2012-01-04 – Considering environmental justice issues EPA should establish a CAG for West Lake Community

.. , PUBLIC INFORMATION CLEARANCE RECORD I I I I ( 1. ORIGINATOR end PHONE DTBISION DA'n:... View Document

Post

2012-01-04 – Purpose of public interviews in the Superfund Process

·-,
/(_:.
. \ ‘ RE: West Lake Landfill: possible interivews related to the revised CIP
\,.__,-J• …1
\. -~”””C7 Muenk.s, Shawn to: Dan Gravatt, Debbie Kring 01/04/2012 04:31 PM Cc: “Doster, Branden”
1”1 orn: “Muenks, Shawn”
To: Dan Gravatt/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Debbie Kring/R7/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: “Doster, Branden”
Dan & Debbie,
It was our understanding that the purpose of the public interviews would be to
gauge concerns and expectations of nearby communities regarding West Lake
Landfill and how they want to be interacted with during the public comment
period. The interviews should be done prior to the public comment period and
information gathered included in the CIP. The interviews would not
necessarily be used to determine which remedy the public supports. We were
also under the impression from our discussion at the last site tour that EPA
was committed to conducting these interviews. I think a call to discuss this
issue is warranted. Please advise of availability. We are available Thursday
or Friday morning this week and Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Thanks,
Shawn Muenks, P.E.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 Ph: (573) 751-3107 email: shawn.muenks@dnr.mo.gov —–Original Message—-.From: Dan Gravatt [mailto:Gravatt.Dan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:53 PM To: Muenks, Shawn; Doster, Branden Cc: Debbie Kring Subject: West Lake Landfill: possible tnterivews related to the revised CIP
Shawn, Branden,
Following up on the question you posed in yesterday’s biweekly conference call, I spoke with Debbie Kring yesterday on the issue of conducting public interviews as part of the revised CIP. Debbie stated that it has not been decided whether EPA will conduct these interviews, but if our Office of Public affairs decides to do so, they will be conducted in the spring. OPA intends to treat these interviews separately from public comment periods and/or public meetings associated with any decision documents.
If you have any other questions on this issue, please contact Debbie directly at 913-551-7725.
Sincerely, Daniel R. Gravatt, PG US EPA Region 7 SUPR I MOKS 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone (913) 551-7324 Fax (913) 551-7063
Principles and integrity are expensive, but they are among the very few things worth having.
[) 7/ (~/ 40440122
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Superfund
:1 .’

‘0 -~
.Jl …<_I :.•• ) / ,r. /.-, r' .._..,.-v

Post

2012-06-20 – Gravatt, Dan – A look into the murky future of West Lake

West Lake Landfill: bullets for fact sheet Dan Gravatt to: Debbie Kring 06/20/2012 11:05 AM
Debbie, as you requested, here is a look into the murky future of West Lake to assist you with the fact sheet:
-PRPs have agreed to do one additional round of groundwater sampling from all usable/accessible/intact monitoring wells at the site, from OU1 and OU2. Paul Rosasco’s workplan identifies 80 wells that are definitely or probably usable/accessible/intact and will be sampled. Sampling is for uranium, thorium, and radium isotopes, plus metals, VOCs and SVOCs.
-EPA received the PRP’s workplan for the groundwater sampling on June 8, and commented on it. The final workplan is due June 28.
-The PRP’s groundwater sampling work will likely begin in July and last for about a month. Both EPA and MDNR intend to split some of the groundwater samples.
-Following the PRP’s groundwater monitoring fieldwork, EPA will mobilize to the field to re-do surface gamma scans of the OU1 cells, and conduct down-hole gamma logs of the usable/accessible/intact monitoring wells. This should happen in August.
-The PRPs also agreed on June 14th to do additional studies to supplement the SFS, including a detailed study of the partial excavation alternative, other landfill cover designs, apatite treatment evaluations, groundwater fate and transport, and an adjustment to the discount rate in the cost estimate. This work will be handled under a separate work plan (probably an addendum to the original SFS WP) that has not been scoped as yet, though we expect it will take at least a year to complete these additional studies.
-It is my understanding, based on Karl’s directions at our last briefing, that we’ll have a public availability session in December or so to describe to the public the additional sampling and studies that we have planned.
Hope this helps.
Daniel R. Gravatt, PG US EPA Region 7 SUPR I MOKS 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone (913) 551-7324 Pax (913) 551-7063
Principles and integrity are expensive, but they are among the very few things worth having.
D?lit \lliiii~-~ 3.o

Superfund
Dl10/

Post

2012-07-24 – EPA request for conference call to discuss upcoming activities and community outreach

