Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COOCC-;
July 5, 2002SUPFRFUND DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Senator Barbara Boxer, ChairwomanSuperfund, Toxics, Risk and Waste Management Committee410 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510-6175
RESPONSE OF THE BOARD OF LAKE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEESTO POGO'S REPORT TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE IEL
JULY 2002Dear Madam .Chairwoman:
It has come to the attention of the Board of Lake Township Trustees thatthe Project on Government Oversight (POCK)) has issued a report to your committee thatpurports to represent the views of the Uniontown, Lake Township residents as to the IndustrialExcess Landfill. (IEL) which is; located in. our community. Further, it suggests that we havechosen the Concerned Citizens of'Lake Township (CCLT) and the American Friends ServiceCommittee (AFSC) to speak for us. While it is true that in the early years of public locus on theIEL, Chris Borello, CCLT President, assisted a group of citizens in bringing the she to EPA'sattention, it is our considered opinion that CCLTs connection to the desiares of mainstream LakeTownship residents no longer has any common boind.
Lake Township is a community of approximately 25,000 residents. The township isgoverned by a board of three elected officials—trustees. For the past several years, the Board ofLake Township Trustees has met on a regular basis with Congressman Tom Sawyer, his counseland/or his Chief of Stall'to keep them up to dale on current progress at the IEL. Similar effortshave been put forth with Congressman Regula as well as U.S. Senators DeWine and Voinovichand local officials. We have met whh all parties involved—the responding Parties (RPs), Ohioand US EPA's,, and numerous scientists that have historically been or are currently involved withthe project. For the first tune in the history of this project, we have been encouraged at theprogress being made al: the site. .A great deal has been accomplished during the past two years ofdeciding to work together on the concerns/issues at this site. On the other hand,, CCLT and theAmerican Friends Service Committee (AFSC) were invited by Congressman Sawyer and othersto participate in these discussions and they refused to do so.
TRUSTEES: Sue Ruley, Don Myers, Ellis Erb <>• CLERK /TREASURER: Jane Feller t ADMINISTRATOR: Carolyn CaseyFIRE PREVENTION OFFICER: Danille Kemp * ROAD SUPERINTENDENT: Rick Criss
UNIONTOWN POLICE CHIEF; Steve Wolf '0 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Veronica &uetc\
An Equal Opportunity ADA Employer
July 5, 2002Page -2-
As a result of these meetings, the RPs voluntarily agreed, among other things, to conductfour years of quarterly groundwater testing at the IEL; two of which have been completed todate. This is not all the monitoring that will be done at the site; it is only a start in order to obtainregular quarterly groundwater data to better characterize the site. Furthermore, all thismonitoring has been conducted in accordance with an approved work plan in which CCLT hadthe opportunity to comment. In feet, it was at the request of CCLT that the township obtainedthe voluntary quarterly radiation testing performed by the RPs in 2000-2001.
A further commitment, in writing,, has been received from the RPs to test the groundwaterfor a period of up to thirty years, install new monitoring wells and have a contingency plan inplace in the event monitoring should show any worsening of conditions. Furthermore, thetownship hired Clayton Group Services, an environmental consulting firm, the manager of whichlives within one quarter-mile of the landfill, to, among other things, observe all field activities,review work plans and reports, and critique the data generated,
The current Record, of Decision (ROD) issued in March 2000 called for a clay cap to beplaced over the site. However, there is a proposed Amended ROD currently under considerationby the USEPA calling for a replacement of the clay cap with an enhanced vegetative cover.The hearing and public comment period has passed on this proposed amendment. The Townshipagreed to consider this Amended ROD, which would continue to allow natural attenuation of theremaining contaminants al: the site; to occur more: effectively than tha.t of'a clay cap. TheTownship agreed to consider this proposed amendment only if certain conditions were met, suchas long term ground water monitoring and the development of a contingency plan to deal withpossible future problems. The Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) issued by the USEPA on theproposed change as well as the commitment from the RPs assures us that our conditions will bemet.
Therefore, the statement in the POCK) report,,""... to change the remedy came underconsiderable criticism from outside experts, Uniontown residents., and congressionalrepresentatives"1., is very puzzling. Time Township has for the last several years kept: all of ourU.S. Senators and Representatives, as well as State officials up to date on what has been takingplace at the landfill and we have perceived no criticism from any of them—only offers ofcooperation.
