Sbullte ~1bull middot-c~- r1rBreak~ IOlber____ middot Offiauf

BOAJID OF HEALTII RECEIVED AUG 2 ~ lSC-i

R4GICill OffiCE OF IIIGKHW C04IIISII

Augu1t u 1985

The Honorable Lee M Tboma1 AClminiatrator United Statebull Environmental Protection Agency bullo1 M StrHt s w lfaahinqton DC 20460

U IIYNZA SUPERFUIID PROJICT MIILAIID ASSACIIU6ETT6

Dear Nr bull Thomaa

On July 23 1915 the Town of Aahlampnd vas informed by the

Superfund Branch of EPA Jegion 1 of itbull propoaal to apend

approximately $12000 ooo for r-dial action at the lfyanaa

~leal Maate Dullp As the fitlt of a tvo-part project at

Jlyanampa UA hal propoaed to conaolidate approxitely 150000

cub~c yardbull of eludge and contbullilampted bullediMnt froa wtbull

4epG1it1 atrevn about and beyond the lfyanaa lite to place

thewbull haaardoua va1tea in exhtlnCJ 1ludge pitbull atop an onaite

hill and to cap the bullnbull with a aynthetic liner Although EPA

hal declined to provide the Tovn with a written descdption of

ita propoaal it is clear that the facility envisioned

approximates in substance a covered dump This action EPA

contends ia the lowest coat clean-up alte[native adequate to

protect public health and envhonmental quality

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1985

I Paqe 2

As thole who will live and die with Nyanza the people

of Aahland take this occasion to c0111118nt on EPA 1 proposal and

to auqgeat certain measurebull deaiqned to improve the propoaed

r-dy and allow swift clean- up action Although out corrnenta

are necessarily critical in part their purpose 11 not

obetructive We aHk to ampllilt SPA proaecute its Superfund

MDdate at lryanaa to that end ve IUCJCJ8ampt the following points

aa the fr-vork for a quick clean and 1ucceaaful eolution to

the problbull at band

Tilt acy lllgtot Pllly Protoct Public Htalth ADd

gvitQPPtal Quality At 1ht Cott llctaaary

~ Federal and State Superfund lavs are inteDdecl pdncipally

to detoxify our enviroaent and protect our cithena trOll the

thruta poaed by uncontrolled haaardoua vaate dupa

Accordingly tbe centnl aibull at Jryanaa bullbull at any Superfund

aite 11 quite plainly to clean it up The clean- up of

uncontrolled haaardou1 va1te dupc ia 11 w are c0111inq

lncreaaingly to appreciate a ta1k involvinq liqnificant

financial coata To that end the l arqeu of feder a l and state

enviromaental protection budqeta has and conti nuebull t o M made

available

AI PA Regulations atate the rule of decilion in Su~rfund

projectbull ia to aelect a coat effective r~ial alternative

which effective)y bullitiqatea or bulllnibulllampea the threat to and

~ provides adequate protection of public heal th welfare and the

Lee Jll Thomas Auqust 14 1985

~ Paqe 3

environment 1 Thh rule recoqnizea that the end must be a

fully protective and permanent clean- up and that the means

should be only that which ia neceaaary The rule does not

permit (except under special circumstances not present at

llyanza) the bullanbull to dictate the end In abort the optimal

r~ and that vbich ahould be aelected is not the lowest

coat bulliniully adequate alternative

DA hal represented that the final alternatives under

conai4eration for llyanza were fir1t acreened on the baah middotof

coat folloved by a deterbullination of the deqrH of public

bealth and enviroaental protection offered thereby This

approach ia directly contrary to that prescribed by EPA 1 rule

of deciaioa vbich requirebull the aelection of a r~y which in

the firat iDatance fully protectbull public health aafety and

bullvir~tal quality Given ita approach to the selection of

a r~ial alternative it ia not aurpridng that EPAs capping

aDd conaolidation propoaal fails to achieve the deqrH of

public health protection and environ~Hntal improvement which

luperfuod ia deaigned to effect we therefore call upon EPA to

re-apply ita rule of deciaion and to select a fully protect i ve

clean-up remedy

1 llational Oil and Haurdou1 Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Propoaed Rule 40 CFR 300 68(i) Fed Req bull February 12

_1 Ul5 P 5t06 aH alao dhcuaaion of same at Fed Req bull February 12 1985 at P 5866

Lee M Thomas August U 1985

Page a

While it rbullains the Towns firm contention that the most

protective clean-up alternative - complete excavation and

offlite diapoaal - ia the only justifiable remedy it is

apparent from the information available to us that EPA has

never aerioualy considered thia alternative Even if as EPA

baa inaiated Jlyanaa 1 clean- up bulluat be accomplilbed onlite

the rule of decilion vill permit no remedy leaa protective than

a aecure landfill Such a facility 11llt 1n0reover incorporate

all poaaible aafuarda to tnaure that it as ao many other

landfilll have not becae a future aource of haaardoua vaate

releaae requiriDCJ further Superfund action at aOID8 later data

) Tbt RIMdy ftltcttd lluat llibullinate All Maidual Sourcebull Of

Coatwiytlop pPtiM A Riak To Public Htalth Or Threat To

lpvhOMtpttl Auflity

The extent to which the lryanampa 11 te and ita envi rona

rina contbullinated fin EPA 1 propoatd clean- up is of

fUDCSntal concern to the Town of Aahland In 1ts

announcnt of the propoaed remedy EPA declined to dhcl oae

the Mthod and level of clean- up planned As to residual

cont~~aination EPA atated that it would selectively excavate

vaate depoaita either to background level or to aome higher

unapecif ied level Aa to the manner of clean-up EPA haa

atattd that it is conaidering covering rather than excavating

certain contuinated areas located offaite and culverting

rather than dredging certain contuinated brook aedimenta EPA

~ I

Lee M Thomas Auqust U 198 5

~ Pages

)

Regulations require bull and the Town has repeatedly requeated

that a comprehenaive health rhk assessment of exiltinq and

propoaed conditions be conducted by a team of toxicoloqiata and

public health experts This will clarify both actual and

potential public health impactamp anociated with the aite bullbull it

preaently exiata and after remedial action hal been

1-pl-nted How else can EPA determine whether ita propoaed

reedy will effectively eliminate the existing threat to the

health of A8hland residenta 1 How else can the Town cOIIbat

the atiC)IIa of Wyanza plan for future developaent of the lite

and ita environamp and if neceaaary develop poat clean-up

precautionary aaurea to protect the health and safety of itl

citiaena -The Town cannot and will not accept a penaanent

r~ witbout knowing in advance what EPA ~ to be

acceptable in the way of residual health rhka and

enviroM~ental contuination

National Oil and Hazardout Subttancea Contingency Plan 40 CFJ 300 61 (i)(D) requiring an assessment of each alternative in terbullbull of the extent to which it h expected to effectively bullitigate and minimize d1111age to and provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environampMnt relative to other alternatives analyzed

The Draft Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study for Nyanza atsenet the public health rhk attendant each reedid action alternative under consideration aubstanthlly as followt Some reduction in the residual public health riak can be expected in two areas ( 1) reduction of the probability of expoaure and (2) reduction of the potential exposure concentration Rhk amelioration vou14 be proportional to deqr to which theae tvo it are recSuced

