FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINAL REPORT NEWPORT DUMP ...WILDER, CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY Work Assignment No. 81-4FE23 AUGUST 1997 REGION IV U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0057 Roy F. Weston, Inc

Document Control No. 4400-81-AGPP

Revision 1

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINAL REPORT

NEWPORT DUMP WILDER, CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY

Work Assignment No. 81-4FE23

AUGUST 1997

REGION IV

U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0057

Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1880-H Beaver Ridge Circle

Norcross, Georgia 30071

WESTON W.O. No. 04400-081-097-0005-00

DECLARATION FOR THE NEWPORT DUMP FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Newport Dump Wilder, Campbell County, Kentucky

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This document presents the current conditions at the Site and makes recommendations regardingOperation and Maintenance activities and future reviews. Section 121(c) of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, requires thatif a remedial action is taken that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining at a site, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall review such remedial actionno less than each five years after initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health andthe environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

The Site was delisted from the National Priorities List in June 1996. The Site continues to beprotective of human health and the environment provided the cap is maintained in good condition,the Site is not developed, and the groundwater is not used for private or industrial purposes. Thisdocument has been reviewed by EPA Region 4, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. EPA willensure that his Site remains protective by conducting Five-Year Reviews in the future. The nextreview should be completed by June 2002.

This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, without the expresswritten permission of EPA.

Five-Year Review ReportNewport DumpSection: Table of ContentsRevision: 1Date: August 1997

iNOR/K.\WP\04400\081\RPDDN01.DOC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Site Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21.2 Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-51.3 Description of the Remedial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-61.4 Previous Five-Year Review Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-71.5 ARARs Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

2 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Summary of Site Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12.2 Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.2.1 Surface/Cover Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22.2.2 Gas and Groundwater Monitor Well Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42.2.3 Leachate Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52.2.4 Institutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.3 Review of Site Matrices Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.3.1 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-62.3.2 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-82.3.3 Gas Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.4 Summary of Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

3 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Surface/Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13.2 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13.3 Gas Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.4 Groundwater and Gas Monitoring Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33.5 Leachate Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33.6 Administration Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4


Five-Year Review Draft ReportNewport DumpSection: Table of ContentsRevision: 1Date: August 1997

iiNOR/K.\WP\04400\081\RPDDN01.DOC

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page

3.7 Statement of Protectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43.8 Next Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Figure 1-1 Locations of Site Monitoring and Sampling Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

Figure 2-1 Areas of Standing/Ponded Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page

Table 1-1 Table of Alternative Concentration Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

Table 1-2 Applicable Standards and Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14

Table 2-1 Quarterly Groundwater Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Table 2-2 Quarterly Surface Water Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Table 2-3 Landfill Gas Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

Table 2-4 Methane Sample Analytical Results for Years 1995 through 1996 . . . . . 2-13

LIST OF APPENDICESAPPENDIX A – Photograph



1-1NOR/K.\WP\04400\081\RPDDN01.DOC

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The Newport Dump site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.

Following a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and NUS Corporation, under the FIT Contract, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by

EPA Regional Administrator in March 1987. The remedial actions implemented by EPA commenced

in June 1987, and concluded in 1988. A description of the remedial actions is presented in Section

1.4 of this document. Subsequent to completion of the remedial actions, operation and maintenance

activities as required in the ROD were initiated and included multimedia monitoring.

Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),

Section 121(c), and Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), a statutory five-year review to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial

actions is required for this site. EPA Region IV has determined that a Level I analysis is appropriate

for the Newport Dump site.

This report presents the information collected during the review by Roy F. Weston, Inc.,

(WESTON®) for the U.S. EPA Region IV under the Alternative Remedial Contract Strategy (ARCS)

contract. The review was intended to confirm that the remedial actions and associated performance

standards in the ROD have been achieved and that the current conditions remain protective of human

health and environment. This is the second five-year review of the Newport Dump site. The first

review was submitted by Resource Applications, Inc., (RAI) in July 1993.




1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Newport Dump site, a former municipal landfill located in the City of Wilder, Campbell County,

is situated in northern Kentucky, within three miles of Newport, a suburb of Cincinnati. Access to

the 39-acre site is by way of Banklick Road, off of SR 9, which terminates at the entrance to the

landfill.

As shown on Figure 1-1, the 39-acre site is bounded on the west by the Licking River, a tributary of

the Ohio River; on the north by the Ceramic Coatings Corporation buildings and a small industrial

park; on the east by steep outcrops and SR 9; and on the south by an unnamed stream. A drainage

culvert traverses the site running north to south, separating the site into eastern and western sections,

with the majority of the landfill material in the western section. Power transmission lines also

traverse the site at the center of the western section.

The site is on the opposite side and slightly upstream of the Licking River from the main raw water

intake for the Taylor Mill water treatment plant. This facility, which withdraws up to 18 million

gallons per day from the river, serves approximately 75,000 consumers in both Kenton and Boone

Counties.

RAI’s report states the site is underlain by unconsolidated alluvial deposits, which consist primarily

of clay, silt, sand, and gravel in a downward coarsening sequence. The thickness of the

unconsolidated material ranges from 36 feet at the eastern end of the landfill to about 110 feet at the

Licking River. Below the alluvial deposits is shale and limestone bedrock reported to be up to 250

feet thick.




The site consists of two distinct topographic areas: the lower river terrace occupies the areas adjacent

to the river and is frequently flooded, while the second level is separated from the lower terrace by

an area of steep slopes and includes the landfilled portion of the site.

1.2 SITE HISTORY

The site, purchased by the City of Newport in the late 1940s, was used for disposal of residential and

commercial waste from that point until its closure in 1979. It is believed that trenching and area

filling of the waste were the most common methods used to dispose of waste while the landfill was

in operation. In 1968, the Commonwealth of Kentucky instituted permitting requirements for

landfills and, after correcting violations, the City finally received a permit in late 1969 to operate the

site as a municipal sanitary landfill.

