110115SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES

ATTORNEYS AT LAW7TH FLOOR. ROBERT MORRIS BUILDING

10O.NORTH 17TH STREETROBERT J. SUGARMAN PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 1 9103ALAN M. KAPLAN 215-864-25OO • FAX: 21 5-864-2501SUSANNE I. GIENDL"

KEVIN M. STACKLEGAL ASSISTANT•NOT ADMITTED TO PRACTICEIN PENNSYLVANIA

June 2, 1992

Cecil Rodriguez,. Esquire.U.S.E.P.A. Region III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:

This will follow up on our conversation in the Court House onJune 2, relative to the cover-up and mishandling of the C&D site"investigation". I am enclosing a copy of my letter of today toMr. Erickson, in which I spell out the current status of thegroundwater problem. I am also enclosing a copy of a Brief inSupport of Cover-up which I have filed with Congressman Kanjorski.Congressman Kanjorski requested this written documentation at ameeting in Freeland which EPA was requested to attend, but electedto send only an observer.

I am also enclosing a copy of my letter of March GP, 1992 toMarcia Mulkey.

You state that our allegations are vague. I would appreciateyour calling to my attention any document in which "vagueallegations" appear, and I would be happy to provide additionaldocumentation. I would note that my letter to Mr. Towle, copy toyou, dated February 9, is some five pages long, and that I have yetto receive a response.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Sugarmaa

RJS:erEnclosureer-rhr92\rodrigue.602

V ">.v> ? '-.

V *. C :• 'ir, • 1 _ V ! . ^̂ 4-i-r, ,i- r«^l4^

SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATESATTORNEYS AT LAW

7TH FLOOR. ROBERT MORRIS BUILDING1OO NORTH 17TH STREET

ROBERT J. SUGARMAN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1 9103ALAN M. KAPLAN 215-864-25OO • FAX 215-864-25O1SUSANNE I. GIENDL*

KEVIN M. STACKLEGAL ASSISTANT•NOT AOMITTOS TO PBACTCIIN PENNSYLVANIA

June 2, 1992

Mr. Edwin EricksonU.S. EPA Region III841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107

RE: C&D. Site

Dear Mr. Erickson:

I am writing on behalf of the residents who are the victims ofthe contamination of their well water by substances such as lead,selenium, arsenic, and cadmium, at the C&D Site in Foster TownshipLuzerne County. You are well aware of the Site, and we understandthat your Project Manager has concluded that there is no well watercontamination from site activities.

However, we are also aware that your office made thatconclusion based on serious misinformation or noninformationconcerning the site, and it is the intention of this letter tobring that information to you, and to request that immediatelyinvoke an emergency response pursuant to §106 of the Superfund Act.

Specifically, we have identified a direct, active andcontinuing pathway for contaminated material presently on the Siteto enter and affect the groundwater quality at the nearbyresidential wells of my clients.

We have analyzed the remainders of the ash pile immediatelybehind the main C&D building. We have found that the ash pileincludes selenium at 1,000 ug/k,. arsenic at 5,000, lead at 250,000mg/k, copper at 29,000, cadmium at 7.6, thallium at 130, mercury at.50, and antimony at 140. A copy of the laboratory analyses isenclosed. This includes the Wright Labs and Lancaster LaboratoriesCLP Analyses, and the Ledoux Lab analyses for arsenic and selenium,because interference prevented a good sample in the furnace method,and Ledoux Labs utilized gas chromatography, the mostsophisticated, capable, and appropriate methodology. The copiesare attached as Exhibits A-l, A-2, and A-3.

&R503108

SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES

Mr. Edwin EricksonPerge' 2June 2, 1992

2. The ash pile directly drains into a drain system whichterminates at a leach pit, located immediately to the front of theC&D building. This leach pit intrudes at least twenty-two feetbelow the surface, and potentially intersects the groundwatersystem at time of high water table; at other times, it clearly iscapable of leaching immediately into the groundwater in areas knownto have vertical fractures. Enclosed as Exhibit "B" is a copy ofa plan of the leach pit and associated drainage, which AT&T and itsconsultant have withheld from EPA since 1986.

