2015-02-13 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – EPA Region 7 Indicates West Lake is Most Hot Button Issue in State of Missouri

To: Juett, Lynn[Juett.Lynn@epa.gov]; Jackson, Robert W.[Jackson.Robertw@epa.gov] From: Vann, Bradley Sent:... View Document

Post

2015-05-20 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Potential alternate waste streams not specifically Leached Barium Sulfate

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Hooper, Charles A.[Hooper.CharlesA@epa.gov]
Vann, Bradley
Wed 5/20/2015 3:05:48 PM
RE: Recent CAG question
From: Hooper, Charles A.
Sent: Wednesday, May 20,2015 10:04 AM
To: Vann, Bradley
Subject: RE: Recent CAG question
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0047457
From: Vann, Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, May 20,2015 6:39AM
To: Hooper, Charles A.
Subject: RE: Recent CAG question
EMSI: #6) Based on the results of the GCPT gamma logs … will be used to evaluate whether the
radionuclide occurrences are associated with Leached Barium Sulfate Residue (LBSR).
CAG Question 4: The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) explicitly details how the radioactive
wastes dumped at the West Lake Landfill in 1973 consisted of more radioactive wastes than
“Leached Barium Sulfate Residue” in its 1974 decommission report on Latty Avenue.
EPA Response: The analytical testing being performed at the West Lake Landfill site will detect
radionuclides concentrations regardless of the CAG’s concern for its origin.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0047458
From: Vann, Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, May 20,2015 6:17AM
To: Hooper, Charles A.
Subject: RE: Recent CAG question
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0047459
From: Hooper, Charles A.
Sent: Tuesday, May 19,2015 3:14PM
To: Vann, Bradley
Subject: RE: Recent CAG question
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0047460
From: Vann, Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:39 AM
To: Hooper, Charles A.
Subject: Recent CAG question
Chuck,
We received a question from the CAG regarding the ongoing GCPT Phase 1D effort. Can you
help me answer this one? Thanks,
EMSI: #7) Details 12 radioactive isotopes to be tested.
CAG: We recommend additional testing for Radium-223 and Thorium-227. If the EPA cannot
amend the Phase 1 Investigation Work Plan to include sampling for the above mentioned
radioisotopes, the CAG recommends that EPA Region 7 conduct tests for the listed isotopes in
its split samples.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0047461
EPA Response: ???
Bradley Vann- Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Division
Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS 66219
Phone: 913-551-7611
Fax: 913-551-9611
Cell: 816-714-0331
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0047462

Post

2015-03-03 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – One and a half thousand billion picoCuries of Thorium 230 in West Lake Landfill

