Home > Uncategorized > EPA Obfuscates and Evades Responsibility for Controversial Dupont Vapor Intrusion Decision

EPA Obfuscates and Evades Responsibility for Controversial Dupont Vapor Intrusion Decision

“THE WIZARD OF OZ HAS SPOKEN!”

As I’ve written, the Dupont corporation has petitioned US EPA Region 2 to amend their RCRA Corrective Action cleanup permit at the Pompton Lakes site to raise the vapor intrusion screening levels.

The Dupont request is pending EPA decision. If Dupont were smart, they would withdraw the request and apologize and move on.

[Similarly, at the outset, at a minimum, EPA should have publicly expressed reservations about weakening any protections and then very specifically said that any changes requested by Dupont would require formal public participation requirements under EPA RCRA regulations. That is the absolute minimum. Why does EPA consistently mishandle issues and defer to Dupont? Why do they consistently walk on eggshells when it comes to Dupont? Are they afraid of doing the right thing? Are they just following orders? What explains EPA’s reluctance to speak clearly publicly?]

If Dupont does not withdraw the request, EPA will have to make a hugely controversial decision – EPA can’t duck. It’s a “which side are you on” “the whole world is watching” kind of moment. Something’s gotta give.

[Pete Seeger has the iconic version – but I like the angry edge in Billy Bragg, a voice that is cruelly ironic at a time when the NJ DEP is run by a Thatcherite -and in Washington, we’re still waiting for that Great Leap Forward.]

That Dupont request would weaken health protections for the people of Pompton Lakes and is strongly opposed by the community.

The issue has gotten focused media coverage, see:

As reported, angry residents have written to US EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck to oppose the Dupont request.

EPA has replied. Sort of.

I was just sent Enck’s reply, sent to residents via a June 26 email from a low level EPA R2 staffer. Is Regional Administrator Enck ducking the decision?

Frankly, I was disgusted with the EPA reply, particularly this “THE WIZARD OF OZ HAS SPOKEN!” edict:

“The EPA and NJDEP are currently reviewing DuPont’s draft 2014 vapor intrusion work plan.  Once EPA and NJDEP complete their review, any changes to DuPont’s vapor intrusion program will be communicated to the community by EPA, NJDEP and DuPont.”

Notice how EPA fails to accurately state the controlling law governing “Dupont’s draft 2014 vapor intrusion work plan”.

Note how EPA points the bureaucratic finger and seeks to share responsibility with NJ DEP, as if this were a Committee decision and no one is in charge.

But more importantly, notice the arrogance in how “any changes” “will be communicated to the community” – what?

Will Dupont send a courier pigeon?

Here is how I advised residents to respond to this arrogant bureaucratic obfuscation:

Write a letter and issue a press release that says the following:
 
1) the Dupont site is being cleaned up under a federal law called RCRA, specifically the Corrective Action program;
 
2) The RCRA CA program is the responsibility of US EPA under federal law;
 
3) the State of NJ and DEP has NOT received delegation of the RCRA CA program from US EPA;
 
4) thus far, the Dupont cleanup has been implemented under a RCRA CA permit issued by US EPA;
 
5) any substantive changes to the Dupont RCRA CA permit require public notice, opportunity for public comment, and a public hearing, under federal law and EPA regulations;
 
6) A change to the vapor intrusion screening levels in the Dupont RCRA CA permit would be highly substantive and trigger formal permit modification procedures under federal law and EPA regulations;
 
7) In the event that EPA decides to amend the Dupont RCRA permit to change the VI screening levels, that change must be done formally via permit modification procedures, which include a public notice, opportunity for public comment, and a public hearing;
 
8) We are very concerned that EPA is obfuscating these issues by creating the appearance that the NJ DEP changes to NJ’s State program are somehow binding on EPA
 
9) We are very concerned that EPA is misleading the public by not advising the public about the legal requirements under RCRA outlined above.
 
(EPA’s letter calls the Dupont VI “screening levels” “comparison levels” – EPA cant even use the correct terminology? Does EPA think we are stupid? EPA condescends, misleads, and insults us.);
 
10) Obfuscation and misleading statements are totally unacceptable and we demand better.
Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
Comment pages
1 16 17 18 34190
  1. July 12th, 2015 at 21:07 | #1
  2. July 12th, 2015 at 23:01 | #2
  3. July 12th, 2015 at 23:10 | #3
  4. July 12th, 2015 at 23:44 | #4
  5. July 12th, 2015 at 23:46 | #5
  6. July 13th, 2015 at 01:26 | #6
  7. July 13th, 2015 at 04:42 | #7
  8. July 13th, 2015 at 05:03 | #8
  9. July 13th, 2015 at 07:23 | #9
  10. July 13th, 2015 at 07:32 | #10
  11. July 13th, 2015 at 11:21 | #11
  12. July 13th, 2015 at 12:53 | #12
  13. July 13th, 2015 at 13:06 | #13
  14. July 13th, 2015 at 13:38 | #14
  15. July 8th, 2017 at 13:41 | #15
  16. September 28th, 2019 at 09:22 | #16
  17. October 24th, 2019 at 13:28 | #17
  18. February 3rd, 2020 at 01:36 | #18
  19. March 2nd, 2020 at 01:11 | #19
  20. April 6th, 2020 at 22:56 | #20
  21. April 20th, 2020 at 19:34 | #21
  22. May 3rd, 2020 at 15:02 | #22
  23. May 30th, 2020 at 09:02 | #23
  24. May 30th, 2020 at 16:31 | #24
  25. June 19th, 2020 at 02:42 | #25
  26. June 23rd, 2020 at 03:34 | #26
  27. June 27th, 2020 at 01:04 | #27
  28. July 9th, 2020 at 15:13 | #28
  29. July 17th, 2020 at 15:30 | #29
  30. July 21st, 2020 at 16:55 | #30
  31. July 28th, 2020 at 03:26 | #31
You must be logged in to post a comment.