3. The state hydrogeologist, John Mellow, has testified thatin the "northern portion of the site" in the vicinity of_.the leachpit, there is substantial evidence of transmission of water fromthe "shallow aquifer" to the "deep aquifer". This sworn testimonywill shortly be available in written form. Your hydrogeologist hasnever denied this connection. EPA's consultants, NUS, Weston TAT,and CH2M Hill, have also evaluated the hydrogeology andacknowledged the transmission of water from the upper to the lowerzones in the northern portion of the site. Even AT&T's consultanthas not denied a connection in this area of the site.

4. The "lower aquifer" is flowing at a elevation ofapproximately 1500 feet about sea level near the C&D building,according to the remedial investigation. The wells of my clients,the Rocks, Rohrbachs, Cenzars, and Obersts, are all drawing fromthe groundwater at an elevation of approximately 1400 - 1450 feet,in the dispersion direction, approximately \ mile to h mile away.This is a gradient within that water zone of about 3%, consistentwith the topography and the rock formations. Thus, it is likely ifnot certain that water in that aquifer at the C&D building will beavailable to and drawn into those wells. Our hydrogeologist has soconcluded, and a copy of his letter is attached hereto as Exhibit»C" .

5. The families in question have been suffering fromphysical illnesses which are typical of 'selenium, arsenic, and leadpoisoning for ten years, and continued to suffer untiL theycompletely eliminated the use of their well water in mid 1991 atthe suggestion of our medical expert, Dr. Elaine Panitz, M.D. Atthat time, she advised that the well water was an apparent cause ofillness, whether absorbed dermaly, inhaled, or ingested. Uponcessation of bathing and washing in the well water, severalsymptoms disappeared. However, long-term evidence of contaminationsuch as are found in the hair, urine and blood, have been

&R503!

SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES

Mr. Edwin EricksonPage-3June 2, 1992

identified, and specifically selenium, arsenic, cadmium and leadhave been found. Copies of two of the hair and urine reportsshowing arsenic and selenium are attached hereto as Exhibit "D".

Some of the information provided to you herein has previouslybeen provided to you or to your agency. Most of it has beenavailable to AT&T at all relevant times, and the remainder wasgathered during the RI process.

Based on the foregoing, we make the following requests:

1. Invoke Section 106 emergency response authority toprovide a substitute source of drinking water.

2. Reopen the Towle finding of no contamination ofgroundwater by site activities.

3. Refer the suppression of information relating to theexistence of the leaching system, the materials sent to the Site,and valid sampling data withheld from EPA, to the criminalinvestigations divisions of EPA.

4. Request the EPA Inspector General to investigate how theAgency could have allowed a Work Plan not in compliance with SARAto be approved in the first place, and why the Superfund office hascontinued to approve AT&T's submissions even after being informedof the suppressed information. This question has been pending withMs. Mulkey since March.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Robert J. x^Sugarman

RJS:er

cr-rhr92\eri kson.522

HR503MO

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COVER-UPHISTORY AT C&D RECYCLING.FREELAND. PENNSYLVANIA

The C&D site was utilized by AT&T for approximately eighteen

years to dispose of some materials and reclaim others. Over time,

the mix of materials shifted from lead sheathed cable to a wide

variety of cables and other telephone equipment. The processes

employed throughout the years included incineration, melting,

cutting and open burning. The constituent materials processed

included not only copper and lead, but a wide variety of highly

toxic heavy metals and other materials which were either alloys or

known impurities of the cable. Included in these other materials

were PCB's, polyvinyl chloride, vinyl chloride, arsenic, mercury,

selenium, cadmium, antimony, and thallium, and probably beryllium.

The site operated through a long history of concealment and

misrepresentation as to its activities and the materials it

processed. This misrepresentation included specific commitments to

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) not to

process lead or PVC, as well as failure to identify both substances

they did process and the discharge products of these substances.

Pennsylvania DER inspectors were misinformed on a routine basis;

and while they wrote up several violations and secured one criminal

conviction, they basically were kept in the dark about what was

going on at the site. Indeed, DER personnel were falsely told that

there was no water discharge, concealing both a drain outlet and a

leach pit.

As the nature of the materials and AT&T's agenda shifted; the

emphasis changed drastically from predominantly recovering

AR503I1 I

materials and discarding impurities to disposing of unwanted cable,

with only incidental materials recovery (of copper and lead).

Thus, in the later years the toxic character of the material

shipped to the site increased even though the gross volume of

shipment to the site declined.