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1985

I Paqe 2

As thole who will live and die with Nyanza the people

of Aahland take this occasion to c0111118nt on EPA 1 proposal and

to auqgeat certain measurebull deaiqned to improve the propoaed

r-dy and allow swift clean- up action Although out corrnenta

are necessarily critical in part their purpose 11 not

obetructive We aHk to ampllilt SPA proaecute its Superfund

MDdate at lryanaa to that end ve IUCJCJ8ampt the following points

aa the fr-vork for a quick clean and 1ucceaaful eolution to

the problbull at band

Tilt acy lllgtot Pllly Protoct Public Htalth ADd

gvitQPPtal Quality At 1ht Cott llctaaary

~ Federal and State Superfund lavs are inteDdecl pdncipally

to detoxify our enviroaent and protect our cithena trOll the

thruta poaed by uncontrolled haaardoua vaate dupa

Accordingly tbe centnl aibull at Jryanaa bullbull at any Superfund

aite 11 quite plainly to clean it up The clean- up of

uncontrolled haaardou1 va1te dupc ia 11 w are c0111inq

lncreaaingly to appreciate a ta1k involvinq liqnificant

financial coata To that end the l arqeu of feder a l and state

enviromaental protection budqeta has and conti nuebull t o M made

available

AI PA Regulations atate the rule of decilion in Su~rfund

projectbull ia to aelect a coat effective r~ial alternative

which effective)y bullitiqatea or bulllnibulllampea the threat to and

~ provides adequate protection of public heal th welfare and the

Lee Jll Thomas Auqust 14 1985

~ Paqe 3

environment 1 Thh rule recoqnizea that the end must be a

fully protective and permanent clean- up and that the means

should be only that which ia neceaaary The rule does not

permit (except under special circumstances not present at

llyanza) the bullanbull to dictate the end In abort the optimal

r~ and that vbich ahould be aelected is not the lowest

coat bulliniully adequate alternative

DA hal represented that the final alternatives under

conai4eration for llyanza were fir1t acreened on the baah middotof

coat folloved by a deterbullination of the deqrH of public

bealth and enviroaental protection offered thereby This

approach ia directly contrary to that prescribed by EPA 1 rule

of deciaioa vbich requirebull the aelection of a r~y which in

the firat iDatance fully protectbull public health aafety and

bullvir~tal quality Given ita approach to the selection of

a r~ial alternative it ia not aurpridng that EPAs capping

aDd conaolidation propoaal fails to achieve the deqrH of

public health protection and environ~Hntal improvement which

luperfuod ia deaigned to effect we therefore call upon EPA to

re-apply ita rule of deciaion and to select a fully protect i ve

clean-up remedy

1 llational Oil and Haurdou1 Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Propoaed Rule 40 CFR 300 68(i) Fed Req bull February 12

_1 Ul5 P 5t06 aH alao dhcuaaion of same at Fed Req bull February 12 1985 at P 5866

Lee M Thomas August U 1985

Page a

While it rbullains the Towns firm contention that the most

protective clean-up alternative - complete excavation and

offlite diapoaal - ia the only justifiable remedy it is

apparent from the information available to us that EPA has

never aerioualy considered thia alternative Even if as EPA

baa inaiated Jlyanaa 1 clean- up bulluat be accomplilbed onlite

the rule of decilion vill permit no remedy leaa protective than

a aecure landfill Such a facility 11llt 1n0reover incorporate

all poaaible aafuarda to tnaure that it as ao many other

landfilll have not becae a future aource of haaardoua vaate

releaae requiriDCJ further Superfund action at aOID8 later data

) Tbt RIMdy ftltcttd lluat llibullinate All Maidual Sourcebull Of

Coatwiytlop pPtiM A Riak To Public Htalth Or Threat To

lpvhOMtpttl Auflity

The extent to which the lryanampa 11 te and ita envi rona

rina contbullinated fin EPA 1 propoatd clean- up is of

fUDCSntal concern to the Town of Aahland In 1ts

announcnt of the propoaed remedy EPA declined to dhcl oae

the Mthod and level of clean- up planned As to residual

cont~~aination EPA atated that it would selectively excavate

vaate depoaita either to background level or to aome higher

unapecif ied level Aa to the manner of clean-up EPA haa

atattd that it is conaidering covering rather than excavating

certain contuinated areas located offaite and culverting

rather than dredging certain contuinated brook aedimenta EPA

~ I

Lee M Thomas Auqust U 198 5

~ Pages

)

Regulations require bull and the Town has repeatedly requeated

that a comprehenaive health rhk assessment of exiltinq and

propoaed conditions be conducted by a team of toxicoloqiata and

public health experts This will clarify both actual and

potential public health impactamp anociated with the aite bullbull it

preaently exiata and after remedial action hal been

1-pl-nted How else can EPA determine whether ita propoaed

reedy will effectively eliminate the existing threat to the

health of A8hland residenta 1 How else can the Town cOIIbat

the atiC)IIa of Wyanza plan for future developaent of the lite

and ita environamp and if neceaaary develop poat clean-up

precautionary aaurea to protect the health and safety of itl

citiaena -The Town cannot and will not accept a penaanent

r~ witbout knowing in advance what EPA ~ to be

acceptable in the way of residual health rhka and

enviroM~ental contuination

National Oil and Hazardout Subttancea Contingency Plan 40 CFJ 300 61 (i)(D) requiring an assessment of each alternative in terbullbull of the extent to which it h expected to effectively bullitigate and minimize d1111age to and provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environampMnt relative to other alternatives analyzed

The Draft Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study for Nyanza atsenet the public health rhk attendant each reedid action alternative under consideration aubstanthlly as followt Some reduction in the residual public health riak can be expected in two areas ( 1) reduction of the probability of expoaure and (2) reduction of the potential exposure concentration Rhk amelioration vou14 be proportional to deqr to which theae tvo it are recSuced

Lee Jll Thomas Auqust 14 1985

~ Paqe 3

environment 1 Thh rule recoqnizea that the end must be a

fully protective and permanent clean- up and that the means

should be only that which ia neceaaary The rule does not

permit (except under special circumstances not present at

llyanza) the bullanbull to dictate the end In abort the optimal

r~ and that vbich ahould be aelected is not the lowest

coat bulliniully adequate alternative

DA hal represented that the final alternatives under

conai4eration for llyanza were fir1t acreened on the baah middotof

coat folloved by a deterbullination of the deqrH of public

bealth and enviroaental protection offered thereby This

approach ia directly contrary to that prescribed by EPA 1 rule

of deciaioa vbich requirebull the aelection of a r~y which in

the firat iDatance fully protectbull public health aafety and

bullvir~tal quality Given ita approach to the selection of

a r~ial alternative it ia not aurpridng that EPAs capping

aDd conaolidation propoaal fails to achieve the deqrH of

public health protection and environ~Hntal improvement which

luperfuod ia deaigned to effect we therefore call upon EPA to

re-apply ita rule of deciaion and to select a fully protect i ve

clean-up remedy

1 llational Oil and Haurdou1 Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Propoaed Rule 40 CFR 300 68(i) Fed Req bull February 12

_1 Ul5 P 5t06 aH alao dhcuaaion of same at Fed Req bull February 12 1985 at P 5866

Lee M Thomas August U 1985

Page a

While it rbullains the Towns firm contention that the most

protective clean-up alternative - complete excavation and

offlite diapoaal - ia the only justifiable remedy it is

apparent from the information available to us that EPA has

never aerioualy considered thia alternative Even if as EPA

baa inaiated Jlyanaa 1 clean- up bulluat be accomplilbed onlite

the rule of decilion vill permit no remedy leaa protective than

a aecure landfill Such a facility 11llt 1n0reover incorporate

all poaaible aafuarda to tnaure that it as ao many other

landfilll have not becae a future aource of haaardoua vaate

releaae requiriDCJ further Superfund action at aOID8 later data

) Tbt RIMdy ftltcttd lluat llibullinate All Maidual Sourcebull Of

Coatwiytlop pPtiM A Riak To Public Htalth Or Threat To

lpvhOMtpttl Auflity

The extent to which the lryanampa 11 te and ita envi rona

rina contbullinated fin EPA 1 propoatd clean- up is of

fUDCSntal concern to the Town of Aahland In 1ts

announcnt of the propoaed remedy EPA declined to dhcl oae

the Mthod and level of clean- up planned As to residual

cont~~aination EPA atated that it would selectively excavate

vaate depoaita either to background level or to aome higher

unapecif ied level Aa to the manner of clean-up EPA haa

atattd that it is conaidering covering rather than excavating

certain contuinated areas located offaite and culverting

rather than dredging certain contuinated brook aedimenta EPA

~ I

Lee M Thomas Auqust U 198 5

~ Pages

)

