municipality to foot the two million dollar annual cleanup cost for Honeywell's pollution. Last fall the Ombudsman successfully negotiated a solution to obtain funding from within EPA, but progress has now halted without any liability or enforcement action to hold Honeywell responsible. Shattuck, Colorado. This site near Denver stored radioactive wastes that could be toxic for 500 years. The storage area was within blocks of residential and recreation areas, as well as within range of the water supply. In response to requests ranging from Senator Allard to community organizations, an Ombudsman investigation found that EPA's plan to store the waste would only isolate it from 5-15 years. As a result, the agency agreed to require its removal. But costs were not negotiated and a settlement signed among the parties until almost a year after Ms. Whitman's arrival at EPA. Citizens protested that the subsequent proposed settlement only required Citigroup to pay $7 million for a cleanup that requires from $35-100 million to conduct adequately, without considering associated costs to remove radioactive contamination from the groundwater and other areas where leaks already had exceeded containment or the site boundary. After the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining abolition of the Ombudsman office, Mr. Martin completed compilation of an extensive record of public testimony and prepared a report for the Federal District Court judge in Colorado who must approve the proposed settlement. Although the settlement is still under review, there have been no further contributions to the record since Mr. Martin's removal. Tarpon Springs, Florida.- After the EPA had decided to pile up and leave asbestos, phosphates and radioactive wastes for storage in the community, Ombudsman Martin analyzed the storage site at the request of Representative Bilirakis. He found that it was an area prone to sinkholes, and on top of an aquifer that provides drinking water for two counties. As a result. EPA withdrew its remedy to leave the toxic wastes, and withdrew an associated consent decree. Ombudsman Martin was actively negotiating a new solution when his office was abolished. Throop, Pennsylvania.- Senators Spector and Santorum, as well as Lackawanna County and Throop Borough, asked Ombudsman Martin to review EPA's cleanup plan for this site to dispose toxic wastes from a battery crushing operation. The controversy centered on whether it should be a Superfund site, and whether toxic wastes such as acid, arsenic, dioxin, lead and PCB's should be removed or stored in the area. EPA's plan was to leave the poisons in the community, just blocks from residential and recreation areas and within range of the water supply, covered by plastic liner bags. But the Ombudsman investigation found lead in the soil at levels up to 250 parts per million, revealed there already were weeds growing through the plastic bags, and concluded that the area's topography meant it was too geographically unstable to safely store toxic waste. After the District Court TRO permitted the investigation to resume, the Ombudsman held public hearings and found records demonstrating that EPA had concealed readings that the site contamination readings exceeded Superfund levels. Since Mr. Martin's removal, the case has been dor mant. Uniontown, Ohio. At the request of area Congressman Sawyer, Ombudsman Martin opened a case of the IEL site near Canton, Ohio, for which tire companies today are primarily responsible. Radiation was emanating from the site with inexplicable tritium readings in the ground water, and the original owner alerted EPA that he had accepted a nuclear device from the army while operating the site as a landfill. The Ombudsman was investigating challenges to EPA assertions that the nuclear device did not exist, because it had not been found. Nonetheless, the agency also refused to look for it, based on the contradictory excuse that it would be too dangerous to do any digging. The Ombudsman case ended with Mr. Martin's removal. Yucca Mountain, Nevada.— At the end of last year the Nevada congressional delegation, the state and Las Vegas' mayor asked the Ombudsman to investigate EPArelated issues from the proposed nuclear waste site, which has a Resource and Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) identification number. EPA's Office of General Counsel barred Mr. Martin from providing assistance. World Trade Center. At the request of Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Ombudsman opened a case to prepare cleanup recommendations and to probe EPA Administrator Whitman's widely publicized assertions that there were no environmental health hazards from the World Trade Center disaster. Ombudsman Martin conducted two eleven hour hearings hosted by Representative Nadler. The hearings developed extensive