Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
110115SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW7TH FLOOR. ROBERT MORRIS BUILDING
10O.NORTH 17TH STREETROBERT J. SUGARMAN PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 1 9103ALAN M. KAPLAN 215-864-25OO • FAX: 21 5-864-2501SUSANNE I. GIENDL"
KEVIN M. STACKLEGAL ASSISTANT•NOT ADMITTED TO PRACTICEIN PENNSYLVANIA
June 2, 1992
Cecil Rodriguez,. Esquire.U.S.E.P.A. Region III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
This will follow up on our conversation in the Court House onJune 2, relative to the cover-up and mishandling of the C&D site"investigation". I am enclosing a copy of my letter of today toMr. Erickson, in which I spell out the current status of thegroundwater problem. I am also enclosing a copy of a Brief inSupport of Cover-up which I have filed with Congressman Kanjorski.Congressman Kanjorski requested this written documentation at ameeting in Freeland which EPA was requested to attend, but electedto send only an observer.
I am also enclosing a copy of my letter of March GP, 1992 toMarcia Mulkey.
You state that our allegations are vague. I would appreciateyour calling to my attention any document in which "vagueallegations" appear, and I would be happy to provide additionaldocumentation. I would note that my letter to Mr. Towle, copy toyou, dated February 9, is some five pages long, and that I have yetto receive a response.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Sugarmaa
RJS:erEnclosureer-rhr92\rodrigue.602
V ">.v> ? '-.
V *. C :• 'ir, • 1 _ V ! . ^̂ 4-i-r, ,i- r«^l4^
SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATESATTORNEYS AT LAW
7TH FLOOR. ROBERT MORRIS BUILDING1OO NORTH 17TH STREET
ROBERT J. SUGARMAN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1 9103ALAN M. KAPLAN 215-864-25OO • FAX 215-864-25O1SUSANNE I. GIENDL*
KEVIN M. STACKLEGAL ASSISTANT•NOT AOMITTOS TO PBACTCIIN PENNSYLVANIA
June 2, 1992
Mr. Edwin EricksonU.S. EPA Region III841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107
RE: C&D. Site
Dear Mr. Erickson:
I am writing on behalf of the residents who are the victims ofthe contamination of their well water by substances such as lead,selenium, arsenic, and cadmium, at the C&D Site in Foster TownshipLuzerne County. You are well aware of the Site, and we understandthat your Project Manager has concluded that there is no well watercontamination from site activities.
However, we are also aware that your office made thatconclusion based on serious misinformation or noninformationconcerning the site, and it is the intention of this letter tobring that information to you, and to request that immediatelyinvoke an emergency response pursuant to §106 of the Superfund Act.
Specifically, we have identified a direct, active andcontinuing pathway for contaminated material presently on the Siteto enter and affect the groundwater quality at the nearbyresidential wells of my clients.
We have analyzed the remainders of the ash pile immediatelybehind the main C&D building. We have found that the ash pileincludes selenium at 1,000 ug/k,. arsenic at 5,000, lead at 250,000mg/k, copper at 29,000, cadmium at 7.6, thallium at 130, mercury at.50, and antimony at 140. A copy of the laboratory analyses isenclosed. This includes the Wright Labs and Lancaster LaboratoriesCLP Analyses, and the Ledoux Lab analyses for arsenic and selenium,because interference prevented a good sample in the furnace method,and Ledoux Labs utilized gas chromatography, the mostsophisticated, capable, and appropriate methodology. The copiesare attached as Exhibits A-l, A-2, and A-3.
&R503108
SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Edwin EricksonPerge' 2June 2, 1992
2. The ash pile directly drains into a drain system whichterminates at a leach pit, located immediately to the front of theC&D building. This leach pit intrudes at least twenty-two feetbelow the surface, and potentially intersects the groundwatersystem at time of high water table; at other times, it clearly iscapable of leaching immediately into the groundwater in areas knownto have vertical fractures. Enclosed as Exhibit "B" is a copy ofa plan of the leach pit and associated drainage, which AT&T and itsconsultant have withheld from EPA since 1986.
