# Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l

Five-Yea r Revie wRepor t Septembe r 200 0

T o vie w th e repor t i n Adob e Acrobat , clic k here .

# ^ Dsc 

# ^ ^ ^ • Prepared b

y U S EP A Regio

n 6 k5S, , ^

wit h 8upportfromRAC6contrac(o('CH2M HIL L 

# .Sl& J Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Pulasld County

, Arkansa s Five-Yea r Revie w Repor t Septembe r 200 0

CH2MHIL L

### FIVE-YEA R REVIEW Roger s Road Municipal Landfill Supcrfun d Sit e EPA I D #ARD98105580

9 Pulaski County , Arkansas Thi s memorandum

document s EPA' s approva l o f th e Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfill Superfund Sit e Five-Yea r Revie w Repor t prepare d by CH2MHU 1 o

n behalf o f EPA . Summary o f Five-Yea rRevie w Findings Thi s i s th e firs t five-yea r revie w o f th e Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfill Sit e (th e "Site" ) locate d nea r Jacksonville

, in Pulask i County , Arkansas . Th e result s o f th e five-yea r revie w indicat e that th e remed y i s protectiv e o f human healt h and th e environment

. Base d o n this five-yea r review . Sit e documentatio

n confirms the remedia l actio n a t the Sit e a s originall y se t forth i n th e Recor d o f Decisio n (ROD ) ha s bee n implemente

d a s planne d (excep t a s note d in th e followin g section ) an d i s protectiv e o f human healt h an d th e environment

. Action s Neede d Overall , th e remedia l actio n performed i s functioning

a s designed , an d th e Sit e ha s bee n maintaine d appropriately

. No deficiencie s wer e note d that impac t th e protectivenes

s o f th e remedy , an d th e remedy should remain protectiv e if Sit e Operation s an d Maintenanc

e i s continued . Groun d wate r monitorin g mus t als o continu e unti l the Cit y o f Jacksonvill e put s restrictiv e covenant s in place , and me Sit e i s delete d from the Nationa l Prioritie s List . Th e restrictiv e covenant s describe d i n the ROD hav e bee n developed , but hav e no t bee n put i n plac e by th e cit y becaus e o f lega l controvers y ove r titl e t o th e property . I n additio n to th e placemen t o f restrictiv e covenants , th e Arkansa s Department

o f Environmenta

l Qualit y ha s requeste d that th e appropriat e soli d wast e regulatin g authorit y b e notifie d o f th e lo w detect s ofnon-Site-relate

d metals in th e monitorin g well s that may b e cause d by leachin g from th e municipa l landfill. Determination

s I hav e determine d that th e remed y for th e Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfill Superfund Sit e i s protectiv e o f human healt h and th e environment

. y^ieiAATYLU, /^w^

- Myron 0/Knudson, P.E . Director , Superfund Divisio n U.S . Environmental

Protectio n Agenc y Regio n 6 Dat e 901266

### CONCURRENCES FIRS T FIVE-YEA R

REVIEW REPOR T for Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfill Superfund Sit e Pulask i County , Arkansa s EP A ID#ARD98105580

9 

# ^ , y ^ ^7^ ._____

w oo KatnIeeiTA'Aisling

, U.S-E^A Dat e ' • Remedia l Projec t Manager-Technical

Suppor t Tea m r'^t^--'~'k - A "I'—— — TT O T'Tt A T-»-A -I I 

# ^L^/22 — a ^ Gustav o T . Chavama , U.S . EP A Chief , AR/OK/TX

Projec t Managemen

t Sectio n 

### ^^tss^^o

Dat e ^/'Z^S./O P Dat e 

# i-n^ —_____

Wf^ ^•^ T T C VD A r»-»+< » I WilHa m K . Honker

, U.S . EP A Dat e Chief , AR/QKZI X Branc

h ^ 

### Mark A . Peycke , U.S . (EP A Dat e Chief , Superfund Branch , Office o f Regiona l Counse l Pamel a Phillips , U.S . EP A Deput y Director , Superfund Divisio n Dat

e ^M/W^K/^ June Buzzell'U.S . i Buzzell^US EPA Write r Editor , Superfund Divisio n Dat e

## Five-Yea rRevie w Repor t Firs t Five-Yea rRevie w Repor

t fo r Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Pulask i County , Arkansa s Septembe r27, 200 0

PREPARE D BY : CH2 M HIL L Contrac t Numbe r68-W6-003 6 Wor k Assignmen t Numbe r048-FRFE-06Z Z

PREPARE D FOR : Regio n 6 United State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Dallas , Texa s

901265ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPALLANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA B REVIE

W REPOR T



### [Thi s pag e intentionall y leftblank. ]ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIEW REPOR

T 

### Executiv e Summar y Th e first five-year revie w of th e Roger s Roa

d Municipal Landfill sit

e locate d near

Jacksonville , in Pulask i County , Arkansas , wa s complete d in Septembe r 2000 . Th e result s of

the five-yea

r revie w indicate that

the remed y i s expected to b e protectiv e of human healt

h and th e environment . Overall , the remedia l action s performed appea

r to b e functioning a s designed , and th e sit e ha s bee n maintaine d appropriately . No deficiencie s wer e note d that impact th e protectivenes s of

th e remedy . Th e remed y was chose n to remov e th e principa

l healt h threat s that

presente d exces s lifetime cance r risk , prevent

further actual o r threatene d release s o

f hazardou s substance s fromth e site , andestablis h ametho d o

f lon g termmonitorin g to ensur e protectiveness . Material s containin g abovel O part s pe

r billio n (ppb ) dioxin concentration s wer e remove d an d incinerate d a

t th e nearb y Verta c Superfund Site , andth e affectedarea s wer e backfilled an d re-graded . Soi l cove r was placed o n material s that

wer e between 1 and 1 0 ppb dioxi n level , greate r than 3 7 ppb dieldrin , and dieldri n and herbicide contaminatio n associated with ahazard index abov e 0.7 . Operation s and maintenanc e (O&M ) a t the sit e consist s o f sit e inspection s to confirmfence integrity , andmaintenanc e o

f th e soil cover . Sit

e inspection s sho w that

the fencing i s effectively preventing acces s to th e sit

e and sit e groundwater . Annual groundwater monitoring wa s als o performed . Becaus e no contaminant s of concer n defined by the Recor

d of Decision wer

e detecte d i n the four

year s o f annual groundwater

monitoring , th e Arkansa s Department of Environmenta

l Quality ha s recommende d discontinuin g groundwater monitoring . EP

A concur s that thi s recommendatio n will b e appropriate to implement onc e restrictiv e covenant s ar

e i n plac e prohibitin g groundwater

us e o n th e property , andthe sit e i s deleted fromthe Nationa

l Prioritie s lis t (NPL) . (Th e Cit y of Jacksonvill e i s i n the proces s o f putting the restrictiv e covenant s in place , pendin g resolutio n of

lega l issue s associated with titl e to th e remediate d area. ) Som e metal s wer e detecte d i n lo w concentration s i n groundwater during monitoring , but

the y ar e no t contaminant s o

f concer n associated with th e hazardous material s disposed ofonsite. Thes e metal s may b e associated with th e solid wast e portion s of

th e landfill, andshoul d b e referre d to the appropriate soli d wast

e regulator y authority . Based o n thi s five-yea

r review , sit e documentatio n confirms th e remedia l actio n a t the sit e a s originall y se

t forth i n the Recor

d of Decision (ROD ) ha s bee

n implemente d a s planned (excep t for the implementatio n of

restrictiv e covenants ) andcontinue s to b e protectiv e of human healt

h andth e environment .

RR-5YRJ000927.WP

O PAGEES-1 SEPTEMBE R200 0ROGER S ROW MUNICIPA L LANDFILL FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T



### [Thi s pag e intentionall y left

blank. ]

RR-5YR.000927.WPO PAQEES- 2 SEPTEMBE R 2000

## Tabl e o f Content s ROGERS RowMUNICIPA LLANDFIU . FIRS T FIVE-YEA B REVIE

W REPOR T 

### Sectio n Page Executiv e Summary ......................................'.................. . ES- 1 lis t o f Acronym s ............................................................. ii i Five-Yea r Review Summary For

m............................................... . v 1 . Introduction .......................................................... . 1 2 . Sit e Chronolog

y ....................................................... . 3 3 . Background .......................................................... . 3 4 . Remedia

l Action s ...................................................... . 6 4. 1 Remedy Selection ................................................ . 6 4. 2 Remed

y Implementatio n ........................................... . 7 4. 3 Operation s an d Maintenance ........................................ . 8 4. 4 Progres s Sinc e Initiatio n of Remedia l Actio n ........................... . 9 5 . Five-Year Revie w Proces s .............................................. . 1 0 6 . Five-Year Revie w Finding s ............................................. . 1 0 6. 1 Interviews...................................................... . 1 1 6. 2 Sit e Inspectio n .................................................. . 1 1 6. 3 Standard s Revie w ................................................ . 1 3 6. 4 DataRevie w .................................................... . 1 5 7 . Assessmen

t .......................................................... . 1 6 8 . Deficiencie s .......................................................... . 1 7 9 . Recommendation

s an d Follow-u p Actions ................................ . 1 7 10 . Protectivenes s Statements ) ............................................. . 1 7 11 . Nex tRevie w ......................................................... . 1 8 Figure s Figur e 1 : Table s Table 1 : Table 2 : Table 3 : Sit

e Map Chronolog y o

f Sit e Event s Annual Operation s andMaintenanc e Estimate d Cost s Recommendations andFollow-U p Action s

PAGE I SEPTEMBE R200 0TJ*I*|J * /»< ^J*M«MM«<* ROGER S RO W MUNICIPA L LANDFILL 

## Tabl e o f Content s FIRSTFM-YEARREVIEWRPPOR T

Attachment

s 

### Attachment 1 : Lis t o f Document s Reviewe d Attachment 2 : Intervie w Recor

d Form s Attachment 3 : Sit e Inspectio n Checklist/Inspectio n Roster/O& M Cost s Attachment 4 : Sit e Inspectio n Photograph s

RR_5YIL000927.WP O PAGE ! SEPTEMBE R 200 0ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIEW REPOR

T 

### Lis t o f Acronym s ADE Q Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality ADPC& E Arkansa s Department

o f Pollutio n Contro l andEcology ARAR s Applicabl e o rRelevant an d Appropriat e Requirement

s 

### CERCL A Comprehensiv e Environmental Response , Compensation , andLiabilit y Act C D Consen

t Decree CD C Cente

r for Diseas e Contro l CF RCod

e o f Federa l Regulation s E& E Ecology andEnvironment ERC S Emergenc y Respons e Clean-u p Servic e EP A Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y P RFedera

l Registe r HI Hazar

d Index LD RLan d Disposa

l Restriction s NCP Nationa

l Oi l and Hazardou s Substance s Pollutio n Contingenc y Pla n NPL Nationa

l Prioritie s Lis t MCL s MaximumContaminant Limit s O& M Operatio n and Maintenanc e OSWE ROffice of

Soli d Wast e andEmergenc y Respons e OU s Operabl e Unit s ppb part

pe r billio n RCRA Resourc e Conservatio n andRecover y Ac t RI/F S Remedia

l Investigation/Feasibilit

y Study RO D Recor

d o f Decisio n TA T Technica

l Assistanc e Tea

m TB C To B e Considere d TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

PAG E H i SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T



### [Thi s pag e intentionall y left

blank. ]

RR.5YRJM0927.WP

O PAG E IV SEPTEMBE R200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### Five-Yea rReview Summar

y Form SIT E IDENTIFICATIO N Site nam e (fro m WasteLAN) : Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l EPA I D (fro m WasteLAN) : ARD98105580 9 Region : EP

A Regio n 6 SIT E STATUS NP L Status : B Final D Delete d n Othe r(specify) : Remediatio n statu s (choos e al l tha t apply) : n Unde rConstructio n a Operatin g sComplete Multipl e OUs ? o Yes a N o Ha s sit e bee n pu t Int

o reuse ? 5 Yes B N o

State ; A R

Constructio n completio n date : Septembe r1995

City/County : NA/Pulaski

REVIE W STATUS Reviewin g agency : a EP

A o Stat e aTrib e a Othe rFedera l Agency : Author : EP

A Regio n 6 , wit h suppor

t fro m RAC 6 contracto rCH2 M HIL L Revie w period : Augus

t 1994 throug h Septembe r2000 Date(s) o f sit e inspection : Jun e 27,200 0 Typ e o f review : E

Statutor y a Polic y D Post-SAR

A a Pre-SAR

A D NPL-Remova l only o Non-NP L Remedial Actio n Sit

e a NPLState/Tribe-lead o Regiona l Discretio n Revie w number : B 1 (first) o 2 (second ) o 3 (third ) n Othe r(specify) : Triggerin g action : J B Actua l RAOnsit e Constructio n a Actua l RA Star t a t OU # n Constructio n Completio n a Recommendatio n of Previou s Five-Yea rRew'e w Repor t n Othe r(specify) : Triggerin g actio n dat e (fro m WasteLAN) : August 4,199 4 Du e dat e (five year

s afte rtriggerin g actio n date) ; Augus t 4.199 9

PAfiEV SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L _ . FIRS T FIVE-YEAB REVIEW REPOR T 

### Five-Yea rRevie w Summar

y Form Deficiencies : No deficiencie s noted . Recommendation s an d Follow-u p Actions ;

• Maintain record s o

f annual O&M cost s an d sit

e securit y logs ; submittal of

suc h records/log s i s no t

required . • After four annual groundwater

monitoring event s conducte d from199 4 through 1997 , no Contaminants of

Concer n a s define d by the RO D wer

e detected and the ADE Q recommende d cessatio n of

sampling . Based o n arevie w o f ADE Q data , EP

A concur s with thi s recommendatio n pending finalization of restrictiv e covenant s prohibitin g groundwater us e o n th e property , andthe deletio n of the sit e fromth e NPL . Requirement s for groundwater

monitoring under

soli d wast e regulation s for

the municipal landfill portion s o f th e sit e may als o apply , andthe current monitorin g wel l network

coul d potentially b e use d for that purpose , a s well a s the dat acollecte d by ADE Q from199 4 through 1997 . Th e appropriate agencie s shouldb e notifiedof the availabilit

y o f the groundwater

well s to b e use d for monitoring under

that program , an d o

f th e detectio n of

metal s in groundwater sample s that

may b e associated with the soli d waste portio n of Roger s Road Municipa

l Landfill andneighborin g Jacksonvill e Municipa l Landfill. Protectivenes s Statement(s) : Th e remed y complete d for

the Roger s Road Municipal Landfill sit e i s protectiv e o

f human healt h an d the environment. Othe rComments : None .

