6

0.6

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

2.0

2.0

3rd

2003

PERC

<0.5

3.2

3.2

0.5

3.8

3.8

4.2

2.8

















4th

2003

PERC

<0.5

2.2

0.5

3.0

3.9

3.9

2.9

3.0

<0.5

<0.5

1.4

<0.5

<0.5



<0.5

1.8

1.9

1st

2004

PERC

<0.5

2.4

2.4

<0.5

2.3

2.2

0.9

1.8

















2nd

2004

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

3.7

0.6

3.9

3.9

4.0

2.4

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.6

0.6

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1.9

1.9

3rd

2004

PERC

<0.5

4.7

0.5

5.3

5.4

5.4

2.7

2.5

















4th

2004

PERC

< 0.5

3.9

0.5

3.7

4.1

4.1

3.7

3.7

<0.5

<0.5

0.7

< 0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1.6

1.7

1st

2005

PERC

<0.5

3.1

3.1

<0.5

2.9

2.9

1.7

2.1

















2nd

2005

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

3.5

0.6

3.4

3.7

3.7

1.9

<0.5

<0.5

0.8

0.5

0.6

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1.7

1.7

3rd

2005

PERC

< 0.5

2.8

2.7

0.6

3.0

3.1

3.5

2.1

















4th

2005

PERC

< 0.5

2.9

< 0.5





2.6

2.6







< 0.5









1st

2006

PERC

< 0.5

3.2

0.6

3.6

2.0

2.3

2.3

















2nd

2006

PERC

< 0.5

2.8

2.9

< 0.5





1.7







0.5









3rd

2006

PERC

< 0.5

3.4

3.5

0.6

3.3

3.7

2.2

















4th

2006

PERC

< 0.5

4.2

0.6

0.6

4.2

4.1

3.1

















1st

2002

TCE

<0.5

0.5

0.6

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

















2nd

2002

TCE

<0.5

0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

0.5

3rd

2002

TCE

<0.5

0.6

0.6

<0.5

0.5

0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2002

TCE

<0.5

0.6

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

0.5

1st

2003

TCE

<0.5

0.6

0.6

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2003

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

0.5

3rd

2003

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2003

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5



<0.5

0.5

0.5

1st

2004

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2004

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

0.5

3rd

2004

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2004

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1st

2005

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2005

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

3rd

2005

TCE

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2005

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5





< 0.5

<0.5







< 0.5









1st

2006

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2006

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5





< 0.5







< 0.5









3rd

2006

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2006

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















Page 1 of 8


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

Qtr

Year

coc

K KQC

L

N NQC

GRUVER GRUVERQC

LINDSKOG

PELLOW PELLOWQC

1st

2002

PERC













2nd

2002

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

1.8 1.8

0.6

<0.5

3.3 3.3

3rd

2002

PERC













4th

2002

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

0.9 0.9

<0.5

<0.5

2.6 2.5

1st

2003

PERC













2nd

2003

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

1.4 1.4

0.7

0.5

4.9 5.1

3rd

2003

PERC













4th

2003

PERC

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

1.4 1.4

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

3.5 3.6

1st

2004

PERC













2nd

2004

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

1.4 1.4

0.5

0.5

3.9 3.9

3rd

2004

PERC













4th

2004

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

1.2 1.2

<0.5 <0.5



4.2 4.3

1st

2005

PERC













2nd

2005

PERC

<0.5

<0.5

1.2 1.2

0.6

<0.5

3.4 3.2

3rd

2005

PERC













4th

2005

PERC

<0.5 <0.5











1st

2006

PERC













2nd

2006

PERC

<0.5











3rd

2006

PERC













4th

2006

PERC













1st

2002

TCE













2nd

2002

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

0.5 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5 <0.5

3rd

2002

TCE













4th

2002

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

0.5 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5 0.5

1st

2003

TCE













2nd

2003

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

0.5 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

TCE













4th

2003

TCE

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

0.5 0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

TCE













2nd

2004

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

0.5 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

TCE













4th

2004

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5



<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

TCE













2nd

2005

TCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

TCE













4th

2005

TCE

<0.5 <0.5











1st

2006

TCE













2nd

2006

TCE

< 0.5











3rd

2006

TCE













4th

2006

TCE













Page 2 of 8


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

Qtr

Year

coc



ComDliance Wells



E E QC

F

H

I

J J QC

208 208 QC

BB BB QC

C CC QC

PEW PEW QC

M M QC

T T QC

G

P

U

1st

2002

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2002

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2002

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2002

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2003

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2003

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2003

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5



<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2004

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















4th

2004

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2005

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

1,1,1-TCA

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2005

1,1,1-TCA

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5





<0.5 <0.5







< 0.5









1st

2006

1,1,1-TCA

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















2nd

2006

1,1,1-TCA

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5





< 0.5







< 0.5









3rd

2006

1,1,1-TCA

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2006

1,1,1-TCA

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















1st

2002

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2002

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2002

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2002

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2003

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2003

1,1-DCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2003

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5



<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2004

1,1-DCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















4th

2004

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2005

1,1-DCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

1,1-DCA

<0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5 <0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2005

1,1-DCA

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5





<0.5 <0.5







< 0.5









1st

2006

1,1-DCA

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















2nd

2006

1,1-DCA

<0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

<0.5





< 0.5







< 0.5









3rd

2006

1,1-DCA

<0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2006

1,1-DCA

<0.5

< 0.5

<0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















Page 3 of 8


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

Qtr

Year

coc

K KQC

L

N NQC

GRUVER GRUVERQC

LINDSKOG

PELLOW PELLOWQC

1st

2002

1,1,1-TCA













2nd

2002

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

3rd

2002

1,1,1-TCA













4th

2002

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1st

2003

1,1,1-TCA













2nd

2003

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

1,1,1-TCA













4th

2003

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

1,1,1-TCA













2nd

2004

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

1,1,1-TCA













4th

2004

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5



<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

1,1,1-TCA













2nd

2005

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

1,1,1-TCA













4th

2005

1,1,1-TCA

<0.5 <0.5











1st

2006

1,1,1-TCA













2nd

2006

1,1,1-TCA

< 0.5











3rd

2006

1,1,1-TCA













4th

2006

1,1,1-TCA













1st

2002

1,1-DCA













2nd

2002

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

3rd

2002

1,1-DCA













4th

2002

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1st

2003

1,1-DCA













2nd

2003

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

1,1-DCA













4th

2003

1,1-DCA

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

1,1-DCA













2nd

2004

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

1,1-DCA













4th

2004

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5



<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

1,1-DCA













2nd

2005

1,1-DCA

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

1,1-DCA













4th

2005

1,1-DCA

<0.5 <0.5











1st

2006

1,1-DCA













2nd

2006

1,1-DCA

< 0.5











3rd

2006

1,1-DCA













4th

2006

1,1-DCA













Page 4 of 8


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

Qtr

Year

coc



ComDliance Wells



E E QC

F

H

I

J J QC

208 208 QC

BB BB QC

C CC QC

PEW PEW QC

M M QC

T T QC

G

P

U

1st

2002

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2002

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2002

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2002

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2003

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















2nd

2003

chloroform

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2003

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5



<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2004

chloroform

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















4th

2004

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

< 0.5

















2nd

2005

chloroform

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

< 0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

chloroform

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2005

chloroform

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5





<0.5 <0.5







< 0.5









1st

2006

chloroform

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















2nd

2006

chloroform

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5





< 0.5







< 0.5









3rd

2006

chloroform

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2006

chloroform

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















1st

2002

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2002

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2002

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2002

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2003

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2003

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















4th

2003

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5



<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2004

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















4th

2004

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2005

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

trans-1,2-DCE

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2005

trans-1,2-DCE

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5





<0.5 <0.5







< 0.5









1st

2006

trans-1,2-DCE

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

<0.5 <0.5

















2nd

2006

trans-1,2-DCE

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5





< 0.5







< 0.5









3rd

2006

trans-1,2-DCE

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















4th

2006

trans-1,2-DCE

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5 < 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