Site ID: 0714BE01
Mr. Paul V. Rosasco
Project Coordinator
Engineering Management Support, Inc.
7220 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 406
Lakewood, Colorado 80235
Dear Mr. Rosasco:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing comments for the reviewed
document submittal titled “Bridgeton Landfill Thermal Isolation Barrier Investigation Phase 1 Report,
Bridgeton, St. Louis County, Missouri” prepared by Feezor Engineering, Inc. and P. J. Carey &
Associates, in conjunction with Engineering Management Support, Inc. and Auxier and Associates, Inc.
The cover letter on the document was dated December 19, 2014 and submitted to EPA in accordance
with the Administrative Order on Consent, EPA Docket No. VII-93-F-0005, paragraph 51 to complete
characterization of radiologically impacted material (RIM) at OU 1, Area 1.
Majority of the general comments enclosed were previously discussed at our joint technical
meeting held on January 23, 2015 and agreed upon by the responsible parties in their response letter to
the EPA, dated January 27,2015. Other additional comments are also provided, which are either general
in context or document specific per the EPA’s complete review of the December draft report. All
comments should be directly addressed through written correspondence to the EPA and can be discussed
by teleconference or email if needed to expedite response. Once approved, the Agency will request a
revised work plan submittal for review and approval. If the comments submitted by the EPA today
cannot be timely addressed before the next iteration of the draft work plan is submitted for Agency
review (i.e., they cross paths), it is understood that they will be addressed, and where applicable,
incorporated prior to submission of a revised final work plan. The EPA also reserves the right to submit
further comments on the pending iteration of draft work plan submittal.
Based on our February 18 and March 2, 2015 follow up teleconferences and as discussed above,
comments that are relevant to the next phase of soil characterization and fieldwork activities should be
incorporated into the revised work plan. Once the EPA approves the revised document, the responsible
parties will proceed in accordance with the work plan schedule to complete this additional work. At the
completion of fieldwork activities this summer, any enclosed EPA comments related to reporting data
results should be incorporated within a comprehensive report that contains data from every phase of
RIM characterization fieldwork performed to date and following the conclusion of the final phase this
year.
If you have any questions regarding this document, EPA’s comments or would like to discuss
other issues, please email or contact me at (913) 551-7611.
Sincerely,
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050546
End:
cc: Shawn Muenks, MDNR
Robyn Kiefer, USACE
Brad Vann
Remedial Project Manager
Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch
Superfund Division
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050547
General Comments:
I. All field notes and photos should be attached to the comprehensive report or added as
appendices.
2. The Data Quality Objectives in the pending revised work plan must differentiate the
radiological contaminants from a radioactively impacted material (RIM) source versus a
non-RIM/naturally occurring or other sources. Please revise the DQOs accordingly.
3. The upcoming investigation is dependent on the historical photographs to determine
sampling locations. It is EPA understanding from our last teleconference that an aerial
survey of the landfill was taken in I973 and available, and was verbally requested during
our last telephone conference. Therefore, please provide copies of this photograph and/or
stereographic pairs, along with any other relevant or referenced historical information to
EPA for supporting the rationale behind sample locations and or historical placement of
RIM. This may be provided with the revised work plan or as a separate submittal to EPA.
4. The comprehensive final report must include a conclusion and recommendations section.
In addition, document figures warrant revision that accurately depict and incorporate
relevant site information both historical and based on recent sampling results around
OUI, Area I, as some of the historical RI boundaries are now obsolete.
5. Supplemental sampling needs to identify a clear process in the work plan, or reference an
existing one, for decision making while in the field and further investigation if
concentrations of RIM are found in the pending expanded investigation locations without
requiring another mobilization.
6. All work related documents (e.g., work plans, reports, deliverables, etc.) from this point
forward must include a schedule of primary tasks/activities/milestones with along
projected dates for their start/completion and where applicable identification of any
critical path items.
7. It is EPA’s intention to collect split samples during the next round of fieldwork for
submission of TCLP standard and/or pyrolysis analysis. Soils identified as containing
RIM associated with the radionuclides historically dispose of at OUI Area I, need to be
made available to EPA personnel or their field representatives. This would include and is
not limited to existing RIM soils samples collected during the prior round of
characterization that are currently maintained onsite.
8. Per the technical conference with EPA personnel on January 23, 20I5 and consistent with
the January I5, 20I5 letter sent by EPA, RPs need to perform additional bounding
sampling near elevated locations to determine whether or not contamination extends
outside these areas. This includes establishing a no RIM boundary and performing
additional sampling southward towards the North Quarry area and west of the original
boundary of Area I to determine the extent of RIM in this area. Ideally samples could be
placed per that discussion to ensure best coverage, support the existing data, and in
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050548
accordance with risk-based statistic, given the heterogeneity of how RIM was placed in
the landfill. As previously discussed, there’s a lot of value in using historic imagery to try
to identify areas of potential concern. Where historic imagery is utilized it must be cited
to help support sampling locations, and where available copies provided in reports to
justify sampling locations (see General Comment 3).
9. For reporting purposes and work after the investigation, EPA recommends the RPs revisit
some assumptions of the Baseline Risk Assessment using this new data and any future
collected data as part of the RIM characterization to ensure site conditions are still similar
to what has been previously assessed. It’s possible to calculate the total amount of
Thorium-230 disposed of in 8,700 tons of waste material, this value is ~1.5E15 pCi.
Using the UCL95 values provided in the BLRA you arrive at a total accounted for
activity of 1.3E15, or about 90% of the material is accounted for, which is probably a
pretty good estimate.
Conversely, if the average value is used, you arrive at an accounted for activity of only
7.5E14, which is roughly 50% of the material…
With this new data the material present appears to be in a larger area, at least at Area 1,
and present in thicker layers, and/or is present at higher activities than what was assumed
in the BLRA. Therefore, this information will need to be reevaluated in the revised BRA
prior to amending the Supplemental Feasibility Study.
Specific Comments:
1. Section 1, pg. 7, Paragraph: Report states, “Although these criteria identify levels that
would allow for unrestricted use of the site, these criteria have no relationship to riskbased
criteria for a solid waste landfill or levels that would be protective if an SSE were
to occur in these materials.” The final report needs to state that risk-based criteria for this
site has not been determined, therefore, comparison to unrestricted use criteria is being
used.
2. Section 1.1.2.2, Page 8, Paragraph 4: Report states that monthly groundwater levels
measured in 2000 and 2005 indicated that groundwater generally occurs only in the
underlying alluvium at or below the base of the landfill material. As such, recent
groundwater levels need to be reviewed and also cited in the final report to indicate
whether current data shows the groundwater level is still at or below the depth of waste;
or could reference section 7.2 to indicate that 2013 investigation results confirm that
current conditions still indicate fluid levels at or below the base of the landfill material,
which is consistent with the 2000 and 2005 groundwater levels.
3. Section 1.1.3, Page 9: This paragraph references the proposed thermal isolation barrier
location. Two alignment alternatives have been proposed. The final report will need to
include a figure or figures to indicate which IB location is being referred.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050549
4. Section 1.1.3.2, Page 9, Paragraph 2: Report states laboratory analysis of surface soil
samples (the upper 6 inches) detected radionuclides at levels above 5 pCi/g above
background at boring locations WL-106 and WL-114. Figure 2 only shows WL-106B. In
the final report, please clarify if this is the same well as WL-1 06 or not and correct if
needed.
5. Section 3.2.5, Page 17, Paragraph 2: In this paragraph, and at several other locations in
the document, it is stated that a screening value of 200-250 cps was used to identify
potentially elevated gamma readings. Be sure to include an explanation on how that
screening level was determined in the final report.
6. Section 4.2.1, Page 24, Paragraph 2: Last sentence states, “Samples were then
geologically logged, photographed, scanned for radiation, and samples for radiological
analyses were selected.” Expand this section in the final report to indicate how the
samples for radiological analyses were selected and how the number of samples selected
were determined or reference section 4.4 where further discussion is provided.
7. Section 4.2.2, Page 25: Section identifies sonic borehole locations selected if GCPT data
indicated the potential for RIM (1-2, 2-2, 5-3, 1C-6). Also states 8-1 and WL-119 were
selected to further understand slightly elevated GCPT sounding results. Clarify whether
the “if” needs to be changed to “because”, as “if” implies the borings were pre-selected,
then amend the text in the final report accordingly. Also, there is no mention of why
sonic boreholes 12-5, 13-3, 13-6, 14-2, 14-4, 14-5, 14-7, 15-2 (& 2A), 16-3, and 16-6
were drilled, which warrants addressing in the final report.
8. Section 4.4, Page 27, Paragraph 1: States “Intervals with elevated gamma readings were
selected for offsite laboratory analysis.” Additional text is needed in the final report to
clarify what constitutes an “elevated gamma reading”. Also, clarify if the samples taken
from the interval were from locations that exhibited the highest 2 gamma reading in each
interval. Additional text also needs to discuss if samples taken where there were no
elevated gamma readings, and if an attempt was made to collect samples above and
below the elevated readings to identify if the vertical extent of RIM had been identified at
those locations.
9. Section 5.3.5, Page 32: This section does not provide narrative summary of results of four
gas monitoring as the other sections do. A results summary statement needs to be
included in this section within the final report, and backup data provided and referenced
in an appendix.
10. Section 5.3.8.1, Page 33: A statement must be included in the final report how alpha
readings above 20 dpm/1 00cm2 and beta-gamma readings above 1000 dpm/1 00 cm2
were determined to be contaminated. This comment also applies to sections 5.3.8.2 and
5.3.8.3, which use this same reference level.
11. Section 6, Page 34, Paragraph 1: States ” … based upon review of historic images, it was
determined during the investigation that a deeper quarry existed in the southeast portion
of OU 1 Area 1 that could be problematic to the barrier design.” The final report must
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050550
clarify where you are referring to Bridgeton Sanitary LF North Quarry, and if so, should
also state that it doesn’t appear to be some newly identified feature.
12. Appendix C3 & Figure 6: Sonic downhole borehole log and core scan shows columns for
samples collected and shipped. Figure 6, sonic boring 1-2 shows a sample was collected
at depths of 8-9′, 18-19′, 20-21′, 22-23′, 24-25′, 28-29′, 33-34′, 38-39′, 39-40′, and 40-41′
and results were provided. However, the sample shipped box on the log was only
checked for samples 28-29′ and 39-40′. This discrepancy warrants documenting in the
final report and demonstrates the absolute need for boring logs to be rechecked,
especially in the field, for accuracy to ensure they are complete and correctly reported.
13. Figures General Comment 1: The final report needs to include another set of figures that
contain all results, including past sample results and recent sample for each radionuclide
to facilitate a better understanding of RIM distribution in Area 1. Historically
interpolated boundaries also merit updating from these additional figures as they have
been disproven.
14. Figures General Comment 2: If the data is available, it needs to plot the results of
samples below the depth of contamination, or the CPT gamma results plotted for the
interval below the highest results. For example, it’s helpful at location Sonic 1-2 to see
that the interval immediately below the high sample was non-detect, whereas at Sonic 1 C-
6 it’s not immediately clear if a “clean” sample was ever identified. It would also help to
color code or otherwise identify borings where elevated material is found. While the
posting plots are useful, it’s hard to get a good visual summary of the data as presented,
and needs to be revised accordingly in the final report.
15. Figure 2: Figure references “elevated” and “non-elevated” historical boundaries. All
figures in the final report need to be changed to quantify the “elevated” levels, and areas
of surface RIM be clearly identified.
16. Figure 14: The profile shows GCPT-12 hit alluvium at elevation 442. However, on the
1971 aerial it appears the elevation at this location is ~432 along the edge of what
appears to be a lagoon and is where the 1C-12 is located. In a 1973 aerial it appears the
lagoon is essentially filled in, which means it is possible that what is being classified as
alluvium is actually spoils from the quarrying operation or some other type of fill.
Review this information accordingly, clarify and if necessary revise in the final report.
17. Cross Sections: Revision showing the lab results for sonic borings in each cross section at
each depth a sample was collected would significantly improve clarity and avoid possible
reviewer error. Cross referencing between logs, downhole scans, and lab reports is
confusing and time-consuming and can lead to error; thus, having as much of the
pertinent data at one glance would aid in understanding the contaminant distribution.
Please revise accordingly, in the final report.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050551