Re: Conference Call Request Hattie Thomas to: Huckstep, Ramona 07/24/201211:19AM “Doster Branden” “Zamarripa Ruben” “Muenks Shawn” Debbie
Cc· ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
· Kring, Dan Gravatt, DeAndre Singletary
Good morning-Thanks for the email and voice mails. Debbie Kring and I will touch base with you once she returns from site travel. Thanks -HL T
Hattie L. Thomas
Deputy Director
Office of Public Affairs EPA Region 7
901 N. Fifth Street Kansas City, KS 66101 Ph: 913-551-7762, Fax: 913-551-7066
“Huckstep, Ramona” I was just following up from our telephone con … 07/24/2012 09:39:52 AM
From: “Huckstep, Ramona”
To: Hattie Thomas/R7/USEPAIUS@EPA
Cc: “Muenks, Shawn” , “Zamarripa, Ruben” , “Doster, Branden”
Date: 07/24/2012 09:39AM
Subject: Conference Call Request
I was just following up from our telephone conversation last week regarding West Lake Landfill and our request to have a conference call with you and your team regarding upcoming activities at the site and how these may include community outreach.
These activities include:
1.
Groundwater sampling at the landfill starting August 6th -As a Community Involvement Coordinator I will be touring the site

2.
Missouri Coalition for the Environment Public Meeting focusing on West Lake Landfill

3.
Upcoming potential presentation by EPA to the Bridgton City Council

4.
Updates to our MDNR website -per a request from Kay Drey, we have posted the Sampling and Analysis Plan for Groundwater Sampling .http://dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/fedfac/westlakelandfill-ffs.htm

We would appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your team on these items and
any other items you would like to discuss. We were hoping to speak with you and your team before the August 6th sampling event begins, if possible. Thank you for your time and consideration of these topics.
Ramona Huckstep, M.S., M.P.A. Community Involvement Coordinator
Hazardous Waste Program Missouri Department of Natural Resources
0711 1M1iiiiimm1 :1 v
Superfund
OliO!
573-522-1540 ramona.huckstep@dnr.mo.gov

Post

2012-06-21 – Gravatt, Dan, Kring, Debbie – Revised SFS Report questions

Your requested information for WLF fact sheet Dan Gravatt to: Debbie Kring 06/21/2012 03:25PM
Debbie, the Final SFS report was approved with comments in a letter dated November 14, 2011 -see attached. The PRPs submitted a revised final report on December 28, 2011 that addressed all of EPA’s comments from the November 141etter. No additional letter to the PRPs was sent in response to the December 28 revised final SFS report. After I verified that all comments were addressed, the revised final report was then posted to EPA’s webpage on December 29th.
Daniel R. Gravatt, PG US EPA Region 7 SUPR I MOKS 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone (913) 551-7324 Fax (913) 551-7063
Principles and integrity are expensive, but they are among the very few things worth having.
Westlake Final SFS approval with comments.pdf
DUO/

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 7

901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101
NOV I 4 2011
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETIJRN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Paul Rosasco, P .E.
Engineering Management Support, Inc.
7720 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 406
Lakewood, Colorado 80235

Dear Mr. Rosasco:
Re: Approval with Request for Modifications ofFinal Supplemental Feasibility Study
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Final Supplemental Feasibility Study received on October 3, 2011. Pursuant to paragraph 40 of section VIII (Work to be Performed) of Administrative Order on Consent, VII-93-0005, as amended, and the recaptioned Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent, the EPA hereby approves the Final Supplemental Feasibility Study with request that the modifications identified below be made and submitted as changed pages to the subject document.
1.
Section 1.1, page 16: Use the exact language from pages xi and xii in the Record ofDecision instead ofitems 1 through 5.

2.
Section 1.1, page 17: In the first paragraph on this page, include the actual language for the OSRTI “Performance Standards” memorandum as follows:


The proposed cap should meet UMlRCA guidance for a 1,000-year design period including an additional thickness to prevent radiation emissions.


Air monitoring stations for radioactive materials should be installed at both on-site and off-site locations.


Groundwater monitoring should be implemented at the waste management unit boundary and also at off-site locations. The groundwater monitoring program needs to be designed so that it can be determined whether contaminants from the landfill have migrated across the waste management unit boundary in concentrations that exceed drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels. The groundwater monitoring program needs to measure for both contaminants that have historically been detected in concentrations above MCLs (e.g., benzene, chlorobenzene, dissolved lead, total lead, dissolved arsenic, total lead, dissolved radium and total radium) and broader inclicators ofcontamination (e.g., redox potential, alkalinity, carbonates, pH and sulfates/sulfides).


Flood control measures at the site should meet or exceed design standards for a 500-year storm event under the assumption that the existing levee system is breached.

In addition, section 5.2 should show how each ofthese additions is now incorporated into the design.
3.
Section 1.1, page 17: In the first paragraph, delete the phrase ” … which would be incorporated into the remedial design phase of implementation ofthat remedy.” It is likely that a decision document will be appropriate for all significant and/or fundamental changes.

4.
Section 2.1.4, last paragraph, page 26: Change the fourth sentence to read “An agreement was reached between the St. Louis Airport Authority and Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, whereby the Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill ceased disposal ofmunicipal waste, organic waste and putrescible waste in 2005 in order to reduce potential bird impacts to aircraft operations.”

5.
Section 2.3, second paragraph, page 40: This section states that radon flux from Areas 1 and 2 measured during the Remedial Investigation did not exceed the 20 pCi!m2s UMTRCA criterion; however, the third paragraph of section 3.1.1.3 states that the radon flux did slightly exceed this value. These sections must be reconciled.