< 0.5

















Page 5 of 8


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

Qtr

Year

coc

K KQC

L

N NQC

GRUVER GRUVERQC

LINDSKOG

PELLOW PELLOWQC

1st

2002

chloroform













2nd

2002

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

3rd

2002

chloroform













4th

2002

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1st

2003

chloroform













2nd

2003

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

chloroform













4th

2003

chloroform

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

chloroform













2nd

2004

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

chloroform













4th

2004

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5



<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

chloroform













2nd

2005

chloroform

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

chloroform













4th

2005

chloroform

<0.5 <0.5











1st

2006

chloroform













2nd

2006

chloroform

< 0.5











3rd

2006

chloroform













4th

2006

chloroform













1st

2002

trans-1,2-DCE













2nd

2002

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

3rd

2002

trans-1,2-DCE













4th

2002

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

1st

2003

trans-1,2-DCE













2nd

2003

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2003

trans-1,2-DCE













4th

2003

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

1st

2004

trans-1,2-DCE













2nd

2004

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2004

trans-1,2-DCE













4th

2004

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5



<0.5 <0.5

1st

2005

trans-1,2-DCE













2nd

2005

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

3rd

2005

trans-1,2-DCE













4th

2005

trans-1,2-DCE

<0.5 <0.5











1st

2006

trans-1,2-DCE













2nd

2006

trans-1,2-DCE

< 0.5











3rd

2006

trans-1,2-DCE













4th

2006

trans-1,2-DCE













Page 6 of 8


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

Qtr

Year

coc

208 208 QC

BB BB QC

C

C CC QC

^omDliance Well
PEW PEW QC

5

M M QC

T T QC

G

P

U

E E QC

F

H

I

J J QC

1st

2002

vc

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

















2nd

2002

vc

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2002

vc

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.5

















4th

2002

vc

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3 <0.5

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

1st

2003

vc

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.5

















2nd

2003

vc

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2003

vc

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.5

















4th

2003

vc

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.5 <0.5

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3



<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

1st

2004

vc

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.5

















2nd

2004

vc

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2004

vc

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.5 <0.5

















4th

2004

vc

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.5 <0.5

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

1st

2005

vc

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.5

















2nd

2005

vc

<0.5 <0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.5

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2005

vc

< 0.3

< 0.3 < 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3 < 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

















4th

2005

vc

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3





<0.3 <0.3







< 0.3









1st

2006

vc

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

<0.3 <0.3

















2nd

2006

vc

< 0.3

< 0.3 < 0.3

< 0.3





< 0.3







< 0.3









3rd

2006

vc

< 0.3

< 0.3 < 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

















4th

2006

vc

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3 < 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

< 0.3

















Page 7 of 8


-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA - 2002 THROUGH 2006

Qtr

Year

coc

K KQC

L

N NQC

GRUVER GRUVERQC

LINDSKOG

PELLOW PELLOWQC

1st

2002

vc













2nd

2002

vc

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2002

vc













4th

2002

vc

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

1st

2003

vc













2nd

2003

vc

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2003

vc













4th

2003

vc

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

1st

2004

vc













2nd

2004

vc

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2004

vc













4th

2004

vc

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3 <0.3



<0.3 <0.3

1st

2005

vc













2nd

2005

vc

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3 <0.3

3rd

2005

vc













4th

2005

vc

<0.3 <0.3











1st

2006

vc













2nd

2006

vc

< 0.3











3rd

2006

vc













4th

2006

vc













Page 8 of 8


-------
Appendix E - Selected Landfill Monitoring Reports

Five-Year Review Report	September 2007


-------
Appendix E - Selected Landfill Monitoring Reports

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
City of Spokane, Washington	Northside Landfill	Report for July, 2006

Solid Waste Management	Interior Gas Field Report

Well

Well













Static

Comp



No.

Depth

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Temp

Pres

Ratio

Comments



Ft.



%

%

%

%

Deg. F

" H20





1

49

7/26/2006 13:36

25.1

24.4

0.1

50.4

107

-0.2

0.081



2

90

7/26/2006 14:04

32.4

25.8

0

41.8

83

-0.7

0.058



3

43

7/26/2006 13:47

11.9

18.6

0

69.5

89

-0.5

0.137



4

55

7/26/2006 13:51

14.6

19.8

0

65.6

93

-0.5

0.124



4

55

7/31/2006 14:05

11.5

19.7

0

68.8

78

-0.3

0.139

opened valve slightly

4

55

7/31/2006 14:08

11.8

19.7

0

68.5

79

-0.4

0.138



5

79

7/26/2006 14:10

41.8

27.3

0

30.9

94

-0.2

0.032



6

105

7/28/2006 9:23

47.5

34.8

0

17.7

89

-2.3

0.019



7

69

7/26/2006 14:16

21.1

22.1

0

56.8

89

-0.4

0.097



8

92

7/27/2006 8:47

37.1

25.2

0

37.7

77

-0.3

0.044



9

97

7/28/2006 9:19

48.3

35.6

0

16.1

85

-1.9

0.017



10

74

7/26/2006 14:21

19.9

22

0

58.1

87

-0.4

0.101



11

96

7/27/2006 8:42

36.3

27

0.7

36

77

-0.2

0.042



12

96

7/28/2006 9:13

43.4

32.4

0

24.2

89

-3.1

0.028



13

95

7/7/2006 14:37

45.1

34.5

0.1

20.3

89

-1.7

0.024



13

95

7/27/2006 10:37

44.2

35.1

0.1

20.6

90

-2.4

0.026

closed valve slightly

13

95

7/27/2006 14:21

47.9

34.1

0

18

98

-1

0.018



13

95

7/28/2006 9:16

44.8

35.4

0

19.8

90

-2.7

0.025



14

71

7/26/2006 14:26

18.6

21

0

60.4

87

-0.3

0.107



15

92

7/26/2006 14:32

33

25.7

0

41.3

85

-0.1

0.056



16

96

7/28/2006 9:08

47.5

36.3

0

16.2

95

-3.7

0.019



17

61

7/26/2006 14:38

23.4

23.3

0.4

52.9

81

-0.3

0.085



18

91

7/27/2006 8:11

21.2

24.6

1.3

52.9

93

-0.1

0.087

opened valve slightly

18

91

7/27/2006 8:21

23.6

25.1

1

50.3

94

-0.3

0.080



19

88

7/28/2006 9:05

50.7

37.7

0

11.6

91

-3.9

0.012



20

91

7/27/2006 10:42

26.4

29.1

0.1

44.4

83

-0.6

0.076



21

59

7/26/2006 14:43

18.4

22.3

0.7

58.6

85

-0.3

0.102



22

95

7/27/2006 8:03

27.9

24

0.6

47.5

83

-0.1

0.068



23

90

7/27/2006 10:19

2.4

16.8

3.8

77

83

0.1

0.157

Well closed

24

89

7/28/2006 9:01

42.2

34.9

0

22.9

72

-0.4

0.031



25

67

7/27/2006 7:57

1.4

18.2

0.8

79.6

76

0.1

0.192

Well closed

26

51

7/27/2006 10:15

2.4

14.6

2.4

80.6

88

0.2

0.170

Well closed

27

60

7/27/2006 10:11

34.5

31.6

0.4

33.5

86

-0.106

0.049



28

71

7/28/2006 8:44

45.4

35.9

0

18.7

81

-0.5

0.024



29 A

41

7/31/2006 15:47

15.5

23.6

0.4

60.5

76

-0.035

0.117

Vlv not closing properly

29B

56

7/27/2006 11:00

35.1

30.8

1.3

32.8

99

-0.3

0.042



30

43

7/27/2006 11:19

12.6

20.3

3.8

63.3

119

-0.144

0.103

opened valve slightly

30

43

7/27/2006 11:23

13

20.7

3.6

62.7

106

-0.1

0.103



31

61

7/27/2006 11:29

30.9

29.5

1.4

38.2

76

-0.7

0.053



32

61

7/28/2006 8:57

43.1

35.3

0

21.6

86

-1

0.029



33

44

7/28/2006 8:49

40.3

34.5

0

25.2

71

-0.3

0.036



34

67

7/27/2006 11:38

40.2

34.7

0.3

24.8

82

-0.2

0.035



35

59

7/28/2006 8:53

38.9

33.6

0

27.5

78

-0.3

0.040



36

52

7/27/2006 11:51

39.3

35.3

0.3

25.1

76

-0.2

0.037



37

60

7/27/2006 11:55

27.6

30.4

0.2

41.8

78

-0.3

0.072



38

37

7/27/2006 12:20

12.2

23.8

0.3

63.7

81

-0.2

0.133



39

31

7/27/2006 12:23

4.4

19.6

0.6

75.4

94

0

0.174

Well closed

40

76

7/27/2006 12:01

20.1

24.9

0.2

54.8

78

-0.3

0.099



Page 1


-------
City of Spokane, Washington	Northside Landfill	Report for July, 2006

Solid Waste Management	Interior Gas Field Report

Well

Well













Static

Comp



No.