Post

2015-02-27 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Will proposed cover be designed to hold up even if there is a catostrophic failure of the levee

To:
Cc:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
tboguski@skeo. com[tboguski@skeo .com]
Washburn, Ben[washburn.ben@epa.gov]
Vann, Bradley
Wed 3/4/2015 11 :35:30 PM
RE: EPA Response to December CAG Questions
From: Terrie Boguski [mailto:tboguski@skeo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:23PM
To: Vann, Bradley
Cc: Washburn, Ben
Subject: RE: EPA Response to December CAG Questions
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050172
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050173
From: Washburn, Ben
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11 :56 AM
To: ~~~~~~~
Cc: Vann, Bradley
Subject: RE: EPA Response to December CAG Questions
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050174
From: Terrie Boguski L~~~~~~~~~~
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11 :54 AM
To: Washburn, Ben
Subject: RE: EPA Response to December CAG Questions
1. Has the probability of a levee failure ever been calculated over a time frame of more than
one hundred years?
EPA Response: The integrity of any landfill cover design will not be dependent on the levee’s
competency, regardless of the levee’s calculated lifespan.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050175
From: West Lake Landfill I Bridgeton Landfill CAG L~=~~~~~~~~~
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:27PM
To: West Lake Landfill Cag
Subject: Fwd: EPA Response to December CAG Questions
———- Forwarded message ———From:
Washburn, Ben
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM
Subject: EPA Response to December CAG Questions
To: West Lake Landfill I Bridgeton Landfill CAG
DearCAG,
Attached please find the responses to the questions submitted following the December CAG
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050176
meeting.
Please let me know if you have any questions and feel free to reach out at any time.
Thanks,
Benjamin M. Washburn
Public Affairs Specialist
EPA Region 7
Thank you – West Lake Landfill I Bridgeton Landfill Community Advisory Group
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0050177

Post

2015-11-19 – EPA – West Lake Landfill is more difficult to clean up than other St Louis FUSRAP sites

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Fritz, Matthew[Fritz.Matthew@epa.gov]
Hague, Mark
Thur 11/19/2015 6:15:17 PM
FW: New Bill in Senate: R7 OPA –West Lake Landfill Updates
From: Carey, Curtis
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:41 AM
To: Hague, Mark ; Brincks, Mike ; Peterson,
Mary ; Stoy, Alyse ; Juett, Lynn
; Vann, Bradley ; Field, Jeff