6.
Sections 3 .1.2.1 0 and 3 .1.2.11, pages 61-65: These two sections state that the September 20, 2010, letter from the St. Louis Airport Authority to the EPA and the minutes ofthe September 7, 2010, meeting between the St. Louis Airport Authority and the EPA are included in Appendix A; however, these documents are missing from Appendix A and must be included.

7.
Section 3.1.2.11, fifth paragraph, page 64: The text ofthis section, beginning with “On September 7, 2010 … “should be replaced with the following, more concise text:

On September 7, 2010, representatives of Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, and the EPA
met with representatives ofthe St. Louis Airport Authority and the U.S.
Department ofAgriculture to follow up on concerns raised that the Restrictive
Covenant entered into between landfill owners and STLAA would prohibit
construction ofthe “on-site cell” evaluated as part ofthe SFS. The EPA provided
a summary ofthe alternatives considered in the SFS. S’ILAA and USDA stated
that an excavation remedy would create risks that they could not even calculate,
and that monitoring and management ofrisks created by wildlife would be
impossible. STLAA noted that under the ROD-selected remedy, the site will
present no risk to human health or the environment and said that creating new
risks by implementing an excavation remedy did not seem advisable.

· STLAA further stated that an excavation remedy would necessitate FAA review
and likely result in objections from airlines as well as the FAA. STLAA was
particularly concerned that either excavation alternative would take years to

perform. .
2

The EPA asked whether the airport’s concerns would be alleviated by excavation ofonly Area 2 (outside the 10,000-foot range). The response was no, the entire area is within tlie Restrictive Covenant and subject to FAA review if”new · landfilling operations” were to occur. In particular, STLAA explained that construction ofan on-site disposal cell would not qualify as an expansion or change to an existing landfill becauSe the Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill was already in closure mode, but would instead constitute “new operations” at the site and therefore would trigger FAA review. STI..AA could not predict the changes that any excavation activities would cause to the migratory patterns ofbirds and could
not take the risk that wch changes would increase the local bird population.
STLAA stated that its 2006 letter, submitted dming.the public comment period on the ROD for Operable Unit 1, still reflected its position.
Notes ofthis 2010 meeting were provided to the EPA and are included in
Appendix A.

By letter dated September 20,2010, (Appendix A), the city ofSt. Louis Airport
Authority provided written comments on the SFS Work Plan. The letter identified ··
the West Lake Landfill as a hazardous wildlife attractant for the airport. The city
stated that the excavation (“complete rad removal”) alternatives would adversely
affect wildlife mitigation measures taken by the airport to protect aircraft from
bird strikes~ thereby placing the city in violation ofthe FAA ROD requiring that
such mitigation efforts be undertaken and maintained. The city also stated that
implementation ofthe excavation altemati.ves would violate the Restrictive
Covenant. The city specifically identified creation ofan on-site engineered
disposal cell as a direct vi elation ofparagraph 1 ofthe Restrictive Covenant. The
city further indicated that the proposed location for the on-site engineered
disposal cell would be approximately 8,000 feet from the airport and is
incompatible with state and federal regulations that prohibit placement ofa new
solid waste disposal site within a 10,000-foot radius of an active runway.
8.
Section 3.4, first paragraph, page 75: This section still refers to the uranium cleanup level as “50 pCilg plus background” despite a comment on the draft SFS report (additional cominent 40) requesting that this Cleanup level be expressed as a single concentration which includes background. This change must be made throughout the document. In addition, the reference to section 2.1.2 ofthe SLAPS ROD is incorrect; the correct reference appears to be section 2.8.2.1.

9.
Section 5.2.1.1.2, page 109: This section states”… implementation ofthe ROD-selected remedy without performing any waste regarding (cutting) is not considered feasible” without discussing the reasons for this determination. This section must briefly summarize the reasons and limitations that led to this determination.

10.
Section 5.2.1.1.3, page 112: The negative easement may apply to the ”management ofmaterials during·recontouring” and this section should either state that it may apply o~: explain why it would not.

11.
Section 5.2.1.3, fourth paragraph, page 114: This section states that the ROD-specified cover design would have sufficient thickness and characteristics to be protective against gamma radiation and radon emissions and references Appendix F for the calculations behind this statement. Appendix F calculates radon fluxes but does not appear to quantitatively assess gamma shielding. Section 6.2.1; 1, second paragraph, states that the two feet ofclay proposed for the cap would provide gamma radiation shielding but does not provide any calculations to support this statement. Gamma shielding calculations must be added to Appendix F.

12.
Section 5.2.2:1, last sentence, page 123: Financial assurance would need to be provided in
perpetuity. Delete the reference to a “Consent Decree.”

13.
Section 5.3.2.12, last paragraph, page 134: See comment 12 above.

14.
Section 6.2.2.5.1, page 191: The EPA provided feedback on this section in response to a comment on the draft SFS report (specific comment 33) requesting that text be inserted in this section to justify excluding risks from loose RIM released during truck and rail transport. The requested text was not included in the final SFS and must be included.

15.
Figure 2: The EPA previously commented on Figure 3 ofthe draft SFS report asking for adjacent agricultural land and nearby residential areas to be labeled. In the final SFS report, Figure 2 has the trailer park and Spanish Village labeled but does not include a label for the agricultural/residential property south ofthe on-site storm watel· pond. This property must be labeled on the figure.