Depth

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Temp

Pres

Ratio

Comments



Ft.



%

%

%

%

Deg. F

" H20





41

97

7/28/2006 9:29

39.8

29.3

0

30.9

82

-0.7

0.037



42

61

7/27/2006 12:09

21.5

21.7

0.3

56.5

78

-0.2

0.093



43

90

7/27/2006 12:14

32.2

26.9

0.3

40.6

78

-0.2

0.056



44

52

7/26/2006 13:41

2.4

16.5

0

81.1

100

0

0.193

Well closed

44

52

7/27/2006 12:33

3.1

16.5

0.2

80.2

101

0

0.186

Well closed

45

Trench

7/27/2006 12:28

21.8

23.2

0.2

54.8

88

0

0.092

P = -0.003

46

Trench

7/27/2006 14:49

16.4

20.4

0

63.2

67

-0.1

0.116



47

Trench

7/27/2006 14:27

18.4

15.8

0

65.8

104

0.2

0.108

Well closed

48

Trench

7/27/2006 14:34

19.9

19.9

0

60.2

71

-0.1

0.101



49

Trench

7/27/2006 14:38

13.4

19

0

67.6

77

0

0.130

opened valve slightly

49

Trench

7/27/2006 14:41

13.3

18.9

0

67.8

73

-0.1

0.131











Comments











The valve at IW-29A will be replaced, as I have not been able to clean it well enough to close properly.

Page 2


-------
City of Spokane, Washington
Solid Waste Mgmt.

Northside Landfill
Flare Station Report

Report for July, 2006

January

MAIN LFG SUCTION - TEST PT. D



14" diameter line

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Adj
Flow

Temp

Static
Pres

Comp.
Ratio

Comments



%

%

%

%

scfm

Deg F

" H20

























1/4/2006 8:37

25.8

26.8

1.0

46.4

1190

40

-45

0.072

02 too high. Looked for problem

1/4/2006 12:57

26.5

27.2

0.5

45.8

1199

40

-44.3

0.073

Problem was gas from Pt. "H"

1/19/2006 15:07

27.9

28.3

0.5

43.3

960

40

-47

0.069



1/26/2006 16:11

29

28.6

0.2

42.2

997

39

-48.7

0.067























INTERIOR LFG SYSTEM-M1- EXCESS FOR FLARE- TEST PT. E



14" diameter line

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Adj
Flow

Temp

Static
Pres

Comp.
Ratio

Comments



%

%

%

%

scfm

Deg F

" H20

























1/4/2006 8:41

35.9

31.2

0.5

32.4

610

41

-22.6

0.045



1/4/2006 13:08

36.3

31.6

0.1

32

595

41

-19.3

0.046



1/19/2006 15:12

36.8

31.7

0.0

31.5

639

40

-22.3

0.045



1/26/2006 16:14

36.6

31.3

0.0

32.1

901

40

-22.3

0.046























INTERIOR LFG SYSTEM - M1 - TOTAL FLOW - TEST PT. F



14" diameter line

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Adj
Flow

Temp

Static
Pres

Comp.
Ratio

Comments



%

%

%

%

scfm

Deg F

" H20

























1/4/2006 8:44

35.9

31.3

0.3

32.5

596

40

-22.7

0.046



1/4/2006 13:11

36.5

31.7

0.0

31.8

574

41

-21.5

0.046



1/19/2006 15:15

37.3

31.9

0.0

30.8

676

40

-21.1

0.044



1/26/2006 16:16

36.4

31.4

0.0

32.2

681

39

-23.9

0.046























INTERIOR LFG SYSTEM - M2 - TEST PT. G



8" diameter line

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Adj
Flow

Temp

Static
Pres

Comp.
Ratio

Comments



%

%

%

%

scfm

Deg F

" H20

























1/4/2006 8:46

20.7

25.8

1.0

52.5

404

40

-25

0.091



1/4/2006 13:14

21.5

26.3

0.6

51.6

378

41

-24.3

0.091



1/19/2006 15:18

21.6

26.5

0.5

51.4

456

40

-24.7

0.091



1/26/2006 16:18

23.4

27.1

0.3

49.2

511

39

-25.7

0.086























Page 1


-------
City of Spokane, Washington
Solid Waste Mgmt.

Northside Landfill
Flare Station Report

Report for July, 2006

INTERIOR LFG SYSTEM - T1 - TEST PT. H



10" diameter line

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Adj
Flow

Temp

Static
Pres

Comp.
Ratio

Comments



%

%

%

%

scfm

Deg F

" H20

























1/4/2006 8:48

14.4

18.2

1.7

65.7

171

42

-42.4

0.112

02 higher than normal. Check wells

1/4/2006 13:17

15.6

19

0.6

64.8

65

43

-41.5

0.115

Adjusted wells on T1 line.

1/19/2006 15:20

16.1

19.9

0.0

64

56

41

-46.4

0.117



1/26/2006 16:20

16.8

19.9

0.0

63.3

107

41

-47.2

0.114























Comments

Gas quality has been low this month, but we do see drops during the winter months. During the first week
higher than normal 02 was noticed in a flare station reading. It was traced back to wells on the T1 line
which were readjusted. The flare station readings then went back to normal range.

FLARE STATUS REPORT

Date/Time

Flow
scfm

Temperature
deg F







1/4/2006 6:54

826

1561

1/9/2006 7:01

808

1578

1/19/2006 7:09

795

1581

1/26/2006 6:54

800

1569



















Enerav Statistics

January

Summary: Year to Date

AVG CH4 %/month

*

31.9

Avg.

31.9

TOTAL CH4 scf/month

11,370,691

Total

11,370,691

Btu/scf Incoming LFG

322.8

Avg.

322.8

AVG FLOW scfm

*

800

Avg.

800

AVG FLOW scfm/month

35,644,800

Avg.

35,644,800

MAX FLOW RATE During Month scf *

822

Avg.

822

AVG MAX FLOW scfm/month

36,625,032

Avg.

36,625,032

MAX HOURLY FLOW RATE scf

49,320

Avg.

49,320

TOTAL FLOW FLARES scf/montt



35,644,800

Total

35,644,800

EST. ENERGY Flared/month Bti



11,507,139,494

Total

11,507,139,494

TOTAL TIME IN MONTH (minutes) *

44,640

Total

44,640

DOWN TIME IN MONTH (minutes) *

84

Total

84

TOTAL OPERATING TIME (minutes)

44,556

Total

44,556

Page 2


-------
City of Spokane, Washington	Northside Landfill	Report for July, 2006

Solid Waste Mangement	Gas Probes

Gas Probe
ID

Probe
Depth

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Static
Pres

Comments



Ft.



