2015-12-13 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Agency review of SB 2306 – Transfer of authority to USACE

2015-12-13-epa-west-lake-landfill-agency-review-of-sb-2306-transfer-of-authority-to-usace

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To:
From:
Hague, Mark[[email protected]]
Distefano, Nichole
Sent:
Subject:
Mon 12/14/2015 4:14:13 AM
Re: SB 2306
Thanks!!! What’s FFA stand for?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13,2015, at 11:11 PM, Hague, Mark
From: Peterson, Mary
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 1: 14 PM
To: Hague, Mark
Cc: Stoy, Alyse
Mike
Subject: RE: SB 2306
Juett, Lynn
Cozad, David
wrote:
Brincks,
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055671
Attorney Work Product
Attorney Client Privilege
Deliberative
Do Not Release Under FOIA or in Discovery
Mark,
Alyse and I consulted on this today. Find below our responses in red to the points in your
email.
-‘–J,_j~’-J’—‘~’–”–‘ Reads like a transfer of oversight on WL to the COE under FSURP. And is
unclear what if any role EPA would have moving forward.
-~J_jl_j’–J’—‘l_j~jc_j Funding section talks about “funds made available to the Secretary”. That
seems to imply an appropriation that would go to FUSRP. I don’t see anything that would
imply the funding would come from EPA/SF approps. Given the site work is being paid by
the PRPs and if memory is correct we have some special account funds, there really is little
to no funding we have from our approps for this work.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055672
-~,~~~~,~~,~ It would seem that if signed into law that there is a transfer to
ACOE. .. although there is something in the language that like as soon as possible. Not sure
how that would implicate our work underway …. would we stop, continue or wait for
direction from the ACOE? You all may not have a different reading but want to check.
-‘–“–‘~~~’~’–”-‘-Does the transfer only include WL (language on radiation contamination) or
does it mean the entire site including areas where the State currently has the lead? This
seems unclear in reading the limited text and to my knowledge there is really no legislative
history beyond the bill language. If this moves quickly, which it could, we may not have
much more legislative history to guide next steps. If enacted figuring that out in and off
itself could add delays.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055673
From: Hague, Mark
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 5:52PM
To: Peterson, Mary
Cc: Stoy, Alyse
Mike
Subject: Re: SB 2306
Juett, Lynn
Cozad, David
Yes anytime tomorrow. A quick few points are fine.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2015, at 5:50PM, Peterson, Mary
Brincks,
wrote:
How soon do you need this Mark? I’m not in a good place to review the attachment
until later tonight. I plan to work much of the day tomorrow- will that be soon enough?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12,2015, at 11:37 AM, Hague, Mark wrote:
Mary, Alyse and Lynn
Attached is a copy of SB 2306. The bill to transfer WL to the ACOE.
I believe this is the same version we saw a week or two ago. If possible could I
get your general sense on a few key points.
-‘–“–‘~’–‘~”–‘~”–‘Reads like a transfer of oversight on WL to the COE under FSURP.
And is unclear what if any role EPA would have moving forward.
-‘-J’_j’-Jc_]L_” _ _cl_jc_j Funding section talks about “funds made available to the
Secretary”. That seems to imply an appropriation that would go to FUSRP. I
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055674
don’t see anything that would imply the funding would come from EPA/SF
approps. Given the site work is being paid by the PRPs and if memory is correct
we have some special account funds, there really is little to no funding we have
from our approps for this work.
-~,~~~~,~~,~ It would seem that if signed into law that there is a transfer to
ACOE … although there is something in the language that like as soon as
possible. Not sure how that would implicate our work underway …. would we
stop, continue or wait for direction from the ACOE? You all may not have a
different reading but want to check.
-~,~~~~·~~,~ Does the transfer only include WL (language on radiation
contamination) or does it mean the entire site including areas where the State
currently has the lead? This seems unclear in reading the limited text and to my
knowledge there is really no legislative history beyond the bill language. If this
moves quickly, which it could, we may not have much more legislative history to
guide next steps. If enacted figuring that out in and off itself could add delays.
If at all possible send me a few bullet points if you have any insights.
Thanks
Mark
Mark Hague
Regional Administrator
Office of the Regional Administrator
EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
913-551-7546

WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055675