3. The state hydrogeologist, John Mellow, has testified thatin the "northern portion of the site" in the vicinity of_.the leachpit, there is substantial evidence of transmission of water fromthe "shallow aquifer" to the "deep aquifer". This sworn testimonywill shortly be available in written form. Your hydrogeologist hasnever denied this connection. EPA's consultants, NUS, Weston TAT,and CH2M Hill, have also evaluated the hydrogeology andacknowledged the transmission of water from the upper to the lowerzones in the northern portion of the site. Even AT&T's consultanthas not denied a connection in this area of the site.
4. The "lower aquifer" is flowing at a elevation ofapproximately 1500 feet about sea level near the C&D building,according to the remedial investigation. The wells of my clients,the Rocks, Rohrbachs, Cenzars, and Obersts, are all drawing fromthe groundwater at an elevation of approximately 1400 - 1450 feet,in the dispersion direction, approximately \ mile to h mile away.This is a gradient within that water zone of about 3%, consistentwith the topography and the rock formations. Thus, it is likely ifnot certain that water in that aquifer at the C&D building will beavailable to and drawn into those wells. Our hydrogeologist has soconcluded, and a copy of his letter is attached hereto as Exhibit»C" .
5. The families in question have been suffering fromphysical illnesses which are typical of 'selenium, arsenic, and leadpoisoning for ten years, and continued to suffer untiL theycompletely eliminated the use of their well water in mid 1991 atthe suggestion of our medical expert, Dr. Elaine Panitz, M.D. Atthat time, she advised that the well water was an apparent cause ofillness, whether absorbed dermaly, inhaled, or ingested. Uponcessation of bathing and washing in the well water, severalsymptoms disappeared. However, long-term evidence of contaminationsuch as are found in the hair, urine and blood, have been
&R503!
SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Edwin EricksonPage-3June 2, 1992
identified, and specifically selenium, arsenic, cadmium and leadhave been found. Copies of two of the hair and urine reportsshowing arsenic and selenium are attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
Some of the information provided to you herein has previouslybeen provided to you or to your agency. Most of it has beenavailable to AT&T at all relevant times, and the remainder wasgathered during the RI process.
Based on the foregoing, we make the following requests:
1. Invoke Section 106 emergency response authority toprovide a substitute source of drinking water.
2. Reopen the Towle finding of no contamination ofgroundwater by site activities.
3. Refer the suppression of information relating to theexistence of the leaching system, the materials sent to the Site,and valid sampling data withheld from EPA, to the criminalinvestigations divisions of EPA.
4. Request the EPA Inspector General to investigate how theAgency could have allowed a Work Plan not in compliance with SARAto be approved in the first place, and why the Superfund office hascontinued to approve AT&T's submissions even after being informedof the suppressed information. This question has been pending withMs. Mulkey since March.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Robert J. x^Sugarman
RJS:er
cr-rhr92\eri kson.522
HR503MO
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COVER-UPHISTORY AT C&D RECYCLING.FREELAND. PENNSYLVANIA
The C&D site was utilized by AT&T for approximately eighteen
years to dispose of some materials and reclaim others. Over time,
the mix of materials shifted from lead sheathed cable to a wide
variety of cables and other telephone equipment. The processes
employed throughout the years included incineration, melting,
cutting and open burning. The constituent materials processed
included not only copper and lead, but a wide variety of highly
toxic heavy metals and other materials which were either alloys or
known impurities of the cable. Included in these other materials
were PCB's, polyvinyl chloride, vinyl chloride, arsenic, mercury,
selenium, cadmium, antimony, and thallium, and probably beryllium.
The site operated through a long history of concealment and
misrepresentation as to its activities and the materials it
processed. This misrepresentation included specific commitments to
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) not to
process lead or PVC, as well as failure to identify both substances
they did process and the discharge products of these substances.
Pennsylvania DER inspectors were misinformed on a routine basis;
and while they wrote up several violations and secured one criminal
conviction, they basically were kept in the dark about what was
going on at the site. Indeed, DER personnel were falsely told that
there was no water discharge, concealing both a drain outlet and a
leach pit.
As the nature of the materials and AT&T's agenda shifted; the
emphasis changed drastically from predominantly recovering
AR503I1 I
materials and discarding impurities to disposing of unwanted cable,
with only incidental materials recovery (of copper and lead).
Thus, in the later years the toxic character of the material
shipped to the site increased even though the gross volume of
shipment to the site declined.