RR_5Yn_000927.wr

o PAG E VI SEPTEMBE R200 0

## First Five-Yea rReview Repor t Rogers Roa d Municipa l Landfil l The United State s Environmental Protectio n Agenc y Regio n 6 ha s conducte d afive-year review o f the remedia

l action s implemente d a

t the Roger s Road Municipal Landfill sit e located nea

r Jacksonville , Pulask

i County , Arkansas for

the perio d August

199 4 through Septembe

r 2000 . Th e purpos e o

f afive-yea r revie w is to determin e whether the remed y a t asit e i s protectiv e of human healt

h and the environment . Thi s repor t document s th e result s of

the revie w for

this site , conducte d in accordanc e with EP A guidanc e o n five-yea

r reviews . EP

A RAC 6 contractor CH2 M HTL L provide d suppor

t for preparatio n o

f thi s Five-Yea

r Review Report . Existin g EP A guidanc e o n five-year

review s include s th e following: • Office of

Soli d Wast e an d Emergenc y Respons e (OSWER ) Directiv e 9355.7-0

2 (Ma y 23 , 1991) , Structure and

Components of

Five-Year Reviews (introduce d five-yea

r revie w requirements) . • OSWE RDirectiv e 9355.7-02FS 1 (Augus t 1991) , Fact Sheet : Structure and

Components of Five-Year Reviews. • OSWE RDirectiv e 9355.7-02

A (Jul y 26,1994) , Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance (introduce d leve

l of revie w consideration s for

site s where respons e i s ongoing) . • OSWE RDirectiv e 9355.7-03 A (Decembe r 21,1995) , Second

Supplemental

Five-Year Review Guidance (identifie d thre e purpose s of five-yea r revie w andemphasize d that

review s must includ e asigne d protectivenes s determination , alon g with recommendation s to correct deficiencies . Guidanc e provide d i n thes e document s has bee n incorporate d into th e five-yea r revie w performed for thi s site , a s have the concept s outline d in the Draft Comprehensive Five-Year

Review Guidance, Octobe

r 1999 . OSWE

RDirectiv e 9355.7-03B-P . 

## 1. 0 Introduction Th e five-yea

r review for the Roger s Roa

d Municipal Landfill sit

e i s require d by statute . RR_5YR_000927.WP O PAGElOFiB SEPTEHBEB200 0ROGER S Ro w MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### Statutor y reviews ar

e require d for

site s where, after

remedia l action s ar e complete , hazardous substances , pollutants , or

contaminants will remain onsit e a t level s that will no t allo w for unrestricte d us e o

r unrestricte d exposure . This requirement i s se t forth by the Comprehensiv e Environmental Response , Compensation , andLiabilit y Act (CERCLA ) andth e Nationa

l Oi l an d Hazardou s Substance s Pollutio n Contingenc y Pla n (NCP) . Statutor

y review s ar

e require d only i f the ROD was signe d o n o

r after the effective date o

f th e SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Ac t

o f 1986 (SARA) . CERCL

A §121(c) , a s amende d by SARA, states : I f the Presiden

t selects aremedia

l actio n that result s i n any hazardou s substances , pollutants , o

r contaminants remainin g a

t th e site , the President

shal l revie w suc h remedia

l actio n no les s often than each five year s after the initiatio n o

f suc h remedia

l actio n to assur e that human health andth e environment ar e bein g protecte d by the remedia l actio n bein g implemented . Th e NCP §300.430(f)(4)(ii) of th e Cod e of Federa l Regulation s (CFR

) states : I f aremedia l actio n i s selected that

result s i n hazardous substances , pollutants , o r contaminant s remaining a

t th e sit e abov e level s that

allo w for unlimitedus e an d unrestricte d exposure , the lea

d agenc y shal l revie w such actio n no les s often than ever y five year s after

th e initiation o

f the selecte d remedia l action . Thi s i s th e first

five-yea r revie w for the Roger s Roa

d Municipal Landfill site . Th e triggerin g actio n for this statutor

y revie w i s the dat

e of initiation o f the remedia

l actio n o n August

4,1994 . Thi s revie w i s require d becaus e hazardous substances , pollutants , o r contaminants wer

e left onsit e abov e level s that

allo w for unlimitedus e andunrestricte d exposure , an d the Recor d o f Decision (ROD ) called for

institutional control s limiting groundwater us e o n andimmediately downgradient

of th e sit e (EPA , 1990) . RR_5YR_000927.W

O PAG E 2 O F 18 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA H REVIEW REPOR T 

## 2. 0 Sit e Chronolog

y A chronolog y of

significant sit e event s an d date s ar

e include d i n Table 1 , provide d a t th e en d o f th e repor t text. Source s o f

this information ar

e liste d in Attachment

1 , Document s Reviewed . 

## 3. 0 Background Th e Roger s Roa

d Municipal Landfill sit

e i s abou t on e acr e o f the ten-acr e landfill located outsid e th e cit y limit s o f Jacksonvill e in Pulask

i County , Arkansas. Th e sit

e i s approximatel y 1 2 mile s northeas t of Littl e Rock , Arkansas . The landfill i s situate d immediatel y eas t of Roger s Road , one-tent h mil e sout h of GrahamRoad . The southern portio n o f Roger s Road which adjoins the landfill i s unpaved . Land record s a t th e Pulask i County Courthous e describ e th e plo t o f lan d a s the eas t half o f th e northeas t

quarter o f Section 28 , Township 3 North an d Range 1 0 Wes t (EPA , 1990) . Les s than one-hal f

mil e eas t of th e Roger s Road Municipal Landfill Superfund Sit e i s the Jacksonvill e Municipa

l Landfill SuperfundSit

e (se e Figur e 1) . Becaus e o

f the proximity o f

the site s an d the similaritie s in their features an d characteristics , th e sit e characterizatio n an d remedia l actio n activitie s for

thes e site s wer

e carrie d ou t

concurrently. Th e Roger s Road Municipa

l Landfill sit

e i s located within aresidentia l an d agricultural area . Th e are ato the north, south , andeas t i s wooded . Roger s Roa

d adjoin s the sit

e to the immediat

e wes t (se e Figur e 1) ; the propert

y beyon d Roger s Roa

d to th e wes t

i s agricultural . Ther

e i s afairly hig h populatio n densit

y within one-half

mil e radiu s of

the sit e (approximatel y 5 1 single-famil y homes) ; area s further

out ar e mor e sparsel y populated . At

the time o f th e ROD i t was assume d that approximatel y 15 3 to 20

4 peopl e live d within aone-hal f mil e radiu s (EPA , 1990) . Th e RO D als o state d that

the landfill wa s locate d in apredominantly agricultural area , the are adi d not len d itself to commercia

l type s o f development , that

there wer e no businesse s o

r commercia l area s located within on e andone-hal f miles of th e site , and that

th e type s of

receptor s were not expected to chang e in th e foreseeabl e future. Observation s during the June 200 0 sit e inspectio n (se e Sectio n 6 ) indicat

e this continues to b e the case .

RR-SYBJ000927.WP D PAGE30F18 SEPTEMBER2000ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPALLANDFILL FIBS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T 

### A residential well inventory was conducte d a s part o f th e Remedia

l Investigatio n (RI ) and information was collected fromresidence s nea r the landfill. The City o

f Jacksonville installe d a municipal water

systemwhich has served the resident s in the are aof Roger s Road sinc e sometim e prio r to 197 4 (EPA , 1990) . Reportedl y only on e residenc e near the Roger s Road Landfill eve

r use d groundwater, an d this household stoppe d using th e wel l when municipal water was made available . Th e other residence s wer

e reporte d to have use d only the Cit y water system . Th e Cit y o f Jacksonvill e acquire d th e propert y o n Septembe

r 16,1953 . Approximately half o f the sit e was use d intermittently a s amunicipal waste disposa l facility , in conjunction with the Jacksonvill e Landfill (se

e Figur e 1) , until Octobe

r 1974 . Th e landfill was close d when the Arkansas Department

o f Pollutio n Contro l andEcolog y (ADPC&E , now Arkansas Department o f Environmenta

l Quality [ADEQ] ) refused to grant alandfill permit

becaus e o f the high water tabl e andpoor

drainag e i n the area . Record s indicate that

ope n burning andtrenchin g with bucket an d draglin e wer

e th e wast e handling method s used until 1974 , alon g with ope n dumping andlandfilling. During the year s that th e facility was operated , the sit e was run a s atypical sanitar

y landfill andnot

apermitte d RCRA disposa

l facility. As aresult , companie s which hauledwaste to th e landfill wer e no t require d to provid e th e sit

e operator with detaile d information regardin g generators , waste types , o r quantities . No detaile d record s indicating specifi c waste type s o r quantities ar

e known to have bee n kep t by me sit e owner/operator , making identification of generator s andoperator s difficult. Waste s appea

r to have bee n disposed of

in one lon g trenc h andin severa l surface piles , accompanie d by open dumping in numerous area s aroundthe site , which appea r to have bee n covere d with alayer

of soil . After the landfill was closed , loca

l resident s continuedto us e the sit e a s an ope n dump until the sit

e was fenced . To prevent

unauthorizedaccess , the City o f Jacksonvill e fence d the portio n of th e facility use d for

burning an d landdisposa

l ( a30 0 by 23 7 foot area) in 1986 . Waste s fromthe Vertac SuperfundSit e in Jacksonville , Arkansas, which

RR.5YH.000927.WPO PAGE40F18 SEPTEMBER2000ROGER S ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFIL L FIRS T FNE-YEMt

REVIEW REPORT 

### produce d numerous chemica

l product s including dioxins , ar e believe d to have bee

n disposed o

f a t th e Roger s Road site . An estimate d 1 5 to 5 0 drums ofdioxin contaminated herbicide manufacturing wast

e wer e dispose d a

t th e landfill. The Roger s Roa

d Municipal Landfill was identifiedto EPA o n May 10,1983 , through acitizen' s complaint . At

that time , EPA was conductin g asit e inspectio n o

f the Jacksonvill e Landfill . After afield investigation , th e Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfill was propose d for

inclusio n o n th e Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t

(NPL) o f uncontrolle d hazardous waste site s o n January 22,1987 . Th e sit e wa s added to th e NPL o n July 22,1987 . A Remedia l Investigatio n (RI ) was conducte d between Novembe r 198 8 an d Marc h 1990, anda risk assessmen t was performed base d o n th e analytica l findings o f th e RI . The result s of

the RI andris k assessmen t andprior investigation s ar

e summarizedin the RI Repor

t (Pee r andResourc e Applications , Inc. , 1990a) . The Feasibilit y Stud y (FS ) was als o released a

t this time (Pee

r and Resourc e Applications , l990b) . Onsit e soi l an d decayin g drums wer

e found to b e contaminate d with dioxi n (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin [TCDD ] equivalents) , th e herbicide s 2,4- D and 2,4,5-T , andthe pesticide dieldri n (EPA , 1996) . Th e investigation s undertaken a t the Roger s Roa

d landfill reveale d that

contaminate s in the soil comprise d th e principal threa

t posed by the site . A remed

y wa s chosen base d o n th e following criteria :

• Remedy the contaminate d soi l using thermal treatment an d soil cove

r to ensure i t no longe r present s athreat

to human health o

r th e environment.

• Eliminate the health risk s due to ponde d water onsite by filling in the existing sit e trenche s with clea n fill.

RR-5YR.000927.WP

O " PAGE50F18 SEPTEMBER2000ROGERS Ro w MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T



### • Establis h ametho d o

f lon g termmonitoring to ensure that th e soi l cove

r i s properly maintaine d andth e groundwater quality i s adequatel y monitored . (EPA , 1990 ) Th e remedia

l action s undertaken to mee

t thes e criteri aar

e describe d in the following paragraphs . 

## 4. 0 Remedial Action s Th e remedia

l actio n complete d a

t the Roger s Road Municipal Landfill SuperfundSit e include d remova l andincineration a

t the nearby Vertac SuperfundSit e o f material s containing concentration s of

dioxin abovelO ppb , andbackfilling andregradin g of the affectedareas . The remed y als o include d placemen

t o f soil cove r ove r material s demonstrating concentration s between 1 and1 0 ppb dioxin, greate r than 3 7 ppb dieldrin , anddieldri n an d herbicide contaminatio n associated with ahazard index (HI) abov e 0.7 . A total o f 20 0 cubi c yard s and7 6 drums of materia l were removed , treated , anddisposed a t Vertac . Include d i n the following subsection s i s adescriptio n of th e remed y selection proces s employe d a t the Roger s Road Municipa

l Landfill SuperfundSite , th e implementatio n of the remedy , th e Operation s andMaintenance (O&M) , andth e progres s made a t th e sit e sinc e initiation of remedia l actio n an d constructio n completion . 4. 1 Remedy Selectio n The ROD for

this sit e wa s signe d o n Septembe

r 27,1990 . The selecte d remed

y included : • Excavation of

contaminate d soil anddebri s containing greate r than 1 0 ppb equivalent

2,3,7,8 - TCDD an d backfilling the excavate d area . • Transportatio n o f

th e excavate d materia

l to th e Vertac SuperfundSit

e in Jacksonville , Arkansas . • Incineratio n o

f the excavate d contaminatedmaterial anddisposa l of residual s a t Vertac . • Steam-cleanin g anddisposa l o f larg e item s of

refuse remove d fromcontaminatedarea s a t the Roger s RoadSite . RR-5YH.000927.WP

O PAG E 6 O P 1 8 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGERS Row MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T



### • Covering soil , debri s andwater meeting th e criteri astate d belo w with twelve inche s of soil :

- 2,3.7,8-TCD

D concentration s >1. 0 and$1 0 ppb

- 'Cumulative ffl >. 7 for

2,4,5-T ; 2,4, 5 TP ; anddieldrin , o r

- Dieldri n >3 7 ppb. • Backfilling th e sit

e trench; • Institutional control s such a s fence maintenance an d land-us e restriction s limiting ground water us e o n andimmediatel y downgradient o f th e site ; and • Groun d water

monitoring . O n June 20,1994 , aConsen

t Decree (CD ) between EP

A an d the City o

f Jacksonvill e regardin g the Sit e wa s entere d in Federa

l Distric t Court . Thi s CD andth e CD for the nearb y Jacksonvill e Landfill Sit e wer e the first in the country between amunicipality and EP A that utilize d this typ e of mixe d work

settlement . Under

the agreement , EPA performed the work that involve d handling the hazardous substances , including excavatio n of th e hot spot s of contamination, transporting the materia

l to Vertac , incineration , an d decontamination . The Cit y performed the non-hazardou s work, including fencing, backfilling, grading, re-vegetating , inspectio n and maintenance , installatio n of

additional groundwater

wells , groundwater

samplin g and analysis , andland-us e controls . 4. 2 Remed y Implementatio n O n August 22,1995 , Ecolog y andEnvironment (E&E) , the EP

A Technica l Assistanc e Tea

m (TAT) an d th e Emergenc y Respons e Clean-up Servic e (ERCS ) contractor , Riedel-Peterson , mobilize d to begi n remedia

l operation s a

t the Site . After

preliminary road work

was completed , excavatio n of

contaminate d soil was initiated . During the action , Riedel-Peterso n re-containerize d contaminate d materia l that wa s in decaying drums andexcavate d soil . This material , along with investigation-derive d wast e such a s contaminate d persona

l protectiv e equipment, wa s transporte d to the Vertac SuperfundSit e for RR-5YR.000927.WP

O PAGE70F18 SEPTEMBE R200 0ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### treatment a t the incinerator . Confirmation soi l sample s were collected after this initial excavation to verify the degre e of contaminant

removal andto determin e the area s o f moderat e contamination (2,3,7.8-TCD

D concentration s >1. 0 an d <. 1 0 ppb anddieldrin >3 7 ppb) which wouldlater b e covere d with clea

n soil . A tota l o f 20 0 cubi c yard s of

contaminatedsoil and 7 6 drums of hazardous material s (including 1 9 drums of investigation-derive d wastes ) wer e transporte d to Vertac an d incinerated . Thi s i s a higher volume than the 130 cubic yard s estimatedin the ROD . Despit e this increas e in volume, remedia l activitie s went

smoothly . Incineratio n a

t Vertac bega

n o n Octobe

r 20,1994 , and ende d o n Decembe

r 4,1994 . Th e January 20,1995 , Technica l Assistanc e Repor

t for the Roger s Road Municipal Landfill written by E&E (E&E , 1995) , detail s the remedia l actio n activitie s performed by EP A andit s contractors . The tota l cos t for the actio n was $129,070.0

