Rumple Report Reviewed

Rumple’s report goes on to document similar objections to the EPA’s practices in Libby that were raised by scientists within the organization.

He notes that Bonita Lavelle, an EPA scientist who had worked as a project manager in Libby, quit working in Libby because, she said, the EPA was going around its own scientists and using a company referred to as the Syracuse Resource Corporation to get risk information on the site. She also noted, according to the report, “The current process with Libby, MT cleanup is ‘completely different’ from EPA’s common practice of hazardous materials cleanups.”

In the introduction to his report, Rumple notes that every EPA employee he interviewed about the documents distributed to Libby residents, “said the language was incorrect, could not be supported by science and were potentially dangerous.”

The only people who did not raise these objections, he writes, were from the Syracuse Resource Corporation.

Asbestos Watch is currently investigating the role Syracuse Resource Corporation played in this broken Superfund cleanup.

Another aspect of the report people close to the Libby cleanup find odd is that it specifically states, “additional criminal investigation is not warranted,” and recommends that the OIG’s Office of Program Evaluation look into the Libby cleanup.

But, as Rumple notes in the introduction to his report, the OIG initiated a 21-month long criminal investigation, which, he writes, “concluded with a declination of the criminal case by the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, responsible for prosecuting public corruption.”

“Here’s what has me confused,” says Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.  “Rumple says ‘I don’t  think this is criminal, but this requires a program evaluation.’”

“So rather than do a program evaluation, they initiate a criminal investigation, and the problem with that is… it’s very hard to prove in these circumstances,” he continues. “The criminal investigation is an utter waste of time.”

Ruch says this is a pattern he has seen in the past, in which the OIG pursues difficult-to-prove criminal charges, finds no provable criminal wrongdoing, and stops looking into the issue.

As Ruch says, “They don’t find a crime, therefore everything’s OK.”

Gerry Henningsen says that, had the OIG referred Rumple’s Report to the right channel (the Office of Program Evaluation) and kept it there, things may have been different in Libby.

The Office of Program Evaluation, Henningsen says, looks specifically at how a particular program has been managed, or mismanaged, determines where any breakdowns have occurred, and tries to repair the problems.

Page : 1 2 3ALL