16.
Figure 4: The·contour intervals and contour elevations are missing or too small to be readable on this figure. The figure should be made larger so this information is readable.

17.
Figure 35: The.con,tour intervals and contour elevations are missing or too small to be readable on this figure. The figure should be made larger so this information is readable.

18.
Appendix B, section 3, page 4: In the second-to-last paragraph, the second sentence must make it clear that the results being discussed apply to Area 2.

19.
Appendix B, table 5: The apparently erroneous result of4.4 billion pCilg for boring PVC-21 has not been corrected as requested in the EPA additional comment .47 on the draft SFS report. This must be corrected.

20.
Appendix G, section 3.1: This “section must briefly describe how the baseline gamma radiation monitoring mentioned here will be conducted .

.21. Appendix H, section 10: The EPA’s RiskAs~ssment comment 36 on the dra.fl’SFS report
(pertaining to Risk Assessment section 9.3.5} requested that this section evaluate risks due to exposure to RIM which may fall from trucks during transport. Yom response to the EPA’s specific comment 33 on the draft SFS report provided a justification for excluding these risks from the risk assessment, and this justification should be included here.
4

Plea8e submit the changed pages required QY the corrections above within fifteen (15) days ofyour receipt ofthis letter. Ifyou have any questions, you may contact me~(913) 551-7324.
Daniel R Gravatt Remedial Project Manager Missouri/Kansas .Remedial Branch Superfund Division
cc: Mr. Shawn Muenks, Project Manager, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources Ms. Victoria Warren, Facility Representative, Republic Services Mr.DougAmmon, Branch Chief, EPA Headquarters (email only) Ms. Charlotte Neitzel, Attorney, Holme Roberts & Owen (email only) Ms. Christina Richmond, Attorney, U.S. DOl for US DOE (email only) Ms. Kate Whitby, Attorney, Spencer Fane Britt &.Browne (email only) Mr.Bill Beck, Attorney, Lathrop & Gage {email oniy) .
5

Post

2012-07-06 – Senator McCaskill inquiry for a status update on West Lake Landfill

Re: ACTION REQUIRED: Sen. McCaskill inquiry for a status update on West Lake Landfill Dan Gravatt to: LaTonya Sanders 07/06/2012 01 :26PM
Cc: Audrey Asher, Debbie Kring
LaTonya,
The summary document you attached on West Lake is somewhat out of date now. Rather than updating it, I suggest you coordinate with Debbie Kring to use the Fact Sheet she’s been developing for the site. Both Audrey and I reviewed and commented on Debbie’s draft fact sheet just last week. It is my understanding that Karl wanted OPA to develop this fact sheet for his use in briefing the congressionals , so it would probably be better if they all got the same message at the same time.
Sincerely, Daniel R. Gravatt, PG US EPA Region 7 SUPR I MOKS 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone (913) 551-7324 Fax (913) 551-7063
Principles and integrity are expensive , but they are among the very few things worth having.
LaTonya Sanders Hi Dan, I received a call today from Sen. McCas … 07/06/2012 12:53:25 PM
From: LaTonya Sanders/R7/USEPNUS To: Dan Gravatt/R7/USEPNUS@EPA Cc: Audrey Asher/R7/USEPNUS@EPA Date: 07/06/2012 12:53 PM Subject: ACTION REQUIRED: Sen. McCaskill inquiry for a status update on West Lake Landfill
Hi Dan,
I received a call today from Sen. McCaskill’s DC office, requesting a status update on West Lake Landfill.
Attached is an update I shared with congressional staff when I performed courtesy visits in May.
Is this update still current to share with Sen . McCaskill? Is there new or additional information to share?
Please advise.
Thanks.

[attachment “Westlake Landfill Update.docx” deleted by Dan Gravatt!R7/USEPA/US]

~T~E..~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office of the Regional Administrator Office of Public Affairs 901 N. 5th Street Kansas City, KS 66101
PH: 913-551-7555 FX: 913-551-7066 EM: sanders.latonya@epa.gov

071Lf lllliiiiiillllll J. 0

Superfund
Of1 01
Get -tips -to prO”teC”t Children’s heal-th a-t http:lfwww.epa.gov/region7/Ci-tizens/childrens_heal-th.h”trn

Post

2012-07-09 – Revised West Lake Landfill Update Fact Sheet

IMPORTANT: Revised Westlake Landfill Update Fact Sheet-Please Review as soon as possible Debbie Kring to: Dan Gravatt, Audrey Asher, DeAndre Singletary 07/09/2012 06:19PM Cc: Rich Hood, Hattie Thomas, Christopher Whitley
History: This message has been replied to.
I am attaching the revised Westlake Fact Sheet that you have each weighed in on. I have made most of the changes you recommended, but updated to reflect your preferences, using some slight modifications, i.e., in one paragraph, you want the statement, “the decision selected ….. “-decisions don’t select, people do -so that’s an example of something that keeps the same reference context, but modifies the grammatical tone.
I would like to put this through concurrence in the next day, and I know LaTonya would like to use in her call to Sen. McCaskill’s office tomorrow, so please look over. I am not tied to anything in particular, but want to keep the tone consistent with the use of verbs 🙂
Thanks.
Debbie
lt~•.•…J.•. WestlakelandfiiiUpdateFSJuly2012 .doex
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913).551-7725 or toll-free@ 1-800-223-0425
07 ‘Lf 11mWiiii1~~
Superfund
DIAD!