Cc: Washburn, Ben ; Sanders, LaTonya
Subject: RE: New Bill in Senate: R7 OPA –West Lake Landfill Updates
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055787
For Immediate Release
November 19, 2015
Contacts:
Missouri Members Demand Action on
West Lake Landfill
WASHINGTON, DC- Today, members of the Missouri congressional delegation,
including Senators Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill, and Representatives Ann Wagner
and Wm. Lacy Clay, introduced legislation to transfer remediation authority over the
West Lake landfill from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Army Corps of
Engineers, putting the site in the Corps’ Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP).
“The EPA’s unacceptable delay in implementing a solution for the West Lake landfill has
destroyed its credibility and it is time to change course,” said Blunt. “The Corps has the
knowledge, experience, and confidence of the families living near the site. Transferring
clean up efforts to its control will help move the process forward and finally give these
families the peace of mind they deserve. No parent should have to raise their child in an
environment where they fear for their health and safety.”
McCaskill added, “The needs of this community are our top concern. We’ve heard loud
and clear that they want the West Lake site transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers’
program that oversees all other sites in St. Louis containing this World War II era
nuclear waste. This legislation is not a silver bullet, and will take far longer than we’d like
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055788
to resolve the many issues surrounding this site, but this is a concrete, positive step
forward in a process that’s been stagnant for far too long.”
The bill introduced today would not alter the current liability of potentially responsible
parties at the site nor its designation as a Superfund site.
The measure represents the latest step in the delegation’s effort to utilize the Corps’
expertise to expedite remediation at the West Lake site. In July, Blunt, McCaskill,
Wagner, and Clay sent to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz asking the
Department of Energy to re-evaluate whether West Lake qualified for inclusion in the
Corps’ FUSRAP in light of new information regarding the source of radioactive waste at
the site.
“My constituents in the St. Louis region deserve a government where officials work
proactively on their behalf, rather than kicking the can down the road with recurring
delays and deflections,” said Wagner. “The Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have an excellent track
record, broad support in the community and the expertise to handle a site as
complicated as the Westlake Landfill. I believe that this legislation is a crucial step in our
efforts to reach a permanent solution for the people of Missouri.”
Clay added, “Over a year ago, I called for the transfer of West Lake to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers FUSRAP program. This new bipartisan legislation will bring us
closer to achieving that goal.
This is a 70-year old problem and the federal government has a duty to finally do the
right thing.
I am totally committed to removing all the nuclear waste from West Lake landfill. It just
makes no sense to allow radioactive waste to remain buried in an unlined landfill, near
residential neighborhoods, schools, a hospital, the airport and the Missouri River. It’s
time to clean up West Lake landfill.”
On February 28, 2014, the members also sent to the EPA asking the agency to
contract directly with the Corps to handle remediation efforts through FUSRAP, citing
the Corps’ “expertise in this area, and the local community’s faith in the Corps’ FUSRAP
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055789
mission.” In March of 2014, the agencies~~== an agreement to work together to
build a fire break at the West Lake landfill.
Peterson,
Cc: Washburn, Ben Sanders, LaTonya
Subject: New Bill in Senate: R7 OPA –West Lake Landfill Updates
To require the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
to undertake remediation oversight of the West Lake Landfill located
in Bridgeton, Missouri.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055790
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055791

Post

2015-05-27 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Question on status of RIM characterization

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Vann, Bradley[Vann. Bradley@epa .gov]
Kiefer, Robyn V NWK
Wed 5/27/2015 1 :00:59 PM
Question on status of RIM characterization (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Brad:
Have the RPs mobilized for the additional RIM characterization?
Per their Work Plan, they indicated they’d have GCPT data within 9 weeks. Is that still what is
anticipated?
Thanks,
Robyn
Robyn Kiefer
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0059043

Post

2016-01-15 – EPA – USACE – West Lake Landfill – List of parameters from Republic for risk input

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Vann, Bradley[Vann. Bradley@epa .gov]
Kiefer, Robyn V NWK
Fri 1/15/2016 2:39:29 PM
West Lake – list of parameters from Republic for Risk input
Brad – have you received the list of parameters that Republic was going to send out? If so, please
forward to us so we can do some research and be prepared for next Wed’s meeting.
Thanks,
Robyn
Robyn Kiefer
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Phone: 816-389-3615
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0059068

Post

2015-11-20 – EPA – USACE – West Lake Landfill – Update of Available Cooling Loop Data

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Hi Ed-
Barth, Edwin[Barth.Ed@epa.gov]
McKernan, John
Fri 11/20/2015 3:23:47 AM
FW: Update of Available Cooling Loop Data (UNCLASSIFIED)
Since you are looking at the cooling loop design docs, here are corps questions on them..
Thanks,
John
—–Original Message—-From:
Vann, Bradley
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:00PM
To: McKernan, John
Subject: FW: Update of Available Cooling Loop Data (UNCLASSIFIED)
John, the Corps has sent a list of questions they have regarding the cooling loop system for our meeting
with Republic (sharing them above). Are there any other question you would like to have them answer (or
data provided) for that meeting? If so, just send it and I’ll pass on to Lynn for the meeting.
Thanks,
Bradley Vann – Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Division
Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS 66219
Phone: 913-551-7611
Fax: 913-551-9611
Cell: 816-714-0331
—–Original Message—–
From: Kiefer, Robyn V NWK [mailto:Robyn.V.Kiefer@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 12:36 PM
To: Vann, Bradley
Subject: Update of Available Cooling Loop Data (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Brad:
Attached is our update to information required to analyze the pilot study. We found proposed information
on the pilot study cooling loop wells, but no as-builts.
Also of interest was MDNR’s letter to Republic regarding data needed and Republic’s response.
Republic’s response contained some informative narrative, but again, we need to see as-builts, know their
input and output temperatures (not just TMP data), and all the other system data they should be
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0059513
collecting. I’ve attached those two letters as well.
Looking forward to seeing the additional information on the cooling loop system.
I will be on leave all next week, but will be monitoring my Blackberry for time-sensitive emails. Please
make sure Paul is CC:’d on anything that is time sensitive next week in the event I’m in an area without
good cell reception.
Have a good long holiday weekend!
Thanks,
Robyn
Robyn Kiefer
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Phone: 816-389-3615
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0059514