Regulations require bull and the Town has repeatedly requeated

that a comprehenaive health rhk assessment of exiltinq and

propoaed conditions be conducted by a team of toxicoloqiata and

public health experts This will clarify both actual and

potential public health impactamp anociated with the aite bullbull it

preaently exiata and after remedial action hal been

1-pl-nted How else can EPA determine whether ita propoaed

reedy will effectively eliminate the existing threat to the

health of A8hland residenta 1 How else can the Town cOIIbat

the atiC)IIa of Wyanza plan for future developaent of the lite

and ita environamp and if neceaaary develop poat clean-up

precautionary aaurea to protect the health and safety of itl

citiaena -The Town cannot and will not accept a penaanent

r~ witbout knowing in advance what EPA ~ to be

acceptable in the way of residual health rhka and

enviroM~ental contuination

National Oil and Hazardout Subttancea Contingency Plan 40 CFJ 300 61 (i)(D) requiring an assessment of each alternative in terbullbull of the extent to which it h expected to effectively bullitigate and minimize d1111age to and provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environampMnt relative to other alternatives analyzed

The Draft Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study for Nyanza atsenet the public health rhk attendant each reedid action alternative under consideration aubstanthlly as followt Some reduction in the residual public health riak can be expected in two areas ( 1) reduction of the probability of expoaure and (2) reduction of the potential exposure concentration Rhk amelioration vou14 be proportional to deqr to which theae tvo it are recSuced

Lee M Thomas August U 1985

Page a

While it rbullains the Towns firm contention that the most

protective clean-up alternative - complete excavation and

offlite diapoaal - ia the only justifiable remedy it is

apparent from the information available to us that EPA has

never aerioualy considered thia alternative Even if as EPA

baa inaiated Jlyanaa 1 clean- up bulluat be accomplilbed onlite

the rule of decilion vill permit no remedy leaa protective than

a aecure landfill Such a facility 11llt 1n0reover incorporate

all poaaible aafuarda to tnaure that it as ao many other

landfilll have not becae a future aource of haaardoua vaate

releaae requiriDCJ further Superfund action at aOID8 later data

) Tbt RIMdy ftltcttd lluat llibullinate All Maidual Sourcebull Of

Coatwiytlop pPtiM A Riak To Public Htalth Or Threat To

lpvhOMtpttl Auflity

The extent to which the lryanampa 11 te and ita envi rona

rina contbullinated fin EPA 1 propoatd clean- up is of

fUDCSntal concern to the Town of Aahland In 1ts

announcnt of the propoaed remedy EPA declined to dhcl oae

the Mthod and level of clean- up planned As to residual

cont~~aination EPA atated that it would selectively excavate

vaate depoaita either to background level or to aome higher

unapecif ied level Aa to the manner of clean-up EPA haa

atattd that it is conaidering covering rather than excavating

certain contuinated areas located offaite and culverting

rather than dredging certain contuinated brook aedimenta EPA

~ I

Lee M Thomas Auqust U 198 5

~ Pages

)

Regulations require bull and the Town has repeatedly requeated

that a comprehenaive health rhk assessment of exiltinq and

propoaed conditions be conducted by a team of toxicoloqiata and

public health experts This will clarify both actual and

potential public health impactamp anociated with the aite bullbull it

preaently exiata and after remedial action hal been

1-pl-nted How else can EPA determine whether ita propoaed

reedy will effectively eliminate the existing threat to the

health of A8hland residenta 1 How else can the Town cOIIbat

the atiC)IIa of Wyanza plan for future developaent of the lite

and ita environamp and if neceaaary develop poat clean-up

precautionary aaurea to protect the health and safety of itl

citiaena -The Town cannot and will not accept a penaanent

r~ witbout knowing in advance what EPA ~ to be

acceptable in the way of residual health rhka and

enviroM~ental contuination

National Oil and Hazardout Subttancea Contingency Plan 40 CFJ 300 61 (i)(D) requiring an assessment of each alternative in terbullbull of the extent to which it h expected to effectively bullitigate and minimize d1111age to and provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environampMnt relative to other alternatives analyzed

The Draft Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study for Nyanza atsenet the public health rhk attendant each reedid action alternative under consideration aubstanthlly as followt Some reduction in the residual public health riak can be expected in two areas ( 1) reduction of the probability of expoaure and (2) reduction of the potential exposure concentration Rhk amelioration vou14 be proportional to deqr to which theae tvo it are recSuced

~ I

Lee M Thomas Auqust U 198 5

~ Pages

)

Regulations require bull and the Town has repeatedly requeated

that a comprehenaive health rhk assessment of exiltinq and

propoaed conditions be conducted by a team of toxicoloqiata and

public health experts This will clarify both actual and

potential public health impactamp anociated with the aite bullbull it

preaently exiata and after remedial action hal been

1-pl-nted How else can EPA determine whether ita propoaed

reedy will effectively eliminate the existing threat to the

health of A8hland residenta 1 How else can the Town cOIIbat

the atiC)IIa of Wyanza plan for future developaent of the lite

and ita environamp and if neceaaary develop poat clean-up

precautionary aaurea to protect the health and safety of itl

citiaena -The Town cannot and will not accept a penaanent

r~ witbout knowing in advance what EPA ~ to be

acceptable in the way of residual health rhka and

enviroM~ental contuination

National Oil and Hazardout Subttancea Contingency Plan 40 CFJ 300 61 (i)(D) requiring an assessment of each alternative in terbullbull of the extent to which it h expected to effectively bullitigate and minimize d1111age to and provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environampMnt relative to other alternatives analyzed

The Draft Remedial InvestigationFeasibility Study for Nyanza atsenet the public health rhk attendant each reedid action alternative under consideration aubstanthlly as followt Some reduction in the residual public health riak can be expected in two areas ( 1) reduction of the probability of expoaure and (2) reduction of the potential exposure concentration Rhk amelioration vou14 be proportional to deqr to which theae tvo it are recSuced

Lee M Thomas August 14 1985 Page 6

The Remedy Must Be Sued on Data Demonatratinq That It Will

Be Effective and Efficient Over the Facility 1 Lifetime

The Town and ita citizena continue to have aeriou1

rtaervationa concerning the effect i veneaa and efficiency of

EPA a propoaal for a capped consolidation of bazardoua waatea

atop the hill at Nyanaa The hill ia ittelf a recharge area

with in aitu aludge depolita ieraed teaaonally by fluctuating

groundwater levela Tbeat aludqe pita and the bottcleaa

oonaoloidation of haampardoua waate thereon propoaed by EPA middot are

located approxibulltely 100 fHt upqradient of an operating

induatrial park approxibulltely 400 fHt upqradient of a denaely

aettled reaidential neighborhood and approxltely 100 fHt

upgradient middotof the Sudbury lliver Againat thia background and

baaed upon inaufficient data that the Town fHla ia

inconcluaive EPA baa propoeed a eynthetic cap the thickntll of

which ia unapecifitd a groundwater diveraion ach the

effectiveneaa of which h acknowledged to be uncertain and 1

groundwater anitorinq pr09ru the well locationa aa~~pling

protocol operational lift and li fetilllt coata of which all

ret~ain unapecifitd Neither hal EPA been willinq to accept

DEQB a auqqeation that any decision for an oolite remedy

predicated on the preaent data baae be conditional aubj~t to

monitoring worat caae groundwater conditionbull and field teatinq

the effectlvenebullbull of alternative groundwater diveraion ach_a

J next apring Nor to our knowledge baa PA under taken any

Lee M Th omas Auqust u 1985 Page 7I ~ analysis of the continuing contamination implications of ita

capping and consolidation proposal or reconciled the long term

coats of the groundwater monitoring testing and renovation

program necesdtated thereby

The land uae and natural resources which character ize t he

llyanampa site and ita 1-diate environs requi re that the r81Dedy

selected oat effectively eliminate the poaaibility that

baaardoua vaate will be released from the lite any tiiiMI in the

foreaMable future Likewhe the lifetiM of a facility in

which persistent haaardous wastes are dilpoaed requires that

the r~y selected minimize the long term operation and

aaintenance coeta associated with groundwater 110nitorinq

teatin9 collection and renovation for which the State il

vbolly responsible Individually and in collbination the need

for an effective and efficient remedy at Nyanampa IUCJCJeltl that a

eecure landfill can be the only acceptable onlite alternative

Tht adY Selected Muat Cocaply lUlly Nith Maeaachuaettt

W Federal Law

EPA Requlationt qovern i ng the landf ill of hazar dous watte

require that auch facilitie s be equipped amonq other t h inqa

with a double bottom liner leachate de tection and collection

eyatem bull Maeaachueetts R8CJulationa governing the management

bull zPA Requlationbull under the Resource Coneervation and Recovery Act bull o CFR Subput II

fl

Lee M Thomas Auquat 1 1985

Page 8

of hazardoua waate require a separation zone of at least four

fHt between the bottom liner of a hazardous waste landfill and

the probable high g-roundwater level 1 EPA bull s action at

Nyanza muat fully comply with both federal and state

requlationa applicable to the land dhpoaal of hazardous waste

otberwiae BPA will violate ita own policy which requirebull that

luperfund actionbull attain o~ exceed applicable and relevant

public health and environmental atandard1

)

