### Appendix 1: SiteInspection Checklist |Midvale SlagThird 5-Year Review Report Al-1

## FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: Midvale Slag Superfund Site Date of inspection: Location and Region: Salt Lake County, UT, EPA Region 8 EPA ID: UTD08134277 Agency, office, or company leading the five-year i review: EPA, Region 8 Weather/temperature: sunny, windy, moderate temperatures Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) E Landfill cover/containment I~1 Access controls 13 Institutional controls • Groundwater pump and treatment • Surface water collection and treatment • Other 3 Monitored natural attentiatibn • Groundwater containment • Vertical barrier walls

Attachments: none II. INTERVIEWS 1. O&M site manager: EPA Remedial Project Manager Erna Waterman conducted five-vear review interviews with eight individuals. No individual reports: all are summarized inCommunity Notification and Input 2. O&M staff: John Jacobson. Midvale Citv Development Site Coordinator 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response , office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmentalhealth, zoning office, recorder ofdeeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Town Howes. PM Utah DEO 4. Other interviews None

m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS &RECORDS VERIFIED 1. O&M Documents
• O&M manual
• As-built drawings
• Maintenance logs Remarks: None 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan • Readily available • Up to date 

### EI N/A
• Contingency plan/emergency response plan • Readily available • Up to date 

### El N/A Remarks: None 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records • Readily available • Up to date 

# EN/A Remarks: None O Readily available • Up to date |3 N/A
• Readily available QUp to date 

## El N/A
• Readily available • Up to date 

## El N/A

Appendix 1: Site Inspection Checklist|Midvale Slag Third 5-Year ReviewReport Al-24. Permits and Service Agreements


### •Air discharge permit Q Readily available • Up to date 3

## N/A
• Effluent discharge • Readily available • Up to date 3N/A
• Waste disposal, POTW Q Readily available 3Upto date 

## 3N/A CH Other permits 3 Readily available • Up to date 3N/A Remarks: Permits are exempted under CERCLA 5. Gas Generation Records 

### Q Readily available Remarks: None • Up to date 3N/A

6. Settlement Monument Records 

### [J Readily available Remarks: None • Up to date 3N/A

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records 

### 3 Readily available Remarks: Records were providedbv Tonv Howes. RPM. UtahDEO 3Up to date 

## •N/A

8. Leachate Extraction Records 3 

### Readily available Remarks: None • Up to date 3N/A

9. Discharge Compliance Records 

### Q Air 3Readily available 3Up to date 3N/A
• Water (effluent) 3Readily available 3 Up to date 13 N/A Remarks: None 10. Daily Access/Security Logs • 

### Readily available 3Up to date 3N/A Remarks: Site is being redeveloDed IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization


### • State in-house 3 Contractor for State
•PRP in-house 3 Contractor for PRP
• Federal Facility in-house 3 Contractor for Federal Facility 13 Other Remarks: Midvale Citv oversees developmentand O&M under "Institutional Controls Ordinance for Bingham Jvmction. Jordan Bluffs and Designated Rights of Wav"passed Mav 7.2013 Utah DEO conducts groundwater monitoring 2. O&M Cost Records


### • Readily available 3 Up to date
• Funding mechanism/agreement inplace 13 Unavailable Remarks: Not available 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period 

### Remarks: N/A

Appendix 1: SiteInspection Checklist |Midvale SlagThird 5-Year Review Report Al-3

### V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

A. Fencing 1. 

### Fencing • Location shown on site map 

### Q Gates secured 

### 13 N/A Remarks: Fencing between OU1 and OU2 removed forredevelonment ofsite. Newlv developed ownershad installed their own propertv fencing for their own purposes. B. 

### Other Access Restrictions 1. 

### Signs and other security measures •Location 

### shown on site map • 

### N/A Remarks: 

### None C. Institutional Controls (ICs) - see remarks 1. 

### Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented • Yes 15^1 No 1 1 N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced • Yes |3 No • N/A Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): Frequency: Responsible nartv/aaencv: Midvale Citv Contact Name: John Jacobsen Title: Development Site Coordinator Date: 6/12/2013 Reporting is up-to-date 13 Yes ONo 

### •'N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency • Yes • No 3N/A Specific requirements in deed or decision documents havebeen met 13 Yes • No 

## •N/A Violations have been reported • Yes 3No 

## •N/A Other problems or suggestions: The Institutional ControlsOrdinance for Bingham Junction. Jordan Bluffs and Designated Rights of Wav.available through www.midvalecitv.org does not contain the figures, which are necessarv Remarks: Recommend making figures referenced bv the ICs available to agenciesand the public

2. 