Post

2016-01-22 – EPA – USACE – West Lake Landfill – Back-check of Comments to draft Comprehensive Phase 1 Report

To:
Cc:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Robyn,
Kiefer, Robyn V NWK[Robyn.V.Kiefer@usace.army.mil]
Juett, Lynn[Juett.Lynn@epa.gov]; Vann, Bradley[Vann.Bradley@epa.gov]
Barker, Justin
Mon 1/25/2016 5:39:07 PM
RE: Back-check of Comments to draft Comp Phase 1 Report
Thanks for the quick turn-around. EPA will plan to finalize and send out the comment letter by COB
tomorrow. We will send USAGE a copy of the official comment letter, once submitted.
Thanks again,
Justin
—–Original Message—–
From: Kiefer, Robyn V NWK [mailto:Robyn.V.Kiefer@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:51 AM
To: Barker, Justin
Cc: Juett, Lynn ; Vann, Bradley
Subject: RE: Back-check of Comments to draft Comp Phase 1 Report
Justin -we have backchecked these changes and have no issues with how our comments have been
incorporated.
Thanks,
Robyn
Robyn Kiefer
Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Phone: 816-389-3615
—–Original Message—–
From: Barker, Justin [mailto:barker.justin@epa.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 201611:18AM
To: Kiefer, Robyn V NWK
Cc: Juett, Lynn ; Vann, Bradley
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Back-check of Comments to draft Comp Phase 1 Report
Hi Robyn,
As discussed, for a back-check by USAGE, please find attached the comment letter for the draft
Comprehensive Phase 1 Report for OU-1 of the West Lake Landfill. The attached version of the
comments includes comments and input from EPA, USAGE and MDNR into a single comment letter.
USAGE provided review comments to EPA for this report on January 14, 2016, and EPA and USAGE
discussed the combined comments via teleconference on January 22, 2016. As discussed on the
teleconference some of the USAGE comments were modified or not included in the combined comment
letter. Specifically, comments #20, #22, #23, #24 and #27 were not included in the attached combined
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058729
comment letter, mainly due to EPA already including a similar comment.
Please back-check the attached combined comment letter with your team and provide me or Brad
questions or additional input as warranted. To support the project schedule, EPA plans to distribute these
comments to EMSI next week, so timely feedback from USAGE on this information is greatly appreciated.
Please note that the attached comment letter document has not received final formatting or other checks
by our tech editor or senior staff, thus additional edits may occur by EPA during/following tech editing and
final reviews. Although it is not currently anticipated, EPA will plan to communicate with USAGE
regarding any significant changes made to the comment letter, if any should occur.
Thanks for the help and support,
Justin L. Barker
Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch
Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Phone: 913-551-7789
Cell 913-486-1661
Fax 913-551-9548
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058730

Post

2015-01-14 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Beringer, Mike[Beringer.Michael@epa.gov]
Vann, Bradley
Wed 1/14/2015 5:28:09 PM
RE: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
From: Beringer, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Vann, Bradley
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
From: Vann, Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, January 14,2015 8:14AM
To: Beringer, Mike
Cc: Davis, Michael; Phillips, Todd; Hooper, Charles A.; Dye, Robert; Kiefer, Robyn V NWK;
McKernan, John; Field, Jeff; Jefferson, Matthew
Subject: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0059002
Mike,
Per our discussion yesterday, EPA needs to determine applicable sampling methods with regards
to West Lake Landfill soil samples and would appreciate anything you can provide as well, be it
TCLP, LEAF or other methods that provides that can best scientific answer. I’ve previously
spoken with Jeff and he mentioned Republic still having some of their hottest rotosonic soil
cores sitting in locked connex that could be sent off for such testing. The RA wants us over the
next few weeks to determine what methods/DQOs we would need, who can/will perform the
analyses for EPA and figure out the best mechanism to employ the lab(s). Note on the last part, I
have an IA with USACE that can likely provide support for lab if needed. We need sufficient
information to draft a scope and get a QAPP developed for EPA or contractor to collect split
samples (assuming Republic also performs the sampling). We need to be able to answer the
fundamental question of what will happen to soils under subsurface smoldering events (SSE or
pyrolysis) conditions with empirical data. This will strengthen not only our understand of site
condition (best and worst case scenarios) but also support best scientific course of action and any
potential risks associated.
Some items previously discussed with John McKernan at ETSC and Robyn Kiefer at USACE
include (who I have copied on this email):
Test Parameters to be considered 1) Cold soil/hot leachate (simulates near pyrolysis event
driving hot fluids towards RIM soils at site) and , 2) hot soil – gradational increases from 200 –
500 degree F (simulates active pyrolysis event with RIM soils at site)
The state has also asked that we consider looking at surface soils impacted by surface fire
conditions but likely too many variables in this scenario to realistically quantify in lab but we
can discuss it further.
Analytes to evaluate for monitoring include (from ROD): standard VOC/SVOC, metals/(ROD
COCs) U238, U235, U232 (daughters) U234, TH230, Ra226, Pb210, Protactinium, PCB
(Aroclor 1254)- Radon- Most important part of course would be radionuclides and radon
which is driving other theories at the site for potential risks. Assume this would also require
evaluating possible alpha spectroscopy and gamma emitting decay but leave it to others to better
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0059003
define as I am neither chemist nor HP. Just trying to vet all relevant information within our team.
In short, I need to assemble a group of experts that can help flesh this out very quickly, as our
intent is to get Republic on board to perform the sampling but also take splits for QA.
Thanks,
Bradley Vann- Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Division
Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS 66219
Phone: 913-551-7611
Fax: 913-551-9611
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0059004

