2014-04-30 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Gravatt, Dan – If we help public we will be giving their work credibility

Gravatt, Dan From: Tapia, Cecilia Sent: To: Cc: Wednesday, April30, 2014 3:53PM Gravatt, Dan Subject: Field,... View Document

Post

2014-09-29 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Karl Brooks West Lake Landfill Earth City Meeting Talking Points

ATTENDEES:
WEST LAKE LANDFILL EARTH CITY MEETING
Monday, September 29, 2014
11:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
John Basilica, Senior Consultant, Earth City Board of Trustees (EPA contact)
Steve Schulte, Trustee/Chairman, Earth City Board of Trustees
Michael Reynoso, Trustee, Earth City Board of Trustees
Terry McCaffrey, Trustee, Earth City Board of Trustees
Brad Weston, Trustee, Earth City Board of Trustees
Toby Martin, Senior Vice President, Duke Realty Corporation*
Jon Hinds, Vice President, Duke Realty Corporation
Christy Lucido, Senior Property Manager, Duke Realty Corporation
Ryan Hodges, President, Earth City Levee District
Jerry Leigh, President, AMCI, Inc.*
*Duke Realty is the largest property owner within Earth City.
* AMCI Inc. is another property owner/developer within Earth City.
The attendees of this meeting represent senior leadership of Earth City; Duke Realty, and AMCI,
Inc. Staff level employees are not anticipated to attend.
LOCATION: Frontenac Bank
The meeting will take place in a conference room within Frontenac Bank. There will be a
conference phone available. We will open a conference line here in the Regional Office and
Shawn Grindstaff will dial in from the meeting room’s conference phone.
STAFF: Shawn Grindstaff will attend in person: 636-358-9154. Ben Washburn,
Mary Peterson, Dan Gravatt, Jeff Field, and Lynn Slugantz will attend by phone.
TOPIC/S:
• Isolation Barrier
• Subsurface Smoldering Event
• EPA Progress
• Next Steps
FORMAT: 1 hour meeting with Q&A
This will be an opportunity for you to share with the Earth City Board of Trustees and major
businesses/property owners the status of work being done at the West Lake Landfill site, discuss
concerns and answer questions
BACKGROUND MATERIALS:
Talking points – (p. 2)
Questions submitted by Earth City Board of Trustees – (p. 5)
Additional questions and answers- (p. 7)
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057220
Talking Points
West Lake Landfill Earth City Meeting Talking Points
Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator
September 29, 2014
1. Site Background
The West Lake Landfill Superfund Site is located on a 200-acre parcel about one
mile north of the I-70 interchange within the city limits of Bridgeton, Mo., in
northwestern St. Louis County. The Earth City Industrial Park is adjacent to the
Site on the west. The Spanish Village residential subdivision is located less than
one mile to the south and a trailer park is located Y2 mile to the southeast.
Two areas of the Site were radiologically-contaminated in 1973 when soils mixed
with leached barium sulfate residues were used as daily and intermediate cover in
the landfill operations. The barium sulfate residues, containing traces of uranium,
thorium, and their long-lived daughter products, were some of the uranium ore
processing residues generated by Mallinckrodt at its downtown St. Louis plant
and were initially stored by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on a 21.7-acre
tract ofland in a then undeveloped area of north St. Louis County, now known as
the St. Louis Airport Site (SLAPS). This area is part of the St. Louis Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program managed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). The radium and lead-bearing residues- known as K-65
residues- were stored in drums prior to being relocated to federal facilities in
New York and Ohio.
In 1966 and 1967, the remaining residues from SLAPS were purchased by a
private company for mineral recovery and placed in storage at a nearby facility on
Latty A venue under an AEC license. Most of the residues were shipped to Canon
City, Colorado for reprocessing except for the leached barium sulfate residues,
which were least valuable in terms of mineral content, i.e., most of the uranium
and radium was removed in previous precipitation steps. Reportedly, 8,700 tons
of leached barium sulfate residues were mixed with approximately 39,000 tons of
soil and then transported to the Site. According to the landfill operator, the soil
was used as cover for municipal refuse in routine landfill operations. The data
collected during the Remedial Investigation (RI) are consistent with this account.
The quarry pits were used for permitted solid waste landfill operations beginning
in 1979. In August 2005, the Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill (Former Active
Sanitary Landfill) stopped receiving waste, pursuant to an agreement with the city
of St. Louis to reduce the potential for birds to interfere with airport operations.
The Site is divided into two operable units (OUs), each with identifying areas.
OU -1 consists of radiological areas 1 and 2 and the Buffer Zone/Crossroad
Property; OU-2 consists of the other landfilled areas which did not receive any of
the radiologically-contaminated soil:
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057221
OU-1:
• Radiological Area 1 -Approximately 10 acres are impacted by radionuclides.
The radionuclides are in soil material that is intermixed with the overall landfill
matrix consisting of municipal refuse. The total volume of radiologicallyimpacted
materials is estimated at 33,500 cubic yards.
• Radiological Area 2 – This area was also part of the unregulated landfill
operations conducted prior to 1974. Approximately 30 acres are impacted by
radionuclides. The radionuclides are in soil material that is intermixed with the
overall landfill matrix consisting mostly of construction and demolition debris.
The total volume of radiologically-impacted materials is estimated at 302,000
cubic yards.
• Buffer Zone/Crossroad Property – This property, also known as the Ford
Property, lies west of Radiological Area 2 and became surficially-contaminated
when erosion of soil from the landfill berm resulted in the transport of
radiologically-contaminated soils from Area 2 onto the adjacent property.
OU-2:
• Closed Demolition Landfill -This area is located on the southeast side of
Radiological Area 2. This landfill received demolition debris. It received none of
the radiologically-contaminated soil. It operated under a permit with the State
and was closed in 1995.
• Inactive Sanitary Landfill -This landfill is located south of Radiological Area 2
and was part of the unregulated landfill operations conducted prior to 197 4. The
landfill contains sanitary wastes and a variety of other solid wastes and
demolition debris. It received none of the radiologically-contaminated soil.
• Former Active Sanitary Landfill – This municipal solid waste landfill, known as
the Bridgeton Landfill, is located on the south and east portions of the Site. The
landfill is subject to a State permit, which was issued in 1974. This landfill
received none of the radiologically-contaminated soil. Landfill operations ceased
in 2005 and closure and post-closure activities are currently in progress by
MDNR in accordance with Missouri Solid Waste rules and regulations.
2. Ongoing Activities
a. Subsurface Smoldering Event
i. There is a SSE occurring on the Bridgeton LF side of the site. This piece
of the site is managed under state authority and the work is being
conducted by Republic Services. Republic has an extensive network of
gas extraction wells and temperature monitoring probes to monitor the
event, and currently has plans to expand its monitoring network. EPA
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057222
maintains routine communication with MDNR to stay informed about the
SSE. All current data suggest the SSE remains distant from the areas
containing known RIM.
b. Isolation Barrier
i. EPA has been working with the PRPs to develop plans for a barrier that
would serve to prevent the SSE from contacting areas known to contain
RIM.
ii. This is an enormously complex project from an engineering
standpoint.
111. To assist in evaluating the complexities, advantages, and
disadvantages of the various IB alternatives, EPA has enlisted the
expertise of the US ACE.
iv. The USACE has prepared an initial assessment report of the IB
alternatives, and the PRPs have recently been tasked to produce more
detailed plans by mid-October.
v. The more detailed plans will include bird mitigation plans to
address the threat of potential bird strikes, given the proximity to the
airport.
vi. The SLAA and FAA must approve these plans before additional
work can proceed.
