Dupont’s Own Words Prove They Have Been Trying To Conceal Groundwater Contamination And Limit Public Involvement for 25 Years
“no further public notice is anticipated regarding groundwater contamination.”
This key point got buried in a long rambling post about the history of the DEP’s ACO with Dupont, so I thought I’d make it a stand alone post.
Dupont’s own words prove that they’ve been trying to conceal massive groundwater contamination – which ultimately caused the current vapor intrusion problem – for over 25 years.
Here is the EPA 1992 RCRA Corrective Action Permit it issued to Dupont – it included Dupont (and all public ) comments and EPA’s response to Dupont’ comments.
See Dupont comment #3 of page 4. This is what Dupont wrote:
The final paragraph in the [EPA RCRA permit] should clarify that no further public notice is anticipated regarding groundwater contamination.”
Let’s repeat that – Dupont demanded that:
no further public notice is anticipated regarding groundwater contamination.
No further public notice means that the public would not be made aware of the groundwater contamination and EPA’s efforts to compel Dupont to clean it up.
As my Grandfather used to say: How do you like ‘dem apples?
Thankfully, EPA rejected Dupont’s demand: (page 5)
Response
It is incorrect to say that no further public notice is anticipated regarding groundvater contamination. Under the RCRA prograr, final remedies for contaminated groundwater, soil or other environment media, must be publicly noticed for public comments before they are implemented, even if the final remedies involve no action. No change has been made to the fact sheet.
Unfortunately, EPA agreed with Dupont’s position on the “efficiency and effectiveness” of the ACO with the DEP and backed off and let DEP take the lead on the cleanup.
And here we are, 30 years later.
[End note: Now, with this abuse revealed, some enterprising journalist, or the Governor himself, might ask DEP what the 1988 Dupont ACO provides with respect to formal public participation: public notice, public comment, and public hearings.
Are they required under the ACO?
They ARE required under EPA RCRA regulations, which was how we caught EPA RCRA Manager Barry Tornick in this corrupt practices ,seeking to bend RCRA rules to avoid a public hearing (a “formal public participation approach”):
>>> <Tornick.Barry@epamail.epa.gov> 05/14/2008 12:02 PM >>>
Maybe we should consider this a Interim Remedial Measures Workplan instead of a Remedial Action Workplan since we want to expedite it and to take a less formal public participation approach than for a remedial action?
“A less formal public participation approach” means no formal public hearing, with a transcript and response to public comments document. That is what Dupont was seeking and EPA Tornick rubber stamped it (just who was he working for?)
Now where did we just hear about that?