%

%

%

%

" H20



1

18.0

7/20/2006 9:04

0

1.8

12.9

85.3

0



2

17.5

7/20/2006 9:08

0

3.1

7

89.9

0



3

17.5

7/12/2006 9:46

0

0

21

79

0



3

17.5

7/20/2006 9:12

0

14.2

3.3

82.5

0



4A

10.8

7/20/2006 9:40

0

1.3

19.2

79.5

0



4B

39.8

7/20/2006 9:43

0

0.6

19.8

79.6

0



4C

96.3

7/20/2006 9:45

0

0.3

20.4

79.3

0



5A

11.8

7/24/2006 10:55

0

0.2

20.4

79.4

-0.1



5B

40.8

7/24/2006 10:57

0

1.4

19.4

79.2

0



5C

96.6

7/24/2006 10:59

0

0.6

20

79.4

0



6A

11.3

7/20/2006 9:56

0

1.8

18.9

79.3

0



6B

40.8

7/20/2006 9:58

0

0.4

20.4

79.2

0



6C

96.4

7/20/2006 10:01

0

1.3

19.4

79.3

0



7A

10.8

7/24/2006 11:35

0

0.8

18.1

81.1

0.4



7B

30.8

7/24/2006 11:36

0

0.8

13.6

85.6

0



7C

76.8

7/24/2006 11:38

0

0.2

16.6

83.2

0



8A

10.3

7/24/2006 12:14

0

0

20.5

79.5

-0.1



8B

30.4

7/24/2006 12:16

0

0.7

19.8

79.5

-0.1



8C

66.8

7/24/2006 12:18

0

1.4

13.5

85.1

0



9A

11.8

7/24/2006 10:40

0

1.3

19.6

79.1

0



9B

40.8

7/24/2006 10:42

0

0

20.7

79.3

0



9C

96.8

7/24/2006 10:44

0

0

20.5

79.5

0



10A

12.5

7/7/2006 14:21

0

0.1

20.4

79.5

0



10A

12.5

7/25/2006 10:27

0

0.4

19.4

80.2

0



10B

41.7

7/25/2006 10:30

0

0

20.3

79.7

0



10C

62.0

7/25/2006 10:33

0

0

20.4

79.6

0



11A

14.2

7/24/2006 12:01

0

0

20.4

79.6

0



11B

42.7

7/24/2006 12:02

0

0.6

18.1

81.3

0



11C

61.8

7/24/2006 12:04

0

0.2

20.1

79.7

-0.1



12A

13.8

7/24/2006 11:51

0

0.2

20.5

79.3

-0.1



12B

42.5

7/24/2006 11:52

0

0.1

20.7

79.2

0



12C

67.0

7/24/2006 11:54

0

0

21.1

78.9

0



13A

14.1

7/25/2006 10:41

0

0.7

19.7

79.6

0



13B

41.6

7/25/2006 10:43

0

0.1

20.3

79.6

0



13C

79.3

7/26/2006 11:04

0

0

21.1

78.9

0



14A

14.2

7/7/2006 14:28

0

1.9

14.5

83.6

0



14A

14.2

7/26/2006 9:49

0

4.7

12.1

83.2

0



14B

42.5

7/26/2006 9:51

0

0

19.1

80.9

0



14C

55.5

7/26/2006 9:53

0

0.3

20

79.7

0



15A

13.2

7/26/2006 10:24

0

0.4

19.3

80.3

0



15B

42.0

7/26/2006 10:26

0

0

20.9

79.1

0



15C

65.1

7/26/2006 10:28

0

0.2

19.8

80

0



16A

14.1

7/24/2006 12:25

0

0.4

20.3

79.3

-0.1



16B

42.7

7/24/2006 12:27

0

0

20.8

79.2

-0.1



16C

58.1

7/24/2006 12:29

0

0

21

79

0



Page 1


-------
City of Spokane, Washington	Northside Landfill	Report for July, 2006

Solid Waste Mangement	Gas Probes

Gas Probe

Probe











Static



ID

Depth

Date/Time

CH4

C02

02

Bal

Pres

Comments



Ft.



%

%

%

%

" H20



17A

16.0

7/25/2006 10:59

0

0.6

16.7

82.7

0



17B

47.5

7/25/2006 11:00

0

0.7

19.1

80.2

0



17C

63.5

7/25/2006 11:02

0

0.2

19.8

80

0



18A

15.0

7/25/2006 11:07

0

0.8

16.2

83

0



18B

47.5

7/25/2006 11:09

0

1.4

18.1

80.5

0



18C

63.5

7/25/2006 11:11

0

0.9

17.6

81.5

0.1



19A

15.0

7/25/2006 11:29

0

4.5

11.8

83.7

0



19B

47.5

7/25/2006 11:31

0

3.1

14.7

82.2

0



19C

65.5

7/25/2006 11:33

0

0.9

17.3

81.8

0



20AA

16.5

7/25/2006 12:01

0

0.4

19

80.6

0



20AB

47.5

7/25/2006 12:02

0

2.4

16.9

80.7

0



20AC

67.0

7/25/2006 12:05

0.2

3.4

9.6

86.8

0

Detected CH4

20 BA

16.5

7/25/2006 12:18

0

0.4

19.3

80.3

0



20BB

47.5

7/25/2006 12:20

0

1.3

18

80.7

0



20BC

72.5

7/25/2006 12:22

0

1.3

7.8

90.9

0.1



20XA

16.5

7/25/2006 11:54

0

1.3

14.4

84.3

0



20XB

46.0

7/25/2006 11:55

0

2

16.5

81.5

0



20XC

65.5

7/25/2006 11:57

0

2.1

14.1

83.8

0



21A

16.5

7/25/2006 14:25

0

4.2

9.2

86.6

0



21B

47.5

7/25/2006 14:27

0

1.9

17.3

80.8

0



21C

66.5

7/25/2006 14:29

0

1.6

8.4

90

0.1



22A

16.5

7/25/2006 14:45

0

1.3

12.6

86.1

0



22 B

47.5

7/25/2006 14:47

0

1

16.1

82.9

0



22C

64.5

7/25/2006 14:49

0

0.9

15.9

83.2

0.1



23A

16.5

7/26/2006 8:46

0

1.1

13.6

85.3

0



23B

47.5

7/26/2006 8:48

0

1.6

14.1

84.3

0



23C

62.5

7/26/2006 8:50

0

1.7

15.1

83.2

0



24A

16.5

7/26/2006 9:02

0

6.4

6.8

86.8

0



24 B

47.5

7/26/2006 9:03

0

1.4

14.7

83.9

0



24C

62.5

7/26/2006 9:05

0

1.4

11.8

86.8

0



25A

16.5

7/26/2006 9:32

0

3.5

10.2

86.3

0



25B

47.5

7/26/2006 9:34

0

0.3

18.1

81.6

0



25C

67.5

7/26/2006 9:36

0

0.8

18.8

80.4

0



26A

16.5

7/26/2006 10:04

0

0.9

14.6

84.5

0



26 B

50.5

7/26/2006 10:05

0

1.2

16.5

82.3

0



26C

85.5

7/26/2006 10:07

0

0.7

18.4

80.9

0



MWB1

22.0

7/26/2006 10:43

0

0

20.4

79.6

0



MWB2

102.0

7/26/2006 10:46

0

0

20.9

79.1

0



MWB3

168.0

7/26/2006 10:49

0

0

20.8

79.2

-0.8









Comments





20AC:

Found 0.2% CH4. Increased vaccuum at interior gas well 04 to draw gas back to landfill interior.

Page 2


-------
Appendix F - Completed Site Inspection Checklist

Five-Year Review Report	September 2007


-------
Appendix F - Completed Site Inspection Checklist

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
Site Inspection Checklist

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name:

Date of inspection:

Location and Region:

EPA ID:

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review:

Weather/temperature:

Remedy Iincludes: (Check all that apply)

4;l andfill cover/containment G Monitored natural attenuation
I (g Access controls G Groundwater containment . ( '•
j/G Institutional controls G Vertical barrier walls
(t iroundwater pump and treatment
' G Surface water collection and treatment
G Other



Attachments: G Inspection team roster attached

G Site map attached



II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M site manager I Pi') f V< ,<• t'V-""1.

Name f, f Xt lo •
Interviewed? »3 at site G at office G by phone Phone no. i ^
Problems, suggestions; G Report attached

Date

_,c\Vv1^:vla. Ij't'lA Uxd^fd i
ah At 1 Ci'r

£ < lk 'FVlt k't { ¦ } J;

[,0i ^ Vvu"

2. O&M staff V_ iVlA 1

Name

Interviewed^'at site Gat office G by phone Phone

,'t'> _ rj'tj

Title _ „ Date

-

-it 7i ift* • i ~f {\ i x (\ v lV* --

:':\'vc -n/v vi

jt i/T_



Site Inspection Checklist - 1


-------
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.

, '!¦ .

Name	Title

Agency _ t i i •{ i ^ _J J_'
Contact j1//,1 >'T c'

Problems; suggestions; G Report attached

Date

t;i/1

-2,/n '
Phone no.

Agency	

Contact	

Name

Problems; suggestions; G Report attached

Title

Date

Phone no.

Agency	

Contact	

Name

Problems; suggestions; G Report attached

Title

Date

Phone no.

Agency 		.			 	

Contact		

Name

Problems; suggestions; G Report attached

Title

Date	Phone no.

4.

Other, interviews (optional) G Report attached.