Region 7 Fact Sheet
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska

Nine Tribal Nations July 2012
Update on Activities Supporting the Record of Decision (ROD)
Amendment for the Westlake Landfill Superfund Site
Bridgeton, Missouri

INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 has been working in the Bridgeton community to address environmental issues at the Westlake Landfill over a multi-year period. The Westlake Landfill is comprised of two (2) operable units (OUs). OU-1 contains a mixture of radiologically-contaminated soils, municipal refuse and construction/demolition debris. OU-2 includes several sanitary landfill cells containing municipal refuse and construction/demolition debris.
After conducting extensive investigations, holding numerous public forums, and responding in detail to public comments, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for QU-lin May 2008. This decision document outlined the selected remedy, which included the placement of an engineered cover system over the radiologically-contaminated areas, long-term groundwater monitoring, and the adoption of institutional controls to restrict access.
After the ROD was signed, EPA continued to receive public comments about the selected remedy. In response to those comments, EPA tasked the potentially-responsible parties (PRPs) to conduct a Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS) for OU-1 that further evaluated the ROD-selected remedy, as well as full-scale excavation of the radiologically.contaminated landfill material and disposal either at a permitted off-site facility or in a new, on-site engineered disposal cell.
The SFS Work Plan was released to the public in June 2010. After reviewing several draft versions of the document, EPA approved and released the SFS Report to the public in December 2011. The estimated costs defined for each alternative in the SFS Report exceeded the threshold, which triggered a formal review and evaluation by EPA’s National Remedy Review Board (NRRB). Between January 2012 and the present time, the NRRB has weighed in with numerous draft comments and recommendations on the SFS Report. The NRRB recommended that EPA, Region 7: evaluate additional groundwater sampling to refresh the data; conduct a more detailed study of the partial excavation alternative; and conduct a more detailed analysis of potential treatment technologies for the radiologically.contaminated landfill material. EPA, Region 7, then tasked the PRPs to conduct some ofthis work as an amendment to its original Consent Order.
In response to more general NRRB recommendations, EPA, Region 7 also decided to update gamma scans ofthe surface ofOU-1 and conduct vertical gamma scans ofmonitoring wells at the site. EPA, Region 7 will perform the gamma scans.
The work will be conducted by PRPs under EPA
oversight, with the following proposed 2012/2013
schedule:
July ’12 -Groundwater sampling (PRPs to conduct, EPA & MDNR will take splits);
August’ 12-Gamma scan evaluation to further rtrfine distribution of radiologically-impacted wastes (EPA staffto conduct);
Summer ’12-’13 -Additional studies to address the NRRB draft comments. (PRPs to perform).
In coordination with its stakeholders, EPA will host a public availability session near the end of2012 in Bridgeton to: convey updated data results; discuss the scope ofthe PRP additional studies; and take questions about the next steps in the ROD.Amendment process.
Communications about the Westlake Landfill
Superfund Site will be addressed through a combination of venues, including, but not limited to: ads in the local newspaper; fact sheets; EPA’s website; and local and regional records centers. Community members and other interested persons, can also contact EPA’s Community Involvement Coordinator, Debbie Kring, via telephone or e-mail as listed below.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
The SFS Report is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/region7/cleanup/npl_files/west_l ake landfill/index.htm
The administrative record, and other site-related documents for the Westlake Landfill Superfund Site are available for review at the following locations:
The Bridgeton Trails Branch of the St. Louis County Library 3455 McKelvey Road Bridgeton, Missouri
AND . EPA Region 7 Records Center

901 North 51h Street
Kansas City, Kansas
1-800-223-0425

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
If you have questions about this Fact Sheet, or need additional infonnation about the Westlake Landfill Superfund Site, please contact:

Debbie Kring
Community Involvement Coordinator
Office of Public Affairs

U.S. EPA-Region 7
901 North 51h Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66101

(913) 551-7725 or toll-free
1-800-223-0425
kring.debbie@epa. gov

2

Post

2012-01-09 – Cecilia Tapia does not think community interviews should be conducted during this stage of the Superfund process

Just Spoke with Cecilia about Westlake Landfill-and Ramona Debbie Kring to: Hattie Thomas, Dan Gravatt Cc: Rich Hood, Cecilia Tapia 01/09/2012 02:21 PM
From: To: Deb~ie Kring/R7/USEPA/US Hattie Thomas/R7/USEPAIUS@EPA, Dan Gravatt/R7/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: Rich Hood/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Cecilia Tapia/R7/USEPA/US@EPA