In 1984 and 1985, DER investigated the site under its

hazardous site response jurisdiction. It documented the presence

of all of the above-mentioned toxic metals in the soil, water, and

sediments on and around the site. DER was unable to draw many

conclusions, in part because it had no jurisdiction to compel AT&T

to produce information as to the materials shipped to and processed

at the site, in part because it received false information from the

site operator, and in part because of the complexity of the

technical facts involved. Yet, DER did draw the conclusion that

heavy metals in the well water were public health hazards. On that

basis, DER referred the site to EPA for listing in the National

Superfund priority system.(1) DER provided EPA with its sampling

results, and EPA dispatched its initial consultants, NUS Corp., to

evaluate the site. Both the DER results and the EPA consultants

concluded that there was a proliferation of hazardous materials

around the site and in the groundwater.(2,3) As a result, EPA's

consultant provided the preliminary hazardous assessment in August

1987, stating that the site represented a health hazard as a result

of elevated levels of heavy metals in the soil and water.

In the meantime, EPA had attempted to secure information from

AT&T as to the material sent to the site. AT&T covered up the

AR5Q3I 12

delivery of PCB's, PVC, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, antimony,

thallium, mercury, and radioactive materials. Instead, it

repeatedly merely and falsely reported plastics, copper and

lead.(4) It referred EPA to documentation consisting of a box of

handwritten notes and other minimum material from its files. It

did not provide EPA with its inventory list showing the amount of

toxic lead on the site in 1980 - 1985 (exerpts attached 5) , and

instead misrepresented lead was not shipped to the site after

1979.(6)

II. CONCEALMENT OF SITE CONDITIONS

AT&T requested that EPA delete findings of hazardous

conditions from its proposed consent order, arguing that such

findings would assist in citizens suits.(7) Ultimately, AT&T

persuaded EPA to delete those findings and to establish a Remedial

Investigation program which violated the Superfund Act

reauthorization amendments (SARA) of 1986.(8)

The Remedial Investigation work plan violated the law in that

it fails to adequately provide for documentation of hazards from

site induced conditions.(9) This failing was documented by EPA's

consultant in their review of the proposed work plan, whereupon EPA

requested that the consultant delete that documentation from its

review.(10)

AT&T insured that the work plan was deficient in failing to

require sampling far enough off-site to determine the extent of

soil pollution. Instead, it allowed AT&T to test only in two

fiR503l 13

directions and only to a very limited extent. This was based on

AT&T's successful effort to persuade the EPA to limit the Remedial

Investigation to the "site", and not to the "facility", contrary to

SARA'S requirements. (11)

Having successfully avoided a requirement to establish the

extent of soil contamination, AT&T misrepresented the nature and

extent of the materials sent to the site, and failed to establish

genuine soil background levels. Based on the failure to establish

background levels and the concealment of the materials sent to the

site, as shown above, AT&T used these coverups to argue to EPA that

the level of metals and other materials found in the samples

represented background levels or resulted from unrelated other

causes. Specifically, AT&T consultants contended in the Remedial

Investigation Report that elevated levels of metals in drinking

water were due to "aggressive water" attributable to alleged mine

drainage, which allegedly loosened metals in the natural rock.

(12) In addition, AT&T argued that PCB's found in site related

sediments were potentially the result of previous road oiling

activities which they speculated may have utilized PCB oil. (13)

Finally, as an example, AT&T argued that elevated levels of lead in

wells were potentially attributable to household plumbing. (14)

These speculative arguments of AT&T's reflected efforts to

explain away obvious anomalies, i.e., the abnormal presence of

these materials either in amount or in nature.

By covering up the fact that its processes entail the presence

of these materials in the components handled at the site as well as

flR503i \k

in the emissions and discharges from the processes, AT&T points its

finger in other directions without contradiction.

For its part, EPA either elected to remain deliberately

ignorant of these conditions, or refused to deal with those which

were called to its attention. When EPA was furnished with a list

of materials generated by AT&T in the same cable at sites in South

Carolina, EPA took no action. (15) When EPA was furnished with

data showing that AT&T had failed to present the results of its

sampling to EPA, EPA took no action. (16)

To complement its misleading characterization of the site

activities and materials to be concerned about, AT&T minimized the

scope of its testing and analysis, so as to further reduce the

disclosure of the effect of site activities.

