[LCN Newscast] Sewer Update, EPA Letter

[newscast@lists.lakeclaire.org]

Attached is a copy of a letter that was sent to both EPA and EPD.
This is the letter which was referenced in the article from
"The Story - from the Westside":

     http://www.the-stories.com/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A1097
     DECEMBER 12, 2002
     "Opponents to city CSO plan carry fight to new level"
     BY JOHN SCHAFFNER 

The letter was sent by e-mail and acknowledgements of receipt
from each recipient have been obtained.  Also a printed
version was hand-delivered to each office and copies of the
stamped-received originals have been obtained.
 
More later,
 
Robert (Bob) Schreiber
LCN Special Delegate for the Sewer Separation Issue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 9, 2002

Administrator Jimmy Palmer Jr.
Region 4, USEPA
61 Forsyth Street, 14th Floor
Atlanta, GA    30303

Marzieh Shahbazaz (for Mr. Harold Reheis)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Permitting, Compliance, and Enforcement Program
4220 International Parkway, Suite 101
Atlanta, Georgia,   30354

Subject:  Concern about credibility of information provided to your office
Denial of opportunity for informed Public Participation
Civil Action File No. 1:95-CV-2550-TWT

The purpose of this letter is to express concern about the credibility of
information provided to your office and to notify you that the citizens of
Atlanta have been denied an opportunity to understand the official program
and proposed actions of the City of Atlanta in its selection of the proposed
plan refinement as the remedial action for the City of Atlanta's CSO Consent
Decree.  The selection is identified in an 18 page letter from the City of
Atlanta to EPA/EPD, dated October 16, 2002, and signed by the city's
Commissioner of the Department of Watershed Management, Mr. Jack Ravan.

Since October 1, 2002, I have repeatedly requested copies of critical
information regarding the cost estimates for Operations and Maintenance as
well as the Life Cycle for several options which were under consideration by
the city.  My requests were answered with statements that, generally, the
information had not yet been developed.

On December 6, 2002, I received a reply from the city to a FOIA and Georgia
Open Records Act request for the same information which I had been requesting
by e-mail and by a letter to Mr. Ravan.  None of the requested information,
partial or complete, was provided. Also, please note, from the website of the
State of Georgia, Office of the Attorney General:

http://www.state.ga.us/ago/faq_11.html

If access to such record or records is denied in whole or in part, the
agency has to state in writing the specific legal authority exempting the
records from disclosure, by Code section, subsection, and paragraph.

The information that I requested was not provided and no explanatory
statement was provided which described the legal authority for exempting the
requested records.  The Open Records law also states, "No public officer or
agency shall be required to prepare reports, summaries, or compilations not
in existence at the time of the request" (50-18-70 (d)).  In apparent
compliance with this section, the City's reply does include that, "the
requested documents will be made available on December 10, 2002"

In view of the correspondence which I have compiled it seems that information
sent to your office, in the October 16th 18 page letter, is substantially
based on information which did not exist at the time the letter was written
and, therefore, the October 16th letter is likely to have been sent in
violation of the Consent Decree.  There is no indication that the information
that I have been requesting was sent along with the October 16th letter.  If,
for any other reason, the City claims that the information was available
prior to October 16th, the credibility of that claim and any provided data has
been impeached by those who are providing the data since it is the same
responsible parties who have shown that the data did not exist.

Regarding public participation, the city's letter seeking approval from
EPA/EPD was sent to your office before the public even knew what the city's
selection would be.  Based on information in the letter, there are now
numerous concerns about the selected proposed plan refinement and cost
estimates associated with the technical issues of Capital Costs, Operations
and Maintenance Costs, and Life Cycle Costs including financing costs, the
ability to achieve water quality standards, disruption, and the amount of
time required to complete any of the alternatives which had been proposed.
These concerns reach back to the credibility of the representations in the
original Remedial Measures Report from March/April 2001.

Take special note: The only plan to receive overwhelming public support from
a diversity of groups during the four year study period is full separation of
the combined sewer pipes along with stormwater ponds and surrounding
greenspace to provide storm water management.  That plan seems to have been
eliminated from complete study using a method which is now under question and
close scrutiny.

There are serious procedural questions regarding the public participation
process which was used by the City of Atlanta in order to arrive at the
selected "proposed plan refinement".  In particular, and not excluding other
points, the concerns of all participants involved have not been considered in
the decision making process, and the decision makers have not facilitated the
involvement of those potentially affected.  Also, the city's public
participation program is the antithesis of several public participation
guidance sections in the "Office of Water, EPA 832-B-95-002 (4204), September
1995, Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan as well as
40 CFR, part 25.

I understand that the LTCP Guidance and 40 CFR Part 25 may not be
requirements, at this time, for the City of Atlanta's public participation
program.  I am also of the understanding that an objective of 40 CFR part 25,
§ 25.3 is, "to assure that the government does not make any significant
decision on any activity covered by this part without consulting interested
and affected segments of the public."  It is for this reason that I am
notifying your agencies about my concerns regarding the credibility of the
Remedial Measures Report, the city's proposed plan refinement, and
inadequacies regarding public participation.  I await copies of the requested
documents from the City before I am able to proceed.

For the purpose of clarifying some of my statements in this letter, I am
enclosing copies of:

1. My letter to Commissioner Ravan, dated November 19, 2002
2. Commissioner Ravan's reply, dated November 21, 2002
3. My FOIA/Georgia Open Record's Act letter to Commissioner Ravan, dated
November 26, 2002
4. The City of Atlanta's reply, dated December 3, 2002

I will be contacting other State and Federal agencies regarding this matter.
In the meantime, I am interested in obtaining advice from you regarding the
procedure I should use to pursue the resolution of my concerns.  Also, what
action(s) will your agencies initiate, in view of this letter?

Respectfully,


Robert (Bob) Schreiber
Atlanta, GA   30307