While the landfill was in operation, the City of Newport was repeatedly cited by the Kentucky

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (KDNREP) and other state agencies

for permit violations. The most frequent violations included: “open burning at the landfill, absence

of daily cover, on-site ponding of water, uncovered refuse, inadequate security, presence of leachate,

lack of proper seeding, and erosion problems due to lack of vegetation.” Along with citations for

operational violations, the City had been cited for handling hazardous wastes without proper permits.

Owing to these problems with management of the landfill, an Agreed Order for final closure was

negotiated between the City of Newport and the KDNREP Cabinet on September 26, 1978; however,

the final closure plan was never fully implemented. Late in 1979, ownership of the landfill was

transferred to the Northern Kentucky Port Authority (NKPA) with the understanding that the NKPA

would complete remediation at the site. As a part of the transfer of ownership, the




NKPA was to prepare a final closure plan and an Agreed Order between the KDNREP Cabinet and

NKPA was issued on July 9, 1980. The closure required NKPA to install a leachate collection

system, regrade portions of the site, construct a clay cap over the waste, and seed the area with grass.

A lack of funding precluded the NKPA from fully implementing the July 9, 1980, Agreed Order and

a new Agreed Order that superseded the previous one was entered into by the Cabinet and the NKPA

on October 30, 1984. A permanent vegetative cover was established on the landfill as a result of the

new agreement.

The Newport Dump site was originally considered for the National Priorities List (NPL) in

December 1982, and was added to the list in September 1983. In June 1996, the site was delisted

from the NPL.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDIAL ACTIONS

EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to determine the nature and

extent of contamination and evaluate the potential threats to human health and the environment at

this site, which was completed in 1986. The potential human exposure pathways identified in the RI

were withdrawal of surface water from the Taylor Mill drinking water intake and accidental exposure

via direct contact with contaminated sediment or soil. The FS prepared at that time evaluated six

alternatives to remove those potential risks to human health and the environment.

In mid-1987, the EPA, with KDNREPC concurrence, implemented Alternative #3 as proposed in

the FS. The remedy selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) included ?(a) regrading the landfill

surface and placing a one-foot thick layer of compacted clay, a one-foot layer of topsoil, and

revegetating the surface; (b) repairing or replacing the existing leachate collection system and




replacing the drainage culvert that traversed the site; and (c) monitoring underground gas migration,

surface water, and groundwater.”

In 1987, the EPA installed eight gas monitor wells; locations of these wells are shown on Figure 1-1.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities as required in the ROD, included monitoring the

groundwater, surface water, leachate, and underground gas migration. Five rounds of monitoring

were performed from October 1988 through June 1990, in accordance with the O&M Plan. In 1990,

the EPA shut off the power to the leachate collection system because the system appeared to be

collecting groundwater, and system operation was not providing a higher level of protection.

On March 5, 1991, the EPA conducted a public information session to discuss the upcoming five-

year review. Representatives from the EPA and the City of Newport answered questions about the

site at this meeting.

During the latter part of 1991 and early 1992, an area on the river terrace along the western edge of

the site was cleared and trenched for installation of a sanitary sewer line. Some miscellaneous debris

was exposed, and monitor well MW-06 was destroyed.

1.4 PREVIOUS FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ACTIVITIES

RAI initiated the five-year review process with site visits and sampling performed as follows:

• December 1991: surface water.

• January 1992: leachate holding tank.




• March 1992: groundwater, sediment, additional surface water (Licking River and on site),

and soil gas (probe survey at 20 locations in addition to gas wells).

The analytical data were compared with applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and state

requirements (ARARs) and the results of previous sampling events. These evaluations were

discussed in the report of the five-year review.

RAI’s report (July 1993) stated that the remedial actions that were performed at the Newport Dump

site remained protective of human health and the environment. The report’s conclusions and

recommendations included the following:

Site Surface/Cover Conditions

• The surface of the site had been compromised at several locations by a truck turnaroundarea and numerous all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) tracks, which were causing erosion in someareas. Some areas contained little to no vegetation. RAI recommended re-seeding of areaswith stressed or inadequate vegetation, and mowing of the site twice per year.

• Twice-a-year site inspections should be performed in accordance with the site’s O&MPlan. Inspections should address the following: adequacy of the grass cover, perimeterditch, and culvert; status of/damage to the monitor wells (gas and groundwater) and thesecurity fence.

Groundwater Monitoring

• All groundwater monitor wells were in good condition, with the following exceptions:

– The well casing in MW-03 was bent, but a one inch bailer could be used.

– MW-04 was completely blocked and could not be sampled, but does not need to berepaired.




– MW-06, an off-site well, was destroyed by sewer line construction activities. It doesnot need to be replaced.

• None of the contaminants were detected at a level exceeding its ACL. Lead, benzene,cadmium, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (Bis) were detected above their MaximumContaminant Levels (MCLs). RAI’s evaluation of these compounds, for which no cleanuplevels were established in the ROD, showed that these detections posed no threat.

Leachate Collection System

• The leachate collection system worked poorly with only one of the four sumps operatingcorrectly in March 1992. Lines between the sumps and the holding tank leaked, and theholding tank itself was suspected of leaking. (Shifting of landfill materials is believed to havecaused breaks.) A sample collected from the holding tank may not have represented actualcontaminant levels in the leachate. The leachate sample data were consistent withgroundwater data. Because the waste occurs below the groundwater table, the sumpsessentially pumped groundwater into the holding tank.

• RAI recommended that the leachate collection system not be repaired and restarted.

Surface Water Monitoring

• Review of the surface water data presented in RAI’s report indicates that only the March1992, surface water samples collected from the Licking River were reported. Samples werecollected upstream of the site, midstream and adjacent to the site, and downstream at theTaylor Mill drinking water intake. Four metals (aluminum, cadmium, iron, and manganese)were detected above the applicable standards in the upstream and midstream samples andwere not attributable to the site.

• On-site surface water samples were collected from the culvert that traverses the site and theunnamed stream (see Figure 1-2). Aluminum, iron, and manganese exceeded the applicablestandards in the downgradient/effluent samples, but did not exceed the highest backgroundconcentration.