First, AT&T selected soils horizons calculated to maximally

dilute the lead levels on the site. Refusing consistently to

follow the request of EPA, citizen representatives, and its own

Soil Sampling Plan which requires testing at the surface, (44) that

lead be tested at the surface (where it is known to remain), AT&T

insisted on sampling a mixture of the top six inches of soil, or

more, thus drastically diluting the findings.(17)

AT&T also took precautions to minimize the findings of

contamination by removing or concealing the major hot spots which

inhibited a rational determination of the proliferation of

pollutants prior to testing. In November 1987, under the guise of

"erosion control" AT&T removed and "reshaped" the channel̂ 'of the

drainage soil which drained the site discharges, prior to taking

-AR5Q34I5-"

samples of its sediments. Donna McCartney's (EPA) questioning of

"field change without prior notice" was deep-sixed.(37)

AT&T understood the implication of this channel. In Gaston,

South Carolina, at AT&T's own facility, the South Carolina

authorities had successfully fined AT&T for using a drainage system

draining its site activity area to remove pollutants, rather than

for stormwater, as AT&T claimed.(18)

By contrast, in Freeland, Pennsylvania, AT&T was able to get

into the site and, on the pretext of erosion control, to completely

reshape the channel of an area which was not a subject of erosion

concern at all, prior to testing it. Fortunately, prior testing

done by DER and EPA preserved enough samples of that original swale

to corroborate the chain and trail of pollution.(19) However, AT&T

excluded that information from its Remedial Investigation report

because it induced EPA to agree to inclusion in the report only of

that data that met AT&T's application of EPA's quality control

criteria.(20) Thus, knowingly or not, EPA had agreed to exclude

from the analysis the data which represented the smoking gun; AT&T

thereby disfigured and discarded the same smoking gun.

AT&T also acted through concealment; it ignored, disregarded,

and concealed the presence of a leach pit. Instead, it

misrepresented the drainage system as moving the material to the

lower end of the site, in the area of the swale which it had

disfigured.(45) The leach pit was a major disposal facility for

process water, and which was highly contaminated.(21) Most

significantly, the leach pit represented the typical source of

AJR503I 16,

groundwater contamination; the drainage pipes which carried water

to the dry well carried processed polluted water, consisting of

rain washed through the process area as well as water sprayed on

the metal to cool it after burning. As such, this major disposal

facility represents a clear pathway to groundwater for two reasons:

first, it places the material 23 feet below the surface, and thus

that much closer to or below the groundwater table (the depth at

that location was never determined in the Remedial Investigation).

Second, since the leach pit is a confined underground storage area,

the toxic metals had no place to go other than to leach down into

the groundwater below. Thus, either through groundwater levels

rising during high water times, or through leaching, vertically and

laterally, the leach pit was and is a major source of potential

contamination of the groundwater. Standard operating procedure in

remedial investigations called for the identification of such

underground vaults and their investigation as a top priority. In

fact, the use of underground vaults to "dispose" of pollutants is

one of the primary evils which Superfund was created to deal with.

AT&T thus had exclusive control of the full range of heavy

metals which had been processed on-site, and the dispersion of

those materials in different ways into the environment. AT&T

concealed the presence of the other metals, such as arsenic,

selenium and cadmium, which behave in very different ways from lead

and copper under heat. While lead and copper tend to remain

unvolatilized and to remain close to the source, the other metals

tend to volatilize and are found at greater distances. AT&T

AR503I17

excluded further consideration of those materials halfway through

the Remedial Investigation, after finding that those materials at

elevated levels in areas farther from the site. AT&T was thus able

to avoid resolution of the suspicion that these materials had

dispersed in dangerous amounts onto surrounding areas. By focusing

on copper and lead, which dispersed to a much narrower area, and

testing for them exclusively, AT&T was able to falsely argue that

no metals had dispersed widely from the site.

AT&T then represented to EPA that off-site findings from the

earlier tests of material such as selenium and arsenic (1988

sampling) in fact represented background levels.(38)

The cover-up extended to successfully resisting citizen

demands relating to many of these matters. To the extent they knew

of them, the citizens had attempted to bring many of these matters

to EPA's attention from the time they learned of AT&T's intended

Work Plan. As early as February 1988, four months after the

consent decree became known, the citizens petitioned EPA for an

opportunity to (22) comment on the Work Plans (which at that time

was under wraps).(46) AT&T falsely informed the citizens that the

work plan had already been approved (23), and EPA took no action

whatsoever. As the citizens continued to complain about some of

the foregoing matters, the AT&T and EPA took no notice, until the

intervention of elected officials brought about a large meeting to

which EPA upper management attended.f

As a result of that meeting, the senior EPA official present,

Bruce Smith, wrote a memorandum to his subordinates in which he

8

4R503I18

agreed with many of the citizens points, concluded the Agency's

performance had been poor, and specifically identified many of the

factors set forth above as evidence of an inadequate investigation.