In 1984 and 1985, DER investigated the site under its
hazardous site response jurisdiction. It documented the presence
of all of the above-mentioned toxic metals in the soil, water, and
sediments on and around the site. DER was unable to draw many
conclusions, in part because it had no jurisdiction to compel AT&T
to produce information as to the materials shipped to and processed
at the site, in part because it received false information from the
site operator, and in part because of the complexity of the
technical facts involved. Yet, DER did draw the conclusion that
heavy metals in the well water were public health hazards. On that
basis, DER referred the site to EPA for listing in the National
Superfund priority system.(1) DER provided EPA with its sampling
results, and EPA dispatched its initial consultants, NUS Corp., to
evaluate the site. Both the DER results and the EPA consultants
concluded that there was a proliferation of hazardous materials
around the site and in the groundwater.(2,3) As a result, EPA's
consultant provided the preliminary hazardous assessment in August
1987, stating that the site represented a health hazard as a result
of elevated levels of heavy metals in the soil and water.
In the meantime, EPA had attempted to secure information from
AT&T as to the material sent to the site. AT&T covered up the
AR5Q3I 12
delivery of PCB's, PVC, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, antimony,
thallium, mercury, and radioactive materials. Instead, it
repeatedly merely and falsely reported plastics, copper and
lead.(4) It referred EPA to documentation consisting of a box of
handwritten notes and other minimum material from its files. It
did not provide EPA with its inventory list showing the amount of
toxic lead on the site in 1980 - 1985 (exerpts attached 5) , and
instead misrepresented lead was not shipped to the site after
1979.(6)
II. CONCEALMENT OF SITE CONDITIONS
AT&T requested that EPA delete findings of hazardous
conditions from its proposed consent order, arguing that such
findings would assist in citizens suits.(7) Ultimately, AT&T
persuaded EPA to delete those findings and to establish a Remedial
Investigation program which violated the Superfund Act
reauthorization amendments (SARA) of 1986.(8)
The Remedial Investigation work plan violated the law in that
it fails to adequately provide for documentation of hazards from
site induced conditions.(9) This failing was documented by EPA's
consultant in their review of the proposed work plan, whereupon EPA
requested that the consultant delete that documentation from its
review.(10)
AT&T insured that the work plan was deficient in failing to
require sampling far enough off-site to determine the extent of
soil pollution. Instead, it allowed AT&T to test only in two
fiR503l 13
directions and only to a very limited extent. This was based on
AT&T's successful effort to persuade the EPA to limit the Remedial
Investigation to the "site", and not to the "facility", contrary to
SARA'S requirements. (11)
Having successfully avoided a requirement to establish the
extent of soil contamination, AT&T misrepresented the nature and
extent of the materials sent to the site, and failed to establish
genuine soil background levels. Based on the failure to establish
background levels and the concealment of the materials sent to the
site, as shown above, AT&T used these coverups to argue to EPA that
the level of metals and other materials found in the samples
represented background levels or resulted from unrelated other
causes. Specifically, AT&T consultants contended in the Remedial
Investigation Report that elevated levels of metals in drinking
water were due to "aggressive water" attributable to alleged mine
drainage, which allegedly loosened metals in the natural rock.
(12) In addition, AT&T argued that PCB's found in site related
sediments were potentially the result of previous road oiling
activities which they speculated may have utilized PCB oil. (13)
Finally, as an example, AT&T argued that elevated levels of lead in
wells were potentially attributable to household plumbing. (14)
These speculative arguments of AT&T's reflected efforts to
explain away obvious anomalies, i.e., the abnormal presence of
these materials either in amount or in nature.
By covering up the fact that its processes entail the presence
of these materials in the components handled at the site as well as
flR503i \k
in the emissions and discharges from the processes, AT&T points its
finger in other directions without contradiction.
For its part, EPA either elected to remain deliberately
ignorant of these conditions, or refused to deal with those which
were called to its attention. When EPA was furnished with a list
of materials generated by AT&T in the same cable at sites in South
Carolina, EPA took no action. (15) When EPA was furnished with
data showing that AT&T had failed to present the results of its
sampling to EPA, EPA took no action. (16)
To complement its misleading characterization of the site
activities and materials to be concerned about, AT&T minimized the
scope of its testing and analysis, so as to further reduce the
disclosure of the effect of site activities.