This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston Inc., expressly for the EPA. It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, withoutexpress written permission of EPA.

Five-Year Review Final ReportNewport Dump Section: 1Revision: 1Date: August 1997

1-9NOR/K:\WP\04400\081\RPDDN01.DOC

Sediment Monitoring

• Sediment samples were collected from the culvert that traverses the site and the unnamedsteam.

• No contaminants were detected above the applicable standards from the sample collectedat the confluence with Licking River.

Subsurface Gas Monitoring

• Six of the seven gas wells (see Figure 1-2) were sampled and analyzed for volatile organiccompounds (VOCs). GW-05 was full of water, but did not need to be repaired/replaced.

• Methane was detected above its lower explosive limit (LEL) in GW-03, GW-04 and GW-07. Although many other VOC gases were detected, none exceeded its LEL.

1.5 ARARs REVIEW

Section 121(d)(2)(A) of CERCLA incorporates into the law the CERCLA Compliance Policy,

which specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet any Federal standards, requirements,

criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate

requirements (ARARs). Also included is the provision that State ARARs must be met if they are

more stringent than Federal requirements.

The ARARs identified and considered in the Feasibility Study and ROD for the remedial action

included:

• Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs);

• Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Surface Water Standards;




• Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Warmwater Aquatic Habitat Criteria;

• Clean Water Act, Water Quality Criteria for Human Health, Fish and Drinking Water;

• Clean Water Act, Water Quality Criteria for Human Health Adjusted for Drinking WaterOnly;

• Clean Water Act, Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria;

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for groundwater cleanup levels;

• Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988, May 24, 1977;

• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for on-site worker safety;

• Groundwater Protection Strategy; and

• Department of Transportation for collection and transportation of leachate.

Table 1-1 presents the ACLs for groundwater. Groundwater Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs)were established in the ROD for seven contaminants of concern that were identified in the RI/FS.These contaminants consisted of arsenic, barium, chromium, nickel, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), toluene,and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and the ACLs were calculated by multiplying the highestcontamination level observed for each contaminant in the RI/FS data by a factor of ten. Thistechnique was considered to be conservative as the projected dilution concentration for theLicking River is 1 to 40,000.

One of the purposes of the Five-Year Review is the review Federal and state requirementspromulgated or modified after ROD signature to determine if they are applicable or relevant andappropriate and whether they are necessary to ensure protection of human health and theenvironment. The newly promulgated or modified requirements considered at Newport include theSafe Drinking Water Act MCLs (March 1997). The Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria




(December 1992), and Kentucky Surface Water Standards (January 1992). A review of these

standards, as presented in Table 1-2, revealed no modified or revised standards.

This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, without theexpress permission of EPA.

1-12NOR/K:\WP\04400\081\GWTABLE.XLS Table 1-1 8/29/97

Table 1-1Table of Alternate Concentration Limits1

Newport Dump Site, Wilder, Kentucky

IndicatorChemicals

AlternateConcentration

Limit2

Diluted Concentration inLicking River3

Arsenic 640 0.016Barium 74,000 1.85Chromium 15,000 0.375Nickel 24,000 0.600Benzo(a)pyrene -- –Toluene 170 0.0043PCBs -- --

Notes:All values in tile table are in ug/l.(1) Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) derived in the Record of Decision, March 1987.(2) These concentrations are ten times those in the preceding column, as described below.(3) Diluted concentrations based oil 40,000 to 1 dilution of ACL values.

The dilution rate for groundwater discharge to the Licking River is 40,000 to 1. It is considered conservativeto set the ACLs at ten times the highest observed concentration from the RI sampling data in the Record ofDecision.

This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA.


Table 1-2Applicable Standards and Criteria

Newport Dump Site, Wilder, Kentucky

IndicatorChemical

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance

Safe Drinking Water ActMaximum Contaminant Levelsa

KY Administrative RegulationsSurface Water Standardsb

Clean Water ActWater Quality Criteria for Human Health

1987 1997 1987 1992 1987c 1987d 1992

Arsenic 50 �g/lc 50 �g/lc 50 �g/l 50 �g/l 0 (2.2 ng/l)f 0 (2.3 ng/l)f .018 mg/li

Barium 1,000 �g/l 2,000 �g/l 1,000 �g/l 1,000 �g/l -- -- 2,000 mg/li

Chromium +6 -- -- -- 11 �g/l 50 �g/l 50 �g/l 11 �g/lh

Chromium +3 -- -- -- [**]33 mg/l

170 mg/l 179 mg/l 117.32 mg/lh

Chromium (Total) 50 �g/l 100 �g/l 50 �g/l100 �g/l

50 �g/l--

-- -- --

Nickel -- 140 �g/l –--

[**]610 �g/l

13.4 �g/l 15.4 �g/l 87.71 �g/lh

Benzo(a)pyrene – 0.2 �g/l -- 2.8 ng/l 0 (2.8 ng/l) 0 (3.1 ng/l) .00044 �g/li

Toluene -- 1,000 �g/l -- 14.3 mg/l 14.3 mg/l 15 mg/l 6,800 �g/li

Polychlorinated Biphenyls -- 0.5 �g/l 1.4 ng/l--

1.4 ng/l0.079 ng/l

0(0.079 ng/l)f

0 (12.6 ng/l)f .00044 �g/li

Notes:a National Primary Drinking Water Regulations promulgated in accordance with the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, PL 93.023.b Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Title 401, Chapter 5, established under provisions of Kentucky Revised Statutes 224.020 and 224.060.c Water Quality Criteria for Human Health - Fish and Drinking Water established under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977, PL 95-217, published in 45 Federal

Register

This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA.