testimony contradicting Mr. Whitman's assertions, from scientists, citizens, firefighters and other cleanup workers, doctors and even counter terrorism experts. They exposed severe threats from asbestos and other particles released during the disaster. The Ombudsman presented detailed findings in testi mony to the New York state assembly, New York city council, and New York City Board of Education. Facing this record, EPA reversed its initial decisions and took serious steps such as stopping release of contaminated cars, and starting a systematic program of indoor air testing for lower Manhattan. City authorities also acted to limit exposure of cleanup workers and school children to the newly confirmed health hazards. None of these efforts would have occurred if the District Court had allowed Ms. Whitman to eliminate the National Ombudsman function as originally planned. Further oversight has ended entirely since his forced removal. MEMORANDUM FROM COMMUNITY LEADERS FOR EPA ACCOUNTABILITY NOW (CLEAN), COEUR D'ALENE, ID, TO SENATOR JEFFORDS June 21, 2002 MEMORANDUM RE: S. 606 National EPA Ombudsman Reauthorization Hearing Thank you for committing to holding your hearing on the reauthorization of the National EPA Ombudsman. Please accept the following written and attached submissions by Community Leaders for EPA Accountability Now for the S. 606 hearing, June 25, 2002. It is the position of C.L.E.A.N. that an independent National EPA Ombudsman's function must be maintained-but outside the oversight of the EPA office of Inspector General. We fully support the position of U.S. Senator Mike Crapo in this regard. In Oct. 2000, C.L.E.A.N. testified (U.S. House-Commerce Committee) in support of the National EPA Ombudsman's critical role of oversight over EPA. If an agreeable timeline can be established, C.L.E.A.N. believes that reappointment of Ombudsman Robert Martin gives us our best hope for true resolution of the highly contentious issues our citizens, communities and elected leaders still have with EPA. The magnitude of the two Ombudsman investigations of EPA at the Bunker Hill Superfund Site and the surrounding basin cannot be overstated. The investigations of EPA and EPA Region-10 in North Idaho must be resolved-in a timely manner. Examples of our concerns with the critical need for a truly independent EPA Ombudsman are demonstrated in two attachments that show: • EPA-OIG has yet to respond to fundamental questions from C.L.E.A.N. about the pending Ombudsman cases here; • Concerns with EPA Region-10 actions continue to mount despite the efforts by new Regional Administrator John Iani to ensure local community concerns are prevented and/or resolved. C.L.E.A.N. respectfully submits this to you-in full support of Senator Mike Crapo's efforts and the testimony of Ms. Kathy Zanetti, of the neighboring Shoshone Natural Resources Coalition. Thank you. COMMUNITY LEADERS FOR EPA ACCOUNTABILITY NOW (CLEAN), Ms. NIKKI L. TINSLEY, Inspector General April 30, 2002. DEAR MS. TINSLEY: The sudden resignation of former National EPA Ombudsman Robert Martin last week, is prompting the following questions and inquiry by Community Leaders for EPA Accountability now (C.L.E.A.N.) based in beautiful Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. C.L.E.A.N. and other organizations dealing with concerns from EPA, Region-10, its bureaucracy and future intentions in this region have very real reservations about the likelihood Mr. Martin's investigations of EPA will ever be resolved or fully disclosed. In our effort to understand the IG's new role of managing the National EPA Ombudsman, please provide answers to the following: 1. We understand a successor to Mr. Martin has been named (Mary "Peggy" Boyer). What are her priorities as they relate to the pending investigations still open by the former Ombudsman? 2. Will the outstanding/pending "investigations" remain active or be reclassified/ re-prioritized in any way? If so, how? 3. Please define the process in which the active investigations will be carried out and finalized? What status are they being given? 4. Since Mr. Martin and other elected leaders, citizens, and business-owners were unsuccessful in having Region-10 answer any of the interrogatories or requests for production of documents submitted to EPA, how do you intend to have the new Ombudsman re-submit or demand formal responses to the questions/requests previously raised? 5. What is the status of the current case-file; hearing transcripts, documentation, etc. submitted by communities involved with the former Ombudsman's investigations? 6. How exactly, are affected communities supposed to have faith in the National EPA Ombudsman's functions under OIG authority? 7. What is the timeline in which the active investigations into EPA at the Bunker Hill Superfund Site and in the surrounding basin are to be resolved? 