First, AT&T selected soils horizons calculated to maximally
dilute the lead levels on the site. Refusing consistently to
follow the request of EPA, citizen representatives, and its own
Soil Sampling Plan which requires testing at the surface, (44) that
lead be tested at the surface (where it is known to remain), AT&T
insisted on sampling a mixture of the top six inches of soil, or
more, thus drastically diluting the findings.(17)
AT&T also took precautions to minimize the findings of
contamination by removing or concealing the major hot spots which
inhibited a rational determination of the proliferation of
pollutants prior to testing. In November 1987, under the guise of
"erosion control" AT&T removed and "reshaped" the channel̂ 'of the
drainage soil which drained the site discharges, prior to taking
-AR5Q34I5-"
samples of its sediments. Donna McCartney's (EPA) questioning of
"field change without prior notice" was deep-sixed.(37)
AT&T understood the implication of this channel. In Gaston,
South Carolina, at AT&T's own facility, the South Carolina
authorities had successfully fined AT&T for using a drainage system
draining its site activity area to remove pollutants, rather than
for stormwater, as AT&T claimed.(18)
By contrast, in Freeland, Pennsylvania, AT&T was able to get
into the site and, on the pretext of erosion control, to completely
reshape the channel of an area which was not a subject of erosion
concern at all, prior to testing it. Fortunately, prior testing
done by DER and EPA preserved enough samples of that original swale
to corroborate the chain and trail of pollution.(19) However, AT&T
excluded that information from its Remedial Investigation report
because it induced EPA to agree to inclusion in the report only of
that data that met AT&T's application of EPA's quality control
criteria.(20) Thus, knowingly or not, EPA had agreed to exclude
from the analysis the data which represented the smoking gun; AT&T
thereby disfigured and discarded the same smoking gun.
AT&T also acted through concealment; it ignored, disregarded,
and concealed the presence of a leach pit. Instead, it
misrepresented the drainage system as moving the material to the
lower end of the site, in the area of the swale which it had
disfigured.(45) The leach pit was a major disposal facility for
process water, and which was highly contaminated.(21) Most
significantly, the leach pit represented the typical source of
AJR503I 16,
groundwater contamination; the drainage pipes which carried water
to the dry well carried processed polluted water, consisting of
rain washed through the process area as well as water sprayed on
the metal to cool it after burning. As such, this major disposal
facility represents a clear pathway to groundwater for two reasons:
first, it places the material 23 feet below the surface, and thus
that much closer to or below the groundwater table (the depth at
that location was never determined in the Remedial Investigation).
Second, since the leach pit is a confined underground storage area,
the toxic metals had no place to go other than to leach down into
the groundwater below. Thus, either through groundwater levels
rising during high water times, or through leaching, vertically and
laterally, the leach pit was and is a major source of potential
contamination of the groundwater. Standard operating procedure in
remedial investigations called for the identification of such
underground vaults and their investigation as a top priority. In
fact, the use of underground vaults to "dispose" of pollutants is
one of the primary evils which Superfund was created to deal with.
AT&T thus had exclusive control of the full range of heavy
metals which had been processed on-site, and the dispersion of
those materials in different ways into the environment. AT&T
concealed the presence of the other metals, such as arsenic,
selenium and cadmium, which behave in very different ways from lead
and copper under heat. While lead and copper tend to remain
unvolatilized and to remain close to the source, the other metals
tend to volatilize and are found at greater distances. AT&T
AR503I17
excluded further consideration of those materials halfway through
the Remedial Investigation, after finding that those materials at
elevated levels in areas farther from the site. AT&T was thus able
to avoid resolution of the suspicion that these materials had
dispersed in dangerous amounts onto surrounding areas. By focusing
on copper and lead, which dispersed to a much narrower area, and
testing for them exclusively, AT&T was able to falsely argue that
no metals had dispersed widely from the site.
AT&T then represented to EPA that off-site findings from the
earlier tests of material such as selenium and arsenic (1988
sampling) in fact represented background levels.(38)
The cover-up extended to successfully resisting citizen
demands relating to many of these matters. To the extent they knew
of them, the citizens had attempted to bring many of these matters
to EPA's attention from the time they learned of AT&T's intended
Work Plan. As early as February 1988, four months after the
consent decree became known, the citizens petitioned EPA for an
opportunity to (22) comment on the Work Plans (which at that time
was under wraps).(46) AT&T falsely informed the citizens that the
work plan had already been approved (23), and EPA took no action
whatsoever. As the citizens continued to complain about some of
the foregoing matters, the AT&T and EPA took no notice, until the
intervention of elected officials brought about a large meeting to
which EPA upper management attended.f
As a result of that meeting, the senior EPA official present,
Bruce Smith, wrote a memorandum to his subordinates in which he
8
4R503I18
agreed with many of the citizens points, concluded the Agency's
performance had been poor, and specifically identified many of the
factors set forth above as evidence of an inadequate investigation.
