Five-Year Review Report for Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Uniontown Stark County, Ohio September 2006


EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

¦Hill!

263846

Five-Year Review Report

Five-Year Review Report

Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL)
Uniontown
Stark County, Ohio

September 2006

Prepared By:

Region 5

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois

for

Approved by:

Date:

<7-2.f-o6

Richard C. Karl, Director
Superfund Division
U.S. EPA Region 5

-------
Table of Contents

List of Acronyms	iii

Executive Summary	iv

Five-Year Review Summary Form	v

I.	Introduction	1

II.	Site Chronology	2

III.	Background	3

A.	Physical Characteristics/Land and Resource Use	3

B.	History of Contamination	4

C.	Initial Response	4

D.	Basis for Taking Action	5

IV.	Remedial Action	5

A.	Remedy Selection	5

B.	Remedy Implementation	6

C.	System Operations/O&M	9

V.	Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review	10

VI.	Five-Year Review Process	10

A.	Administrative Components	10

B.	Community Involvement and Notification	10

C.	Interviews	10

D.	Site Inspection	10

E.	Document Review	11

F.	Risk Information Review	12

G.	Data Review	12

VII.	Technical Assessment	16

Technical Assessment Summary	17

VIII.	Deficiencies/Issues	18

IX.	Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions	19

X.	Protectiveness Statements	20

XI.	Next Review	20

i

-------
Tables

Table 1 - Summary of MCL Exceedances at IEL site 17
Attachments

Attachment 1 - Site Map

Attachment 2 - Vegetative Cover List of Plant Species and Dates Planted
Attachment 3 - List of IEL Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Attachment 4 - Schedule for Groundwater Sampling
Attachment 5 - Map of IEL Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Attachment 6 - Map of IEL Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells
Attachment 7 - Five-Year Review Inspection Checklist
Attachment 8 - Five-Year Review Inspection Photographs
Attachment 9 - Five-Year Review Public Notice Advertisements

li

-------
ARAR

CERCLA

CFR

COC

MCLs

MNA

MVS

MW

NCP

NPL

OEPA

ppm

PRP

RI

ROD

SDWA

^g/L

US EPA

VOCs

WHC

List of Acronyms

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

Code of Federal Regulations

Contaminant of Concern

Maximum Contaminant Levels

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Methane Venting System

Monitoring Well

National Contingency Plan

National Priorities List

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

parts per million

Potentially Responsible Party

Remedial Investigation

Record of Decision

Safe Drinking Water Act

micrograms per liter

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Volatile Organic Compounds
Wildlife Habitat Council

111

-------
Executive Summary

This is the second Five-Year Review completed for the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) site in
Uniontown, Ohio. The first Five-Year Review was conducted in 2001 on an alternate water supply
interim remedy. This Five-Year review represents the first review of the final remedy for the entire
IEL site selected under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities
Act (CERCLA). This remedy was selected in a September 2002 Record of Decision (ROD)
Amendment. The results of this Five-Year Review indicate that the remedy is protective of human
health and the environment. Overall, continued groundwater monitoring at the site shows
consistently diminishing numbers and concentrations of Contaminants of Concern (COCs). In
addition, methane concentrations in landfill gas continue to decrease and are not migrating offsite at
concentrations sufficient to present a health threat to surrounding residents.

On September 27, 2002, a ROD Amendment was approved for the IEL site, which called for:

Augmenting the existing vegetative cover with selected planting of trees and other plants at
the site;

Natural attenuation of groundwater contaminants both offsite and onsite;

Monitoring of groundwater and landfill gas;

Upgrading the existing monitoring well network by installing new wells, upgrading and/or
abandoning other wells, as needed;

• Perimeter fencing;

Deed Restrictions;

Maintenance of Alternate Water Supply; and
Additional Design Studies

The planting of the vegetative cover and repair of damaged fencing at the IEL site took place in the
spring of 2004. So far, the majority of trees and shrubs planted at the site are showing acceptable
growth and mortality rates.

Landfill gas monitoring results obtained from 23 sampling events conducted from August 2004 to
June 2005, indicate that concentrations of methane are below levels of concern and continue to
decrease. The landfill flaring system, which was used to collect and burn methane produced within
the landfill, has now been shut down because there is not enough methane being produced by the
landfill to sustain combustion.

Groundwater monitoring results, which have been obtained from ten sampling events conducted
since the September 2002 ROD Amendment in November 2002, March 2003, July 2003, November
2003, February 2004, May 2004, August 2004, February 2005, August 2005, and November 2005,
indicate that the concentrations of the COCs in groundwater at the DEL site are decreasing and that
natural attenuation of site contaminants is occurring.

Therefore, the IEL remedy is considered to be protective of human health and the environment.

iv

-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name (from WasteLAN): Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL)

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): OHD000377911

Region: 5	State: Ohio City/County: Stark County

SITE STATUS

NPL status: X Final ~ Deleted ~ Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): ~ Under Construction X Operating ~ Complete

Multiple OUs?* ~ YES X NO

Construction completion date: 05 / 04 / 2005

Has site been put into reuse? ~ YES X NO
Lead agency: X EPA ~ State ~ Tribe ~ Other Federal Agency

REVIEW STATUS

Author name: Timothy J. Fischer

Author title: Remedial Project Manager

Author affiliation: US EPA, Region 5, Superfund

Review period:** 01/12 / 2006 to 9/06

Date(s) of site inspection: 4/26/06

Type of review:

X Post-SARA ~ Pre-SARA ~ NPL-Removal only

~	Non-NPL Remedial Action Site ~ NPL State/Tribe-lead

~	Regional Discretion

Review number: ~ 1 (first) X 2 (second) ~ 3 (third) ~ Other (specify)

Triggering action:

~	Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #	 ~ Actual RA Start at Site

~	Construction Completion	X Previous Five-Year Review Report

~	Other (specify)

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 09 / 27 / 2001

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 09 / 27 / 2006

* ["OU" refers to operable unit.]

[Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]

v

-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd.

Deficiencies/Issues:

The only issue identified in this review is the fact that the institutional controls required by the
2002 ROD Amendment have not yet been implemented at IEL. A partial Consent Decree was
entered on April 7,2005, which requires the settling defendants to obtain an agreement from the
Site owners to execute and record an easement granting the right to enforce land and water use
restrictions. Specifically, the easement must include restrictions to ensure that the Site would not
be used in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect the implementation, integrity,
or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed under the decree. In practice, this
means implementing the restrictions set forth in the 2002 ROD Amendment: a prohibition on
drinking water wells and residential development within the boundaries until such tune as it can
be shown that there are no risks associated with such uses. To date, the settling defendants have
not obtained the required easement from the site owner. Industrial Excess Landfill. Inc. US EPA
has not pressured the settling defendants to move forward for two reasons: (1) The last phase of
cost recovery litigation for the IEL site is about to commence. One outcome of settlement
negotiations, or if those fail, litigation, would be the recording by IEL. Inc. of the necessary
easement. (2) In the meantime, the site is fenced and access is controlled by US EPA. There is no
short-term danger of drinking water wells or residential development taking place on site. We
therefore believe that implementation of the easement may safely be postponed, pending the
outcome of negotiations/litigation with the site owner. We expect that, one way or another, the
easement will be in place by June 30,2007.

Recommendations:

(1) Site groundwater monitoring should be maintained according to the approved schedule
contained in the RD Design Plan for the IEL Site (Attachment 4) for volatile organic
compounds and natural attenuation parameters.

(2) Institutional Controls should be placed upon the property and an IC plan should be
developed.

Protectiveness Statement(s):

The remedy a the IEL site is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term.
Long-term protectiveness will be achieved when institutional controls are in place.

Other Comments:

-------
Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL)

Five-Year Review Report

I. Introduction

EPA Region 5 has conducted a Five-Year Review of the remedial action implemented at the
Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) site in Stark County, Ohio. The review was conducted from
January 2006 to September 2006, and this report documents the results of the review. The purpose
of Five-Year Reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and
the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year
Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify deficiencies found during the
review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.

This review is being conducted as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA §121(c), as amended, states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial
action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure
that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being
implemented.

The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states:

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five
years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.

This is the second Five-Year Review for the IEL site. The triggering action for this review is the
date of the first Five-Year Review conducted for the site, which was completed on September 27,
2001. Due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above
levels that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, another Five-Year Review is required.

-------
II. Site Chronology

DATE

EVENT

1956-1961

The IEL Site was the location of a sand and gravel mining operation. Mining
operations ceased in 1961, and local residents began using the site as a garbage dump.

1966

Mr. Charles Kittinger acquires title to the IEL property and begins operating a
licensed commercial landfill.

1968

Mr. Kittinger forms Industrial Excess Landfill, Inc. with Mr. Hyman Budoff as a
business partner.

1968-1980

IEL, Inc. operates the landfill, receiving liquid and solid wastes, including latex,
grease, oil, laboratory chemical waste, rubber, and lampblack. A former employee
estimated that approximately 100 barrels a day were disposed at the site. Based upon
available records, it is estimated that 780,000 tons of waste and 1,000.000 gallons of
liquid wastes were disposed at the site before it closed in 1980.

1984

US EPA proposed that the IEL site be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).

1985-1988

US EPA conducts a Remedial Investigation at the IEL site. In addition, a US EPA
Emergency Response Team installed an active methane venting system (MVS) at the
IEL site. Air strippers were also placed in homes to the west of the landfill to remove
vinyl chloride from water supplies. The Remedial Investigation Report was issued in
July 1988.

September 1987

A Record of Decision is signed which calls for the installation of an alternative water
supply system for area residents to serve as an interim remedy at IEL.

July 1989

A Record of Decision is signed selecting a multi-layer cap for the entire IEL site, a
landfill gas extraction and treatment system, a groundwater pump-and-treat system, a
requirement to pump groundwater to maintain the water table below the elevation of
landfill wastes, fencing of the site, deed restrictions and future monitoring for landfill
gases and groundwater.

