pennsylvania asbestos lawyers

Document Sample
pennsylvania asbestos lawyers Powered By Docstoc
					                        Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society
                              Paul A. Kakuris, President
                              P.O. Box 466        Zion, IL 60099
                              Phone Number: 312 332-3377
                              FAX Number: 312 332-3379
                                                                   ildunesland@aol.com

July 11, 2006                                               COMPLAINT
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald
United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300                 FAX (312) 353-2067

  • Apparent Criminal Corruption & Fraud of Federal & State Officials
  • Illinois Attorney General’s Asbestos Task Force and IAG Lawyers
    “Rig” Studies to Cover-up Federal & State Asbestos Contamination
    Created by Government Agencies & Officials
  • Federal & State Tax Dollars Carelessly Spent in an Attempt to Cover-
    up Pollution
  • Willful Obstruction of Enforcement by Federal & State Officials
  • Request for Criminal Investigation into Federal & State Public
    Officials & Agencies Covering Up Asbestos Pollution that has
    Contaminated the Illinois Shoreline & Jeopardized the Health of
    Millions of Unwitting Citizens

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:

I am the president of a 55 year old environmental organization that co-founded and
protects the first Dedicated Nature Preserve in the United States, Illinois Beach State
Park in Zion, IL. This nature preserve is located along 6 ½ miles of Lake Michigan
shoreline and is adjacent to the Johns Manville Asbestos Superfund site, which is now
owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire-Hathaway group. The Illinois shoreline has been
plagued with asbestos contamination for years and much of the microscopic asbestos
fibers come from the unfiltered waste-water discharges at or near the Superfund site.

Asbestos Contaminates the Illinois Shoreline, Jeopardizing the Lives of Millions

The asbestos pollution, consisting of trillions of cancer and disease-causing fibers, is
carried southward by lake currents, polluting most of the Illinois shoreline including
Chicago’s famous Oak Street Beach. The most virulent asbestos, tremolite, has been
found along Lake Michigan and is the same asbestos found in Libby, MT, where federal
indictments pend against officials for covering-up the public’s exposure to low level
tremolite asbestos. Lake and Cook counties have the third highest mesothelioma death
                                                                                          1
rate in the country and Lake County has seven times the expected rate of this rare
asbestos-related cancer. There is a potential health-related asbestos epidemic in
Illinois. There is no naturally occurring asbestos in this area that would explain the
statistically significant levels of elevated contamination that was confirmed in recent
beach testing.

Officials Dump and/or Permit Asbestos Contamination; Task Force Skews Protocols

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan appointed an Asbestos Task Force made up of
many of the same federal and state agencies that allowed the asbestos contamination
to be dumped onto the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline; some agencies knowingly
discharged it themselves. This Task Force was formed to investigate the charges made
in Dunesland’s 2003 Camplin Report. The agencies involved are the USEPA, HHS,
ATSDR/CDC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Illinois Attorney General, IEPA, IDPH,
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and IDNR.

The Attorney General’s Task Force proceeded to continue the pattern to “rig” or “cook”
the sampling and testing protocols just as earlier agency studies have done. Examples
are: diluting the samples, not taking representative numbers of samples, and creating
testing protocols designed to minimize the discovery of asbestos. The laboratories
analyzing sand samples failed to meet the standard for quality control testing that
should have invalidated any conclusions regarding the safety of the beaches. In
essence, the data does not support the conclusion that the beaches are safe. Smoke
and mirrors doesn’t equate credible science. Finally, this task force concluded there is
no airborne hazard to the “statistically significant” elevated levels of asbestos found
on Illinois shorelines without taking one air sample!

IAG’s Task Force Ruled Exempt by IAG from Open Meetings Act
“Rigged” Report Riddled with Conflicts of Interest and Fraud

The Attorney General allowed this compromised group of polluters to operate in
secret, keeping outside scientific input away from its committee, although they were
spending federal and state tax dollars. By eliminating the public, the Task Force
created bogus results to cover-up the asbestos contamination they caused, dumped, or
facilitated. The Illinois Attorney General’s Asbestos Task Force is comprised of
agencies that have directly or indirectly contributed to the chronic asbestos pollution
on the Illinois shoreline and at IBSP, or have bungled or purposefully rigged studies,
investigations, and/or enforcement. These agencies also co-authored the draft
IAG/UIC interim Asbestos Task Force report from which the state now deceptively
quotes or cites as an authentic, “independent,” scientific document. In fact, that draft
is riddled with conflicts of interest and self-serving, filtered, flawed data. This
apparent fraud is to then cite the document so that the individual authors can hide
behind the authority of the government agencies (that actually wrote the report) while
attempting to deceive the public into believing it is a credible, scientific document that
the UIC School of Public Health wrote; in fact, they all had co-authorship. This is the
epitome of scientific fraud.