There is currently in place a group of citizens who DO live in dose proximity to thelandfill that has formed a Community Advisory Committee: (CAG) to the Township. This groupconsists of professional people who have been awarded, through the Township., a $100.,000 grantby the USEPA through the Township to explore possible redevelopment issues dealing withareas surrounding the site as well as the site itself. They have and will continue to seekcommunity input and approval for future re-use scenarios for the IEL and surrounding properties.The CAG has been active since the year 2000 and the CAG members have acquaintedthemselves with all facets of information about the landfill and Landfills, in general. They arevolunteers., as opposed to being hand picked—who have asked if they can help bring closure tothis 22-year black cloud that has hung over our township. CCLT, on the cither hand, represents avery small handful of activists and is led by a person who has not lived in our community forover ten years. American Friends certainly does not represent the citizenry of the township.
July 5, 2002Page -3-
Perhaps to understand more fully the make-up of those who have chosen to becomeinvolved in Lake Township's IEL, would be to recognize those who attended the recent publichearing on the proposed change to the amended ROD recently held in Lake Township,,Uniontown, Ohio. Well over 75% of those in attendance and who spoke against the proposedremedy were from communities outside of Lake Township, some of whom were not even fromOhio! Even POGO itself, a Washington, D.C.-based group., sent a statement: to be read. In otherwords, fellow activists to CCLT and AFSC who could not possibly be up-to-date on present dataor data interpretation and certainly could not be considered "residents of Lake Township" cameto adversely address a community issue. Surely, those residents who live in the community havea much greater stake in the proposed remedy than those who do not! Furthermore, the ooratnentsthat nearly everyone of these persons or groups made at the public meeting (you are free to readthe transcripts for yourself) clearly indicated that they either are not aware of what has takenplaice at 'One site in the past several years or have no clue on how to interpret these results.
Mention is also made in the POGO report regarding the investigation of the site by theformer Federal Ombudsman, Mr. Bob Martini. Mr. Martin issued his preliminary report aboutthe IEL in October of 2000, alter two years of investigation. His investigation included privateinterviews of some Township residents, the Ohio and U.S. EPAs, Rjepresen.tati.ves of the RPs,and Representatives of Congress. He also reviewed 'work of USEPA Inspector General, SABand the Clean Sites Report:. In addition a public hearing was held locally to allow people topresent their views, He was privy to any and all data and records gathered up to that time period.The Township concurred, in principal,, with most of bis recommendations except hisrecommendation to perform trenching as a means lor further investigation. This "trenching" wasmentioned in the POGO report. The Township opposed this method of investigation for manyreasons including the dangers presented, by such efforts as well as the fact that soilborings/monitoring wells could provide the same information. A critique of his report wasperformed by Lake Township as well as the Ohio and US EPAs. These reports are available foranyone's perusal. It was the general consensus that much of Mr. Martin's report was based onoutdated information and data, that did not reflect the current environmental conditions at thelandfill.
The POGO report makes a statement that "several experts" agree that further testing forradiation is required. This is puzzling in light of existing scientific data. Furthermore,, theynever state who these "experts" are. One fact is very evident though, from 1.992 to the mostrecent quarterly rounds of radiation testing done in 2000, all government agencies haveconcurred that there is not a problem with radiation at the landfill. These agencies include:Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control (ATSDR), the Ohio Department of Health,Radiation Division (ODH), Ohio EPA, USEPA, National. Air Radiation EnvironmentalLaboratory (NAREL) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Also the Ohio AttorneyGeneral's office and the U.S. Inspector General's office have reviewed these documents and alsoagree with their conclusions in this regard. (S_ee_attadbed, "What's been said about radiation atthe Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill,, from the Lake Township GAG web site,http: //www, Itcag. co in)
July 5, 2002Page -4-
This does not include the eight-month investigation into allegations by a former landfillowner of radiation dumping at the DEL, which investigation was conducted by the Department ofJustice (DOJ) in conjunction with USEPA. That investigation concluded that the owner'scomments were not credible. The report was accepted by an order issued out of the U.S. DistrictCount for the Northern District of 'Ohio, which made similar findings.
We can all agree that the Science Advisory Board's report dealt, in part,, with generalities;however,, these men ARE scientists who reviewed the data and did not issue an edict to plungeforward into hysteria.
