Re: [CPEO-MEF] Uniontown IEL Five Year Report, "Low Flow", metals, filtration etc.

On Friday, May 29, 2026 at 04:45:20 PM EDT, crborello@aol.com <crborello@aol.com> wrote:

FYI for folks interested in radiation testing and crooked science being used...Case in point., see attachments

On Friday, May 29, 2026 at 03:24:38 PM EDT, crborello@aol.com <crborello@aol.com> wrote:

US EPA Region 5

Mr. Aaron Green, Uniontown IEL Project Manager

RE: IEL latest "Five Year Review" and data bases on blank pages?

Dear Aaron:

Concerned Citizens appreciated your prompt response yesterday regarding their discovery that, for some reason, after approx. page 56, your report pages come up blank. You have assured us this will be resolved as soon as possible. Indeed, we are very anxious to see if the data bases we have requested for years now, are attached in those appendices. In the body of the report, we see your own questions pertaining to "Low Flow", filtration, etc., which of course underscores just why that field information is needed to access the IEL Five Year Report report properly.

As our 17th or 18th R5 IEL Project Manager, you may or may not know that it is believed we lost our groundwater Pump & Treat System cleanup component in 1998 ( that could have prevented the migration of the plume containing metals and other contaminants like the 1, 4 Dioxane) due to failures in part, in carrying out properly the Low Flow Method in the field, as outlined in US EPA's R &D Kerr Lab, Ada Oklahoma criteria for Low Flow.

Additionally, the practice of field filtration has been of serious concern at IEL for decades ( which Low Flow was suppose to replace/negate the need for)... particularly regarding the radiation, since some isotopes like Plutonium are known to bind to the particles in water ( colloids, suspended solids). Yet, inexplicably, US EPA's NAREL reportedly required the PRPs to filter all of IEL's rad samples on top of the Low Flow - apparently inexplicably going against what EPA's own R & D's top expert, Dr. Bob Puls had told us as "best available science" that Administrator Lee Zeldin stated was EPA's goal!

Note: You hopefully are likewise aware that even the Twp. consultant Mr. Shalala had written PRPs in March, 2001 indicating ongoing concerns ( identified initially by Dr. Julie W. Rice concerning the 1998 data sets) when the crucial resumption of radiological testing commensed in 2000/01 rounds conducted. In that letter to Goodyear, Mr. Shalala indicated the Low Flow issues re. properly purged test wells for Low Flow , i.e, "stagnant " water samples being collected instead - , that a top US EPA R & D rad expert said could have allowed VOCs to blow off the top of the casings, and metals and radiation to fall to the bottom - potentially biasing all these various contaminants.

Of course, we presume like your some 17 predecessors, you are instructed to say radiation is no longer an issue, citing the 30 + year old SAB report (in which in truth, the SAB stated on page 15: ..."The information provided by EPA does not address radioactivity in suspended sediment, so it is more difficult to address whether or not the levels observed in the filtrate are within background levels. " and then, in the 2004 US EPA IG McKechnie/Baughman report, where in Appendix A, Canadian Mel Gascoyne expressed similar caveats concerning the particle phase. Please carefully review the below to help you further understand our concerns.

Sincerely,

Chris Borello for Concerned Citizens of Lake Twp., Uniontown IEL Superfund Site, OH

Sent from my iPhone

From:	"crborello@aol.com" <crborello@aol.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 May 2026 14:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Reply:	cpeo-military
Subject:	Re: [CPEO-MEF] Uniontown IEL Five Year Report, "Low Flow", metals, filtration etc.

On Friday, May 29, 2026 at 04:45:20 PM EDT, crborello@aol.com <crborello@aol.com> wrote: FYI for folks interested in radiation testing and crooked science being used...Case in point., see attachments On Friday, May 29, 2026 at 03:24:38 PM EDT, crborello@aol.com <crborello@aol.com> wrote: US EPA Region 5 Mr. Aaron Green, Uniontown IEL Project Manager RE: IEL latest "Five Year Review" and data bases on blank pages? Dear Aaron: Concerned Citizens appreciated your prompt response yesterday regarding their discovery that, for some reason, after approx. page 56, your report pages come up blank. You have assured us this will be resolved as soon as possible. Indeed, we are very anxious to see if the data bases we have requested for years now, are attached in those appendices. In the body of the report, we see your own questions pertaining to "Low Flow", filtration, etc., which of course underscores just why that field information is needed to access the IEL Five Year Report report properly. As our 17th or 18th R5 IEL Project Manager, you may or may not know that it is believed we lost our groundwater Pump & Treat System cleanup component in 1998 ( that could have prevented the migration of the plume containing metals and other contaminants like the 1, 4 Dioxane) due to failures in part, in carrying out properly the Low Flow Method in the field, as outlined in US EPA's R &D Kerr Lab, Ada Oklahoma criteria for Low Flow. Additionally, the practice of field filtration has been of serious concern at IEL for decades ( which Low Flow was suppose to replace/negate the need for)... particularly regarding the radiation, since some isotopes like Plutonium are known to bind to the particles in water ( colloids, suspended solids). Yet, inexplicably, US EPA's NAREL reportedly required the PRPs to filter all of IEL's rad samples on top of the Low Flow - apparently inexplicably going against what EPA's own R & D's top expert, Dr. Bob Puls had told us as "best available science" that Administrator Lee Zeldin stated was EPA's goal! Note: You hopefully are likewise aware that even the Twp. consultant Mr. Shalala had written PRPs in March, 2001 indicating ongoing concerns ( identified initially by Dr. Julie W. Rice concerning the 1998 data sets) when the crucial resumption of radiological testing commensed in 2000/01 rounds conducted. In that letter to Goodyear, Mr. Shalala indicated the Low Flow issues re. properly purged test wells for Low Flow , i.e, "stagnant " water samples being collected instead - , that a top US EPA R & D rad expert said could have allowed VOCs to blow off the top of the casings, and metals and radiation to fall to the bottom - potentially biasing all these various contaminants. Of course, we presume like your some 17 predecessors, you are instructed to say radiation is no longer an issue, citing the 30 + year old SAB report (in which in truth, the SAB stated on page 15: ..."The information provided by EPA does not address radioactivity in suspended sediment, so it is more difficult to address whether or not the levels observed in the filtrate are within background levels. " and then, in the 2004 US EPA IG McKechnie/Baughman report, where in Appendix A, Canadian Mel Gascoyne expressed similar caveats concerning the particle phase. Please carefully review the below to help you further understand our concerns. Sincerely, Chris Borello for Concerned Citizens of Lake Twp., Uniontown IEL Superfund Site, OH Sent from my iPhone Attachment: `IMG_5273.jpg` Description: JPEG image Attachment: `IMG_5274.jpg` Description: JPEG image Attachment: `IMG_5278.jpg` Description: JPEG image Attachment: `IMG_5275.jpg` Description: JPEG image Attachment: `IMG_5276.jpg` Description: JPEG image Attachment: `IMG_5277.jpg` Description: JPEG image _______________________________________________ Military mailing list Military@lists.cpeo.org http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.org
	Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] RADIATION, FORMER SITES: "Judge permanently blocks Manhattan Project radioactive waste from Wayne Disposal landfill [MI]" Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] FORMER SITES: "Army Corps says Unalaska [AK] cleanup work will continue despite statewide cutbacks"
	Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] RADIATION, FORMER SITES: "Judge permanently blocks Manhattan Project radioactive waste from Wayne Disposal landfill [MI]" Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] FORMER SITES: "Army Corps says Unalaska [AK] cleanup work will continue despite statewide cutbacks"