EPA
This fact sheet contains
information about:
The site background
Reasons for the proposed
cleanup plan changes
An evaluation of the proposed
cleanup alternatives
Public involvement
opportunities
Public Comment Period
U.S. EPA will accept written
comments on the Proposed Plan
during a 60-day public comment
period:
January 11,1999
through
March 11,1999
Public Meeting
U.S. EPA will hold a meeting
during the public comment period
to explain its Proposed Plan and to
accept oral and written public
comments. You will be notified of
the meeting date
and location in a
separate mailing.
Announcements
of the meeting
will also appear in
local newspapers.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Public Affairs
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard (P-19J)
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Illinois Indiana
Michigan Minnesota
Ohio Wisconsin
U.S. EPA Proposes Changes to the
Cleanup Plan for the Industrial
Excess Landfill Superfund Site
Uniontown, Ohio
January 1999
INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Plan describes changes in the cleanup plan for the Industrial
Excess Landfill (IEL or the Site) Superfund Site in Uniontown, Ohio1. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or the Agency) is
proposing to change the original cleanup plan, which was described in a Record
of Decision (ROD) issued by U.S. EPA in July 1989.
Based on new information concerning the pattern of contamination at the site
and advances in landfill cap technology, U.S. EPA is proposing to (1) address
contaminated ground water by the use of monitored natural attenuation rather
than by building a pump-and-treat system; and (2) change the specifications for
the landfill cap, eliminating the requirement of a clay liner. U.S. EPA believes
that the proposed revised cleanup plan will protect human health and the
environment as effectively as the original remedy at a significant cost savings.
This Proposed Plan is intended to be a short summary of U.S. EPA's reasons
for advocating a change in the IEL cleanup plan. For those members of the
public who wish to evaluate U.S. EPA's proposal in more detail, U.S. EPA
encourages them to consult the documents found in the Information
Repositories listed on the last page of this fact sheet. To make review of the
pertinent documents easier, U.S. EPA has created a separate file in the
Repositories for materials related to the proposed cleanup plan. It includes
EPA's guidance on natural attenuation, evaluations of cap technology, and
analyses of IEL ground-water data. The Repositories also hold copies of the
original ROD, Feasibility Study, and Remedial Design. In addition to the
Repositories, all Site-related documents are available for review at U.S. EPA's
office in Chicago, Illinois (see the last page of this fact sheet for exact address).
Public input on the proposed cleanup changes and the information that supports
the proposed changes is an important contribution to the cleanup plan selection
process. U.S. EPA encourages the public to review and comment on the
proposed changes in the IEL cleanup plan presented in this Proposed Plan.
U.S. EPA is required to publish this Proposed Plan and make it available for public
review and comment by Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
-------
SITE BACKGROUND
The IEL Site is a closed landfill located on Cleveland
Avenue in Uniontown, Ohio (see Figure on the right).
From 1966 to 1980, the landfill accepted industrial,
commercial, and residential wastes.
In September 1985, U.S. EPA began a remedial
investigation (RI) to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. At the conclusion of the
investigation in 1988, U.S. EPA determined that:
• The most extensive body of contaminated material is
the waste and waste-soil mixture in the landfilled
portions of the Site;
• The ground water beneath and west of the Site is
contaminated with organic and inorganic
compounds; and
• Before a methane venting system was installed in
1985, methane gas and other organic vapors may
have migrated offsite.
Based on these results, U.S. EPA conducted a feasibility
study, which evaluated the methods available for
cleaning up the site.
In July 1989, U.S. EPA issued a ROD, which selected an
overall cleanup remedy for the Site. The major
components of the ROD were: (1) installation of a multi-
layer Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle C compliant cap over the entire surface of the
landfill; (2) expansion of the existing methane gas
venting system; and (3) extraction and treatment of
contaminated ground water beneath and near the landfill
until cleanup levels are reached.
As U.S. EPA worked toward selection of a cleanup plan,
it also took steps to protect public health before any final
remedy could be fully effective. The most important of
these steps was the provision of municipal water to
homes near the site where drinking water wells were
affected or threatened by contamination from the Site.
By early 1991, nearly 100 homes in the vicinity of IEL
had been connected to a new municipal water line.