-it. V-

fl i >;>

li -i. I

(n ilHi/

i t

U:

,r.i		-

u q-nc-'S

Site Inspection Checklist - 2


-------
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1. ()i\! Documents

f' O&M manual

As-built drawings
^Maintenance logs
Remarks

X IX: iv11'"}	' -
Readily ^available , G (1p in time u N" A

i|_ J Readily available G Up to date	G N/A

\J3t Readily available ' G Up to date	G N/A

,«V-

?l/\

/.ted'

2, Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan M Readily available	Up to date

G Contingency plan emergency response plan G Readily available	G Up to date

Remarks -» ¦> 11 L* ,.l vf.-i V* t V *_LkVW- U r'tt 1 „ : Kt t	[i ¦ \ -f

i, . V-i ^ C'L T i ii		

GN/A

GN/A

^4-^'

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records

Remarks v\"\ \\ I <, 	: J



-t

'!,w

-tu

l ¦ ' L
\ t v' 1

/

<,».i U-! t;

i v-..,
i>r

1< I ,yi- I
> »•> c'1''

•'«' xtr!•

M u*

(t.

Settlement Monument Records

Remarks

G Readily available

G Up to date j^C-

G N/A

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records

Remarks

V

' Readily available <^0 t 'p to date G N/A

				

G Readily available \ G Up to date G N/A

Leachate Extraction Records

Remarks



. l j .* , - r

i - \ i\ 1 I

ii i

, r i - 1 «r'

, i i ' 1'

Discharge Compliance Records

'GAir

^ Water (affluent)- • v,.%. v U 1 k '
Remarks_ 'AU; U..

(Readily available
G Readilv available



.«V< v't-^ ¦ >T f I

riii; ii'

L C^vA^Ut'l:

t; t Jp to date G N/A

G Up to date GN'\
'a! •' I U'iA< t(' XvaUlu*

10. Daily Access/Security Logs	G Readily available

Rcmjih^cJSw U-^i ,,'iUMaU ' \ 1 - U\-
yjLj.i..Uv' '/'v vv'	c\

G Up to date G N/A

( Li - ii		

±lk 1 >h~ TM It.V VU1

lA \ '•

tU\ iv> y\t«U , 1 '«

.I

mid s'' 7f s

- i' , 1>V t

) i i >h ¦ •j i	Unt

¦ " i' vA t t i	• f,

•( I 1 s \ v:1 K- tJy'ukjfS ^
Site Inspection Checklist - j

' , Is '''Mi

A/


-------
IV. O&M COSTS

O&M Organization

G State in-house
t' '' I'RP in-house

Federal Facility in-house

G Other

i i

G Contractor for State
G Contractor for PRP
G Contractor for Federal Facility

(

J,'

2. 0<^M Cost Records	»-

0 Readily available fill "p to date

ci F«»di«g-«wt4]a!t«nragrcemcat-»p!itee—
Original O&M cost estimate	

w , ,1 fr_ , t~

G Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

vf;



•ftem ' l-

Ftr





G Breakdown attached

Date



Date

Total cost



From t - y i

-hi





G Breakdown attached

Date



Date

Total cost



I-mm-

Date

10





G Breakdown attached



Date

Total cost



Iwiit* /DOS







G Breakdown attached

Date



Date

Total cost



tow ' 1r«-t (t"1

Te-





G Breakdown attached

Date



Date

Total cost



Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons: U'AM l lA th .' i I	t If"

i /\ CC*A'-• Vjiv1 1:
J,' tWi\7 -	J	

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS G Applicable GN/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged	G Location shown on site map i G krates secured	GN/A

Remarks U'ijU > I»	J l.1', 1 1 V __ (• I 't |	_ ' j

		 -iW'i'JZ'' U ' '"'4	\,x< i ¦.1 U ,'J ,»	' .'r., : A''"" i' ' 1 ' ¦;

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures	G Location shown on site map G N/A

Remarks \ ^ 'i > > _« i )	\ < f 7	' w \ *(**¦'• V.'wI 43 	

l\A >	_ 	 	

Site Inspection Checklist - 4


-------
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

1. Implementation and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs %*sr properly implemented	Yes' G No G N/A

Site conditions imply ICs rtjH being fully enforced	f O Yes G No G N/A

i ' { ' ' ' \

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) y\ ; «_ y	, *t t "• V	'"J * • *

Frequenc} Lh	i i --M	_J		

Responsible partyagencN {I ' . < : |1 _ 	

Contact I		 	 	 	

Name Title	Date	Phone no.

Reporting is up-to-date	G Yes	'/STo	vO-N/A

Reports are verified by the lead agency	G Yes	G No	JC^N/'A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met <£i)>'es	G No G N/A

Violations have been reported	G Yes	fG No G N/A

Other problems or suggestions: G Report attached	~ _ ;

(. < ' J '¦ l 1 i 'l •»/ 1 .!,!'» '	'	l'4"- ' ' 1 ^

i i « •,<<>,	{ , " i < " ; • 'i	¦»/ ^	_ 1	_ 	 1 - ¦

.!Mc	ui i"i _! t'* <•:	o	

A'-' v (A \""_v>i-vui s\;		^		.

_ •{' ¦ t Ia	\ ^ ^ ; UU« „< -f I M-f ?' (. <-	i",-, <«	

2. Adequacy	<1 iCs are adequate	G ICs are inadequate	GN/A

Remarks

D. General

	

	'			" 	 	""TT^r

at ion shu'\\ri on ;;ilc map G No vandalism evident V \«' ¦'/' \

\ (* iVVnu'A 	

1.	Vandalism irespassing ' '

Remarks ,"H'\ L		 t\^ ,'iA ,

wvx

2. Land use changes on site G N A

Remarks Li%yV_	c i- ,	t't.U AV {. P m i'.. i	ik

3, I .and use changes off site ^ N''\
Remarks '	;• f

1	UUiLq i vy- v. i'\	t.Li.i.W. , iOJC*' ¦'

VI. GENERAL Sl l'K CONDITIONS

A. Roads ^Applicable G N/A

1. Roads damaged	G Location shown on site map G Roads adequateG N/A

Remarks iY'?ir| 4 \ > LtlU . i '£ ~L I k li_L	

j " \

Site Inspection Checklist - 5


-------
B.

Other Site Conditions

Remarks

VII. LANDFILL COVERS G Applicable gN/A

A.

Landfill Surface

1.

"1

Settlement (Low spots) G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident "*>(• ,
Areal extent -A t *'~- iVvV <¦£ Depth^ V ^ m

Remarks_ 		.LjCL * ^ *'r fU** +

»vV..r c.V-fc >+-- rUhi.rtVWet'	-L}'	t,VHl 'J A J 3vU K , i >,	- 'V"r

2.

C 'racks G Location shown on site map ^0 Oracking not evident
Lengths Widths Depths

¦ Remarks.;'^^Lui-U-V ^ ^ 5 ~s

3.

Erosion G Location shown on site map G Erosion not evident
Areal extentVy^qAii/y^,?^ Depth _ 	

RemarksyWl/A Zf1vf_ Vi'S^' IS CvvffU IfVuT ' (t>\ ' '-t VVU' L /- fi-U-

¦ ¦ V Yt hfa ¦> 	

4.

Holes G Location shown on site map (0 1 loles not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks .J _.#(££ C-[ Qt \,V <¦"

vVt^vf/Cc im tH-c\ N ' 1

5.

	?""	

\'egetalivc Cover G Grass ' i o\er properly established G No signs of stress

G Trees/Shrubs ^indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks ' '•i/f'Yt 7\ » L"t \l\ S\ * L t HI \ >!¦<*'

6.

\lternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) \ V

Remarks

7.

("

Bulges G Location shown on site map >,; Bulges not evident

Areal extent Height v

Remarks

Site Inspection Checklist - 6


-------
8.

Wet Areas/Water Damage

G Wet areas
G Ponding
G Seeps
G Soft subgrade
Remarks

vf* ^et areas/water damage not evident
G Location shown on site map Areal extent
G Location shown on site map Areal extent
G Location shown on site map Areal extent
G Location shown on site map Areal extent







9.

Slope Instability G Slides

nreal extent

Remarks

G Location shown on site map 0 N'o evidence of slope instability







B.

Benches \pplicable G 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

G Location shown on site map G N/A or okay







2.

Bench Breached

Remarks

G Location shown on site map G N/A or okay







3.

Bench Overtopped

Remarks

G Location shown on site map G N/A or okay

(". Letdown Channels ' ' \pplicable \ \

(Channel lined witTi erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1.

Settlement

Areal extent
Remarks

G Location shown on site map
Depth

G No evidence of settlement









2.