Table 1-2 (Continued)Applicable Standards and Criteria

New Port Dump Site, Wilder, Kentucky

IndicatorChemical

Other Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance

CLEAN WATER ACTFreshwater Aquatic Life Criteria a

1997

CLEAN WATER ACTFreshwater Aquatic Life Criteria

1992

KENTUCKY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONSWarmwater Aquatic Habitat Criteria

24 Hour Average(�g/l)

Maximum(�g/l)

Maximum Conc. Continuous conc.(�g/l)

Maximum(�g/l)

Chronic(�g/l) (�g/l)

Arsenic +3 - 440 360 190 50 50Barium - - - - - -Chromium +6 0.29 21 16 b 11 b 100 11Nickel (c) 56 1,100 789 a 87.71 a - *Benzo(a)Pyrene - - - - - -Toluene - 17,500 - - - -PCBs .014 - - .014 .0014 .0014Notes: - Not establisheda Water quality criteria established under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217), published in Federal Register 79318-79379, November 28, 1980.b Kentucky Administrative Regulations, Title 401, Chapter 5, established under provisions of Kentucky Revised Statutes 224.020 and 224.060.c Hardness equivalent to 50 mg/l of CaC03.* Hardness dependent.

This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, without theexpress written permission of EPA.

Five-Year Review Final ReportNewport DumpSection: 2Revision: 1Date: August 1997


SECTION 2

SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 SUMMARY OF SITE INSPECTION

WESTON representative, David D. Nelson, performed a site inspection on May 6, 1997. Also on

site during this visit were Michael Dreisbach (Superintendent of Public Works for the City of

Newport), Jim McCulley (City of Newport), Richard McCardless, Brad Turney, and Jim Hahn

(Foppe Technical Group, Inc.), and Robert Pugh (Division of Waste Management, Natural resources

and Environmental Protection Cabinet, State of Kentucky). The inspection consisted of a

walk-through of the entire site, locating existing gas and groundwater monitoring wells, observing

leachate collection galleries and inspecting sewer manholes and sumps. WESTON noted all present

site conditions and observed quarterly groundwater and gas sampling while on site. The following

is a summary of the activities and organizations present during the inspection visit:

• City of Newport - The City of Newport is the original owner and operator of the Newportpump site. The office of Public Works currently is responsible for facility maintenance.

• Foppe Technical Group, Inc. - Consultants to the City of Newport that provide quarterlygroundwater and gas sampling services, site inspection reports, and other minor services tothe City.

• Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Divisionof Waste Management - Currently provides state review of site inspections, quarterlysampling efforts, and document reviews.




2.2 SITE CONDITIONS

The following section provides a summary of the field inspection of the surface/cover conditions,

gas and groundwater monitor well conditions, and leachate collection system. During the

discussion, references are made to photographs, which are provided in Appendix A.

2.2.1 Surface/Cover Conditions

Upon initial approach to the site, WESTON found that a cable, used as a gate to the landfill, was

stretched across the road and locked in place. The road leading up to and into the landfill was

composed of compacted dirt and gravel. The grass that covered the landfill surface was neatly cut

and appeared very healthy. Overall, the landfill grounds appeared to be maintained on a regular

basis.

WESTON began a site walkover in the northeast corner of the landfill adjacent to the entrance road

and covered the entire landfill from that point. The objective was to examine the landfill grounds for

any irregularities in the cover. Photographs 1 through 12 in Appendix A display areas photographed

during the site review. Overall, WESTON did not recognize any major breaks

or erosional areas within the landfill cover. In the western portion of the landfill, near the border with

the Licking River, there were areas that had been filled with new clay material and covered with

grass seed and straw. However, these areas were minor, only covering approximately 25 square

feet at maximum.

As displayed in Figure 2-1, there were several areas of standing water at the top of the landfill. The

majority of these areas were found surrounding the truck turnaround area near the entrance to the

landfill. Other locations of standing water included are one location approximately 150 feet




south of the truck turnaround area and two locations north and northeast of the electricity

transmission tower, which is on the eastern portion of the landfill. One other location is found within

a leachate collection gallery at the north end of the landfill. Photographs 13 and 14 in Appendix A

display several areas of this standing water. In all cases, the areas of standing water

are at a maximum of six inches deep.

During the site walkover, WESTON noted two areas of seepage along sideslopes of the landfill. The

first area noted is along the northern sideslope of the landfill and is approximately 30 feet wide by

100 feet long. The second area noted is in the southeastern corner of the landfill and is

approximately 20 feet wide and 50 feet long. Photographs 15, 16, and 17 display these seep areas.

WESTON also reviewed the leachate collection galleries surrounding the landfill. In most cases, the

galleries were free of small shrubs or trees and similar plants. Various plants and vines are present

within the gaps of the riprap. One leachate collection gallery along the northern edge of the landfill

(adjacent to the southern edge of the Ceramic Coating Company property) was found to be heavily

infested with small, short plants to medium height, and deeply imbedded plants. Photographs 3 and

4 display several areas of the leachate collection galleries.

2.2.2 Gas and Groundwater Monitor Well Conditions

All gas and groundwater monitor wells were examined during the field review and were found to

be in good condition except for groundwater monitor-wells MW-03, MW-04, and MW-07. The

casing for MW-03 has been bent for a long period of time and only allows for a 1-inch bailer to

pass the bend. This condition was noted during the 1993 Five-Year Review. The casing in MW-

04 is blocked above the top of the water table and measuring or sampling equipment cannot pass

the obstruction. This condition was also noted during the 1993 Five-Year Review. Monitor well




MW-07 was in good shape overall, but was found unlocked during the site review and the lock was

not located around the well vicinity. In addition, as noted within the 1993 Five-Year Review,

groundwater monitor well MW-06 was destroyed by construction activities for installation of a sewer

line along the western toe of the landfill. Photographs 18 through 29 in Appendix A display wells

photographed during the site review.

2.2.3 Leachate Collection System

According to the 1993 Five-Year Review, “EPA shut the power off to the leachate collection system

in 1990 because the system appeared to be collecting groundwater and operating the system was not

viable.” During the field review for the 1997 Five-Year Review, WESTON found that the system

was not in operation but that all sumps and manholes as well as the leachate holding tank area were

locked and appeared to be in good condition. Photographs 30 through 32 in Appendix A display

portions of the leachate collection system.