Design of the overall cleanup plan began in 1990 and
has proceeded slowly, due to public concern about the
possibility of radioactive waste being buried in the
landfill. U.S. EPA responded to this concern by
conducting four consecutive rounds of radiation testing
of ground water on a quarterly basis from May 1992 to
March 1993. In September 1994, after a review of the
radiation data, a panel of experts drawn from U.S. EPA's
Industrial Excess
Landfill
Site Location Map
Science Advisory Board concluded that there was no
significant evidence of radioactive contamination at IEL
and that no further delay in implementing the IEL
cleanup plan was warranted. Accordingly, U.S. EPA
resumed work on the remedial design, which included
additional groundwater sampling.
NEW INFORMATION
Since the ROD was signed, U.S. EPA has received new
information concerning (1) the pattern of contamination
at the site; and (2) landfill cap construction.
Pattern of Contamination. The original decision on
the cleanup plan was made in 1989, based on data
collected during the RI from 1985 to 1988. At that
time, the Agency was concerned that a plume of ground-
water contamination, including volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and metals, would move outward
from the landfill, contaminating residential wells in its
path. Ground-water data collected during the RI
revealed the presence of organic compounds attributed
to IEL, such as vinyl chloride, chloroethane, and
tetrachloroethene, in residential wells immediately west
of the site. As a result of this and other findings of off-
site ground-water contamination, U.S. EPA proposed a
pump-and-treat system as a way of intercepting and
neutralizing the contaminant plume. U.S. EPA also
advocated pumping of ground water in order to lower
the water table, thereby preventing direct contact
between ground water and buried waste.
-------
After issuing the ROD in 1989, U.S. EPA conducted
seven rounds of ground-water sampling at IEL through
1993. Subsequently, Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) conducted, with approval and oversight from
U.S. EPA, two additional ground-water sampling rounds
in March 1997 and September 1998. (Results from the
September 1998 sampling event will be available in
January.)
Data from the 1988 RI suggested that a horseshoe-
shaped ground-water plume of metals and organics
extended approximately 1,000 feet west of the site.
However, in reviewing the data collected since 1988,
U.S. EPA has found no clear indication that a plume of
contamination outside of the site boundary still exists.
Post-1988 data have revealed no VOCs in excess of
drinking water standards outside the landfill. Indeed, in
recent years, there have been few findings of VOCs in
excess of drinking water standards within the landfill
itself. There have been some findings of metals in
excess of drinking water standards outside the landfill.
However, these elevated metal levels were few and
sporadic and are not indicative of a widespread problem.
Also, some of these elevated metal levels were found at
monitoring wells which the Agency considers to be
background wells (MW-12 and MW-20). This would
suggest that certain metals occur naturally at elevated
levels.2 Rather than indicating that a plume of
contamination beyond the facility boundary is still
present, as it was during the RI stage, data collected over
the last ten years suggest that ground-water quality may
be improving through "natural attenuation". Natural
attenuation is a process by which a variety of physical,
chemical, or biological processes act without human
intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility,
volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or
ground water. As for the issue of continuing
contamination due to contact between ground water and
buried waste in certain areas of the landfill (near MW-8),
data collected over the past ten years do not show
consistent evidence of this occurring.
Landfill Cap Construction. The design of the landfill
cap called for in the original cleanup plan includes a 24-
inch compacted clay layer as the bottom barrier in the
cover. U.S. EPA's experience since 1989 with synthetic
liners, together with new information on problems
related to transporting clay to the site, now make such a
clay liner seem unnecessary and undesirable.
Agency Experience With Using Synthetics: Since the
issuance of the ROD in 1989, the Agency has gained
significant experience in applying synthetic materials to
the design of landfill covers. The Agency has included
synthetic materials in the designs for many landfill cap
remedies, and has had an opportunity to evaluate their
performance at various Superfund sites. Recent studies
conducted by U.S. EPA, other federal agencies, and
academia have shown that a well-designed cover
employing synthetics can provide the same degree of
protectiveness as a cap using natural material such as
clayey soil, with appreciable savings in cost. Other
benefits inherent in using synthetics include the ease
with which these materials can be applied at a site and
excellent resistance to damage caused by repeated
freeze/thaw cycles. The ability to resist damage caused
by repetitive freeze/thaw cycles makes it possible for
synthetics to be placed above the frost line, a key cost
consideration for a large site such as IEL, located in the
northern part of Ohio. The frost depth in this area is
approximately 30 inches. The Agency believes that a
top cover of 24 inches will be adequate to ensure the
integrity of the lower layers of the cap, such as the
drainage layer and geomembrane liner.