1997-1998

Additional groundwater monitoring is conducted at the IEL site. Data from this
monitoring indicated fewer contaminants were present in the groundwater and that
concentrations were decreasing. As a result, US EPA proposed to amend the remedy
at IEL by redesigning the landfill cover and eliminating the groundwater
pump-and-treat system.

March 1,2000

A Record of Decision Amendment is signed selecting the modified remedy for the
entire IEL site.

2000

The PRPs conduct additional demolition activities at the IEL site, including: 1)
sampling contents of remaining post-ROD drums, 2) checking for presence of
asbestos in remaining buildings, 3) disposing of trash, debris, and debris-like wastes
found inside buildings in and around the landfill, and 4) conducting geophysical
surveys around remaining buildings to determine what underground structures may be
present. Demolition of three buildings and the removal of eight underground storage
tanks were completed in June 2000.

-------
DATE

EVENT

July 2000

US EPA announced that it would delay construction of the modified landfill cover at
IEL after receiving a petition from Lake Township officials stating that additional
testing was warranted before a final remedy decision to cap the site could be made.

2000-2001

The PRPs at IEL conduct 5 groundwater sampling events for metals, VOCs, and
radioactive parameters. After reviewing the results of these five groundwater
sampling efforts, and after considering an alternate proposal for addressing the site
provided by the PRPs and supported by Lake Township officials, U.S. EPA
announced another Proposed Plan calling for a change in the remedy for the IEL site.

September 27, 2001

The first Five-Year Review of the IEL alternate water supply remedy is completed
and signed.

September 27, 2002

A Record of Decision Amendment is signed selecting a final remedy for the entire
IEL site. This plan includes the following components for the site: 1) augmentation of
the existing vegetative cover at IEL with selective planting of trees and other plants at
the site; 2) natural attenuation of groundwater contaminants both offsite and onsite; 3)
continued monitoring of groundwater and landfill gas; 4) perimeter fencing; 5) deed
restrictions on the future use of the IEL property; 6) maintenance of the alternate
water supply installed in 1991; and 7) additional design studies. An extensive
Responsiveness Summary was produced in response to the over 130 comments
received on this new remedy decision.

September 2003

Remedial Design work for the IEL remedy is completed.

2003-2004

Landfill gas and groundwater monitoring are continued at the site. Fencing is repaired
and the vegetative landfill cover is planted in the Spring of 2004. Ambient air
sampling is also conducted at the IEL site in preparation for a future risk assessment
at the site.

December 2004

A Construction Complete Report is issued by the PRPs indicating that they have
completed the construction of the remedy required by the September 2002 ROD
Amendment.

May 2005

A Preliminary Close-Out Report is signed to grant US EPA approval that the remedy
has been successfully constructed.

III. Background

Physical Characteristics/Land and Resource Use

IEL is a privately-owned, 30-acre, mixed-waste landfill, located at 12646 Cleveland Avenue,
Uniontown, Ohio, approximately 10 miles southeast of Akron (Maps are in Attachment 1). The
landfill closed in 1980. Homes are located principally to the north, west, and southwest of the site.
A sod farm is located to the east of the landfill, across from a rather narrow stream called Metzger
Ditch. Covered with grasses, small trees, and shrubs, the site itself is gently sloping, with the
highest elevation towards the northwest corner. The area around IEL is rural/residential - a mixture
of residential, agricultural, commercial, and light industrial use. Located between Akron and
Canton, the area has become increasingly residential with many new homes being built nearby.

-------
According to the 2000 Census, 2.802 people live in Uniontown, while Lake Township has a
population of 25,892.

B. History of Contamination

Prior to 1966, the 30-acre Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) site, located in Stark County, Ohio, was
used for mining sand and gravel. In 1966, the mining and excavation pit was converted into a
landfill, which operated until 1980. During this time, the IEL received industrial waste primarily
from the rubber industries in Akron, Ohio. An estimated 780,000 tons of solid waste and 1,000,000
gallons of liquid waste were dumped onto the ground and into an evaporation lagoon constructed
onsite. In 1972, the Stark County Board of Health ordered IEL to stop dumping chemical wastes.
Besides industrial wastes, the landfill also accepted waste from hospitals, septic tank cleaning firms,
and the general public. The landfill ceased operations in 1980, and was covered with soil.

Between 1985 and 1988, US EPA installed a methane gas venting system at the site to control the
migration of methane and landfill gases offsite. During the installation of this system, 53 drums of
suspected industrial waste were uncovered. These drums were removed and disposed of in a US
EPA-approved facility. Residential well sampling performed in 1987 showed that private wells
were being impacted by groundwater contaminated by VOCs from the IEL site. US EPA installed
air strippers in the affected residences to remove these contaminants.

In July 1988, a Remedial Investigation (RI) report was prepared for IEL, copies of which are
available for viewing at the site repository files in Hartville, Ohio. The RI revealed that the
following conditions were present at the IEL site at the time: 1) 80-85 percent of the site was
covered with various types of waste; 2) about 780,000 tons of waste had been disposed of at the
site, including 1,000,000 gallons of liquid waste; 3) groundwater was contaminated with
IEL-related wastes, such as vinyl chloride, and groundwater contamination was found in some
residential wells nearby; and 4) a groundwater plume of contamination extended approximately a
thousand feet west of the landfill boundary along Cleveland Avenue. Since the RI was completed in
1988, groundwater conditions at IEL have changed significantly. As many as 81 different organic
compounds have been detected at one time in the groundwater at IEL in the past. During sampling
conducted in November 2005, only nine different organic compounds were detected, and only three
of those compounds exceeded their respective Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established
in the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a strong indication that natural attenuation processes are at
work, which result in natural biodegradation of site contaminants in groundwater.

C. Initial Response

Between 1985 and 1988, US EPA installed a methane gas venting system at the site to control the
migration of methane and landfill gases offsite. During the installation of this system, 53 drums of
suspected industrial waste were uncovered. These drums were removed and disposed of in an U.S.
EPA-approved facility. Residential well sampling performed in 1987 showed that private wells
were being impacted by groundwater contaminated by VOCs. US EPA installed air strippers in the
affected residences to remove the contaminants.

-------
In 1987, US EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) requiring that an alternate water supply be
installed in an area containing 100 homes downgradient of the site where groundwater threatened to
contaminate wells before an overall cleanup could eliminate the problem. Under order by US EPA,
several potentially responsible parties (PRPs) constructed an alternate water supply, which was
completed in 1991. In July 1989, US EPA signed a ROD selecting the following actions to clean up
the site: covering the entire site with a multi-layer cap; expanding the landfill gas extraction and
treatment system; extracting and treating contaminated groundwater; pumping groundwater to
maintain the water table at a level that is below that of the wastes in the landfill; fencing the site;
placing deed restriction of future use of the site, and continued monitoring of the site. In 1990, US
EPA purchased 22 parcels of land, consisting of twelve residences and two businesses. These
properties, which bordered the site, were needed for proper installation of the landfill cap.

Based on the results of monitoring data gathered in March 1997 and September 1998, US EPA
public noticed a proposed plan to modify the cleanup plans outlined in the July 1989 ROD. The data
indicated that significantly fewer contaminants were present in the groundwater and that the
concentrations of those detected were generally lower. As a result, the proposed plan recommended
that the pump and treat system be eliminated, and the landfill cover be redesigned.

A public meeting was held on March 2. 1999 to discuss this proposed agency action. The ROD
Amendment was signed on March 1, 2000. An extensive responsiveness summary, addressing over
250 questions gathered during the public comment period, was prepared along with the ROD
Amendment.

In 2000, the PRPs conducted demolition activities at IEL including: 1) sampling contents of
remaining post-ROD drums at the site and inside the remaining buildings 2) checking for presence
of asbestos in the remaining buildings 3) disposing all trash, debris, and debris-like wastes found
inside the buildings and around the landfill: and 4) conducting geophysical surveys around the
remaining buildings and adjacent areas to determine what underground structures are present and
require further investigation. Demolition of three remaining buildings at the site, along with
removal of eight underground storage tanks, were completed by June 2000.

D. Basis for Taking Remedial Action

Remedial Action was necessary at the IEL site to prevent unacceptable human health risks
associated with human contact with landfill wastes and with the ingestion of contaminated
groundwater which had migrated to downgradient receptors. The RI Report for the IEL site
documented numerous liquid and solid wastes were present at the site, and groundwater sampling in
the past had consistently shown volatile organic compounds present above the allowable Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in the aquifer below the IEL site.

IV. Remedial Action

A. Remedy Selection

On September 27,2002, a ROD Amendment was approved for the IEL site, which called for

-------
Augmenting the existing vegetative cover with selected planting of trees and other plants at
the site;

Natural attenuation of groundwater contaminants both offsite and onsite;

Monitoring of groundwater and landfill gas:

Upgrading the existing monitoring well network by installing new wells, upgrading and/or
abandoning other wells, as needed:

• Perimeter fencing;

Deed Restrictions;

Maintenance of Alternate Water Supply, and
Additional Design Studies

This final remedy for the IEL site was selected to address all contaminated media at the site,
including: contaminated soil and groundwater, landfilled wastes, and emission of landfill gases.

US EPA's remedial objectives for the landfill portion of the IEL site were to:

Reduce migration of contaminants in waste to groundwater;

Prevent future exposure to contaminants by ingestion and through dermal contact;

Return groundwater to beneficial use wherever practicable, within a reasonable time
frame, given the circumstances at the site; and

Ensure continued protection of the community from undue risks posed by landfill
gas.

B. Remedy Implementation

The remedial design for the IEL site was started in July 2003, and work plans were completed in
September 2003. The design called for upgrading site security by repairing damaged sections of the
IEL perimeter fencing, constructing a vegetative cover by planting trees and shrubs and ridding the
site of various invasive species, constructing the final groundwater monitoring network by installing
new wells where necessary and abandoning wells that were no longer required for long-term
monitoring, and installing additional landfill gas monitoring wells in areas of the site perimeter that
did not have adequate coverage for monitoring landfill gases that could migrate laterally from the
site through the subsurface.

