Home Membership Bios Land Fill History Photographic Tour - Past and Present Frequently Asked Questions Case Studies Relevant Links Meeting Notes Documents & Other Information What's Been Said User Terms Contact Us

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some of the more common Frequently asked questions we have received. Have a question you don't see answered here? Please contact us and we will do our best to provide or locate an answer for you.

1.What happens if the groundwater testing shows that the contamination levels are increasing over time?
2.Will the planting of trees be the only thing that is performed as part of Amended ROD if it is adopted?
3.What does Natural Attenuation mean and how do you know if it is occurring?
4.What is a Focused Feasibility Study and what purpose does it serve?
5.What are the historical and latest findings regarding groundwater flow direction in the area of the IEL?
6.If the clay cap would be installed on the landfill as the current ROD dictates, what would happen to the wells that the Township wants monitored?
7.Is it true that the U.S. Inspector General did an investigation of the IEL site?
8.Was a connection ever shown between the landfill and the City of North Canton groundwater contamination problem?
9.If the ROD is changed to a vegetative cover, what will happen to the landfill?
10.Where is the benzene in the middle of the landfill coming from and how bad is it?
11.How much methane gas is being generated at the landfill at the present time?
12.What happened to the old buildings that used to be located in front of the landfill along Cleveland Avenue?
13.Who owns the properties surrounding the landfill?
14.Will Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, or other community groups be allowed to go on the landfill to assist in the creation of the wildlife habitat?
15.Is Quarterly Testing of the Groundwater Underway?
16.It has been said that the FBI raided a Chicago Lab that was doing laboratory analysis of water samples obtained at USEPA monitored sites (CRL). Allegedly, the FBI found discrepancies in data results performed by several employees. Were any IEL samples involved and if so was the IEL data compromised?
 
1.What happens if the groundwater testing shows that the contamination levels are increasing over time?top
The Proposed Amended Record of Decision (ROD) in addition to a separate written and signed commitment from the Responding Companies will call for long term groundwater monitoring (30 years). Groundwater monitoring has been taking place at the site since the mid 1980's (almost 20 years). So there is a good possibility that there could be as much as 50 years of groundwater monitoring at the site. If, through monitoring, it is shown that contaminant concentrations are increasing, there are specific courses of action that will take place to investigate the source of the contamination and to address it so that no contamination above the USEPA clean up values leaves the site through groundwater movement. If monitoring shows that contaminant concentrations are decreasing, it would help to demonstrate that natural attenuation at the site is continuing to occur.
 
2.Will the planting of trees be the only thing that is performed as part of Amended ROD if it is adopted?top
Absolutely not. The planting of selected trees and other vegetation at the site is only one small portion of the proposed Amended ROD. The trees and vegetation across the landfill site will be used to reduce the amount of precipitation (rain/snowmelt) that would otherwise percolate into the ground. The vegetative cover will also be used to introduce nutrients into the ground that will help naturally occurring microorganisms breakdown the contaminants that are present at the site. Other critical components of the Amended ROD include: 1) full evaluation and remediation, if warranted, of the benzene in the one section of the site where it has been detected; 2) onsite evaluation of methane and other landfill gases and upgrading the methane extraction system, if warranted; 3) long term groundwater monitoring to verify and document that natural attenuation is occurring; 4) onsite testing of shallow soils/sediments; 5) replacement and maintenance of the perimeter fence; 6) installation of additional monitoring wells up and down gradient of the site; and 7) replacement of damaged monitoring wells.
 
3.What does Natural Attenuation mean and how do you know if it is occurring?top
Natural attenuation is a naturally-occurring reduction in contaminant concentrations by a variety of means that occurs in the environment including: 1) biological breakdown of the contaminants; 2) chemical transformation of contaminants into less toxic compounds; 3) mechanical reduction in contaminants through dilution and other means; 4) a physical reduction in the contaminants by evaporation (volatilization); adherence of contaminants to subsurface soils (adsorption) and precipitation of the contaminants.

Natural attenuation is monitored by following a detailed groundwater-monitoring program in wells located upgradient and downgradient of the contamination and in wells located in the center of the contamination. The first criteria that is used to determine whether natural attenuation is occurring would be through a determination as to whether or not contaminant concentrations are going down in the center plume while concentrations downgradient are staying the same or going down as well. There are other parameters that are also tested for and evaluated to verify that natural attenuation is occurring and will continue to occur. The testing performed at IEL strongly suggests that natural attenuation of the contaminants in the groundwater has been occurring for many years now.