Post

2015-08-10 – EPA – USACE – West Lake Landfill – Radon Flux – Emanation measurements related to EPA Pyrolysis study of RIM

To: Donakowski, Joseph NWK[Joseph.Donakowski@usace.army.mil]
From: Mahler, Tom
Sent: Mon 8/10/2015 9:34:18 PM
Subject: Re: Radon flux/emanation measurements related to potential EPA Pyrolysis study of
RIM from the West Lake Landfill (UNCLASSIFIED)
I’ll set up a conference line tomorrow morning and send you the information. I had to leave the office a
little earlier than I expected today.
Tom
Sent from my iPhone
>On Aug 10,2015, at 4:14PM, Donakowski, Joseph NWK
wrote:
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> 10 sounds good to me. Would you like me to call you, or you I, or is there a conference number we can
call in if anyone else wants/needs to participate?
>
> Jough Donakowski
>Health Physicist- USACE Kansas City
> (816) 389-3993
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Mahler, Tom [mailto:mahler.tom@epa.gov]
>Sent: Monday, August 10,2015 3:00PM
>To: Donakowski, Joseph NWK
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Radon flux/emanation measurements related to potential EPA Pyrolysis
study of RIM from the West Lake Landfill (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> 10:00am tomorrow work?
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Donakowski, Joseph NWK [mailto:Joseph.Donakowski@usace.army.mil]
>Sent: Monday, August 10,2015 12:16 PM
>To: Mahler, Tom
> Subject: RE: Radon flux/emanation measurements related to potential EPA Pyrolysis study of RIM from
the West Lake Landfill (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>Yes, I’ll be free tomorrow, I get in around 7:45 so anytime between 8:00 and 4:00 would work for me.
>
> Jough Donakowski
> Health Physicist- USACE Kansas City
> (816) 389-3993
>
>
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058859
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Mahler, Tom [mailto:mahler.tom@epa.gov]
>Sent: Monday, August 10,2015 10:43 AM
>To: Donakowski, Joseph NWK
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Radon flux/emanation measurements related to potential EPA Pyrolysis
study of RIM from the West Lake Landfill (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
>Hey Jough,
>
> Just thought I would check in with you now that you are back in the office. I am free all day tomorrow
and plan to be in the office from about 7:30am central time to about 4:00pm. Any chance you would be
available for a short chat about Radon? I don’t think this would take longer than about 30 minutes.
>
>Let me know if you are available.
>
>Tom Mahler
> On-Scene Coordinator
> EPA Region 7
> 816-604-0546
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Donakowski, Joseph NWK [mailto:Joseph.Donakowski@usace.army.mil]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 04,2015 4:01PM
>To: Mahler, Tom
> Cc: Vann, Bradley
> Subject: RE: Radon flux/emanation measurements related to potential EPA Pyrolysis study of RIM from
the West Lake Landfill (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>I’m currently TDY at our Maywood site in New Jersey doing field work and won’t be available until next
week, but I’d be available just about any time that week, so if there’s any time that works good for you I can
be available, just let me know. Thanks!
>
> Jough Donakowski
>Health Physicist- USACE Kansas City
> (816) 389-3993
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Mahler, Tom [mailto:mahler.tom@epa.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1 :54 PM
>To: Donakowski, Joseph NWK
> Cc: Vann, Bradley
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Radon flux/emanation measurements related to potential EPA Pyrolysis study of
RIM from the West Lake Landfill
>
> Sorry about the very long subject of this email…
>
>
>
>I was given your email address from Brad Vann, Remedial Project Manager for West Lake Landfill Site,
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058860
because I was hoping to talk to you more about the Radon flux/emanation measurements related to a
pyrolysis study. I was given the impression that you at least initially suggested that the study include radon
and that the result might help improve the associated radon modeling of the site.
>
>
>
> My main goal is to make sure I understand as best as I can the intent or potential intent of such
measurements to help me evaluate whether the proposed sampling and measurement techniques are capable
of providing this information.
>
>
>
> I am an On-Scene Coordinator here at EPA Region 7 with a degree in Nuclear Engineering and aspiring
to become a certified health physicist (I took the first exam last month and still have a ways to go … ). I have
been asked me to help out with the pyrolysis study.
>
>
>
> Are you available to talk about radon flux/emanation at some point this week?
>
>
>
> I am available pretty much any time. Let me know what is convenient for you and thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>Tom Mahler
>
> On-Scene Coordinator
>
>US EPA Region 7
>
> 816-604-0546
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058861

Post

2015-07-21 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Conference call with USACE