Iince the inception of Superfund it hal been EPA a

po1ition that lan4filling hazardoua waate in a aecure

facility ia the bulliniiiUIIl action neceaaary to caply with ita ovn

haaardoua waate IIMlliCJnt regulationbull That Conqre11 will

tolerate no leaa than thia and intenda to require -ach 110re

ia indicated by recent and pending legialative atatnta which

acknowledge that landfill a middotare an inherently antiquated and

unreliable technoloqy and direct EPA to take Superfund

actioaa vbich effect the moat permanent and protective clean- up

1 JIIaachuaetta Department of Environmental Quality EnginHring Jtequlat iona for the Management of Hazardoua Waste 310 CIltR 30 622

MeorandUM fr011 Lee M Thomaa Aasistant Adminhtrator entitled CERCLA Compliance With Other Environmental Statutes undated Ped lteq February 12 1985 P 5928-5932

Haaardoua and Solid Waate Amendmentbull of 1984 Pub Law 91-616 section 101 amending the Resource Conaervation and Recovery Act 42 U S CA Sect i on 690l(b) (7)

Lee Pl Thomas Auqust 14 1985 Page 9

pouible bull EPA a proposal to consolidate and cover the

hazardous waste at Nyanza h by definition an insecure land

dhpoaal facility in direct contravention of both conqrenional

directives and ita ovn policy

EPA contends that ita capping and conaolidation proposal

repreaenta a recent shift in Superfund policy If as EPA

hal adlllitted thh policy shift is nowhere articulated or

juatified ve IIUit a11UM baaed on standing documentation that

it repleaeate a aattel of peuonal opinion and not officiil

at8DCJ policy Accoldingly we adlnoniah EPA to adhere to it1

own r8C)Ulatlone aa well as those of DEQI by taking action at

-anaa no less plotective of public health and enviror-ntal

fiUamplity than a secure landfill

MY OPaite Facility Nuet Mot 8eltQM A Dtpoaitary For Other

Hatar4oul tltltl

With uple reason the Town feubull that any onsite hazardous

waete diapoeal facility establhhed at Myanza will become the

lOCJlcal aolution for an ever increasing need to acconnodate the

waete generated by the clean-up of other Superfund sites within

the C~nwalth For example EPA I preeent ptopoad for

Myanza h to consolidate sludge and sediment deposits scattered

~Pt~~n~v~=~1~C~~~o(~r( ~r=~~nd propoaed by the luperfWd _nctampnts of 1915 HJt 2111 and the Iuperfund Iaprov-nt Act of Ul5 1 11

Lee M Thomes Auquat U 1985 Page 10

about and beyond the site Phase II of the Nyenze project es

explained by EPA in ell public documentbull to date il limited to

groundwater renovation However without public dilcloaure

much le11 corrmant and contrary to prior di1chimer by EPA the

Town hal learned that Phase II of Nyanaa will include the

clean-up of contaminated reaches of the Sudbury River

Excavation of contaminated sediments frOift the Sudbury could

yield treendou1 quantit ie1 of bazardoua wa1te with a facility

at tryanaa being the logical 1ite for diapoaal In1ofar as

DA hal not publicly introduced the po11ibility of an

open-ended baaardoua vaate dhpo1al facility at Nyanaa IIUch

le11 atudied its effectamp or provided an opportunity for public

~t tbeceon the decilion to Htablilh any facility at

II)Ulll -ampIt be aCCOIIpUlied by binding IIIUrampnCel that the

valtHmiddot acc~ated thereby will be libullited to thoae bullbullteriall

_rated by Pha1e 1 and no othera DIIQa baa 1tated that it

ia pcred to provide the Tovn vi th a11urancea that any Phaee

1 facility will be perNnently cloaed and forever precluded

frc coneideration by the 1tate as a site for any future

treatMnt storage or disposal of hazardoua substances wastes

or aateriall we call upon EPA to provide the same

Proceaa

fo date EPA haa demonstrated little sendtivity to t he

concernbull of Town citizens and officiah The Town throuqh ita

LM M Thomas August U 1985 Page 11

)

Board of Health and citizens through the Ashland Advocates For

A Clean Environment (AACE) have made an extrordinary c01m1itment

of tiM and resources to participate in EPA bull proceedings on

tbe Myanza project This effort is evidenced by the hundreds

of questions and coanents submitted to EPA to which there has

been virtually no response Without the benefit of a response

to our questions and cormMtnts and in the face of EPA 1

recently announced proposal the Town h faced with the choice

of either accepting what it believes to be an inadequate middot

clean-up proposal or refusing it and becoming the scapeqoat for

inaction vill not be baited by thia choice As noted at

the outaet of tbh letter the Town inaiats that EPA make a

aOUDd cSechioo and take avift action reqarding the clean-up of lo belp Aahlaria middotbe hearmiddotd by EPA the Governor bull Office and

a- have offered to help coordinate and fund a Citizens

Advhory cc-ittH which vill serve aa a central source of

c~ity input to llyanzaa decision making and implementation

proceaa This letter represents the first effort by a core

group copoling the Nyanza Citizen bull Advisory CDfllflittee

Future efforts will focus on desiqn review construction

110nitoring and contingency planning as well u all aspects of

Phase II We i11plore EPA to recognize thh Connittee and

incorporate ita concerns into the lfyanza Superfund Project

Ill

Lee Jil Thomas Auqu1t u 1985

---- Page 12

The Remedy Must Repreaent A Sound Dechion And Result In

Swift Action

NyanBa ranks aa a priority Superfund project which through

a variety of adminhtrative mechanisms has been placed on a

fast track the project haa been phased by splitting it into

two operable unita the authority to select and approve

r~ial action for Phase I has been delegated to the Regional

Adllinhtrator and the procurement of a design contractor and

1Upervilion of desiqn work will be undertaken by DA directly

rather than the u s Arll Cor~ of BnginHtl Aa we understand

i t tbe object of tbHe 1tepa h to allow the ia1uance of a

lecor4 of Deciaion the execution of a federal-atate Superfund

oootract aod the CQIIPletion of deeiqn by Spt-ber 30 1915 in

order that fundi available to c~nce clean-up of Nyanaa can middotmiddot be eaitted thh fiscal year

llltle we applaud and continue to encourage EPA s efforts to

faat track the Nyanaa project all indicationbull are that the

proeeabull 11 betnq forced without due con1ideration for either

the rtqhtl of the public or the merit l of the remedy we

reiterate EPA I fina l dechion anu1t be sound u well as i ts

act t oni 1vift

AI d h CUI I ed above it h the Town bull firm contention that

no alternative short of a secure landfill can constitute a

1ound decision Inu11uch u EPA s present capping and

-I con1olidatlon propo1al repre1ent1 the reconmendation of one

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

Lee M Th omas Auqust u 1985 Page 7I ~ analysis of the continuing contamination implications of ita