Site Security

Sharp & Associates, Inc. (SHARP), now Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc. (LATA), on behalf
of Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC (Bridgestone/Firestone), completed a survey of
the existing perimeter fencing and repaired or replaced sections of the fence that had been found
breached. Fallen trees or brush were also removed as needed to repair/replace the fencing. A new
gate was also installed along the northern boundary of the landfill site to allow access to monitoring
well MW-16 New. All other gates were repaired as needed to ensure their continued integrity and
operability.

6

-------
All site monitoring wells were checked to verify that working locks were in place. A few wells were
outfitted with new locks, as necessary.

Finally, four warning signs were placed (one on each side of the site) to identify the IEL site as a
US EPA Superfund site and to identify the appropriate contacts in Region 5 for questions/concerns.

Vegetative Cover

In April 2004, Ecological Restoration. Inc. (ERI). under the direction of the Wildlife Habitat
Council (WHC), planted 8,424 trees and shrubs at the IEL site. The primary objectives of these
plantings were to provide a stable and protective soil covering at the IEL site and to foster the
development of a diverse wildlife population. The weather at the time of planting was generally
cool and wet, which provided ideal conditions for planting. A machine-run auger was used to create
holes for the majority of the plantings, and they were then planted in the ground by hand.
Attachment 2 to this report presents the numbers and types of plants installed each day. US EPA
personnel were on-site at the time of planting to oversee these activities.

On April 29,2004, a meadow area was tilled and sprayed with weed killers. After a waiting period
of a few days, ERI returned to seed the meadow with wildflowers.

The conditions of all of the plantings were monitored monthly during the growing season. So far the
majority of the trees and shrubs planted at the site in 2004 are showing acceptable growth and
mortality rates. All necessary replantings were completed in Spring 2005.

In addition to the required vegetative enhancements to the IEL site cover, other site enhancements
were recommended by the WHC and implemented at IEL. Artificial nesting structures, including
brush piles, ten bluebird boxes, and two bat box pairs were installed in the summer of 2004. The
brush piles were created as downed wood was consolidated and invasive species were controlled.
Also, waste debris (such as pieces of tire and plastic) that were found in various places around the
IEL site were collected and placed in roll-off boxes for disposal offsite.

Groundwater Monitoring Network Construction

In accordance with the approved Remedial Design Plan for IEL, five new groundwater monitoring
wells were installed at the site in the spring of 2004. These new wells were identified as MW-29,
MW-30, MW-31, MW-16 New and MW-7 New. MW-29 and MW-31 are located along the western
edge of the landfill, and they were installed to provide closer downgradient coverage. This will
allow for a faster indication if site contaminants begin to migrate offsite at higher concentrations in
the future. MW-16 New and MW-17 New are located along the northern boundary of the landfill,
and they were installed to replace older single-cased wells that were constructed through the landfill
waste along the north side of the landfill. MW-30 is located upgradient of the IEL site and serves as
an additional "background" well (along with MW-12i) that is representative of upgradient
groundwater conditions.

Along with the installation of new wells. 34 monitoring wells were abandoned because they were
no longer necessary for long-term monitoring at IEL. Some of these wells had never shown

-------
contamination after years of sampling, and some were producing results that were not considered to
be representative of groundwater conditions at the site. 24 of the abandoned monitoring wells were
located in areas outside the waste area of the landfill, and 10 wells were single-cased wells installed
through the waste material. Many of these single-cased wells were suspected or shown to have lost
integrity, allowing them to become conduits for landfill contamination to reach the groundwater
beneath the site.

In addition to the 34 wells approved for abandonment, SHARP located and abandoned 17
piezometers/staff gage clusters that were installed offsite by US EPA in 1994 as part of an
additional IEL groundwater investigation. The existence of these wells was discovered in May
2004.

The installation and abandonment of all groundwater and landfill gas monitoring wells are
documented in the Well Installation Report for the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, dated March 18, 2004, and the Well Abandonment Report for the Industrial
Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site, Uniontown, Ohio, dated September 2004. The final
groundwater monitoring network for the IEL site consists of 29 wells completely encircling the site,
with the majority of the wells located along the western (downgradient) side of the landfill. A list of
the wells included in the final groundwater monitoring network for IEL, along with their
designations, is included as Attachment 3. These wells will be sampled according to the schedule in
Attachment 4. A map depicting the locations of these monitoring wells is included as Attachment 5.

Landfill Gas Monitoring Network Construction

SHARP planned to install five new landfill gas monitoring wells along the eastern boundary of the
landfill where there was not existing coverage, as approved in the Remedial Design Plan for IEL.
Four of the five wells were installed in the spring of 2004. One well was not installed because
groundwater was encountered within one foot of the ground surface in its planned location,
preventing vadose zone installation.

The installation and abandonment of all groundwater and landfill gas monitoring wells are
documented in the Well Installation Report for the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, dated March 18, 2004, and the Well Abandonment Report for the Industrial
Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site, Uniontown, Ohio, dated September 2004. In drilling all new
wells, SHARP documented the encountered geology for incorporation into the sitewide
hydrogeological characterization. This information was used to update the information contained in
the Addendum to the Well Installation Report for the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Site and the
Regional Hydrogeologic Setting, December 12, 2000, (RevisedAugust 22, 2003).

Institutional Control Implementation

ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls that help to minimize
the potential to exposure to contamination and that help protect the integrity of the remedy. ICs are
required to assure long-term protectiveness for any areas which do not allow for unlimited use or
unlimited exposure (UU/UE).

-------
The institutional controls required by the 2002 ROD Amendment have not yet been implemented at
IEL. A partial Consent Decree was entered on April 1, 2005, which requires the settling defendants
to obtain an agreement from the Site owners to execute and record an easement granting the right to
enforce land and water use restrictions. Specifically, the easement must include restrictions to
ensure that the Site would not be used in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect
the implementation, integrity, or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed under the
decree. In practice, this means implementing the restrictions set forth in the 2002 ROD
Amendment: a prohibition on drinking water wells and residential development within the
boundaries until such time as it can be shown that there are no risks associated with such uses. To
date, the sealing defendants have not obtained the required easement from the site owner. Industrial
Excess Landfill. Inc. - currently a non-settling party. The site is fenced and access is controlled by
US EPA. Therefore, there is no short-term danger of drinking water wells or residential
development taking place on site. US EPA expects that, one way or another, the easement will be in
place in the near future.

IC maps will be created which depict the details of the areas where the use restrictions are required.
The IC maps, once completed, will be publicly available and on EPA's Superfund Data
Management System (SDMS). These maps will serve as an additional IC as an informational
control.

Implementation of the institutional control provisions in the September 2002 ROD Amendment and
the 2005 Consent Decree will require obtaining an easement from Industrial Excess Landfill, Inc.,
the landfill site owner. To address IC implementation and long-term stewardship, an Institutional
Control Plan will be provided by US EPA. which includes 1) implementation of ICs, as needed; 2)
provisions for modifications of the O&M Plan regarding regular inspections and annual IC
certification; 3) a communication plan: and 4) IC maps in both paper and GIS format showing both
the area where ICs were required and where they have been implemented. Taking these steps is
necessary in order to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy. In the short term, even
though institutional controls have not yet been implemented, the remedy is protective because the
Site is fenced, access is solely through a locked gate, and warning signs are posted at regular
intervals. There is no short-term danger of drinking-water well installation or residential
development taking place at the Site.

C. System Operations/O&M

The only remaining treatment system at the DEL site is the methane venting system (MVS). Based
upon landfill gas sampling results obtained in the last two years, it has been determined that it is no
longer feasible or necessary to actively operate the MVS system. The venting system has been left
"open", and is currently operating as a passive venting system rather than an active one. Continued
monitoring shows that current landfill gas concentrations do not present an unacceptable risk or
hazard to surrounding residents.

The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the IEL site remedy are associated
with the continued landfill gas and groundwater monitoring being conducted on a regular basis at
the site. The cost associated with the groundwater monitoring at the IEL site is about $30,000 per
sampling event. Given the low levels of landfill gases currently detected and the expected reduction

-------
in landfill gas concentrations with time, it is anticipated that additional landfill gas monitoring will
be greatly reduced and costs will be negligible in comparison to groundwater monitoring costs.

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

The IEL site is somewhat unique in that the first Five-Year Review was conducted prior to the
construction of a final remedy at the site. The review of the interim alternate water supply remedy
was conducted in September 2001. Since that time, a final remedy for the IEL site was selected and
documented in the September 2002 ROD Amendment, a remedial design was accomplished in
2003, and the final remedy was constructed in 2004.

This is the first Five-Year Review for the entire IEL site since the final CERCLA remedy was
constructed. The results of this Five-Year Review indicate that the remedy is protective of human
health and the environment in the short-term. Long-term protectiveness will be achieved when
institutional controls are in place.

VI. Five-Year Review Process

A. Administrative Components

This IEL site Five-Year Review was conducted by Timothy J. Fischer, Remedial Project Manager
for the IEL site. This Five-Year Review consisted of the following activities: a review of relevant
documents (see Section VI(E) on page 12) and a site inspection (See inspection checklist in
Attachment 7 and inspection photos in Attachment 8).

B. Community Involvement and Notification

A notice regarding the forthcoming review was placed in the Akron Beacon-Journal, the Canton
Repository, and the Hartville News, all local newspapers, on March 24, 2006 (Attachment 9). The
completed report will be available in the information repository and from US EPA Region 5. Notice
of its completion, with a summary of findings, will be placed in the local newspaper and local
contacts will be notified by letter.