It is interesting to note that the POOO report credits the DOJ for the investigation into theallegations of wrong doing at the Chicago Labs (CRL) and apparently took their report: at facevalue, However, they attribute the investigation into the landfill owner's statements solely to theUSEPA. The DOJ, in conjunction with USEPA, under an order from U.S. District Court JudgeManos, spent eight months invest igailing the landfill owner's statement that 'three very large eggs(6'xS1) of phitonhim 238 were buried by persons he assumed were Army and which were broughtinto town on a flat bed truck in broad daylight secured only by about a foot of rubbish. Healleged that be was allowed to keep a door from one of the eggs, but was admonished not to tellanyone about his finding. (His statements; are also on file.)
In the CRL controversy the DOJ found that "in only 5 of 1 1 data sets did EPA find that asuspect analyst was involved.. Of these 5 data sets, EFA. found that two suspect analysts badanalyzed three samples for PCB and pesticide contamination. No significant PCS or pesticidecontamination was found at IEL site or in. samples analyzed.'"
While it is obviously true., as slated in the POGO report., that the RP's have a financialinterest hi any outcome at the IEL, for the last several years the RP testing has had oversight bytownship hired environmental consultants as well as USEPA's oversight and validationprocedures. Corruption and collusion has been inferred by certain groups. Such statements arebased upon innuendo and pure speculation. If there has been collusion, it has indeed been verycleverly done and has involved hundreds of government employees who have dealt with the siteover the years and perhaps as many as a dozen agencies — an incredible feat. If there are anymisstatements of fact,, it comes from other sources who have passed along allegations andhearsay as fact, incorrectly quoted experts who, when spoken to, personally disavowed anyconnection to the particular statements, etc.
POGO's statement in. their report that there have been numerous illnesses that occurred asa result of the IEL is directly contradictory of the findings from ATSDR and is not based on anyscientific study.
POGO's statement in their report that IEL was one of the country's most: contaminatedsites is also very misleading. IEL was 159, in priority, on the list of Superfund sites in thecountry.
July 5,2002Page -5-
The POCK) report makes mention of a radial flow of groundwater around the landfill,creating the impression that possibly groundwater flows from the I EL for a great distance in alldirections. Latest studies of groundwater around the IEL show that the groundwater flows in aneast to 'west and then northwesterly direction. At one time very recently some tried to imply thata North Canton waiter problem (a great distance south of the IEL) stemmed from the IEL. Such afeat would be hydro logically and geologically impossible.
While a small number of background wells are currently in place at the IEL, theTownship has requested and received assurances that moire 'wells will be installed. Currently,two new monitoring wells have been installed in the center of the landfill to identify the extent ofa benzene problem which may exist there.
The POGO report implies that tritium is a potential problem at the IEL and should be theelement of choice for investigation. In fact, Bob Martin's report said further testing should bedone on this radioisotope. This -was done in the year 2000 during four rounds of testing. Noproblem was uncovered. In the past:, one well supposedly detected extremely high levels oftritium. This well is located almost one-half mile Mpjg^jien!; of the landfill. Furthermore, thewell was tested four times immediately alter this erroneous reading and no elevatedconcentrations of tritium was detected. Although tliere was some controversy regarding plasticvs glass container!) lor holding the samples of this testing, that matter was addressed and therewas no change in any of the results.
Perhaps according to the POGO report, plutonium is the one element to look for at theIEL. Test results of one well series that 'was tested for plutoniurn in the year 2000 appeared tosome to have a potential problem. A local TV station got wind of the testing and called USEPA,Region V to retest the wells. This time., USEPA was asked to do the testing. They were alsoasked to send the samples to NAREL. This was done. The result was that there was moreplutonium found in the laboratory blank using distilled water than there was in the sample takenfrom the IEL! The TV station did not ask for a follow-up.
DT. Mark Baskaran is being hailed as an international expert: on radiation and has publiclystated that ""he believes there is a large amount of plutonium at the site" even though heapparently has seen only limited data to date. His "opinion" was quoted in local newspaperseven though all the Agencies mentioned earlier have clearly stated there is not a radiation issue atthe site.
POGO stated in their report that USEPA agreed to allow the RPs to drastically reduce thenumber of wells to be tested for radiation from 50 to 7 wells. This statement is very misleading.First: of all, the quarterly sampling that was performed in 2000 was voluntary and was anagreement between the RPs and Lake Township. Prior to beginning this quarterly sampling., aschedule was decided on between the Township and the RPs. So the EPA did not grant RPspermission to reduce the number of wells tested; this decision 'was already decided between theTownship and the RPs since USEPA had previously determined that no farther testing forradiation at the IEL was necessary. Furthermore, the number of wells that was reduced for thistesting was not down to 7 wells out of 50 wells but down to 22 'wells from 50. The agreed uponschedule for sampling states that all the wells will be sampled annually but only selected/key
July 5, 2002Page -6-
indicator wells would be sampled every quarter. The results of every sampling event continuedto confirm that there was not any radiation in the groundwater above any concentrations thatwould be considered background or naturally-occurring.
