Learn the Issues
-
EPA’s Office of General Counsel’s Response to Office of Inspector General’s Final Report
November 27, 2020: EPA’s Office of General Counsel’s Response to Office of Inspector General’s Final Report – “Improved EPA Oversight of Funding Recipients’ Discrimination” – Project No. OA&E-FY19-0357
-
EPA Status Update on RFC 13001
Letter to Mr Mowrey and Mr Zygmont on the Status of RFC 13001 notifying that the draft response is under internal review
-
EPA Response to RFR #12004A
Letter to Mr Kovacs from Monica Jones informing him that EPA concluded its response to his initial RFC was appropriate.
-
RE: Request to Mr Kazman for Reconsideration of Request for Correction (RFC #12001) regarding analyses associated with the impact of biofuels
Letter to Mr Kazman denying the request for reconsideration of request for correction RFC 12001
-
RE: Request to Mr Bader for Reconsideration of Request for Correction (RFC #12001) regarding analyses associated with the impact of biofuels
Letter to Mr Bader denying the request for reconsideration of request for correction RFC 12001
-
RE: Request to Ms Sundell for Reconsideration of Request for Correction (RFC #12001) regarding analyses associated with the impact of biofuels
Letter to Ms Sundell denying the request for reconsideration of request for correction RFC 12001
-
Re: Supplement to Request for Correction - IRIS Assessment of Trichloroethylene
Letter from Faye Graul providing supplemental information to her Request for Correction for Threshold of Trichloroethylene Contamination of Maternal Drinking Waters submitted under the Information Quality Act.
-
Learn About New Source Review
Provides basic information about the New Source Review air permitting program, including the different types of permits and who issues them
-
Can EPA hold another in-person meeting at the Norwood Fire Hall in the future?
There are no plans, at this time, to hold an in-person meeting.
-
No data was presented at the 12/09/21 public meeting. Have EPA’s sampling results and reports been finalized? Where is the final ESI Report?
The December 9, 2021 public meeting was intended to serve as an overview of the history of EPA work at the site and an overview of the findings from the site investigations. The full Expanded Site Investigation report (PDF) with data tables can be found on the EPA Norwood website.
-
Is a 10’ deep soil sample deep enough to reach contaminants located below the surface fill that would have been used to cover the landfill? Will EPA be taking core samples at a later date that go deeper - 20’, 30’, or 40’ deep?
There are no plans to conduct additional soil sampling in the landfill or dump areas at this time. Soil borings advanced into the dump and landfill areas at the depths achieved in this investigation were sufficient for encountering solid waste buried beneath the surface. Soil borings that were advanced in…
-
Was funding limited when EPA made decisions about choosing what residential properties to sample?
No. All residences in our focus area of Winona Homes were eligible for sampling if the homeowner agreed to provide access and participate. EPA limited the number of residences outside of this neighborhood in order to achieve a representative number of properties from nearby to use for background comparison.
-
What was the sampling methodology, or the criteria used, to select the residential properties to be sampled?
All properties in Winona Homes were selected for potential sampling based on the complaint EPA received in August 2016 which alleged that soil used to grade the land for construction of the homes may have come from a contaminated source and may be a contributing environmental factor affecting the health…
-
Is the list of residential properties sampled available for public review?
The list of residential addresses is not available for public review in order to protect the privacy of those who participated in the sampling.
-
How do I know if my property was sampled by EPA?
All of the properties that were sampled should have received results letters at their home address. If you are not sure if your property was included in the sampling, please contact an EPA team member on the “Program Contacts” webpage to verify.
-
Why was no testing done at the Norwood School?
Please see: " Will EPA sample the Norwood school? " FAQ.
-
If EPA determined there is enough contamination in the creek and wetland to warrant further aquatic studies for fish and turtles, why would this not be a health concern for children and adults who swim or fish in the creeks?
Surface water and sediment data from Muckinipattis and Darby Creek were compared to EPA’s human health screening levels and all contaminants were below screening. Aquatic organisms show adverse effects from exposure to contaminants more readily than humans because these organisms have 24-hour direct contact with contaminated media (soil, surface water…
-
What specific protocols did EPA follow in making its recommendation not to proceed with an NPL listing for the Norwood Landfill site? When were these protocols last updated?
EPA applies the Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) to information collected at each stage of Site Assessment for determining the priority of a site. The HRS is what guides EPA in deciding as to whether a site qualifies for inclusion on the National Priorities List. However, there are other factors that…
-
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA)
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) provides DEP with the funding and authority to conduct cleanup actions at sites where hazardous substances have been released. HSCA also provides DEP with enforcement authority to force the persons who are responsible for releases of hazardous substances to conduct cleanup actions or to…
-
EPA says that 5 residential properties tested “high” for Chromium and that further tests are needed to determine what type of chromium is present on these properties. Did EPA test the adjoining properties to see if they have chromium as well?
If the properties on either side of the subject property participated in the sampling, EPA analyzed the soil for total chromium. The five properties where EPA found a potential risk due to chromium were isolated, randomly distributed, and not adjacent to one another, therefore there is no indication that the…