C. Interviews

Specific Interviews were determined to be unnecessary for this Five-Year Review, since the only
components of the remedy were installation of a vegetative cover, fence repair, landfill gas
sampling, and long-term groundwater monitoring, with results documented in a series of sampling
and analysis reports.

D. Site Inspection

Representatives of US EPA and Ohio EPA took pan in a site inspection on April 26, 2006. During
the site inspection, landfill gas and groundwater monitoring wells were inspected, fencing was
inspected, and the progress of the growth of planned vegetation at the site was observed. A
summary of the inspection findings is presented below. A Five-Year Review inspection checklist

-------
was completed and is included in this report as Attachment 7. Photographs taken during the
inspection are included in Attachment 8.

Conditions during the inspection were favorable with mild temperatures and no precipitation. Site
vegetation demonstrated acceptable growth over the previous two years, although some invasive
species were present. The entire site is now covered with vegetation ranging from various grasses to
trees and shrubs. Animal tracks, including deer tracks, were evident over the entire site. Rodents
and birds were observed in many places onsite. Also, several bird nests were seen in the bat boxes
and bird houses that were constructed onsite by the Wildlife Habitat Council. The fencing was
intact around most of the perimeter of the site, although there were a few places where downed trees
had damaged the fence. Access to the site has still been adequately controlled to prevent
unacceptable exposures. All of the monitoring wells appeared to be in good condition, with locked
and intact caps.

E. Document Review

The list of specific documents which were reviewed is shown below:

Final Remedial Investigation Report for Industrial Excess Landfill, Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by
the US EPA, July 1988.

Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site Record of Decision and Responsiveness Summary,
prepared and signed by US EPA on July 17, 1989.

Record of Decision Amendment - Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site - Uniontown, Stark
County, Ohio, prepared and signed by US EPA on March 1, 2000.

Report: Five Year Review - Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site - Stark County, Ohio -
OHD0003 77911, prepared and signed by US EPA Region 5 on September 27, 2001.

Record of Decision Amendment - Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site - Uniontown, Stark
County, Ohio, prepared and signed by the US EPA on September 27, 2002.

Summary Report on the November 2002 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., January 2003.

Summary Report on the March 2003 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., June 2003.

Summary Report on the July 2003 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., November 2003.

Summary Report on the November 2003 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., January 2004.

-------
Summary Report on the February 2004 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., July 2004.

Summary Report on the May 2004 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., January 2005.

Summary Report on the August 2004 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., January 2005.

Conduction Complete Report for the Remedial Action Implementation at the Industrial Excess
Landfill (IEL) Site, prepared by Sharp and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Bridgestone/Firestone
North American Tire, LLC, December 22, 2004.

Summary Report on the February 2005 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates. Inc.. May 2005.

Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR) - Uniontown, Stark County,
Ohio, prepared by US EPA - Region 5, May 2005.

Report on the Landfill Gas Monitoring at the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates. Inc., July 2005.

Summary Report on the August 2005 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates. Inc., September 2005.

Summary Report on the November 2005 GW Sampling Event at the Industrial Excess Landfill Site,
Uniontown, Ohio, prepared by Sharp and Associates. Inc., April 2006.

F. Risk Information Review

The following standards were identified as applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) in the ROD. They were reviewed for changes that could affect protectiveness:

• Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Parts 141-146)

Federal standards for the contaminants of concern have not changed since the signing of the ROD
Amendment in September 2002.

G. Data Review

Landfill Gas

Landfill gas has been sampled in 23 different monitoring events at IEL between August 25,2004
and June 7,2005. A map of the landfill gas monitoring wells in place as part of the final remedy at
IEL is included as Attachment 6. Monitoring was conducted with the MVS system operating and
with the system shut off. Landfill gas monitoring over time showed the following:

-------
The concentrations of methane detected with the MVS system off (and the landfill
gas extraction wells converted to passive vents by opening them to the air) are
comparable to the concentrations found in the same wells during recent periods when
the MVS was operating.

The concentrations of detected constituents in the landfill gas were consistently
within a narrow range throughout the year-long evaluation. Concentrations generally
appear to be decreasing slowly.

Methane concentrations are low (near or below the detection limit using a combustible gas
indicator) at most of the passive vents (including the active MVS vents that were converted to
passive vents). However, vents in two areas continue to show percent-level methane concentrations.
These locations are PV-8 and PV-9 in the north-central portion of the landfill and PV-13 in the
southwest portion of the landfill.

Two perimeter landfill gas well clusters have also routinely shown methane concentrations in
excess of 5%. These wells are LFG-9 and LFG-18. The concentrations in LFG-9 have dropped
below 5% since the well has been capped between sampling events. Only well LFG-18 continues to
show methane concentrations above 5% consistently. Overall intra-well results comparisons show
methane concentrations are typically less than the mean plus one standard deviation. This finding
suggests that methane concentrations are declining and that there is little degree of fluctuation about
the mean. Overall concentrations of methane are below levels of concern and continue to decrease.

During the last several years the MVS system was operated 2-3 times per week for about two hours
each time. The landfill gas collected by the active MVS system routinely had to be supplemented
with propane in order to sustain combustion of the MVS flare due to the lean percentage of methane
in the landfill gas. Under current conditions (with active vents converted to passive), methane
concentrations are comparable to concentrations seen with the MVS system actively pulling
methane out of the landfill. Therefore, there is no apparent benefit to operating the MVS to collect
landfill gases.

Based upon the results of the landfill gas sampling studies, site conditions are likely to continue to
improve over time. For this reason, additional site monitoring for landfill gases will continue on a
less frequent basis. Whenever changes to site use are contemplated, the potential impacts of these
changes to the degree and duration of potential human exposures to landfill gases should be
evaluated.

For more information regarding the results of landfill gas monitoring at EL, refer to the Report on
Landfill Gas Monitoring at the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) Superfund Site - Uniontown, Ohio,
dated July 2005.

Groundwater Data

Groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the IEL site on ten different occasions since the
ROD Amendment was signed in September 2002. These sampling events occurred in November
2002, March 2003, July 2003, November 2003, February 2004, May 2004, August 2004, February

-------
2005, August 2005 and November 2005. A list of the monitoring wells in place as part of the final
IEL remedy is included as Attachment 3.

When the remedial investigation was completed at DEL in 1988, as many as 81 different volatile
organic compounds were detected in the groundwater at the site. Today, only nine VOC compounds
are still consistently detected at EL. and only three of those exceed the allowable MCLs established
in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The nine VOC contaminants detected in IEL groundwater during
the last groundwater sampling event in November 2005 were:

• 1,1 Dichloroethene
1,2 Dichloroethane,
cis-1,2 Dictdoroethaene.

• Vinyl chloride

• Benzene
Chloroethane,

1,1 Dichloroethane,
Acetone,

Methylene Chloride,

Only three of the compounds detected at IEL (vinyl chloride, 1,2 dicholoroethane and cis-1,2
dichloroethene) exceed their respective safe drinking water standards. In addition, these three
contaminants currently exceed their MCLs in only two of the 30 monitoring wells at the site. These
two wells are located along the western boundary of the site (in the direction of groundwater
migration). The results of the continued long-term groundwater monitoring at the IEL site for these
three monitoring wells are presented in Table 1, on page 17.

The results for MW-1 li show a consistently decreasing trend for vinyl chloride to the point where it
has not been detected above the 2 |ig/L MCL for four consecutive sampling events now. 1,2
Dichloroethane and cis-1,2 dichloroethene have never been detected in MW-1 li.

MW-21s shows consistent detections of vinyl chloride and 1.2 dichloroethane over the three and a
half years of sampling. Vinyl chloride results range from 1.7 to 5.0 |ig/L. 1,2 dichloroethane results
range from non-detect to 6.8 |ig/L. Cis-1,2 dichloroethene has been detected around 10 |ig/L in
MW-21s, which is far below the MCL of 70 |ig/L.

MW-29 was installed on January 7-8,2004, as part of the final remedy for IEL. It has been sampled
during every groundwater sampling event since the February 2004 sampling event. MW-29 has
consistently demonstrated the highest results for groundwater contaminants since its installation at
the IEL site, indicating that it is probably located closer to a source of groundwater contamination
than other downgradient site wells. Vinyl chloride results in MW-29 range from 7.8 to 11 |ig/L. 1,2
dichloroethane results range from 21 to 25 |ig/L in MW-29. Also, MW-29 is the only monitoring
well at IEL with results above the MCL for cis-1,2 dichloroethene. The results for this compound
range from 72 to 91 |ig/L, with the MCL being 70 |ig/L.

-------
Table 1

Summary of MCL Exceedances at IEL site

VC - vinyl chloride (MCL = 2 ug/L)
1,2 DCA - 1,2 Dichloroethane (MCL = 5 ug/L)
cis-1,2 DCE - cis-1,2 dichloroethene (MCL = 70 ug/L)

MW-1 1 i

MW-21S

MW-29**

November 2002

VC - 3.6 ug L
1,2 DCA - ND

VC - 5.0 ug L
1.2 DCA - 6.1 ug L

March 2003

VC - 3.7 ug L
1,2 DCA - ND

VC - 3.7 ug L
1,2 DCA - 6.0 ug L

July 21)03

VC - 3.6 ug L
1,2 DCA - ND

VC - 4.6 ug L
1,2 DCA - 6.X ug L

Nov ember 2003

VC - 2.3 ug/L
1.2 DCA - ND

VC -3.1 ug L
1,2 DCA - 5.5 ug L

February 2004

VC - 3.0 ug. L
1.2 DC'A-ND

VC - 4.4 ug L
1,2 DCA - 6.X ug L

VC - 10 ug L.