In conclusion, h is the opinion of the Board of Lake Township Trustees that POGO hasnot been provided all the data or the current data at the site.
The Township is not stating that there are no environmental concerns at IEL. We knowthere are known eDvironmental issues at the site and we have been assured that there will befurther investigations to address these issues. However, we sirongly disagree and take offense atthe misinformation presented in the POGO report.
If we were to address all the discrepancies we saw in the POGO report, our letter wouldbecome cumbersome. One case in point, however, is the mention that a neighbor reported thatan army engineer came to her door for some unknown reason. This person was a member of theArmy Corps of Engineer who was assessing values of the properties for possible buyout.
We therefore appeal to your committee to disregard this POGO report and look to the{acts and science developed from the site.
Sincerely,
On Behalf of theBoard offtake Township Trustees
SR/ccPC:
Sue Ruley, PresidentSen. Lincoln ChafeeSen. John WarnerSen. James InhofeSen. Michael CrapoSen. Arlen SpecterSen. Max BauctaSen. R<m WydenSen. Thomas CarperSen. Hittary ClintonSen. Jon CarzineSen. George VoimrrichSen. Mike DeWineCongressman Ralph RegulaCongressman Tom SawyerSen. Scott OelslagerRep. Kirk SemiringRep. John HaganClayton Group ServicesDavid L HerbertAkron Beacon JournalThe RepositoryThe .Hanvitte NewsLab; Township CAGWilliam Muno, USEPASteve Lave, Ohio EPA
about mdlation at the Uniontown Industrial Excess landfill (IEL)
May 21, 1997 letter to Greg Coleridge, Director of American Friends Service Committee(AFSC), Akron, Ohio from David Ullrich, Deputy Regional Administrator USEPA:
"The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has gone to greatlengths to determine whether radiological contamination is present alt the IELsite. The work performed to address 1tha.lt issue over the pasit several! years hasundergone extensive public scrutiny,, with intense regulatory oversight Avariety of entities including the Ohio EPA,, the Ohio Department of Health,the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (IN'RC), the A^einicy for Toxic: Substancesaintd Diseasie IElejE!;i:!i1:ir7 (ATSDR), amid Ithe Science Advisony Hoard (SAB) haveparlticipalted iiim a tliDiroiingln review of allll issues raised and line subsltaicitiiailvolliinme of data collected Ito date.. Based upoint Ithe eompireheniisive sampling,analyses,, aictd reviews eoiMJInetted by kadihing radiollogiieal eiperte, IJSEFA hascomiclliuided that the levels oil' niidiioactivity detected at the |[£L siiite areiiiindiieative of natnralllly oceiiiiirni ng radiatioini,, are not a pin bltiie llneallth concern,annid thalt no additional sampling is warraitedL. This conclusion has beensupported by Ithe Ohio EPA, the Ohio Departnuent of Health,, aicid ATSDR.'"
September 28, 2001 Memo from John Griggs, Chief Monitoring and Analytical Services Branch,National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratories (NAREL):
"The results sltiromglly inidiicalte ithalt Pu-238 amid Fui-239/240 aire not presenil Jimthe samples. This is further supported by tlhie fact tltiiat Ithe resiilt!! for Pu-238amid Fu-239/240 for a qiuialilty comitroll bllank samaplle., which was; prepared atNA1REL iiAsimijs; llalboratoiry ionJxed water and the chemiiealls used in the siiniallysiisprocedure,, were eqiuiall Ito or greater thaiiu the iresulltsi for Piui-238 amid Fun-239/240 iiini tie two samniplles,. lli:i other words,, Ithe pllutoniiuim aiEnalysiis of time twoKEL saraiplles js;;eneirate(i measiinred resiuillts which are typieall of materialprepared Ito be free of plutonium ais part of a qiuialliity eonhroll process, i.e.,,,laboratory blanks."