(24) He directed that the Agency change the nature of the
investigation.(24)
Little action was taken in response to Smith's directive. One
month later, the EPA project manager, having been transferred out
of the project, wrote a memorandum explaining the status of the
response to the directives (25). This response was false and
misleading in numerous respects. It indicated that things were
going to be done which the Agency had no intention of doing, and
did not do (such as dust wipes of homes), and indicated that the
citizens had agreed to the deletion of other requirements to which
deletion the citizens had never agreed. Among other things, the
request and directive to do dust wipes was never disposed of. A
memo was written to the toxicology branch requesting consideration
of dust wipes, but the memorandum was withheld by EPA from the
public, although it was produced to AT&T.(26) In fact, the items
25 and 26 were also withheld from citizens, but produced to AT&T.
A request for an explanation as to the reason for the withholding,
and the production of that file under P.O. I. A. has not been
responded to by EPA.(39)
EPA continued to turn its head to this and other information
as submitted to it on a consistent basis.
AT&T also minimized the characterization of the problem by
selective and misleading interpretation of data that it did
AR503I19
acquire. For example, it continuously misrepresented selenium as
not being present, when in fact, the material appeared to be
present, but could not be definitely ascertained because the test
process was inadequate. This occurred both in soil and in water.
Specifically, the results of soil sample C-8 taken in June of 1988
were omitted from Table 3-13b of the RI; and the selenium results
for October, 1988 ground water sample were also not reported in the
RI Table 3-37, although AT&T possessed this information. (27, 28)
AT&T withheld also test results indicating the presence of
selenium altogether in July, 1989, only reporting copper and lead
results.(43)
EPA'S ACTIVE COLLABORATION IN THE COVER UP
After August of 1989, EPA closed its eyes to the inadequacies
which Mr. Bruce Smith (the EPA supervisor) had identified, but did
not merely go back to sleep. On the contrary, EPA became a
vigorous collaborator with AT&T in minimizing any site impacts.
Having been convinced by AT&T's inadequate data and
interpretations, EPA became an advocate for AT&T. While admitting
to residents that they had unusual water contamination, EPA
contended that it had no idea where the contamination came from.
Meanwhile, it secretly informed AT&T, prior to circulation and
comment on the draft RI, that it had decided that groundwater was
not affected.(30) This violated its commitments and the statute,
and has been covered up by EPA, which falsely claims it considered
public expert comments before forming conclusions.
10
AR503I20
Region III of EPA has jurisdiction over at least four other
Superfund sites which handled AT&T Metals: Revere Chemical in
Bucks County and Eastern Diversified Metal Site in Carbon County,
Helera Landfill in Whitehall, Pennsylvania, Maryland Sand, Gravel
& Stone in Elkton, Maryland, and Novak Sanitary Landfill in Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania. (40) EPA Region III also has or had
jurisdiction over the Amax site near Patterson, New Jersey, which
was a major AT&T metal processing site until the 1970's, and has
had serious pollution problems. Thus, EPA had adequate basis for
evaluating the presence of heavy metals, and their relationship to
the site activities. At the Revere Chemical site, for example,
study show that the same heavy metals were present in the processed
trenches.(31)
When these matters were brought to EPA's attention, they
adamantly refused to consider them. Letters addressed to EPA in
1991 and 1992 either went unanswered, or were not responded to.
(15, 16, 32, 33, 34) Instead, EPA allowed AT&T to complete the
remedial investigation and feasibility studies for remediation on
the basis that only copper and lead were the metals of concern. It
also allowed AT&T to estimate lead concentrations based on the six
inch samples. (17) This bias virtually guaranteed an inadequate
Feasibility Study. It also guaranteed a meaningless Risk
Assessment.
Commencing in 1990, EPA began not merely to support AT&T, but
to take the lead in collaborating with AT&T. In December 1990, EPA
officials (anonymous) issued an anonymous statement that EPA had
11
AR503I2I
data generated by AT&T. To the contrary, EPA's data validation
teams consistently characterized the AT&T reports on heavy metals
as biased low, biased extremely low.(47) In addition, EPA's data
validation team pointed out numerous cases in which the reported
data was not within quality controls.(48)
5. The document states that EPA has studied the site. In
fact, AT&T has been allowed to make an advocacy analysis of site
conditions, selectively choosing only the data it wishes to select.
6. The document states that soil off-site does not contain
lead in quantities meriting concern. In fact, on the insistence of
Congressman Kanjorski, EPA acquired data in December 1991 expressly
showing that lead is present in off-site soils (when sampled at the
proper horizon) at levels of concern by EPA's own definition.(42)
Even selenium was found.
7. The document states that AT&T brought to the site copper,
lead, and plastic. In fact, as stated above, EPA has been in
possession of documentation for some time, supplied by citizens,
showing that AT&T brought to the site, in addition to copper, lead,
and plastic, PVC, PCB's, selenium, arsenic, cadmium, antimony,
beryllium, thallium, mercury, and radioactive materials. In March
1992 AT&T submitted new "confidential" documentation of materials
sent to the site.
In issuing its April 1992 "Update", EPA has directly placed
itself in the position of maintaining, perpetuating, and advocating
information which it absolutely, clearly knows to be false,
misleading, and detrimental to public health and safety. It is
13
AR503I22
knowingly endangering the health of hundreds of persons in the area
of the CSeD site as well as the long-term environment of the area.
If it is successful, it is paving the way for a cover up of
proportions comparable in degree to those employed at the
Stringfellow, California site which were a trademark of the
Gorsuch-Lavelle administration of Superfund.
The SARA amendments were intended by Congress to place
specific study and action requirements on EPA to remove the
opportunity for political and personal self-serving actions to
cover up pollution that endanger the public health. Unfortunately,
under the present Superfund management as applied to the C&D site,
these requirements have only acted to force the regulators and
consultants to generate thicker and thicker reports in order to
make enough little cover up decisions to end up in a bigger cover
up. Obviously, Congressional review of this tendency is necessary.
If this Country is not going to face up to the massive cost of
achieving the mandated requirements of the Superfund act for real
cleanup, then Congress and the public are the ones to make the
14
BR503I23
decision to alter the standards; the standards should not be
altered by duplicitous EPA and PRP shell games.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT J. SUGARMANSpecial Solicitor forroster Township,Luzerne County Pennsylvania
OF COUNSEL:
SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES7TH FLOOR, ROBERT MORRIS BUILDING100 NORTH 17TH STREETPHILADELPHIA, PA 19101(215) 864-2500er-rhr92\bri ef.sup
May 27, 1992
15
Footnotes to Brief in Support ofCover-up History at C&D Recycling,
Freeland. Pennsylvania
. Description
Document No. Date
1 Letter from Nicholas DeBenedicts, Secretary, 4/30/86Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources(DER), to Honorable James Seif, Regional AdministratorU.S.E.P.A. (A 000520).
2 Memorandum from Mark Tucker and Chris Whallen, 4/10/86Weston Sper, regarding C&D Recycling Trip Reporton April 3-7, 1986 (E009904-E007918)
3 Field Trip Report of CSD Recycling prepared by 8/21/87NUS Corporation (031181-031297)
4 Remedial Investigation Work Plan Section 2.1 2/88Site Location and Description (E002350-E002353)
5 AT&T/Nassau Metals Corp. (Nassau) Inventory 81-85Consigned to C&D (A 22606-A22751)
6 Remedial Investigation Work Plan Section 2.1 2/88Site Location and Description and Section 2.2Chronology (E 002350-E002358)
7 Memorandum From Carol Stokes-Cawley, CERCLA 10/24/86Remedial Enforcement Section, U.S.E.P.A.regarding Meeting with AT&T/Nassau MetalsRegarding C&D Recycling Site (101556-101557)
8 Letter from Donna M. McCartney, Project Manager, 2/10/88U.S.E.P.A., to Jeff Orient, NUS Corporation(102271-102273)
9 Final Preliminary Assessment Report of C&D 12/2/87Recycling prepared by NUS Corporation (E002318-E002336)
10 Letter from Donna M. McCartney, Project Manager, 2/10/88U.S.E.P.A., to Jeff Orient, NUS Corporation(102271-102273
11 Edited Draft of Remedial Investigation Work Planpages 1-51.
12 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 4-20 3/8/91to 4-21
&R503I25
13 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 4-11 3/8/91to 4-17
14 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 4-19 3/8/91to 4-20
15 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., Sugarman 2/11/92& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.