capping and consolidation proposal or reconciled the long term

coats of the groundwater monitoring testing and renovation

program necesdtated thereby

The land uae and natural resources which character ize t he

llyanampa site and ita 1-diate environs requi re that the r81Dedy

selected oat effectively eliminate the poaaibility that

baaardoua vaate will be released from the lite any tiiiMI in the

foreaMable future Likewhe the lifetiM of a facility in

which persistent haaardous wastes are dilpoaed requires that

the r~y selected minimize the long term operation and

aaintenance coeta associated with groundwater 110nitorinq

teatin9 collection and renovation for which the State il

vbolly responsible Individually and in collbination the need

for an effective and efficient remedy at Nyanampa IUCJCJeltl that a

eecure landfill can be the only acceptable onlite alternative

Tht adY Selected Muat Cocaply lUlly Nith Maeaachuaettt

W Federal Law

EPA Requlationt qovern i ng the landf ill of hazar dous watte

require that auch facilitie s be equipped amonq other t h inqa

with a double bottom liner leachate de tection and collection

eyatem bull Maeaachueetts R8CJulationa governing the management

bull zPA Requlationbull under the Resource Coneervation and Recovery Act bull o CFR Subput II

fl

Lee M Thomas Auquat 1 1985

Page 8

of hazardoua waate require a separation zone of at least four

fHt between the bottom liner of a hazardous waste landfill and

the probable high g-roundwater level 1 EPA bull s action at

Nyanza muat fully comply with both federal and state

requlationa applicable to the land dhpoaal of hazardous waste

otberwiae BPA will violate ita own policy which requirebull that

luperfund actionbull attain o~ exceed applicable and relevant

public health and environmental atandard1

)

Iince the inception of Superfund it hal been EPA a

po1ition that lan4filling hazardoua waate in a aecure

facility ia the bulliniiiUIIl action neceaaary to caply with ita ovn

haaardoua waate IIMlliCJnt regulationbull That Conqre11 will

tolerate no leaa than thia and intenda to require -ach 110re

ia indicated by recent and pending legialative atatnta which

acknowledge that landfill a middotare an inherently antiquated and

unreliable technoloqy and direct EPA to take Superfund

actioaa vbich effect the moat permanent and protective clean- up

1 JIIaachuaetta Department of Environmental Quality EnginHring Jtequlat iona for the Management of Hazardoua Waste 310 CIltR 30 622

MeorandUM fr011 Lee M Thomaa Aasistant Adminhtrator entitled CERCLA Compliance With Other Environmental Statutes undated Ped lteq February 12 1985 P 5928-5932

Haaardoua and Solid Waate Amendmentbull of 1984 Pub Law 91-616 section 101 amending the Resource Conaervation and Recovery Act 42 U S CA Sect i on 690l(b) (7)

Lee Pl Thomas Auqust 14 1985 Page 9

pouible bull EPA a proposal to consolidate and cover the

hazardous waste at Nyanza h by definition an insecure land

dhpoaal facility in direct contravention of both conqrenional

directives and ita ovn policy

EPA contends that ita capping and conaolidation proposal

repreaenta a recent shift in Superfund policy If as EPA

hal adlllitted thh policy shift is nowhere articulated or

juatified ve IIUit a11UM baaed on standing documentation that

it repleaeate a aattel of peuonal opinion and not officiil

at8DCJ policy Accoldingly we adlnoniah EPA to adhere to it1

own r8C)Ulatlone aa well as those of DEQI by taking action at

-anaa no less plotective of public health and enviror-ntal

fiUamplity than a secure landfill

MY OPaite Facility Nuet Mot 8eltQM A Dtpoaitary For Other

Hatar4oul tltltl

With uple reason the Town feubull that any onsite hazardous

waete diapoeal facility establhhed at Myanza will become the

lOCJlcal aolution for an ever increasing need to acconnodate the

waete generated by the clean-up of other Superfund sites within

the C~nwalth For example EPA I preeent ptopoad for

Myanza h to consolidate sludge and sediment deposits scattered

~Pt~~n~v~=~1~C~~~o(~r( ~r=~~nd propoaed by the luperfWd _nctampnts of 1915 HJt 2111 and the Iuperfund Iaprov-nt Act of Ul5 1 11

Lee M Thomes Auquat U 1985 Page 10

about and beyond the site Phase II of the Nyenze project es

explained by EPA in ell public documentbull to date il limited to

groundwater renovation However without public dilcloaure

much le11 corrmant and contrary to prior di1chimer by EPA the

Town hal learned that Phase II of Nyanaa will include the

clean-up of contaminated reaches of the Sudbury River

Excavation of contaminated sediments frOift the Sudbury could

yield treendou1 quantit ie1 of bazardoua wa1te with a facility

at tryanaa being the logical 1ite for diapoaal In1ofar as

DA hal not publicly introduced the po11ibility of an

open-ended baaardoua vaate dhpo1al facility at Nyanaa IIUch

le11 atudied its effectamp or provided an opportunity for public

~t tbeceon the decilion to Htablilh any facility at

II)Ulll -ampIt be aCCOIIpUlied by binding IIIUrampnCel that the

valtHmiddot acc~ated thereby will be libullited to thoae bullbullteriall

_rated by Pha1e 1 and no othera DIIQa baa 1tated that it

ia pcred to provide the Tovn vi th a11urancea that any Phaee

1 facility will be perNnently cloaed and forever precluded

frc coneideration by the 1tate as a site for any future

treatMnt storage or disposal of hazardoua substances wastes

or aateriall we call upon EPA to provide the same

Proceaa

fo date EPA haa demonstrated little sendtivity to t he

concernbull of Town citizens and officiah The Town throuqh ita

LM M Thomas August U 1985 Page 11

)

Board of Health and citizens through the Ashland Advocates For

A Clean Environment (AACE) have made an extrordinary c01m1itment

of tiM and resources to participate in EPA bull proceedings on

tbe Myanza project This effort is evidenced by the hundreds

of questions and coanents submitted to EPA to which there has

been virtually no response Without the benefit of a response

to our questions and cormMtnts and in the face of EPA 1

recently announced proposal the Town h faced with the choice

of either accepting what it believes to be an inadequate middot

clean-up proposal or refusing it and becoming the scapeqoat for

inaction vill not be baited by thia choice As noted at

the outaet of tbh letter the Town inaiats that EPA make a

aOUDd cSechioo and take avift action reqarding the clean-up of lo belp Aahlaria middotbe hearmiddotd by EPA the Governor bull Office and

a- have offered to help coordinate and fund a Citizens

Advhory cc-ittH which vill serve aa a central source of

c~ity input to llyanzaa decision making and implementation

proceaa This letter represents the first effort by a core

group copoling the Nyanza Citizen bull Advisory CDfllflittee

Future efforts will focus on desiqn review construction

110nitoring and contingency planning as well u all aspects of

Phase II We i11plore EPA to recognize thh Connittee and

incorporate ita concerns into the lfyanza Superfund Project

Ill

Lee Jil Thomas Auqu1t u 1985

---- Page 12

The Remedy Must Repreaent A Sound Dechion And Result In

Swift Action

NyanBa ranks aa a priority Superfund project which through

a variety of adminhtrative mechanisms has been placed on a

fast track the project haa been phased by splitting it into

two operable unita the authority to select and approve

r~ial action for Phase I has been delegated to the Regional

Adllinhtrator and the procurement of a design contractor and

1Upervilion of desiqn work will be undertaken by DA directly

rather than the u s Arll Cor~ of BnginHtl Aa we understand

i t tbe object of tbHe 1tepa h to allow the ia1uance of a

lecor4 of Deciaion the execution of a federal-atate Superfund

oootract aod the CQIIPletion of deeiqn by Spt-ber 30 1915 in

order that fundi available to c~nce clean-up of Nyanaa can middotmiddot be eaitted thh fiscal year

llltle we applaud and continue to encourage EPA s efforts to

faat track the Nyanaa project all indicationbull are that the

proeeabull 11 betnq forced without due con1ideration for either

the rtqhtl of the public or the merit l of the remedy we

reiterate EPA I fina l dechion anu1t be sound u well as i ts

act t oni 1vift

AI d h CUI I ed above it h the Town bull firm contention that

no alternative short of a secure landfill can constitute a

1ound decision Inu11uch u EPA s present capping and

-I con1olidatlon propo1al repre1ent1 the reconmendation of one

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

fl

Lee M Thomas Auquat 1 1985

Page 8

of hazardoua waate require a separation zone of at least four

fHt between the bottom liner of a hazardous waste landfill and

the probable high g-roundwater level 1 EPA bull s action at

Nyanza muat fully comply with both federal and state

requlationa applicable to the land dhpoaal of hazardous waste

otberwiae BPA will violate ita own policy which requirebull that

luperfund actionbull attain o~ exceed applicable and relevant

public health and environmental atandard1

)