2.2.4 Institutional Controls

During the field reconnaissance, site access was reviewed for security purposes. WESTON found

that the front cable gate was locked and secure. A cable, used as a fence along the entrance road,was

in good condition and appeared to be held securely within the fence posts. A chain link fence along

the property boundary between the landfill and the Ceramic Coatings Corporation (CCC) has been

damaged due to recent construction by CCC and is, for most of the length of the fence, lying on the

ground.

After the field reconnaissance was complete, WESTON departed the site to visit the City of Newport

Municipal Building at 998 Monmouth Street in Newport to review the Information




Repository on the site. The files are located on the second floor of the building in the Office of the

City Clerk. Although lacking a chronological log system, the Administrative Record appears to be

complete with information dating back to mid-1993.

2.3 REVIEW OF SITE MATRICES SAMPLING

Various matrices, including groundwater, surface water, and gas have been sampled on a quarterly

basis between the 1993 Five-Year Review and this Five-Year Review. WESTON has tabulated this

information and is presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-3. The following sections present a brief review

of each matrix sampled.

2.3.1 Groundwater

Table 2-1 displays sample analysis results of groundwater samples collected from second quarter

1993 to the fourth quarter of the fiscal year 1995/1996. Analytical results were compared to the

Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs) of October 1996 for inorganic compounds of the Safe

Drinking Water Act, as well as the Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs), as established in the

Record of Decision (ROD) for the Newport Dump site.

According to the data in Table 2-1, the following compounds have exceeded the MCLs for drinking

water during at least one quarter over the past four years:

• Antimony • Lead

• Arsenic • Nickel

• Cadmium • Thallium

• Chromium

This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA.

2-7NOR/K:\WP\04400\081\GWTABLE XLS Table 2-1 7/1/97

Table 2-1Quarterly Groundwater Sampling

Newport Dump Site

Parameter

Sample NumberMCLmg/l

DW-42Q93

DW-42Q94

DW-44Q94

DW-44Q95

MW-012Q93

MW-014Q94

MW-014Q95

MW-052Q93

MW-052Q94

MW-054Q94

MW-054Q95

MW-072Q93

MW-072Q94

MW-074Q94

MW-074Q95

MW-082Q93

MW-082Q94

MW-084Q94

MW-084Q95

Aluminum -- 0.200 3.50 2.53 0.13 7.4 2.56 0.20 ND ND 68.0 34.80 0.16 NS ND 0.20 0.19 ND

Antimony 0.006 ND 0.10 0.69 0.018 0.56 0.006 0.10 0.41 0.014 0.094 0.10 1.77 NS ND 0.10 0.19 0.009

Arsenic 0.05 0.132 0.0440 0.022 0.024 0.006 0.002 ND 0.090 0.0590 0.039 0.018 0.046 0.0130 0.004 NS 0.014 0.0023 0.003 ND

Barium 2 0.170 0.25 ND ND 0.090 ND ND 0.680 0.68 ND ND 0.940 0.76 ND NS 0.100 0.10 ND ND

Beryllium 0.004 ND 0.005 ND ND ND ND 0.005 ND ND 0.003 0.005 ND NS ND 0.005 ND ND

Cadmium 0.005 0.007 0.01 0.016 ND 0.002 0.013 ND ND 0.01 0.01 ND 0.026 0.01 0.029 NS ND 0.01 0.01 ND

Calcium -- 107 144.00 150 152 43 144 102.00 110 108 113 116.00 74 NS 123 99.60 110 111

Chromium 0.1 0.011 0.020 ND ND 0.020 ND ND 0.006 0.020 ND ND 0.251 0.11 ND NS 0.017 0.020 ND ND

Cobalt -- ND 0.020 ND ND ND ND 0.020 ND ND 0.113 0.088 ND NS ND 0.020 ND ND

Copper 1.3 0.556 0.020 ND ND 0.020 ND ND ND 0.020 ND ND 0.125 0.069 ND NS 0.008 0.020 ND ND

Iron -- 3.20 11.30 8.90 3.51 24.8 8.50 3.09 2.78 3.30 2.44 2.47 75.4 47.80 7.60 NS 4.55 0.82 2.04 1.60

Lead 0.015 0.052 0.0060 ND ND 0.010 ND ND ND 0.0037 ND ND 0.499 0.1200 ND NS ND 0.0160 ND 0.012

Magnesium -- 37.9 42.90 38 49.1 43 42.7 41.60 44 45.5 177 175.00 180 NS 32.6 28.60 29 33.5

Manganese -- 0.069 0.19 0.17 0.08 0.430 0.22 0.09 0.635 0.71 0.66 0.63 2.76 2.70 0.613 NS 2.48 1.80 2.31 1.92

Mercury 0.002 ND 0.00020 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.00020 ND ND 0.0005 0.00032 ND NS ND 0.00020 ND ND

Nickel 0.14 0.017 0.20 ND ND 0.022 ND ND ND 0.02 ND ND 0.233 0.14 0.12 NS 0.029 0.20 ND ND

Potassium -- 4.73 7.40 7 5.62 3 1.71 2.00 2 1.81 151 143.00 160 NS 2.02 2.30 9 8.11

Selenium 0.05 ND 0.002 ND ND 0.003 0.003 ND ND 0.002 ND ND ND 0.002 ND NS ND 0.002 ND ND

Silver -- ND 0.01 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.01 ND ND ND 0.01 ND NS ND 0.01 ND ND

Sodium -- 99.4 245.00 220 138 87 84.9 65.20 69 76.7 1170 2540.00 1300 NS 67.1 57.50 65 67.2

Thallium 0.002 0.063 0.50 ND 0.025 ND 0.024 0.50 ND 0.022 0.203 0.50 ND NS ND 0.50 ND 0.022

Vanadium -- ND 0.010 ND ND ND ND 0.010 ND ND 0.109 0.062 ND NS ND 0.010 ND ND

Zinc -- 0.015 0.016 ND ND 0.152 0.091 ND 0.014 0.010 ND ND 0.618 0.330 ND NS 0.033 0.018 ND ND

Notes:All values in the table are mg/l.