Material Degradation

Material type

G Location shown on site map
Areal extent

G No evidence of degradation



Remarks













3.

Erosion

Areal extent
Remarks

G Location shown on site map
Depth

G No evidence of erosion

Site Inspection Checklist - 7


-------
4.

1

1 Undercutting G Location shown on site map G No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth
Remarks

5.

Obstructions Type G No obstructions
G Location shown on site map Areal extent

Size

Remarks

6.

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type
G No evidence of excessive growth
G Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
G Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks

1).

f

Cover Penetrations \pplicable GN/A

1.

fias Vails , ¦ G Act Passive

<|J3'roperly secured/lockec^O Vunctionrag (G Routinely sampled ,u < iood condition

Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance
GNA

Remarks \i ..\> L'k

2.

(.;is Monitoring Probes

G Properly secured/locked/O Functioning j U Routinely sampled G 'Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance GN/A
Remarks t (1- .r£ •/£ t' t.UUA i C ? J.vl'bVl Ifvlt

3.

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)

G Properly secured/'lockecf G Functioning ^ 0 Routinely sampled ! y Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration j G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks

4.

1 mchate Extraction Well> , „ ^r.

G Properly secured/lockec} G Fimctiomm> t >'; Routinely sampled «l4 Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration ~ G Needs Maintenance GN/A
Remarks

iv. Settlement Monuments G Located G Routinely surveyed GN/A
Remarks

Site Inspection Checklist - 8


-------
F. Gas Collection and Treatment	G Applicable G N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities

1 G'Haring	G Thermal destruction G Collection for reuse

fu I'rood condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2. C.is Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

j G Good condition G Needs Maintenance

1 KemarksXF L t \;'i 0 - K tlL. << \l	^I - ' 'i. \ ' 2.\\ '• 1-'^

3. < i.it Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
•"0 Cjood condition G Needs Maintenance G N/A

''Remarks VfH -	

P. Cover Drainage Layer

G Applicable

GN/A





1. Outlet Pipes Inspected

Remarks

G Functioning



GN/A





2, Outlet Rock Inspected

Remarks

Functioning



GN/A





(.. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds

G Applicable

GN/A





1. SiltationAreal extent

Depth





a VA

G Siltation not evident
Remarks









2.

Erosion Area.1 extent
G Erosion not evident
Remarks

Depth









3.

Outlet Works

i Remarks

G Functioning

GN/A









4.

Dam

Remarks

G Functioning

GN/A









Site Inspection Checklist - 9


-------
1.1

Retaining Walls G Applicable ¦' \/A

.

Deformations G Location shown on site map G Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks

2.

1 >s«radation G Location shown on site map G Degradation not evident
Remarks

1.

1'mmeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge G Applicable . 'N'/A

1, Siltation G Location sho wn on site map G Siltation not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks

2,

Vegetative Growth G Location shown on site map G N/A
G Vegetation does not impede flow
A real extent Type
Remarks

3.

Li osion G Location shown on site map G Erosion not evident

Area! extent Depth

Remarks

4.

Discharge Structure G Functioning G N/A
Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS G Applicable jc ^/A

1.

settlement G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident

Areal extent Depth

Remarks

2.

Perlnrmaiice Monitoring Type of monitoring
G Performance not monitored

Frequency G Evidence of breaching

Head dificu-ntial

Remarks

Site Inspection Checklist -10


-------
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES	\pplicable GN/A

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

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

G'Good condition •G Ml required wells properly operating G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remuiks 11	* V, , ,• ¦, ^	, 1, 1 i t v.1	1 i , 1 * -

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances 1

(:• tiood condition G Needs Maintenance

Remarks	i 1 t ' , - i1 W >t>1. > | ¦ v 'i i i (i l 'I "

3. Spare Parts and Equipment

'JG Readily availablf G itood condition G Requires upgrade G Needs to be provided
Remarks

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

1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

(G t'jood condition G Needs Maintenance

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves. Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

(G ¦< Jood condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3. Spare Parts and Equipment

G Readily available G Good condition G Requires upgrade G Needs to be provided Up*
Remarks

yiiiyf f i/iiC/i (If'ct

Site Inspection Checklist -11


-------
C, Treatment System	G Applicable G N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

G Metals removal	G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation

6 Air stripping \ ' ' \	" G Carbon adsorbers

G Filters	,'t^	

G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)		

G Others	

G Good condition	G Needs Maintenance

G Sampling ports properly marked and functional
G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
G Equipment properly identified
G Quantity of groundwater treated annually^

G Quantity of surface water treated annually L)	

Remarks

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
G N/A ^' Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks		

3. Tanks, "H uuiis. Storage Vessels

%^/A s'-— AI t iood condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance
Remarks

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

G N/A	f 3 Good condition G Needs Maintenance

Remarks

5. Treatment Building(s)

/ t; N/A	G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)	G Needs repair

G Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)	_

G Properly secured/lockecfo Kmctioning 4jx,°utinely sampled ,<> Good condition
G All required wells located	G Needs Maintenance	G N/A

Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

1.	Monitoring Data

(p Is routinely submitted on time	of acceptable quality

2.	Monitoring data suggests:

,!! (J round water plume is effectively contained i u I 'ontaminant concentrations are declining

Site Inspection Checklist -12


-------


D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

1.

Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled ^ r;ood condition
G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance ^ 9' VA

Remat-ks i''' . , y ,t .vj ». v. i V ! \ V' *

( \ i i.,i {/ •• , '! ¦ / y. i -i - 1

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An 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.).

',l«. *')'./¦!. ,f'/< 'l-.« H". '.I.vlf • U

¦ \i i i ' • " I > .. ti \ t \ r , V\a' \ \ .vi.1!'. ', A- M- >- •
l- \ K, \,1. s VJ4> v '• ' t \ \ l-Wi ( Li \ vU ! \ r
v"1* * • < <. I | , M • i ¦ > | I. • * '• 1 ' , \ 1 11'*> \ i i i '*•1 11

v it i v-v'l'1 1 _ _ I •' '• 	

v\4 ul l,[ t! • fev ¦ 'tAA,(lc, .lur-i'.. • -

f'o AVX

B.

Adequacy of O&M



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.

' •. 1 , v ';i •'n v i i^ \ 11 ; ."¦/ , '1 _ 	

t7 ¦-

\ d'..'.1. i - ii'.'.-A'j-LU _J	1 -j—	--'	- ' - 	

1 \ |V I- M .!.,(•) lf! , 1 , , ! 		 V i J |

Ui' 1, 1 ;1 ¦ 1 1' f,v_i !'» i j ' 1 i' ' 'i i - i i	

^ s < V " ; 1 >' i 11 i 1 1 i - t > ! | <* i u,
v to ~ nt\v j ^ K x Ct. ^ir 1 L-f-i - > *-1^ 1 ¦ ij f- -

1 1 - ^ "'v'. '• 1 1 ^ 1 ' - J ' ._s._L_ J .

. 11\ \ . '» r# 1; ' .«.'<> . f.v;

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,

, 'X_	'¦	,	

Mjq v>. _ t1 - ai u| ic tl (vuu|.-. i*n	v f *v, > -{i_ _ _

:	t/u {i P/t ('i,y\Qn u r fu n'		

	l>u4 iai/LU	

	' jlU ryjt	.	_—1	_

; n \J

	 l l's [ \, ^ it l_v\	M" 1 v 1 <- ' ' l_,t

'	? ,"'v H i' < '• U._u f / CJWW rti(C h wt'w? - ,'JK

D.	Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

	-tAij	t A.di > hvvt-g- t u U'^_	

_	c \o tii^tywutr	

	l~ ^v^fe-bvu^:	

¦¦ ¦_			U.tUUQvA ft liw	i XM j

• • __	^	

¦ iWakua ('lhm ~i v-^~ ri\?iJ<\\,x i_ ,a r\.Atl j^Aiu ,
.	Lu.,v Ia	.UtVo jK H'*'- 1 'JvA.T'' x'%. ,/]	f\4", I	

Site Inspection Checklist - 14


-------
Appendix G - Site Visit Photographs - July 12,2007

Five-Year Review Report	September 2007


-------
Appendix G - Site Visit Photographs

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
Extraction well (MW-PEW) pump house and power supply

Collection rip rap along road from extraction well outfall to drain

Surface water collection drain on west side of landfill access road


-------
Extraction well pump house - view from road adjacent to outfall

View from extraction well outfall down west side of landfill road (1)


-------
View from extraction well outfall down west side of landfill road (2)

View from west drain looking up to extraction well


-------
Surface water collection drain on east side of landfill road

Grassy area where extracted groundwater infiltrates surface (2)


-------
East view of landfill (2)

ME view of landfill

East view of landfill (1)

Southeast view of landfill


-------
South view of landfill (1)

South view of landfill (2)

Southwest view of landfill


-------
Maintenance buildings, used primarily for active landfill

Entrance to maintenance facility

Security at landfill entrance


-------
Appendix G - Site Visit Photographs

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Controls Assessment

Five-Year Review Report	September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment

Northside Landfill	Spokane, WA

[This page intentionally kept blank.]