### Adequacy 3ICs are adequate • ICs are inadequate • N/A Remarks: Midvale Citv Ordinance and the enforcement via the Development Site Coordinator meet the reauirements ofthe remedv 

### D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing • Location shown on site map 

### £3 No vandalism evident Remarks: None 2, 

### Land use changes on site QN/A Remarks: OU1 and OU2 are being redeveloped forresidential, commercial, transportation corridor, and recreational use. and much hasalreadv been completed. 3. 

### Land use changes off 

### site • N/A Remarks: None observed

Appendix 1: Site Inspection Checklist |Midvale SlagThird 5-Year Review Report Al-4V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

A. Fencing 1. Fencing •Location shown onsite map P Gates secured 13 N/A Remarks: Fencine between OUT and OU2 removed for redeveloDment ofsite. Newlv develoDed owners had installed their ownpropertv fencine for their own purposes: B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and othersecurity measures P Location shown on sitemap 13 N/A Remarks: None 

## c. Institutional Controls (ICs)- see remarks 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented P Yes 3 No 

## P N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Q Yes 3 No QN/A Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-reporting, driveby): Frequency: Responsible partv/aeencv: Midvale Citv Contact Name: John Jacobsen Title: Development Site Coordinator Date: 6/12/2013 Reporting is up-to-date 

## 3 Yes •No 

## •N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency •Yes •No 

## 3N/A Specific requirements in deed ordecision documents havebeen met 3Yes •No 

## •N/A Violations have been reported •Yes 3No 

## •N/A Other problems or suggestions:The Institutional Controls Ordinance for Bineham Junction. Jordan Bluffs and Designated Riehts ofWav. available throuah www.midvalecitv.ore does not contain the fieures. which,are neeessarv Remarks: Recommend makine fieures referenced bv the ICs available to agenciesand the nublic


## 2. Adequacy 3 ICs are adequate •ICs are inadequate Q N/A Remarks: Midvale Citv Ordinance and the enforcementvia the Develooment SiteCoordinator meet the requirements ofthe remedv D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing Q Location shown onsite map £3 No vandalism evident Remarks: None 

## 2. Land use changes on site •N/A Remarks: OU1 and 0U2 are being redeveloned forresidential, commercial. transDortation corridor, and recreational use. and much has already been comnleted. 3. Land use changes offsite •N/A Remarks: None observed

Appendix 1: Site inspection Checklist |Midyale SlagThird 5-Year Review Report A1-3VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads Applicable • N/A 1. Roads damaged • Location shownon sitemap •Roads adequate (3N/A Remarks: New roadsand UTA TRAX Bineham Junction rail station have been constructed as part of the siteredevelonment B. Other Site Conditions Remarks: None VII. LANDFILL COVERS A. Landfill Surface -OU2 remedy consists ofa barrier between site wastes and human contact, it is not a true landfill. There are no covers onOU1 1. Settlement (Low spots) • Location shown on sitemap Q Settlement not evident Remarks: N/A - monitorine not required 2. Cracks Q Location shown on sitemap OCracking not evident Remarks: N/A - monitorins not reauired 3. Erosion • Location shown on sitemap 13 Erosion not evident Remarks: Durine site visitthe team observed that muchof the site is alreadv develooed andredevelopment included various hard surfaces ofasohalt and concrete and Dlanned drainases to reduceerosion. The team viewed one onen excavationbelow MW-503 on OIJ2 4. Holes • Location shown on sitemap Q Holes not evident Remarks: Team viewed one ooenexcavation below MW-503 on OU2.visible slae at excavation. 5. Vegetative Cover 

## C] Grass 

## O Cover properly established [~~l No signs of stress d Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks: The new construction onOU1 and OU2 includes landscaoine of erass. eround cover, shrubs and trees. These appear well maintained. A heavilv veeetated wetlands area was observed between the older Winchester Estate residential area and the recentlv constructed River Walk Aoartments. The riDarian area alone the Jordan River had veeetation with volunteer plants that are beine manaeed bv Salt Lake Countv throueh aDolication of Dre-emereent and pulline unwanted volunteer olants. At the ODen excavation below MW-503 on OU2. the veeetation is sDarse to none, allowine blowine dust from cover and excavation. 6. Alternative Cover (armored rock,concrete, etc.) Remarks: Alone the edeeof the Jordan River and Midvale Slaesite the bank was laid back, occasional benches formed, and some ofthe bank had been armored with rock. Armored rock was also olaced in a few areas onthe West Jordan side ofthe river. Durine site visit the team observed that redevelonment included various hard surfaces of asphalt and concrete and planned drainages to reduceerosion. 7. Bulges • Location shown on sitemap ^Bulges not evident Remarks: None