1.2 DCA - 22 ug L.

cis-1,2 DCE - 72 ug L

May :004

VC - 2.6 ug L
1.2 DCA - ND

VC - 4.0 ug L
1,2 DCA - 6.7 ug L

VC - 9.4 ug L
1.2 DCA - 22 ug L
cis-1,2 DCE - 80 ug/L

August 2004

VC - 1.4 ug/L
1.2 DCA - ND

VC - 4.3 ug L
1.2 DCA - 6.7 ug L

VC - 1 1 ug L.
1,2 DCA - 25 ug L
cis-1,2 DCE - 7
-------
Although vinyl chloride, 1,2 dichloroethane, and cis-1,2 dichloroethene have consistently been
detected above their respective MCLs in monitoring wells MW-1 li, MW-21s and MW-29, these
compounds have not been detected above their MCLs in downgradient offsite wells. This indicates
that the VOC contamination is not migrating off of the IEL site at concentrations that exceed the
allowable drinking water standards.

Two metals have also been consistently detected in IEL groundwater. These two metals are arsenic
and thallium. Arsenic and thallium are common constituents in the clay soils surrounding the IEL
site, and these two metals are routinely detected in the site background wells. The two IEL
background wells (MW-12i and MW-30) are located offsite and upgradient from the IEL site.

VII. Technical Assessment

The following conclusions support the determination that the remedy at the IEL site is protective of
human health and the environment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

• Remedial Action Performance. The remedy at IEL is functioning as intended. Both
landfill gas and groundwater have been sampled routinely since the 2002 ROD
Amendment, and results demonstrate that methane concentrations in landfill gas are
decreasing, the number of groundwater contaminants is decreasing, and the
concentrations of detected groundwater contaminants are decreasing. A perimeter
fence is preventing access to the IEL site and there is no indication that the site is
being used in a manner that would result in an unacceptable exposure to site
contaminants.

• Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures. Access to the site is
still being controlled by metal fencing which surrounds the property. Eventually, this
fencing may be removed if risk calculations support this future use. In any case,
restrictions will be placed on the deed to the property which restrict excavation at the
site, prevent the installation of any groundwater wells on the IEL property, and
prevent residential use of the IEL property. This will be accomplished when a final
settlement/agreement is reached with the IEL landfill property owner or the property
is transferred to another owner. In the meantime, the site is fenced and access is
controlled by US EPA. There is no short-term danger of drinking water wells or
residential development taking place on site.

• Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure. No early indicators of potential
remedy failure were noted during the review. Costs and monitoring activities have
been consistent with expectations.

Question B: Are the assumptions used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

• Changes in Standards and To Be Considereds. This Five-Year Review identified
no changes in the Federal or State standards which were considered in the remedy
selection process. Therefore, all relevant assumptions are still valid.

-------
• Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure
pathways were identified as part of the Five-Year Review. First, there are no current
or planned changes in land use, and, in fact, access is currently restricted by physical
controls. Second, no new contaminants, sources, or routes of exposure were
identified as part of this Five-Year Review. Finally, the rate of decrease of
contaminant levels in groundwater at the IEL site is matching expectations and no
unacceptable concentrations of groundwater contaminants are migrating off of the
IEL site. The migration of landfill gases is controlled and the concentration of
methane in the landfill gas is slowly decreasing with no active collection or
treatment at the IEL site.

• Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics. Toxicity and other
factors for contaminants of concern have not changed.

• Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Changes in risk assessment
methodologies since the time of the 2002 ROD Amendment do not call into question
the protectiveness of the remedy.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?

No additional information has been identified that would call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy.

Technical Assessment Summary

Site security is being maintained through the use of perimeter fencing. Some small sections of
fencing need repair, but there is no indication that the damage has resulted in the use of the IEL site
in a manner that would result in an unacceptable risk to site trespassers. Four signs have also been
placed on the site fence (one on each side) to identify the IEL site as a Superfund site and to provide
contact information. These signs are still present and in good repair.

In April 2004, Ecological Restoration, Inc. (ERI), under the direction of the Wildlife Habitat
Council (WHC), planted 8,424 trees and shrubs at the IEL site. The primary objectives of these
plantings were to provide a stable and protective soil covering at the IEL site and to foster the
development of a diverse wildlife population. The conditions of all of the plantings were monitored
monthly during the growing season. So far the majority of the trees and shrubs planted at the site in
2004 are showing acceptable growth and mortality rates.

Landfill gas has been sampled in 23 different monitoring events at IEL between August 25,2004
and June 7,2005. Monitoring was conducted with the MVS system operating and with the system
shut off. Landfill gas monitoring over time showed the following:

The concentrations of methane detected with the MVS system off (and the landfill
gas extraction wells converted to passive vents by opening them to the air) are
comparable to the concentrations found in the same wells during recent periods when
the MVS was operating.

-------
The concentrations of detected constituents in the landfill gas were consistently
within a narrow range throughout the year-long evaluation. Concentrations generally
appear to be decreasing slowly.

Based upon the results of these studies, site conditions are likely to continue to improve over time.
For this reason, additional site monitoring for landfill gases will continue on a less frequent basis.
Whenever changes to site use are contemplated, the potential impacts of these changes to the degree
and duration of potential human exposures to landfill gases should be evaluated.

When the IEL remedial investigation was completed at IEL in 1988, as many as 81 different
volatile organic compounds were detected in the groundwater at the site. Today, only nine VOC
compounds are still consistently detected at IEL, and only three of those (vinyl chloride, 1,2
dicholoroethane and cis-1,2 dichloroethene) exceed the allowable MCLs established in the Safe
Drinking Water Act In addition, these three contaminants currently exceed their MCLs in only two
of the 30 monitoring wells at the site. These two wells are located along the western boundary of
the site (in the direction of groundwater migration). Based upon these results, it is clear that
monitored natural attenuation is occurring at the IEL site and that VOC cleanup goals will
eventually be achieved for the three remaining compounds above MCLs.

VIII. Deficiencies/Issues

There was only one issue identified during this Five-Year Review with respect to the IEL remedy.
The institutional controls required by the 2002 ROD Amendment have not yet been implemented at
IEL. A partial Consent Decree was entered on April 7, 2005, which requires the settling defendants
to obtain an agreement from the Site owners to execute and record an easement granting the right to
enforce land and water use restrictions. Specifically, the easement must include restrictions to
ensure that the Site would not be used in any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect
the implementation, integrity, or protectiveness of the remedial measures to be performed under the
decree. In practice, this means implementing the restrictions set forth in the 2002 ROD
Amendment: a prohibition on drinking water wells and residential development within the
boundaries until such time as it can be shown that there are no risks associated with such uses. To
date, the settling defendants have not obtained the required easement from the site owner, Industrial
Excess Landfill, Inc. - currently a non-settling party. The site is fenced and access is controlled by
US EPA. Therefore, there is no short-term danger of drinking water wells or residential
development taking place on site. US EPA expects that, one way or another, the easement will be in
place in the near future.

-------
Issue

Affects
Current
Protectiveness

Affects
Future
Protectiveness

The institutional controls required by the 2002 ROD Amendment
have not yet been implemented at IEL. EPA expects that ICs will be
in place by June 30, 2007.

The remedy at IEL remains protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. Site
access has been adequately controlled and landfill gas and groundwater contaminant concentrations
are decreasing, as expected in the 2002 ROD Amendment for the site. Long-term protectiveness
will be achieved when institutional controls are implemented and maintained.

IX. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

The only remaining actions to be completed at the site are the continued groundwater monitoring
events until concentrations of contaminants meet all appropriate cleanup standards (MCLs), along
with occasional landfill gas sampling. Sampling for groundwater contaminants will occur in
accordance with the schedule approved in the approved Remedial Design Plan for the Industrial
Excess Landfill (IEL) Site, dated September 22,2003. This schedule is included as Attachment 4.
The number of wells monitored or contaminants measured may be reduced in the future if
contaminant concentrations continue to decrease or if contaminants are no longer detected. The
perimeter fence will remain around the IEL landfill property until a risk assessment demonstrates it
is protective to be on the landfill property in the future and until restrictions on the reuse of the
property have been placed in the deed. Future use of the property will be restricted to prevent
excavation and to prevent the installation of additional groundwater wells. An easement to prevent
the installation of drinking water wells, excavation, and residential development on the landfill
should be implemented. This may be achieved by agreement with the site owner; or if no agreement
is reached, by litigation.

Issue

Recommendations/
Follow-Up Action

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Agency

Milestone
Date

Affects
Protectiveness?
Current - Future

An IC Plan has not
yet been developed
for the IEL site.

An IC Plan* must be
provided by US EPA to
provide for IC
implementation and
long-term stewardship.

US EPA

State
EPA

3/31/2007

N Y

The institutional
controls required by
the 2002 ROD
Amendment have
not yet been
implemented at IEL

The settling defendants
must obtain an agreement
from the Site owners to
execute and record an
easement granting the right
to enforce land and water
use restrictions.

PRPs

State
EPA

N Y

* - The IC Plan will include 1) implementation of ICs. as needed: 2) provisions for modifications of the O&M Plan
regarding regular inspections and annual IC certification; 3) a communication plan; and 4) IC maps in both paper and
GIS format showing bom the area where ICs were required and where they have been implemented.

-------
X. Protectiveness Statements

The remedy at the IEL site is protective of human health and the environment in the short-term.
Long-term protectiveness will be achieved when effective institutional controls are implemented
and maintained.

XI. Next Review

The next review for the IEL site will be conducted within five years after the completion of this
Five-Year Review report The completion date of this report is the date of the signature shown on
the signature cover attached on the front of this report.

-------
Attachment 1
Site Map

-------
Industrial

Landfill

EPA ID#
OHD00377911

V,\t0

EPA Region 5
Stark County
10 miles from Akron

-------
» • v i t

I. . •+•
K « ^ 4-

4" *

TSVilJ^ . | .

0// • "*v,"«« *|" *:-«*-

~j V, ^;t|fD U. £..

