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

2012-07-24 – 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/[email protected]
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 [email protected]

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 [email protected] 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
[email protected] 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/[email protected], Dan Gravatt/R7/USEPA/[email protected]
Cc: Rich Hood/R7/USEPA/[email protected], Cecilia Tapia/R7/USEPA/[email protected]

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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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

2014-03-10 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Lacy Clay staffer asks EPA for assistance responding to WSJ story

To: Thomas, Hattie[[email protected]]; Peterson, Mary[[email protected]]
From: Sanders, LaTonya
Sent: Mon 3/10/2014 3:22:20 PM
Subject: FW: WALL STREET JOURNAL: EPA Said to Seek Softer Review of Dump, Agency Might Be
Concerned About Cost Of Moving Nuclear Waste, Some Say
From: Engelhardt, Steven [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:21 AM
To: Brooks, Karl
Cc: Whitley, Christopher; Sanders, LaTonya
Subject: FW: WALL STREET JOURNAL: EPA Said to Seek Softer Review of Dump, Agency Might Be
Concerned About Cost Of Moving Nuclear Waste, Some Say
———-
EPA Said to Seek Softer Review of Dump
Agency Might Be Concerned About Cost Of Moving Nuclear
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057007
Waste, Some Say
By
John R. Emshwiller
March 9, 2014 8:04 p.m. ET
Dawn Chapman, left, and Karen Nickel at the West Lake dump near St. Louis. They say its
radioactive waste should be removed rather than capped. Sarah Conard for The Wall
Street Journal
BRIDGETON, Mo.-An Environmental Protection Agency review board was pressured by officials
at the agency to soften its challenges to an EPA plan for dealing with a highly contaminated
radioactive waste site in this St. Louis suburb, a former board member and other people familiar
with the matter said.
In what some saw as a sign of the intensity of the dispute, the EPA turned a 2012 review of the site
from a public process to a confidential one. Some people familiar with that move believe it was done
to save the EPA the potential embarrassment of the dispute becoming public.
The EPA, in written responses to questions, denied that pressure was put on the review board or
that there were attempts to hide its views. The agency said a nonpublic “consultation” on the plan
was more appropriate than a full public “review” because it was determined that more sampling
and testing needed to be done at the site. It acknowledged, however, that a switch from a review to a
consultation had never before happened.
At issue is what the EPA should do with the thousands of tons of radioactive waste at the West Lake
landfill, a contentious question because of its location in a major metropolitan area. Uraniumprocessing
wastes were illegally buried there 40 years ago by private parties, federal records show.
The material will remain dangerous for centuries, experts say, and some residents worry it poses a
health hazard.
West Lake is one of scores of sites around the country contaminated by the U.S. nuclear-weapons
program, many of which haven’t been fully cleaned up. The Wall Street Journal last year examined
some of the problems surrounding these sites, including West Lake.
The EPA regional office in Lenexa, Kan., which oversees West Lake, has said the contamination is
contained on site and isn’t harming the public. It decided in 2008 to leave the waste in place and
cover it with a protective cap. Faced with criticism from residents who feel the waste should be
hauled away, the EPA is reconsidering what to do.
Dawn Chapman, a leader among the activists, and others say the Army Corps of Engineers, which
has experience cleaning up nuclear-waste sites, should join the project. That position is backed by
four members of Missouri’s congressional delegation, including its two senators. The EPA said it is
giving “serious consideration” to the idea.
Part of the agency’s second look brought the matter before the EPA’s National Remedy Review
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057008
Board, which consists of agency officials from around the country. The board was created in 1996
as part of a package of reforms in the Superfund program to clean up toxic sites, according to the
EPA’s website.
In the West Lake case, board members had various concerns about the proposal to leave the
radioactive waste in place, said people familiar with the matter. One was whether unreliable data
were used to conclude the material was too widely scattered amid other garbage to dig up.
If it was in a more concentrated area, as some records suggested, removal to a licensed radioactive
waste site could be a better alternative, given West Lake’s high level of contamination and location
in a populated area, said John Frisco, a board member who took part in the discussions. Mr. Frisco,
now retired, was a Superfund manager in the EPA’s New York City-based regional office.
Though the review board is traditionally a relatively independent internal entity, EPA officials tried
to “soften some recommendations” and “remove” some information that raised questions about the
proposal to leave the waste in place, said Mr. Frisco.
“It kind of flies in the face of an independent review,” said Mr. Frisco, who had been on the board
since its inception.
West Lake was “politically hot” and led to “fireworks inside the agency,” said another person
familiar with the matter, describing it as “a nasty affair” involving “unusual pressure” on the
board from EPA officials.
People familiar with the matter said they believed that at least part of the motivation for the
pressure came from wanting to defend the previously announced plan to leave the waste in place.
Removing it, they said, was seen as likely to be more complex and expensive and carry other risks.
Another person involved in West Lake said there was “a lot of back and forth” regarding a
“challenging site,” but didn’t recall feeling EPA officials had improperly “pushed” the board.
One EPA headquarters official who took part in the board’s deliberations, said people familiar with
the matter, was Douglas Ammon. Mr. Ammon, who wasn’t a board member, took positions that
seemed aimed “to dilute” West Lake recommendations, said Mr. Frisco. Mr. Ammon “was
extremely vocal and tried to rewrite stuff,” said another person.
Adding to concerns over Mr. Ammon’s role: He was the direct supervisor of Amy Legare, the
review board’s chairwoman. The EPA said he had “management responsibility” for the board.
The EPA said that at times, nonmembers participate in the board’s activities.
When contacted, Mr. Ammon said he needed to check with the EPA about giving an interview; Ms.
Legare didn’t respond to interview requests. In its written responses, the EPA said the two wouldn’t
be available to give interviews about “pre-decisional, deliberative activities” such as the review
board’s consultation.
The EPA declined to provide a copy of the board’s consultation document. However, the agency
said that as a result of the board’s efforts, “substantial additional work is under way or being
planned to support EPA’s future decision for this site.”
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057009
Copyright 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this
material are governed by our and by copyright law. For nonpersonal
use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-
0008 or visit
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057010

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