October 9, 2001 Memo to Sue Ruley from Ross del Rosario, Region V, USEPA:
"Here's; IN ARIEL' <s explanation: Essentially, the response (levels) we got fromitfae sample!! analyzed (MWell 01-D and MW-01-I) were the same in thesituation where the iiiQistinuiiiKiient was; ireadliiug a response without a sampleplaced! on lit In other words;,, we found mio evidence it hail Plutonium waspresent in I In; samples::
July 6, 1 993 Memo to Louise Fabinski, USEPA Region V representative to the Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) from Laura Ban, Environmental HealthScientist, DHAC, (ATSDR):
POSITION:: "'ATSDR does not support further testing oil' soil core samples forradiation or inorganic aid organic contaminants in the northwest eoinmeir ofthe lainidllill, Ground water amid air aire the more appropriate media llbirclnaraeltierizalioni of coKiiltamiKiiant!! that couild migirate off siilttE! and lead tollinuima mi expos rare. ,"
April 23, 1997 letter to Congressman Tom Sawyer from Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting AssistantAdministrator, Washington office USEPA:
"Tie USEPA has made (Eixltensiive efforlts to de termine whetlliieireontainiiiiinatioKi iis preseimi at tlhie 1IEIL siiite. The woirlk peiribrmed over the pasltseverall yeairs to addresi) tlttis issiue has uiiiidlerjgione intense seieiniltiJl'ic review andpiLiblie scrutiny. The Ohio EPA., ithe Ohio Dejpairiineicilt of Health, HIKE: NuelearRegulaitoiry Commissiionn, the Ageiaicy loir Toxic Subsltainices and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR),, amid Itlhie EPA"s Sciieinice Advisory Board (SAB) haveparticipa ted in a iliiorough amid puiilbilliic iniiviiew of the data, Based oini thesereviews, EPA has coitnelliuided that the levels of radioactivity detected at the IEL!||lte are intatiLiralJy octiiiirninig;,, are noit a public healllth coinieeirini, ainid thatadditional sannplinijE;; its mot seiientilicallly wariraolted. Ohio EPA, Ithe OhioDepairtmeKtlt of Health, aitid ATSDR siuppoiril this eonelhiiisiiori.
Sun Journal Article 1997 letter to editor from Donald Schregardus, Director, Ohio EPAColumbus office:
'"In response to icointceri^i expressied by the C ounce ritied Cihtiizeims of LakeTownship, U.S.. EPA amid Ohio EPA,, aloicig wiitln other state and federalagencies, have also perforaied extensive iitivestigatioins amid sampllinjE;; aimed altdetermining whether rad!i]illo|;;iicall eoiniltamiiciailioKii was preseicilt at KIEL. Theagencies agreed that smffideinl: data had been generated during the
investigation phase of the projectt to move toward implementation oil'aprotective and cost effective remedy at the site."
"'These efforts took place several years; ago under extensive public scrutiny,accompanied by intense regulatory and legislative oversight. The State aodfederal! agencies involved iin (this investigation, while In iindhnded the Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Tie Ohio Department ofHealth (ODH),, ilhe Nuclear Rej;;ul;jilory Coramisision I KRC) aim.til U8£PA1>siNational Air and Radiological Environmental Laboratory (NAREL),
liilly agreed with (the coiniclusiions of the SAB report."
October 27 1995 letter to Chris Borello, President of CCLT, from Ohio Attorney General BettyMontgomery:
"I Ibive ireviiewed iiitii'oniciiatiioini provided by A|;ency for Toxic SubstaiEices aedDiseastE! Regjisilry (ATSBR) 1IJSEPA, Ollnio EPA,, amid line Ohio ][>epiEtrtiniei[iilt ofHeallillhi n^iinrdiinijg; tllnis ibsiuie |niidiioacltiiviilty]|.. IVI[y review of tlluk iiniroinnatiioniiiiaidicates: Itllnalt all oil' tiiese pairtiesi have agreed with Ithe Science Advisory Board(SAB) report Bsiuied iin tliie foil of 11994. Tllniis repoirt,, amid tthese ageiticiies,, haveconcluded that iradiioacilwe coiiiitaimiiinatioKi is iniolt piresent ait the IE!, site amdthat lino iniidiiatioini health risik'i are po-sed at the site.,'1'
Based upon a draft Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) letter dated August 16, 1994,obtained from OEPA records:
"This is Inn response Itoyouir letter inEiteived April 12,, 1994,, and your let leu-dated July 20,, 11994,, iin whiclhi yoin indicatted that radioacltive material mayhave been disposed at line Unniioiaittowiin Lainidfiill.'"
