OLYMPIC ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
3632 O'BRIEN ROAD
PORT ANGELES WA 98362
360-417-0855
4/1/99
Chuck Clarke, Administrator
USEPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
RE: RAYONIER MILL - GOVERNOR'S REQUEST
Dear Mr. Clarke:
On behalf of the citizen PETITIONERS who have been effective in the
past in having EPA Region 10 use its Superfund authorities to conduct
an Expanded Site Inspection of the Rayonier mill facility in Port
Angeles and assessments of three landfills used by Rayonier, I am
writing to formally oppose the recent request by Governor Locke to
you. We vigorously oppose granting the Governor's request to defer
cleanup of this site to the Washington Department of Ecology. We
insist that EPA move forward with the well established process to
list the Rayonier site on the National Priorities List.
For your consideration enclosed is a copy of a new report on the
recent agreement between the Tribe and the state which the Governor
referred to and submitted to you. Because of the substantial, serious
deficiencies in this agreement we are making every attempt to get the
Tribe to rescind this agreement. This report discusses the role that
Region 10 played in causing the Tribe to enter into this agreement.
If necessary, we intend to seek federal investigations into the role
played by Region 10 in undermining its own public case for listing
the Rayonier site and deceiving the Tribe into believing that it had
no choice but to support state control of the cleanup.
First, we emphasize that there is no legal requirement for EPA to
honor the request of the Governor. While the state may not like
making a site an NPL site, it has no legal standing to prevent EPA
from listing a site.
Second, we remind you that you previously made an excellent case for
listing the Rayonier site on the NPL. EPA expended considerable funds
on the PA/ESI and obtained data conforming with well established
requirements for qualifying a site for the NPL. No fact has emerged
to change this situation.
Third, the established EPA guidance for deferring sites away from the
federal Superfund program to state programs, which the Governor
invoked in the official press release, contains several provisions
which should cause Region 10 to reject the Governor's request and
proceed with NPL listing. Most notably the 1995 guidance said:
"If, at any time before a site is deferred to the State, the Region,
after consulting with the State, determines that the community or
other parties have significant, valid objections to the deferral that
cannot be resolved, the Region should not defer the site."
The PETITIONERS -- 15 western WA organizations, Port Angeles
homeowners associations, and numerous individuals representing about
one quarter million WA citizens -- emphatically oppose a deferral of
the Rayonier cleanup to the state of Washington. We have no
confidence whatsoever in the ability of DOE to ensure a cleanup that
in all ways is comparable in scope and quality to that offered under
the federal Superfund program. DOE failed miserably to carry out its
mandate to protect natural resources and human health from Rayonier
contamination when they were independent of Rayonier's money. Why
now, with Rayonier offering to control DOE's purse strongs would DOE
be able to direct Rayonier to do a quality cleanup?
Further, even if the Tribe should maintain its current position, our
opposition to deferral is sufficient to cause Region 10 to deny the
Governor's request. We have every confidence that EPA can provide the
Tribe with all of its needs. Rayonier is a viable responsible party
and EPA can compel the company to provide all necessary funding for
cleanup of the Rayonier mill site that is an NPL site.
Fourth, it is noted that the most recent memorandum from Tim Fields
(July 25, 1997) regarding coordination of NPL listing decisions with
states directed regional offices to "take into account past, ongoing
and planned response actions by the State." PETITIONERS were forced
to bring EPA into the Rayonier situation because of the inability or
unwillingness of the state to prevent and effectively address the
many pollution and contamination problems caused at the Rayonier mill
site. The historical record is crystal clear on this point. An honest
evaluation by EPA would compel it to agree with this perspective.
Fifth, in the recent weeks there has been increasing news and
commentary deploring many aspects of the Department of Ecology,
including a strong editorial including an editorial by the Bellingham
Herald on March 24, 1999. Much of the public criticism of DOE relates
to the ability of polluters to use the state legislature to control
or limit the actions of DOE. (This you know first hand, Mr. Clarke,
as a former DOE Director.) EPA must fully recognize the significance
of statements like: "It's a bad idea to subject our public lands to
control by an agency that has found itself repeatedly under the thumb
of the Legislature." and "even the most well-intentioned Ecology
officials will have trouble taking strong stands in favor of the
environment." and "Ecology is given the responsibility to regulate,
then is not given funding to do its job." and "a department plagued
by cutbacks and lawsuits." To add insult to injury, DOE has just
discovered a $9 million shortfall; hence, they face significantly
more staff cutbacks in addition to those promised by their pending
budget cut by the Legislature, particularly in their toxic waste and
sediment cleanup departments. All this points to the reason DOE has
its hands out for corporate deals like ASARCO and Rayonier, which in
the end strangles DOE, hurts the constituency, and helps effect the
ESA in our state.
Sixth, as of this moment, Ecology has violated its public
participation rules. Once again they have censored Dr. Hirschhorn's
work by refusing to honor his review of the Lower Elwha
Tribe-Department of Ecology Preliminary Agreement under the state
Public Participation Grant. That is a key document needing to be
reviewed by a technical advisor for the citizens. DOE has decided not
to see it as "scientific, technical work." PETITIONERS can not
continue to be exempted from this process. This latest example again
underscores how we will be manipulated throughout the cleanup process
if DOE is allowed to have this project under MTCA.
While we do not expect EPA to publicly criticize the state, we do
expect Region 10 to recognize the unending serious problems at DOE
which are consistent with the long history of the Rayonier mill site
and, therefore, to deny the Governor's request. We note that the
recent letter from the Governor presented no facts or details to
counter the various positions previously articulated by you in making
the case for listing this site. This is a serious flaw by the state
since you commanded such a case be made by DOE if they wanted the
site.
Capitulating to the Governor's request would not be consistent with
DOE problems, including its budget problems, backlog of priority
cleanup sites, and positions regarding sediment cleanups. The
petitioners firmly believe that EPA has no basis for believing that
the state can be trusted to compel Rayonier to perform a
comprehensive, high quality cleanup.
We hope that it will not be necessary to escalate this situation any
further and that Region 10 will do the right thing, and the legally
necessary thing, and respectfully reject the Governor's request.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Schanfald
cc: Tim Fields, EPA headquarters
Robert J Martin, Ombudsman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OEC blasts EPA for underhandedness