8. Is it unreasonable for local communities to expect some timely conclusion to the outstanding/active investigations of EPA and Region-10 before the release of the forthcoming Record of Decision by EPA (originally due in Dec. 2000) and now due in June 2002? 9. Will the new Ombudsman personally visit the sites with active investigations? If so, please explain the schedule and purpose? 10. What is the process for citizens and communities with new concerns about EPA actions in their area/region who want to report them to the proper authority? 11. If Mr. Martin's administrative appeal and/or court actions over his concern about the transfer from EPA-OSWER to the EPA-OIG are successful, will he be given complete access and authority over the case files recently transferred to your office? 12. Do you intend to delegate these questions to Ms. Boyer? If so, we would like to know exactly when that will take place, and how soon we can expect a reply. 13. As you may or may not know, former Ombudsman Martin released "working findings" outlining eight separate issues of questionable EPA actions at the Bunker Hill Superfund Site and in the surrounding basin. Will they remain an active part of the ongoing investigations of EPA here? If so, how? These are the priority questions from C.L.E.A.N. on behalf of many residents in our communities, elected leaders at all levels of government, including Congressional leaders who all have committed countless hours of testimony, research, documentation, etc. to prevent EPA from making more mistakes in our region. But more importantly, our collective efforts are also intended to hold accountable past and current EPA decisionmakers from unwanted actions in our region at taxpayer expense. Furthermore, we also want to understand your current position on Idaho's Congressional attempts (Sens. Larry Craig, Mike Crapo; Reps. Butch Otter and Mike Simpson) through S. 606, to reauthorize the National EPA Ombudsman's office as an independent function within EPA. We appreciate a timely response on the previous questions and the priority concerns outlined above. Please feel free to contact us at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, CARRIE OJA, Chairperson. BRET C. BOWERS, COMMUNITY LEADERS FOR EPA ACCOUNTABILITY NOW, JOHN IANI, Administrator, U.S. EPA-Region-10 Seattle, WA. June 19, 2002. RE: Bunker Hill Superfund Site/Cd'A Basin ROD. DEAR MR. IANI: The forthcoming Record of Decision on EPA's expanded Superfund cleanup in North Idaho is causing a great deal of anxiety in our region. The concerns stem partly from ongoing issues with EPA/Region-10 which have arisen or are yet to be resolved since your appointment as Regional Administrator. Community Leaders for EPA Accountability Now respectfully seek responses and understanding from you on the following "current" topics: 1. During a May 30, 2002 conference call with EPA, DEQ, agency contractors and others, there was reference to a "draft" ROD already circulating between the govern ments and Tribes. Is a draft being circulated? When do you anticipate presenting a final ROD to the State of Idaho and Coeur d'Alene Tribe for their acceptance? 2. Why hasn't a Federal appointee to the Commission (likely EPA) been selected? When do you anticipate an appointment? 3. During your meeting with C.L.E.A.N. last year, we briefly discussed the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the Coeur d'Alene Lake Management Plan between EPA and the State of Washington. What is the current status of that MOA and what specifically does it involve? 4. What can you tell us about how you intend to respond to allegations EPA is committing Clean Water Act violations at BHSS? Concerns in this area bring to light other "outstanding" human health and water quality issues that apparently the Basin ROD ignores. What will/is being done about the following: • Remaining Yard remediation projects inside BHSS? Central Treatment Plant and acidic mine water drainage? • Remaining needs for the Page Waste-water treatment plant? 5. Will the ROD address specific questions raised about the obvious need for leadspeciation and the bio-availability of lead throughout the basin? Other issues that have surfaced since you took office, or have yet to be resolved since your appointment as Regional Administrator include: 1. In the Fall of 2001, EPA's Maryanne Deppman, Sheila Eckman and Dick Martindale attended a CLEAN meeting. At that time, they were presented data pulled from EPA's web-page containing present-tense language regarding human health blood-lead levels at Bunker Hill estimating that, 7000 adults are ef fected." What specifically was done to rectify the web page and misleading information it contained? 