'''On An|s;;u:!it 4 and 112,, NEC istalf evahiated radioanallytieal reports firoiinsampling; done by the USE IE" A,, This saiiip!lin{j; period (qiuiarterly samplescollected) was from May 1992 to March 11993. Our review of the EPA datarevealed onlly the presence of inialhuiralllly Dccurrinti jj; iradioicinclide!} ail:enviroininenltal kvvk and diid not reveal any rniaiin-niade iradionuieMdeK."
Memo to Ross del Rosario from Scott Telo&ki, PE, NAREL, Environmental Studies Branch,dated October 3, 2001:
'''I've completed a review of the 2000-2001 sampling results in comparison tothe 1992-1993 results from NAREL. The attachment has the report of my
"The assessment of'plutonium ait IEL muisil: be considered inconclusive, bi.il itseems unlikely that pliitoniuin is present, or if il: is,, it is alt very low levels thatare essentially indisltiiiiigMisiiablliE! from background".
Undated U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General, Report in Response to Congressman Sawyer'sletters of November 6, 1997 and December 22, 1997:
MWe reviewed five ATSDR Health Consultations Addressing IEL: [May IS,11992;; April 5,1994; December 13,1994; August 21,1995 and July 25,1996]ATSDR did moil identify radioactive contamination ail: IEL as a health threatiiiii any of these five reviews. We also reviewed a July 10,1996 letter to CCLTiiini which ATSDR responds to CCLT*s comments on ills April 1994 radiationconsultation. This letter includes the summary statement: "We have not:received aroiy elate or iiiionniaticiini Ihiinl ATSDR believes would w surra ml€]|]iai[i>|pjni;||; our coinichisiioitn of no pilbillie Ilitealltlln ltlireijit'n> Tllne kilter allso emicllosesdetailed ATSDR iresipomises to siraiplle iEicquisiition!!, iiimallysiesi and datatiinnlieirpiretatioB issues; raised by CCLT, some of which a ire luted inCoi[iigrisi!ii[i:iffl:i]i Sawyer's lletlteirs., (e.jE;;. sainple filhlmtiKiiiai timd coresanipiling).,,..,NRC (IHiLiideair Repiiatoiry CommissiioKi) states;: Mwe are aware ofEPA tiinalysis of previoiuislty CDllllected samplles, wliiiiclln tltney coimcluided did noltislhiow evidence of niidiollo]j;iiait]t coicifa 1:111 iinatioKii. 'We ajp'ee with that conelusiioo.Coiinseqiiiienliy,, our agency will noil conduct the saraipllinii; as reqioested in youirletter.'"1
Letter to Christine Borello (CCLT) from Timothy J. Kern, Assistant Attorney General OhioEnvironmental Enforcement Section dated February 5, 1999:
'"'Upon review of the gross alpha aod gross beta radiation il: was decided liial:addiiiliomiall evalliuialtioici was not needed. Tine llevells of niidiioaictiviiity at itlhe IELare witltiiiim baekgiroiiiiinid levels for Oliiio and oil heir areas in the Uniited Staites,and that these levels aire not a public health concent/'
Letter dated December 11, 2000 to Lawrence Antonelli, Department of Emergency & RemedialResponse Ohio EPA, from J. Eric Denison, Health Physicist Ohio Department of Health:
"Olio Depairtiineinit of Health Bureaiui of Radtation Pirolteetioni (ODH/1BRP)staff have reviewed the iresullts of iradiollogiicall testiing on giroumid waiter samplescollected from tbe above site in Augiinslt, 2000,, We have also reviiewedcorrespoinideinice and result!; of several sampling campaigns dating from 1988to the
"'Ill is ouiir considered opinion Unit the evaluation provided by Auxier &Associates inn the Sharp & Associates project report is correct, amid thatradionuclides foiuimid iimi the ground waiter samples are consistent in identityand concentration with naturally-occurring materials found in this region ofthe state."
February 9, 1995 letter to Sue Ruley, Lake Township Trustee, from Eliott P. Laws., Assistant:Administrator and counter-signed by Valdas V. Adamkus Regional Administrator U.S. EPARegion V:
"ILLS,, EPA is: confident in the sampling that has been conducted ait tin; IELsite. The radiological issues have received substantial attention within thisAgency, as well as by a variety of independent pairtiies i itn:! nn:lii[i|]; ilbie OllniioEovJiiroKiiKneinitall Pirotectioioi A^einiey,, iline Agemicy for 'Tmiw. Siuilbstaintees andDisease Registry (ATS'DR),, aind the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (IME.C),In addiitiioini, foirineir Admiiiiniistratoir Wiillliam Reilly einriipaaiMelled a specialeoinnrmJittee of'il:he Sciieintce AdviiSiciiiry IBoaird (SAB) to review (tie niidiiologicalissues alt Itlbie IEL site., The SAB is aim iinidepNiMnideKiilt girouip of qualifled sciennitisilsllirom academiia, ireseairclbi iiistituitions., aind iindustiry who act as coinsuilltaKits tothe: Administrator."