16 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq. Sugarman 3/16/92& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.
17 Remedial Investigation Work Plan Section 2/883.2.3.5Sampling Methodology (E002448-E002449)
t, 18 Letter from Stephen Thomas, Water Quality 5/18/84Assessment and Enforcement Division,South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control to Larry Lewallen,Nassau Recycle Corp. (N015975-N015998)
19 Final Draft Remedial Investigation Appendix A 3/8/91Section A.7 PADER April 9, 1985 Sampling
20 Final Draft Remedial Investigation Section 3/8/911.2.3 Previous Investigations
21 Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Figure 1, 3/89Additional and Soil Sampling On-Site, 8/24/66March 1989, Robert A. Bosak (101797)
•* 22 Letter from Sharon Rohrbach, President, 2/10/88Concerned Citizens of Foster Township CCFT,to Nancy Smith, Public Affairs, AT&T(A001006-A001007)
1 23 Letter from Nancy Smith, Public Affairs, 2/25/88AT&T, to Sharon Rohrbach, President, CCFT(N001714-N001715)
24 Memorandum from Bruce P. Smith, Chief, Hazardous 6/30/89Wasted Enforcement Branch, U.S. E.P.A., to GreggCrystall, Chief PA CERCLA Section, U.S.E.P.A.(E009104-E009105)
25 Memorandum from Donna M. McCartney, SE PA 8/7/89Remedial Section, U.S.E.P.A., to C&D File(E0098318-E009327)
26 Memorandum from D. McCartney to B. Steuteville ofof 7/21/89 removed note (101741)
27 Compu Chem Laboratories Form 1 Inorganics 10/26/88Analysis Date Sheet for Sample No. SOIL-G8, 3/8/91
and Final Draft Remedial Investigationpage 3-87
28 Compu Chem Laboratories Form 1 Inorganics AnalysisData Sheets for Sample Nos. MW-3-2, MW-8-2, MW-4A-2,
, MW-4-2, MW-1-2, MW-6-2, MW-5-2, MW-3F-2, MW-8F-2,MW-4AF-2, MW-4F-2, MW-4F-2, MW-4F-2, MW-1F-2, MW-6F-2,MW-5F-2, dated 10/20/88, and Final Draft RemedialInvestigation pages 3-220 to 3-221
29 Intentional blank
30 Telephone Log from Bill Neubeck call fromMike Towle regarding AT&T and C&D (049524)
31 Revere Chemical Site, Metals, Cyanide, and TotalOrganic Carbon Data Split Sample Comparisons forSoil (AR 300807-AR 300818)
32 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., Sugarman 11/20/91& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.
33 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., Sugarman 12/10/91& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.
34 Letter from Michael Towle, Remedial Project 1/29/92Manager, U.S.E.P.A to Robert J. Sugarman,Sugarman & Associates
35 EPA, Region III Superfund Update Sheet, C&D 12/90Recycling Site
36 EPA, Region III Fact Sheet on C&D Recycling 4/92Superfund Site
37 Report of Telephone Conversation by Donna 6/29/88McCartney and Gregg Crystall, U.S.E.P.A.with Larry Elder, AT&T (E008335)
38 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 3/8/913-109 to 3-111
39 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., 3/19/92Sugarman & Associates, to U.S.E.P.A.,Freedom of Information Office
40 Document requested from U.S.E.P.A., Region III,on May 6, 1992. Copy has not been received tothe date of this brief.
41 U.S.E.P.A., Region III, Determination of 1/9/92Regional Counsel, Marcia Mulkey.
42 Intentional Blank
AR503127
43 Final Draft Remedial Investigation page 3/8/913-97 to 3-99, 3-164, 3-45, 3-132 to 3-133
44 Remedial Investigation Work PlanSection 3.2.3. Soil Sampling Plan(E002780-002789)
e:\mrgn\ind.ex
1̂ .503128