2. Why does EPA R-10's webpage "In the News" section show a large disproportionate share of BHSS/Basin related stories from one newspaper, rather than both local papers providing a majority of the coverage? For example, a simple inspection of the web-site shows: 3. C.L.E.A.N. has received differing positions from EPA personnel on separate occasions on whether the Basin ROD will define work areas. At the first Basin Commission meeting in May, Maryjane Nearman stated that ROD will specify clean up levels, but no identified work areas. Later, in a separate C.L.E.A.N. meeting, Maryanne Deppman explained the ROD will identify work areas. What can we expect? 4. Will/does EPA consider incorporated and unincorporated areas outside BHSS that have yet to be sampled as part of the "listed/designated Superfund" site? 5. Since the first discussion between C.L.E.A.N. and EPA representatives (Chuck Findley in June 2001) took place regarding EPA's “de-listing" process, C.L.E.A.N. has received several different versions about de-listing the Lake in particular. Recognizing EPA and local communities in North Idaho have clear disagreements over the expanded Superfund boundary, what is EPA Region-10's process to de-list any area? 6. How soon can EPA's "de-listing" process begin for Lake Coeur d'Alene? 7. When do you anticipate to begin "de-listing" areas inside BHSS that have already been remediated? 8. Why has Region-10 still failed to release final results of EPA's Summer 2001 public survey? 9. Will EPA allow any further public input on the pending basin ROD? 10. How much has the Basin-wide RIFS and expenses associated with the pending ROD cost to date? 11. What is your desired outcome with the Technical Assistance Grant funding being considered for the new grant applicant in North Idaho? 12. Does EPA intend to use CERCLA funds for long-term monitoring needs for Lake Coeur d'Alene-and the Lake Management Plan? Final questions from C.L.E.A.N. involve Region-10's current position on critical matters as they relate to issues on a national scale, rather than simply local and regional issues. Please help us understand the following: 1. Why did EPA fail to respond to 2001 interrogatories and requests for docu- ‹ ments by the National EPA Ombudsman, as well as local elected leaders and industry representatives? When will you respond to the questions/requests? 2. Why hasn't EPA and its partners in the ongoing Natural Resource Damages litigation (U.S. vs. ASARCO) settled their case and in turn, commit new, but limited resources to the "outstanding" needs at BHSS or the new Basin Environmental Improvement Project Commission? 3. Why hasn't EPA Region-10 and National Administrator Whitman publicly endorsed S. 585 and the intent to supplement other Federal/industry funds with traditional EPA funding? 4. Should the final outcome involve recommendations that may change or impact past ROD(s) and or the pending ROD for the basin, please give us your best understanding of how EPA Region-10 intends to cooperate on: • National EPA Ombudsman investigations that may lead to recommendations? • National Academy of Sciences review of EPA Region-10? Finally, we've seen first-hand the difficulties associated with the creation and operation of the new Basin Environmental Improvement Project Commission. We believe Federal Representation is needed to accompany the three Idaho Counties, the States, and the Tribe's representatives. We ask that you help ensure that an appointment is in fact made to the commission and does take place soon. In the meantime, we are pleased that your office has been represented in the new process. On behalf of C.L.E.A.N. thank you for considering our request to help us understand the unresolved and pending concerns we have. We look forward to your responses. Please feel free to contact C.L.E.A.N. if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, CARRIE OJA, Chairman, Community Leaders for EPA Accountability Now. A PARTIAL APPROACH TO CLEAN-UP: EPA MISHANDLES SUPERFUND INVESTIGATIONS, Appendix A: Letter from David A. Ullrich, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. Appendix C: Memorandum from National Ombudsman Robert J. Martin to Region Appendix F: Maps of Industrial Excess Landfill: Figure 1 Monitoring Well Locations, Figure 2 IEL Alternate Water Supply and Residential Wells. Exhibit 22 of IEL Groundwater Flow Patterns from "Comments on the Existing Public Record for the Industrial Excess Landfill for the Revision of the 1989 Existing Record of Decision," by Bennett & Williams Environmental Consultants, Inc., April 12,1999. Appendix G: Lautenberg, Frank R., Chairman, and Dave Durneberger, Ranking Minority Member, "Lautenberg-Durenberger Report on Superfund Implementation: Cleaning Up the Nation's Cleanup Program," Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Ocean and Water Protection, May 1989. Appendix H: Letter from Resnikoff, RWMA, to U.S. EPA, July 1, 1993. *Retained in Committee's file. |