Hattie & Dan:
I just spoke to Cecilia as she walked by enroute to the MDNR Call in the RA Conference Room at 2:00
p.m. She is fully supportive of CPA’s role at Westlake and also does not think “community interviews” should be conducted during this phase of the Superfund process. She does not have an opinion about Ramona’s role at the site, but indicated that MDNR (Ramona) should not be lobbying on anyone’s behalf, i.e., the city, community members, et al and that is why she asked for her to be removed from the site to begin with.
I briefly explained what our call will entail (at 3:00 p.m. today) with Brandon of MDNR. She is supportive!
As a historical reference, Ramona and her management made several comments to my updated Community Involvement Plan (CIP)P (done last summer). Some of the comments I chose to incorporate (because they made the plan better). Some of the comments were not applicable, and a few of them were not even implementable. Ramona offered her assistance to EPA Hqtrs. when it was working on the Community Engagement Initiative, so feels like she should be in charge of every aspect of community activities that involve EPA. Please note ………… MDNR comments to the CIP were suggestions only.
When we (EPA officials & MDNR) toured Westlake Landfill on October 4, 2011, we discussed the CIP and possible next steps for community interaction. The dialogue went well, Ramona was not present for that tour.
They are insistent that community interviews be conducted, RIGHT NOW! I don’t disagree that we need the community’s view of past and current EPA activities and their affects on the community-at-large. However, I believe that once the SFS activities get finalized and we move to the next phase of community meeting·s and additional activity, that would be the appropriate time to conduct the community interviews. I plan to perform these interviews in the spring of 2012.
Stay tuned ……………. l’ll keep you apprised of next steps. If you need any more information regarding this history of this site or EPA’s interactions with MDNR, please don’t hesitate to ask. Dan and I have a conference call coming up within the hour.
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or toll-free@ 1-800-223-0425
D71 Lf 404401 os
IIIII~ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Superfund
Dl(DO

Post

2012-01-09 – EPA discussion of next steps for community outreach per MDNR request

{In Archive} EPA Call with MDNR Re: Westlake Landfill-Next Steps for
Community Outreach
Debbie Kring to: Hattie Thomas, Dan Gravatt 01/09/2012 04:30PM
Cc: Rich Hood, Cecilia Tapia, DeAndre Singletary
Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
Dan & I called MDNR (Branch Chief Brandon Doster) at his request to discuss next steps for community outreach activities at the Westlake Landfill Superfund Site in Bridgeton, MO.
MDNR would like EPA to conduct community interviews in support of the most recent Community Involvement Plan update (fall of 2011 ). They would also like these interviews to be done subsequent to the upcoming public meeting EPA will hold to release the Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS) to guage interest community-wide. While EPA concurs with the need to get current perspectives from community members about the progress of Westlake Landfill, doing interviews during this particular phase of the Superfund process is poor timing. EPA has made it clear that the SFS process is NOT a public comment process or period. Conducting interviews at the same time considerations are being made about the SFS gives the community mixed messages about what EPA is asking.
We conveyed to MDNR that EPA would prefer to conduct these interviews in the spring of 2012, not only to alleviate confusion within the public domain, but also because EPA’s EJ program would like to begin conducting Healthy Homes assessments near Westlake Landfill in the spring as well. I believe those two activities positively parallel each other and give the community a more clarified direction .
MDNR asked Dan and I if they could conduct their own community interviews prior to the SFS being released to the public. I specifically asked Brandon, what they would do with the comments received, since we are NOT in a public comment period. He appeared to understand and thanked Dan and I for our time.
If you need additional information about this call or any other facet of the Westlake Landfill site, please call Dan or I.
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or toll-free@ 1-800-223-0425
OliLj
~.D
40450119
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Superfund
OLtol

Post

2012-01-09 – EPA EJ program would like to begin conducting Healthy Homes assessmens near West Lake Landfill

{In Archive} EPA Call with MDNR Re: Westlake Landfill-Next Steps for
Community Outreach
Debbie Kring to: Hattie Thomas, Dan Gravatt 01/09/2012 04:30PM
Cc: Rich Hood, Cecilia Tapia, DeAndre Singletary
Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.
Dan & I called MDNR (Branch Chief Brandon Doster) at his request to discuss next steps for community outreach activities at the Westlake Landfill Superfund Site in Bridgeton, MO.
MDNR would like EPA to conduct community interviews in support of the most recent Community Involvement Plan update (fall of 2011 ). They would also like these interviews to be done subsequent to the upcoming public meeting EPA will hold to release the Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS) to guage interest community-wide. While EPA concurs with the need to get current perspectives from community members about the progress of Westlake Landfill, doing interviews during this particular phase of the Superfund process is poor timing. EPA has made it clear that the SFS process is NOT a public comment process or period. Conducting interviews at the same time considerations are being made about the SFS gives the community mixed messages about what EPA is asking.
We conveyed to MDNR that EPA would prefer to conduct these interviews in the spring of 2012, not only to alleviate confusion within the public domain, but also because EPA’s EJ program would like to begin conducting Healthy Homes assessments near Westlake Landfill in the spring as well. I believe those two activities positively parallel each other and give the community a more clarified direction .
MDNR asked Dan and I if they could conduct their own community interviews prior to the SFS being released to the public. I specifically asked Brandon, what they would do with the comments received, since we are NOT in a public comment period. He appeared to understand and thanked Dan and I for our time.
If you need additional information about this call or any other facet of the Westlake Landfill site, please call Dan or I.
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or toll-free@ 1-800-223-0425
OliLj
~.D
40450119
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Superfund
OLtol