0 for th e excavation , preliminary sampling, and transportatio n o

f the waste and$1.0

7 millio n for

the confirmatory sampling andincineration a t Vertac . During the fall of

1994 , the City o

f Jacksonville continuedregradin g activitie s andinstalle d thre e additiona l groundwater

monitoring well s between the Jacksonvill e Landfill andthe Roger s Road Landfill a s require d by the RO D andCD . The City demobilize d in late Octobe r when heavy rains in the are amade passag e through the sit e difficult. Cit

y activitie s recommence d in July 199 5 when the sit

e was sufficiently dry for

vehicle s to pass . The City regrading activitie s wer e complete d i n Septembe

r 1995 . 4. 3 Operation s an d Maintenanc e The Cit y of Jacksonville , a s agreed upon in the C D andaccompanying Statement of Work anda s detaile d in the Remedia

l Actio n Work

Pla n (Cit y o f Jacksonville , 1994) , has assume d al l responsibilit

y for O&M a t th e Roger s Road . Site . O&M activities include routine site RR_5YR_000927.WP O PAGE8CF18 SEPTEMBER200 0ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T 

### inspection s to ensure that

positive drainag e i s occurring , andmaintenance of perimeter fencing. Thes e activities maintain the protectivenes s of the remedy . The ROD specifie d annual groundwater monitoring for

up to thirty year s to ensure that the remed y wa s effective and operatin g properly (with revie w every five year s to determin e continued necessity) . ADE Q assume d responsibilit y for groundwater

monitoring , andperformed the monitoring for

four annual events , from199

4 to 1997 . Becaus e no COC s a s defined by the RO D wer e detecte d during thes e four

events , ADE Q recommende d cessation o f th e groundwater monitoring after

the 199 7 event . Se e Sectio n 6. 2 for

asummary o

f projecte d versu s actual annual O& M costs . 4. 4 Progres s Sinc

e Initiatio n o f Remedia l Actio n Al l remedia l actio n constructio n requirement s hav e bee n completed . The sit

e i s fence d and the Cit y o f Jacksonvill e i s controllin g acces s to the sit e andsit e groundwater . ADE Q ha s provide d official concurrenc e for

deletin g the sit

e fromthe NPL onc e restrictiv e covenant s ar e i n plac e restrictin g groundwater

us e (ADEQ , 1999a) . Thes e restrictiv e covenant s ar e the typ e of institutional control s contemplate d i n th e sit e Recor d of Decision (EPA , 1999a) . The Cit y of Jacksonvill e i s in th e proces s o f putting th e restrictiv e covenant s i n place , pending resolutio n of lega l issue s associate d with titl e to th e remediate d are a(EPA , 2000 ; EPA , 2000a ; Cit y of Jacksonville , 2000) . Contro l o f groundwater

us e immediately downgradient o f th e sit e i s no t strictl y enforceable, but resident s ar e o n municipal water

supply . ADE Q ha s requeste d that th e appropriate soli d wast

e regulating authority b e notified of the lo w detect s of

non-Site-relate d metal s in the monitoring wells that may b e cause d by leachin g fromth e municipal landfill. ADE Q recommend s that the appropriate soli d wast

e regulating authority b e notified andthat the 1994-199

7 groundwater monitoring dat ab e considere d under such authority. RR-5YRJ000927.WPO PAG E 9 O F 18 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### O&M procedure s appea

r to b e adequat

e although documentatio n of

O&M frequency andannual cost s have not

always bee n consistentl y maintainedin the perio d following construction completion (reportin g to EP

A i s not required) . As discusse d previously , groundwater monitoring a t th e sit e was discontinue d due to the lac k o f detectio n o f

COC's definedin the ROD , but it i s EPA's positio n that

groundwater

monitorin g shoul d continu e until institutiona l control s i n the formo f restrictiv e covenant s ar

e i n plac e andthe sit

e i s deleted fromthe NPL . 

### 5. 0 Five-Yea r Revie

w Proces s Thi s five-year

review has bee

n conducte d using the concept s foundin EPA's Draft Comprehensive Five-Year

Review Guidance, date d Octobe r 199 9 (EPA , 1999) , andin accordanc e with th e guidanc e containe d in the existin g final five-yea r review guidanc e document s that

ar e liste d o n pag e 1 of

this report . The EP

A made information available to the public regarding it s intent

to performthe five-year

revie w through the Roger s Road sit e statu s summary o n EPA's Regio n 6 website , at http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6sf/pdffiles/rogersrd.pdf. It i s EPA's intentio n to advertis e the availabilit y of th e five-yea

r revie w repor

t in anewspape

r loca l to the sit e ando n th e sit

e statu s summary websit

e reference d above , andto provid e acop y of the repor t to the information repositories . The five-yea r revie w consiste d o f

interviews with relevant parties , asit

e inspectio n conducte d a

t the site , andareview of

applicabl e dataan d documentatio n covering the perio d o f th e review . The findings of

the review ar

e describe d in the following section . 

## 6. 0 Five-Year Review Findings Th e information collecte d during the interviews , the site inspection , the standard s review, andthe datareview ar

e describe d in th e following subsections .

RR_5YR_000927.WP O PAGE100F1 8 SEPTEMBER2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T 

### 6. 1 Interview s Interview s wer

e conducte d with representative s fromthe City of Jacksonville, andwith representative s of

stat e andfederal regulatory agencie s a t the City o f Jacksonville offices anda

t th e Jacksonvill e andRoger s RoadMunicipal Landfill site s o n June 27,2000 . Intervie w Recor d Form s which document

th e issue s discusse d during thes e interviews ar e provide d in Attachment 2 . Interview s wer

e conducte d with Murice Green o f th e Cit y of Jacksonville , Brian Wakelyn o f the ADEQ , an d Kathlee n Aisling andKenneth dark of the EPA . The overal l impressio n fromal l respondent s was that

the remed y implementation went

smoothl y andhadapositiv e effect o n the surrounding community. Th e healt h risk s wer e removed , th e gradin g done a t the sit e a s part of th e remed y resulte d in drainag e improvements , and the sit e i s now maintained , wherea s prio r to remed y implementation , the entir

e sit e was overgrown . No community concern s have bee n expresse d regarding this sit

e sinc e prior

to the initiation o f

the remedia

l actio n in 1994 . O&M cost s associated with the sit e have no t bee n individually tracked ; submissio n of documentatio n was no t

specifie d in the O&

M plans . Based o n th e interviews, however , th e Cit y indicate d no significant

change s hadoccurre d in the ongoin g O&M activities , an d therefore th e cost s have mos t

likel y remaine d consisten

t sinc e th e completio n of

the remed y (se e Section 6.2) . 6. 2 Site Inspectio n A sit e inspectio n was conducte d a

t th e sit e o n June 27,2000 . The complete d sit e inspectio n checklis t i s provide d i n Attachment

3 . Photograph s take n during the sit e visi t ar e provide d i n Attachment 4 . The are aaroundth e sit

e alon g Roger s Roa

d i s densely woode d (Phot

o 1 , Attachment

4) . The fencing aroundthe sit

e appeare d intact

andsecure , although no sign s wer e poste d o n th e fenc e or th e gat e (Photo s 2 -5 , Attachment

4) . No vandalismwas evident , andth e road s were adequat e

RR-5YRJ000927.WP D PAO E 110 F 18 SEPTEMBE R 200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### (Photo s 1 and9 , Attachment

4) . Unauthorizeddumping reportedl y too k plac e prior to the remedia l action , anddebri s was note d outside the perimeter of the site . The soi l cove

r appeare d to b e i n good condition ; no settlement , cracks , o r erosio n was evident

(Photo s 2-4 , and6 , Attachment 4) . Th e sit e was dry o n th e da

y o f th e sit e inspectio n andappeare d well-graded . The presenc e o f poiso n oak , poiso n ivy, andnumerous tick s wer e observed . However , the sit

e is situate d in anatural low area , andstanding water in the are asurrounding Roger s Road Landfill has bee

n note d by the City o

f Jacksonville staf

f following rain events . Monito r wells MWR-0 1 andMWR-0 2 wer e located an d photographe d (Phot o 8 , Attachment

4 ; location s note d o n Figure 1) . Surface completion s appeare d to b e in good condition . Not al l well s wer e located during the sit

e inspectio n du e to the presenc e o f dens e vegetation , including poiso n oa k andivy, an d the abundance of tick s observe d in the area . Th e wells ar e visite d by City personne l during the periodi c inspection s severa l time s pe r year . As part of th e review, actua

l O&M cost s ar

e compare d to th e projecte d cost s to determin e if there have bee n any unanticipated o

r unusually high O&M cost s during the review period . The RO D estimate d an annual O&M cos t of $5,00 0 for fence maintenance andsit

e inspection , and$16,90

0 for groundwater

monitorin g (EPA , 1990) . The O&M cost s presente d in th e ROD a s wel l a s the FS Tabl e reference d in th e RO D estimat e ar e providedin Attachment

3 . Although detaile d O&M cos t documentatio n ha s no t

bee n maintained , acurrent

annual O&M estimate was provided by th e City of

Jacksonvill e andADE Q (als o provide d in Attachment 3) . Tabl e 2 provide s asummary o

f thes e cost s for

Roger s Road . Th e annual tota l for sit e inspectio n and cove r maintenance for

bot h the Roger s Road andJacksonvill e site s was $13,440 , th e annual groundwater

monitoring cos t

for both site s was estimate d a

t $7,00 0 for atota l of $20,440 . It

was assume d for th e purpose s o f

this review that

half o f th e amount, or

$ 10,220 , i s the approximate annual cos t of O&M for Roger s Road. Although the sit e inspectio n andmaintenance cost s ar e slightl y more than what

was projecte d in the ROD , th e groundwater monitoring costs ar

e significantly lower . Therefore the O&M cost s ar e not an issu e of concer n for this site . RR_5YR_000927.WP O PAG E 1 2 O F 18 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGER S Ro w MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### 6. 3 Standard s Revie w Applicable or

Relevant andAppropriate Requirements (ARARs) for this sit e wer e identified i n the ROD date d Septembe

r 27,1990 . Thi s Five-Yea

r Revie w include d identification o f and evaluation of

change s in thes e ARARs to determine whether suc h change s may affect

the protectivenes s o

f the selected remedy . Th e RO D identifie d th e following ARARs a s having an impac t o n the propose d remedy : 1 . RCRA LandDisposa

l Restriction s (LDRs) , a s regulate d under 4 0 CF RPar t 268 . 2 . Transportatio n o

f hazardous wastes , a s regulate d under 4 0 CF RPar t 26 3 and4 9 CF

RPart s 10 7 and171-177 . 3 . The operationa

l standard s andmonitoring requirement s for hazardous waste incinerators , a s regulate d under

4 0 CF RPar t 26 4 Subpart 0 . 4 . Guidance for

the closur e of ope n dumps a s regulate d under

4 0 CF R256.23 . 5 . The post-closur

e car e andmonitoring requirements for hazardou s wast

e disposa l facilitie s a s regulate d under

4 0 CF R264.117(a)(l) . 6 . Requirement s to evaluate th e potentia l impact s to floodplain s a s regulate d under the Executiv e Orde

r o n Floodplai n Management , Executiv e Orde r No . 11988 . Th e Roger s Road Landfill ROD identifiedthe following criteri aa s to b e considere d (TBCs ) for th e remedia l action :

RR_5YR_000927.WP O PAGE130F18 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### 1 . Th e Cente

r Fo r Diseas e Control's (CDC's ) 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration recommendations for residential setting s of

1.0 ppb in surface soi l and10. 0 ppb when covere d by a

t leas t 1 2 inche s o f clea n fill. 2 . CERCL A sectio n 104(d)(4) , which allows EP A to trea t noncontiguous facilities a s on e where thos e facilities ar

e reasonabl y relate d o n the basi s o f geography o

r threat. 3 . 4 0 CF RPar t 25 8 (Proposed) , which contains the operating , design , closure , andpost-closur e criteri afor municipal soli d wast

e landfills. 4 . 4 0 CP RPart s 260,261,264 , and270 , which contai n propose d standard s for owner s an d operator s o f hazardous waste incinerators . No state ARARs wer

e identifiedin th e ROD . Hazardou s wast

e incineratio n i s no longer

occurring a s part

o f the sit e remedy , andthe 4 0 CF

R Par t 26 4 Subpar t 0 regulation s no longe

r apply to the site . This als o wouldapply to th e regulation s relatin g to hazardous waste incineratio n under 4 0 CF RPart s 260,261,264, and270 . In addition , sinc e hazardous wast e i s no longe

r being transporte d a

t the site , the regulations a

t 4 0 CF RPart 26 3 and4 9 CP

RPart s 10 7 and171-17

7 ar e no longer applicable . Sinc e th e RO D was signed , there have bee n no changes to the regulations under 40 CF R256.2 3 (guidanc e for

closur e o f ope n dumps), andthere have bee

n no change s to Executive Orde r No . 1198 8 (floodplains) . maddition , there have bee n no change s to CERCLA sectio n 104(d)(4) (noncontiguou s facilities) sinc e th e RO D was signed . No promulgate d change s coul d b e foundin the CDC' s concentratio n recommendations for 2,3,7,8-TCDD .