'! '} J&\ 4 ! "» I ! ••

1 l i

-------
Attachment 2

Vegetative Cover
List of Plant Species and Dates Planted

-------
Table 4. Species and Dates Planted

Monday 4/26/04
Shrub Thickets

600' length x 5 layers
Species
Red cedar
Cockspur hawthorn
Blackhaw \iburnum
Red chokeberry
Hercules club

Tuesday 4/27/04

South Grids - Reforestation

Gray dogwood
Cockspur hawthorn
Red maple
Green ash
Scarlet oak
Pin cherry
Red Chokeberry
Shagbark Hickory

Wednesday 4/28/04
South Grids-front row

Gray dogwood
Gray dogwood
Cockspur hawthorn
Scarlet Oak
Shagbark hickory
Pin cherry
Red cedar
Red cedar
Red chokeberry
Red chokeberry

Wetland

Silky dogwood
Buttonbush
Ninebark
Speckled alder
Speckled alder

Thursday 4/29/04

Meadow Preparation
Test spray ing of invasives

3.000' 5 ft/shrub

Juniperus virgmiana 550 bare-root

(.'rateagus crusgalli 500 bare-root (2-4")

Viburnum prunifolium 300 bare-root (2-4")

Aronia arhtilifihu 300 bare-root (2-4")

Araliu spino.su 20 7 gallon

Subtotal Mondav 1670

Cornus racemosa 2400 bare-root

Crataegus crusgalli 1100 bare-root

Acer rubrum 50 5-gallon

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 5-gallon

Quercus coccinea 550 5-gallon

Prunus pennsylvanica 20 5-gallon

Aronia arbutifolia 32 5-gallon

Carya ovata 150 bare-root

Subtotal Tuesdav 4307

C 'ornus racemosa 600 bare-root

Cornus racemosa 120 5-gallon

Crataegus crusgalli 800 bare-root

Quercus coccinea 15 bare-root

Carya ovata 1 50 bare-root

Prunus pennsylvanica 30 5-gallon

Juniperus xirginiana 300 bare-root

Juniperus virginiana 60 tube

Aronia arbutifolia 64 1-gallon tube

Aronia arbutifolia 100 bare-rool

Cornus amomum 5 5-gallon

Cephalanthus occiiientalis 5 5-gallon

Physiocarpus opulifolius 5 bare-root

Alnus rugosa 128 1-gallon tube

Alnus rugosa 5 5-gallon

Subtotal Wednesday 2527

Grand Total Planting 8424

-------
Attachment 3
List of IEL Groundwater Monitoring Wells

-------
Table 1. Monitoring Well Network Tier Designations and Summary, 2004

Well ID

Tier

Location

Dedicated
Pump?

Notes

MW-011

Sentinel

ON-SITE

YES

MW-01D

Contingency

ON-SITE

YES

Deep well on western boundary

MW-0IS

Sentinel

ON-SITE

YES

Shallow well (straddles water tablei

MW-031

Perimeter

ON-SITE

YES

MW-07I

Sentinel

ON-SITE

YES

MW-07D

Contingency

ON-SITE

YES

Deep well on southern boundary

MW-091

Contingency

ON-SITE

YES

Extra background well

MW-)0!

Perimeter

OFF-SITE

YES

MW-1II

Sentinel

ON-SITE

YES

MW-1 ID

Contingency

ON-SITE

YES

Deep well on western boundary

MW-1 IS

Sentinel

ON-SITE

YES

Shallow well (straddles water table)

MW-121

Background

OFF-SITE

YES

MW-13i New

On-Site

ON-SITE

YES

replacement well. 2002

MW-14iNew

On-Site

ON-SITE

YES

replacement well. 2002

MW-16 New

Perimeter New

ON-SITE

YES

replacement well, outside waste

MW-17 New

Perimeter T»'ew

ON-SITE

YES

replacement well, outside waste

MW-18S

Perimeter

ON-SITE

YES

MW-181

Perimeter

ON-SITE

YES

MW-21S

Sentinel

ON-SITE

YES

MW-2II

Contingency

ON-SITE

YES

Deep well on western boundary

MW-221

Perimeter

ON-SITE

YES

-n

MW-23S

Perimeter

OFF-SITE

YES

MW-241

Downgradient

OFF-SITE

YES

MW-25S

Down gradient

OFF-SITE

YES

MW-26S

Downgradient

OFF-SITE

YES

MW-271

Downgradient

OFF-SITE

YES

MW-29 New

SentineI"New

ON-SITE

YES

new sentinel well

MW-30 New

Background "New

OFF-SITE

YES

new background well

MW-31 New

Sentinel Tvlew

ON-SITE

YES

new sentinel well

Tier Designation

Sentinel Wells: 8 welli:

Is, I i. "7j. 21s. lis. Hi. 29. 31
On-Site Wells: 2 wells:

13i and I4i

Background: 2 wells:

12i. 30

Perimeter Wells: 7 Weils:
h. 1 8i. 18s. 22i. 16. I7^_23s
Downgradient Wells: 5
24i, 25s. 26s. 27i. 10i
Contingency W ells: 5
coverage
Better Sentinel well co\erage
Better backaruund location

Ztot 2003 Do&gn fafifw Ntw far Summery */s

-------
Attachment 4
Schedule for Groundwater Sampling

-------
Table 10. Proposed 30-year IEL Sampling Event Matrix

as of9/22/2003

Notes: Seven monitoring everts conducted prior to August 2000 Remedy "in-place" since 1980

Regular monitoring using modem techniques conducted beginning in August 2000: I.e. year one through year three

has already been completed under an agreement with the Township under the supervision of USEPA and OhioEPA
Assume new monitoring wells installed before August 2004 event

Monitoring

\ tan

Event

Year

Fnft ROD

Date

Monitoring Well Tiers to be Sampled

Analytical Parameters

Rationale

)

August-2t)<>0

All I im

VW; Tier A1 only lor RAI)

VCX's. Meials. Natl, RAD

chemical constituents on-site; monitor tor poientisl oll-sitc
impact? Ma sentinel wells; put RAD issue to bed.

Mny-20(i]

1'ier S, B, OW. t ier Al only for RAD

VOC's, Metals. Nafl, RAD

\uguM>2DiJ]

Tier S. D. OW;

VOCs. Memls. Njk'1

Monitor that no off-site miernnon ot landfill condiments i*

Year 1 wo

May-2002

"lierS. B. OW

V( >Cs. Metals. Nm'l

occurring. monitor on-Mte conditions

Jiily-2002

Mi Tiers

VOt's. SVOCs. Mdills. Nat'l

Al) Tiers'Paratueiers to complete characterization

No\emher-2002

ficr S. H

Voc s. Metals

Monitor that no otY-site migration ot landfill constituents is

Year 1 hrce

Morth-20(n

lierS. B.OW

VOC's

occurring Snapshot ot on-sue conditions

lulviorn

All Tien

REMEDIAL ACTION APPROVED

VOCs. Nat'l

All Tiers ir> supplement database and confirm nat'l

No\embcr«2l»0?

All 1 ters

¦Vieust-20vr«T m*in\

-------
Attachment 5
Map of IEL Groundwater Monitoring Wells

-------
LEGEND

XXX RETAILED, REPLACED
-------
Attachment 6
Map of IEL Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells

-------
Qt ACTUAL GRO NOO£

• PA3SIVC VCNTS

A LAHOHLL GAS #£US

EXTRACTION WELLS

I ORIGINAL GRID NODE
1— (THOM.AS SURVEYING)

SUM MA SAMPLE
X>rr LOCATIONS (1-14)

360

5 o

l/i °
to -

2§

tr
o

cn
Z

=3 -1

Gl
a

AND ^OOATEa, INC.
7» P#fci U«q!o# fcd
¦rtatarVtiv, Ohlw +3&B1

(€14) 308—12QO
Fa* (614) 1WDfl-12CI

n« Nam#

ZDO^ilQ4qrld Ttilt'Jwa

Project Na.

2101

Sheet 1 or 1

Fittur* No. R«v?sfon

-------
Attachment 7
Five-Year Review Inspection Checklist

-------
OSWER No 9J^5 7-0M1-P

Please note that "O&M" is referred to throughout this checklist. At sites where Long-Term
Response Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as "system operations" since
these sites are not considered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the Superfund
program.

Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist (Template)

(Working document for site inspection. Information may be completed by hand and attached to the
Five-Year Review report as supporting documentation of site status. "N/A" refers to "not applicable")

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: w<,"V£

Date of inspection:

Location and Region: ia.(u\£^>_vc , CV-\

EPA ID:

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review:

Weather/temperature:
¦5M SJKI j

Let

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) .

Landfill cover/containment v
Access controls
Institutional controls
Groundwater pump and treatment
Surface water collection and treatment
Other

Monitored natural attenuation
Groundwater containment
Vertical barrier walls

Attachments: Inspection team roster attached

Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

I. O&M site manager .

Name

Interviewed at site at office by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions. Report attached

Title

Date

2 O&M staff

Name Title

Interviewed at site at office by phone Phone no.

Problems, suggestions; Report attached

Date

D-7

-------
OSWER Nu. 9355 7-OSB-P

Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e , State and Tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fili in all that apply.

Agency

Contact

Name

Problems; suggestions; Report attached

Title

Date Phone no

Agency

Contact

Name

Problems; suggestions; Report attached

Title

Date

Phone no

Agency

Contact

Name

Problems; suggestions; Report attached

Title

Dale Phone no.