Post

2012-07-26 – Earth City Board of Trustees – Community will be mad if 100% excavation not performed

\

Summarized Phone Conversation I had with John Basilica, Chair, Earth City Board of Trustees-Re: West Lake Landfill Debbie Kring to: Dan Gravatt, DeAndre Singletary, Audrey Asher 07/26/2012 02:02PM Cc· Rich Hood, Hattie Thomas, Cecilia Tapia, Robertw Jackson, Kristina
· Gonzales
The attached document serves as a phone record for a conversation that I had with John Basilica today, July 27, 2012. Please let me know if you have questions. For the record, this site is currently in lit.-hold.
~~~u
WestlakelandfiiiOverviewBoardofTrustees.docx
Debbie
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or toll-free@ 1-800-223-0425
v711 ltmniiiiill1 3
‘ o
Superfund
OL,f D/

Write-Up Re: Discussion with John Basilica,
Chairman, Earth City, MO Board of Trustees

West Lake Landfill
I spoke by phone today with Mr. John Basilica of Earth City, MO. He calls.me every 4-6 months to get an update on West Lake Landfill. Their next board meeting is August 22nd, so the update for this call was of key importance to him.
As background, John and the Earth City Board were extremely supportive of EPA’s initial remedy selection, primarily due to the concern about bird strikes at the St. Louis airport.
We talked for about 15 minutes about the status
of the landfill, and EPA’s current stance with
respect to the SFS. I outlined some of the
current and proposed actions (very generically)
as we are proposing to do in an updated Fact
Sheet.
..

In summary, John stated that he is on the ground in this community and the area in general and really hears what the constituents say. He stated that whatever EPA plans to do at the landfill, it should take the following into consideration, understanding that the two solutions are: full excavation of the landfill OR EPA’s preferred remedy, which includes capping, groundwater monitoring, and institutional controls:
Unless it is deemed that the appropriate action for the landfill is 100% +excavation (which would include the removal of every molecule of contaminated material), the public will be mad.
Unless it is deemed that EPA’s preferred remedy is going to be performed in the near future (sooner vs. later), the public’s patience is running out.

Post

2012-07-26 – West Lake Landfill Update

Fw: West Lake Landfill Update LaTonya Sanders to: Debbie Kring 07/26/2012 02:00 PM Cc: Rich Hood
Debbie see below.
Please advise.
Thx.
Forwarded by LaTonya Sanders/R7/USEPA/US on 07/26/2012 02:00 PM
From: “Fowler, Mark (McCaskill)”

To: LaTonya Sanders/R7/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 07/26/2012 01:47 PM
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill Update

Great thanks a lot, LaTonya. Appreciate the help. As one follow up question, am I right in thinking then that the excavation has been deemed unfeasible due to the cost and in its place there will be additional groundwater sampling, gamma scans, and other treatment technologies? Or would excavation still be considered in subsequent additional studies that you noted?
Thanks again,
Mark

Mark Fowler
Legislative Correspondent
Office of Senator Claire McCaskill

• (202)224-6154
From: LaTonya Sanders [mailto:Sanders.Latonya@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:15 PM
To: Fowler, Mark (McCaskill)
Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill Update

Hi Mark,
I apologize for being so late in providing you this update.
Once you review, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
Thanks!
Superfund
OU OO
(See attachedfile: West LakeLandfillSite Update -July 2012.doc)
IsJo+yA £.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Office of the Regional Administrator
Office of Public Affairs
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101

PH: 913-551-7555
FX: 913-551-7066
EM: sanders.latonva@epa.aov

Get tips toprotect children’s health at
http://uiujuj.epa.gov/region7/citizens/childrens health-htm

“^”Fowler, Mark (McCaskill)” —07/24/2012 06:14:44 PM—Hi LaTonya, I wanted to check back in and see if you were able to get any answers about the West Lak
From: “Fowler, Mark (McCaskill)” To: LaTonya Sanders/R7/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 07/24/2012 06:14 PM Subject: RE: West Lake Landfill Update
Hi LaTonya,
I wanted to check back in and see if you were able to get any answers about the West Lake Landfill situation.
Please let me know if so.
Thanks
Mark
Mark Fowler
Legislative Correspondent
Office of Senator Claire McCaskill
(202) 224-6154
From: LaTonya Sanders rmailto:Sanders.Latonva@epamail.epa.qov1 Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:28 PM To: Fowler, Mark (McCaskill) Subject: West Lake Landfill Update
Hi Mark, I’m sending you a quick note to let you know that I haven’t forgotten about your request for an update on the West Lake Landfill.
Still working on it. Hope to have something to you soon.
Thanks.
LJ&by*. E.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Office of the Regional Administrator
Office of Public Affairs
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101

PH: 913-551-7555
FX: 913-551-7066
EM: sanders.latonva@epa.gov

Get tips to protect children’s health at
http://ujujLJ.epa.gov/region7/citizens/childrens health-htm

Post

2012-07-30 – Updates to West Lake Landfill Update

..

Fw: West Lake Landfill Bullets w/changes Rich Hood to: Dan Gravatt 07/30/2012 10:15 AM