RR-5YR_000927.WP O PAG E 1 4 O F 1 8 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T 

### In addition, there have bee

n no change s to th e regulatory requirement s describe d under 4 0 CF R 264.117(a)(l) . This regulation require s 3 0 year s of post-closur e car e andmonitoring o

r for another perio d determine d by the Regiona l Administrator. The EP

A ha s determined , based o n groundwater

sampling results , that

th e groundwater

i s not impacte d by the COC s andthat continued monitoring i s not

necessary , onc e restrictiv e covenants ar e i n plac e a t this site . The proposed regulation s under

4 0 CF RPar t 25 8 wer e promulgated o n Octobe

r 9,199 1 (5 6 F

R 51016) . However , the Roger s Road Landfill met the requirements for

closur e a s ahazardous wast e landfill under

4 0 CF R264.117(a)(l) , and th e regulations o f 4 0 CF R25 8 would not

apply . Th e EP A ha s promulgate d change s i n the LDR s with regard s to the classification of contaminate d soil (40 CF

R268.49,6 3 F

R28602-28622) . Th e remed

y satisfie s thes e ARAR requirements . In summary, i t

appear s that

no new laws o

r regulation s have bee

n promulgate d o

r enacte d that would cal l into questio n th e effectiveness o f the remed y a t Roger s Road to protec t

human health andthe environment . 6. 4 Dat a Revie w 

### During the remedia

l action , th e confirmatory samplin g involveda1 4 x 1 4 gri d aroun d al l the area s that wer e visibly contaminate d or

show n to b e contaminate d during the remedia l investigation . Sampl e location s that di d no t mee t remedia l actio n goal s and al l th e adjacent gri d location s wer

e then re-excavated , and th e entir e re-excavate d are awas resampled . Thi s proces s was continue d until al l gri d location s met remedia l actio n goals . As pe r the RO D andthe CD , area s where 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent concentration s were greate

r than o r equa l to 1 0 ppb wer

e excavate d an d th e materia

l wa s transporte d to Vertac for incineration . In severa

l areas , this involve d excavatio n deepe r than the one foot

projected from previous investigations. A tota l o f 20 0 cubic yard s o

f waste material was removed . Final RRJ5YR_000927.WPO PAGE150F18 SEPTEMBER200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LMOFU. FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T confirmatory sampling showed that removal o f this quantity of

materia l was sufficient

to mee t remedia l actio n goals . The complet

e results of th e confirmatory sampling ar e give n in the Technica l Assistanc e Repor

t for the Roger s Road Municipal Landfill (E&E , 1995) . The dat a contained in this repor

t demonstrate that

cleanup level s specifie d in the RO D wer e achieved . Groundwater

monitoring a

t the sit e was conducte d concurrently with the groundwater monitoring o f the Jacksonvill e Municipal Landfill Superfund Sit e between 199

4 and 1997 . Five well s were sample d annually (MWR-01 , MWR-05 , MWR-08 , MWR-09 , and MWR-1 0 - se e Figure 1 ) and submitted for

analysi s for

dioxins , metals , volatiles , semivolatiles , andpesticides . None o f the compounds o f

concer n liste d i n the ROD (Equivalent s of 2,3,7,8-TCDD , chlorophenols , herbicides , and pesticides ) were observe d during th e four samplin g event s (ADEQ , 1999) . During the las t

sampling event, aluminumandiron were detecte d a t concentrations abov e secondar y drinking water

standard s (establishe d for

taste andaesthetics ) a

t wells MWR-08 , MWR-09 , and MWR-10 . Many wells exhibite d metal s concentration s abov e background well concentration s in this and previous event s (ADEQ , 1999) . Thes e metal s ar e not contaminant s of concer n associate d with the Superfund portio n of the site , andar

e possibly associate d with the municipal waste portion s of

the landfill. 

### 7. 0 Assessmen t Base d o n the sit

e interviews, the sit

e inspection , an d the datareview, i t appear s th e remedy i s functioning a s intende d by the ROD . The assumptions use d a t th e time o f the remed y selection ar e stil l valid, andno additional information has bee n identified that

wouldcal l into questio n the protectivenes s o

f the remedy . No erosio n o

r standing water

i s evident a t the site , onsite groundwater

us e i s currently restricte d by th e City o f Jacksonvill e through control of sit e acces s through fencing. The establishment o f permanent restrictiv e covenant s prohibiting groundwater us e i s pending . In addition, no COC s have bee n detecte d in groundwater

to-date .

RR-5YR.000927.WP D PAGE160F1 8 SEPTEMBER200 0ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPALLANDFILL FIRS T FiVE-YEAf

l REVIEW REPORT 

### 8. 0 Deficiencie s No deficiencies wer

e noted . 

### 9. 0 Recommendation s an d Follow-u p Action s It i s suggested that

individual O&M cos t

record s for this sit e b e maintained by the City , to facilitate review of

the appropriatenes s of

O&M cost s in future 5-yea

r reviews . Although groundwater

appear s to b e free of

CO C contamination, som

e metal s were detecte d that

may b e associated with th e soli d wast

e portio n o f th e landfill, andth e appropriat e solid wast e regulator y authority shoul d b e notified. In addition , groundwater monitoring should continue for the Superfund portio n o

f the landfill until the restrictiv e covenant s ar e in-place which prohibit groundwater

us e o n the site , and until the sit e i s deleted fromth e NPL . 

### 10. 0 Protectivenes s Statemen t Onc e th e restrictiv e covenant s ar e finalized, thi s sit

e meet s al l the sit

e completio n requirements a s specifie d in OSWERDirectiv e 9320.2-3C , Procedure s for Completio n andDeletio n of National Prioritie s Lis t

Site s andUpdate . Specifically , confirmatory sampling verifiedthat the sit e ha s achieve d th e RO D cleanup standards : al l contaminate d soi l anddebri s containing greate r than 1 0 ppb equivalent

2,3,7,8-TCD

D wer e excavatedandal l soil and debri s with 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration s >1. 0 ands 1 0 ppb , o r with aCumulative HI >. 7 for

2,4,5-T ; 2,4, 5 T

P anddieldri n wer e either excavate d or

covere d with one foot

o f clea n soil . In addition , no soil was left onsit e with adieldri n concentratio n abov e 3 7 ppb , andthe sit e was backfilled with clea

n soil . Ground water monitoring conducte d after

the remedia

l actio n was complete d provide s further assuranc e that implementation of

the remedy eliminated the sourc e o f contamination a

t th e site . The soi l cove r has been maintainedsinc e completio n of the remedia

l action . Becaus e the remedia

l actions a t the Roger s Road Municipal Landfill sit e ar e protective , the remedy for th e sit e is protectiv e o f

human health andthe environment. RR_5YR_000927.WP O PAGE170F18 SEPTEMBE R200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### 11. 0 Nex t Revie w Sinc e the first

five yea r review was du e o n or

before August

4,1999 , the next

five yea r revie w should b e complete d o n o

r before August

2004 . The subsequent

review should include asit

e inspectio n and review ofO&M procedures , costs , an d surrounding groundwater use .

RR-5YRL.000927.WP

O PAG E 1 8 O F 1 8 SEPTEMBE R 2000

### J-—— L -L

_

0 

# §U § Scuta (fwt)

MWJ-0 1 ^ 

## ^MW.hoa a

M MWR-0 1 A MWR-0 2 A 0 p a f 0 6

A MWR.0 4 MWJ-03 | / //^'t* ? ^

• / / / 7?efM«>l«« o

. ' I —



### ' o+s. 5 RW.0 5 D S

0

ROGER' S ROA D LAhjpFIL L

•MWR-OSj /

/ A /

/ KWR-09.' / RW-Ofi

o ^RW.04 MWJ-09 + RW.02 MWn-0<. • /MW J MWR-0 7 • /

j< i

JACKSONVILL E LANDRL L 

### nw-0 3 * • MWJ.1 0 (VWJ-11 A + neSlDENTlAL WELL

S RW , ^ RW.0 1 MONITORlNQWm S ^ QROUNDWATE R SAMPL E LOCA-nON S (GW . RW ) JACKSONVILL E LANOFIU . ROGER S LANDFIL L Figure 1 : Sit

e Map an d Monitorin g Wel

l Network Roger s Roa d andJacksonville Municipal LandfillsROGER S ROAD MUNICIPALLANDFILL FRS T FIVE-YEARREVIEWREPOR

T

[Thi s page intentionally leftblank. ]

RR_5YR_000927.W O SEPTEMBER200 0ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T 

### Tabl e 1 Chronolog y of Site Events Dat e Ma y 10,198 3 Jul y 22,1987 Novembe r1988-March 1990 Jun e 30,1990 Septembe r27,1990 Augus t 1994 • Septembe r1995 Novembe r1994 Novembe r1995 Novembe r1996 Novembe r1997 Augus t 2000 Even t

Site was identifie

d t o EP A b y citize n complain

t Site added t o th e NP L lis

t wit h a scor e of 29.6 4 Remedial Investigatio n an d Ris k

Assessmen t conducted Remedia l Investigation/Feasibilit

y Stud y repor t completed Recor d of Decisio n signed Remedia l Actio n activitie s conducted , star t of review perio

d Firs t annual groundwate rmonitorin g even t conducted . Secon d annual groundwate rmonitorin g even t conducted . Thir d annua l groundwate rmonitorin g even t conducted . Fourt h annua l groundwate rmonitorin g even t conducted ; cessatio n o f groundwate r monitorin g recommende

d du e t o lack of detection s of site-relate d constituents . Firs t Fiv e Yea rRevie w Repor t Complete d Tabl e 2 Annua l O& M Estimate d Costs

Kern Sit e clearin g equipmen

t renta l Sit e Inspecto rmonthl

y cos t Groundwate rMonitorin g annual cos t TOTA L Estimated cost $1080 $2 0 $3,50 0 Frequenc y 6/yea r 1/mont h 1/year Cos t $6,480 $24 0 $3,50 0 $10,22 0

RR_5YB_000927_TABLES.WO PAG E 1 O F 2 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGERS Ro w MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T Table s Recommendation s an d Follow-u p Action s Recommendations

/ Follow-u p Action s Maintai n annual O& M cos

t record s an d site acces s tog s t o facilitate futur

e 5-yea rreview

s Continu e groundwate rmonitorin g unti l restrictiv e covenant s ar e i n plac e an d site i s delete d fro m th e NP L Refe rsite t o appropriat

e soli d wast e regulator

y authority , an d refe rmonito rwel l networ k detail s an d monitorin g result

s fo rconsideratio n as needed/appropriate . Part y Responsibl e Cit y of Jacksonvill e ADE Q EP A Oversigh t

Agenc y EP A EP A N A Mileston e

Dat e ongoin g 200 1 200 1 Follow-u p Actions : Affects Protectivenes s (Y/N ) N N N

PAGE 2 O P 2 SEPTEMBE R200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFILL FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T



### Attachmen t 1 

## Documents Reviewe d

RR_5YR_000927.WP O SEPTEMBER2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T

(Thi s pag e intentionally left

blank.]

RR_5YR_000927.WP

D SEPTEMBER200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T 

### Attachmen t 1 

### Document s Reviewe d Arkansas Department

o f Environmental Quality (ADEQ) , 1999 . Letter Repor t fromMr . Mike Bates/ADE Q to Mr . Bil l Honker/U.S . EPA Regio n 6 regardin g Jacksonville Landfill and Rogers Road

Landfill Superfund Sites, Jacksonville, Arkansas. Summary of 4 th

### annual groundwater

samplin g event, Novembe

r 17-19,1997 , andstatistical evaluation o f Events 1 through 4 . April 12,1999 . Arkansas Department

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) , 1999a. Lette r fromRandall Mathis, Director , to Myron Knudson, Director SuperfundDivision , EPA , regardin g "Jacksonvill e andRoger s Road Landfills" . Provide s ADE Q concurrence o f deletio n of the reference d site s fromthe NPL . June 21,1999 . Arkansas Department

of Pollutio n Contro l andEcolog y (ADPC&E) , 1995 . Lette r Repor t from Mr . Devo n Hobby/ADPC&E to Ms . Kathleen Aisling/U.S . EP A Regio n 6 regardin g Jacksonville Landfill

and Rogers Road

Landfill Superfund Sites, Jacksonville, Arkansas. Summary of

first annual groundwater

samplin g event, November-Decembe r 1994 . Marc h 28,1995 . City of Jacksonville , 2000 . Lette

r fromRober

t Bamburg, City Attorney, City of Jacksonville, to Jame s L . Turner , Senio

r Attorney , EPA, regardin g "Unite d State s v. Cit y of Jacksonville , United State s Federa

l Cour t No . LR-C-94-196. " Respons e to EPA' s April 25,2000 , reques t for update regarding Cit

y o f Jacksonville' s progres s toward establishin g restrictiv e covenant s a

t the Roger s Road property in suppor t of the site' s deletio n from the NPL . May 3,2000 . Cit y o f Jacksonville , 1994 . Remedial Action Work Plan for the Rogers Road Municipal

Landfill Superfund Site. Septembe r1994 . 

### Ecolog y andEnvironment

(E&E) , 1995 . Technical

Assistance Report

(include s Remedia

l Action Sampling andAnalysis Plan , Quality Assuranc e Projec t Plan , Healt h andSafety Plan, and Remedia l Action Closeou

t Report) . January 1995 . U . S . Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) , 1990 . Recor d of Decision : Roger s Road Municipa l Landfill, AR. ROD/R06-90/063 . Final , Septembe r 1990 . U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) , 1991 . Structure and Components of

Five-Year Reviews. Office of

Soli d Wast e andEmergenc y Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.7 - 02 . May 23,1991 . RR_5YR_000927_An1_OOCUMENTS.WP O PAG E 10 F 2 SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) , 1991 . Factsheet : Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews. OSWE

RDirectiv e 9355.7-02FS1 . August 1991 . U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) , 1994 . Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance. OSWE

RDirective 9355.7-02A . July 26,1994 . U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) , 1995 . Second Supplemental

Five-Year Review Guidance. OSWE

RDirectiv e 9355.7-03A . Decembe r 21,1995 . U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency (EPA) , 1996 . Rogers Road Municipal Landfill Superfund Site Closeout

Report. April 30,1996 . U . S . Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) , 1999 . Comprehensiv e Five-Yea r Review Guidance . EPA540R-98-050 . OSWE RDirectiv e 9355.7-03B-P . Draft, Octobe r 1999 . U . S . Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) , 1999a. Lette r fromJame s L . Turner , Assistant Regiona l Counsel , EPA , to Rober

t Hamburg, City o

f Jacksonvill e Attorney, regarding "Jacksonvill e Municipal Landfill andRoger s Road Landfill Superfund Sites" . Request s the City of Jacksonville establis h deed restriction s a s acomponent of th e sites ' deletio n fromthe NPL . August

18,1999 . U . S . Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) , 2000 . Lette r fromJame s L . Turner, Senior Attorney, EPA , to Rober

t Hamburg, Attorney , City of

Jacksonville , regardin g "Roger s Road Landfill Superfund NPL Site" . Summarize s telephon e conversatio n regardin g statu s of City's efforts toward establishin g restrictiv e covenant s a t Roger s Road propert

y i n suppor t of the site' s deletio n fromthe NPL . February 15,2000 . U . S . Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) , 2000a . Letter fromJame s L . Turner , Senior Attorney , EPA , to Rober

t Hamburg, Attorney , Cit

y o f Jacksonville , regardin g "Rogers Road Landfill Superfund NPL Site" . Request s update regarding City of Jacksonville's progres s toward establishing restrictiv e covenant s a t th e Roger s Road propert

y in support of the site' s deletio n fromthe NPL . April 25,2000 . Pee r Consultants, P . C. , and Resourc e Applications, me. , 1990a. Remedia l Investigation Repor

t for Roger s Road Landfill Site , Jacksonville , Arkansas. June 1990 . Pee r Consultants, P . C. , and Resourc e Applications , Inc. , 1990b . Feasibilit y Study Repor

t for Roger s Road Landfill Site , Jacksonville , Arkansas. June 1990 .

RR_5YR_000927_ATT1_OOCUMENTS.WP D PAGE20F2 SEPTEM8ER2000ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T

Attachmen t 2 

## Interview Recor

d Form s

RR_5YR_000927.WP D SEPTEMBER200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFILL FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T

[Thi s pag e intentionally left

blank.]

