Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0350
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2018-02-22T05:00Z

Public Comment Submissions
                       C&D Recycling Superfund Site
                Notice of Intent to Delete (82 FR 60946-60947)
                   Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0327

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0343
Tracking Number: 1k1-90l4-ual4
Posted: 01/02/2018
Can I review a list of homeowners wells that were tested for heavy metals within the radius of test area (and the distance of that radius area), and when they were last tested.

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0345
Tracking Number: 1k2-90yo-jhh7
Posted: 01/22/2018
The National Environmental Policy Act was passed by Congress in 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970 as the first key environmental statute. The Act reflected a widespread public desire to address concerns over the worsening state of the environment. Today, environmental impact statements and environmental assessments are a routine part of the planning for any project undertaken by the Federal Government or that requires Federal approval. the economic considerations are not always (should be) a major factor as agencies evaluate NEPA and the other environmental Acts. The environment has become a battleground of activists from big cities where you cannot drink the water or trash on enter city streets or foreign nations trying to stop American workers. Somehow we have become a country in receivership, with the courts managing our forests, our rivers and our range lands. it's not just that the courts are directly involved in managing many of our resources, they are indirectly managing all of them in our states because of the fear of litigation, not just because of actual litigation. It is not a good environmental policy where the courts make decisions on how to use the lands of America. 

The original goal of NEPA and many other environmental statutes was to forge a Federal/state partnership in protecting the environment. In NEPA, state and local governments were to have an essential part in determining the environmental and societal impacts of Federal actions. States have often found themselves at odds with the Federal Government when the issue involves public land, an issue that is critically important to western states. This is not what Congress intended when it began the environmental decade. It asks and calls on the agencies to look before they leap, to plan and make decisions in a sound and wise way, with the stated purpose of understanding the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, taking words from the purpose clause. It goes on to say that it's the policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with state and local governments and other concerned public and private organizations, to create and maintain conditions under which we can exist to fulfill social, economic and other requirements of the present and future generations. The impact and the intent have been diminished considerably over the years. we have much to gain in finding common ground to find a stable economic future our people. 

NEPA was a good piece of legislation that has lost its way during implementation. 
NEPA is not the problem so much as the implementation of the Act. It takes too long, it costs too much, it's spawns unending litigation, and it is so inconsistently implemented that each agency of the Federal Government has its own custom tailoring of an approach. if we could simply require the Federal Government to be consistent and speak with one voice. We have to change the confusing and contradictory regulations used by the Federal agencies to implement NEPA. In other words, it's not the Act, it's the actors. The Act is intended to require Federal, state and private actions that are comprehensive, with better planning, that have an intergenerational view in their effect and strike a wholesome balance between the environment and the economy. Quoting from the Act itself, 1022(a), which discusses the fact that we are looking at the impact on the human environment, the human environment is cited several times in the regulations of the CEQ and the economy has to be a factor in that overall human environment; after all, poverty and loss of community are definitely part of the human environment. the importance of a stronger role for state and local governments is what I would emphasize. Somehow the past administration twisted the meaning without regard to local community economic damage of bad rules.

Regulations implementing the Act at CFR 1508.5 are clear that a state or local government may, by agreement, with the lead agency, become a cooperating agency. Frankly, considering NEPA's mandate and the authority granted in Federal regulation to allow state and local cooperation through agreement, cooperator status for state and local governments should occur routinely.' In fact, in past administration it did not, total lack of consideration. 

Two sections of the CEQ regulations that allow for the appointment of joint lead agencies with the states as a joint lead agency and also a reference in 1506.2(c) that says, State and local governments shall be designated as joint lead agencies in those appropriate areas. In fact, that did not occur at all, let alone routinely. Clearly, the shortcomings with NEPA are in the application, not in the purpose. Agencies have much too much of their focus on fake science, rules producing litigation- proof documents, and not enough concern about involving people in the process.

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0346
Tracking Number: 1k2-90z5-7swj
Posted: 01/22/2018
NEPA Recommendation. First, involve right people, replace Obama administration people, which means including local and state governments from the beginning. But Quite often in past administration, Federal agency officials update on actions they've already taken or will take. The states are partners in natural resource management and rather than being updated, they should be included in the planning and the evaluation process to ensure that our people are represented in the spirit in which NEPA was enacted.