uln clotskij!;., I wouilldl Hike to ackiniowledge tltiialt tllne SAB concluded tllnait"... thetests performed were appropiriiate aitud adeqiciaite to detect tltie occurremce ofradliooycliijles that raight b® eipeclted based on eipeiniemce ait sites that areeoimtaminated with the most coimmoim radlionuclides,. Thuis,, (the cuiriremit weightof eviideinice argues that Itllne issue of radiioactwe coinitiairaiinaltiioitn skoiuilld miolt bepuiniijied furltlhieir amid the eoifirmed issuie oficheoiikall hazards and remediationthereof should proceed eipediliouslly".
January 29, 1999 letter to Ohio Senator Scott Oelslager from Jennifer Tiell, Interim DirectorOhio EPA:
"At Itllne rapiest of the CCLT duiriug the radiollogiicall sainniplliinig, speciiallailteitioint was given Ito tlhie poteiiiittialt preseiniee of plutoniiiJim witltiin the landfill.,Radioiiiiucllidles of plhuitoiiiiiiium do miolt occiutir imaturally; however, low level!! ofpllutoniura ave dispersed over tine siunrfaee of the earth Iflrom upper atmosphericdisintegratiion and past atmospheric weapomis testing programs. Whenanalyzing samples for pi.utonium, the USEPA-NAREL melthods require apreliniiinary rouinid of sannpUng whiich deteintniinies whether plultonium may bepresent Theire must be a minimum amount to statistically verify its presence.
The sample results taken from ground waiter at DEL were reported by theNAREL to be too How in activity to confirm with precision the quantitiespresent Regardless of the level:!! detected during preliminary analysis, eachsample was re-analyzed to confirm any ihniiiiliall detection. Alii samples thatmeasured detection on the firs I: test showed no detectable levels when testedagain."
"In summary, the Hew samples that detected plutonium at trace levels weresubjected to additional confirmatory testing which showed no measuredpllitoniiiuim activity. Omie of Itlhie siaraiplles wlliikh showed a detecitiiomi ofpiluitoiniiiiuim was a field blainilk which 'us diisilillled waiter niiol: collllected from Itlhie siteaid Itllieoretlicalllly aelleaiEi'"' and free Jfirom coitamiiiniailioiiL, Field blanlb are u;sedto monitor qoalliity conultiroll processe:!! diuiriinig iiaimpllihnig acilivities,, The inulltiplletesltiiiiiijj; piroceditire its always peirfoinnnied dime to the imilhereiiiit statisticallmniceirtaiiDilty in tltue pirmiess when dealliinig with low lleveb of a paraiiniieiter suclbi aspiluiitoiiiiiurai."
February 14, 2001 letter to William I. Franks, Commissioner, Stark County Health Department,fromRoss del Rosario, Remedial Project Manager, Region V, U.S. EPA:
a][ am ei[in::llo<siiin][|; iinifonitiiation coiiiicerning Itlhie Augmufit ICHOO girou id waiterSiEiirnpiling evemilt at itfac '[imdiuisltiriall Excess Lainidfillll l(IEL) Superfund Site inUnioiiiitowini,, Oliio. In suiticimairy,, U.S.. EPA coimduciled a review of (the datagenerated by l:he I£L respoinLsilbile parlies amid have deteraiined ii: Ito be usable,,Althoiiigh U.S. EPA,, OEFA,, aid Lalke Towiniiiltiip have cominenited omi (thecontents; of the attached summary report, it docs not appear thatcoiiiiitaimiiiiiianl:!) coninected wiitlti title lamtdilill p«»e ainiy clamgeir ito the !iunroundingcommuKiiilty. The ainiallyticall data sillnows moist of the eontanninisiiiiiits to be bellowmethod detection lliimiiits., This is ako true wiltlln ftlbte radiiatiion data eolllecltedduring this survey."