Lack of a Nearby Borrow Source: An important factor
which weighs against the use of compacted clay at IEL
is the absence of nearby borrow sources. This would
result in the need for the material to be trucked into the
site from a distant location (some estimates put the
closest source approximately 30 miles away). It has
been calculated that it would take about 27,000
truckloads to meet the original cap design requirements
(24 inches of compacted clay/12 inches engineered
base/12 inches of gravel/24 inches fill/6 inches topsoil),
versus the estimated 13,000 truckloads required for the
modified design (12 inches engineered base/18 inches
fill/6 inches topsoil). Given the close proximity of
homes to IEL and the relatively narrow access roads
(Cleveland Avenue) to the site, risks from truck-related
accidents would be greatly reduced by minimizing the
number of truckloads of clay needed to construct the cap
over the site.
A description of the proposed alternative cap design is
presented in the evaluation table on the next page.
2To determine if off-site elevated metals are indeed attributable to IEL and not to artifacts of sampling methodologies and well
construction, future monitoring of the site will be conducted using more accurate and representative sampling techniques
(e.g., low-flow sampling).
-------
Evaluation Table
Alternative 1: Existing Cleanup Plan
Alternative 2: Proposed Revised Cleanup Plan
Major Components
Major Components
Installing a multi-layer RCRA Subtitle C compliant cap
over the entire surface of the landfill with surface water
drainage control/discharge;
Expanding the existing methane gas venting system;
Extracting and treating contaminated ground water
beneath and near the landfill until cleanup levels are
achieved;
Pumping and treating ground water to maintain the water
table level beneath the bottom of the wastes in IEL;
Installing a fence around the perimeter of the site;
Placing deed restrictions on the future use of the site
property; and
Monitoring the cap, groundwater extraction and
treatment system, and methane venting system to ensure
that the remedy is effective.
Installing an alternative cap with similar performance
characteristics as the originally prescribed RCRA Subtitle
C cap. The alternative cap would consist of the following
layers:
- The existing soil cover, recompacted and augmented
by adding additional soil in areas that have deficient
cover thickness;
- 12 inches of engineered sub-base and gas collection
layer;
- A geosynthetic liner, at least 30 mil thick, over the
entire landfill area;
- A drainage layer using a geonet/geotextile having a
minimum hydraulic conductivity of 10~2 cm/sec;
- 18 inches of top fill and 6 inches of topsoil
Expanding the existing methane gas venting system;
Restoration of contaminated ground water through natural
attenuation;
Maintaining a fence around the perimeter of the site;
Placing deed restrictions on the future use of the site
property;
Monitoring the cap, the progress of natural attenuation,
and the methane gas venting system to ensure that the
remedy is effective; and
Monitoring ground water near residential wells and
requiring proposal of additional measures to protect
public health in the event that monitoring indicates
unacceptable levels of contamination would reach
residential wells.
Net Present Worth of Project:
Capital Cost $14,007,000
Present Worth of O&M1 + $11,324,000
1996 Dollars $25,331,000
Net Present Worth of Project:
Capital Cost $ 8,468,000
Present Worth of O&M + $ 5,197.000
1997 Dollars $13,665,000
1997 Dollars2
$25,964,000
Notes:
' O&M = Operation and Maintenance
2 Using MEANS 30-city construction cost index (2.3% from
4/96 to 4/97)
-------
REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGES
The original cleanup plan called for the installation of a
system to pump water from the ground and to remove
contamination from it by running it through a filter
system. U.S. EPA estimated that the system would have
to run for several years before ground water affected by
IEL would meet drinking water standards. However,
having studied changes in contamination levels in the
vicinity of IEL over the past 14 years, U.S. EPA now
believes that ground water quality may be improving on
its own through the operation of natural processes, such
that additional treatment would not be necessary. While
considerably more data will have to be collected before
U.S. EPA can confirm the efficacy of natural attenuation,
it already seems clear that the appropriate conditions for a
pump-and-treat system no longer exist at the IEL Site.