 
4.What is a Focused Feasibility Study and what purpose does it serve?top
The Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) is a detailed document prepared by the USEPA on all Superfund sites. It is prepared after the Remedial Investigation is complete (a detailed study determining what contamination is at the site and where it is). The FFS is prepared before a final remedy for the site is proposed by the USEPA. The primary purpose of the FFS is to compare and contrast several reasonable remedial alternatives for the site. There are several factors that are used to evaluate each potential alternative including: 1) overall protection of human health and the environment; 2) compliance with existing laws and regulations; 3) short and long term effectiveness; 4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants; 5) cost and ease of remedy implementation; and 6) community and Ohio EPA acceptance. Each remedial alternative is objectively scored on how it meets (or fails to meet) each criteria. Justifications for all the scores are explained in detail in one portion of the FFS.
 
5.What are the historical and latest findings regarding groundwater flow direction in the area of the IEL?top
Historical and current groundwater gauging data from the monitoring wells have consistently shown that the groundwater (sub-surface) flow direction in the area of the IEL is from east to west-northwest. Recent detailed evaluations of the groundwater flow beneath the landfill itself has shown that a radial flow out from the landfill property in all directions-a hypothesis that was suggested several years ago—is not significantly present beneath the site. Groundwater gauging data suggests that even if there is radial flow from the landfill, it only occurs for a very short distance (likely less than 200 feet) and then follows the regional trend of groundwater flow to the west-northwest. Additional monitoring wells that Lake Township wants installed in the future will verify more accurately the extent of radial flow, if any.
 
6.If the clay cap would be installed on the landfill as the current ROD dictates, what would happen to the wells that the Township wants monitored?top
All the monitoring wells inside the landfill and some perimeter wells would have to be removed. The only wells remaining would be a few around the perimeter of the property. This would be a significant and real concern to Lake Township since the groundwater contamination in the center and edge of the landfill could not be monitored.
 
7.Is it true that the U.S. Inspector General did an investigation of the IEL site?top
Yes. At the request of United States Congressman Thomas Sawyer, who then represented the district in which IEL is located, U.S. Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, reviewed records of the USEPA and the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), which included five reports from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Following a thorough evaluation, Ms. Tinsley issued a report concluding that further investigation of U.S. EPA procedures and conduct on radioactivity, alleged bias of laboratories, core sampling and sampling techniques, was not warranted.
 
8.Was a connection ever shown between the landfill and the City of North Canton groundwater contamination problem?top
Absolutely not. All scientific agencies who were involved with the City of North Canton groundwater contamination problem have clearly stated that there is no impact of the IEL on the City of North Canton well fields. Furthermore, the results of two rounds of groundwater testing performed by the Stark County Health Department of residential water wells located in Lake Township between the North Canton wells fields and IEL have shown no detectable contaminants in their wells.
 
9.If the ROD is changed to a vegetative cover, what will happen to the landfill?top
Presently, the ROD calls for a cap made of a synthetic membrane and clay to be placed over the landfill. This cap would be placed on the IEL and extend approximately 50-75 feet toward Cleveland Avenue beyond the existing fence. All monitoring wells within the landfill boundaries and those in close proximity to the perimeter of the site would be abandoned. All trees and other vegetation would have to be removed leaving the entire site barren in perpetuity with the exception of a grass cover.
 
10.Where is the benzene in the middle of the landfill coming from and how bad is it?top
Benzene is a constituent of gasoline and is also used as a solvent. It is likely that the benzene detected on site is not from gasoline based upon the fact that no other “gasoline constituents” were detected. Therefore, it can be surmised that the benzene was from historical dumping of solvents in this area of the site. Although benzene is a known carcinogen (cancer causing substance), one has to be exposed to it over a period of time to be at risk. The benzene that is detected at the landfill appears to only be in the shallow groundwater at depths ranging from 38 to 50 feet below the ground. The exact size of the benzene plume is not definitive at this time but it is confined to the IEL site and has not been detected in the groundwater beneath properties around the IEL. Further investigations are presently underway by the Responding Parties to evaluate the extent of the benzene problem. However, historical and recent groundwater analytical results have consistently shown that this benzene in the groundwater has not migrated beyond the landfill property. Given, these facts, there is presently no exposure or potential for exposure to the benzene in the center of the landfill.
 
11.How much methane gas is being generated at the landfill at the present time?top
According to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), the Agency which coordinates the ongoing testing for methane at IEL, very little methane is being generated in the area of the site where the methane extraction system is located. In fact, at times the methane is so low in concentration that it won’t ignite within the methane extraction system without the addition of a supplemental fuel (propane).