To: Stoy, Alyse[Stoy.Aiyse@epa.gov]; Juett, Lynn[Juett.Lynn@epa.gov]
Cc: Field, Jeff[Field.Jeff@epa.gov]; Jackson, Robert W.[Jackson.Robertw@epa.gov]; Peterson,
Mary[Peterson.Mary@epa.gov]; Sanders, LaTonya[Sanders.Latonya@epa.gov]; Washburn,
Ben[washburn.ben@epa.gov]; Carey, Curtis[Carey.Curtis@epa.gov]; Whitley,
Christopher[Wh itley. Christopher@epa .gov]
From: Vann, Bradley
Sent: Tue 7/21/2015 2:59:50 PM
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill
From: Vann, Bradley
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:47AM
To: Stoy, Alyse; Juett, Lynn
Cc: Field, Jeff; Jackson, Robert W.; Peterson, Mary; Sanders, LaTonya; Washburn, Ben; Carey,
Curtis; Whitley, Christopher
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058775
From: Stoy, Alyse
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:40AM
To: Vann, Bradley; Juett, Lynn
Subject: Fwd: West Lake Landfill
Brad/Lynn- I just sent an email to Steven that a call tomorrow would be best. I’ve asked him to
send me some times that work for them. Can you two figure out who should be on this call from
our end?
Sent from my iPhone
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058776
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Miller, Steven (GC)”
Date: July 21,2015 at 9:19:02 AM CDT
Cc: “‘Vann, Bradley”‘
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill
From: Stoy, Alyse I.!Il§W1Q:J;ili;~~~~!MQ’YJ
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:18 AM
To: Miller, Steven (GC); ·'”-==’-‘=~-====~· ”–‘-‘=========:.;;_,
Cc: Vann, Bradley
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill
Hi Steven/Phil-
Our RPM is still getting questions about a DOE point of contact for the West Lake
CAG. Do you have a public affairs POC that we can forward along? Thanks!
Alyse Stoy
Assoc. Deputy Regional Counsel for Enforcement
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA Region 7
(913) 551-7826 phone
(816) 807-3271 cell
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058777
From: Stoy, Alyse
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:03 AM
To:~~~~~~~~*·~~~,~~~~~~~~~~-
Subject: West Lake Landfill
Hi Steven/Phil-
Quick question for you. The West Lake CAG (community advisory group) has
asked EPA the name of a DOE contact person. I don’t know the specifics of what
the community is wanting to contact DOE about, but will defer to you who the
appropriate contact would be. Let me know and we are happy to pass this
information along to the CAG.
Thanks, Alyse
Alyse Stay
Assoc. Deputy Regional Counsel for Enforcement
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA Region 7
(913) 551-7826 phone
(816) 807-3271 cell
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058778

Post

2015-01-20 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils

To:
Cc:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Poppell, Sam W.[Poppeii.Sam@epa.gov]
White, Cindy[White.Cindy@epa.gov]
Vann, Bradley
Tue 1/20/2015 10:49:31 PM
RE: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
From: Poppell, Sam W.
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 4:37PM
To: Vann, Bradley
Cc: White, Cindy
Subject: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
Received your message and Cindy White and myself would like to touch base with you to find
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058990
out a bit more of how we can support you. We would like to set up a conference call to discuss
further. I will try and contact you on Wednesday to discuss the specifics of a conference call.
When would be a good time to call you?
From: Vann, Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, January 14,2015 10:51 AM
To: Griggs, John; Poppell, Sam W.
Subject: FW: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058991
From: Hooper, Charles A.
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:35AM
To: Vann, Bradley
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
From: Vann, Bradley
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058992
Sent: Wednesday, January 14,2015 8:14AM
To: Beringer, Mike
Cc: Davis, Michael; Phillips, Todd; Hooper, Charles A.; Dye, Robert; Kiefer, Robyn V NWK;
McKernan, John; Field, Jeff; Jefferson, Matthew
Subject: West Lake Landfill – Pyrolysis testing of soils
Mike,
Per our discussion yesterday, EPA needs to determine applicable sampling methods with regards
to West Lake Landfill soil samples and would appreciate anything you can provide as well, be it
TCLP, LEAF or other methods that provides that can best scientific answer. I’ve previously
spoken with Jeff and he mentioned Republic still having some of their hottest rotosonic soil
cores sitting in locked connex that could be sent off for such testing. The RA wants us over the
next few weeks to determine what methods/DQOs we would need, who can/will perform the
analyses for EPA and figure out the best mechanism to employ the lab(s). Note on the last part, I
have an IA with USACE that can likely provide support for lab if needed. We need sufficient
information to draft a scope and get a QAPP developed for EPA or contractor to collect split
samples (assuming Republic also performs the sampling). We need to be able to answer the
fundamental question of what will happen to soils under subsurface smoldering events (SSE or
pyrolysis) conditions with empirical data. This will strengthen not only our understand of site
condition (best and worst case scenarios) but also support best scientific course of action and any
potential risks associated.
Some items previously discussed with John McKernan at ETSC and Robyn Kiefer at USACE
include (who I have copied on this email):
Test Parameters to be considered 1) Cold soil/hot leachate (simulates near pyrolysis event
driving hot fluids towards RIM soils at site) and , 2) hot soil – gradational increases from 200 –
500 degree F (simulates active pyrolysis event with RIM soils at site)
The state has also asked that we consider looking at surface soils impacted by surface fire
conditions but likely too many variables in this scenario to realistically quantify in lab but we
can discuss it further.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058993
Analytes to evaluate for monitoring include (from ROD): standard VOC/SVOC, metals/(ROD
COCs) U238, U235, U232 (daughters) U234, TH230, Ra226, Pb210, Protactinium, PCB
(Aroclor 1254)- Radon- Most important part of course would be radionuclides and radon
which is driving other theories at the site for potential risks. Assume this would also require
evaluating possible alpha spectroscopy and gamma emitting decay but leave it to others to better
define as I am neither chemist nor HP. Just trying to vet all relevant information within our team.
In short, I need to assemble a group of experts that can help flesh this out very quickly, as our
intent is to get Republic on board to perform the sampling but also take splits for QA.
Thanks,
Bradley Vann- Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Division
Missouri/Kansas Remedial Branch
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS 66219
Phone: 913-551-7611
Fax: 913-551-9611
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058994

Post

2016-02-09 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Notes on February 9, 2016 CAG meeting

To: Peterson, Mary[Peterson.Mary@epa.gov]; Hague, Mark[Hague.Mark@epa.gov]; Carey,
Curtis[Carey. Curtis@epa.gov]; Stoy, Alyse[Stoy.Alyse@epa.gov]
Cc: Washburn, Ben[washburn.ben@epa.gov]; Mahler, Tom[mahler.tom@epa.gov]; Vann,
Bradley[Vann.Bradley@epa.gov]
From: Juett, Lynn
Sent: Tue 2/9/2016 5:57:32 AM
Subject: CAG
WLLFOIA4312 – 001 – 0014038
WLLFOIA4312 – 001 – 0014039
WLLFOIA4312 – 001 – 0014040

Post

2016-05-23 – EPA – West Lake – SED Further sediment sampling and storm water flow information