Five-Year Review Report

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment
Northside Landfill

Spokane, WA

Evaluation of Institutional Controls

Institutional controls (ICs) are designed to prevent exposure to contamination, usually through
restrictions on the use of land, ground and surface water, and other media, where contaminant
levels do not allow for unlimited use and/or unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). ICs also may be
used to prevent interference with remedy components or operation of the remedy.

ICs were required in the 1989 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northside Landfill site (the
Site) due to hazardous substances remaining on site at levels that do not allow for UU/UE.

As part of the 2007 Five-Year Review (FYR), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
reviewed the status of Site ICs for their effectiveness in ensuring the remedy's protectiveness.
Available guidance included a 2007 working draft of USEPA Guidance Supplement to the
Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance: Evaluation of Institutional Controls.

This review primarily relied on following documents: The ROD, two subsequent FYRs, portions
of the 1991 Consent Decree pertaining to ICs, and a 1997 court order granting the City's motion
to terminate the Consent Decree. The USACE also conducted interviews with relevant
personnel at the City, Ecology, and the County Health District and inspected the site.

While this review supports a determination that the existing ICs, in combination with
engineering controls, are currently effective in accomplishing the goals identified in the ROD,
further work is necessary to determine whether the existing ICs will be effective in the long
term. At a minimum, the following is recommended:

•	A review of the operating permit for the landfill and the MFS to determine the
nature and duration of state-required ICs

•	A review of the Institutional Controls Plan (referenced in the CD Scope of Work)

•	A title search for the City's landfill property to review encumbrances and verify
that deed notices are still in place

•	A review of the need for access to monitoring wells on private properties,
including coordination with Ecology regarding existing conveyance notification
requirements, whether they are being complied with, and whether they are
necessary (paragraph 55 of CD).

•	A review of nearby homes with monitoring wells for compliance with
conveyance notification.

•	Zoning documents for the landfill property

•	An evaluation of the effectiveness of the "start card" system

•	Clarification of the Spokane County Health District role in ICs

It may be appropriate to include in the proposed ESD an update of ROD ICs, to address specifics
of duration, extent, implementation procedures, mapping, and reporting requirements.

Five-Year Review Report

1

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment
Northside Landfill

Spokane, WA

1. Decision Document Review

For this FYR, the 1989 Record of Decision (ROD) was reviewed for site-specific administrative
restrictions and ICs. The ROD did not detail specific administrative restrictions or ICs (e.g.,
current zoning ordinance, enforcement mechanisms, easements, etc.), but stated the following for
administrative restrictions in the "Selected Remedy" section:

Administrative restrictions or institutional controls need to be enacted which will
protect the landfill cap, monitoring wells, and the pumping and treatment system.
Restrictions should be placed on the construction of new wells and the use of
existing wells in the contaminated plume. These actions must be part of the
planning for implementation of the remedial action.

The ROD lists as ARARs the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and its regulations,
Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations, and the Washington State Minimum Functional
Standards for Solid Waste Handling. It includes the following language in the Statutory
Determinations section:

Administrative restrictions will be effective in keeping the long-term exposure low
by protecting the cap and monitoring wells system and controlling use of wells in
the contaminated portions of the aquifer, until the aquifer remediation is
complete.

Nearby residents affected by contaminated groundwater, or by the action of the
pumping and treatment system, will receive alternative water supplies. The City
of Spokane has extended its municipal water system into the area and is supplying
potable water to those residences which have contamination in excess ofMCLS in
their wells.

Thus, the remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the ICs are:

•	maintaining the landfill cap integrity,

•	protecting remedy infrastructure, and

•	protecting against exposures to contaminants of concern (COCs) in the groundwater.

Landfill cap integrity is critical to the effectiveness of the remedy in order to minimize surface
water infiltration that results in contaminant migration to groundwater and prevent direct contact
with landfill contaminants below the cap. The cap also prevents human exposure to COCs
within the landfill.

In addition to the alternative water supply required by the ROD, the solid and hazardous waste
regulations cited as ARARs in the ROD may provide sufficient controls to prevent exposure to
groundwater contaminants, as discussed below. ICs should prevent drinking water wells from
being placed within the contaminated plume and should prevent the use of existing wells located
and screened in the contaminated zone. If the extent of the contaminated plume is understood to
mean the extent of groundwater exceeding MCLs, it is likely that certain institutional controls

Five-Year Review Report

2

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment
Northside Landfill

Spokane, WA

will not be needed outside the landfill boundary in future. Cleanup levels are now met at the
landfill boundary as a result of landfill capping and interim pumping and treating. When cleanup
levels are consistently met following the discontinuation of pumping and treating, it may be
appropriate to modify the institutional controls.

The ROD describes the IC objectives and areas where administrative restrictions are needed,
distinguishing between the landfill itself, where the cover must be protected indefinitely, and the
contaminated plume, which should change over time. The duration of certain ICs is not entirely
clear, and the ROD does not specify the exact mechanisms by which the ICs are to be
implemented. While additional documentation is provided in various State and County laws, this
area should be further evaluated.

2. Enforcement Document Review

Following the ROD, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with the City of Spokane (City) for
implementation of the remedy. Paragraph 29 of the Consent Decree (Conveyance of the
Site/Institutional Controls) specified the following:

A.	The restrictions and obligations set forth in this Consent Decree or developed under it
shall run with the land and shall be binding upon any and all persons who acquire any
interest in any property included in those portions of the Site owned by the City. Within
thirty (30) calendar days of approval by the Court of this Decree, the City of Spokane as
a Settling Defendant and owner of the Site shall record a coy of this Decree with the
Auditor's Office, Spokane County, State of Washington. The City shall send a copy of the
recorded notice to the Government Plaintiffs within five (5) days of recording.

B.	Those portions of the Site owned by the City and described herein may be freely
alienated, provided that at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of such alienation, the
City notifies Government Plaintiffs of such proposed alienation, the name of the grantee,
a copy of the proposed contract between the grantor and grantee, and a description of
the City's obligations under this Consent Decree, if any, to be performed by such
grantee. In the event of such alienation, all of the City's obligations pursuant to this
Decree shall continue to be met by the City and, subject to approval by the U.S. EPA, the
grantee.

C.	Any deed, title, or other instrument of conveyance regarding those portions of the Site
owned by the City shall contain a notice that the Site is the subject of this Consent
Decree, setting forth the style of the case, case number, and the Court having jurisdiction
herein. Said notation shall also notify any potential purchasers ofproperty contained
with the Site that:

a.	The land has been used to manage hazardous substances, and the hazardous
substances, including those listed in the ROD attached and incorporated into this
Consent Decree, remain under the cap.

b.	Post-remedial action land use is restricted such that use of the property must
never be allowed to disturb the integrity of the cap, or any other component of
any containment system, pump and treat system, or the function of the Site's
monitoring system, unless the Regional Administrator for U.S. EPA Region 10,
after consultation with Ecology, finds that the disturbance:

Five-Year Review Report

3

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment
Northside Landfill

Spokane, WA

i.	Is necessary to the proposed use of the property and will not increase the
potential hazard to human health or the environment; or

ii.	Is necessary to reduce a threat to human health or the environment.

c. Restrictions upon the use of groundwater beneath the Site must also comply with
all additional present andfuture restrictions placed on the use of such
groundwater by the City of Spokane and Spokane County.

D. The City shall perform all actions necessary and appropriate to implement the above-
referenced Institutional Controls, as defined in Paragraph 29, on the respective
properties including, but not limited to, the recording of notices, plot plans, and other
similar documents, and giving notice to local zoning authorities or other governmental
entities. The City shall report to the Government Plaintiffs, concerning its performance
of all such actions, as provided in Section IX of this Decree.