Appendix 1: Site InspectionChecklist |Midvale Slag Third 5-YearReview Report Al-48. Wet Areas/Water Damage (^1 Wet areas/water damage not evident [~] Wetareas O Location shown on site map Arial extent l~l Ponding l~~l Location shown on site map Arial extent O Seeps •Location shown on site map Arial extent I~1 Soft subgrade HI Location shown on site map Arial extent Remarks:None 9. Slope Instability O'Slides HI Location Shown on sitemap E]No evidence ofslope instability Remarks: None B. Landfill Benches Q Applicable •N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds ofearth placed across asteep landfill side slope to interruptthe slope in order to slow down the velocity ofsurface runoff and intercept and convey therunoff toa lined channel.) 1. Flows Bypass Bench 1 1 Location shown onsite map HI N/A or okay Remarks: None 2. Bench Breached •Location shown onsite map •N/A or okay Remarks: None 3. Bench Overtopped 1 1 Location shown onsite map ON/A orokay Remarks: None C. Landfill Letdown Channels •Applicable £3 N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend downthe steepside slope ofthe cover and will allow the runoffwater collected by the benches to moVe off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.) 1. Settlement (Low spots) •Location shown onsite map p]No evidenceof settlement Arial extent: Depth: Remarks: None 2. Material Degradation f~l Location shown on sitemap •No evidenceofdegradation Material tvoe: Arial extent: Remarks: None 3. Erosion f~l Location shown on sitemap •No evidenceof erosion Arial extent: Depth: Remarks: None 4. Undercutting • Location shown on sitemap •No evidence ofundercutting Arial extent: Depth: Remarks: None

Appendix 1: SiteInspection Checklist |Midvale Slag Third 5-YearReview Report Al-5s. Obstructions 

### Tvpe: •No Obstructions fl Location shownon site map Arial extent: Size Remarks: None 6. Excessive Vegetative Growth 

### Tvoe:
•No evidence ofexcessive growth
• Vegetation in channels does notobstruct flow I~1 

### Location shown on site map Arial extent: Remarks: None D. Cover Penetrations • 

### Applicable [3N/A ICs allow redevelopmentof site, including cover penetrations during construction 1. Gas Vents 0 

### Active l~T 

### Passive Fl Properly secured/locked • Functioning 1 1 Routinely sampled •Good condition O Evidence of leakage atpenetration •Needs Maintenance 

## •N/A Remarks: None 2. Gas Monitoring Probes 

### O Properly secured/locked •Functioning •Routinely sampled I~1 Good condition f~l 

### Evidence of leakage at penetration •Needs maitttenance 

## •N/A Remarks: None 3. Monitoring Wells 

### (within surface area oflandfill) 03 Properly secured/locked 03 Functioning 13 Routinely sampled 13 Good condition f~l Evidence of leakage at penetration I~1 Needs Maintenance 

## •N/A Remarks: None 4. Leachate Extraction Wells 

### 1 1 Properly secured/locked [3 Functioning •Routinely sampled • Good condition PI Evidence of leakageat penetration •Needs Maintenance 

## •N/A Remarks: None 5. Settlement Monuments 

### Q Located Remarks: None • Routinely surveyed 3N/A

E. Gas Collection and Treatment •

### Applicable 

## 13 N/A 1. Gas Treatment Facilities


### • Flaring • Thermal destruction • Collection for reuse 1 1 Good condition •Needs Maintenance Remarks: Npne

Appendix 1: Site Inspection Checklist |Midvaie SlagThird 5-Year Review Report Al-62. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping \
• Good condition •Needs Maintenance Remarks: None 3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoringof adj acent homes orbuildings)
• Good condition 

### F~1Needs Maintenance • N/A Remarks: None F. Cover Drainage Layer 

### n Applicable 

### Kl N/A 

### 1. Outlet Pipes Inspected • Functioning •N/A Remarks: None 2. Outlet Rock Inspected •Functioning 

### •N/A Remarks: None G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds • Applicable N/A Constructed and being constructed as part of siteredevelopment 

### 1. Siltation Area extent: Depth: 

### •N/A
• Siltation not evident Remarks: None 2. Erosion Area extent: Depth:
•Erosion not evident Remarks: None 3. Outlet Works • Functioning 

### •N/A Remarks: None 4. Dam 

### Q Functioning 

### •N/A Remarks: None Hi Retaining Walls •Applicable 

### Kl N/A 

### 1. Deformations • Location shown onsite map • Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement: Rotational displacement: Remarks: None 2. Degradation [~l Location shown on sitemap • Degradation not evident Remarks: None I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge • Applicable [xjN/A 