From: Mahler, Tom
To: paulrosasco@emsidenver.com
Cc: Vann, Bradley; Barker, Justin; Gieseke, Andrew; Juett, Lynn; Stoy, Alyse
Subject: Further sediment sampling and storm water flow information
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 1:55:00 PM
Attachments: QAPP for West Lake Landfill – Sediment Sampling_Revision 02.pdf
160-15647_DVR_Rad_6Jan16_RM.pdf
160-16583_DVR_Rad_13Mar16_RM.pdf
Paul,
As you are aware, three sediment samples were collected on January 6th, 2016 as part of
the Additional Characterization work for Area 1 and Area 2. For each of these three
samples, EPA collected splits. After reviewing the validated data from you and your clients
in addition to the EPA split samples data (see attached), EPA has determined that SED4
and EPA’s split for this sample (SED 4-EPA DUP) contain radionuclides which meet the
definition of RIM for OU-1 of the West Lake Landfill site. Specifically the Combined
Thorium concentrations for SED4 and SED 4-EPA DUP are 16.16 pCi/g and 20.63 pCi/g
respectively which exceeds the established limit of 7.9 pCi/g.
Additionally, EPA provided a QAPP for the collection of additional sediment samples which
has since been updated. I have attached an updated version of this QAPP which includes
an updated figure that depicts the previously collected sediment samples as well as new
proposed sample locations. Specifically the QAPP requires the collection of additional
sediment samples located between SED4 and the north corner of the West Lake Landfill
property along the drainage pathway for storm water situated between the OU-1, Area 2
fence line and St. Charles Rock Road.
EPA Region 7 requires further characterization of this portion of the landfill property as
soon as access is attainable and recent storm water recedes. We are requesting that the
PRPs perform a gamma walkover survey to determine if there are any elevated areas of
gamma radiation for which biased sediment samples could be collected. In addition, EPA
Region 7 will require 5 additional sediment samples be collected approximately every 100
feet between SED 4 and the north corner of the landfill property (see attached updated
figure from the QAAP). One of these sample locations will require the collection of a
duplicate sample for data quality purposes. Finally, because of the recent storm events
which have inundated this area with storm water, the collection of an additional sample
from the SED4 location will also be required. EPA will collect these samples or will collect
100% split samples. This work is to be performed during the week of May 23, 2016. If a
gamma survey cannot be performed the week of May 23, 2016, because of residual storm
water or excessive vegetation, it may be delayed until conditions change. Please move
forward with collection of the sediment samples regardless.
Finally, EPA is also requiring the PRPs to provide definitive information on the locations of
storm water drainage that runs along the east side of the West Lake complex located
between the norther portion of the Bridgeton landfill, OU-1 Area 1, and St. Charles Rock
Road. Please ensure to include information associated with the four drop boxes and/or
inlets located immediately North and South of the landfill entrance road, as well as whether
there is a connection between the stormwater collection pond(s) in the northeast portion of
the West Lake complex, and immediately north of the complex and the sediment pond to
the north of the complex and east of St Charles Rock Road. Please provide this
information by Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Please let me know if you have any questions about these proposed sampling plan. Also,
please coordinate with me on the timing for collection of the sediment samples.
Tom Mahler
On-Scene Coordinator
US EPA Region 7
913-551-7416

Post

2016-02-18 – EPA – AAA Trailer Services Investigation

To: pau lrosasco@emsidenver.com[pau I rosasco@emsidenver.com]
Cc: Vann, Bradley[Vann.Bradley@epa.gov]; Juett, Lynn[Juett.Lynn@epa.gov]; Barker,
Justin[barker.justin@epa.gov]; Gieseke, Andrew[Gieseke.Andrew@epa.gov]
From: Mahler, Tom
Sent: Thur 2/18/2016 9:25:17 PM
Subject: AAA Trailer Investigation
Hey Paul,
I just wanted to send you a summary of what we just discussed. MDNR and I met with John
O’Brien from AAA Trailer Services today. While there, MDNR provided John a summary table
of the analytical data from their November 2015 vicinity sampling event. I then explained that
EPA had an interest in further investigation occurring on the uncovered soil areas of AAA
Trailer services between their gravel parking lot and the West Lake Landfill Fence. I told him
that this investigation would involve conducting telemeterized gamma scanning and
confirmation surface soil sampling. I told him that the West Lake Responsible Parties’
Representative would be contacting him soon to obtain permission to have access to the property
to perform this investigation. I also mentioned you would likely send a form that would need to
be signed for this access. I told John he would be contacted at a minimum by the end of next
work week (February 26th)but likely sooner. He is ready and waiting to be contacted.
John also mentioned that he would prefer if possible for the investigation to occur on the
weekend when there would be less impacts to their day to day business. John said that he could
provide access to whatever parts of the property need investigation over the weekend.
Let me know if there are any questions,
Tom Mahler
On-Scene Coordinator
US EPA Region 7
816-604-0546
WLLFOIA4312 – 001 – 0015853

Search Document Archive

Navigating the Archives

The archives can be accessed here.

To make a detailed query of the text of every document in the Archives, use the search bar at the top of the screen

The file names for each record include up to three components:

  1. the date of publication;
  2. the acronym of the agency or organization involved (if applicable);
  3. and the subject matter of the record.

Search Queries:

To search for any record that contains one or more words in the body of the document, put those search terms in the search bar. A search query with two or more search terms (ie: Fukushima Daiichi) will return all records that include ANY of the terms entered(Fukushima AND Daiichi), even if they are not found consecutively in the document.

To search for specific strings of two or more search terms(ie: Fukushima Daiichi ), while excluding records that include separate references to each search term, place the search query in quotations "Fukushima Daiichi" in the search bar.

Document Collections

Records are grouped together into the following collections:

  1. Collections by Agency
  2. Collections by Organization
  3. Collections by Event
  4. Collections by Site