(24) He directed that the Agency change the nature of the

investigation.(24)

Little action was taken in response to Smith's directive. One

month later, the EPA project manager, having been transferred out

of the project, wrote a memorandum explaining the status of the

response to the directives (25). This response was false and

misleading in numerous respects. It indicated that things were

going to be done which the Agency had no intention of doing, and

did not do (such as dust wipes of homes), and indicated that the

citizens had agreed to the deletion of other requirements to which

deletion the citizens had never agreed. Among other things, the

request and directive to do dust wipes was never disposed of. A

memo was written to the toxicology branch requesting consideration

of dust wipes, but the memorandum was withheld by EPA from the

public, although it was produced to AT&T.(26) In fact, the items

25 and 26 were also withheld from citizens, but produced to AT&T.

A request for an explanation as to the reason for the withholding,

and the production of that file under P.O. I. A. has not been

responded to by EPA.(39)

EPA continued to turn its head to this and other information

as submitted to it on a consistent basis.

AT&T also minimized the characterization of the problem by

selective and misleading interpretation of data that it did

AR503I19

acquire. For example, it continuously misrepresented selenium as

not being present, when in fact, the material appeared to be

present, but could not be definitely ascertained because the test

process was inadequate. This occurred both in soil and in water.

Specifically, the results of soil sample C-8 taken in June of 1988

were omitted from Table 3-13b of the RI; and the selenium results

for October, 1988 ground water sample were also not reported in the

RI Table 3-37, although AT&T possessed this information. (27, 28)

AT&T withheld also test results indicating the presence of

selenium altogether in July, 1989, only reporting copper and lead

results.(43)

EPA'S ACTIVE COLLABORATION IN THE COVER UP

After August of 1989, EPA closed its eyes to the inadequacies

which Mr. Bruce Smith (the EPA supervisor) had identified, but did

not merely go back to sleep. On the contrary, EPA became a

vigorous collaborator with AT&T in minimizing any site impacts.

Having been convinced by AT&T's inadequate data and

interpretations, EPA became an advocate for AT&T. While admitting

to residents that they had unusual water contamination, EPA

contended that it had no idea where the contamination came from.

Meanwhile, it secretly informed AT&T, prior to circulation and

comment on the draft RI, that it had decided that groundwater was

not affected.(30) This violated its commitments and the statute,

and has been covered up by EPA, which falsely claims it considered

public expert comments before forming conclusions.

10

AR503I20

Region III of EPA has jurisdiction over at least four other

Superfund sites which handled AT&T Metals: Revere Chemical in

Bucks County and Eastern Diversified Metal Site in Carbon County,

Helera Landfill in Whitehall, Pennsylvania, Maryland Sand, Gravel

& Stone in Elkton, Maryland, and Novak Sanitary Landfill in Lehigh

County, Pennsylvania. (40) EPA Region III also has or had

jurisdiction over the Amax site near Patterson, New Jersey, which

was a major AT&T metal processing site until the 1970's, and has

had serious pollution problems. Thus, EPA had adequate basis for

evaluating the presence of heavy metals, and their relationship to

the site activities. At the Revere Chemical site, for example,

study show that the same heavy metals were present in the processed

trenches.(31)

When these matters were brought to EPA's attention, they

adamantly refused to consider them. Letters addressed to EPA in

1991 and 1992 either went unanswered, or were not responded to.

(15, 16, 32, 33, 34) Instead, EPA allowed AT&T to complete the

remedial investigation and feasibility studies for remediation on

the basis that only copper and lead were the metals of concern. It

also allowed AT&T to estimate lead concentrations based on the six

inch samples. (17) This bias virtually guaranteed an inadequate

Feasibility Study. It also guaranteed a meaningless Risk

Assessment.