RR_5YR_000927.WP D SEPTEMBE R 200 0Five-Year Review Intervie w Recor d Roger s Road/Jacksonville Pulaski/Lonok

e Counties , Arkansas Interviewee : Brian Wakelyn Arkansas Departmento

f Environmenta

l Quality Phone : (501 ) 682-084

5 Sit e Nam e EP

A ID No . Dat e of Interview Interview

Method Rogers RoadMunicipal Landfill EP A ID #ARD981055809 June 27,200 0 In perso n Jacksonvill e Municipa

l Landfill EP

A ID #ARD98080994 1 June 27,200 0 In perso n Interview Conducte d b y Organization Phone Email Addres s Margaret O'Hare CH2MHILL,as

re p ofEPA 972-980-

217 0 mohare@ch2m.co m 533 9 Alph aRoad Suite 30 0 Dallas , Texa s 7524

0 Kati e Swanso n CH2MHILL,as

rep ofEPA 972-980-

217 0 kswanso 2 @ch2m.co m 533 9 Alph aRoa d Suite 30 0 Dallas , Texa s 75240 Intervie w Questions and Response s 1 . What

i s your overal l impressio n of

th e work conducte d a

t each site ? (genera

l sentiment) Response : No additiona

l respons e (beyond that

provide d by othe

r interviewees) . 2 . Fro myour

perspective , what

effect have remedia

l operation s a

t the sit e had o n th e surrounding community? Response : No additiona

l response . 3 . Are yo u aware of

any ongoin g community concern s regardin g th e sit e or it s operatio n and administration? Pleas e provide details . Response : No additiona

l response . 4 . Are you aware o

f any events , incidents , .o

r activitie s that

have occurre d a

t eithe r site , such a s dumping, vandalism , trespassing , o r emergenc y respons e fromloca l authorities , sinc e th e startup of remedia l action ? I f so , pleas e giv e details . Response : hi the mid-90's , raw sewag e wa s bein g discharge d to th e Jacksonville sit e nea r MWJ-07 by aneighborin g resident ; the discharg e was halte d when it was identified.

PAG E 10F 3 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROAD/JACKSONVILL E MUNICIPA L LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D B

Y BRIA N WAKELYN/ARKANSA S DEPARTMENT O F ENVIRONMENTA L QUALIT Y 5 . Have there bee

n routine communications o

r activities (site visits , inspections , reporting activities, etc. ) conducte d by your office regarding either

sit e sinc e the startup of

remedia l actio n other than the annual sit

e inspection ? If

so , pleas e describ e purpose andresults . Response : Groundwater monitoring was conducte d annually by the state through 1997 ; during thos e visits i t

has been observed that

the are aaround the Roger s Road landfill i s underwater

for extende d period s du e to poor drainag e unrelated to the remedia l activities . Portion s o f

the Jacksonville landfill ar

c als o very wet . Becaus e no detection s o

f site-relate d contaminant s wer e reporte d in the monitoring well s during any annual sampling event , annual groundwater monitorin g ha s not

bee n conductedsinc e 1997 . 6 . Have there bee

n any complaints , violations , or othe r incident s relate d to th e sit

e that require d a respons e by your

office? I f so , pleas e give summarize th e events andresults o f th e responses . Response : No . 7 . Wer

e any problem s o

r difficulties encounteredafter

the initiation of

remedia l actio n which impacte d constructio n progres s an dimplementability? Response : No additional response . 8 . Were o

r have any problem s bee

n encountere d a

t eithe r sit e which require d o

r will require change s i n th e Recor

d o f Decisio n or

remedia l actio n performed? Response : No additional response . 9 . Hav e there bee

n any significant

change s i n th e sit

e statu s or maintenance requirement s sinc e completio n of

remedia l action ? If so , do they affect

th e protect ! venes s o

r effectiveness of

th e remedy ? Pleas e describ e change s andimpacts . Response : Annual groundwater monitorin g conducte d by ADE Q was discontinue d after the 199 7 monitoring event , becaus e no site-relate d constituent s hadbee n detecte d i n any groundwater

sample s during 4 annual monitorin g events . A recommendatio n to permanentl y discontinue groundwater monitoring ha s bee

n sen t to EPA . 10 . Hav e ther

e been unexpectedO&M difficulties o r cost s a t either sit e sinc e th e star

t of O&M ? I f so , pleas e giv e detail s Response : No .

RR_5YR_000927Jm2_lNTERVlEW_ADEQ.WP O PAG E 2 O F 3 INTERVIEW CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROAD/JACKSONVIll E MUNICIPA L LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D B

Y BRIAN WAKELYN/ARKANSA S DEPARTMEN T O F ENVIRONMENTA L QUALIT Y 11 . What

are th e approximate annual O&M cost s for each site ? Response : Groundwater

monitoring was generally $6,00 0 - $7,00 0 pe r event. 12 . I s groundwater

us e restricte d beyondth e perimeter fencedare ao

f either site ? I s the groundwater

use restrictio n by institutional contro l verifieda s part of eac h site' s annual inspection ? Response : The only restriction s ar e within the perimeter

fence. Although nearby residentia l wells ar e not use d for drinking water , ADE Q recommend s that letter s b e sen

t to resident s communicating the results o f groundwater

sample s and that institutional control s b e establishe d to prevent future use . 13 . Have there bee

n opportunitie s to optimiz e the operation , maintenance, o r sampling efforts a

t the sit e sinc e the star

t o f th e remedia

l action ? Pleas e describ e change s an dthe resultan t o r desired cos t savings o r improve d efficiency. Response : As indicate d in the respons e to Question 9 , groundwater monitoring was discontinue d after

th e 199 7 event , pending EP

A concurrence . During the year s the groundwater

monitorin g was bein g done , th e government contracting proces s meant

the low bidder

had to b e selected , which resulte d in 3 different contractor s bein g use d for

the 4 events . The proces s would have been easier , mor e consistent , if

the sam e contracto r

coul d have bee

n use d for al l events . 14 . D o you have any comments, suggestions , or recommendation s regarding eithe r site ? Response : Impos e institutional control s for groundwater

use fromneighboring properties , permanently discontinue groundwater monitoring relate d to the Superfund sit e portio n of the landfills, and notify soli d wast e regulating authority of

the potentia l nee d to monitor

groundwater

for constituents relate d to the municipal landfill portio n of

the sites .

RR_5YR_000927_ATl2_lNTERVlEW_ADEQ.WP O PAG E 3 O F 3 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNIOPA

L LANDFIL L FRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T

(Thi s page intentionally left

blank. ]

RR.5YR.000927.W

O SEPTEMBE R 200 0Five-Yea r Review Interview Recor d Roger s Road/Jacksonville Pulaski/Lonok

e Counties , Arkansas Interviewee : Muric e Gree n City of Jacksonvill e Phone : 501-982-607 1 Sit e Name EP A ID No . Dat e o f Intervie w Intervie w

Metho d Roger s Roa

d Municipal Landfill EP A ID #ARD98105580

9 June 27.200 0 In perso n Jacksonvill e Municipal Landfill EP A ID #ARD98080994 1 June 27,200 0 In person Intervie w Conducte d b y Organizatio n Phon e Emai l Addres s Margare t O'Har e CH2M HILL , a s rep ofEPA 972-980 -

217 0 mohare@ch2in.co m 533 9 AlphaRoadSuite 30 0 Dallas , Texa s 75240 Kati e Swanson CH2M HILL , a s

rep ofEPA 972-980 -

217 0 kswanso 2 @ch2m.co m 533 9 AlphaRoa dSuite 30 0 Dallas , Texas 7524

0 Intervie w Questions an

d Response

s 1 . What

i s your overal l impressio n o

f th e work conducteda t eac h site ? (genera

l sentiment) Response : Th e work

done a t the site s [Rogers Road Landfill and neighboring Jacksonville Landfill] took

care o f the problem , in fact, the regradin g necessar y a s part of the remed y took car e of alo t o f the drainag e problem s a

t the sites . Bot

h site s ar e now in aconditio n that

they coul d b e applie d to recreationa l use ; there i s good ground cover , trees , andgrass . 2 . Fro myour

perspective , what

effect have remedia

l operation s a

t th e sit e hadon th e surrounding community? Response : The remediatio n had apositiv e effect o n th e surroundin g area , bot

h site s ar e now mor e attractive than som

e o f th e surrounding areas . At

Jacksonville Landfill, mulch fromth e city mulching operatio n was use d to dres s up the site . About 3 to 4 year s ag o the Nationa

l Tree Foundatio n sen

t th e city som

e sapling s and atre e farmwas starte d onsit e (althoug h adrought

recentl y kille d many o

f th e trees) . The tree s ar

e use d for cit y beautification projects . Th e ditche s a t th e sit e ar e maintained by th e county . At Roger s Road , there were drainag e improvement s du e to the remedy , althoug h no mulc h was applie d to this site . Ther e i s alo w are aa

t the back o f the sit e where drainag e i s not

a s good .

PAG E 1 OF4 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROAD/JACKSONVILL E MUNICIPA L LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D B

Y MURIC E GREEN/CIT

Y O F JACKSONVILL E 3 . Are you aware of

any ongoin g community concern s regarding the site or it s operatio n and administration? Pleas e provide details . Response : A homeowner

that lives near the Southeast

comer o f the Jacksonville sit

e complained abou t

water draining fromthe sit

e onto his property . This was not aresult o f the remedia

l action , however, the City responde d to his complaint by dredgin g out

the drainage ditch in the area ; there have bee n no further complaints . 4 . Are you aware o

f any events, incidents , or

activitie s that

have occurre d a

t either site , such a s dumping, vandalism , trespassing, o r emergenc y respons e fromloca l authorities , sinc e the startup of remedia l action ? If so , pleas e give details . Response : Ther

e haven't bee n any problem s sinc e the completio n of the remedia

l actio n (during the remedia

l activities there was aproble mwith theft o f the barb wire fencing and gates) . Ther

e i s aga s line that

runs dow n the middl e o f

th e Jacksonville sit

e that requires periodi c acces s by the operator s of the ga s line, but there have bee

n no sign s of

tampering. 5 . Hav e there bee

n routine communications o

r activitie s (sit

e visits , inspections , reporting activities , etc. ) conducte d by your office regardin g either

sit e sinc e th e startup o

f remedia l actio n other

than the annual sit

e inspection ? I

f so , pleas e describ e purpos e an d results . Response : The city doe s no t kee p alo g o r submi t O&M reports , but

th e site s ar e inspecte d o n amonthly basi s (or

a s needed) to chec k

the area , ensure the fence and gate s ar e intact, check

th e condition o

f the wells , and check

the need for mowing/bush-hogging/regrading . Th e city plans to kee p alo g o f thes e activitie s in the future. 6 . Hav e ther

e bee n any complaints, violations , o r othe r incident s relate d to th e sit

e that require d a respons e by your

office? I f so , pleas e giv e summarize th e event s and result s of th e responses . Response : Not

sinc e completio n of

th e remedial action (se

e respons e to question s 3 and 4) .

RR_5YfL000927_ATT2_lNTERVIEW_Cmf.WP O PAG E 2 O F 4 INTERVIEW CONDUCTE D JUN E 27, 200 0ROGERS ROAD/JACKSONVILL E MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D B

Y MURIC E GREEN/CIT

Y O F JACKSONVILL E 7 . Were any problem s or difficulties encountere d after the initiation of

remedia l actio n which impacte d construction progres s and implementability? Response : Nothing out

of the ordinary. The remedial action was delaye d for approximately amonth o

r s o due to wet

weather , there is standing water in the are aof th e landfills sinc e it

is anatural low area . Road s had to b e built to facilitate access . 8 . Wer

e o r have any problem s been encountere d a t either sit e which required o

r will requir e change s i n th e Recor

d o f Decisio n o r remedia l actio n performed ? Response : No . 9 . Hav e there bee

n any significant

change s i n th e sit

e status o r maintenance requirements sinc e completio n o

f remedia l action? I f so , do the y affect

th e protect ! venes s o

r effectiveness of

th e remedy? Pleas e describ e change s and impacts . Response : No t

in term s o f activities manage d by the City . 10 . Have ther

e bee n unexpecte d O&M difficultie s o r cost s a t eithe r sit e sinc e th e star

t of O&M ? I f so , pleas e give detail s Response : Cost s for

O&M activitie s conducte d by the city have not been historically tracke d by the city (no t

par t of the O&M responsibilitie s a s understoo d by the city). Ther

e have bee n no significant

change s in th e activitie s involved, however , and therefore the cost s have mos t likely remained consistent

sinc e the completio n o

f the remedy . 11 . What

ar e the approximate annual O&M costs for each site ? Response : Se

e respons e to Questio n 10 ; the city ca n provide an estimate d annual cos t upon request . 12 . I s groundwater

use restricte d beyon d th e perimete r fenced are ao

f either site ? I s the groundwater

use restrictio n by institutional contro l verified a s part of eac h site's annual inspection? Response : Th e restrictions only apply within the fenced are ao f eac h site . Although the existing residential wells have been sampled, thes e wells ar e not known to b e use d (th e are ai s on city water) .

RR_5YB_000927_ATl2_lMTERVIEW_CrrY.WP D PAG E 3 O F 4 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROAD/JACKSONVILL E MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D B

Y MURIC E GREEN/CrT

Y O F JACKSONVILL E 13 . Hav e there been opportunities to optimiz e the operation , maintenance, o r sampling efforts a

t the site sinc e the start

o f the remedial action? Pleas e describ e changes andthe resultant or desire d cos t savings or improvedefficiency. Response : As indicate d in the respons e to Question 10 , there have bee

n no significant change s i n the O&M activities under the city's responsibility sinc e the completio n o

f remedial action . 14 . Do you have any comments , suggestions , o r recommendation s regarding either site ? Response : No .

RR_5YR_000927_ATT2_lNTERVlEW_Crry.WP O PAG E 4 O F 4 INTERVIEW CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0

### Five-Yea r Revie w Interview Recor

d Roger s Road/Jacksonville Pulaski/Lonok

e Counties , Arkansas Sit e Name Roger s Roa dMunicipal Landfill Jacksonvill e Municipal Landfill Intervie w Conducted by Margaret O'Har e Kati e Swanson 

### Intervie w Question s and Response s 1 . What

i s your overal l impressio n o

f the work conducte d a

t each site ? (genera

l sentiment) 

### Response : Th e constructio n a t both site s went

ver y well, it was avery thorough job. 2 . Fro myour

perspective , what

effect have remedia

l operation s a

t th e sit e hado n th e surrounding community? 

### Response : Th e actio n took away som e o f the stigm aattache d to th e site s a s Superfund site s and landfills, had apositiv e effect o n th e community, an d returne d th e lan d to 

### som e amount of reuse . Th e site s wer

e very overgrow n prio r

to th e action , now they bot h have acces s road s andar

c routinely mowed . Also , odor s noticeabl e prio r to the actio n ar

c gone . 3 . Are you aware of

any ongoing community concern s regardin g th e sit e o r it s operatio n and administration? Pleas e provide details . Response : No ongoing community concerns .



