The number of actual areas of concern far outnumbered the potential areas of concern. Concerns based on test hole measurements of toxics and toxic migration, soil sample measurements of radioactivity, and historic documentation are not "potential" areas of concern, they are all very real and actual concerns. Yet, in the KAPL CERCLA submittal, essentially all areas, potential and actual, were deleted from consideration. This is precisely why the KAPL falsification of the CERCLA submittal is so obvious.
The EPA's "understanding", whatever that means, that discrepancies were resolved by NYSDEC is not compelling, nor consistent with the first EPA response that indicated the allegations of falsification are serious in nature and of great concern to your agency. Apparently, they are not so serious that the EPA should bother to legitimately investigate them first hand. Rather, the EPA relies on NYSDEC which has failed to respond directly themselves, as requested by Governor Patacki, but instead forwarded the matter to the EPA. We are shocked that in this serious matter you would rely on such heresy. Please be advised that the NYSDEC is part of the problem, not part of the solution. That is precisely why we made the allegations directly to EPA Administrator Whitman.
OCT 29 2001
Mr. John P. Shannon
Physicist/Nuclear Engineer
262 John Road
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Mr. Robert G. Stater, P.E.
Nuclear Engineer
105 Pashley Road
Scotia, New York 12302
Re: Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Niskayuna, New York 12303
Dear Mr. Shannon and Mr. Stater:
Your letter of August 27, 2001 to Acting Region 2 Administrator William Muszynski, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regarding possible falsification of documents submitted by the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL), Niskayuna, New York has been forwarded to me for reply. An earlier letter from you dated May 18, 2001 alleged that 1988 site assessment documents submitted by KAPL to EPA were falsified and claimed that KAPL qualified for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) based on 1986 documents that had not been submitted by KAPL.
In your most recent letter to us, you state that substantial additional information provided by the facility at our request subsequent to the 1988 documents is "invalid" because the NPL evaluation of the site was performed without our knowledge of the original document entitled "Status of CERCLA Reviews at KAPL Sites - January 1986."
As a result of your allegations, EPA has obtained a copy of the 1986 report from KAPL as (although you provided your own analytical summary of that report with your earlier letter) you did not provide the report itself. A review of this 1986 document along with additional correspondence (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) letter of January 30, 1989 referred to below) and discussions with KAPL indicate that this was a preliminary report which speculated on potential areas of concern in addition to identifying actual areas of hazardous waste contamination. Subsequently, many of the potential areas of concern in the subject report were not confirmed in further investigative work. For example, Point 4 of your August 27 letter states that "landfill operators in two separate interviews... verify historic documentation about the presence of hundreds of deeply buried 55 gallon drums in the KAPL land disposal area, many containing radioactive sludge." However, in 1988, investigations were performed that were unable to confirm the presence of the drums alleged. Furthermore, neither written documentation nor additional employee interviews could substantiate the presence of the drums. Hence, this alleged drum area was not included in the 1988 CERCLA submittal as it was determined to not he an area of concern.
In addition, NYSDEC reviewed both the original 1986 and later 1988 submittal and its review (NYSDEC letter dated January 30, 1989) noted to KAPL many discrepancies (similar to the ones you raise) between the two documents. That review was conducted by NYSDEC in processing KAPL's application for a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B Permit for the site. It is our understanding that these discrepancies were satisfactorily resolved, a RCRA Part B permit was subsequently issued in July 1998, and necessary RCRA corrective actions have been or are being taken (equivalent to those that might he taken under CERCLA) with NYSDEC oversight.
For more specific information pertaining to RCRA permit/corrective action activities, please contact:
Mr. Thomas Cullen, Regional Engineer
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
1150 North Westcott Road
Schenectady. New York 12306
(518) 357-2045
Based on the information available to us, we do not deem that re-evaluation for the NPL. is warranted.
Should you continue to believe that KAPL has falsified information, we suggest that you direct this matter to the Department of Energy (DOE) Inspector General (IG). The DOE office of the IG maintains a hotline to facilitate the reporting of allegations of fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement in DOE programs or operations. You [May call the IG hotline at (202) 586-4073 or (800) 541-1625 or send a letter to:
US. DOE, Office of the IG
ATTN: IG Hotiine
1000 Independence Ave SW
Mailstop 5D-031
Washington, D.C. 20585.
You may also send an e-mail to IGHOTLINE@HQ.DOE.GOV or send a FAX to (202) 586-4902.
If you have any questions regarding this letter please. contact Helen Shannon of my staff at (212) 637-4260.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
cc: M. O'Toole. NYSDEC
R. Marino, NYSDEC
T. CuIlen, NYSDEC