James Turner/R6/USEPA/US 

01/09/2008 04:49 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

"Gentry, Frederick" <fgentry@littlerock.org> 

Shawn Ghose/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, rebamburg@aol.com, 

Mark Peycke 

Re: Rogers Road Landfill^] 

Mr. Gentry, sorry for the delay in responding, but the Christmas and New Years holidays, along with a 

number of other things going on, have delayed my response. I am assuming that you are not represented 

by counsel in this matter, since you wrote me directly. If you are represented, then please make any 

further contact directly with Mr. Shawn Ghos^ our RPM, or have your attorney contact me directly. 

Let me start out by saying that based on my contacts and negotiations with Bob Bamburg, City Attorney 

for the City of Jacksonville, over an extended period of time, I thought we had reached agreement on this 

matter and the instrument that 1 sent him in July and again in August was ready for execution and 

recording. The Rogers Road Superfund Site is in fact still a National Priorities List (NPL) Superfund Site, 

so designated by the EPA. The EPA was considering action to have the site deleted from the NPL. 

However, implementation of the easement and restrictive covenants instrument that we have been 

working on is essential to having the Site removed from the NPL, which will not happen until that is done 

and a notice and comment proceeding is then pursued through the Federal Register. 

The information in the prefatory clauses of the instrument that you cite, including the statement about 

groundwater monitoring, were generally taken from the record of decision (ROD) for the site and serve to 

explain the purposes that support the instrument. Normally, groundwater monitoring will date from the 

time of completion of construction of the site remedy. However, Mr. Ghose reminded me that groundwater 

monitoring on this site was suspended following the first five year review of the remedy in 2001. 

In regard to your comment about about subpara. (f) on page 3 of the draft, this was not intended to, nor 

does it generally prevent, development of the main part of the property, but rather development that would 

damage or destroy remedial components like the site cap, fencing, monitor wells, and so forth, I believe at 

least some some monitoring wells are outside the 1.38 acre area. However, I will take another look at this 

provision in light of your comments. 

I will also ask Shawn Ghose to see if he can respond to your technical questions about site contamination 

levels; however, I can state that my understanding is the reason a cap and fencing was required over 

much of the 1.38 acre area was that dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) remained in levels under the cap, above that 

which is acceptable for unrestricted access. 

James L. Turner 

Senior Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel (6RC-S) 

U.S. EPA Region6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

E-Mail: Turner.James@epa.gov 

Ph: (214)665-3159 

Fax:(214)665-6460 

"Gentry, Frederick" <fgentry@littlerock.org> 

"Gentry, Frederick" 

<f gentry @littlerock .org> 

12/12/2007 03:29 PM 

To James'Turner/R6/USEPA/US(a)EPA 

cc Shawn Ghose/R6/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject Rogers Road Landfill r9050334 

lllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllll 

002334
Dear Mr, Turner: 

I am writing you regarding the "Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive 

Covenants" for the Rogers Road Landfill which is an approximately 20.296 acre tract of land located on 

Rogers Road near its intersection with Graham Road in Pulaski County, Arkansas, just east of the 

corporate limits of the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas, After reading a draft of the document provided tp me 

by Jacksonville City Attorney, Robert Bamburg, I have some questions or concerns which I have also 

spoken with Mr, Ghose about. To make this easy 1 will list those concerns or questions and you can then 

respond to them. 

J • 

1.) On the first page of the document and the third paragraph after "witnesseth", it states that 

there will be groundwater monitoring for a period of thirty years. What I would like to know is did 

that thirty years begin upon the installation of the monitoring wells? It seems as though it would 

have, however I don't think that it is clear, 

2.) On page three line "f, it completely prohibits industrial or commercial development of "The 

Property" which would mean the entire 20.296 acres. 1 would like to know how many acres are not 

actually impacted by the Site remedial plan. We need to know how much can and can't be used 

for certain development. For years it has been my understanding that only 1.38 acres which is 

fenced in was under any Site remedial component. This agreement seems to go beyond that in 

some of its descriptions which causes me concern. 

In looking at some of the companies or organizations that have applied for the "Ready for Reuse" Program 

and were given permission to build, it seems as though the contamination levels may have been the same 

if not exceeded that of the Rogers Road Landfill. At this point 1 do not know what the contamination levels 

were in 1990 before the clean up, what they were in 1995 after the clean up and what they might be today. 

If you could provide an answer to that I would greatly appreciate it. We may at some point soon sale the 

property and all of this information would be helpful, 

' ^ 

Thanks, 

Frederick Gentry 

Assistant to the Board of-Directors 

City of Little Rock 

371-6801 

500 West Markham 

Room 203 , 

002335