### Organization CH2MHILL,as repofEP A CH2M HILL . a s repofEP A 

### EP

A ID No . EP A ID#ARD981055809 EPA BD #ARD98080994 1 

### Phone 972-980 - 2170 972-980 - 217 0 

### Interviewee : Kathleen Aisling

EPA Regio n 6 , RPM Phone : (214

) 665-850 9



### Emai l mohare@ch2m.co m kswanso2@ch2m.co m 

### Dat

e o f Interview June 27,200 0 June 27,200 0 

### Addres s 533 9 Alph aRoa

dSuit e 30 0 Dallas , Texa s 7524

0 533 9 AlphaRoa

dSuit e 30 0 Dallas , Texa s 75240



### Interview Metho d In perso n In person

PAG E 10F 3 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROAD/JACKSONVILL E MUNICIPA L LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D B

Y KATHLEE N AlSUNG/U.S . EP A REGIO N 6 4 . Are you aware o

f any events , incidents, o

r activities that

have occurre d a

t either site , such a s dumping, vandalism, trespassing , o r emergency respons e fromloca l authorities, sinc e the startup of remedia l action? I f so , pleas e give details . Response : At

the beginning o f

the remedial action, there were two incidents o f note , one involving th e theft

of som e fencing fromthe sites , and the othe r involving the discharg e onsit

e of raw sewag e fromaneighboring property onto the Jacksonvill e landfill property . No incidents sinc e 1995 . 5 . Hav e there bee

n routine communication s o

r activitie s (site visits , inspections , reporting activities , etc. ) conducte d by your office regarding eithe

r sit e sinc e the startup of

remedial actio n othe r than th e annual sit

e inspection ? I

f so , pleas e describ e purpos e an d results . Response : Sinc e th e completio n o f remedia l action , EP

A representative s wer

e presen t a t the first two annual groundwater

monitoring events , and have performed two additional site visit s (generall y a t leas t one visit pe r year) . 6 . Hav e there bee

n any complaints , violations, or other incidents relate d to the sit

e that require d arespons e by your office? I f so , pleas e giv e summarize th e event s and results o f the responses . Response : No . 7 . Wer

e any problem s or

difficulties encountere d after the initiation of

remedia l actio n which impacte d constructio n progres s an d implementability? Response : No . 8 . Wer

e o r have any problem s bee

n encountere d at

either sit e which require d o

r will require changes i n the Recor

d of Decisio n o r remedial actio n performed? Response : No . 9 . Hav e there bee

n any significant

change s i n the sit

e status o r maintenance requirement s sinc e completio n of

remedia l action ? If so , do they affect

the protectivenes s o

r effectiveness of

th e remedy? Pleas e describ e change s an d impacts . Response : None , excep t for the discontinuation o

f groundwater

monitoring by ADEQ . EP

A concurs with ADE Q that

i t i s appropriate to discontinue groundwater monitoring .

RR_5YR_000927_ATT2_lNTERVIEW_EPA_Aia.lNG.WP O PAG E 2 O F 3 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROAD/JACKSONVILL E MUNICIPA L LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D BY KATHLEE N AISUNG/U.S . EP A REGIO N 6 10 . Hav e there bee

n unexpecte d O&

M difficulties or

cost s at either sit e sinc e the start

of O&M? I f so , pleas e giv e detail s Response : No. 11 . What

ar e the approximate annual O&M cost s for eac h site ? Response : The city an d ADEQ ar e responsibl e for

O&M costs ; the ROD provide s projecte d O&

M costs . 12 . I s groundwater

us e restricte d beyond the perimeter fence d areaof

eithe r site ? I s the groundwater

use restrictio n by institutional control verified a s par t of eac h site' s annual inspection ? Response : Groundwater

use i s restricte d for

th e entire landfill eve n though the are awhere contamination was left

i n plac e andcappe d make s up only aportio n o f th e property , les s than an acre . No institutional control s ar e i n plac e for neighborin g properties . 13 . Have there bee

n opportunities to optimiz e the operation , maintenance , or sampling efforts a

t the sit e sinc e the star

t of the remedia

l action ? Pleas e describ e change s an d the resultant or desire d cos t

saving s or improved efficiency. Response : Yes , with the discontinuation o f groundwater

monitoring. EPA concurs with the appropriatenes s o

f this action . 14 . D o you have any comments , suggestions , o r recommendation s regardin g eithe r site ? Response : Officially discontinue annual groundwater a s part of the annual O&

M for thes e sites . Pas s the site s and contro l o f the groundwater

monitoring well s ove

r to the appropriate regulatory authority for use in soli d waste post-closur e monitoring a s appropriate .

RR_5YR_000927J^TT2JNTERVlEW_EPA_AlSLlNG.WP D PAG E 3 O F 3 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROAD MUNICIPAL LANOFU FIRS T FIVE-YEA

RREVIEW REPORT

[Thi s page intentionally left

blank. ]

RR_5YR_000927.WP O SEPTEMBE R 2000Five-Yea r Review Intervie w Recor d Roger s Road/Jacksonville Pulaski/Lonok

e Counties, Arkansas Interviewee : Ken dar k EPA Regio n 6 , OS C Phone : Sit e Name EP A ID No . Dat e o f Intervie w Interview

Metho d Roger s Roa dMunicipal Landfill EP

A ID#ARD981055809 June 27,200 0 In perso n Jacksonvill e Municipal Landfill EP A ID #ARD98080994 1 June 27,200 0 In perso n Intervie w Conducte d b y Organizatio n Phone Email Addres s Margare t O'Har e CH2MHILL,as rep ofEP A 972-980 -

217 0 mohar

e @ch2m.com 533 9 Alph aRoadSuit e 30 0 Dallas , Texa s 7524

0 Kati e Swanson CH2M HILL , a s

rep ofEPA 972-980-

217 0 kswanso2@ch2m.com 533 9 Alph aRoa d Suit e 30 0 Dallas , Texa s 7524

0 Intervie w Question s and Response s 1 . What

i s your overal l impressio n of

the work conducte d at

eac h site ? (genera

l sentiment) Response : Concur

with th e city's assessmen

t of the work (The work

done a t the site s [Rogers Roa

d Landfill an d neighborin g Jacksonvill e Landfill] too k car e o f the problem , in fact, the regradin g necessar y a s part of the remed

y too k car e o f alo t o f the drainag e problem s a

t the sites . Both site s ar

e now in aconditio n that

they could b e applie d to recreationa l use ; there i s good ground cover , trees , and grass. ) 2 . Fromyour

perspective , what

effect hav e remedia

l operation s a

t the sit e had o n th e surrounding community? Response : Positiv e impact , noting i n particular th e tre e farms, which involv e th e National Tre e Foundatio n and loca

l scouts . 3 . Are you aware of

any ongoin g community concern s regarding the sit e or it s operatio n and administration ? Pleas e provid e details . Response : N o additional respons e provide d (beyon d tha t provided b

y othe rrespondents) . 4 . Are you aware o

f any events , incidents , o

r activitie s that

have occurre d at

eithe r site , such a s dumping, vandalism , trespassing , o r emergenc y respons e fromloca l authorities , sinc e th e startup of remedia l action ? I f so , pleas e give details . Response : No additional respons e provided .

PAG E 1 OF3 INTERVIEW CONDUCTE D JUN E 27, 200 0ROGER S ROAD/JACKSONVILL E MUNICIPA L LANDFILLS , FIVE-YEA R REVIE W INTERVIE W RECOR D RESPONS E PROVIDE D B

Y KE N CLARK/U.S . EPA REGIO N 6 5 . Have there bee

n routine communications o

r activitie s (site visits, inspections , reporting activities , etc. ) conducte d by your office regarding eithe

r site sinc e the startup o

f remedia l actio n other

than th e annual sit

e inspection? If

so , pleas e describ e purpose and results . Response : No additional respons e provided . 6 . Have there bee

n any complaints , violations, or other incidents relate d to the sit

e that required arespons e by your

office? I f so , pleas e giv e summarize the events and results o f the responses . Response : No . 7 . Wer

e any problem s o

r difficulties encountere d after the initiation of

remedial action which impacte d constructio n progres s andimplementability? Response : No . 8 . Wer

e o r have any problem s been encountere d a t either sit e which required o

r will require change s in th e Recor

d o f Decisio n o r remedia l actio n performed? Response : No . 9 . Have there bee

n any significant

change s i n the sit

e statu s o r maintenanc e requirements sinc e completio n o

f remedia l action ? I f so , do they affect

th e protectivenes s o

r effectiveness o

f the remedy ? Pleas e describ e change s and impacts . Response : No additional respons e provided . 10. Hav e there bee

n unexpecte d O&M difficulties o r cost s a t either site sinc e the star

t o f O&M ? I f so , pleas e giv e detail s Response : No additional respons e provided . 11 . What

ar e th e approximate annual O&M cost s for eac h site ? Response : No additiona

l respons e provided .

RR_5YR_000927_ATT2_lNTERVlEW_EPA_ClARK.WP O PAG E 2 O F 3 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGERS ROAD/JACKSONVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS, FIVE-YEARREVIEWINTERVIEWRECORD RESPONS E PROVIDE D BY KE N CLARK/U.S . EP A REGIO N 6 12. I s groundwater

use restricte d beyon d th e perimete r fencedare ao

f eithe r site ? I s th e groundwater

use restrictio n by institutional contro l verifieda s par t o f eac h site' s annual inspection? Response : No additional respons e provided . 13 . Hav e there bee

n opportunitie s to optimiz e th e operation , maintenance, or sampling efforts a

t the sit e since the star

t o f the remedial action ? Pleas e describ e change s andthe resultant or desire d cos t savings o r improvedefficiency. Response : N o additiona l respons e provided . 14 . D o you have any comments , suggestions , o r recommendation s regardin g eithe r site ? Response : No additiona

l respons e provided .

RR_5YR_000927_ATT2_lNTERVIEW_EPA_CLARK.WP O PAG E 3 O F 3 INTERVIE W CONDUCTE D JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T

[Thi s page intentionall y left

blank. ]

RR-5YR.000927.w

o SEPTEMBE R 200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANOFIU . FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T

Attachmen t 3 

## Sit e Inspectio n Checklist

RR_5YR_000927.WP O SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T

[Thi s pag e intentionally left

blank.]

RR-5YR.000927.WP O SEPTEMBE R 2000

### Rogers Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Five-Yea r Review Site Inspectio n Checklist < Pleas e note that

"O&M " is referredto throughout this checklist . At

site s where Long-Ter

m Respons e Actions ar

e in progress , O&M activities may b e referredto a s "syste moperations " sinc e thes e site s ar

e no t considere d to b e in the O&M phas e while being remediate d under th e Superfundprogram . N/A means "no t applicable. " SIT E INFORMATIO N Sit e Name : Roger

s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l EPAID : ARD98105580 9 City/State : Pulask

i County , Arkansas Dat e o f Inspection : Jun e 27,200 0 Agenc y Completin g 5 Yea rReview : U S EP A Weather/temperature : 8 0 F , overcast , cal m Remed y Includes : (Chec k

al l tha t apply ) B Landfil l cover/containmen t a Acces s control s a Institutiona l control s a Groundwate rpum p an d treatmen t a Surface wate rcollectio n an d treatmen t D Other : Attachments : a

Inspectio n tea m roste rattache d D Sit e ma p attache d II . INTERVIEW S (Check

al l tha t apply) 1 . O&M sit

e manager : Name : Muric e Gree n Title : Chie f of Publi c Works , Cit

y of Jacksonvill e Date : Jun e 27,200 0 Interviewed : a a

t site s a t offic e a

b y phon e Phon e Numbe r(501)982-607 1 Problems , suggestions : n Additiona l repor t attache d (if additiona l spac

e required) . 2 . O& M staff : Name : Jame s Whiske r Title : Cit y Enginee r Date : June27,2000 Interviewed : B a

t site Problems , suggestions : B a t offic e a b

y phon e Phon e Number: (50 1 )982-607 1 a Additiona l repor

t attache d (if additiona l spac

e required) .

PAG E 1 OF 1 4 JUNE 27,200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SITE INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T 3 . Loca l regulator

y authoritie s an d respons e agencie s (i.e. , Stat e an d Triba l offices , emergenc y respons e office , polic

e department , offic e o f publi c healt h o renvironmenta l health , zonin g office , recorde ro f deeds , o rothe rcit y an d count y offices , etc. ) Fil l i n al l tha

t apply . Agency : Arkansa

s Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y Contact : Bria n Wakely n Name : Title : Projec t Manage r Date : Jun e 27,200 0 Phon e Number: (501) 682-0845 Problems , suqgestions : o Additiona l repor t attache d (i f additiona l spac

e required) . Agency : U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Contact : Ke n dark Name : Title : OS C Date : Jun e 27,200 0 Phon e Number : (214)665-677 4 Problems , suggestions : o Additiona l repor t attache d (i f additiona l spac

e required) . Agency : Contact : Name : Title : Date : Phon e Numbe r Problems , suggestions : n Additiona l repor t attache d (i t additiona l spac

e required) . Agency : Contact : Name : Title : Date : Phon e Number : Problems , suggestions : o Additiona l repor t attache d (i f additiona l space reguired) . 4 . Othe rinterview

s (optional ) aN/A a Additiona l repor t attache d (if additiona l spac

e required) . Kathlee n Aisling/EP

A Remedia l Projec

t Manage r

RR_5YR_000927_A7T3A_SlTElNSPECTIONCHKlST.WP O PAG E 2 O F 1 4 JUN E 27,200 0ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPALLANDFILL FIVE-YEARREVIEWSIT

E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T III . ONSIT E DOCUMENT S & RECORDS VERIFIE D (Check al l tha t apply ) 1 . O&M Document

s D O& M Manua l s As-Buil t Drawing s a Maintenanc e Log s Remarks : o Readil y availabl e a Readil y availabl e o Readil y availabl e a U p t o date

a U p t o date o U p t o dat e BN/A gN/A BN/A

2 . Healt h an d Safet

y Plan Document

s D Site-Specifi c Health an d Safet

y Plan g Readily availabl e a U p t o date g Contingenc

y plan/emergenc

y respons e pla n a Readily availabl e g U p t o dat e Remarks : Ther

e ar e n o sit e condition s tha

t woul d restric

t normal emergenc

y respons e BN/A

BIN/A 3 . O&M an d OSH A Trainin g Record s Remarks : o Readily availabl e D U p t o date BN/A 4 . Permit s an d Service Agreement s a Ai rdischarg e permit o Effluen t discharg e a Wast e disposal , POT

W a Othe rpermit

s Remarks : o Readily availabl e a Readil y availabl e a Readil y availabl e n Readil y availabl e D U p t o date

o U p t o date a U p t o dat e a U p t o dat e BN/A

BN/A BN/A BN/A 5 . Ga s Generatio n Record s Remarks : o Readily availabl e o U p t o dat e BN/A 6 . Settlemen t Monument Record s Remarks : n Readil y availabl e g U p t o dat e IN/A 7 . Groundwate r Monitorin g Record s B Readily availabl e a U p t o dat e gN/A Remarks : 8 . Leachat

e Extractio n Record s Remarks : a Readily availabl e g U p t o dat e BN/A 9 . Discharg e Complianc

e Record s Remarks : o Readily availabl e g U p t o date BN/A 10. Dally Access/Securit

y Log s Remarks : g Readily availabl e g U p t o dat e BN/A

PAG E 3 OF 1 4 JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SITE INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T IV . O&M Costs a Applicabl e HN/A 1. O& M Organizatio n a Stat e in-hous e n Contracto rfo rState BpRpjn-house a Contracto rfo rPR P o Othe r 2 . O&M Cost Record s a Readily availabl e a U p t o dat e a Fundin g mechanism/agreement i n plac e Oriaina l O& M cost estimate : $5.00 0 forsite inspectio n an d cove rmaintenanc e a

Breakdow n attache d $16,90 0 fo rgroundwate rmonitorin g (se e attache d RO D an d F S cost information ) Tota l annua l cost b

vyea rfo rrevie

w oerio d if availabl e • no

t available , estimate d annual cos t fo rsit e inspectio n an d cove r maintenanc e provided b y Cit y o f Jacksonvill e (se e attache d estimate ) i s $6,720/year . Estimate d groundwate rcos t i s $3,000 - $3,500/year . Fro m (Date) : T o (Date) : Tota l cost : o Breakdow n attache d Fro m (Date) : T o (Date) : Tota l cos t a Breakdow n attache d Fro m (Date) : T o (Date) : Tota l cos t a Breakdow n attache d Fro m (Date) : T o (Date) : Tota l cost o Breakdow n attache d Fro m (Date) : T o (Date) : Tota l cost o Breakdow n attache d 3 . Unanticipate

d o rUnusuall

y Hig h O& M Cost s Durin g Revie w Perio d aN/ A Describ e cost s an d reasons :

V . ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONA L CONTROLS a Applicabl e A . Fencing 1 . Fencin g damage

d o Locatio n show n o n site ma p a Gate s secure d aN/A Remarks : N o damag e evident , th e Cit y of Jacksonvill e reporte d tha

t th e forme rdt

y enginee rha

d don e thoroug h inspectio n of fenc

e perimete r B . Othe rAcces s Restriction s 1 . Sign s andother

security measures o Locatio n shown o n sit e map Remarks : No sign s poste d o n gat e o r fencing ON/ A

PAGE 4 OF 1 4 JUN E 27,200 0ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SIT E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T C . Institutiona l Control s 1. Implementatio n an d enforcemen t Sit e condition s impl

y ICs no t properl y implemented : a Ye s s N o oN/A Sit e condition s impl

y IC s no t bein g full y enforced : a Ye s o N o oN/A Typ e of monitorin g (e.g , self-reporting , driv e by) : Sit e inspection s of fencin g used t o restric t access Frequency : monthly Responsibl e party/agency : Cit

y of Jacksonvill e Contac t Muric e Gree n Name: Title : Chie f of Publi c Work

s Date : Jun e 27,200 0 Phon e Number. (50 1 )982-607 1 Reportin g i s up-to-date : oYes oN o HN/A Report s ar e verifie d b y th e lea d agency : o Ye s 5 N o HN/A Specifi c requirement

s i n dee d o rdecisio n document

s hav e bee n met : a Ye s oN o nN/A Violation s hav

e bee n reported : s Ye s oNo nN/A Othe rproblem s o rsuggestions : n Additiona l repor t attache d (if additiona l spac

e required) . 2 . Adequac

y a ICs are adequat

e a IC s ar e inadequat e nN/A Remarks : IC s ar e adequat e a t restrictin g acces s t o th e sit

e an d site groundwater . Althoug h groundwate rimmediatel y downgradient i s no

t unde rcontro l of City , resident

s ar e o n municipal suppl

y an d groundwate rus e i s not expected . D . General 1 . Vandalism/trespassing o Locatio n shown o n sit e map j aNo vandalismevident Remarks: 2 . Lan d us e change s onsKe Remarks : IN/A 3 . Lan d us e change s offstte Remarks : IN/A VI . GENERAL SIT E CONDITION S A . Road s B Applicabl e aN/A 1. Road s damage d s Locatio n show n o n site map B Road s adequat e oN/A Remarks :

RR_5YR_000927_ATl3A_SlTElNSPECT10NCHKIST.WP O PAGE50F14 JUNE27.200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFILL FIVE-YEA R REVIE W StT E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T B . Othe rSite Condition s Remarks : Som e offsit e dumpin g i s evident , tires , tras h an d woo d debri s ar e presen t nea rth e site . Th e Cit

y o f Jacksonvill e reporte d tha

t unauthorize

d dumpin g too k

plac e prio rt o initiatio n o f th e remedy .

VII . LANDFIL L COVERS a Applicabl e A . Landfil l Surfac e 1 . Settlemen t (Lo

w spots ) Area l exten t Remarks : n Locatio n show n o n site map

Depth : a Settlemen t no t evident

2 . Crack s Lengths : Remarks : D Locatio n show n o n site map

Widths : Depths : a Crackin g not eviden t

3 . Erosio n Area l exten t Remarks : g Locatio n show n o n site map

Depth : a Erosio n no t eviden t

4 . Hole s Area l exten t Remarks : o Locatio n show n o n sit e ma p

Depth : B Holes no t evident

5 . Vegetative Cove r a Cove rpropert

y established Remarks : j a N o sign s of stres s B Gras s a Trees/Shrubs 6 . Alternative Cove r(armore d rock , concrete , etc. ) Remarks : HN/A 7 . Bulges Area l extent : Remarks: o Locatio n show n o n sit e ma p

Heigh t a Bulge s no t evident

PAGE 6 OF 1 4 JUN E 27.200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIS T We t Areas/Wate rDamag e a We t areas/wate rdamag e no t eviden t a We t areas a

Locatio n show n o n site ma

p Area l exten t a Pondin g o

Locatio n show n o n site ma

p Area l exten t g_Seep s a Locatio n show n o n sit e map Area l extent : g.Sof t subgrad e o Locatio n show n o n sit e map Area l exten t Remarks : Tnere i s poo rdrainag e i n th e surroundin g areas , site ha s bee n grade d t o preven t th e occurrenc e of standin g water . 9 . Slop e Instabilit y jo.SIide

s o Locatio n show n o n sit

e ma p ^ N o evidenc e of slope instabilit

y Area l exten t Remarks : B . Benches 5 Applicabl e BN/A (Horizontally constructe d mounds of eart h placed acros s a stee p landfil l sid e slope t o interrup t th e slope i n orde rt o slo

w dow n th e velocit

y o f surface runof

f an d intercep

t an d conve y th e runof f t o a line d channel. ) 1 . Flow s Bypas s Benc h n Locatio n show n o n site map nN/Aorokay Remarks : 2 . Benc h Breached a Locatio n show n o n site map gN/Aorokay Remarks : 3 . Benc h Overtoppe d g Locatio n show n o n site ma p aN/Aorokay Remarks : C . Letdow n Channel s a Applicabl e aN/A (Channe l line d wit h erosio n contro l mats , riprap , grou t bags , o rgabion s tha t descen d dow n th e stee p sid e slope of th e cove ran d wil l allo

w th e runof f wate rcollecte d b

y th e benche s t o mov e off of th e landfil l cove rwithou t creatin g erosio n gullies. ) 1. Settlemen t D Locatio n show n o n sit e map n N o evidenc e of settlemen t Area l exten t Depth : Remarks : 2 . Materia l Degradatio n o Locatio n show n o n site map Materia l type : Area ) extent : Remarks : o N o evidenc e o f degradatio n 3 . Erosio n o Locatio n show n o n sit e ma p Area l extent : Depth : Remarks : o N o evidenc e of erosio n

RR-5YR_000927_ATT3A_SlTElNSPECT10NCHKIST.WP D PAG E 7 O F 1 4 JUN E 27.200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFILL FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SIT E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T 4 . Undercuttin g Area l extent : Remarks : S Locatio n show n o n site map

Depth : a N o evidenc e o f undercuttin g

5 . Obstruction s Type : Area ! exten t Remarks : D Locatio n show n o n site map

Height : nN/A

6 . Excessiv

e Vegetativ e Growt h a Evidenc e of excessiv

e growt h a Locatio n show n o n site ma

p Remarks : a N o evidenc e of excessiv

e growt h a Vegetatio n i n channel s but does no t obstruc t flo w Area l extent : D. Cove r Penetration s o Applicabl e aN/A 1 . Ga s Vents a Active o Passiv

e o Propert y secured/locked o Evidenc e o f leakag e a

t penetratio n Remarks : DN/A [] Routinel y sample

d o Functionin g o Need s O&M o Goo d conditio n

2 . Ga s Monitorin g Probe s o Routinel y sample

d o Properl y secured/locked a Functionin g a Evidenc e of leakag e a

t penetratio n o

Need s O& M Remarks : aN/A o Good conditio n

3 . Monitorin g Well s (withi n surface are a of landfill ) o Routinely sample

d a Propert y secured/locke d a Functionin g o Evidenc e of leakag e a

t penetratio n o Need s O& M Remarks : oN/A o Goo d conditio n

4 . Leachat

e Extractio n Well s a Routinely sample

d a Properl y secured/locke d a Functionin g o Evidenc e of leakag e a

t penetratio n o Need s O& M Remarks : ON/A a Goo d conditio n

5 . Settlemen t Monument

s o

Locate d Remarks : D Routinel y surveye d ON/A

PAGE80F14 JUN E 27,2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPAL LANDFILL FIVE-YEA H REVIE W SIT

E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS

T E . Gas Collectio n an d Treatmen t g Applicabl e EN/A 1. Gas Treatmen t Facilities gN/A n Rarin g g Therma l destructio n g Collectio n fo rreuse o Goo d conditio n n Need s O& M Remarks : 2 . Gas Collectio n Wells , Manifold s an d Pipin g gN/A g Goo d conditio n g Need s O&M Remarks : 3 . Ga s Monitorin g Facilities (e.g. , ga

s monitorin g of adjacen t homes o rbuildings ) n N/

A D Good conditio n g Need s O&M Remarks : F . Cove rDrainag e Laye ra Applicabl e BN/A 1. Outle t Pipe s Inspected g Functionin g gN/A Remarks : 2 . Outle t Roc k Inspecte d g Functionin g gN/A Remarks : G . Detention/Sedimentatio n Pond s g Applicabl e ^N/A 1. SiKatio n g Siltafo n evident gN/A Area ! extent : Depth : Remarks : 2 . Erosio n g Erosio n eviden t gN/A Area ! exten t Depth : Remarks : 3 . Outle t Work s g Functionin g gN/A Remarks : 4 . Da m g Functionin g gN/A Remarks : H . Retainin g Wall s g Applicabl e BN/A

PAGE 9 OF 1 4 JUNE 27,200 0ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SIT E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T 1 . Deformation s o Locatio n show n o n site map Horizonta l displacement : Vertica l displacement : Remarks : o Deformatio n no t eviden t Rotationa l displacement : 2 . Degradatio n Remarks : a Locatio n show n o n site map a Degradatio n no t eviden t Perimete rDitohes/Off-sit e discharg e B Applicabl e oN/A 1 . Siltatio n Area l exten t Remarks : D

Locatio n show n o n site ma

p Depth : B Siltatio n no t evident

2 . Vegetative Growt h Area l exten t Remarks : n Locatio n show n o n site map

Type : H Vegetatio n doe s no t imped e flo w

3 . Erosio n Area l exten t Remarks : g Locatio n show n o n site ma p Depth : B Erosio n no t eviden t

4 . Discharg e Structur

e o Locatio n show n o n site map a Functionin g a Good Conditio n Remarks : N o discharg e structure , drainag e managed b y site grading . BN/A

VIII . VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS a. Applicabl e 1 . Settlement Area) extent : Remarks : o Locatio n show n o n site ma p Depth : o Settlement no t evident

2 . Performance Monitorin g a Performanc

e no t monitored a Performanc

e monitored a Evidenc e of breachin g Remarks : Frequency : Hea d differential : aN/ A

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIE S a. Applicabl e

PAGE100F1 4 JUN E 27.200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SfT E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T 1. Pumps , Wellhead Plumbing , an d Electrica l o Al l required well s located n Goo d conditio n g Need s 0 & M Remarks : DN/A

2 . Extractio n Syste m Pipelines , Valves , Valve Boxes , an d Othe rAppurtenance s a Syste m located g Goo d conditio n g Need s 0 & M Remarks : ON/ A

3 . Spar e Parts an d Equipmen

t g Readily availabl e o Requires Upgrad e Remarks : ON/ A a Goo d conditio n D Needs t o be provided B . Surfac e Wate rCollectio n Structures , Pumps , an d Pipeline s n Applicabl e BN/A 1. Collectio n Structures , Pumps , an d Electrica l g Good conditio n a Need s 0 & M Remarks : oN/A

2 . Surfac e Wate rCollectio n Syste m Pipelines , Valves , Valve Boxes , an d Othe rAppurtenance s g N/ A o Goo d conditio n g Need s 0 & M Remarks : 3 . Spar e Parts an d Equipmen

t o Readil y availabl e g Requires Upgrad e Remarks : nN/A o Goo d conditio n g Need s t o be provide d C . Treatmen t Syste m g Applicabl e a N/ A 1 . Treatmen t Trai n (Chec k

component s tha t apply ) g Metal s remova l g Oil/wate rseparatio n g Ai rstrippin g g Carbo n adsorber s g Additiv e (lis t type , e.g. , chelatio n agent , flocculent ) g Other s (list) : g Good conditio n g Need s O& M g Samplin g ports propert

y marke d an d functiona l g Sampling/maintenanc

e lo g displayed an d u p t o dat

e g Equipmen t propert y identified g Quantit y of groundwate rtreate d annually (lis t volume) : g Quantit y of surfac e wate rtreate d annually (lis t volume) : Remarks : gBioremediatio n g Filter s (lis t type) :

PAG E 1 1 OF 1 4 JUN E 27,200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SIT E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T 2 . Electrica l Enclosure s an d Panel s (properl y rate d an d functional ) a Goo d conditio n a Need s O&M Remarks : aN/A

3 . Tanks , Vaults , Storag e Vessel s o Goo d conditio n a Prope rsecondar y containment a Need s O& M Remarks : DN/A

4 . Discharg e Structur

e an d Appurtenance s a Goo d conditio n o Need s 0 & M Remarks : aN/A

5 . Treatmen t Building(s

) o Good conditio n (esp . roo

f an d doorways ) o Chemical s an d equipment properl y store d Remarks : aN/A o Need s Repai r

6 . Monitorin g Well s (pum p an d treatmen t remedy ) o Al l require d well s located a Properl y secured/locke d o Functionin g g Good conditio n a Need s O& M Remarks : aN/A a Routinely sample

d

D. Monitored Natura l Attenuatio n a Applicabl e aN/A 1 . Monitorin g Well s (natura l attenuatio n remedy ) g N/ A D Al l required well s locate d a Propert y secured/locke d ^Functionin g g Routinely sample d g Good conditio n g Need s O& M Remarks : Al l well s were no

t located durin g th e site visi t du e t o dense vegetatio n includin g poiso n oakflv y an d ticks . Th e backgroun d well s ar

e difficul t t o access du e t o lan d owne ran d animal s present i n th e area . Thes e well s ar e inspected routinel y durin g th e periodi c inspection s b y th e city . X. OTHE R REMEDIES g Applicabl e I f ther e ar e remedie s applie d a t th e site whic h ar

e no t covere d above , attac h a n inspectio n shee t describin g th e physica l natur e an d conditio n o f any facilit

y associate d wit h th e remedy . A n exampl e woul d be soi l vapo rextraction .

PAGE 1 2 OF 1 4 JUNE 27,200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPAL LANDFILL FIVE-YEA R REVIE W SIT E INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T XI . OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A . Implementatio n o

f th e Remedy Describe issue

s an d observation s relatin g t o whethe rth e remed y i s effective an d functionin g as designed . Begi n wit h a brie f statemen t of wha

t th e remed y i s t o accomplis h (i.e. , t o contai n contaminan t plume , minimiz

e infiltratio n an d ga

s emission , etc. ) Th e remed y i s effective an d functionin g a s designed . Th e remed y wa s chose n t o remov

e th e principa l health threat

s tha t presented exces s lifetim e cance rrisk , an d preven t furthe ractua l o rthreatene d releases of hazardou s substance s fro m th e site . Material s containin g abovel O pp b dioxi n concentration s were remove d an d treated , an d th e affecte d areas were backfilled an d re-graded . Soi l cove rwa s placed o n material s tha t were betwee n 1 an d 1 0 ppb dioxi n level , greate rtha n 3 7 ppb diekjrin , and/o rdieldri n an d herbicid e contaminatio n associated wit h a hazar d inde x abov e 0.7 . Institutiona l control s includ e site inspection s t o confir m fenc e integrit y an d lan d us e restrictions . Site inspection s sho w tha t th e fencin g i s effectivel y preventin g acces s t o th e site . Annua l groundwate rmonitorin g wa s als o conducted , but wa s halted i n 1997 sinc e n o contaminant s of concern were detected . B . Adequac

y o f O& M Describe issue

s an d observation s relate d t o th e implementatio n an d scop e of O& M procedures . I n particular , discus s thei rrelationshi p t o th e curren t an d long-term protectiveness of th e remedy . O& M procedures appea rt o be adequate . Writte n record s of O& M frequenc y an d annua l costs hav

e no t bee n individuall

y maintained , an d th e Cit

y indicate d a n effor t wil l be mad e t o kee p thes e record s up-to-dat e an d readily accessibl e i n th e future . Groundwate rmonitorin g a

t th e sit e wa s discontinue

d du e t o lack of detecte d site-relate d contaminants . Th e existin g monitorin g wel l networ k

coul d potentiall y be use d fo rmonitorin g unde rth e appropriate soli d wast e regulator y authority , s o abandonmen t i s no t recommended a

t thi s time .