January 22, 2001 letter to Richard Laubaucher, Environmental Engineering, Goodyear Tire &Rubber Company from John R. Frazier, PhD, CHP, President:, Auxier & Associates, Inc.,Radio logical Health, Safety and Environmental Consulting:
'"The ainiallytiical ireisiulllts IFbir AIIII|J;HJISI| 20§0 groinndwater sampliiiiijg; have bceiinreviewed by it he Ollniio O'epartiiicieiiiiit of lleallilli witlln Itlhei r co IK:! uisiio n that tli e
!S:;!!!
to be well organized! as well as informative in terms of the amounil: and typematerial and documentation provided. The results of the NAREL reviewsupport the conclusions of the Ohio Department of Health and my owefindings,, namely, ia!|j[!̂
March. 21, 1997 letter to Greg Coleridge, Director, Economic Justice Program, American FriendsService Committee from. David Ullrick, Deputy Regional Administrator U.S. EPA:
'"'U.S.. EPA believes thai it has made a sincere effort to engage OCLT intechnical! discussion* in an attempt to resolve CCLT's outefainidiiinig issuesco]iK:erninf!; radiation at tltiiis site [IEL]. U.S.. EPA 'has; expended resources tofacilitate these discussions on numerous occasions! aitud for whatever ireasoosCCLT has chosen nolt to partiidpate. Title Ageinicy bellieves it has perf ormed to(the best of its abiliilty wiltfa irespeclt to addlressiiimg the radiological issues at thesite."
•MM***about the waUerflow direction at the Industrial Excess Landfill:June 30, 2001 Beacon Journal Article:
"'SoHIM: scientists famiiliar wiltlhi both sites have allso inuilled out the hypothesis;111 at PCE and TCE couillidl have tiraveled iroiiiigliliy seven milks from the closedIndustrial! Excess Lamdlifiillll iini Uuiontown to Eiatsil: Maple [City of Noirth Canton]three coiiiEiiectinij; aqiLiifeni, Maps; do not show a coinlaeclion, they say "IEL is aseparator watershed," said Scott Baiiir, a pirofessoir of geology at Ohio StateUniversity and former US Geological Survey scientist "Metzger's ditch andthe water bodies iciear lE'L IFllow to the iinorth aod west., The (East B4aple)(rSforth Caitiitoiiii) well field! kiiitnd of 'straddles the West Branch of NimishillenCreek, whiich flows souith. So there is a surface water divide between., Whatthat means is waiter doesiti't flow uphill.1'1
September 22, 2000 Letter to Sue Ruley, from Ross del Rosario, U.S. EPA:
'"Regional! ground water flow is east to west airomcid the Haiti dfiilll,. The proposedhouising developiinerats (OB Mogadore Rcl.) are located abouit: a qoairteir or half
nuiille east of the b itiidfiilL Consequently, the location of the llandfiilll makes it animprobable source of contaminants it halt may be jfbiuind in (the groundwaterunderneath the developments. Abo, it hen; hasn't been any his; lory of elevatedradiation readings of reside null all wells tested in the area,,'"
May 2001 Sampling Event at IEL prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., EnvironmentalEngineers A Scientists:
"Groundwater flow patterns iitu the uppermost continuous groundwater unitare similar to tllitosif; from tliie previous three quarters: there is nogroundwater mound o:i]i--!iilte,. I'ltue regi'dnmal east-to-west:groundwater jgiiraaidieoltIfllalhteins !beiiiK!i!iith tltie site bull: maiiitnitaiiinis its easit In west pattern."
July 27, 2001 Letter to Sue Ruley from Ohio EPA Larry Antonelli:
"In iiuintnmairy, a review of the top of bedrock maps indicate there Is no knownburied valllley aqiuiifeir between) Nortli Canltoini aintd Greeiiiitowiiii,, and illie bedrockeonitltour map by Yoirtoaiui (1996) !S!iui|«|);e!Silts the bedrock valllley system associaltedwith IiiidiJistriall Excess Laitidfflll <(I£L) iitn Ueiontown slope:!! to ithe west andnorthwn: <»t Tlbteire is no apparent bedrock valllley coininiecltJioi beltweeini IEL, andGreentown."'
May 23, 2001 letter to David Herbert, Lake Township Additional Legal Counsel, from JimBander, Bauder Certified Earth Sciences, Inc., North Canton, Ohio:
"lit has niiever been my opiiniioiti tlbrl: lit is possible for undergirouinid water (to(travel from the iiirnmediaIte silte: olE'tiie UiEiionltown iKidiJistiriial Excess Laidfillllllocated in Uoionitowin., Ohio to ttbe North Canltoitu muinicipall waiter well fieldslocated along Freedom Avenue NW and Dressier Avenue NW,."