Shaded values represent violation of Safe Drinking Water Act, Maximum Concentration Limit values, March 1997.ND = Non-detect.NS = Not Sampled.MCL = Maximum Concentration Limit for Drinking Water, October 1996.




These compounds have been detected within each well sampled at least once. According to the data

in Table 2-1, the only compound to exceed the ACLs for groundwater is arsenic. This occurred in

monitor wells DW-4 and MW-05 during the sampling event of the second quarter of 1993 only.

2.3.2 Surface Water

As stated in the 1993 Five-Year Review, “the ACLs were not established for surfaced water.”

Therefore, Drinking Water MCLs of March 1997, Water Quality Criteria (WQC), December 1992,

and Kentucky Surface Water Standards (KSWS), January 1992, were used to evaluate surface water

data for potential violations. Samples have been collected from the following locations: (1) upstream

of the Newport Dump site (SW-01); (2) midstream and adjacent to the site (SW-02); and (3)

downstream near the Kenton County water intake (SW-03). Table 2-2 summarizes the quarterly data

for the previous four years.

Compounds were detected at concentrations greater than the MCLs for drinking water only. These

compounds include:

• Antimony• Beryllium• Cadmium• Thallium

In all cases except for one, the compounds that exceeded the MCLs were detected in the upstream

sample at equal or greater concentrations.

2-9NOR/K:\WP\04400\081\SWTBL.XLS Table 2-2 6/26/97


Table 2-2Quarterly Surface Water Sampling

Newport Dump Site

ParameterMCL(mg/l)

Sample Location/Number 2QTR 93 2QTR 94 4QTR 94/95 4QTR95/96

SW-01 SW-02 SW-03 SW-01 SW-02 SW-03 SW-01 SW-02 SW-03 SW-01 SW-02 SW-03Aluminum -- 0.938 3.47 0.689 2.00 2.00 2.10 0.41 0.51 0.84 0.38 0.91 0.81Antimony 0.006 ND ND ND 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.19 0.19 0.015 0.007 <0.006Arsenic 0.05 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Barium 2 0.028 0.045 0.029 0.05 0.05 0.05 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0Beryllium 0.004 ND ND ND 0.005 0.005 0.005 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004Cadmium 0.005 ND ND ND 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.006 0.007 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Calcium -- 46.7 49.5 45.6 35.00 35.10 34.80 46 48 46 47.7 43.3 45.3Chromium 0.1 ND ND ND 0.020 0.020 0.020 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Cobalt -- ND 0.008 ND 0.020 0.020 0.020 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Copper 1.3 ND ND ND 0.020 0.020 0.020 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Iron -- 1.76 6.50 1.05 2.40 2.40 2.40 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.40 0.74 0.31Lead 0.015 ND ND ND 0.0043 0.0042 0.0030 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Magnesium -- 7.31 8.26 7.37 5.60 5.60 5.60 8 7 12 6.765 6.83 6.46Manganese -- 0.146 0.403 0.094 0.083 0.081 0.085 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.05Mercury 0.002 ND ND ND 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Nickel 0.14 ND 0.015 ND 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Potassium -- 3.18 3.78 3.08 3.80 3.90 4.40 3 3 6 1.98 2.21 2.01Selenium 0.05 ND ND ND 0.002 0.002 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Silver -- ND ND ND 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Sodium -- 6.74 6.84 6.20 4.00 4.00 3.90 13 9 41 3.40 3.47 3.42Thallium 0.002 ND ND ND 0.50 0.50 0.50 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.006 0.003 <0.002Vanadium -- 0.009 0.011 ND 0.010 0.010 0.010 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <0.1Zinc -- 0.063 0.082 0.121 0.010 0.010 0.010 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Notes:ND = Non-detect.All values in table reported in mg/l.MCL = Maximum Concentration Limit for Drinking Water, October 1996.




2.3.3 Gas Monitoring

The gas monitor wells and probes on site have been sampled for methane and gas content over the

past four years. The probes were actually not installed until 1995. Table 2-3 displays the compilation

of steady-state measurements for percent of lower explosive limit (LEL) and oxygen, as well as

methane content for each on-site gas monitor well and probe. Gas monitor wells GWS-03 and

GWS-07 have consistently shown high methane levels (>500 ppm) since the second quarter readings

of the fiscal year 1994 and 1995. GW-03 is located adjacent to the property boundary with the CCC

building and GW-07 is located at the toe of the landfill along the western boundary.

In accordance with the Final Operations and Maintenance Plan dated February 1988 and the

Amendment to the Plan dated September 1993, methane sampling is performed at gas wells where

(LEL) screening data indicate sustained gas concentrations equal to or greater than 100 percent of

the LEL. Table 2-4 presents the methane sampling results for samples collected from 1995 through

1996 for the wells sampled. Results from GW-03 samples indicate methane concentrations have

ranged from 8.5 to 65 percent by volume and GW-06 samples have ranged from 8.9 to 18 percent

by volume.

2.4 SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS

The Five-Year Review process requires that key individuals involved with the site be contacted

for interviews. The interviews process is intended to as certain any new applicable information

regarding the selected remedy, site history, and other site-specific issues.

