Franklin and Marshall College submitted a 206 page amended final report to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) late Tuesday afternoon and posted it on its web site yesterday. DEP must act by Tuesday, June 1. Obviously the public does not know about this document and will not be able to read it and comment. I am forwarding to you an e-mail I sent to DEP lawyer about three specific issues we are raising.
Law Office of William J. Cluck
————————
| Jim:
Confirming our conversation this afternoon, we learned yesterday that F&M submitted to DEP and posted on its web site the 206 page amended Final Report. As expected, they did not provide a courtesy copy or include myself or my clients as CC’s on the document. We understand the Department believes it must act on the Final Report by Tuesday June 1. We do not believe the DEP should approve this document because the public has not had adequate opportunity to review the amended submission. In particular, a separate Plain Language Summary was posted on the F&M web site, yet it is not written in a 7th or 8th grade level as required by the DEP’s May 5 letter. Moreover, the purpose of the plain language summary is to enhance the public’s understanding of the project to encourage the public to comment. Since the plain language summary was not posted on the web site until, we assume yesterday, how and in what manner was the public informed of its existence, let alone given time to read it and comment. We are troubled by the section of the amended final report that addresses the drums of hazardous waste found during excavation. At the April 6 public meeting, the Department’s representatives said they were notified of the finding of drums, but did not go to the site. However, the 206 page amended final report now claims DEP came to the site in response to the notification of excavation of the drums. Which is correct? Did DEP go to the site or not? Moreover, ARM only provided two photographs of the drums. Why have they not provided DEP with all of the photos taken of the drums? Finally, ARM describes the process by which they used the PNDI to search for threatened or endangered species. DEP asked if bog turtles were found at the site in its May 5 letter. I am attaching to this e-mail a copy of the relevant portion of the application for categorical exclusion under NEPA prepared by Gannet Fleming (consultant for the project partners) which claims that a phase one bog turtle survey has been prepared. We followed up with the federal Fish and Wildlife Service in State College and were informed by e-mail that Gannet Fleming told them (FWS) that they had no knowledge of this project. This property may be the location where the bog turtle was first discovered as a species. We have provided the historical research to the Department (see Ms Ashworth’s presentation at the April 6 hearing) and believe a phase one bog turtle survey should be performed before there is any further construction. We had assumed ARM would provide DEP with the Gannet Fleming phase one survey, but instead ARM does not even mention the work by Gannet Fleming (and now it appears Gannet Fleming is denying they did such a study). Before DEP acts on the amended final report, we believe it is incumbent upon them to get to the bottom of the bog turtle issue. I trust you will forward this message to Kathy Horvath, Ryan Carr and John Kreuger. Thank you and enjoy your weekend. |
“In particular, a separate Plain Language Summary was posted on the F&M web site, yet it is not written in a 7th or 8th grade level as required by the DEP’s May 5 letter.”
If the lawyers can’t understand what is posted, maybe they could get their paralegals to explain it to them.
lol. Thanks for your attempt at humor. The law required a plain language summary in the remedial investigation and cleanup plans. None was included. The final report that is now under review also did not contain a plain language summary. For the first time ever, the DEP is requiring the project partners to include a plain language summary in the amended report. That summary was posted Tuesday. I have clipped the statutory language for you to read below. Is the purpose of the plain language summary served when it is not part of the document that was made public for comment? DEP is requiring plain language at a 7th or 8th grade level. Obviously the lawyers understand what is in the document. Does the public understand?
Section 901. Plain language.
Remedial investigation, risk assessment, cleanup plans and other reports
and notices required to be submitted to implement the provisions of this act
shall contain a summary or special section that includes a plain language
description of the information included in the report in order to enhance the
opportunity for public involvement and understanding of the remediation
process.
No Bill, I’m sure the public is too stupid to understand what the document says. Thank goodness we have genii, like you (other attorneys), writing ever more legislation to protect us dumb hillbillies.
Cluck is just kicking up dust, creating reasonable doubt, doing what lawyers do. It’s what he’s paid to do. This will come and go and it’s not a big deal.