Letters

Uniontown IEL 2016 FIVE YEAR REVIEW BY REGION 5 US EPA

Posted by on Feb 11, 2016 in Letters | 0 comments

Uniontown IEL 2016 FIVE YEAR REVIEW BY REGION 5 US EPA

US EPA Region 5

Uniontown IEL Project Manager –

Ms. Karen Cibulski

Chicago, Illinois .

Re:  Region 5’s Uniontown IEL Superfund Site’s “2016 5 Year Review :  Citizens’ Plea for Scientific Accountability by EPA Adhering to What is Considered “Best Available Science”   – (by Following its own Guidelines  )

 As part of US EPA Region 5’s 2016 Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site “Five Year Review” required, citizens formally request  that US EPA Region 5 use this opportunity to correct past serious mistakes made at IEL, so grave that these mistakes, many believe, led to  fatally flawed clean up decisions being made –  the killing off of the various basic institutional controls /clean up components one by one –  measures that Region 5 had vehemently once promised this town would be carried out to insure that toxins would remain “isolated” in perpetuity…  Due to what appeared to citizens/ many elected officials to be immense political pressure/arm twisting (and worse – see Dr. Toby Clark’s follow up Clean Sites report done for US EPA on IEL for US EPA) – , today, all that remains of the so called “clean up” is the continued flushing of the site into our area’s aquifer, a toxic dump that, according to Ohio EPA, contains  “greater than 780,000 tons of hazardous substances“,  perched just above our area’s water supply.

Read More

Letters to US EPA Region 5 Re: IEL Toxic Gasses & 5 Year Review Requirements

Posted by on Feb 24, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

Letters to US EPA Region 5 Re: IEL Toxic Gasses & 5 Year Review Requirements

Given significant public pressure, after EPA had played down the content of what might be found in the IEL gases, repeatedly claiming back then, (in the mid 80s), it was just good old garbage dump methane, Region 5 miraculously chose to reverse a decision it had made prior to not conduct VOC testing/ chemical analysis on IEL’s gases, (during Superfund reauthorization when funding was tight they had claimed), and the Region decided to test for other constituents besides methane due to public/media pressure. From that testing, EPA indeed learned that at least 24 VOCs accompanied the methane, including Phosgene nerve gas. Yet, initially, an outside gas contractor US EPA had hired from Lorton, Va. in attending one of our many public meetings, trivialized the VOC’s concentration.…However, years later, he returned to Ohio and our TIC meeting, in approx. 1992, and in a stunning reversal of sorts, he informed us that the IEL landfills gases were ranging 8 – 9 % for Volatile Organic Chemicals, whereas, he told us that at a “typical” landfill, they would expect to only see VOC concentrations in a landfill gas at around .1 % . ( His name was Jim Walsh, if you have trouble finding the file, I believe his firm was called SES).

Read More

7/26/10 to Sherrod Brown

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

7/26/10 to Sherrod Brown

Your public statements to the media and your constituents concerning accountability of the British Petroleum Corporation is laudable. I hope they intensify to include issues of corporate rule or governance.

 

A somewhat similar environmental and political disaster exists closer to home in connection to the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) in Uniontown, Ohio. The corporate polluters here have also been put in charge of the so-called “cleanup.” The regulatory agency here, the EPA, has been compliant to the wishes of the corporate polluters. A real cleanup of IEL has not take place. Those responsible and accountability for the damages, cost and liability have not been brought to justice.

Read More

03/19/09 Press Release

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

03/19/09 Press Release

The US EPA and Department of Justice want to sell off for potential re-use one of the nation’s worst toxic waste dumps, the Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill, despite the fact that NO clean-up has ever taken place of the hundreds of thousands of tons of hazardous substances and radiation, including deadly Plutonium, reported in test results of groundwater declared valid by US EPA.

Read More

1/10/09 to Caroline Markworth, Ohio EPA Public Relations Dept.

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

1/10/09 to Caroline Markworth, Ohio EPA Public Relations Dept.

January 10th, 2009 SENT VIA E-MAIL

Third letter of request for information re. OEPA written response to the Nimishillen Creek Report & IEL Superfund Site

Read More

6/10/08 to James Wolford, EPA Superfund Director

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

June 10th, 2008 SENT VIA FAX

US EPA Headquarters
Mr. James Wolford – Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technological Innovations
Washington, D.C.