Iince the inception of Superfund it hal been EPA a

po1ition that lan4filling hazardoua waate in a aecure

facility ia the bulliniiiUIIl action neceaaary to caply with ita ovn

haaardoua waate IIMlliCJnt regulationbull That Conqre11 will

tolerate no leaa than thia and intenda to require -ach 110re

ia indicated by recent and pending legialative atatnta which

acknowledge that landfill a middotare an inherently antiquated and

unreliable technoloqy and direct EPA to take Superfund

actioaa vbich effect the moat permanent and protective clean- up

1 JIIaachuaetta Department of Environmental Quality EnginHring Jtequlat iona for the Management of Hazardoua Waste 310 CIltR 30 622

MeorandUM fr011 Lee M Thomaa Aasistant Adminhtrator entitled CERCLA Compliance With Other Environmental Statutes undated Ped lteq February 12 1985 P 5928-5932

Haaardoua and Solid Waate Amendmentbull of 1984 Pub Law 91-616 section 101 amending the Resource Conaervation and Recovery Act 42 U S CA Sect i on 690l(b) (7)

Lee Pl Thomas Auqust 14 1985 Page 9

pouible bull EPA a proposal to consolidate and cover the

hazardous waste at Nyanza h by definition an insecure land

dhpoaal facility in direct contravention of both conqrenional

directives and ita ovn policy

EPA contends that ita capping and conaolidation proposal

repreaenta a recent shift in Superfund policy If as EPA

hal adlllitted thh policy shift is nowhere articulated or

juatified ve IIUit a11UM baaed on standing documentation that

it repleaeate a aattel of peuonal opinion and not officiil

at8DCJ policy Accoldingly we adlnoniah EPA to adhere to it1

own r8C)Ulatlone aa well as those of DEQI by taking action at

-anaa no less plotective of public health and enviror-ntal

fiUamplity than a secure landfill

MY OPaite Facility Nuet Mot 8eltQM A Dtpoaitary For Other

Hatar4oul tltltl

With uple reason the Town feubull that any onsite hazardous

waete diapoeal facility establhhed at Myanza will become the

lOCJlcal aolution for an ever increasing need to acconnodate the

waete generated by the clean-up of other Superfund sites within

the C~nwalth For example EPA I preeent ptopoad for

Myanza h to consolidate sludge and sediment deposits scattered

~Pt~~n~v~=~1~C~~~o(~r( ~r=~~nd propoaed by the luperfWd _nctampnts of 1915 HJt 2111 and the Iuperfund Iaprov-nt Act of Ul5 1 11

Lee M Thomes Auquat U 1985 Page 10

about and beyond the site Phase II of the Nyenze project es

explained by EPA in ell public documentbull to date il limited to

groundwater renovation However without public dilcloaure

much le11 corrmant and contrary to prior di1chimer by EPA the

Town hal learned that Phase II of Nyanaa will include the

clean-up of contaminated reaches of the Sudbury River

Excavation of contaminated sediments frOift the Sudbury could

yield treendou1 quantit ie1 of bazardoua wa1te with a facility

at tryanaa being the logical 1ite for diapoaal In1ofar as

DA hal not publicly introduced the po11ibility of an

open-ended baaardoua vaate dhpo1al facility at Nyanaa IIUch

le11 atudied its effectamp or provided an opportunity for public

~t tbeceon the decilion to Htablilh any facility at

II)Ulll -ampIt be aCCOIIpUlied by binding IIIUrampnCel that the

valtHmiddot acc~ated thereby will be libullited to thoae bullbullteriall

_rated by Pha1e 1 and no othera DIIQa baa 1tated that it

ia pcred to provide the Tovn vi th a11urancea that any Phaee

1 facility will be perNnently cloaed and forever precluded

frc coneideration by the 1tate as a site for any future

treatMnt storage or disposal of hazardoua substances wastes

or aateriall we call upon EPA to provide the same

Proceaa

fo date EPA haa demonstrated little sendtivity to t he

concernbull of Town citizens and officiah The Town throuqh ita

LM M Thomas August U 1985 Page 11

)

Board of Health and citizens through the Ashland Advocates For

A Clean Environment (AACE) have made an extrordinary c01m1itment

of tiM and resources to participate in EPA bull proceedings on

tbe Myanza project This effort is evidenced by the hundreds

of questions and coanents submitted to EPA to which there has

been virtually no response Without the benefit of a response

to our questions and cormMtnts and in the face of EPA 1

recently announced proposal the Town h faced with the choice

of either accepting what it believes to be an inadequate middot

clean-up proposal or refusing it and becoming the scapeqoat for

inaction vill not be baited by thia choice As noted at

the outaet of tbh letter the Town inaiats that EPA make a

aOUDd cSechioo and take avift action reqarding the clean-up of lo belp Aahlaria middotbe hearmiddotd by EPA the Governor bull Office and

a- have offered to help coordinate and fund a Citizens

Advhory cc-ittH which vill serve aa a central source of

c~ity input to llyanzaa decision making and implementation

proceaa This letter represents the first effort by a core

group copoling the Nyanza Citizen bull Advisory CDfllflittee

Future efforts will focus on desiqn review construction

110nitoring and contingency planning as well u all aspects of

Phase II We i11plore EPA to recognize thh Connittee and

incorporate ita concerns into the lfyanza Superfund Project

Ill

Lee Jil Thomas Auqu1t u 1985

---- Page 12

The Remedy Must Repreaent A Sound Dechion And Result In

Swift Action

NyanBa ranks aa a priority Superfund project which through

a variety of adminhtrative mechanisms has been placed on a

fast track the project haa been phased by splitting it into

two operable unita the authority to select and approve

r~ial action for Phase I has been delegated to the Regional

Adllinhtrator and the procurement of a design contractor and

1Upervilion of desiqn work will be undertaken by DA directly

rather than the u s Arll Cor~ of BnginHtl Aa we understand

i t tbe object of tbHe 1tepa h to allow the ia1uance of a

lecor4 of Deciaion the execution of a federal-atate Superfund

oootract aod the CQIIPletion of deeiqn by Spt-ber 30 1915 in

order that fundi available to c~nce clean-up of Nyanaa can middotmiddot be eaitted thh fiscal year

llltle we applaud and continue to encourage EPA s efforts to

faat track the Nyanaa project all indicationbull are that the

proeeabull 11 betnq forced without due con1ideration for either

the rtqhtl of the public or the merit l of the remedy we

reiterate EPA I fina l dechion anu1t be sound u well as i ts

act t oni 1vift

AI d h CUI I ed above it h the Town bull firm contention that

no alternative short of a secure landfill can constitute a

1ound decision Inu11uch u EPA s present capping and

-I con1olidatlon propo1al repre1ent1 the reconmendation of one

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

Lee Pl Thomas Auqust 14 1985 Page 9

pouible bull EPA a proposal to consolidate and cover the

hazardous waste at Nyanza h by definition an insecure land

dhpoaal facility in direct contravention of both conqrenional

directives and ita ovn policy

EPA contends that ita capping and conaolidation proposal

repreaenta a recent shift in Superfund policy If as EPA

hal adlllitted thh policy shift is nowhere articulated or

juatified ve IIUit a11UM baaed on standing documentation that

it repleaeate a aattel of peuonal opinion and not officiil

at8DCJ policy Accoldingly we adlnoniah EPA to adhere to it1

own r8C)Ulatlone aa well as those of DEQI by taking action at

-anaa no less plotective of public health and enviror-ntal

fiUamplity than a secure landfill

MY OPaite Facility Nuet Mot 8eltQM A Dtpoaitary For Other

Hatar4oul tltltl

With uple reason the Town feubull that any onsite hazardous

waete diapoeal facility establhhed at Myanza will become the

lOCJlcal aolution for an ever increasing need to acconnodate the

waete generated by the clean-up of other Superfund sites within

the C~nwalth For example EPA I preeent ptopoad for

Myanza h to consolidate sludge and sediment deposits scattered

~Pt~~n~v~=~1~C~~~o(~r( ~r=~~nd propoaed by the luperfWd _nctampnts of 1915 HJt 2111 and the Iuperfund Iaprov-nt Act of Ul5 1 11