### 1. Siltation 

### l~1 Location shown on site map • Siltation not evident Area extent: Depth: Remarks: None

Appendix 1: SiteInspection Checklist j Midvale SlagThird 5-Year ReviewReport A1-72. Vegetative Growth 

## EH Location shown on site map
• Vegetation does not impede flow 

## EH N/A

Area extent: Type: Remarks: None 3. Erosion ' 

## EH Location shown on site map 

## EH Erosion not evident Area extent: Depth: Remarks: None 4. Discharge Structure — 

## EH Functioning Remarks: None 

## EH N/A

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS 

## M N/A 1. Settlement 

## Q Location shown on sitemap 

## EH Settlement not evident Area extent: Depth: Remarks: None 2. Performance Monitoring Tvoe ofmonitoring:
• Performance not monitored Frequency: 

## EH Evidence 

## ofbreaching Head differential: Remarks: None IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES A, Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps,and Pipelines 

## EH Applicable £<] N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
• Good condition 

## EH All required wells properly operating 

## EH Needs Maintenance 

## EH N/A Remarks: None 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances 

## O Good condition 

## EH Needs Maintenance Remarks: None 3. Spare Parts and Equipment 

## EH Readily available 

## EH Good condition 

## EH Requires upgrade 

## EH Needs to be provided Remarks: None B. Surface Water Collection Structures*Pumps* and Pipelines 

## EH Applicable 

## [XI N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical 

## EH Good condition 

## EH Needs Maintenance Remarks: None 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves,Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances 

## EH Good condition 

## EH Needs Maintenance Remarks: None

Appendix 1: Site Inspection Checklist |Midvale Slag Third 5-YearReview Report3. Spare Parts and Equipment 0 Readily available 0Good condition 0 Requires upgrade 0 Needs to be provided Remarks: None C. rreatment System 0 Applicable 0N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check componentsthat apply) ' 0 Metals removal 0 Oil/water separation 0 BioremediatiOn 0 Air stripping 0 Carbon adsorbers 0 Filters: I-! Additive (e.s..chelation aeent. flocculenf): | |Others: 0 Good condition 0Needs Maintenance 0 Sampling ports properly marked and functional 0 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date 0 Equipment properly identified I"! Ouantitv oferoundwater treated annuallv: F~1 Ouantitv of surface water treated annuallv: Remarks: 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels(properly rated and functional) 0N/A 0 Good condition 0Needs Maintenance Remarks: None 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels 0N/A 0 Good condition 0 Proper secondary containment 0 Needs Maintenance Remarks: None 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances 0 N/A 0 Good condition 0Needs Maintenance Remarks: None 5. Treatment Building(s) 0 N/A 0 Good condition(esp. roofand doorways) 0Needs repair 0 Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks: None 6. Monitoring Wells (pumpand treatment remedy) 0 Properly secured/locked 0 Functioning 0 Routinely sampled 0 Good condition 0 All required wells located 0Needs Maintenance 0N/A Remarks: Nope

Appendix 1: Site Inspection Checklist |Midvale SlagThird 5-Year Review Report Al-9D. Monitoring Data 1. Monitoring Data 13 Isroutinely submitted on time Is of acceptable quality Remarks: Utah DEO conducts groundwatermonitoring 2. Monitoring data suggests: x
• Groundwater plume is effectively contained [x] Contaminant concentrations aredeclining E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) 

### 13 Properly secured/locked 

### 3Functioning 

### 13 Routinely sampled 

### |3 Good condition
•All required wells located CH Needs Maintenance •N/A Remarks: None X. OTHER REMEDIES I3N/A If there are remedies applied atthe site, not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition ofany facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues andobservations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statementof what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., tocontain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). The remedv is intended to monitor natural attenuation of a groundwatercontaminated olume and to control human exoosure to contaminated solid media as well as groundwater. Human exoosure Dathwavs to contaminated solid media are being effectivelv controlled through the constructed cover svstemand imDlementation of ICsbefore, during, and after redeveloDment. Human exoosure to contaminated groundwater is also controlled through ICs. B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope ofO&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to thecurrent and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. O&M consists ofimolementation of ICs. Midvale Citv has hired adedicated individual to oversee IC imDlementation. The ICs require site develoDmententities hire aualified individuals to ensure comnliance with the ICs. The aoparent effective imDlementation ofICs results in current and long-term Drotectiveness. C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such asunexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggestthat the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future. None noted D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunitiesfor optimization in monitoringtasks orthe operationofthe remedy. None noted

Appendix 1: Site Inspection Checklist |Midvale Slag T hird 5-Year Review Report Al-10