I reiterate my request to have my emailed request yesterday distributed to the PPG membership, and that you answer my questions in writing. So far, everyMessage 1 of 2 , Dec 2 8:45 AMView SourceI reiterate my request to have my emailed request yesterday distributed to the PPG membership, and that you answer my questions in writing. So far, every request for agenda items...every request I have made of late -- has either been ignored or denied. Based on Director Raphael's very encouraging words at the meeting, I would hope my requests would finally be heard, instead of the continued ignoring of issues I have brought forth.To DOE: When did DOE send a formal proposal to plaintiffs? Was it within 45 days of the signing of the AOC in December 2010? Since the AOC is a public document, why are the details of this effort excluding the public? Especially when it is specifically directed by the AOC, and since the 45 day time-limit has clearly been missed?To be clear: the RMHF and other remaining structures are among the most contaminated areas of the site, which are currently EXCLUDED from the investigation and cleanup plan since they cannot be sampled until the buildings are removed. 2017 is around the corner and continued funding is at best, questionable. How does the AOC leadership expect to get this done when ignoring the worst of the problems? That is why seeking relief from the Conti Order is specifically mentioned in the AOC, and every request to get this resolved or even clarified have been patently ignored. WHY? Why is Dan Hirsch and his organization allowed to keep this part of the AOC from being implemented, when he claims to want to support the AOCs to the letter? More importantly, why is Dtsc, the lead oversight agency, allowing this to happen? Especially when the Conti order does not explicitly state anything about building removal and that interpretation is done by Dtsc?As has been said by others, your actions now, will be extremely important as to whether we have any reason to believe things will really change.
Best wishes,Christina Walsh8189225123Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:From: Christina Walsh <cwalsh@...>
Date: December 1, 2011 2:42:20 PM PST
To: Sarah Rossetto <srossetto@...>
Cc: Sarah Rossetto <srossetto@...>, Stephanie Jennings <stephanie.jennings@...>, email@example.com, Debbie Raphael <DRaphael@...>, Stewart Black <SBlack@...>, Barbara Cook <BCook@...>, Rick Brausch <rbrausch@...>, Mark Malinowski <MMalinow@...>, "LRainey@dtsc. ca. gov" <LRainey@...>, Tom Seckington <TSecking@...>, Loren Henning <Henning.Loren@...>, aycock.mary@..., "Dempsey. Gregg@epamail. epa. gov" <Dempsey.Gregg@...>
Subject: Re: Email from Stephie Jennings per Request of William Preston BowlingDear Sarah,I requested last night, that Committee to Bridge the Gap update the PPG as to the actions taken related to the AOC requirement to seek relief from the federal court order issued by Judge Samuel Conti. I request that Committee to bridge the Gap present this information at the next PPG meeting since our requests for this information remain unanswered now for almost a year.This was supposed to occur within 45 days of signing the order [December 2010] and we have asked and asked to no avail. We feel it is the obligation of the "plaintiffs" to share the progress and efforts made to accomplish this, since proper investigation and cleanup of the most contaminated areas of the site are being prevented by the [Conti] order attained by Committee to Bridge the Gap.Last night I asked that this information be provided by the Committee to Bridge the Gap representative (Holly Huff) who also could not, or would not explain the reasoning for not asking for the relief agreed to in the AOC and simply said " we are going ahead with the eis" when in fact, the agreement in the AOC which CBG claims to support, seeks relief from that eis? As the lead plaintiff, I feel it should be required that this information be shared with the rest of the PPG as Committee to Bridge the Gap is a member and controls the movement forward related to this much needed demolition. Additionally, the reasons for this inaction, contrary to the requirements of the AOC, should be articulated to us with time for questions and discussion as CBG claims to support the AOC.We saw plenty of buttons that say "I support the AOC" last night from CBG supporters. Well, the primary reason the AOC is not being implemented for all areas within area IV (I.e. RMHF radioactive materials handling facility is currently excluded as is building 55 nuclear materials building), due to the fact that these remaining structures stand in the way of that proper investigation needed, and will not be removed due to dtsc's decision to interpret the order to prevent this demolition. The really ironic part is that the Conti Order doesn't even say not to remove buildings, that is what Dtsc chooses to interpret it to mean, despite the changes (such as the signing of AOC) that make demolition necessary in order to comply on a timely basis with the AOC, which says finish by 2017. I don't think it was intended to mean cleanup by 2017 of all of Area IV -- except the most contaminated areas??So, how about we all move forward with implementation in mind, and not allow this issue to be delayed further by Committee to Bridge the Gap's actions or inactions here, that preclude the investigation from moving forward efficiently.I feel these are legitimate questions and formally request the PPG leadership and DTSC senior management to answer these questions based on the transparency promised to us.Thank you in advance,Christina Walsh8189225123Sent from my iPad
On Dec 1, 2011, at 1:58 PM, "Sarah Rossetto" <srossetto@...> wrote:
Good afternoon PPG members,
At the PPG meeting last night, William Preston Bowling requested that the following email from Stephie Jennings be distributed to PPG members.
From: "Jennings, Stephanie" <stephanie.jennings@...>
Date: October 4, 2011 4:08:12 PM PDT
To: William Preston Bowling <williamprestonbowling@...>, "Jones, John" <john.jones@...>
Subject: RE: Questions regarding AREA IV
The Building Sampling Plan and the Standard Operating Procedure documents that DOE recently distributed are necessary to properly characterize the remaining structures and to describe the process that will be used to decontaminate, decommission, and demolish (DD&D) the remaining structures in Area IV. No matter what the resolution is to the federal court order that required DOE to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), these DD&D plans and proper characterization of the structures are necessary. The detailed DD&D plans cannot be prepared until the work is completed for characterization. This building characterization is a necessary step to complete the analysis for the EIS or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). DOE is also strongly committed to implementing the requirements of the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), not the least of which is the goal to have the soil remediation completed by 2017. The characterization of the remaining structures in Area IV is a key component of moving the process forward to implement the AOC, much like the on-going characterization of the soil for radionuclides and chemicals currently being conducted.
Section 6.2 of the AOC states that the DOE, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Plaintiffs shall seek relief from the Order concerning the preparation of an EIS for Area IV. The AOC, as written, prescribes the radiological cleanup of Area IV and the Northern Undeveloped Land (NUL) to the predetermined level of background irrespective of the future use of the property. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the regulatory driver for the EIS, requires that a full range of alternatives be analyzed prior to initiation of any federal action that may have an impact on the environment. In 2007 Judge Conti ruled the prior NEPA documentation prepared by DOE was insufficient and required preparation of a full EIS instead of the Environmental Assessment and the Finding of No Significant Impact that were developed. Unless DOE is granted relief by the court, preparation of the full EIS will continue. Primary activities needed for the EIS include: completion of the EPA radiological background study and onsite Area IV & NUL radiological characterization survey and the DTSC chemical background study and onsite chemical soil and groundwater sampling. In the interim, DOE is continuing preparation of the non-EPA or DTSC sampling-dependent documentation for the EIS. There have been discussions among the plantiffs, Department of Justice (DOJ), DTSC, and DOE; and a formal proposal submitted to the plantiffs.
If you have any further questions, feel free to call or email.
Stephie Jennings, PMP
Deputy Federal Project Director
NEPA Compliance Officer