Agency

Contact

Name

Problems; suggestions. Report attached

Title

Date Phone no

4. Other interviews (optional) Report attached.

D-8

-------
OSWER No 9)}5 7-OiB-P

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

O&M Documents

O&M manual
As-built drawings
Maintenance logs
Remarks

Readily available
Readily available
Readily available

N/A
N/A
N/A

Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan

Contingency plan/emergency response plan
Remarks

Readily available
Readily available

/Up to date\
yjp to date J

N/A
N/A

O&M and OSHA Training Records

Remarks

Rcadilv available

Up to date

N/A

Permits and Service Agreements

Air discharge permit
Effluent discharge
Waste disposal, POTW

Other permits

Remarks

Readily available
Readily available
Readily available
Readily available

Up to date
Up to date
Up to date
Up to date

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Gas Generation Records

Remarks

Readily available

Up to date

N/A

Settlement Monument Records

Remarks

Readilv available

Up to date N/A

Groundwater Monitoring Records

Remarks

Readily available

N/A

Leachate Extraction Records

Remarks

Readily available

Up to date

N/A

Discharge Compliance Records

Air

Water (effluent)

Remarks

Readily available
Readily available

Up to date
Up to date

N/A
N/A

10. Daily Access/Security Logs

Remarks

Readily available

Up to date

N/A

D-9

-------
OSWER ,Vrj WJ. 7-0iB-P

rv. O&M COSTS

I. O&M Organization

Slate in-house Contractor for Stale

PRP in-house Contractor for PRP

Federal Facility in-house Contractor for Federal Facility

Other __

O&M Cost Records

Readily available Up to date
Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&.M cost estimate Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From To Breakdown attached

Breakdown attached

Date

Total cost

From

Date

Total cost

From

Date

Total cost

From

Date

Total cost

From

Date

Dale

Total cost

Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period

Describe costs and reasons: .

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable N/A

A. Fencing \/

1. (jencing damaged^ Location shown on site map Cfiates secured^ NtA

Remarks, "fcvofe ui'iV*
-------
OSWERNv 9i55 7-033-P

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

1 Impleraentatian and enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented

Yes

N/A

Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced

Yes

N/A

Tvne of monitorine (e.f . seif-reDortinsj. drive bvl

Frequency

Responsible party/apencv

Contact

Name Title

Date

Phone no.

Reporting is up-to-date

Yes

N/A

Reports are verified by the lead agency

Yes

N/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met

Yes

N/A

Violations have been reported

Yes

N/A

Other problems or suggestions: Report attached

"*"0 J /ki Art!¦£) Wfrj

VnJor. UlAVpa Prcy^-Vx f-Wm»aU (

3tU££l<^ Uf.1.1 b«li P^t-UL* rCjX „

¦>

Adequacy ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate N/A
Remarks

D. General

I. Vandalism/trespassing Location shown on site map No vandalism evident

Remarks Stuwt «v.i»

2. Land use changes on site N/A
Remark s

Land use changes off site N/A

Remarks

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads Applicable N/A

Roads damaged Location shown on site map Roads adequate N/A

Remarks

D-11

-------
OSiVER *10. 9)55 7-03B-P

B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks-

V£I. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable N/A

A. Landfill Surface

I. Settlement (Low spots)
Areal extent

Remarks

Location shown on site map CSeulement not cvidenT)
Depth

2. Cracks
Lengths_
Remarks

Location shown on site map ^Cracking not evident^
Widths Depths

Erosion

Areal cxtent_
Remarks

Location shown on site map {Erosion not evident^
Depth

Holes

Areal extent..
Remarks

Location shown on site map ^Holes not evident)
Depth

^Vegetative Cover*) Grass Cover properly established

Ireesi'SHrUftS ^indicate size and locations on a diagram)

No signs of stress

Remarks Vf tf V nV ever vl*. - "vgc^ 5.^^ SLA

VafXt-*. o-ifeci a

Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.)

Remarks __

N/A

Bulges

Areal extcnl_
Remarks

Location shown on site map
Height

CbuIecs not evident^

D-12

-------
OSWEH h'u 93S5 7 fiiB-P

Wet Areas/Water Damage

Wet areas

Ponding

Seeps

Soft subgrade
Remarks

Twet areas/water damage nol evidenT^

Location shown on site map Area] c:\tent_
Location shown on site map Areal extent_
Location shown on site map Areal extents
Location shown on site map Areal e*tent_

Slope Instability

Areal extent

Remarks

Slides Location shown on site map evidence of slope instabilit^)

B. Benches Applicable N/ A

(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)

Plows Bypass Bench

Remarks .

Location shown on site map

N/A or okay

Beach Breached

Remarks

Location shown on site map

N/A or okay

3. Bench Overtopped

Remarks

Location shown on site map

N/A or okav

C. Letdown Channels Applicable N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep
side slope of ihe cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the
landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)

I. Settlement

Area! extent_
Remarks

Location shown on site map
_ Depth

No evidence of settlement

Material Degradation

Material type

Remarks_ __

Location shown on site map
Areal extent

No evidence of degradation

Erosion

Areal extenl_
Remarks

Location shown on site map
_ Depth

No evidence of erosion

D-I3

-------
OSWER A'o 9355.7-OJB-P

Undercutting

Areal extent

Remarks

Location shown on site map
Depth

No evidence of undercutting

Obstructions Type

l ocation shown an site map

Size

Remarks

No obstructions

Areal e\tcnl_

Type_

Excessive Vegetative Growth

No evidence of excessive growth
Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
Location shown on site map
Remarks _

Areal extent

D. Cover Penetrations Applicable

N/A

GmVshil

Active

tProperlv secured/lockej) (functioning
Evidence ot leakage at penetration

N/A

Remarks

Routinely sampled ygood conditic
Needs Maintenance

Gas Monitoring Probes

Properly secured/locked Functioning
Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks^

Routinely sampled Good condition

Needs Maintenance (Ti'VO

Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) ^

Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled QGood condition^
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks. ___

Leachate Extraction Wells

Properly secured/locked Functioning
Evidence ot'leakage at penetration
Remarks

Routinely sampled Good condition

Needs Maintenance

Settlement Monuments

Remarks

Located

Routinely surveyed

N/A

D-14

-------
OSWEH ,Va 915.5. 7-0?B P

E. Gas Collection and Treatment

Applicable N.'A

Gas.Treatment Facilities
(SJ) Thermal destruction

Good condition Needs Maintenance

Collection Tor reuse

Remarks itQ \~

2 Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping

f'Good condition***) Needs Maintenance
Remark s

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e g., gas monitoring of adja^nUjomes or buildings)
Good condition Needs Maintenance ( N/Ay
Remarks

F Cover Drainage Layer

Applicable

Siltation Areal extent

Siltation not evident
Remarks

Depth_

N/A

Erosion Areal extent.

Erosion not evident
Remarks

Dqun

Outlet Works

Remarks

Functioning N/A

4. Dam

Remarks

Functioning N/A

D-15

-------
OSWERNii -T-(/ijS-P

H. Retaining Walls

Applicable

I Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evident

Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement

Rotational displacement

Remar ks_ .

Degradation

Remarks

Location shown on site map

Degradation not evident

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge

Applicable

I Siltation

Areal e\tent_
Remarks

Location shown on site map Siltation not evident
Depth

Vegetative Growth Location shown on site map

Vegetation does not impede How

Areal extent. .. Type

Remarks

N/A

Erosion

Areal extcnt_
Remarks

Location shown on site map
_ Depth

Erosion not evident

Discharge Structure

Remarks .

Functioning

N/A

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS

Applicable (N/A

Settlement

Areal extent_
Remarks

Location shown on site map
Depth _____

Settlement not evident

Performance MonitoringType of monitoring.
Performance nol monitored

Frequency

Head differential

Remark s_

Evidence of breaching

D-16

-------
OSWER So. 9355 7-03B-P

IX. CROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES

Applicable

N/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines

Applicable

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

Good condition All required wells properly operating Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks_ .

2 Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks _

Spare Parts and Equipment

Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks „

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines Applicable

Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances

Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks

3. Spare Parts and Equipment

Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks

D-17

-------
OSWER No. 93SS. 7-013-P

C. Treatment System Applicable

1, Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

Metals removal Oil/water separation Biorcmediation

Air stripping Carbon adsorbers

Filters_ .

Addi'ive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculerit) .

Others _

G :¦['¦[] condition Needs Maintenance

Sampling ports properly marked and functional
Sampling;maintenance log displayed and up to date
Equipment properly identified

Quantity of groundwater treated annually,

Quantity of surface water treated annually.

Remarks _

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
N'/A Good condition Needs Maintenance
Rem arks

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs Maintenance
Remarks _

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks

Treatment Bnilding(s)

N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair
Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks, ,

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
All required wells located Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks _

D. Monitoring Data

1. Monitoring Data.

(js routinely submitted on timeS ^ls of acceptable quality*)

2. Monitorinp ditn minnf-ft". —.

(Groundwater plume is effectively contained Contaminant concentrations are declining^,

D-18

-------
OSWER A'o. 9355J-03B-F'

Monitored Natural Attenuation

1 Mnnitnrinp; Wrlls (natural attenuation remeHvl

Properly secured/locked Functioning Roulmely sampled f^Good conditionT^>
All required wells located Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are noi covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.

XI. overall observations

Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as
designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy i3 to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

Stu<\r\\EVkvA^ Ci i M ^nA««Avo<.

Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protect! veness of the remedy.

D-19

-------
OSIVER No. 9355.7-0iB-P

Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high

frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be

compromised in the future.

Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

D-20

-------
Attachment 8
Five-Year Review Inspection Photographs

-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Attachment 9
Five-Year Review Public Notice Advertisements

-------
nign praise tor these achieve-
ments.

Not only did the bands do
well, but the school and
community also performed
admirably More than 3,300 stu-
dents from District 8 participated
at Lake High School during the
two days. It took over 100 volun-
teers to make this event happen,
with jobs ranging from food
service preparation and sales tr
Judge's Assistants. Paren'
students and directors work
late into the night on Friday ai
all day Saturday. Every thing wen.'
smoothly, and many positive
comments were made regarding
the facility and the strengths of
the community and the music

unforgettable four years.

The teachers I had in high
school are a huge part of my
memories at Lake. Our teachers
are people who can be seen
helping out at extracurricular
activities and at our sporting
events, not because "i
but bec»-i
the

The Hartville News'

Hartville, Ohio
Friday, March 24, 2006
Page 2

hign scnool memories. Alreaay
those years in high school seem
to have quickly passed us by.
While we are all excited about
where we are now, we know
there is nothing like the times we
spend in the high school
i-inu lunch, the
fir, the

boti

there is i
think to ask for.