Commencing in 1990, EPA began not merely to support AT&T, but

to take the lead in collaborating with AT&T. In December 1990, EPA

officials (anonymous) issued an anonymous statement that EPA had

11

AR503I2I

data generated by AT&T. To the contrary, EPA's data validation

teams consistently characterized the AT&T reports on heavy metals

as biased low, biased extremely low.(47) In addition, EPA's data

validation team pointed out numerous cases in which the reported

data was not within quality controls.(48)

5. The document states that EPA has studied the site. In

fact, AT&T has been allowed to make an advocacy analysis of site

conditions, selectively choosing only the data it wishes to select.

6. The document states that soil off-site does not contain

lead in quantities meriting concern. In fact, on the insistence of

Congressman Kanjorski, EPA acquired data in December 1991 expressly

showing that lead is present in off-site soils (when sampled at the

proper horizon) at levels of concern by EPA's own definition.(42)

Even selenium was found.

7. The document states that AT&T brought to the site copper,

lead, and plastic. In fact, as stated above, EPA has been in

possession of documentation for some time, supplied by citizens,

showing that AT&T brought to the site, in addition to copper, lead,

and plastic, PVC, PCB's, selenium, arsenic, cadmium, antimony,

beryllium, thallium, mercury, and radioactive materials. In March

1992 AT&T submitted new "confidential" documentation of materials

sent to the site.

In issuing its April 1992 "Update", EPA has directly placed

itself in the position of maintaining, perpetuating, and advocating

information which it absolutely, clearly knows to be false,

misleading, and detrimental to public health and safety. It is

13

AR503I22

knowingly endangering the health of hundreds of persons in the area

of the CSeD site as well as the long-term environment of the area.

If it is successful, it is paving the way for a cover up of

proportions comparable in degree to those employed at the

Stringfellow, California site which were a trademark of the

Gorsuch-Lavelle administration of Superfund.

The SARA amendments were intended by Congress to place

specific study and action requirements on EPA to remove the

opportunity for political and personal self-serving actions to

cover up pollution that endanger the public health. Unfortunately,

under the present Superfund management as applied to the C&D site,

these requirements have only acted to force the regulators and

consultants to generate thicker and thicker reports in order to

make enough little cover up decisions to end up in a bigger cover

up. Obviously, Congressional review of this tendency is necessary.

If this Country is not going to face up to the massive cost of

achieving the mandated requirements of the Superfund act for real

cleanup, then Congress and the public are the ones to make the

14

BR503I23

decision to alter the standards; the standards should not be

altered by duplicitous EPA and PRP shell games.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT J. SUGARMANSpecial Solicitor forroster Township,Luzerne County Pennsylvania

OF COUNSEL:

SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES7TH FLOOR, ROBERT MORRIS BUILDING100 NORTH 17TH STREETPHILADELPHIA, PA 19101(215) 864-2500er-rhr92\bri ef.sup

May 27, 1992

15

Footnotes to Brief in Support ofCover-up History at C&D Recycling,

Freeland. Pennsylvania

. Description

Document No. Date

1 Letter from Nicholas DeBenedicts, Secretary, 4/30/86Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources(DER), to Honorable James Seif, Regional AdministratorU.S.E.P.A. (A 000520).

2 Memorandum from Mark Tucker and Chris Whallen, 4/10/86Weston Sper, regarding C&D Recycling Trip Reporton April 3-7, 1986 (E009904-E007918)

3 Field Trip Report of CSD Recycling prepared by 8/21/87NUS Corporation (031181-031297)

4 Remedial Investigation Work Plan Section 2.1 2/88Site Location and Description (E002350-E002353)

5 AT&T/Nassau Metals Corp. (Nassau) Inventory 81-85Consigned to C&D (A 22606-A22751)

6 Remedial Investigation Work Plan Section 2.1 2/88Site Location and Description and Section 2.2Chronology (E 002350-E002358)

7 Memorandum From Carol Stokes-Cawley, CERCLA 10/24/86Remedial Enforcement Section, U.S.E.P.A.regarding Meeting with AT&T/Nassau MetalsRegarding C&D Recycling Site (101556-101557)

8 Letter from Donna M. McCartney, Project Manager, 2/10/88U.S.E.P.A., to Jeff Orient, NUS Corporation(102271-102273)

9 Final Preliminary Assessment Report of C&D 12/2/87Recycling prepared by NUS Corporation (E002318-E002336)

10 Letter from Donna M. McCartney, Project Manager, 2/10/88U.S.E.P.A., to Jeff Orient, NUS Corporation(102271-102273

11 Edited Draft of Remedial Investigation Work Planpages 1-51.

12 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 4-20 3/8/91to 4-21

&R503I25

13 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 4-11 3/8/91to 4-17

14 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 4-19 3/8/91to 4-20

15 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., Sugarman 2/11/92& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.