Rich Hood Associate Regional Administrator For Media, Intergovernmental Relations Region 7
(o)
913-551-7906

(c)
913-339-8327

—–Forwarded by Rich Hood/R7/USEPA!US on 07/30/2012 10:14 AM—-.
From: Rich Hood/R7/USEPA!US To: LaTonya Sanders/R7/USEPAIUS@EPA Date: 07/26/2012 12:53 PM Subject: Fw: West Lake Landfill Bullets w/changes
LaTonya,
Recommend you share these bullets with the senator and the two congressmen. We would hope to issue the fact sheet next month before going to Bridgeton for discussion and updates.
Pleaese call if you have questions.
Rich Hood Associate Regional Administrator For Media, Intergovernmental Relations Region 7
(o)
913-551-7906

(c)
913-339-8327

—–Forwarded by Rich Hood/R7/USEPA!US on 07/26/2012 12:50 PM —-.
From: Debbie Kring/R7/USEPA!US To: Rich Hood/R7/USEPA!US@EPA Date: 07/26/2012 12:47 PM Subject: West Lake Landfill Bullets w/changes
FYI. ……… .

WestLakeLandfiiiBulletsJuly2012.docx
Debra L. Kring Public Affairs Specialist/Local Elected Officials Liaison EPA-Region 7, Office of Public Affairs 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-7725 or toll-free @ 7 1-800-223-0425
D I Lf lllllllliUi~ililllllllllll3’0
Superfund
)’4D/
West Lake Landfill Update-July 2012

Past actions include: signing the Record of Decision (ROD) in 2008. This decision included placing an engineered cover system over the radiologically-contaminated areas, long-term groundwater monitoring, and the adoption of institutional controls to restrict access. Action was conducted after holding numerous public meetings and comment periods.


After receiving numerous comments after the ROD was signed, EPA tasked the potentially.responsible parties (PRPs) to conduct a Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS) to further evaluate: the ROD-selected remedy; and full.scale excavation of the landfill material.


The SFS was approved by EPA, released to the public in December 2011, and posted to EPA’s website.


The estimated costs defined in the SFS Report triggered a formal review by EPA’s National Remedy Review Board (NRRB).


The NRRB recommended that EPA Region 7: -Evaluate additional groundwater sampling to refresh the data; and

– Conduct a more detailed analysis of
potential treatment technologies for the
radiologically-contaminated landfill
material.


EPA Region 7 also decided to update the gamma scans ofthe OU-1 surface, and conduct vertical gamma scans of the site’s monitoring wells.


Timeline: (for EPA actiops) 1) Groundwater sampling -starting July 2012;

2) Gamma scan evaluation-starting August 2012;and
..

3) Additional studies-would be conducted, if and when warranted.
• EPA will host a public availability session near the end of2012 to provide data results and take questions about the next steps in the remedy-selection process.

Post

2012-01-04 – MDNR questions about public interviews regarding West Lake Landfill

·-,
/(_:.
. \ ‘ RE: West Lake Landfill: possible interivews related to the revised CIP
\,.__,-J• …1
\. -~”””C7 Muenk.s, Shawn to: Dan Gravatt, Debbie Kring 01/04/2012 04:31 PM Cc: “Doster, Branden”
1”1 orn: “Muenks, Shawn”
To: Dan Gravatt/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Debbie Kring/R7/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: “Doster, Branden”
Dan & Debbie,
It was our understanding that the purpose of the public interviews would be to
gauge concerns and expectations of nearby communities regarding West Lake
Landfill and how they want to be interacted with during the public comment
period. The interviews should be done prior to the public comment period and
information gathered included in the CIP. The interviews would not
necessarily be used to determine which remedy the public supports. We were
also under the impression from our discussion at the last site tour that EPA
was committed to conducting these interviews. I think a call to discuss this
issue is warranted. Please advise of availability. We are available Thursday
or Friday morning this week and Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Thanks,
Shawn Muenks, P.E.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 Ph: (573) 751-3107 email: shawn.muenks@dnr.mo.gov —–Original Message—-.From: Dan Gravatt [mailto:Gravatt.Dan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:53 PM To: Muenks, Shawn; Doster, Branden Cc: Debbie Kring Subject: West Lake Landfill: possible tnterivews related to the revised CIP
Shawn, Branden,
Following up on the question you posed in yesterday’s biweekly conference call, I spoke with Debbie Kring yesterday on the issue of conducting public interviews as part of the revised CIP. Debbie stated that it has not been decided whether EPA will conduct these interviews, but if our Office of Public affairs decides to do so, they will be conducted in the spring. OPA intends to treat these interviews separately from public comment periods and/or public meetings associated with any decision documents.
If you have any other questions on this issue, please contact Debbie directly at 913-551-7725.
Sincerely, Daniel R. Gravatt, PG US EPA Region 7 SUPR I MOKS 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone (913) 551-7324 Fax (913) 551-7063
Principles and integrity are expensive, but they are among the very few things worth having.
[) 7/ (~/ 40440122
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Superfund
:1 .’

‘0 -~
.Jl …<_I :.•• ) / ,r. /.-, r' .._..,.-v

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