In 1989, U.S. EPA assumed that off-site extraction wells
could immediately produce a flow of contaminated
ground water to be treated. This assumption has been
completely undermined by subsequent sampling events
that have shown that off-site ground water generally
meets drinking water standards. U.S. EPA is therefore
proposing to replace the pump-and-treat component of the
original remedy with a plan to monitor natural attenuation
of the contamination in ground water over time. This is
in effect what U.S. EPA has already been doing at IEL for
more than a decade. Because of the provision of
municipal water to residents in the area where ground
water is impacted by the Site, U.S. EPA believes that
ground-water contamination will pose no risk to human
health during the time it takes natural attenuation to reach
drinking water standards. To protect residents who live
beyond the limit of the municipal system, the proposed
revised cleanup plan calls for the development of a
ground-water monitoring plan and the implementation of
a ground-water monitoring system near these residents'
homes. While U.S. EPA expects ground-water conditions
to continue to improve, the proposed revised cleanup plan
calls for the proposal of additional measures to protect
public health in the event that monitoring indicates
unacceptable levels of contamination would reach
residential wells. The change from a pump-and-treat
system to monitored natural attenuation would not alter
U.S. EPA's goal of restoring ground water to drinking-
water standards; but, it would save approximately
$8,140,000 over a 30-year operating life.
The original remedy also called for the construction of a
conventional cap for a hazardous waste landfill ~ one that
would include both clay and synthetic liners. Based upon
the arguments presented (see Landfill Cap Construction
on page 3), a modified design eliminating the need for a
compacted clay liner is recommended. Briefly, the
modified design calls for the use of (1) the existing soil
cover (2) a 12-inch engineered base/gas collection layer,
(3) a high-density polyethylene (HOPE) geomembrane
liner of minimum 30-mil thickness, (4) a synthetic
drainage layer, and (5) 24 inches of top cover. U.S. EPA
estimates that this modified cap would provide a
comparable degree of impenetrability associated with the
original cap design. This level of performance was
confirmed through an evaluation of the modified cap using
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Model of
Landfill Performance (HELP) model simulation. (The
results of the HELP analysis are provided as part of the
separate information repository file created to support this
Proposed Plan.) U.S. EPA is therefore proposing to
change the specifications for the landfill cap component of
the original remedy, including the elimination of the clay-
liner requirement. The proposed changes in the capping
requirements would result in an alternative design that
would meet the performance requirements described in the
ROD, reduce the possibility of accidents due to truck
traffic, and would save approximately $3,900,000.
Altogether, the proposed changes to the original cleanup
plan will save approximately $12,000,000 over a 30-year
span.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
U.S. EPA uses nine criteria to evaluate cleanup plans (See
Evaluation Criteria graphic on next page). Both
alternatives meet the threshold criteria of ensuring overall
protection of human health and the environment, and
complying with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements. U.S. EPA believes that the two alternatives
are also essentially equivalent with respect to long-term
effectiveness and permanence. Over the long term, U.S.
EPA expects the proposed revised cap to contain wastes in
the landfill as effectively as the original cap design, and
for natural attenuation to reduce ground-water
contamination outside the landfill to background levels.
Both alternatives would reduce contaminant toxicity,
mobility, or volume — the original remedy by active
treatment using an appropriate ground-water pump-and-
treat system and the proposed revised remedy by restoring
groundwater quality through natural processes. Both
alternatives would be implementable, although U.S. EPA
believes that Alternative 2 is somewhat easier to
implement because it calls for less hauling of clay from a
distant source. In terms of short-term effectiveness, the
proposed revised cleanup plan would have lower risks
associated with truck traffic than the original remedy.
Under the proposed revised remedy, the use of natural
attenuation might take somewhat longer to reach drinking
water standards than the pump-and-treat system under the
original remedy. The proposed revised remedy has a clear
cost advantage over the original remedy: U.S. EPA
estimates it will cost about half of what the original
remedy would cost. The Ohio EPA supports the proposed
changes to the original remedy. In sum, U.S. EPA
believes that Alternative 2 - the proposed revised remedy -
represents the best balance of the nine evaluation criteria.
As a result, U.S. EPA is recommending Alternative 2.