/ A \

EPA Reviews
Industrial Excess Landfill
Superfund Site
Uniontown, Ohio

I' S hnvironmcnlal Protection Agency is reviewing the efTecmencss ot'lhc
cleanup Jt InJustnal Excess Landfill Supcrlund site in Lmoiuown Superfund
law requires l ivc-yeai reviews of site* where the cleanup is either done or
in progress, but hazardous waste remains on-iite These five-year reviews
.ire done to ensure that the cleanup remains effective and ptotects human
health and the environment

On-Mic ground water continues to be contaminated with j handful of volatile
organic compounds. These VOC's resulted from a mixture of both solid and
liquid industrial wastes being deposited in the landfill Chemical, hospital
<*,istc. septic wastes, and witsres from the general public were also deposited
there Recent groundwater survey data indicate thai the level ofcontamination
^decreasing, both in terms of number of contaminants and iri concentration
Methane concentrations in landfill gasses continue to dissipate Municipal
water was exrended to area surrounding the site as a precaution

Five-year re\iew& look at

• Site information

• How the cleanup was done

• Mow *cll the cleanup is working

• \n\ future actions needed

The results w;|l be available for viewing at

Lniontown Public Library
120N Market Street
I niontown

(.)ucstn)ftM>f et »ncems regarding tlie cleanup or the review should be directed to:
Timoth) J. Fischer
Remedial Project Manager
EPA Region ^ (SR-6J)

77 W Jjckson Blvd
Chicago, II. <»0f>04
<312) SSh-5787 or 621 H431
Weekdays 9 (X) a.m. to 5 (MJ p m
fischer.timoihwi epa gov

1°

•tow much I
vanwimy time at Lake. Meeting
new people I have heard about
all kinds of high school experi-
ences, from private schools and
single gender schools, I have
looked at their experiences and I
have never been happier to be a
part of such a wholesome place.
I always remember graduates
telling me while I was in High
School to make the most of it. I
really hope to send the same
message to current and future
students because those years are
irreplaceable and in a quick four
years those will be your high
school memories for the rest of
your life.

Sincerely,
Katie W'alko
5347 Bonbam Road
Oxford, Ohio 45056

Letter to the Lditor.

In response to the Letter to the
bditor published in The Hartville
News on March 17. 2006 written
b> Matthew Finlev:

I would like to correct an
apparent misunderstanding
regarding ihe relocation of the
Hartville Redi-Mix.

The actual facts are. as a
former owner of the Hartville
Redi-Mix. ihe onl> portion of the
property annexed in the Village
is the rear parking area off
Sunnyside Street The rest of the
property, including the buildings
off Edison Street, are in I ake
Township.

After the property was sold to
the current owners — that is when
Leach Trucking Hartville Redi-
Mix relocated to their Uniontown
address.

Sall> J Higginbotham
1460 Edison Street
Hartville. Ohio 44632

SHOP LOCALLY
WITH CHAMBER BUCKS

Hartville Elevator Co., Inc.

Since 1909

• iSt 1IIUM. VVliU MUUIU IIKC lO I

more about the magicians, cl
out Garry and Kelsey's websi
carsonentertainment com
Businesses:

Andrea's Custom Photogra
Art Lan Florist. B.C Billi:
Best Bib and Tucker, Beve
Hair Shop, The Blissful He
Carlo's Trattoria, Country l
Vcentz, Country Flowers
•bs, Dahlman's Carpet, D
¦ng, Dorum Color '
n Finds, The Fr;
e. Glazed and Amu
pton Inn, Hart\
r,ntractors Supply. Ham
Hardware, Hartville Print
Helen's Kitchen, Hershbei
Homes, J & B Auto, Ji
Autocare, Knowles Press, Kn
Pizza, Lang's Nutrition, Lu<
Star. Mariachi Loco's, M
Barber Shop, Mel's Soft Wa
Needles-N-Pins Too, Nit
Body Shop. Inc., Pad«
Business. Paramount Photo. P;
John's, Paula's Place Hair Sal
Pizza Hut, Protech Water Supf
Schoner Chevrolet, Shear Sh>

Const

Custonr
Homes
&

Addition

~ Free Estimate;

330-877-60

www.stabaughconstructloi

• Low Priced • Quality Products • Friendly Service

Pari! Mananomant

FfiUurinq

Just Right Feeds

sWant
Gas A

• Tune-up

• Clean Fuel Inject

• Replace Filters

• Check Tire Press

- Improve Fuel Effii

-------
•om
is a
nds
iple
mid
the
»d a
ime

on
,hat
'ere
942
een
e.M
her
)hio
? at:

of
' in
ach
iro-
>er-
the
; of
rted

ped
*>rs
ling

cruise: Be careful ashore

CONTINUED FROM A1

mas and one of the world's

highest lakes.

Dante Noce, Arica's munici-
pal tourism director, identified
the dead as Marvin Bier, 79;
Shirley Bier, 76; Marian Dia-
mond, 76; Hans Eggers, 72-
Maria Eggers, 71; Ira Ore'
lield, 68; Linda Greenfield.
jYrthur Kovar, 67; Frieda Ki
''4; Carole Ruchelman, 63; b
bara Rubin, 69; and Robert
l-tubin, 72. He said all but Ira
Greenfield died at the scene.

Noce identified the injured
tourists as Bernard Diamond,
156, and Harold Ruchelman, 67.
Dr. Mauricio Lynn of Jackson
Memorial Hospital in Miami
said one of the men broke a leg

and the other broke a hand, and
Hanrahan said both were in
stable condition.

This week has proved a
tough one for the cruisoj
try. On TJ'

Private Pay
means:

We attend to our
residents needs,
because tbey are needs;
not because tbey are
'¦"kursable

DD jindsor

The Repository1
Canton, Ohio
Friday, March 24, 2006
Page A6

"jilt ,%(eJtra/ Yxjtbs "JZZr "

SUDed Mining /Mated LM*

HounsTT

the ship after it

Julie Benson, spokeswoman
for Princess Cruises, said the
company has reached no con-
clusions about the cause of the
blaze.

GREAT DAM TOURS & CRUISES

The* Casino Tours Depart Akron South, Cuvahogj Falls. Hudson Areas

TUK. * SAT.

HON. * SAT.

THums.

SENECA ALLEGANY

GftEEKTOWN

SENECA NIAGARA

$25

$30

April 11-12 Bdtern(fro« Medina) $89' Saairdre (from Hudson) Hoontainccr $25

1 )m 12-P ¦ HWfiON. CWR ON BELLE. $1*

' Aprl 21-23 ¦ NEW YORK CTTY $9)

jjy 9-15 MOtNT Kl'SHMOKE W*

'StpLie-riVUSKAQtlUSE

Joor 9-11 • MACKINAC ISLAND 5364

April »J« CHICAGO M

Jnh f 12 ftOODGANS l.P. 45**

Dec. 2-11 • HAWAII CXUSE
Above tours depart Bedford Hls.. Independence or Medina

^ Call 1-800 362^905

• Interest-free payment pUm

¦WKMhSkmA

• Dcntufc lab en premises

•We wort with all
insurance

• Immediate dentures
with tooth extraction

-Refines and repairs
while you wait

• Extensive warranties
on all dentures

veabojtusai

]"savg*600

^ On xltct DENTURE xts »

[Free Exam (X-rays]

1 must be 18 or older *m)

Canton

from VilJ-ig?

i3o 649-9000

Allcare

toll free 1866 ALLCARE

,to tr4,

/ A \

EPA Reviews
Industrial Excess Landfill
Superfund Site
Uniontown, Ohio

US Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the effectiveness of the
cleanup at Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund site in I 'niontown. Superfund
law requires five-year reviews of sites where the cleanup is either done or
in progress, but hazardous waste remains on-site These five-year reviews
are done to ensure that the cleanup remains effective and protects human
health and the environment.

On-site ground water continues to be contaminated with a handful of volatile
organic compounds. These VOCs resulted from a mixture of both solid and
liquid industrial wastes being deposited in the landfill. Chemical, hospital
waste, septic wastes, and wastes from the general public were also deposited
there. Recent groundwater survey data indicate that the level of contamination
is decreasing, both in terms of number of contaminants and in concentration.
Methane concentrations in landfill gasses continue to dissipate Municipal
water was extended to area surrounding the site as a precaution.

Five-year reviews look at:

• Site information

• How the cleanup was done

• How we)) the cleanup is wufriri£

• Any future actions needed

The results will be available for s icw mg at

L'niontoun Public Library
120 N. Market Street
I'niontown

Questions or concerns regarding the cleanup or the re\ icv> should be directed to
Timothy J. Fischer
Remedial Project Manager
EPA Region 5 (SR-fdi
¦"> W Jackson Blvd
Chicago, IL f»06CW
(312) 886-578'' or (#00> 1 -8431
Weekdays 900 am to 5 (H) p m
fischer.iimothyu epa go\

-------
Akron Beacon Journal • Friday, March 24,2006

www.Ohio.com

lityasim

itives stress border security

conservatives.

Bosh is working hand in band
with employers wuo want cheap
labor to dean hotel nxmh, pick
crops and do other tasks that
they say keep their businesses
competitive.

Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist, R-Tenn-, says he under-
stands those economic issues,
but his focus is cd the concern
voiced by social conservatives -
national security.

"The most important thing a
that we keep our borders safe,
keep America safe," said Frist

Sites is

'Beacon Journal
Akron, Ohio
Friday, March 24, 2006
Page A4

: country. About the
nme proportion said they favor
-wwkrr program for Ale-

spokeswoman Amy CalL "If s
621 -8431
Weekdays 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 pjn.
fischer. timothyi^epa. gov

-------