2-11NOR/K:\WP\04400\081\GASTBL.XLS Table 2-3 6/26/97


Table 2-3Landill Gas Measurements

Newport Dump Site

Quarterly EventYear

Steady StateReadings

Gas Probe/Monitor Well Number(Steady State Readings only)

LFG1 LFG2 LFG3 LGF4 LFG5 GWS-01 GWD-02 GWS-03 GWD-04 GW-05 GWD-06 GWS-07

2QTR 93Second Quarter

1993.0

% LEL NR NR <5 NR NR NR 40 -70Methane (ppm) 70.0 0 35 8 55 55 500+% Oxygen 20.2 20.5 20.0 20.0 20.5 20.5 20.0

4QTR 93 % LEL NR NR 5 NR NR 30 100Methane (ppm) NR 100 NR NR NR 500+ 500+% Oxygen 20.0 19.5 5.0 21.0 21.0 19.0 12.0

2QTR 94 % LEL NA NA NA NA NA NR NR 0 NR NR NR 10Methane (ppm) NA NA NA NA NA 800 NA 1,000+ 625 0 0 1,000+% Oxygen NA NA NA NA NA 16.0 NA 11.0 20.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

2QTR 94/95Second Quarter

FY 94/95

% LEL 0 0 0 0 46 2 2 4 0.5 1.5 - 2 40 57Methane (ppm) 0 - 1 2 - 3.6 1.6 - 4 4 - 6 10,000+ 0.0 0 0 - 2.2 6 - 10 NR 6,800 4,000+% Oxygen 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.8 18.0 11.0 17.0 20.2 20.5 - 20.9 20.0 1.5

4QTR 94/95 % LEL 0 0 0 100 NR 2 4 100 0 4 20 35FID (ppm) 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR 1,000+ 90 NR NR NRPID (ppm) 42 0 10 3 NR 1 11 32 100 0 3 0% Oxygen 20.9 20.9 20.9 12.0 NR 11.5 16.3 10 20.9 18.5 19.5 0

1QTR 95/96 % LEL 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 24 1 0 3 10.5Methane (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6,000 120 0 40 2,700% Oxygen 19.5 20.8 20.5 20.5 20.5 17.5 17.5 8.0 20.1 20.8 20.5 8.0

2QTR 95/96 % LEL 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 7 0 1 100 9Methane (ppm) 0.14 0.0 2.07 15 10,000+ 0.0 0.0 10,000+ 1 0 0 10,000+% Oxygen 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9



Table 2-3Landill Gas Measurements

Newport Dump Site

Quarterly EventYear

Steady StateReadings

Gas Probe/Monitor Well Number(Steady/State Readings only)

LFG1 LFG2 LFG3 LFG4 LFG5 GWS-01 GWD-02 GWS-03 GWD-04 GW-05 GWD-06 GWS-07

3QTR 95/96 % LEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 60Methane (ppm) 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000F 0 0 10,000+ 5,000F% Oxygen 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 15.0

4QTR 95/96 % LEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 20 17Methane (ppm) 5.3 2.12 3.10 7.42 3.50 1.05 2.06 10,000+ 4.58 1.70 4,600 10,000+% Oxygen 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9

1QTR 96/97 % LEL 0 0 3 35 16 0 0 7 0 0 4 12Methane (ppm) 0 12.2 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 135 F% Oxygen 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9

2QTR 96/97 % LEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2.0 0 3.0 0Methane (ppm) 1.4 4.0 0 2.0 4.3 0 0 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0% Oxygen 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.9 21.0 21.0 21.0

Notes:NR = No response obtained indicating an absence or negligible amount of explosive gas,

oxygen depletion resulting in instrument "flame-out," or other questionable monitoring condition.% LEL = The percentage of the Lower Explosive Limit (methane equivalent).

ppm = Readings in parts-per-million explosive gas as read on the FID calibrated to methane.% Oxygen = Readings in percent oxygen as read on the LEL/O2

NA = Data not available.F = Flameout.


This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express writtenpermission of EPA.

Table 2-4

Methane Sample Analytical Resultsfor Years 1995 through 1996

Newport Dump Site

Well SampleCollected From

Date of SampleCollected

Methane Concentration(% by volume)

GW-03 May 26, 1995 8.5GW-06 November 13, 1995 18GW-03 February 13,1996 64GW-06 February 13, 1996 8.9GW-03 May 14, 1996 16GW-03 December 5, 1996 65




During the field reconnaissance period, WESTON met with Frank Peluso, City Clerk, and

Christopher Novak, Director, Community Services, of the City of Newport to discuss the Newport

Dump site. These gentlemen have been heavily involved with the site over the past four years. Mr.

Novak stated that “the City has a new attitude regarding the facility and is putting their best effort

forward in trying to maintain all aspects of the facility.” He added that the City is trying to have

monitoring aspects of the site reduced principally because of the lack of contaminants in the various

matrices and also for financial reasons. Mr. Peluso stated that “the site contractors used for sampling

and monitoring have been fair and responsive.” These gentlemen also inquired as to whether or not

there would be a possibility of reduction of monitoring frequency. WESTON stated that that would

be the decision of EPA Region IV.

The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Waste Management was

contacted for input from the State’s perspective. Robert Pugh is the State’s Project Manager for the

site. He stated that the site has improved vastly over the last year with the arrival of new landfill

management. According to Mr. Pugh, previous problems with erosion of the cap have been taken

care of, locations where ponding of water occurred frequently have been reduced, brush and small

plants and trees have been removed from the riprap in the leachate collection galleries at the toe of

the landfill, and in general, there appears to be a more serious attitude toward maintenance of the

landfill by the City. In addition, methane monitoring of the site has been improved with the

installation of methane probes along the property boundary with CCC.

On the question of landfill maintenance and monitoring, Mr. Pugh stated that landfill maintenance

should be continued on an as needed basis and, depending upon previous sample analytical results,

the monitoring could possibly be reduced to semi-annual activity.




WESTON also contacted Richard McCandless, P.E., of the Foppe Technical Group (FTG). FTG is

currently a contractor for the City of Newport for monitoring and sampling of the gas and

groundwater monitor wells and surface water. Mr. McCandless stated that the characteristics of the

site have met the monitoring needs. Also, landfill maintenance and other actions by the City of

Newport have been conscientious and seem to have been responsible for upkeep. The City has also

apparently been responsible toward adjacent landowners. Mr. McCandless also noted that

maintenance of site facilities, monitor wells, locks, and general upkeep has been prompt and

fastidious in most cases. Also, vandalism is limited with the secure cable at the front gate.