SUBJECT: Reform of US EPA Radiation Testing Methods at Superfund Sites

Dear Director Wolford:

After several years researching and consulting with various radiation experts around the country, both governmental and independent academic professionals, we believe that it is imperative that US EPA immediately reform its radiation testing at Superfund Sites by abandoning the current usage of the EPA Finished Drinking Water 900 Method,(meant for treated public water systems and not raw toxic dump water) and adopting the practices that are routinely used by the Dept. of Energy, including lower detection limits – 0.01 pico curies per liter for Plutonium, to increase certainty levels and accuracy.

Read More

05/18/08 Chris Korleski, Ohio EPA Director

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

Ohio EPA Director May 18th, 2008
Mr. Chris Korleski

Re: OEPA Director’s response to CCLT dated May 15th rejecting concerns re: IEL radiation testing / fraudulent science

Dear Director Korleski:

This is to acknowledge CCLT’s receipt of your letter written to our citizens’ group dated May 15th. When you were newly appointed by Governor Ted Strickland last year, you were quoted as saying that you desired obtaining “the best available science” and that you wanted to focus on protection of Ohio’s water sources. After waiting some 15 years for a change in Ohio leadership, we took heart at those words, and have since sought a meeting here with you here at our Stark Commisioner’s office through numerous requests made by Commissioner Bosley since last spring.

Read More

Bennett and Williams Report 09-14-06

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters, Reports | 0 comments

Bennett and Williams Report 09-14-06

“As we have discussed in earlier reports on the IEL site, there are basically three major water systems that can carry contamination away from the IEL site. These systems as surface water; starting on the east side of the site with Metzgers Ditch; regional subsurface ground water flow of dissolved volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi­volatile organic compounds (SemiVOCs); and the deep, top of bedrock ground water flow of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) which flow by gravity along the top of bedrock in the direction(s) of bedrock drainage. This third mechanism is controlled by gravity and may or may not have anything to do with the general direction of the two other systems.”

Read More

9/2/06 to Michael Cook, EPA Superfund Remediation Director

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

Sent Via Fax: 2 page letter
9/2/06

US EPA Headquarters
Mr. Michael B. Cook – Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cook:

Region 5’s Richard Karls’s letter dated August 10th to CCLT written on behalf of EPA Administrator Steve Johnson appears to primarily rely upon your letter to our citizens’ group dated April 26th, 2006, to dismiss all our concerns. We are extremely frustrated by your depending upon a 13 years old report written by an ad hoc SAB panel, especially now that a journalist has learned that the majority of that committee has reportedly admitted that they were not even qualified to discuss radiation testing methods and procedures, which should clearly now render this report null and void. Much is at stake, given that IEL was used as the example for all other Superfund Sites in the country suspected of containing radiation, reinforcing the bad policy of using the Finished Drinking Water Method on raw, untreated water. It is believed this method can mask man-made nuclear materials leaking from sites given several inherent loopholes within the method. Those biases are central to the Uniontown IEL case.

Read More

7/16/06 to Steve Johnson, US EPA

Posted by on Feb 19, 2014 in Letters | 0 comments

Sent Via Fax : 2 page letter with 1 page attachment
July 17th, 2006

 

Mr. Steve Johnson – US EPA Administrator
c/o Ms. Lori Dnbriel
Washington, D.C.

Dear Administrator Johnson:

Since last October, we have written to you seeking your personal involvement regarding our site, Uniontown Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site, raising serious questions that we strongly believe have national policy implications concerning radiation and Cold War waste material. To date, we have yet to receive from EPA responses that are scientifically supportable. Rather, you have allowed Region 5 and NAREL, which are hardly considered to be impartial or objective regarding IEL, to “recycle” old, outdated opinions that are not consistent with good science found within either DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, your own agency’s R&D department or the MARLAP Manual.. Moreover, a reporter learned by making a few phone calls, that the majority of the panel members from the EPA IEL Science Advisory Board (SAB) didn’t even believe that they were qualified to discuss radiation testing methods. Yet, inexplicably, Mr. Mike Cook, head of EPA Superfund, recycled this same SAB report’s conclusions back at us on your behalf, (even though it is now clear it should be considered null and void) – ignoring this concern about the SAB usage when it was also expressed by national organizations, POGO and AFSC in the joint letter they sent to you dated 4/12/06 concerning IEL radiation. Administrator Johnson, given the very serious nature of our case and the recent findings of experts hired with a $50,000 grant ( please see our web site provided on the cover page) we are compelled to again seek scientifically supportable answers that can be peer reviewed. Please respond in writing to the following key issues:

Read More