-------
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1
Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and
describes how risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls,
or institutional controls
6 Implementability
Implementability is the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and
services needed to implement the chosen solution.
2 Compliance with ARARs
Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements
(ARAR) addresses whether
a remedy will meet all Federal
and State environmental statutes
and/or provides grounds for
issuing a waiver.
7 Cost
Cost addresses the estimated
capital and operation and
maintenance costs, as well as
present-worth cost. Present worth
is the total cost of an alternative in
terms of today's dollars.
3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the amount
of risk remaining at a site and the
ability of a new remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time once
cleanup standards have been met.
A Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Through Treatment
This criterion is the anticipated
performance of the treatment
technologies that may be employed
in a remedy.
5 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion refers to the speed
with which the remedy achieves
protection, as well as the remedy's
potential to create adverse
impacts on human health and the
environment that may result during
the construction and implementation period.
8 State Agency Acceptance
State agency acceptance indicates
whether, based on its review of the
Proposed Plan Amendment, the
state agency concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment
on the recommended alternative.
9 Community Acceptance
Community acceptance will be assessed a
document called a Responsiveness
Summary, which will be
attached to the
Record of Decision.
-------
NEXT STEPS
Instead of the normal 30-day comment period, U.S. EPA will consider public comments received during a 60-day
comment period from January 11 through March 11, 1999. U.S. EPA is granting an additional 30 days to give the public
extra time to review this Proposed Plan and supporting documents. A public meeting will be held during the comment
period to explain the Proposed Plan and accept oral and written comments. U.S. EPA will announce the date and location
of the public meeting in a separate mailing and in local newspapers. U.S. EPA will evaluate public comments before
choosing a final cleanup plan for the Site. All comments will be addressed in a document called a Responsiveness
Summary, which will be made available to the public along with the ROD.
For your convenience, the Information Repositories now contain a separate file with the following documents, which U.S.
EPA considers especially relevant to the proposed changes in the cleanup plan.
Remedial Investigation Report (1988)
Record of Decision (July 1989)
Report Entitled, "Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers" (May 1991)
Report on the Ground-Water Levels and Directions of Flow Near the IEL Landfill (March 1994)
Report Entitled, "Final Technical Memorandum March 1993 Groundwater Monitoring, Residential and Observation Well Sampling Results" (February 1994)
Report Entitled, "Effect of Freeze-Thaw on the Hydraulic Conductivity of Barrier Materials: Laboratory and Field Evaluation" (August 1995)
Memorandum From Stephen Luftig, EPA, and Barry Breen, EPA, to Various EPA Regional Office Directors, Re: EPA Guidance on Updating Remedy
Decisions (1996)
Report Entitled, "Freeze-Thaw Cycling and Cold Temperature Effects on Geomembrane Sheets and Seams" (March 1996)
Report Entitled, "A Review of Alternative Landfill Cover Demonstrations" (January 1997)
Letter From Linda Kern, EPA, to Larry Sweeney, Earth Sciences Consultants, Inc. (ESC), Re: EPA's Support and Conditional Acceptance of the Potentially
Responsible Parties' (PRPs) Planned March 1997 Groundwater Sampling Event at IEL (March 1997)
Letter From Larry Sweeney, ESC, to Linda Kern, EPA, Re: Acknowledgment of EPA's March 6, 1997 Letter to Proceed With Groundwater Sampling Under
Attached Conditions (March 1997)
Report on the Results of March 1997 Ground water and Landfill Gas Sampling Event (August 1997)
Report on the Evaluation of Ground water Chemistry and Natural Attenuation Processes at the IEL Site (September 1997)
Memorandum From Ross del Rosario, EPA, to Don Draper, EPA, Requesting Assistance in Reviewing a September 1997 Natural Attenuation Report From
Geraghty and Miller (October 1997)
Letter From Ross del Rosario, EPA, to Larry Sweeney, ESC, Re: The Completed Validation of Analytical Data During March 1997 Groundwater Sampling
(November 1997)
Memorandum From Richard L. Byvik, EPA, to Ross del Rosario, EPA, Re: Review of the Organic Data Collected by the PRPs and Analyzed by Lancaster