Lee M Thomes Auquat U 1985 Page 10

about and beyond the site Phase II of the Nyenze project es

explained by EPA in ell public documentbull to date il limited to

groundwater renovation However without public dilcloaure

much le11 corrmant and contrary to prior di1chimer by EPA the

Town hal learned that Phase II of Nyanaa will include the

clean-up of contaminated reaches of the Sudbury River

Excavation of contaminated sediments frOift the Sudbury could

yield treendou1 quantit ie1 of bazardoua wa1te with a facility

at tryanaa being the logical 1ite for diapoaal In1ofar as

DA hal not publicly introduced the po11ibility of an

open-ended baaardoua vaate dhpo1al facility at Nyanaa IIUch

le11 atudied its effectamp or provided an opportunity for public

~t tbeceon the decilion to Htablilh any facility at

II)Ulll -ampIt be aCCOIIpUlied by binding IIIUrampnCel that the

valtHmiddot acc~ated thereby will be libullited to thoae bullbullteriall

_rated by Pha1e 1 and no othera DIIQa baa 1tated that it

ia pcred to provide the Tovn vi th a11urancea that any Phaee

1 facility will be perNnently cloaed and forever precluded

frc coneideration by the 1tate as a site for any future

treatMnt storage or disposal of hazardoua substances wastes

or aateriall we call upon EPA to provide the same

Proceaa

fo date EPA haa demonstrated little sendtivity to t he

concernbull of Town citizens and officiah The Town throuqh ita

LM M Thomas August U 1985 Page 11

)

Board of Health and citizens through the Ashland Advocates For

A Clean Environment (AACE) have made an extrordinary c01m1itment

of tiM and resources to participate in EPA bull proceedings on

tbe Myanza project This effort is evidenced by the hundreds

of questions and coanents submitted to EPA to which there has

been virtually no response Without the benefit of a response

to our questions and cormMtnts and in the face of EPA 1

recently announced proposal the Town h faced with the choice

of either accepting what it believes to be an inadequate middot

clean-up proposal or refusing it and becoming the scapeqoat for

inaction vill not be baited by thia choice As noted at

the outaet of tbh letter the Town inaiats that EPA make a

aOUDd cSechioo and take avift action reqarding the clean-up of lo belp Aahlaria middotbe hearmiddotd by EPA the Governor bull Office and

a- have offered to help coordinate and fund a Citizens

Advhory cc-ittH which vill serve aa a central source of

c~ity input to llyanzaa decision making and implementation

proceaa This letter represents the first effort by a core

group copoling the Nyanza Citizen bull Advisory CDfllflittee

Future efforts will focus on desiqn review construction

110nitoring and contingency planning as well u all aspects of

Phase II We i11plore EPA to recognize thh Connittee and

incorporate ita concerns into the lfyanza Superfund Project

Ill

Lee Jil Thomas Auqu1t u 1985

---- Page 12

The Remedy Must Repreaent A Sound Dechion And Result In

Swift Action

NyanBa ranks aa a priority Superfund project which through

a variety of adminhtrative mechanisms has been placed on a

fast track the project haa been phased by splitting it into

two operable unita the authority to select and approve

r~ial action for Phase I has been delegated to the Regional

Adllinhtrator and the procurement of a design contractor and

1Upervilion of desiqn work will be undertaken by DA directly

rather than the u s Arll Cor~ of BnginHtl Aa we understand

i t tbe object of tbHe 1tepa h to allow the ia1uance of a

lecor4 of Deciaion the execution of a federal-atate Superfund

oootract aod the CQIIPletion of deeiqn by Spt-ber 30 1915 in

order that fundi available to c~nce clean-up of Nyanaa can middotmiddot be eaitted thh fiscal year

llltle we applaud and continue to encourage EPA s efforts to

faat track the Nyanaa project all indicationbull are that the

proeeabull 11 betnq forced without due con1ideration for either

the rtqhtl of the public or the merit l of the remedy we

reiterate EPA I fina l dechion anu1t be sound u well as i ts

act t oni 1vift

AI d h CUI I ed above it h the Town bull firm contention that

no alternative short of a secure landfill can constitute a

1ound decision Inu11uch u EPA s present capping and

-I con1olidatlon propo1al repre1ent1 the reconmendation of one

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

Lee M Thomes Auquat U 1985 Page 10

about and beyond the site Phase II of the Nyenze project es

explained by EPA in ell public documentbull to date il limited to

groundwater renovation However without public dilcloaure

much le11 corrmant and contrary to prior di1chimer by EPA the

Town hal learned that Phase II of Nyanaa will include the

clean-up of contaminated reaches of the Sudbury River

Excavation of contaminated sediments frOift the Sudbury could

yield treendou1 quantit ie1 of bazardoua wa1te with a facility

at tryanaa being the logical 1ite for diapoaal In1ofar as

DA hal not publicly introduced the po11ibility of an

open-ended baaardoua vaate dhpo1al facility at Nyanaa IIUch

le11 atudied its effectamp or provided an opportunity for public

~t tbeceon the decilion to Htablilh any facility at

II)Ulll -ampIt be aCCOIIpUlied by binding IIIUrampnCel that the

valtHmiddot acc~ated thereby will be libullited to thoae bullbullteriall

_rated by Pha1e 1 and no othera DIIQa baa 1tated that it

ia pcred to provide the Tovn vi th a11urancea that any Phaee

1 facility will be perNnently cloaed and forever precluded

frc coneideration by the 1tate as a site for any future

treatMnt storage or disposal of hazardoua substances wastes

or aateriall we call upon EPA to provide the same

Proceaa

fo date EPA haa demonstrated little sendtivity to t he

concernbull of Town citizens and officiah The Town throuqh ita

LM M Thomas August U 1985 Page 11

)

Board of Health and citizens through the Ashland Advocates For

A Clean Environment (AACE) have made an extrordinary c01m1itment

of tiM and resources to participate in EPA bull proceedings on

tbe Myanza project This effort is evidenced by the hundreds

of questions and coanents submitted to EPA to which there has

been virtually no response Without the benefit of a response

to our questions and cormMtnts and in the face of EPA 1

recently announced proposal the Town h faced with the choice

of either accepting what it believes to be an inadequate middot

clean-up proposal or refusing it and becoming the scapeqoat for

inaction vill not be baited by thia choice As noted at

the outaet of tbh letter the Town inaiats that EPA make a

aOUDd cSechioo and take avift action reqarding the clean-up of lo belp Aahlaria middotbe hearmiddotd by EPA the Governor bull Office and

