Tippecanoe environmental board asks federal intervention after EPA signals PFAS, dioxin groundwater testing; approves claims and contract renewal

Lafayette, Ind. — On July 22, 2025, the Tippecanoe County Local Environmental Response Finance Board voted to ask its board president to contact the county’s congressional delegation after U.S. EPA staff indicated additional groundwater testing for PFAS and dioxin might be included in the site’s five‑year review.

The board took the action during a report from Sarah Gus, who said she was attending for Vicky (not present). Gus told members that EPA would not agree to excluding groundwater from the review and "they're asking for additional testing to be done for PFOS and 14 dioxin, which we are trying to push back on." Board members said the potential testing could impose substantial costs and produce results that may not change what can be done at the landfill.

Why it matters: Board members said additional testing could impose meaningful costs on the local program and provide little practical benefit because, as discussed at the meeting, the site is capped and monitored and there is no direct discharge to the Lafayette wastewater plant. The board asked staff to prepare cost estimates and to have the board president send a targeted letter to congressional representatives asking that the proposed groundwater testing be excluded from the five‑year review.

At the meeting, Gus said the EPA had missed an internal May 15 deadline on an earlier schedule and that the agency’s next deadline was listed as Nov. 14, with a separate milestone "in February" (transcript). She also said EPA staff had requested further PFAS and dioxin testing and that agency project‑level turnover and staffing changes in EPA Region 5 and at IDEM had complicated communications. "They will not agree to the ground water," Gus said. "They're asking for additional testing to be done for PFOS and 14 dioxin, which we are trying to push back on."

Board members pressed on costs and purpose. One board member estimated a lab cost of about $500 per PFAS sample; board discussion included a rough calculation of 36 wells at $500 per sample leading to about $18,000 in single‑round lab costs if all wells were tested. "If they're going to force us, I guess my first comment would be this... I would recommend that we push back on that requirement," said Zach, a board member who moved the request that the board president contact the congressional delegation. Tony, a board member, said the testing appeared to be "an unnecessary financial burden."

The board voted to have the board president draft and send a targeted, specific request to congressional representatives to try to keep the proposed groundwater PFAS/dioxin testing out of the five‑year review. The motion was moved by Zach and seconded (second not identified by name in the record). The motion carried on a voice vote.

Votes at a glance - Approval of April 8, 2025 minutes — approved (voice vote reported as 5‑0). - Claims and invoices — all claims read during the meeting were approved by motion and voice vote: Caramita Environmental Inc., $58,382.48; Caramita Environmental Inc., $34,280.29; Caramita Environmental Inc., $8,249.41; Stewart and Brand LLP, $1,080.00; Stewart and Brand LLP, $2,400.00; Waste Management, $14,878.37. (Individual roll‑call tallies not recorded in transcript; approvals were by motion and voice vote.) - Resolution renewing contract/authority for Caramita Environmental Inc. (identified in the packet as resolution 20252025‑01) — approved by voice vote. - Motion directing the board president to write to congressional representatives asking that groundwater PFAS/dioxin testing be excluded from the five‑year review — moved by Zach; second not specified; motion carried by voice vote.

What happens next: Staff said it will obtain cost estimates for sampling and will circulate an update once congressional outreach or other meetings with EPA/IDEM occur. The board asked that any letter be specific and actionable before transmission; staff said they will prepare a draft and that the board president would sign the final letter.

Background: Board members and staff discussed that the site in question has been monitored for roughly 20 years, that the landfill is capped, and that prior sampling for arsenic and other constituents produced stable results. Members expressed concern that repeated or expanded groundwater sampling could require recurring expense without clear remediation paths.

The board conducted routine administrative business at the start and end of the meeting, including reading and approving claims and authorizing a contract extension for Caramita Environmental Inc. The public comment period drew no speakers.