When asked whether or not the sampling should be curtailed, Mr. McCandless stated that he believed

that the scope of landfill gas monitoring could be scaled back for certain well locations. In addition,

he stated that pressure to develop adjacent property is low; therefore, scaling back some of the gas

sampling would make sense. In reference to groundwater sampling, Mr. McCandless stated that

samples over the past few years have shown limited or infrequent levels of heavy metals; therefore,

groundwater sampling could feasibly be scaled back.

A problem with the registration of the groundwater monitor wells was noted by Mr. McCandless.

Apparently the wells have not been registered with the State of Kentucky Department of Natural

Resources as required by State law. This problem is apparently a result of a lack of data including

no boring logs and well construction records.




SECTION 3

RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SURFACE/COVER

Maintenance of the cover should continue as scheduled now. The grass cover should be mowed at

least twice per year. Areas of erosion or stressed vegetation should be filled with appropriate clay

materials and reseeded to prevent further erosion. The leachate collection galleries should be kept

free of vegetation to prevent possible damage to the structural integrity of the clay cover. Areas of

standing or ponded water should be filled with appropriate clay materials and reseeded to prevent

possible leaching through the clay cover. Inspection of the site should be performed at least once

quarterly to ensure that the entrance gate is secure, there are no areas of erosion or other types of

damage on the cap, all perimeter ditches and the culvert are free of debris, and gas and groundwater

monitoring wells and probes and the security fence around the tank area are intact. All activities

should be performed in accordance with the Newport Dump Operations and Maintenance Plan

(O&M Plan), July 1988 and the September 1993 Amendment to the O&M Plan.

3.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING

Based on the groundwater sample analytical data for the past four years, there appears to be no

continuous violation of the ACLs for the site by either inorganic or organic contaminant. (The only

organic compound to be analyzed for recently is bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.) In actuality, the only

violation of the ACLs occurred with arsenic detections in the second quarter of 1993. Inorganic

contaminants have been detected in groundwater and have exceeded the MCLs.




continually. Therefore, WESTON recommends that groundwater sampling for inorganic compounds

be continued at the Newport Dump site in accordance with the O&M Plan and the September 1993

Amendment on an annual basis.

Surface water samples collected from Licking River have shown that inorganic compounds are

present in levels above the MCLs but have not violated the ACLs. Furthermore, upstream

concentrations of inorganic contaminants have tended to be higher or equal to the downstream

concentrations. Based upon this information, WESTON recommends that surface water sampling

be continued at the Newport Dump site in accordance with the O&M Plan and the September 1993

Amendment; however, this will be on an annual basis only.

In addition, in order to determine the effectiveness of the landfill cap and to be protective of human

health and the environment, it is recommended that one full-scan analysis of at least two

groundwater samples be conducted during a 5-year period.

3.3 GAS MONITORING

Soil probes installed along the northeast perimeter of the site have helped verify and delineate the

extent of subsurface gas at the Newport Dump site. Various concentrations of gas have been detected

throughout monitoring points installed around the landfill. The current practice is for sampling of

methane gas where screening data indicate gas concentrations equal to or greater than 100 percent

of the lower explosive limit. This practice-should be continued with each sampling event. As a result

of continued sustained gas measurements, sampling events should be maintained on a quarterly basis

for gas monitoring wells GW-03, GW-06, and LFG-05. All other wells and probes could be reduced

to a bi-annual basis. However, if areas around the landfill are developed




and/or portions of the landfill are developed, quarterly monitoring of all gas wells and probes should

be resumed.

3.4 GROUNDWATER AND GAS MONITORING WELLS

During the 1993 Five-Year Review period, monitoring wells MW-03 and MW-04 were described

as not needing repair. This recommendation is also followed here. However, the following action

items should be considered for these two wells:

• As long as a 1-inch bailer will pass the bend in the well casing of MW-03, this well shouldbe sampled. (The well has not been sampled in four years).

• If well MW-03 is not sampled, this well should be considered for abandonment to preventpossible tampering or potential infiltration of water from the surface and into and throughthe cap.

• Since MW-04 does not appear usable, the well should be abandoned to prevent potentialinfiltration of water around the well casing and into and through the cap.

3.5 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM

In May 1990, EPA discontinued the leachate collection system since it appeared that the system

collected groundwater and operating the system would not provide a higher degree of protection to

the environment. Apparently, the system has not operated since 1991; however, there are no apparent

leachate seeps entering the Licking River and no subsequent increases in contamination in surface

water have been encountered.

As stated in the 1993 Five-Year Review and reaffirmed here, “it is not recommended that the

leachate collection system be restarted. The system would require much repair work to run at its




full capacity. Repair work would create an exposure pathway to workers because searching for

broken collection lines would require excavation into the waste material. If contaminant levels

increase in the Licking River due to site contribution, then consideration should be given to

redesigning the leachate collection system to intercept leachate before it reaches the site boundaries

and the Licking River.”

3.6 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

Currently, the site and areas around the site have not been developed or renovated. An objective of

the Record of Decision was to ensure that future renovation activities would be delayed for three

years after the response action was implemented. During the past five years, local and state

authorities have engaged EPA in discussions concerning the redevelopment of the site. In order to

be protective of the current landfill structure and monitoring system, it is recommended that local

and state authorities continue to consult with EPA before agreeing to any redevelopment of the site.

3.7 STATEMENT OF PROTECTIVENESS

Based upon a review of analytical data for the various notices sampled and field reconnaissance

activities, the remedial action has been effective in protecting human health and the environment.

As long as the cap remains in good condition, the site is kept free of development, and groundwater

is not used for private or industrial purposes, the remedial action should remain effective.




3.8 NEXT REVIEW

Due to the presence of buried waste and to be protective of human health and the environment,

WESTON suggests another review of a similar format and level of effort occur by June 2002.

Groundwater sampling should also be performed for verification of PRP contractor data.



NOR/K:\WP\04400\081\RPDDN01.DOC

APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPHS

Documents

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW FINAL REPORT NEWPORT DUMP ...WILDER, CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY Work Assignment No. 81-4FE23 AUGUST 1997 REGION IV U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0057 Roy F. Weston, Inc