In addition, the CD included the following language in paragraph 55:

If the work includes the installation and operation of monitoring wells, pumping
wells, treatment facilities, or other response actions, the City shall ensure for
purposes of its own property that no conveyance of title, easement, or other
interest in the property shall be consummated without provisions for the
continued operation of such wells, treatment facilities, or other response actions
on the property, and also provide that the owners of any property where
monitoring wells, pumping wells, treatment facilities, or other response actions
are located shall notify Government Plaintiffs and the City by Certified Mail, at
last thirty (30) days prior to any conveyance, of the property owner's intent to
convey any interest in the property and of the provisions made or to be made for
the continued operation of monitoring wells, pumping wells, treatment facilities,
or other response actions installed pursuant to this Consent Decree.

The CD was terminated by court order on February 2, 1997, but the order required that City
continue to:

a.	Finance and perform required maintenance and other routine maintenance that would
normally be performed by a landfill owner (such as care of the landfill cap and
vegetative cover);

b.	Monitor ground water as set forth in the Scope of Work and Schedule of Deliverables
attached to the Consent Decree;

c.	Comply with restrictions on conveyance and use of the property as specified in
paragraph 29 of the Consent Decree [above];

d.	Comply with applicable Department of Ecology regulations governing landfill closure
and post-closure;

e.	Provide access to Plaintiffs as specified in Section X of the Consent Decree;

f.	Comply with the letter of Agreement with Ecology dated November 30, 1996 [nb: this
letter of agreement is attached to the termination and establishes that the City will fund
Ecology oversight];

g.	Comply with the retention of records requirements established in Section XXV of the
Consent Decree; and

Five-Year Review Report

4

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment
Northside Landfill

Spokane, WA

h. Comply with all requirements of Paragraph 55 of the Consent Decree, [above]

3. Interviews regarding IC Status

The PRP for the Site is the City of Spokane (the City). While the City continues to operate
active portions of the landfill and the gas collection system, City technicians and security
contractors are present on site. The gas-burning system has costly equipment and could be
hazardous to trespassers. It also requires daily inspection of the system and the landfill cap.

With respect to engineering controls, the City has the responsibility to protect the landfill cap,
on-site and off site groundwater monitoring wells, and the pumping and treatment system.
Informational signs associated with the site ICs are still intact and legible based on the site
inspection.

According to interviews with City personnel, the City maintains engineering controls (site
fencing) and security patrols. The perimeter of the landfill property is fenced with a cyclone
fence, and the landfill access road is gated. According to the landfill technicians interviewed,
contracted security patrols occur five nights out of seven on a random schedule. Two breaches
of onsite PRP engineering controls have occurred in the past five years. One was an act of
vandalism where individuals got onto the site overnight and broke windows in some of the heavy
equipment onsite. The other incident was a fire that burned through an adjacent property and
threatened the landfill. No damage was done to the landfill. Both incidents were reported to the
agencies.

City personnel indicated that the requirements of the termination order regarding deed notices
and conveyance were being met. This was not independently verified.

The City continues to provide water to residents in the area through connection to the municipal
water system. In addition, City personnel stated that the active landfill is in compliance with its
operating permit and that the MFS requirements are being met. In an interview with Ecology, its
representative stated that the Ecology "start card" process is effective at preventing drilling
within 1000 feet of the landfill, as required by the MFS. This program requires well drillers to
submit well location information for Ecology approval prior to the initiation of the well drilling.
The Start Card process allows Ecology to check the proposed location against landfill boundaries
and deny permission to drill if the location is within 1000 feet of the landfill.

This FYR notes that there is some ambiguity regarding the area where restrictions on drilling are
needed. Since the groundwater compliance wells are below the cleanup levels and have been for
several years, the 1000 foot distance is sufficient at this time. However, the extent of the plume
where COCs were detected is a larger area. Ecology procedures should be reviewed to
determine the area where they are applying drilling restrictions, and if it reflects the landfill
boundary, the current property boundary (which includes the infiltration basin), or the past or
current extent of the plume.

The City referenced Spokane County Health District (SCHD) controls. While not cited as

Five-Year Review Report

5

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment
Northside Landfill

Spokane, WA

ARARs, the court order terminating the Consent Decree requires the City to comply with County
requirements. SCHD can prevent access to contaminated groundwater water through its building
permit process. The SCHD does not allow a building overlying a known contaminant plume to
have its drinking water supplied by groundwater and requires that the building be connected to
municipal water. In an interview with the County, its representative stated that the County is
utilizes map with landfill overlays or other information regarding this Site to limit installation of
wells or to require new construction to use the municipal water supply. This FYR did not
independently verify the maps or their use.

4.	Current Effectiveness of ICs

Currently, the RAOs related to ICs are being met for the Site.

Because the landfill is active, the City continues to own and control the landfill property, so
requirements for notification regarding conveyance of the property have not been triggered.
Land/resource use on or near the site has not changed since the execution of the ROD. There are
no current/impending land/resource changes for the City property.

Because groundwater outside the landfill boundary meets MCLs and because residents are
connected to the municipal water supply, exposure to contaminated groundwater is not
occurring. New housing continues to be developed in the vicinity of the landfill, and existing
housing is likely to change hands. However, the City continues to have access to the wells in the
groundwater monitoring system at this time.

The City states that it has provided the State and County with Site groundwater contamination
plume boundary maps to enable proper decision-making with respect to well drilling and new
building construction. It appears that the plume maps match the extent of restrictions needed.
The 1000 ft rule combined with the City contaminant plume overlay is adequate to prevent
access to contaminated groundwater.

Based on the interviews with Ecology, Spokane County, and City personnel, it appears that
relevant information is reaching the pertinent people at the appropriate time given the State's
well drilling approval process and the County's construction permitting process. Citizens'
awareness and compliance could not be documented, but community involvement efforts by the
City, combined with the drilling and permitting processes, appear to be effective.

5.	Long-Term Effectiveness of ICs

Because the landfill will not always include active cells, this FYR recommends a review of MFS
requirements for post-closure ICs and a title search and review to assess whether current
standards for ensuring long-term protectiveness of ICs are met by the requirements of the ROD.

When the last active cell closes and when gas collection is no longer needed, the City may seek
to scale back their level of onsite activity. This topic and the anticipated timing for final closure
should be discussed with Ecology and the City.

Five-Year Review Report

6

September 2007


-------
Appendix H - Detailed Institutional Control Assessment
Northside Landfill

Spokane, WA

While it is expected that cleanup levels will continue to be met in groundwater downgradient of
the landfill in the long-term, access to monitoring wells on private property will be necessary for
long-term monitoring. Certain requirements are in place to assure that property transfers will not
impact access to the wells; however, this review did not assess compliance with these
requirements. Ecology and EPA should discuss this issue to determine what additional review is
needed.

6. Protectiveness Determination for Institutional Controls

In combination with remedial action and O&M, the ICs are currently protective. In order to
ensure long-term protectiveness, this FYR recommends additional review of ICs related to
property (transfer, notices, encumbrances), zoning, and details of IC implementation
mechanisms (duration, extent, specific procedures).

7. Follow-up Actions

Follow-up actions should involve coordination with Ecology and the City and should include the
following, as appropriate:

•	A review of the operating permit for the landfill and the MFS to determine the
extent, nature and duration of state-required ICs

•	A review of the Institutional Controls Plan (referenced in the CD Scope of Work)

•	A title search for the City's landfill property to review encumbrances and verify
that deed notices are still in place and up to date (in light of purchased land for
infiltration basin).

•	A review of the need for access to monitoring wells on private properties,
including coordination with Ecology regarding existing conveyance notification
requirements, whether they are being complied with, and whether they are
necessary (paragraph 55 of CD).

•	Documentation of zoning and zoning procedures for the landfill property and
nearby areas.

•	An evaluation of the effectiveness and enforceability of the "start card" system
and the map used to support well-drilling approvals.

•	Clarification of the Spokane County Health District permit process, the map used
to support requirements for city well use, and the role these have in long-term
effectiveness.

It may be appropriate to include in an ESD an update of ROD ICs, to address specifics of
duration, extent, implementation procedures, mapping, and reporting requirements.

Five-Year Review Report

7

September 2007


-------