16 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq. Sugarman 3/16/92& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.

17 Remedial Investigation Work Plan Section 2/883.2.3.5Sampling Methodology (E002448-E002449)

t, 18 Letter from Stephen Thomas, Water Quality 5/18/84Assessment and Enforcement Division,South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control to Larry Lewallen,Nassau Recycle Corp. (N015975-N015998)

19 Final Draft Remedial Investigation Appendix A 3/8/91Section A.7 PADER April 9, 1985 Sampling

20 Final Draft Remedial Investigation Section 3/8/911.2.3 Previous Investigations

21 Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Figure 1, 3/89Additional and Soil Sampling On-Site, 8/24/66March 1989, Robert A. Bosak (101797)

•* 22 Letter from Sharon Rohrbach, President, 2/10/88Concerned Citizens of Foster Township CCFT,to Nancy Smith, Public Affairs, AT&T(A001006-A001007)

1 23 Letter from Nancy Smith, Public Affairs, 2/25/88AT&T, to Sharon Rohrbach, President, CCFT(N001714-N001715)

24 Memorandum from Bruce P. Smith, Chief, Hazardous 6/30/89Wasted Enforcement Branch, U.S. E.P.A., to GreggCrystall, Chief PA CERCLA Section, U.S.E.P.A.(E009104-E009105)

25 Memorandum from Donna M. McCartney, SE PA 8/7/89Remedial Section, U.S.E.P.A., to C&D File(E0098318-E009327)

26 Memorandum from D. McCartney to B. Steuteville ofof 7/21/89 removed note (101741)

27 Compu Chem Laboratories Form 1 Inorganics 10/26/88Analysis Date Sheet for Sample No. SOIL-G8, 3/8/91

and Final Draft Remedial Investigationpage 3-87

28 Compu Chem Laboratories Form 1 Inorganics AnalysisData Sheets for Sample Nos. MW-3-2, MW-8-2, MW-4A-2,

, MW-4-2, MW-1-2, MW-6-2, MW-5-2, MW-3F-2, MW-8F-2,MW-4AF-2, MW-4F-2, MW-4F-2, MW-4F-2, MW-1F-2, MW-6F-2,MW-5F-2, dated 10/20/88, and Final Draft RemedialInvestigation pages 3-220 to 3-221

29 Intentional blank

30 Telephone Log from Bill Neubeck call fromMike Towle regarding AT&T and C&D (049524)

31 Revere Chemical Site, Metals, Cyanide, and TotalOrganic Carbon Data Split Sample Comparisons forSoil (AR 300807-AR 300818)

32 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., Sugarman 11/20/91& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.

33 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., Sugarman 12/10/91& Associates, to Michael Towle, U.S.E.P.A.

34 Letter from Michael Towle, Remedial Project 1/29/92Manager, U.S.E.P.A to Robert J. Sugarman,Sugarman & Associates

35 EPA, Region III Superfund Update Sheet, C&D 12/90Recycling Site

36 EPA, Region III Fact Sheet on C&D Recycling 4/92Superfund Site

37 Report of Telephone Conversation by Donna 6/29/88McCartney and Gregg Crystall, U.S.E.P.A.with Larry Elder, AT&T (E008335)

38 Final Draft Remedial Investigation pages 3/8/913-109 to 3-111

39 Letter from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., 3/19/92Sugarman & Associates, to U.S.E.P.A.,Freedom of Information Office

40 Document requested from U.S.E.P.A., Region III,on May 6, 1992. Copy has not been received tothe date of this brief.

41 U.S.E.P.A., Region III, Determination of 1/9/92Regional Counsel, Marcia Mulkey.

42 Intentional Blank

AR503127

43 Final Draft Remedial Investigation page 3/8/913-97 to 3-99, 3-164, 3-45, 3-132 to 3-133

44 Remedial Investigation Work PlanSection 3.2.3. Soil Sampling Plan(E002780-002789)

e:\mrgn\ind.ex

1̂ .503128