a- have offered to help coordinate and fund a Citizens

Advhory cc-ittH which vill serve aa a central source of

c~ity input to llyanzaa decision making and implementation

proceaa This letter represents the first effort by a core

group copoling the Nyanza Citizen bull Advisory CDfllflittee

Future efforts will focus on desiqn review construction

110nitoring and contingency planning as well u all aspects of

Phase II We i11plore EPA to recognize thh Connittee and

incorporate ita concerns into the lfyanza Superfund Project

Ill

Lee Jil Thomas Auqu1t u 1985

---- Page 12

The Remedy Must Repreaent A Sound Dechion And Result In

Swift Action

NyanBa ranks aa a priority Superfund project which through

a variety of adminhtrative mechanisms has been placed on a

fast track the project haa been phased by splitting it into

two operable unita the authority to select and approve

r~ial action for Phase I has been delegated to the Regional

Adllinhtrator and the procurement of a design contractor and

1Upervilion of desiqn work will be undertaken by DA directly

rather than the u s Arll Cor~ of BnginHtl Aa we understand

i t tbe object of tbHe 1tepa h to allow the ia1uance of a

lecor4 of Deciaion the execution of a federal-atate Superfund

oootract aod the CQIIPletion of deeiqn by Spt-ber 30 1915 in

order that fundi available to c~nce clean-up of Nyanaa can middotmiddot be eaitted thh fiscal year

llltle we applaud and continue to encourage EPA s efforts to

faat track the Nyanaa project all indicationbull are that the

proeeabull 11 betnq forced without due con1ideration for either

the rtqhtl of the public or the merit l of the remedy we

reiterate EPA I fina l dechion anu1t be sound u well as i ts

act t oni 1vift

AI d h CUI I ed above it h the Town bull firm contention that

no alternative short of a secure landfill can constitute a

1ound decision Inu11uch u EPA s present capping and

-I con1olidatlon propo1al repre1ent1 the reconmendation of one

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

LM M Thomas August U 1985 Page 11

)

Board of Health and citizens through the Ashland Advocates For

A Clean Environment (AACE) have made an extrordinary c01m1itment

of tiM and resources to participate in EPA bull proceedings on

tbe Myanza project This effort is evidenced by the hundreds

of questions and coanents submitted to EPA to which there has

been virtually no response Without the benefit of a response

to our questions and cormMtnts and in the face of EPA 1

recently announced proposal the Town h faced with the choice

of either accepting what it believes to be an inadequate middot

clean-up proposal or refusing it and becoming the scapeqoat for

inaction vill not be baited by thia choice As noted at

the outaet of tbh letter the Town inaiats that EPA make a

aOUDd cSechioo and take avift action reqarding the clean-up of lo belp Aahlaria middotbe hearmiddotd by EPA the Governor bull Office and

a- have offered to help coordinate and fund a Citizens

Advhory cc-ittH which vill serve aa a central source of

c~ity input to llyanzaa decision making and implementation

proceaa This letter represents the first effort by a core

group copoling the Nyanza Citizen bull Advisory CDfllflittee

Future efforts will focus on desiqn review construction

110nitoring and contingency planning as well u all aspects of

Phase II We i11plore EPA to recognize thh Connittee and

incorporate ita concerns into the lfyanza Superfund Project

Ill

Lee Jil Thomas Auqu1t u 1985

---- Page 12

The Remedy Must Repreaent A Sound Dechion And Result In

Swift Action

NyanBa ranks aa a priority Superfund project which through

a variety of adminhtrative mechanisms has been placed on a

fast track the project haa been phased by splitting it into

two operable unita the authority to select and approve

r~ial action for Phase I has been delegated to the Regional

Adllinhtrator and the procurement of a design contractor and

1Upervilion of desiqn work will be undertaken by DA directly

rather than the u s Arll Cor~ of BnginHtl Aa we understand

i t tbe object of tbHe 1tepa h to allow the ia1uance of a

lecor4 of Deciaion the execution of a federal-atate Superfund

oootract aod the CQIIPletion of deeiqn by Spt-ber 30 1915 in

order that fundi available to c~nce clean-up of Nyanaa can middotmiddot be eaitted thh fiscal year

llltle we applaud and continue to encourage EPA s efforts to

faat track the Nyanaa project all indicationbull are that the

proeeabull 11 betnq forced without due con1ideration for either

the rtqhtl of the public or the merit l of the remedy we

reiterate EPA I fina l dechion anu1t be sound u well as i ts

act t oni 1vift

AI d h CUI I ed above it h the Town bull firm contention that

no alternative short of a secure landfill can constitute a

1ound decision Inu11uch u EPA s present capping and

-I con1olidatlon propo1al repre1ent1 the reconmendation of one

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

Ill

Lee Jil Thomas Auqu1t u 1985

---- Page 12

The Remedy Must Repreaent A Sound Dechion And Result In

Swift Action

NyanBa ranks aa a priority Superfund project which through

a variety of adminhtrative mechanisms has been placed on a

fast track the project haa been phased by splitting it into

two operable unita the authority to select and approve

r~ial action for Phase I has been delegated to the Regional

Adllinhtrator and the procurement of a design contractor and

1Upervilion of desiqn work will be undertaken by DA directly

rather than the u s Arll Cor~ of BnginHtl Aa we understand

i t tbe object of tbHe 1tepa h to allow the ia1uance of a

lecor4 of Deciaion the execution of a federal-atate Superfund

oootract aod the CQIIPletion of deeiqn by Spt-ber 30 1915 in

order that fundi available to c~nce clean-up of Nyanaa can middotmiddot be eaitted thh fiscal year

llltle we applaud and continue to encourage EPA s efforts to

faat track the Nyanaa project all indicationbull are that the

proeeabull 11 betnq forced without due con1ideration for either

the rtqhtl of the public or the merit l of the remedy we

reiterate EPA I fina l dechion anu1t be sound u well as i ts

act t oni 1vift

AI d h CUI I ed above it h the Town bull firm contention that

no alternative short of a secure landfill can constitute a

1ound decision Inu11uch u EPA s present capping and

-I con1olidatlon propo1al repre1ent1 the reconmendation of one

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

Lee N Thomas Auguat u 198 5

- Pogo 13

office it remains subject to review rejection and revision by

EPA pr09ram divisions EPA Reqional Administrator Michael

Deland and perhaps ultimately by EPA Headquarters The State

throu9h DIQE h likewise in a position to reject EPA s preaent

propoaal and to require a more permanent and protective

r~ we are confident that independent review by each of

thHe authorities will lead to the conclusion that PAa

cawiD9 aDd conaolidation propoaal repreaeata an ill-founded

aDd iDdefeoaible decilion and that _t the very lellt a

oecnaro laMfill 1o required

thank you for your consideration of our c~tbull and

1- forward to -rkinq dili9ont1y with IPA ud DBQB to roach a

-ua with rnpect to the clean-up of the llyanampa aite

Sincerely

~~~e~vo c-Itt Alhland Mvocatea r A Clean lnvironll8ftt

r

cc

llichaol a Deland US Env1roMI8Dtal Protection Agency

Alh ar4 of Health

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

Lee K Thomabull AUI)Uit 14 1915 Page 14

Paulu~i x_~~onMntal Protection Agency

Merrill S Hohman us Environmental Protection Agency

John Moebebull us EnviromMntal Protection Agency

J A Hoyte Secretary M Executive Office of Environmental Affa i rbull

a Rubullbullell Sylva M DepartMnt of Environmental Quality Engineering

-middot r llcLoughllnmiddot M DepartMnt of EnviroiUI8ntal Quality Engineering

Willdop~~tBJmiddotBnviroantal Quality Engineering

) Willibull r Cbullbullbull

M DepartMnt of BnvirODMntal Quality Engineering

J-CO~ M DepartMnt of bvirollll8ntal Quality lnqineering

David ~tt hq ~ IDviroantal Defen1e PUn4

COD4Jrbullbullan Oleeter G Atkinbull

lenator Bdvard L lurke

Reprebullentative Andrew s bullataiol

COngrebullbullan Joeeph D Early

lenator Edvard K JCennedy

Senator J ohn r JCerry

Reprebullentative David P Kagnani

Reprebullentative Barbara 1 Gray

Repreaentative Lucille P Micka

lenator Carol C Aaick

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985

Lee M Thomas Auqust u 1915 Page lli

Reprebullentative Silvio 0 Conte

Congrebullan Thomas P ONeill Jr

Congrebull81NJ1 Barney Prank

Congrebullan ldvar4 J Markey

1. barcode 577985
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 577985