c. Off-Site Air Monitoring
i. EPA has established an air monitoring system in the offsite areas
surrounding the WLL Site. This system includes 5 air monitoring stations
that collect data for a variety of constituents. A local field office has been
set up as the control center for the air monitoring network, which is staffed
each week by EPA On-Scene Coordinators and contractors. The field
office has recently been relocated due to planned construction activities at
the Fire Station.
3. What’s Next?
a. EPA will review the detailed plans for the IB alignment alternatives due midOctober.
b. EPA will review the Bird Mitigation plans also due mid-October, and will
coordinate that review with the SLAA and FAA.
c. EPA will review the USGS report regarding groundwater data, and will
communicate with the public regarding the conclusions.
d. EPA continues to progress toward selection of a final remedy. We expect to
approve work plans very soon for the next stages of Feasibility Study work that
must be completed to support a new Proposed Plan and Record of Decision.
4. Engagement Opportunities/Information Needs
a. EPA wants to keep stakeholders informed. There are a variety of ways to do that.
How can we best accomplish that for the Earth City Business Park? How would
you like to be kept informed?
i. Periodic meetings?
11. Receive periodic Fact sheets?
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057223
111. Receive WL Update via email?
b. Are there specific topics or subjects that would be especially helpful or beneficial
for your constituents?
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY EARTH CITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
1. Briefly explain EPA’s role at West Lake Landfill as set forth in Superfund law.
EPA’s role at the West Lake Site is to act as the regulatory agency in charge of the
remediation at the landfill. As such, EPA has the final and ultimate decision making
authority and can direct the PRPs to take actions at the site as appropriate to protect
human health and the environment.
2. Briefly explain the role of Republic Services and others in determining the final
resolution of the landfill matter.
The Potentially Responsible Parties, of which Republic Services is one, conduct site
investigations and evaluations at the direction of EPA. The results of these, such as the
currently on-going Supplemental Supplemental Feasibility Study (SSFS) are sent to EPA
for careful review and approval. While these technical documents form the basis for
decisions, the final decision of the site remedy remains with EPA.
3. Is cost the primary reason EPA favors keeping the radioactive material in place with the
addition of safety improvements?
Cost is only one of nine criteria the NCP requires EPA to consider.
In the case of West Lake Landfill, other considerations include time to complete an
excavation, safety of flight operations and the flying public at the airport, and the
complexity of an excavation project due to the depth of the landfill.
4. Why after 40 years is there still an issue with the location of the radioactive material? Is
EPA investigating all other landfill areas not previously investigated for radioactive
material?
The recent investigations into the location of the radiologically impacted material (RIM)
have been focused on finding the best location to install the proposed isolation barrier.
5. Is there an area-wide health risk in removing and relocating the radioactive material?
There is increased risk of human exposures associated with excavation and removal of
the material. Also important is the attraction of birds to the newly excavated waste,
which could pose a threat to flight operations and the safety of the flying public at the
airport and the communities near the airport.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057224
6. Briefly discuss the underground fire and construction of the barrier.
The Missouri Attorney General ordered Republic Services to construct the isolation
barrier in 2013. Work has been progressing with Republic Services on potential designs
of the isolation barrier since the order. Additionally, EPA has entered into an InterAgency
Agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to assist with preconstruction
and construction activities at the site. Some preconstruction activities have
already begun; EPA has installed a robust air monitoring system around the landfill to
establish baseline air quality levels and a wind-blown debris barrier has been installed to
capture any debris generated during the excavation of the landfill to construct the barrier.
The PRPs are currently preparing detailed barrier alignment alternatives which will be
submitted to EPA and USACE for review. The St. Louis Airport Authority also has a
keen interest in these plans and bird mitigation plans that must be approved. Once an
alignment has been selected, planning for construction will begin in earnest. USACE
estimates construction of the isolation barrier could start in approximately 18 months.
The long planning period required reflects the scientific and engineering challenges of
this project, for which there is no parallel in the United States.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057225
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
1. I spend more than 40 hours a week working here. Am I at risk?
The site is protective of public health. EPA has no data to indicate there is any off-site
exposure to contaminants at the West Lake site.
2. Is it possible that these buildings might be condemned as part of the final remediation?
What about temporary closures during any digging for the isolation barrier?
There is no reason to believe the radioactive materials buried deep underground at the
landfill would requiring moving facilities or people. We will do everything we can to
ensure the potentially responsible parties conduct any type of remediation efforts in a
way to minimize impact on the businesses here. Typically, tenants are removed and
buildings demolished only if the selected remedy cannot be completed with those
buildings in place where they are. For example, if excavation is needed underneath a
building, then that building would have to be removed. EPA does not anticipate this at
the West Lake site.
The PRP may offer voluntary relocation to nearby residents during constmction of the
isolation barrier due to nuisance odors resulting from excavated waste. However, EPA
cannot compel the PRPs to offer this service.
3. The MDHSS study that just came said there are increased chance of getting cancer.
What can you tell me about that?
EPA Region 7 is reviewing the Coldwater Creek area cancer study conducted by the
Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. As EPA continues to exercise its
authorities under the Superfund law, we will consider the MDHSS study as part of the
body of scientific data. We know the data will be of concern to many. While MDHSS is
seeking the involvement of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for further studies, we want people
to know that we are aggressively pursuing a final remedy at the West Lake Landfill site
to ensure the protection of public health there.
EPA appreciates the work ofMDHSS in producing this report, and looks forward to
continued cooperative efforts with MDHSS and other partners as we work to protect
human health and the environment in and around St. Louis.
4. You’ve kind of told us that we’re okay here and not at greater risk of cancer. If so, why
are you telling the PRPs to spend all that money to do all this work. Isn’t the site already
safe?
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057226
The site is protective of public health to the neighborhoods in this area. However, it is
not a sustainable proposition for the long term to leave the landfill as is. That leads to a
science and engineering discussion on the best and most viable way to ensure protection
of public health for decades to come. Additionally, after the selection and
implementation of a final remedy at the site, EPA will continue to study and monitor the
site to ensure that the remedy remains protective.
5. In 2008 you announced a decision to cap the landfill (ROD). Why did you decide to
review that decision? Seems like the work would be done already if you had directed the
PRPs to cap it.
EPA decided to conduct additional site investigations after issuing the 2008 Record of
Decision due to continued community concerns about the selected remedy, which was to
install an engineered cap over the landfill with the implementation of institutional
controls to prevent risk of exposures.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057227
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057228

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

Post

2015-10-19 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Mark Hague notes for call with Mathy Stanislaus

To:
From:
Stoy, Alyse[[email protected]]; Peterson, Mary[[email protected]]
Juett, Lynn
Sent:
Subject:
Mon 10/19/2015 3:50:03 PM
Notes for Mark’s Call with Mathy
Upcoming Activities
• October 23, 2016 – Bridgeton Landfill’s Expert Reports Due Date
• October 26, 2015 – CAG Meeting in St Louis
• October 26, 2015 Week- Congressional and Community Outreach by Acting RA
• November 13, 2015- Goal for completing negotiations on Addition Work and AOC
Modifications -which will provide an enforceable schedule for Final Feasibility
Study
• December 3, 2015- Goal for Announcement of Isolation Barrier Decision
Recent Community Concerns
Relocation: Over the past year, Lois Gibbs, Center for Health and Environmental
Justice, and Just Moms StLouis have asked EPA in writing to relocate residents within
a two-mile radius of the Site, payment of “property assurance” presumably to
compensate for loss of property value within a five-mile radius and establishment of a
health clinic. Initially these concerns were directed at potential exposure to RIM and
movement of the SSE. Then in early 2015, Bridgeton Landfill discovered potential
excessive S02 emissions from one of its landfill gas flares, which added to the
community’s concerns regarding their health. EPA has performed environmental
sampling at the West Lake Landfill site over the years, including air monitoring within the
community this past year, all of which have not shown evidence of releases from the
site that could pose an unacceptable risk to the community. EPA has informed the
community that we have determined that the conditions at the Site do not warrant
consideration of temporary or permanent relocation as a CERCLA response action at
this time.
‘–“–”–”–”–”–‘RIM- All data collected and reviewed by EPA supports the conclusion that
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056383
RIM has not migrated off-site in soils or via air. (Further groundwater investigation is
being planned, but the nearby communities are all hooked up to public drinking water
supplies)
c__jc__jl_jc__jc__jc__j SSE – Based on the available scientific data evaluated to date by our experts,
the data do not conclusively support a scenario where the SSE will encounter the
RIM. To date, reviews of the data have not indicated advancement of the SSE beyond
the neck area of the Bridgeton Landfill. The radiological waste at West Lake Landfill is not
capable under any circumstance of producing a sustained chain reaction (fission or fusion) that is capable
of producing a nuclear reaction or “meltdown” as seen at the Chemobyl and more recently Fukushima
power plants. In the unlikely event the SSE should come into contact with the RIM, EPA
does not believe that the RIM will become explosive in the presence of heat. We do
anticipate an localized increases of radon gas escaping into the atmosphere.
State of Emergency: On September 4, the Attorney General released reports from its
experts who will testify in the upcoming hearing (currently scheduled for March 2016) in
the AG’s lawsuit against Bridgeton Landfill. These reports and the accompanying press
release made the following statements. Based upon the information and conclusions
contained in these reports, the community has repeated its requests for relocation as
well as circulated a petition for the governor to declare a state of emergency.
o RIM has migrated off-site through groundwater and airborne particulate matter
(based on their phytoforensics testing),
o The SSE is moving towards the RIM and could make contact in a matter of 3 – 5
months, and
o Groundwater is contaminated.
EPA has publically stated that we strongly disagree with these conclusions. Also, on
October 16, 2015, Republic Services released an excerpt from their deposition of one of
the AG’s landfill experts. Based on what was posted, the landfill expert stated he does
not believe the SSE has moved past the neck nor is currently moving towards the RIM.
St. Louis County Emergency Plan: Following the release of the AG expert reports,
postings in social media showed an increased public interest in emergency planning.
About two weeks ago, an October 2014 West Lake Landfill Shelter in Place/Evacuation
Plan was obtained and released by the press. In response to that release, four local
school districts sent letters to parents of school children regarding their implementation
plans. While the news of an emergency evacuation plan may be new information for
many people, the plan has existed and been publicly known for more than a year. The
plan was developed in 2014 in consultation with multiple emergency response
organizations including the EPA. In July 2014, Director of St. Louis County Office of
Emergency Management, Michael Smiley discussed the plan with the West Lake
Landfill Community Advisory Group. In April 2015, Local Emergency Planning
Committee Chairman and Director of the St. Louis County Police Department
Emergency Manager Mark Diedrich made a public presentation about the updated plan
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056384
to the West Lake Landfill Community Advisory Group.
Local Elected Officials: Following the release of the AG expert reports, several local
officials are becoming increasingly involved and one has recently called for a
congressional oversight hearing into West Lake Landfill and a declaration of a state of
emergency. She will also be holding a series of nine town hall meetings in early
November claiming that radioactive waste will become airborne in 2-5 months.
FUSRAP: There are continued community and even congressional written requests for
DOE to reconsider its prior evaluation of the Site for the FUSRAP program. Many in the
community believe that if the site were turned over to FUSRAP, the USAGE would
excavate the RIM and dispose of it off-site, as they have done for much but not all of the
radioactively contaminated soils at FUSRAP sites in St. Louis. On September 10, 2015,
DOE responded to the congressional delegation’s recent request for reconsideration by
saying that they have no new information that would justify transfer of the site into the
FUSRAP program.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056385

Post

2016-01-26 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – EPA discussion of property assurance around West Lake Landfill

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Peterson, Mary[Peterson. [email protected]]
Brincks, Mike
Tue 1/26/2016 11:04:23 PM
Re: Notes from Just Moms meeting
So an anti-stigma guarantee
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 26, 2016, at 5:00PM, Peterson, Mary wrote:
No. It means a guarantee that they can sell their property -basically it’s an assurance of
sustained property value.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Peterson, Mary
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 12:07 PM
To: Hague, Mark Brincks, Mike
Cc: Carey, Curtis
Subject: Notes from Just Moms meeting
Mark, Mike, and Curtis,
We received the notes pasted below from Mike Zlatic with St. Louis County Health
Dept. I have highlighted a few areas for your awareness.
WeO 1/21/16 JustMOMSstl meeting (03/17 /16 next meeting – may be changed due to
St. Patrick’s Day)
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056269
6:35P Karen
No prayer; recognized elected officials
Reminder to report odors to MDNR
6:38P Karen
Upcoming events
West Lake CAG 02/08/16
FUSRAP Oversight 02/17/16
Saturday 02/20/16 STLCC Wildwood
Community organizer to support Moms is to be recruited by, and funded by,
Lois Gibbs’s organization CHEJ
February 8-10 Mom’s trip to DC (funded by gofundme) to pursue status of
legislation
6:44P Dawn
Update on congressional legislation- keep up the pressure with daily phone calls. Bill
Otto explained the legislative process, i.e., those who introduced the bill must push the
bill or it won’t go anywhere.
6:48P Dawn
West Lake/Bridgeton history recap
6:57P Dawn
Alvarez report
Largest deposit of Thorium in the world at West Lake.
More uranium at West Lake than at a site where uranium is mined.
Pb210 …
Because Republic requested change of venue to federal court, March court date will
probably not occur.
There is documented contamination offsite from West Lake.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056270
St. Louis County will need to play a bigger role depending on the …
7:08P Dawn/Karen
Senator Maria Chapelle-Nadal’s ‘buyout’ bill. Testimony next week in
Jefferson City.
7:11P Christen Commuso “Humans of West Lake Landfill” (see attached handout)
Human interest stories- wants more testimonies.
7:15P Dawn
Dr. Khan canceled his appearance tonight but Dawn, Karen, and Harvey have
a meeting with him next week.
7: 17P Karen/Dawn Q&A
Why weren’t yards around Coldwater Creek tested before now?
A: USACE follows the creek, cleans up what they find, then test further
downstream. Request to lobby congressionals to increase FUSRAP funding.
Attend upcoming County Council meeting to support transfer to FUSRAP and
for Dr. Khan to expand (not explained) his health survey.
Comment about necessity to test soil that is being farmed.
Comment about not knowing what to do if/when the ‘landfill blows’.
Comment that the President is immediately involved in Flint MI, but not
West Lake/Bridgeton.
A: Matt Lavanchy explained that alpha emitter needs to be ingested or inhaled,
effects are long term, and different persons respond differently. This will not be a
catastrophic explosion, if the ‘fire’ reaches the RIM (and it has not advanced in the last
year or so). But, we do need a physical barrier.
When do we go to the United Nations to investigate EPA?
A: Dawn urged people to ‘get angry’.
Testing water supply?
A: Drew, representative of Alliance Water, water supplier at/around WSSRAP
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056271
(Weldon Springs): Won’t see effects of this for ~5 years. Radiation doesn’t leave
water. Review your Consumer Confidence reports from your water supplier.
A: Karen reUnited Nations investigation- Lois Gibbs working on this.
Is the area being monitored?
A: Matt Lavanchy explained that monitoring occurs 24/7. 250,000 tons of S02
left the site in 2013(?). Report odors as soon as you smell them. Radiation in a smoke
plume is not a concern. Shelter in place is a temporary measure.
Comment: Make sure the doctors in the area are informed.
Is vegetation moved offsite?
A: Dawn “not yet” and don’t know where the vegetation will be disposed.
Matt explained that the vegetation will be ground up, placed on site, and
covered with road base.
7:57P Howard? Had been nmning for Bill Otto’s seat but is dropping out and
supporting his opponent, Byron DeLear(?).
Byron thanked him.
8:00P Is the science (facts) available online?
8:01P “Safe Side of the Fence” will be shown on 02/23/16 at a church in Ferguson (see
attached handout)
8:02P Karen looking for 5 persons to write op eds to newspapers.
Looking for someone to track political fundraisers.
8:06P Drew (Alliance Water) started ….
8:08P Karen reiterated WSMOMSstl 3 goals (Buyout within 1 mile, Property
assurance within 3? Miles, Transfer from EPA Superfund to USACE FUSRAP)
8:09P Adjourn

WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056272
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0056273

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[[email protected]]
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

2015-12-17 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – EPA receiving complaints about Coalition to Keep Us Safe

To: Stanislaus, Mathy[[email protected]]; Distefano,
N ichole[DiStefano. N [email protected] pa .gov]
From: Hague, Mark
Sent: Thur 12/17/2015 12:23:35 AM
Subject: Fwd: Post-Dispatch Editorial WLL
Mathy and Nichole
FYI. We heard from several stakeholders similar concerns as expressed below when we were in
StLouis Tuesday.
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Carey, Curtis”
Date: December 16,2015 at 6:16:12 PM CST
To: “Hague, Mark”
“Peterson, Mary”
Alyse”
Christopher”
Subject: Post-Dispatch Editorial WLL
Editorial: Politics and money drive advocates of keeping radioactive waste in Bridgeton
By the Editorial Board
The let’s-keep-radioactive-waste-buried-in-Bridgeton crowd is not what it’s pretending to
be.
More than a group of concerned citizens who say they don’t want contaminated waste
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055757
transported through their communities, the righteously named “Coalition to Keep Us Safe”
is a political campaign in action.
It has little to do with keeping anyone safe, considering that there already have been more
than 1 million cubic yards of contaminated material shipped by rail through Missouri since
the 1990s. Where was the coalition then?
This group was largely assembled and paid for recently by a subsidiary of Phoenix-based
Republic Services, owner of the Bridgeton and West Lake landfills. Its purpose is to lead
opposition to a clean-up effort that would involve excavating an estimated 150,000 cubic
yards of radioactive waste and transporting it by rail to a nuclear storage facility. That
would cost Republic most of an estimated $400 million.
What the coalition members have in common are ties to Republic Services. Spokeswoman
for the group, Molly Teichman, is a conservative political commentator based in Lafayette
County, Mo., near Kansas City. She has political ties to state Rep. Glen Kolkmeyer, ROdessa,
a coalition supporter. They are both longtime friends of Kay Hoflander, chair of the
Lafayette County Republicans, who has worked on behalf of the coalition.
The common thread stitching them together is Russ Knocke, Ms. Hoflander’s son. He is the
director of field communications and public affairs for Republic. Mr. Knocke told the PostDispatch’s
Blythe Bernhard and Jacob Barker that the company spent between $10,000 and
$100,000 on a recent advertising blitz against unearthing and transporting the waste. Ms.
Teichman is paid $1,500 a month from Republic.
Pretty easy to see where the opposition gets its marching orders, isn’t it?
It gets even better. Republic Services has taken a page straight out of the playbook of David
Plouffe, architect of the long-shot bid to get Barack Obama into the White House in 2008,
and currently the “strategic adviser” for Uber. When Mr. Plouffe was hired by Uber, the
ride-hailing company that is disrupting taxi services everywhere, the company discussed
“Uber the Candidate.” Mr. Plouffe was known as the “campaign manager.”
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055758
The basics in Mr. Plouffe’s playbook are:
• Tum your campaign into a cause.
• Find a theme.
• Build an inspiring narrative around the theme.
• Speak to your core audience through social media, email, advertising or face to face.
• Tum your audience into advocates, partly by equipping them with selective facts.
• Ignore anything that doesn’t fit your strategy.
And, perhaps most importantly, keep doing the same thing day after day until people start to
buy your argument.
With this strategy, there is nothing that can’t be fought as a political campaign. But there is
also no meaning in it. Telling people you want to keep them safe when what you really
want to do is save a waste management company a lot of money is cynical. So what if
thousands of other people who live in the vicinity of West Lake and Bridgeton landfills
actually may not be safe? The coalition isn’t working to keep them safe, is it? But then,
those aren’t the people signing the checks.
Don’t fall for this strategy. This group is tying to scare the rest of us into thinking that
putting a cap over the landfill, a plan put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in
2008, is the right way to handle radioactive waste in a landfill that is adjacent to another
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055759
landfill in which an underground fire has been burning for years. They’re trying to convince
people that it is better to let the people around Bridgeton live with the waste in their
neighborhoods than it is to transport the contaminated material along rail lines through their
communities.
The evidence suggests otherwise. The waste products where they lie are a threat of
unknown proportions. A million cubic yards of contaminated waste already have moved
through Missouri- with more being transported daily- and there have been no known
disasters as a result.
The right thing to do is excavate the radioactive material and move it to a safe nuclear
storage site. Stop the political campaign. Tum off the money spigot. Let the phony concern
wither.
Ms. Teichman showed her complete lack of sensitivity and tin ear to the concerns of others
when she thumbed her nose on social media at members of the group, JustMomsSTL, which
wants the waste hauled away.
She tweeted: “Dear mombots of #westlakelandfill, your reality tv show is over. Go home
and hangout with your kids -they miss you.”
Nice. Easy shot to take when you live more than 200 miles from St. Louis with little chance
that you, your kids or loved ones are going to become ill or contaminated from radioactive
waste. Way to run a political campaign, Ms. Teichman.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055760

Post

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

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

WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055675

Post

2015-08-10 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Update on status of West Lake and ATSDR Health Consultation

To:
Cc:
From:
Hague, Mark[[email protected]]; Breen, Barry[[email protected]]
Stalcup, Dana[[email protected]]; Peterson, Mary[[email protected]]
Juett, Lynn
Sent: Mon 8/10/2015 12:59:33 PM
Subject: FW: Update on status of West Lake and ATSDR Health Consultation
From: Woolford, James
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 9:24AM
To: Juett, Lynn
Subject: Fw: Update on status of West Lake and A TSDR Health Consultation
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055622
here is latest I have.
Jim Woolford, Director
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
US EPA
Phone: 703-603-8960 (office)
Mailing address:
1200 PA Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code – 5201 P
Address
2777 S. Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
Room 5622
Note – EPA email cannot receive or send emails greater than 25 mbs.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055623
From: Stalcup, Dana
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 9:12PM
To: Breen, Barry
Cc: Woolford, James; Gardner, Monica; Hilosky, Nick; Bergman, Shawna; Stanislaus, Mathy
Subject: RE: Update on status of West Lake and ATSDR Health Consultation
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055624
From: Breen, Barry
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 7:23 PM
To: Stalcup, Dana
Cc: Woolford, James; Gardner, Monica; Hilosky, Nick; Bergman, Shawna; Stanislaus, Mathy
Subject: RE: Update on status of West Lake and ATSDR Health Consultation
From: Stalcup, Dana
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 7:08 PM
To: Breen, Barry
Cc: Woolford, James; Gardner, Monica; Hilosky, Nick; Bergman, Shawna; Stanislaus, Mathy
Subject: RE: Update on status of West Lake and ATSDR Health Consultation
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055625
Non-site related radon recommendation
ATSDR believes that radon migration through the soils on the West Lake
landfill will not extend past the landfill property. However, the average
indoor radon levels from naturally occurring radon in St. Louis County is
known to be higher than national levels ,~~~~~
As a general practice, the Surgeon
General and EPA recommend that all homes be tested for radon
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055626
From: Breen, Barry
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 6:16PM
To: Stalcup, Dana
Cc: Woolford, James; Gardner, Monica; Hilosky, Nick; Bergman, Shawna; Stanislaus, Mathy
Subject: RE: Update on status of West Lake and ATSDR Health Consultation
From: Stalcup, Dana
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:59PM
To: Stanislaus, Mathy; Breen, Barry
Cc: Woolford, James; Gardner, Monica; Hilosky, Nick; Bergman, Shawna; Fitz-James, Schatzi;
Ammon, Doug; Scozzafava, MichaeiE
Subject: Update on status of West Lake and A TSDR Health Consultation
Mathy I Barry,
I wanted to provide you with a quick update on the status of our discussions with ATSDR
regarding their pending health consultation for the West Lake landfill.
Based on our discussions with ATSDR, they have modified how they are including the radon
recommendation, but they have not deleted the recommendation. They separated this
recommendation from the other site-specific recommendations, they state it is not related to the
landfill, and they cite the fact that St. Louis County has elevated levels of radon, and thus
recommend that people test for indoor radon.
In response to this latest change/draft, we provided a counterproposal to A TSDR. I have
provided our proposal below. You will see three requests in order of preference, from
completely deleting the recommendation, to putting it only in outreach materials, to making the
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055627
language clearer that radon testing is generally good and not related to West Lake.
I also wanted to share a couple of points they have made during our discussion that might be
worth considering:
• They considered this recommendation somewhat analogous to health consultations for sites
with lead in soil, wherein they often weigh in on the importance of looking for other sources of
lead in households, such as lead paint, lead in toys, water/pipes, etc.
• They also thought it might be good to be clear about the elevated background radon levels
in St. Louis to help citizens’ understanding if they do find elevated levels in their homes.
So, we have provided these recommendations, and I have told them I would update you on our
discussions. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. Also, it
would be helpful to know whether you would be able to live with the Health Consultation going
out with our recommended new language, or whether you plan to elevate if I hear at my level
that they plan to proceed with the recommendation.
Thanks for your help and guidance – Dana
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055628
Non-site related radon recommendation
Although unrelated to the landfill, inform residents to have their house
interiors tested for radon as the average indoor radon levels in St. Louis
County is known to higher than national levels ,~=~~~
Non-site related radon recommendation
ATSDR believes that radon migration through the soils on the West Lake landfill will not extend
past the landfill property. The average indoor radon levels from naturally occurring radon in St.
Louis County is known to be higher than national levels ,~=-==–==”-
As a general practice, the Surgeon General and EPA
recommend that all homes be tested for radon .~~~======~==~~~======
Dana Stalcup
Director, Assessment and Remediation Division
OSWER/Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI)
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055629
Desk – 703-603-8702
Cell – 202-309-54 73
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0055630

Post

2016-01-04 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Coordination for Release of information to the media

To:
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Weber, Rebecca[[email protected]]
Cozad, David
Mon 1/4/2016 3:09:11 PM
FW: RELEASE IS READY
From: Brees, Angela
Sent: Thursday, December 31,2015 5:00PM
To: Juett, Lynn
Cc: Hague, Mark ; Stoy, Alyse ; Cozad, David
; Peterson, Mary
Subject: Re: RELEASE IS READY
Last one I’ll link for today.
Angela M. Brees, Deputy Director
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS 66219
0: 913-551-7940
C: 816-663-2707
On Dec 31, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Brees, Angela wrote:
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057913
1
19
81
From: Juett, Lynn
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 2:45PM
To: Brees, Angela
Cc: Hague, Mark
7
David Peterson, Mary
Subject: Re: RELEASE IS READY
Release shared with MDNR and USACE.
I also shared the final version with Joe Benco with Republic.
Lynn Juett
913-551-7883
(Cell) 913-948-1129
Cozad,
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057914
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 31, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Brees, Angela wrote:
7
1
19
81
From: Hague, Mark
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 1:57PM
To: Brees, Angela Juett, Lynn
Stoy, Alyse Cozad, David
Peterson, Mary
Subject: RE: RELEASE IS READY
From: Brees, Angela
Sent: Thursday, December 31,2015 1:55PM
To: Hague, Mark Juett, Lynn Stoy,
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057915
Alyse Cozad, David ~~~~~~~~~· Peterson,
Mary
Subject: RE: RELEASE IS READY
7
1
19
81
From: Brees, Angela
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 1:47PM
To: Hague, Mark Juett, Lynn
Alyse Cozad, David ~~~~~~~~~·
Mary
Subject: RELEASE IS READY
Once I have a final concur, we’ll start work on getting it out.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057916
1 1
19
81
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0057917

Post

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

To: Stoy, Alyse[[email protected]]; Juett, Lynn[[email protected]]
Cc: Field, Jeff[[email protected]]; Jackson, Robert W.[[email protected]]; Peterson,
Mary[[email protected]]; Sanders, LaTonya[[email protected]]; Washburn,
Ben[[email protected]]; Carey, Curtis[[email protected]]; Whitley,
Christopher[Wh itley. [email protected] .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

2014-05-13 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC

To:
From:
Sent:
Carey, Curtis[ Carey. [email protected]]
Sanders, LaTonya
Tue 5/13/2014 9:30:48 PM
Subject: RE: ACTION: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
From: Carey, Curtis
Sent: Tuesday, May 13,2014 9:47AM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Hammerschmidt, Ron; Gravatt, Dan
Cc: Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd; Peterson, Mary; Sanders,
LaTonya
Subject: ACTION: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
c__jc_Jl_L_jc_J_j_j_j_jc__j EPA has no validated information indicating the need to screen for radiation
outside of the West Lake Landfill site. We are undertaking a screening ofBMAC to allay public
concerns at that heavily used recreation complex. The screening procedures EPA will use there
has been employed at many sites across the country and is supported by research and
documented procedures. Soil sampling will also be performed at BMAC to confirm the
screening results. With regard to screening haul roads, they remain under the purview of the
USACE FUSRAP program [PLEASE CONFIRM THIS IS CORRECT] and have previously
been exhaustively tested for radiation. Regarding a ditch at BMAC where local residents using
donated equipment reported finding “radiation”, even if the information they provided is
accurate the radiation levels are not elevated enough to present any health risk. Reportedly, the
highest concentration of gamma-emitting radionuclides in their soil samples works out to 5.13
pCi/g. For reference, the cleanup standard in the SFS forTh and Ra was set at 5 pCi/g plus
background [DAN, PLEASE TOTAL THESE TWO SO WE HAVE A TOTAL. RIGHT NOW
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058473
FOR THE LAY PERSON IT WOULD LOOK LIKE 5.13 IS ABOVE 5 AND THEREFORE
REQUIRES REMEDIATION].
From: Carey, Curtis
Sent: Monday, May 12,2014 10:50 AM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark; Hammerschmidt, Ron
Cc: Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd; Peterson, Mary; Gravatt, Dan
Subject: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
c__jc_Jl_L_jc_J_j_j_j_jc__j EPA has no validated information indicating the need to screen for radiation
outside of the West Lake Landfill site. We are undertaking a screening ofBMAC to allay public
concerns at that heavily used recreation complex. The screening procedures EPA will use there
has been employed at many sites across the country and is supported by research and
documented procedures. Soil sampling will also be performed at BMAC to confirm the
screening results. With regard to screening haul roads, they remain under the purview of the
USACE FUSRAP program [PLEASE CONFIRM THIS IS CORRECT] and have previously
been exhaustively tested for radiation. Regarding a ditch at BMAC where local residents using
donated equipment reported finding “radiation”, even if the information they provided is
accurate the radiation levels are elevated enough to present any health risk. Reportedly, the
highest concentration of gamma-emitting radionuclides in their soil samples works out to 5.13
pCi/g. For reference, the cleanup standard in the SFS forTh and Ra was set at 5 pCi/g plus
background [DAN, PLEASE TOTAL THESE TWO SO WE HAVE A TOTAL. RIGHT NOW
FOR THE LAY PERSON IT WOULD LOOK LIKE 5.13 IS ABOVE 5 AND THEREFORE
REQUIRES REMEDIATION].
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058474
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:48PM
To: Carey, Curtis; Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark
Cc: Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd
Subject: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
From: Carey, Curtis
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:41PM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark
Cc: Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd
Subject: RE: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058475
The suspected haul roads have been extensively sampled and have not shown levels of concern.
In addition, the haul roads are under the purview of the FUSRAP program and are not part of the
NPL site.
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:58 AM
To: Brooks, Karl; Hague, Mark; Carey, Curtis
Cc: Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hayes, Scott; Washburn, Ben; Field, Jeff; Campbell, Todd
Subject: FW: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
From: Johnson, James
Sent: Friday, May 09,2014 10:19 AM
To: Peterson, Mary; Tapia, Cecilia
Cc: Campbell, Todd
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058476
Subject: Testing and sampling other location in Bridgeton besides the BMAC?
Mary, as we discussed yesterday, the questions have started about testing other sites (Fire
stations) than just the BMAC.
Robertson Fire protection District, Maynard Howell, Assistant Chief, Cell 314.575 5011:
Stopped by EPA trailer and asked us to test his fire station (i.e. if we are sampling BMAC, why
can’t we sample fire station to assure haz mat responders that they are safe), since we do
technically have a trailer on their property. We can discuss more later.
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0058477

Post

2014-02-06 – EPA – Health Assessment West Lake Landfill

Gravatt, Dan
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, February07, 201411 :16AM
To:
Cc:
Hammerschmidt, Ron; Hague, Mark; Field, Jeff; Gravatt, Dan; Brooks, Karl
Peterson, Mary; Whitley, Christopher; Sanders, LaTonya
Subject: Document referred to in news artcle – followup info
Attachments: westlake health-threat.pdf
From: Rodenbeck, Sven (ATSDR/DCHI/OD) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 11:13 AM
To: Jordan-Izaguirr, Denise; Tapia, Cecilia; [email protected]; Harman, Erin
Subject: RE: kid question
Hey Everyone!
I have just reviewed the ATS DR Records Room file for the Westlake Landfill. We do not have a copy of the attached
document in our files.
The Westlake Landfill was proposed to the NPL in 1989. So it is unlikely that ATSDR had done any “health assessments”
prior to that date. Our first ATSDR public health assessment was finalized in 1991.
Sorry!
Sven
Sven E. Rodenbeck, Sc.D., P.E., BCEE
Rear Admiral (retired), USPHS
ATSDR/DCHI – Mailstop F59
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30333
Office Telephone: (770) 488-3660
Cell Telephone: (404) 729-5041
FAX: (770) 488-1543
Machinatores Vitae
(Engineering for Life)
07/t./
40490540
Illl lll lllll II/II llllll llll llll/l llll lllll II/I llll
Superfund
1
OUOI
From: Jordan-Izaguirre, Denise (CDC epa.gov)
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:58 AM
‘ ‘
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Rodenbeck, Sven (ATSDR/DCHI/OD); Smith, Casandra V. (ATSDR/DCHI/WB); Harman, Erin (CDC
epa.gov)
Subject: Fw: kid question
Cecilia – I’m out of office so can’t check our files. I’ve read attached document and here are my thoughts l}Without letter
head or signature line it’s hard to say who wrote this; 2) It’s dated 8/85 which is pre ATSDR; 3}The document states no
chemical concentrations were reviewed (last sentence in first paragraph); 4) MDOH appears to have done private well
sampling, cancer inquiry and possibly a’ health survey’; 5}Conclusions are not based on data concentration only MDNR
reported chemical and Rad presence; and 6)this is a Draft document with only state agencies mentioned. Without
signature, letterhead or author and pre-ATSDR (although there was a Superfund Implementation Group part of NCEH) I
don’t think this is ours. But 1985 predates me in ATSDR plus I didn’t come to Reg 7 until 1992. Hopefully HQ can find this
or I will look when I’m back Mon.
From: Tapia, Cecilia
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:18:25 AM
To: Jordan-lzaguirr, Denise
Cc: Gravatt, Dan; Field, Jeff; Hammerschmidt, Ron
Subject: FW: kid question
Denise, is this something that ATSDR produced or MDHSS?
From: Peterson, Mary
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:16 AM
To: Tapia, Cecilia; Gravatt, Dan; Field, Jeff
Subject: FW: ksdk question
Attached is the memo that KSDK references in their report. Apparently, the inquiry came in late yesterday after Chris
had left for the day.
Mwy P. Pot111soH, AdlHIJ Dopl.ty Dltoetor
Office of Public Affairs
EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd .
Lenexa, KS 66219
913-551-7882 – desk
816-398-3945 – mobile
From: Whitley, Christopher
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Peterson, Mary; Thomas, Hattie
Subject: FW: ksdk question
She sent this at 4:59 p.m. I left the office yesterday at my usual time of 4 p.m.
From: Zigman, Leisa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Whitley, Christopher
Subject: FW: ksdk question
2
Hi Chris,
I sent this 1985 memo to DNR and asked the question below. I was told to ask EPA. Any thoughts?
From: Terlizzi, Gena [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Zigman, Leisa
Subject: RE: ksdk question
Hi Leisa,
For information on work completed at Westlake Landfill over that timeframe, I’d recommend reaching out to the EPA, as
they are the oversight authority for West Lake Landfill.
Gena·
Gena Terlizzi
Communications Director
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Ph: (573) 751-1010
From: Zigman, Leisa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:36 PM
To= Terlizzi, Gena
Subject: ksdk question
Hi Gena,
Did something happen from the SO’s to now to show that the threat to public health at the Westlake landfill was
diminished? I ask based of this memo. (deadline for six)
Thanks!
Leisa Zigman
Five on Your Side
KSDK-TV
314-444-5295
[email protected]
3

HEALTH ASSESSMENT
(Westlake Landfill) 11VHO
The Westlake Lapdfill site, located near Bridgeton, St. Louis County
Missouri, has been’·found to be contaminated with 4000 tons of chlordane,
trichloroethylene and toluene, and 7,000 tons of low level uranium ore wastes.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources personnel have characterized the site
containment and diversion system as leaking and unsound. lnformation supplied
did not contain concentrations of contaminants.
Chlordane is a broad spectrum insecticide that has been observed to cause
the following symptoms: blurred vision, confusion, ataxia, delirium, coughing,
abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, irritability, tremors, convulsions,
anuria, and cancer in laboratory animals. It attacks the central nervous
system, eyes, lungs, liver, kidneys, and skin. TCE or trichloroethylene is an
animal carcinogen and is also capable of causing the following symptoms:
irritation of the eyes, nose and throat; dermatitis; headache, dizziness,
vertigo, tremors, nausea and vomiting, irregular heartbeat, sleepiness,
fatigue, blurred vision, unconsciousness, and death. Damage occurs to the
respiratory system, heart liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. Toluene
has been observed to cause irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin;
dermatitis, headache, dizziness, fatigue, muscular weakness, drowsiness,
incoordination, staggering gait, skin paresthesia, collapse and coma.
Uranium is reported to cause adverse health effects in two ways: toxic
chemical effects including damage to the kidney and liver, pneumoconiosis,
pronounced changes in the blood and generalized injury; and radiation effects
including lung cancer, osteosarcoma, and lymphoma.
Analysis of the rates of fetal death, low birth weight, and malformations
for 1972-1982 showed no rate significantly higher than the state average.
A well survey and water sampling has been completed and an exposure
questionnaire is at present being administered to selected residents
surrounding the site in conjunction with a survey of all hazardous waste sites
in the State by the Missouri Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental
Epidemiology. This investigation has yielded the following information
concerning Westlake Landfill:
There are only four wells still in use in the area that are down gradient
from the site. One is used only occasionally and one 1s not used for potable
water at all. None of the wells sampled had detectable amounts of any of the
chemicals disposed of at the site. None of the residents questioned so far
appeared to have any adverse health effects caused by materials disposed of at
the site.
Based on available information, a health threat exists due to the toxic
effects of chemicals and low level uranium wastes buried at the site and the
possibility that off site migration of the materials might occur because of the
unsound condition of the site. While there is no evidence of past or present
exposure, a potential does exist for future exposure based on the possibility
that off site migration may occur. Sampling and corrective containment and
diversion should continue at this site until risk to the public health can more
accurately be determined.
8/85

Post

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

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

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