C . Earl y Indicator

s o f Potentia l Remed y Failur

e Describe issue

s an d observation s such as unexpected change s i n th e cos t o rscop e of O& M o ra hig h frequenc y of unschedule d repairs , tha t sugges t tha t th e protectiveness of th e remed

y ma y be compromised i n th e future . Non e observed .

RR_5YR_000927_ATT3A_SrTElNSPECT10NCHKIST.WP D PAG E 1 3 O F 1 4 JUN E 27, 2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFILL FIVE-YEA R REVIE

W SITE INSPECTIO N CHECKLIS T D. Opportunitie

s fo r Optimizatio n Describe possibl e opportunities fo roptimizatio n i n monitorin g task s o rth e operatio n of th e remedy . Groundwate rmonitorin g wa s determined t o n o longe rbe necessary , onc e th e restrictiv

e covenant s ar e i n place . However , soli d wast e regulation s ma

y stil l apply . Th e curren t monitorin g wel l networ k coul d possibly be use

d fo rsoli d wast e monitorin g purposes , an d groundwate rdata an d informatio n about th e well s shoul d be conveye d t o th e appropriate soli d wast e regulator y authority .

RR_5YR_000927_ATT3A_SlTElNSPECT10NCHKIST.WP O PAGE140F1 4 JUNE27.200 0Inspectio n Tea m Roste r

Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Site , 5 Yea rRevie w Jun e 27. 200 0 Nam e Margaret O'Har

e Kati e Swanso n Ki n Siew Bria n Wakely n Ja y Whiske r Muric e Gree n Kathlee n Aislin g Kennet h dar k Agenc y CH2 M HILL CH2MHIL L ADE Q ADE Q Cit y of Jacksonvill e Cit y of Jacksonvill e USEPA USEPA/ERC S Phon e Numbe r (972)980-2170 (972 ) 980-2170 (501)682-0855 (501)682-0845 (501 ) 982-607 1 (501)982-3146 (214)665-8509 (214) 665-677 4

PAGE I O F 1 SEPTEMBE R 200 0ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA

L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR

T

[Thi s pag e intentionall y left

blank. ]

RR_5YR_000927.W D SEPTEMBE R 200 0TABLE 6 (COfit*d) COS T ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 5 Roger s Road Landfill sit e Jacksonville, Arkansa s Activity Estimated Uni t Cost($) Quantit y pric e (1990 ) Administrative & Lega l 6 5 1 o f Direc t cos t 30,19 0 Engineering 6 Service s 6 10 1 o f Direc t Cos t 60.lfi 0 TOTA L INDIREC T COST: 240,710 TOTA L CAPITAL COS T (DIREC T + INDIRECT)t 842,46 0

II. 0 & H Cos t • Annual Data Review 6 Hr s $60/H r 48 0 • 5-Yea r Evaluation 16 0 Hr s $60/H r 9,60 0 • Maintenance o f Existin g Fenc e L.S . 2,00 0 • Annual Inspectio n and Maintenance o f Soi l Cove r L.S . 3,00 0 A . Periodic Inspectio n o f Container s Stored Onsit e fo r One Year L.S . 3,00 0 B . Presen t Wortho f Long Ter m Groundwater Monitoring (Annual an

d 5-Year ) (See Rogers Road F S Report, Tabl e 6- 1 fo

r Details). 259,80 0 C . Presen t Worthof Annual Dat a Review ($480 X 15.3725 ) 7,38 0 D . Presen t Wortho f 5-Year Evaluation ($9,60 0 X 2.782 ) 26,70 0

1-8 9TABLB « (Cont'd ) COS T ESTIMATE ALTBRKATIVB 5 Roger s Road Landfill Sit e Jacksonville, Arkansa s Activity Estimated Unit Cost($) Quantit y Pric e (1990 ) E . Presen t Wortho f Existin g Fenc e Maintenance Based o n 5 1 Discoun t Rate for 3 0 Year s ($2,00 0 X 15.3725 ) F . Presen t Wortho f Inspectio n an d Maintenance o f Soi l Cove r Based on 5 ) Discoun t Rate for 30 Years ($3.00 0 X 15.3725) G . Lan d Use Contro l Contingencie s to r 3 0 Years TOTA L 0 6 M COS T (ME T PRESEN T WORTH)* 30.75 0

4 6. , 12 0 10.00 0 383,75 0

III. TOTA

L COS T O F ALTERNATIVE 5 (CAPITAL + 0 & M) (K-T PRESENT WORTH) : $ 1,226,21 0

1-90T2BL X 6- 1 COS T KSXIIOT

X KISXSfOXSVt

Is H O XCTIO H Roger s Roa d Landfil l Site Ptilxcki Count y , Arlcanim « Cost($ ) References/ <1»90 » Remarks estlnated Quantity Uni

t Pric e . Activit y COPitg l Cog t A . Direc

t Cost

• Nell Drilling (3 Hew Nells) 12 0 L.F. • Hel l Casin g installatio n (Stainles s Steel ) ( 0 L.F . • Mobilizatio n an d Decontamlnafcio n L.S . B . Indirect . Coa t • Healt h ( Safety € 5 « of Direc

t Cost

• Bi d & Scope Contingenc y C 10» of Direc tCos

t (30/L.r . 3,600 Referenc e 2 0

$50/L.r. 3,000 Reference 20 5.000 BUBTOTtI. ; 11,600

600 1,200 00292 4TXBL X 6-J. (ooatelwd ) COST XSTIMAX

X USViWKCIVS

2 : 80 JCTZO H Rogers Road Landfill Sit« Pulaski County , Arkansa s Activity Eatlnate d Uni t Cost($> Raferencaa/ Quantit y Pric a . (1990) Remarks

• Adainlatrative an

d Legal 8 10 % o f Direct. Co d 1.200 • Engineerin g 6 Services Durin g Drillin g I 51 of Direc

t Cost 600 SUBTOTAL : 3,603 TOTA L CXPITXI . COST : IS,20 0 II . 0 t M Coat A . Monitoring (1) Annual Monitoring;

• Groundwater Samplin g 3 0 Bra 930/Hr 900

• Groundwater.Lab Analysis

002925CXBU C 6-1 . (continued} CO& I X9TUOX K mxmarxv

x i : n o ACTIO N Roger s Roa d Landfil l Site Pulisic i County , kxk&nsa s Estimated Quantity Oni t

Pric e Coat($ >

(1990) References/

Remarks Fiv e Hal l Sactples , On e Fiel d Blank

. One Spik e Sampl e an d One Q C Saapl e 8 Sample s Contingenc

y Analysl* 6 Sample s

• Maintenanc

e Contingenc

y xozu . uanaL uoaisoaxss COST: (2) Repor

t Preparation: A. 5-year Revie

w Repor t16 0 Hrs $60/Br TOTM . 5-TIAH . KtSOKt tVOCSUaXlW

COST : 12,000

2.000 14,SCO 2.080 16,900 9.600 9,600 Referenc e 30

002926TRB U 6-1 (continnod ) COS T XSIIHX.T

X uzBuan n l : n o ACTIO S Rogers Roa d Landtll l Sit e Pul*«kt Ccnmty , XrkAnsxi* Activity £«tloato d Uni t Coat($) References / Quantit y Pric e . (1990 ) Remark s

B . Presen t Wortho f Annual Monitoring f Maintenance Cos t Base d on 5 1 Discoun t fo r 3 0 year * - ( (1C,90 0 X IS.3725 t 250 . •00 C . Presen t (fort h of 5-year Revie w Report s ( $9.600 X 2.182 ) 2fi.70Q

Tonu . fsxsxax

WORT H o r o « H COST : 286,500 XXZ . VVSXt, COB* (» » PRXSKM * MORTR ) o rKsassaaatvs

c- i 302.00 0

00292 7Sent By: CIT Y OF JACKSONVILLE, - 50 1 08 5 0168 : Jul-7-00 8:40AM;

CIT Y OF JACKSONVILL E E N G I N E E R l N G D S.P A RT M E NT FACSIMILE TEANSMITTAL SHEET TOi Maigare

t P . CYHac

c COMPANY : CH2MHUJ. DATE i Jpl y 7^2000 •IZITALWO . Ot r fAGE S Wa.VDQSC mWS.. 2 ccB-t; : SuptsSsaS

SaSes

P.O. BOX 12 < JACtSONVILtE. A. R T2t7« <fl)«12-««7t |<AX«,{fl)««2««l««By: CIT Y O F JACKSONVILLE; S01 98 5 0108 ; Jul-7-00 8:40AU; Page 2/ 2



# CIT Y OF JACKSONVILL E ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT JttM f S . Whiakcr, Cit

y En^nee r



### Costof Operatin g and Maintainin g Superftm d Site

s Jacksonvill e LandflU and Roger s Road Landfill

Bus h Ho g $45.00Yhr . Sidecutter___$45.00/hr . Inspectio n S20.00Af . Two (2 ) bush hogs an d one (1 ) sidecuttc r requir e sixtee n (16) hour

s t o clea r bot h sites . Th e city clear

s site s si x (6) time

s pe r year . Inspectio n onc

e a month b

y two (2) people pe r year . Therefore :

3 machine s @$45.00/hou r = $ 135.00/hou r x t6 hour s $ 2,160.00 S2, 160.0 0 x 6 rime s pe

r yea r = $ 12.960.0

0 2iiispectjQts@S20.00perlKx.ir ~ $ 40.00/hou r __x 1 2 hour

s $480.0 0 $ 12,960.0 0 -( • $ 480.0

0 - $ 13,440.0

0 Tota l cos t i s S 13,440.0

0 pe r year . Thi s cos

t estimat e doe s 50 $ includ e th e $6,000.0 0 - $7.000.0 0 pe r yea r o f groun dwate

r samplin g from199

4 -1998 .ROGERS ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFIL L FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOB

T

Attachmen t 4 

## Site Inspectio n Photograph s

RR_5YB_000927.WP O SEPTEMBE R 2000ROGER S ROA D MUNICIPA L LANDFILL FIRS T FIVE-YEA R REVIE W REPOR T

(Thi s pag e intentionally left

blank.]

RR-5YR_000927.WP D SEPTEMBE R 2000Firs t Rw Yea rRevie

w Sit e Inspectio n Photograph s Roger s Road Municipa

l Landfil l Supertun d Sit e 

### Photograp h 1 . Facin g sout h along Roger s Road . Phot

o take n fromsout

h of Roger s Road residences/nort

h o f site .

PHOTOGRAPH S TAKEN JUNE 27,2000 PAQE10F9Firs t Fl w Yea rRevie w Sft e Inspectio n Photograph s Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Supenund Sh e 

### Photograp h 2 . Facin g east-northeas t fromoutside perimete r fence just north of main acces s gate . View i s of

north endof excavated/covere d are ao f

site . Perimete r fence visibl e i n foreground . Photo overlap s to right

with Photograp h 3 .

PHOTOGRAPH S TAKEN JUNE 27.2000 PAQE20F 9FIre t FIV B Yea rRevie w Site Inspectio n Photograph s Roger a Roa d Municipal Landfil l Supertun d Sit

e 

### Photograp h 3 . Facin g east , fromoutsid e perimete r fence , on Roger s Roadjust

north of main acces s gate . Perimete r fenc e visibl e i n foreground . Overlap s to left

with Photograp h 2 , andto right with Photograp h 4 .

PHOTOGRAPH S TAKE N JUN E 27,2000 PAQE30F9Firs t Fl w Yea r Revie w Site Inspectio n Photograph s Roger s Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Supertun d Sit

e Photograp h 4 . 

### Facin g east-southeast , fromoutside perimete r fence , on Roger s Road just north o f main acces s gate . Perimete r fence visibl e i n foreground. Excavated/backfille d are ai s the vegetate d are awithou t trees . Photograp h overlap s to left

with Photograp h 3 .

PHOTOGRAPH S TAKE N JUN E 27,200 0 PAQE40F9Firs t Fiv e Yea rRevie w Sit e Inspectio n Photograph s Roger e Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Superfun d Site 

### Photograp h 5 . Facin g east-southeas t into sit e through main acces s gate , fromRoger s Road .

PHOTOGRAPH S TAKEN JUNE 27,200 0 PAGE 5 OF9

# (—• r " r~ r" r" r" r ' r- " r

Firs t Rw Yea rRevfe w Sit

e Inspectio n Photograph s Roger a Rea d Municipa l landffllSupeftundSlt

e 

### Photograp h 6 . Facin g east, fromoutsid e perimete r fence , on Roger s Roa

djust sout h o f main acces s gate . Perimete r fence visible i n nea

r foreground . Excavated/backfille dare ai s the vegetate d are awithout trees .

PHOTOQfWH S TAKE N JUN E 27,2000 PA0660F9Firs t F m Yea r Rwte w Site Inspectio n Photograph s RoflersRofl d Murocipft I Landfil i Superiun u Sn 9 Photograp h 7 . 

### Facing northeast , fromjus t

north o f southwes t corne r o f perimete r fence . Clearing i n backgroun di s (h e excavated/covere dare ao f the landfill .

PHOTOOnXPHSTAKE N JUN E 27,200 0 PAQE70F9

## r " r~" rr ~ r " rr "

FIre t Fh « Yea r RevfwSit

e Inspecfto n Photograph s Rogef » Roa d Municipa l Landfil l Superfunt I Sit

s Photograp h 8 . 

### .js^i'- Pacin g sout h a t sout h endo f Roger s Road . ^" ^ Monitor

well s MWR-0 1 (foreground ) an d MWR-0 2 (background) . Surfac e completion s appea

r i n goodcondition .

PHOTOGRAPH S TAKE N JUN E 27, 200 0 PAGE80F9

## i - - ^—(- - i r " c " ( —rrf - rr" c" —r ~ ( r ~ r ~ r " [

Firs t Fhf t Yea rRevtew Sit

e Impedlo n Photograph s Roger a Roa d Munldpa t Landfl N Supertun d Sit

e 

### Photograp h 9 . Facing east alon g souther

n perimete r roa d along sout h sid e o f site . Perimete r fence runs alon g north sid

e of road , a t left . Monito r wel l MWR-0 5 i s a

t en do f thi s road , a t the southeas t corne r o f th e perimete r fence .

Rft.6YR.000927J^n4PHOTO(»WH8.WP O PHOTOOBAPHS TAKEN JUNE 27,2000 PAQE90F9