Laboratories, Ross Analytical, and Antech Ltd. (November 1997)
EPA Guidance Document Entitled, "Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites"
(November 1997)
Memorandum From Mary Randolph, EPA, to Ross del Rosario, EPA, Re: Comments on the Natural Attenuation Report Dated September 1997
(November 1997)
Letter From Ross del Rosario, EPA, to Larry Sweeney, ESC, Re: EPA Comments on the Natural Attenuation Report Dated September 1997 (December 1997)
Letter From Lawrence Antonelli, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), to Ross del Rosario, EPA, Re: OEPA's Comments on the Natural
Attenuation Report Dated September 1997 (December 1997)
Letter From Geraghty and Miller to Ross del Rosario, EPA, Re: Response to EPA's December 17,1997 Comments on the Natural Attenuation Report Dated
September 1997 (January 1998)
Memorandum From Ross del Rosario, EPA, to Mary Randolph, EPA, Re: the Natural Attenuation Report Dated September 1997 (February 1998)
Memorandum From Luanne Vanderpool, EPA, to Ross del Rosario, EPA, Re: Expert Evaluation of Groundwater Data Collection From the IEL Site Since 1990
(December 9, 1998)
Memorandum From Mary Randolph, EPA, to Ross del Rosario, EPA, Re: Response to Mr. del Rosario's February 5, 1998 Memorandum About the Natural
Attenuation Report Dated September 1997 (March 1998)
Memorandum From James Mayka, EPA, and Wendy Carney, EPA, to Superfund Remedial Project Managers, Re: Findings and Recommendations of the
Working Group Reviewing Landfill Cover Requirements and Decision Making by Staff withi the EPA Region 5 Superfund Program (April 1998)
Letter From Majid A. Chaudhry, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. (formerly PRC Environmental Management, Inc.), to Ross del Rosario, EPA, Regarding the Use of the
Hydrologic Evaluation ofLandfill Performance (HELP) Model for Landfill Cap Assessment at IEL Site (April 1998)
Report Entitled, "Comparative Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives for the IEL Site Proposed Plan" (December 15, 1998)
-------
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
If you have questions about the information in this fact sheet or would like additional information about the IEL Proposed
Plan, please write or call the contacts listed below.
U.S. EPA Contacts:
Denise Gawlinski
Community Involvement Coordinator
U.S. EPA (P-19J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, II 60604-3590
(312)886-9859
gawlinski.denise@epa.gov
Ross del Rosario
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA (SR-6J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
(312)886-6195
delrosario.rosauro@epa.gov
State of Ohio Contact:
Larry Antonelli
Project Manager
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
2110 East Aurora Road
Twinsburg, Ohio 44087
(330)963-1127
larry.antonelli@epa.state.oh.us
or call the U.S. EPA hotline - (800) 621-8431
Copies of this Proposed Plan, documents supporting the Proposed Plan, and other Site-related information are available for
review in the Information Repositories at:
Lake Township Clerk's Office
123 60 Market North
Hartville, Ohio
Hartville Branch Library
411 East Maple Street
Hartville, Ohio
These documents are also available for review in the U.S. EPA's Records Center (7th Floor) in Chicago, Illinois.
vvEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Office of Public Affairs
77 West Jackson Boulevard (P-19J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
FIRST CLASS
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Public Comment Sheet
Your input on U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan for the IEL Superfund Site is important. Public comments assist U.S. EPA in
selecting its final cleanup plan.
You may use the space below to write your comments about both of the alternatives described in this Proposed Plan.
Comments, which must be postmarked by March 11,1999, should be sent to Denise Gawlinski, Community Involvement
Coordinator at the address listed on the back of this form. If you have questions about the comment period or upcoming
public meeting, contact Denise Gawlinski at (312) 886-9859 or toll-free at (800)621-8431. Those with electronic
communication capabilities may submit their comments to U.S. EPA via E-mail to: gawlinski.denise@epa.gov.
If you did not receive this fact sheet by mail, you are not on U.S. EPA's mailing list for the IEL site.
Please "/" here if you would like to added to the list:
Name
Affiliation
Address
City _
State _
Zip
-------
INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
PUBLIC COMMENT SHEET
Fold on dashed lines, staple, stamp, and mail
Name
Address
City State.
Zip
FIRST CLASS
Ms. Denise Gawlinski
Community Involvement Coordinator
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. EPA(P-19J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |