Written Testimony of Daniel Parshley, Glynn Environmental Coalition
For the Citizen's Briefing of the EPA Ombudsman Issue
January 14, 2003

I've come to tell you why it is important to have a fully independent EPA National Ombudsman. In our community, we have seen how the Superfund process can work, and how it can go terribly wrong.

For many years we had a very good working relationship with the EPA. We worked within the Superfund process, attended public hearings, and submitted comments on proposed plans for the Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site. Our community was concerned that our toxic waste site problem would only be moved to someone else's "backyard" and become their problem, a solution that was not acceptable to us.

Since this Superfund Site borders businesses, a neighborhood, and an Elementary School, we were very concerned about how any problems would be resolved. The community worked with the EPA to develop a cleanup plan, which was finalized in the legally binding Record of Decision (ROD). The EPA explained that the Superfund process had specific steps that would be followed in the event that the remedies in the ROD could not be implemented.

Problems did develop at the Hercules 009 Landfill Superfund Site. One of the most serious problems was that the EPA entered into multiple agreements with the party responsible for the site that we contend is illegal under Superfund Law. At first we were not concerned because the EPA had assured us that through the Superfund process, we could find a solution. However, instead of working with us to find a solution, the EPA did everything in its power to exclude the community, ignore what we had to say, and deprive the community of information. Even though the EPA assured the community that we would be involved in decisions, the EPA's actions told a far different story.

The full scope of EPA wrongdoing and the EPA's plan to exclude the community was not fully revealed until we obtained documents that had been withheld from us by filing Freedom of Information Act requests, appealing the denial of records, and going to Federal Court to force the EPA to provide documents.

Our story is about how the EPA can put a community through "administrative hell" and use the resources of the United States against democracy. The EPA's conduct was a shameful assault on democracy, and everything that we believe in as Americans.

We expended hundreds of hours and our meager financial resources to ensure that our community would not suffer economic damage and would be safe for our children and grandchildren. We wanted the system to work just as the EPA had promised it would. But above everything, we had identified real immediate threats to our community to which the EPA was refusing to respond.

The EPA has thwarted every attempt we have made to work within the framework established for the EPA and Superfund. We tried the EPA Region 4 Ombudsman, but she refused to meet with us. Tim Fields, the EPA Assistant Administrator at the time, asked that we send our concerns to him, which we did. Even though we were promised 21 times that a response would be forthcoming, Mr. Fields left the post without ever replying. During this same period and at the encouragement of EPA Headquarters, we entered into the Non-EPA Mediator Program, and worked for several months to prepare for mediation. Just a week before the planned mediation, EPA Region 4 withdrew. I spoke to Mr. Fields after he left the EPA and asked why he never replied. Mr. Fields said he could never get a response from EPA Region 4. I appreciated his honesty, and we shared something in common - unresponsive communications from EPA Region 4.

As a last hope short of the Federal Courts, we asked that the EPA National Ombudsman Bob Martin look at our concerns. Mr. Martin agreed to review our case and requested information. We made copies and compiled what was now becoming a voluminous record of the EPA's history of unresponsiveness to the community's legitimate concerns. At Mr. Martin's request, we condensed all our concerns into 129 questions to be answered.

Soon after we provided our questions, the EPA National Ombudsman's office was moved to the EPA Inspector General's office in April of 2002. To this date, we have not received a response to our concerns or questions. To the contrary, the acting EPA National Ombudsman, Mary Boyer, thinks our concerns and questions are moot since the EPA delayed us long enough to implement the remedial action at the Site that is the basis of our concerns. There are many reasons why our concerns are not moot. Foremost is that our community has four Superfund Sites, and at least three more Record of Decisions will be issued in the near future. We need to know if these legally binding Record of Decisions for Superfund Sites will actually be implemented, or are just to placate the community until the final deals are made between the polluter and the EPA.

I mentioned the great amount of time and money our community and organization expended in our effort to exercise our legally mandated rights. But there are other costs, such as the unnecessary use of our meager EPA Technical Assistance Grant funds to try to follow the EPA's deceit and deception. Technical assistance resources should be used to keep the community involved in the decision-making process instead of trying to figure out what deals have been made with the polluter and what documents are being withheld.

All we wanted was an objective and unbiased hearing about our concerns, not the EPA's refusal to reply or discuss the growing number of problems. Our options are very limited. We can wait until the end of the Superfund process and take our grievances to Federal Court, or ask for an unbiased, objective, and fully independent Ombudsman to investigate our concerns and allegations of EPA misconduct. Democracy deserves no less than a fully independent EPA National Ombudsman. An independent Ombudsman is needed to preserve democracy, and I ask that you make creating such an office a priority for this Congress.

Thank you for your time and attention.


Written Testimony of Deborah Sanchez, Administrator,
Overland Neighborhood Environmental Watch
For the Citizens' Briefing on the EPA Ombudsman Issue
January 14, 2003

I am Deborah Sanchez and I live in Denver, Colorado, 300 yards from the Shattuck Chemical Superfund site, a toxic, radioactive waste dump. I'm speaking on behalf of the community affected by this site and represent Overland Neighborhood Environmental Watch (ONEW), a community group of concerned citizens.

We are grateful for the opportunity to support legislation that would fund and ensure the independence of the EPA National Ombudsman Office. We believe that continuing this important conduit between the people and the government is crucial to give citizens a voice in the decisions affecting them and the environment in their communities.

When we met the EPA National Ombudsman, Robert Martin, in June 1999, we felt as if we had been in a war for years, trying to defend our families and homes from the bureaucracy and corporation that had buried radioactive waste across the street from our homes.

There were constant contradictions and erroneous information given to my community over the years.

• EPA's response to a FOIA request in 1987 was that "there were no NPL sites in my area." In fact, the Shattuck Superfund site had been placed in the National Priority List for cleanup sometime between 1983 and 1985.
  
• An EPA Project Manager told us not to eat the fruits and vegetables in our gardens, and then, without doing further studies, later said it was ok.
  
• A flyer had informed us in 1991 that airborne radium (found at the site) was especially dangerous for children. Yet the 50,000 cubic yards of radioactive dirt was left uncovered and allowed to blow around our neighborhood, despite our calls and pleas to State Health, EPA and the owner of the site, Salomon Bros. Investing, to cover it up. Finally, we were told that the dirt wasn't dangerous after all. The company was fined, but really, what is a $15,000 fine to a company worth billions of dollars? It is cheaper to continue to pay lawyers and fines than it is to clean up the contamination.
  
• State Health Department and EPA met with my community and sent us a proposed plan stating that the preferred remedy that would completely ensure the health and safety of the community was to "excavate and remove" the waste. Then, after closed door meetings with Salomon Bros. officials and attorneys, a Record of Decision was signed ordering the company to treat, stabilize and bury the radioactive dirt on site. No one came back to tell us why the preferred remedy had been changed. When we asked the EPA why, they did not answer us. When we asked to see the documents and records of the meetings where they made these decisions, the documents were marked "classified" and "privileged" so that we could not see them.

We are the people EPA's decisions effect most directly. The health and lives of us and our children, the economic value and environmental integrity of our property, our sense of safety and security, and our faith in our government's ability to protect us were all at stake, and yet we were not allowed to know why we had been sentenced, without due process, to live with radiation buried in the middle of our community.

Our tax dollars were used to pay attorneys from the city of Denver to sue the company who turned to the EPA for protection and were represented by Department of Justice attorneys in the Federal courts. Many times I have advocated for us to stay home and sue ourselves. It would be cheaper.

In 1999, we were fearful and exhausted. We felt assaulted by the government we had been raised to trust. We had been disregarded and disrespected. There was a regional ombudsman at Region 8 during this contentious interaction, yet we were never told of this person's existence, nor how they could help us. My neighbor found out about the existence of the EPA National Ombudsman from another citizen and contacted Senator Allard to request that the Ombudsman be asked to help us.

Mr. Martin came to Colorado and truly listened to us. He listened to our anger and frustration, our pain and our fears. He listened to our disillusionment with our government and he placed no restrictions, agendas, or time limits on his listening. He listened to our good ideas and respected the wisdom we shared about our own community and environment. This wisdom is seldom tapped by the EPA because the system has been structured to exclude citizen input. Mr. Martin promised to uncover the truth for us and began to meet with EPA Region 8 staff to plan and schedule public hearings. He and Senator Allard also asked for the release of the classified documents. Eventually, 1,940 of the original 2,000 documents withheld from us were released.

Once Mr. Martin convened public hearings to find out the truth, my neighborhood finally felt that our democracy was working again. Mr. Martin gave us hope that we could again have meaningful interaction with our government and that decisions would be made for the good for all concerned.

In June 2000, the EPA overturned their original decision and ordered the buried radioactive waste removed from our neighborhood. We were promised by the EPA that the National Ombudsman would continue to be involved to ensure that the removal would be accomplished with the highest integrity and concern for the health and safety of our community. This gave us confidence in the cleanup. Yet over the past two years we have watched this office, which was such a crucial resource for helping citizens have access to the truth, be dismantled and incapacitated until no support was left and Mr. Martin was forced to resign. Our files were taken from the National Ombudsman office by the Inspector General's Office in the spring of 2002, supposedly to transfer this important service to the Inspector General. Yet, no one from that office has contacted us to ask if they can be of service.

Funding an independent Ombudsman would allow communities to ask for help before tax money was thrown away on lawsuits. Involving the affected community from the beginning would bring a wisdom to the process that would truly be good for all concerned, not only from a spiritual and democratic perspective but also from a financial perspective because everyone would be working toward a solution rather than fighting with each other.

It is normal to make mistakes and even normal to want to cover them up. But when problems arise and mistakes are made - and especially when mistakes are covered up - it is only by exposing them to the light of day that we have any hope of correcting them. The National Ombudsman process is crucial for helping expose the truth to the light of day for all of us dealing with serious threats to our environment and knowing the Truth is the only way we can truly remain free, secure and self-governed.

We need an honest and diligent EPA, protecting our environment and restoring it to wholeness. This is sacred work, for the environment of our planet is the only thing that sustains LIFE. Decisions are still being made based on how much it will cost the corporation or the EPA rather than how much can be done to protect the health of the people and the precious environment that every living creature depends on.

Buildings are now being built across the street from us to contain the radioactive dust during removal of the Shattuck waste, which will hopefully begin next month. We celebrated this progress on December 6, but since then, questions have been raised by community members and scientists about areas that are "hotter" than previously thought, and rumors have begun to circulate that the EPA is cutting corners on construction because of money concerns. Not surprisingly, these are concerns that were raised by Mr. Martin over three years ago.

We need help. We need the oversight we were promised. We need an appropriately funded, independent National Ombudsman.

Written Testimony of Susan Shortz, Citizen of Throop, Pa., President of HELP (Halt Environmental Lead Pollution) and member of the Citizen Review Committee for the Marjol Site
For the Citizen's Briefing on the Ombudsman Issue
January 14, 2003

The Borough of Throop is a small residential community with a population of about 4,100. The Marjol Site is a former lead-acid battery recycling facility located in the Borough. Gould Electronics Inc. owns the 43.9 acre site. There are approximately 65 residential homes within 500 feet of the Site boundary and 25 of those homes are within 50 feet of the Site. The Lackawanna River borders the Site to the West. Over 500,000 cubic yards of battery casings are stockpiled and buried at Marjol. There are Polychlorinated-Biphenyls (PCBs), Poly-aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), antimony, arsenic, cadmium and other carcinogens buried on this site. Lead has been measured at levels as high as 250,000 parts per million in the soil. In addition, a large volume of soil off-site became contaminated with lead from Site operations, fugitive dust emissions, and stormwater runoff. This area is undermined from previous anthracite deep coal mining. Our county is the site of numerous mine fires and mine subsidence occurrences over the years and some are still ongoing. In reality it is an illegal, toxic, hazardous waste dump in the middle of small town, without benefit of permits or regulatory controls such as leachate collection systems or a liner.

Several State and Federal site assessments were initiated between 1967 and 1987 because of elevated airborne emissions and high soil lead concentrations in the neighborhood. In 1987, USEPA's Technical Assistance Team collected soil samples from on-site and off-site areas. In response to elevated lead concentrations on-site and off-site in residential areas, the USEPA issued the CERCLA Order on April 6, 1988, although they never listed the Marjol Site on the National Priority List (NPL). Although the EPA assured us there were only a few homes contaminated, and they would be out of our lives in two years, this order resulted in the residential cleanup of 111 homes. The families and community endured soil excavation, tree and shrub removal, and interior cleaning and carpet removal. Although we later found out, through the Ombudsman's investigation, that on environmental threat alone we qualified for Superfund cleanup on the NPL listing, EPA did not list the site on the NPL. On June 11, 1990 a Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order of Consent was signed between Gould and the EPA. For the next ten years, we attended meetings and watched timelines come and go. And over and over the EPA continued to say that our site would be cleaned up in two years. Then finally in 2000 we got a glimpse of EPA's statement of basis (cleanup order). We were very disappointed because only a portion of the hazardous waste would be removed and most of the hazardous waste would remain on site, covered only by a thin cap. The citizens of our small community had been fighting to get our site fully cleaned up in a manner that would protect the health and welfare of our people imputably. Gould, the owner of the site, has stated since the 80's that they will only agree to cap the hazardous waste - not to clean it up. Although the Borough of Throop had spent almost $1.5 million to prove to EPA that a "cap" is not appropriate, EPA has refused to listen. EPA has repeatedly bowed to Gould's demands, has deliberately withheld information, covered up agreements with Gould, and misled us. When we heard about the National Ombudsman Robert J. Martin's involvement in the Tarpon Springs, Florida Site, we went to Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum and asked for their assistance to get National Ombudsman Martin to review our case. Mr. Martin's presence in Throop, along with Chief Investigator Hugh Kaufman, marked the first time our concerns were listened to and acted upon.

The first Ombudsman hearing took place in August 2000. Through that hearing, information came to light that we had been unaware of. Throughout our dealings with Gould, they had resisted our requests that they perform a complete cleanup of the Site because it would be too costly for them. They justified this claim by saying they were unable to recoup an money from the government, other Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), or insurance policies. Through the Ombudsman's investigation, we learned that there were over 240 PRPs in addition to Gould, including the Federal Government, who had financial liability for cleaning up the site. We also learned that Gould had actually sued the other PRPs and received money from them, as well as the fact that Gould had received money from Superfund and from liability policies, all of which totalled in the millions of dollars. We also found out the specifics of a secret amendment to the Consent Order, which changed the requirement of temporary storage of contaminated soil on site to permanent entombment. Through the National Ombudsman's geologist Douglas Bell's discussions with our engineering consultants, Gannett-Fleming, we finally found someone to give credence to our concerns about mine subsidence and the impact of a potential mine fire on the site.

As the investigation continued, we were called to Philadelphia to meet with EPA Region III Administrator Bradley Campbell. He listened to our concerns and told us he would wait for the recommendations from the Ombudsman before making a final decision. Then suddenly in December 2000 a final decision was handed down on the Marjol Site. It no longer called for any guaranteed removal, except for that material which would not fit under the cap, and no longer called for solidification of the remaining contaminants under the cap. The Record of Decision (ROD) was released before the Ombudsman had an opportunity to complete his work and make his recommendations to EPA -recommendations EPA had promised to listen to. Needless to say we were shocked. Then on January 5, 2001, this case, and every other National Ombudsman case, was suspended until "clear and consistent direction" was received from EPA Management. EPA Management initiated blatant interference with the National Ombudsman cases, including Marjol. We hit another stonewall.

The Pennsylvania delegation has continuously attempted to intervene with the EPA to get the Agency to keep its promises to them and our community, to no avail. One of the many new revelations that came out of the Ombudsman hearing was the fact that EPA has continued to lie to the community of Throop and active officials by falsely stating that the Site could not be cleaned up under the Superfund program. The Ombudsman's investigation found withheld documents; uncovered secret agreements between Gould and EPA; questioned the EPA's choice of RCRA as a remediation process; and questioned the EPA's use of authority to allow regulations and permitting processes to be avoided. (The community also questions the soundness of EPA's "sound science." It is this "sound science" that is enabling EPA to conclude that a thin cap is adequate to remediate a hazardous waste site which has lead levels at 250,000ppm in addition to PCBs and PAHs. It is this "sound science" that is enabling EPA to conclude that it is safe to leave this site which is adjacent to the Lackawanna River, and that has continuing mine subsidence and the potential for mine fires, in the middle of a residential community.

The EPA National Ombudsman's office plays an important role. It serves as a watchdog for the citizens and as backstop to ensure that the best decisions are being made for the community. Trust in the process is heightened when people know they have an independent Ombudsman to closely examine the agency decisions. My concern is to ensure that the National Ombudsman's office be resurrected to allow it to continue to operate in a transparent way and provide meaningful assistance to local communities, like Throop, when EPA falters as it has in our case. EPA officials have publicly assured us of their full support for the National Ombudsman's efforts. Their actions suggest otherwise. No government official who supposedly works for us and is paid by us should be afraid to have his or her decisions subjected to public and substantive Ombudsman scrutiny.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued several reports concerning the EPA's handling of the Ombudsman office. It concluded that EPA did not provide the Ombudsman with sufficient independence and that the EPA treated their Ombudsman much less independently than did other Federal agencies. GAO felt the Ombudsman should be allowed to choose his own staff, supervise them and manage his own budget. It also said he should report to the Administrator and Congress like all other Federal Ombudsman. Citizens and communities all over the United States have agreed.

EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has refused to listen. She mischaracterized the GAO report and used that mischaracterization to fold the National Ombudsman into the Inspector General. The GAO has again, in its most recent report, stated that the move to the Inspector General's Office is not appropriate. The result of this move has been disastrous for our site.

Last June at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing regarding S.606 we were told that the new Ombudsman Mary Boyer was reviewing the files and was in contact with all the communities. We did not hear from her office until September of 2002, when her office notified us of her intent to visit. She scheduled a meeting for October 9, 2002 in Throop. She wanted a closed meeting with only the Mayor, President of council and three Citizen Review Committee members. We stated to her staff that we wanted an open meeting with her. We did not feel that a meeting behind closed doors would be productive. When she arrived with two of her staff she refused to meet with us and stormed out saying to a local newspaper reporter that "I don't particularly like having open meetings. I don't find them very helpful to tell the truth as far as getting additional information." There were three council members, six citizens, three consultants and local press at this meeting. The consultants had some very important new information to share with her. She refused to listen and did not even stay long enough to tell us the status of our review or what she planned in the future. We later found out that she had been in town earlier in the month and met with Gould officials, the owners of the site. We have heard nothing from her since. In early December, we requested a public meeting in Throop with EPA region III and Ms. Boyer to discuss our concerns. We have had no response from Ms. Boyer.

The National Ombudsman Office is where we can have our concerns heard. He is a public advocate. Mr. Martin and his staff did their best for many communities even though their hands were tied. The new Ombudsman works in a veil of secrecy, behind closed doors. When the citizens of Throop discovered the National Ombudsman we felt we had found the answer to a prayer. We are now faced with a beaurocratic runaround.

The citizens of Throop ask that you please support the legislation to create a fully independent EPA National Ombudsman. Please stop this injustice and help us to regain our faith in the government in a time when it is most needed.


Testimony Of Margaret Williams, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE)
For the Citizen's Briefing on the Ombudsman Issue
January 14, 2003


I would like to start by saying good morning and thank you Senator Crapo, Congressman Nadler, Mr. Martin, and everyone who has taken the time away from their busy schedules to be here and discuss the environmental threats that my community and others around the country continue to face.

My name is Margaret Williams, and I am the President of a citizens group in Pensacola, Florida, "Citizens Against Toxic Exposure" (CATE). CATE was formed in 1992 by myself and my neighbors who lived between two Superfund sites: Agrico Chemical and the Escambia Wood Treating Company. Chemicals found on the sites include Dioxin TEQ, Dieldrin, Benzo(a)pyrene and Arsenic. The health effects experienced by the communities include cancer, respiratory illnesses and immune system disorders.

It was and is the intention of CATE to demand a place at the table in determining how the soil and water contamination caused by these sites is remedied. It was our feeling that EPA Region IV, the agency handling the clean-up, was not responsive to us. While there has been some community outreach, we felt that our voices were not being heard. EPA has focused on a prolonged remedial process at both sites. Very little progress has been made even though Agrico was identified as a Superfund site in 1989 and Escambia Wood Treating in 1994. Further, EPA's focus was on the remedial process on-site and did not address the health effects in the community. Nor did they do adequate sampling and analysis in the neighboring areas to determine the extent of the contamination. In fact, the remedial process itself at Escambia Wood created additional health effects in the community, and yet EPA did not want to relocate residents.

Mr. Martin came to work with our community because Elliot Laws, former Assistant Administrator of the EPA, made the commitment to send Mr. Martin to Pensacola. Mr. Martin was highly recommended by our TAG Advisor and other concerned citizen groups. The National Ombudsman truly listened to the problems we were facing and worked with us to achieve results from EPA. Mr. Martin came to our community and participated in community meetings and represented our concerns to senior management at EPA, both in D.C. and Region IV. The Ombudsman's office worked with our TAG advisor to assure a proper scope of sampling and analysis. It was his recommendation that sampling and analyses be performed community-wide to truly delineate the extent of the contamination. As a result of the community sampling and analyses, the Ombudsman recommended permanent relocation of our neighborhoods. This was the third largest relocation done by the federal government in a Superfund community.

With Mr. Martin's assistance, we persevered in getting approximately 1,158 residents and 158 households relocated. To date, almost all of the people in the neighborhoods of Rosewood Terrace, Oak Park, Escambia Arms Apartments and Goulding have been relocated. But, in many instances, the burden of assuring a safe household has been borne by the residents themselves. We feel that Mr. Martin's oversight of this relocation would have assured a positive experience for our community. Many residents continue to have problems with their replacement homes. Also, due to the duration of exposure, many of these people still suffer ill health effects. While those who lived closest to the sites have been relocated, the extent of harm in the Pensacola community continues to increase. Adequate delineation of the full extent of contamination has never been performed, and proper remediation or even containment of the existing contamination has never been achieved. Due to this failure, the groundwater contamination exposure has spread further into the Pensacola community, affecting a local Bayou and city drinking water wells. And the mountain of excavated soil contamination, known nationally as Mt. Dioxin, remains with a cap put on in 1992-93 that was only expected to last five years.

I believe that this paints a picture for you that shows that we have a long way to go before these threats in Pensacola are addressed. We need continued oversight of the process to ensure that our health and environment are protected.

Without an effective national ombudsman that truly can bridge the gap between the citizens and the EPA officials, I am not confident that any community will ever achieve this goal.


Testimony Of Terry Witsaman, Concerned Citizens of Lake Township, Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site, Uniontown, Ohio
For the Citizen's Briefing on the Ombudsman Issue
January 14, 2003


My name is Terry Witsaman. I first want to thank the Project on Government Oversight and the Government Accountability Project for providing citizens with this opportunity to convey our experiences and deep concerns regarding the Ombudsman issue, to Congress and the public. I have been a member of the grassroots citizens group, Concerned Citizens of Lake Township (CCLT), for twenty years. Our group has fought for the past two decades for truth, justice, and a safe and permanent cleanup of our Superfund site, Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL), located in Uniontown, OH.

The IEL was ranked high on the Superfund list in 1984 as one of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites. The IEL is a 30-acre dump that is 30 times larger than Love Canal tonnage-wise, and is located just 3/10 of a mile from the center of the town, with homes built on all sides within close proximity. There are over 20,000 people within a three-mile radius of the site. Documents show that up to 11,000 gallons of liquid waste were dumped each day into this former sand and gravel pit excavated down to the water table.

While ground water is a big concern, a hundred and fifty tons of toxic gases are generated yearly. While hundreds of chemicals have been identified as being present at IEL over the years, chemicals are not the only concern at IEL. Early in the 1980's, when we were placed on the Superfund list, eyewitnesses came forward to report having seen the radiation symbol on trucks coming nightly into the site during the height of the Vietnam War, approximately around 1969-1970. Although CCLT pleaded with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to test for radiation during the remedial investigation phase from 1985-1989, EPA strangely refused to test ground water and soil for radiation. Only in 1990 after intense pressure generated by citizens, media, CCLT, Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) experts, and intervention by two US Senators from Ohio, did the USEPA agree to test the water for radiation. However, they still refused to do soil core samples.

Once the USEPA finally began testing for radiation, high levels of Tritium were reported, along with other man-made radiation, including Plutonium. The USEPA response to these findings was to discredit commercial laboratories and invalidate the data. When the State of Ohio EPA took its own samples and found elevated radiation levels, USEPA cast aspersions on the state data as well. In 1991, after two consecutive rounds of radiological data were thrown out, then USEPA administrator William Reilly asked then-President of Clean Sites, Inc., Thomas Grumbly, to personally investigate the Uniontown IEL situation and issue a report. Mr. Grumbly did so in 1992, and one of his recommendations was to utilize USEPA's Ad Hoc panel of experts called the Science Advisory Board (SAB). However, six months later, upon learning about findings of Plutonium at IEL that were invalidated, Mr. Grumbly informed CCLT that the SAB was "not adequate" and instead Mr. Grumbly went to Government Oversight Investigations seeking a full-scale Congressional investigation with subpoena power. This investigation never materialized. When Mr. Gumbly was appointed by then-President Clinton in 1992 to help head Department of Energy’s (DOE) nuclear waste cleanups, Mr. Grumbly indicated to CCLT that he was determined to pursue an investigation for Uniontown through DOE. Indeed, CCLT learned that Mr. Grumbly went to DOE's Inspector General (IG), John Layton, with his concerns about IEL. Subsequent information indicated that the DOE Inspector General communicated with the former USEPA Inspector General, but USEPA's IG apparently dismissed concerns in 1994.

Similarly, in 1994, an investigator assigned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recommended to his superiors that the NRC take the Uniontown site from the USEPA in order for the NRC to "conduct full-blown field studies: core samples, gases and the stream" for radiation. The NRC was dissuaded by the USEPA because of an inter-agency agreement. The NRC then took its inquiries about the Uniontown IEL to the USEPA's Inspector General. Unfortunately, a potential investigation was once again derailed.

Around this time, a former General Accounting Office (GAO) expert on toxic waste suggested that our citizen's group contact USEPA Ombudsman Robert Martin with our concerns about the radiation handling - or mishandling - by USEPA. From the mid-1990's forward, CCLT has desperately worked to obtain Martin's help. After Mr. Martin indicated that we had a good case early on, several years passed with high-level USEPA officials blocking Mr. Martin from investigating Uniontown IEL. Finally, in 1998, after intense pressure from citizens, media and Congressional intervention, USEPA Administrator Browner reversed EPA's position and agreed to a "limited" preliminary probe by Mr. Martin. However, the in-depth investigation that citizens sorely sought was curiously withheld.

While obviously limited because of inadequate funding and staff, Mr. Martin was able to visit the community on one occasion in early 1999 to hold a public hearing. This hearing was widely attended by members of the community. Virtually everyone that testified indicated to Mr. Martin that they believed there was a cover-up by the government and USEPA concerning radiation at IEL.

Citizens' concerns about radiation were greatly enhanced after additional testing was conducted in 2000 and 2001. Local rubber companies, who are the principle Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) at IEL, conducted tests on a very limited number of test wells at IEL. Once again, there were indications of deadly Plutonium found in the ground water. An internationally known and well-respected Plutonium expert, Dr. Mark Baskaran, informed CCLT that the levels of Plutonium found deep beneath IEL were over 1,000 times greater than what would be expected in surface waters globally. Instead of being concerned and taking the cautious action of further investigation by ordering additional testing, the USEPA was true to pattern and dismissed the issue.

In 2001, the former owner of IEL, Charles Kittinger broke his 30 year silence and appeared before a federal judge in Cleveland and the Justice Department to state his belief that he had witnessed the US government disposing of containers containing radiation at IEL. Mr. Kittinger stated that he had been told my men in uniforms, whom he believed to be US military personnel, that these containers held Plutonium cores and were not to be disturbed once they were buried. The USEPA and Justice Department withheld Mr. Kittinger's testimony and the investigation prompted by it from the public for eight months. It is CCLT's opinion that instead of conducting a thorough and balanced investigation, the USEPA and Justice probe was completely biased and limited in scope. Even a rubber company attorney's comments to the court reflected similar concerns.

It is inconceivable to CCLT that even after the most recent revelations of findings of Plutonium; the former landfill owner's admissions; years of controversy; and years of requests for probes and inquiries by various officials and government agencies, the USEPA did not at this point allow the Ombudsman to conduct a thorough investigation. Instead, the opposite occurred - Mr. Martin's hands were tied. Where was USEPA's concern for the health and safety of our community?

It is CCLT's strong belief that the Uniontown controversy is one of the main reasons why Bob Martin was stripped of what limited powers he had. We believe that USEPA feared what Martin may have uncovered had he been allowed to do his job and follow through with an in-depth investigation. Not only did citizens lose Mr. Martin, who was our best hope for justice and a safe clean-up, but to add insult to injury, USEPA this past summer reopened the IEL Record of Decision (ROD), for the second time since the 1989 ROD which had originally called for a cap, pump, and treat system to isolate the waste, and an expanded gas collection system. The USEPA capitulated to the wishes of the polluters of IEL and basically stripped us of any meaningful cleanup. The only plan that remains is to simply plant trees and bushes on top of hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic waste and radiation and allow rainfall to "naturally attenuate" this hazardous waste dump in the middle of our community. USEPA, to our disgust, is turning the responsibility of passively monitoring the ground water over to the polluters, which we believe is a serious conflict of interest. Had the Ombudsman been allowed to expand his investigation at IEL, we believe we would have received a proper and protective cleanup rather than the "non-cleanup" plan we were dealt.

While CCLT is truly devastated by Mr. Martin's resignation, we urge members of Congress to adopt independent ombudsman legislation, so that horror stories like Uniontown's will not be repeated. Without a truly independent Ombudsman with appropriate funding and authority, citizens will continue to be without a voice at toxic waste sites. There will continue to be no checks and balances on USEPA's conduct and decisions. Simply put, there will continue to be no accountability at the USEPA.

NOTE: Additional information on the Uniontown radiation controversy can be found in a formal report prepared by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), in June, 2001, called "A Partial Approach to Clean-up: EPA Mishandles Superfund Investigations," and on our website: www.ieltoxicdump.com.