However, as part of the proposed Amended ROD, a site-wide evaluation of methane and other landfill gases will be included as part of the ROD. This site-wide evaluation will include those areas that are not being addressed by the current methane extraction system. If warranted, based upon the results of this site-wide evaluation, the current methane extraction system will be upgraded and/or expanded to address the gases that might be found at the site.

 
12.What happened to the old buildings that used to be located in front of the landfill along Cleveland Avenue?top
At the request of the Lake Township Trustees, through USEPA, the Responding Companies demolished the three unsightly buildings and properly abandoned two septic systems associated with two of the buildings. In addition, eight underground storage tanks (USTs) and their associated product and vent lines were properly removed. Confirmatory soil sampling following the removal of the tanks and the backfill material surrounding the tanks indicated results below applicable State of Ohio limits for UST sites.

It should be noted that during the removal of one of these USTs that formerly contained solvents from an area between the old tire store and the antique store, soil contamination was very apparent in the soil immediately surrounding this tank. This contaminated soil was removed by the Responding Companies during the tank removal activities and was properly disposed of off site at an appropriate landfill. The Ohio State Fire Marshal, Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulations (BUSTR) recently issued a No Further Action (NFA) status pertaining to these former tanks, which means nothing further needs to be done.

 
13.Who owns the properties surrounding the landfill?top
With the exception of one parcel of land between the former tire store and antique shop along Cleveland Avenue, the land surrounding the IEL is currently owned by the US Federal Government. There is a good possibility that this land could be turned over to the Ohio EPA and/or eventually to the Township.
 
14.Will Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, or other community groups be allowed to go on the landfill to assist in the creation of the wildlife habitat?top
No access to the landfill property will be granted to any person (except for trained, certified contractors and consultants) until the site is deemed safe by the USEPA and the OEPA. The proposed Amended ROD will call for a thorough onsite evaluation of air emissions, sediments, shallow soils, and surface water to be analyzed for this and other purposes. Only if or when the test results indicate that the site is safe for human access will the USEPA, OEPA, and therefore the Lake Township Trustees, should they become the owners of the property, even consider allowing people on the landfill property.

However, access to the approximately 17 acres of land surrounding the landfill, may be open for human access and use much sooner. If so, the Township certainly will encourage the involvement of community groups in making this area an attractive greenspace for the Township. The Lake Township Trustees and its Community Advisory Group (CAG) through Clayton Group Services is presently working with a local landscape architectural firm to come up with a variety of potential future uses for this surrounding property. Once these designs are made available, the residents of Lake Township will be able to provide feedback on what they like or dislike about the proposed plans.

 
15.Is Quarterly Testing of the Groundwater Underway?top
Quarterly groundwater sampling of the monitoring wells has been underway since August of 2000. The most recent sampling event took place in March 2002. The next two sampling events for 2002 will take place in July and November. Quarterly testing will continue for the next two years. At that point, a revised schedule that is agreeable to the USEPA, OEPA, and Lake Township will be proposed and implemented.

At least once a year all the monitoring wells are sampled. During the remaining two sampling events each year, only selected “key” wells are targeted for sampling.

The analytical results obtained from testing have consistently shown that, although there is benzene located beneath the center of the landfill, no contamination is migrating off site. Furthermore, the extensive radiation testing that was performed at the request of Lake Township during the first year of sampling, has confirmed that radiation has not been detected above what would be considered background or natural.

 
16.It has been said that the FBI raided a Chicago Lab that was doing laboratory analysis of water samples obtained at USEPA monitored sites (CRL). Allegedly, the FBI found discrepancies in data results performed by several employees. Were any IEL samples involved and if so was the IEL data compromised?top
The US Department of Justice investigated the allegations and found the following, which is taken from a December 22, 1999 letter to The Honorable Judge Manos and signed by David F. Musel of the Justice Department. (Information obtained through the USEPA’s computerized tracking system, which Region 5 has operated since October of 1994 was used to locate and retrieve all IEL data packages, filed at the CRL).

“EPA identified a total of eleven IEL data packages wherein the data analysis or validation was conducted at the CRL. In only five of these eleven data sets did EPA find that a suspect analyst was involved. Of these five data sets, EPA found that two suspect analysts had analyzed three samples for PCB and pesticide contamination. No significant PCB or pesticide contamination was found at the IEL site or in the sample analyzed. Therefore, the IEL remedy was not influenced by these three samples because no action was required based on the insignificant PCBs and pesticide results. These samples had no impact on IEL and EPA did not improperly expend any funds.”


  Home | Membership | IEL History | IEL Maps & Images
FAQs | Case Studies | Links | Contact
© 2002 Lake Township Community Advisory Group