States were not created by the Federal Government; rather, Federal Government was created by states. States have governing responsibilities under law that cannot and should not be set aside. Clearly, States have shared and concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal agency managers. When U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management oversee the land management responsibilities they have, the states have primacy over wildlife management, air quality, water quality, solid waste disposal, and water rights management on those very same lands. In other words, States have a joint or shared responsibility that requires full partnership, not just a close relationship. Mutual respect and benefit characterize a partnership. Take the handcuffs off the states.

First recommendation; focuses on the need to be partners with state and local governments. We need to help people on land feel good about stewardship in control of their choices so they can pass something along to their children that's better than what they receive show in plain and simple actions that the environment, the economy, and the community are compatible. The citizens are tired of the judicial gridlock and they're feeling left out of the process. They are willing and able to participate. Local government involvement, particularly early in the process, can greatly reduce conflicts in litigation, which is an extraordinary cost to our government. 
Second recommendation; is that coordination among and within agencies has to be improved. We have duplication of environmental analyses, to detriment of process and expense of Federal Government. We could redirect many of our financial resources if they were only better utilized. Poor coordination among the project proponents, lead agencies, and third parties that are hired to conduct the analysis does not always occur.

Third Recommendation: inconsistencies among and within agencies have to be reduced. We have Forest Service management on permit allotments in some states. where one forest requires only grazing allotment holder to do oversight, second forest requires officials only in the Forest Service to do the monitoring, and the third forest allows the policy to change from district to district. Again, the Federal agencies must speak with one voice.

Fourth Recommendation: training of Federal agency personnel needs to be improved and increased. Word is not getting from the CEQ regulations down to field. Even the CEQ regulations very clearly cover economic and community impact and participation of the states; yet, it's not at all implemented at the local level. There has to be a recognition of that legitimate role for state and local government. Even understanding the difference between EAs and EIS's is not even clear down at the local level. There need to be consistency and reasonable alternatives, clear, concise documents that use plain language and limits on the volume of the paperwork. In the words of the CEQ regulation, the goal is to be analytic, not encyclopedic. More meeting with local community and training.

Fifth Recommendation; there must be real scientific, substantive basis for asking for how to manage so that we avoid the endless inquiries and unnecessary data collection. Use of adaptive management, which National Academy of Sciences calls process where management and research are combined so that the projects are specifically designed to reveal causal relationships between interventions and outcomes to maximize learning. Regulations should be built upon adaptive management and trust. Make a decision based upon the best information at that time, don't try to cover every possible contingency. You can always ask one more question that starts off with ''what if.'' Make the decision, get underway and monitor the performance and if there is impact, adapt to correct the problem. Use accurate science and modern technology and train the people to be objective. The opportunity is there to be cooperation and coordination among the various parts.

Six Recombination: Amend NEPA to specifically require Federal agencies to cooperate with states and counties. Innovative environmental policies come about when states can act as laboratories of democracy. States are important in the Federal/state environmental partnership because there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all government. The states, where government is closer to the people, are the proper entities to implement environmental laws and policies.

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0347
Tracking Number: 1k2-9133-hyln
Posted: 01/24/2018
In paragraph two of the Introduction, the "Final Close Out Report" states that "The Site has been cleaned to allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, with no Institutional Controls (ICs), Operation and Maintenance (O&M) or Five-Year Reviews required." 

Paragraph two of the section labeled "Site Completion Criteria" in the "Final Close Out Report" refers to deed restrictions placed on the C&D property. It states, "Though still in place, these restrictions are not required under the ROD." Can you confirm that the deed restrictions have had no influence on the level of clean up at the site, and that the site has been cleaned to allow for "unrestricted use and unlimited exposure" as stated in the "Final Close Out Report"?

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0348
Tracking Number: 1k2-9137-c918
Posted: 01/29/2018
Let's all take a day off from worrying about pollution to visit Tiny Hands National Park, where visitors from all over the world flock to marvel at President Impeachment Bait's tiny grabbers.