Other reports had been written previously using federal and state tax dollars in an
attempt to keep the proverbial holes in the dike plugged. Each time the agencies were
discredited for their bad science. This latest Attorney General Task Force report takes
a bold step in corrupting the process further by using ATSDR/CDC/HHS to help them

                                                                                          2
further their “rigged” schemes. [Please read the enclosed reports to Leavitt,
Gerberding, et. al.]

The clandestine activities of this secret group operated under the direction of
Assistant Attorney Generals Matt Dunn and Beth Wallace who have eliminated public
involvement and transparency while inappropriately applying shields and exemptions
from the Freedom of Information Act to protect their clients at IDNR, IEPA, and the
IDPH; this also protected federal agencies that were their partners. This action by the
IAG helped them hide the fact that some of these agencies actually polluted Illinois’s
Lake Michigan shoreline and Illinois Beach State Park with asbestos, becoming
polluters just like those they are charged to regulate. Then, they used their positions
of authority to try to cover it up. They allowed the polluters to continue polluting by
obstructing enforcement and looking the other way.

No Government Transparency as IAG “Spins” Report to Protect Their Cover-up

Enclosed is an email mistakenly sent to Dunesland from IAG Chief of Staff Ann Spillane
instructing the Sunshine Law and Open Government/FOIA liaison Terry Mutchler, who
is also an attorney, to keep their report under wraps [from Dunesland] until they have
released it to the “public,” even though many people already had the report in their
possession. The IAG’s office has been knowingly covering-up asbestos contamination
because of their deep and unsavory involvement and their legal representation of the
state agencies (their clients) that have contaminated and/or covered-up the
contamination of the environment with deadly asbestos fibers.

As an example, they used UIC to make it appear that the report was UIC’s, but records
show that in reality, many of the Task Force members (who are also polluters) co-
authored the report with UIC. They also manipulated, with the state’s consultant, the
sampling and testing protocols after they had been approved. The Illinois Attorney
General and her Task Force members then palmed off the report as an independent
study which says the shoreline seems to be safe. In reality, the deception is they
wrote their own report, kept its proceedings secret, “rigged” it, and used federal and
state public funds in this fraud upon the citizens of Illinois, allowing families to be
unwittingly exposed to deadly asbestos as they visit Illinois beaches.

The Illinois Attorney General, her Asbestos Task Force, and the IAG’s state agency
clients have collaborated to write reports for each other’s agencies and then palm off
these reports as “independent” studies. In essence, they have willfully discharged
asbestos into the navigable waters of the United States and used their positions of
authority in their agencies to cover-up their apparently criminal activities. Many of the
contaminated areas involved are federal critical habitat.

Dunesland Files Complaints; Tracks Deception of Government Officials Since 1998

The Dunesland Society has been pursuing this diligently since 1998 and has
accumulated voluminous documents and records, corroborating the apparent criminal
activities involved in contamination of the Illinois shoreline by public officials who are
supposed to be regulating the corporate polluters. We would be glad to make these
documents available to your staff. Since 2003, Dunesland’s health and safety engineer
and asbestos expert, Jeffery Camplin, has researched and written many complaints to
government agencies and has developed many reports tracking the unconscionable

                                                                                          3
behavior of public officials. There have been numerous articles in the press since
1998. Some of this information can be found on www.asbestosbeach.com.

We also have a PowerPoint presentation that we would be glad to make for your staff.
It illustrates and highlights the multifaceted asbestos issues and violations committed
by a multitude of government agency officials.

The Illinois Attorney General, her staff, and the federal and state government officials
that are in her task force have violated the public trust and have committed the
antithesis of what they are charged in their jobs to do. They refused to enforce
violations and looked the other way. In order to cover-up for their own misconduct,
they have contributed toward the asbestos contamination that is in epic proportions in
Illinois. The corporate polluter also still continues to contaminate the Illinois
shoreline. The relationship between Johns Manville and these government agencies
has been very friendly instead of adversarial. As an example, in an agreed order, the
IAG brokered a fine that was $145,000 instead of the book value of $84,000,000.

The Dunesland Society has spent thousands of hours of volunteer time in attempting
to counteract the unacceptable behavior of public officials who are responsible for
contaminating the Illinois shoreline and Illinois Beach State Park with invisible, deadly
asbestos, in addition to tons of asbestos-containing materials that have been removed
and continue to be removed. We are enclosing current examples of some of the many
complaints we have filed that demonstrate the misconduct described in this letter.

Cronyism Rampant; Whistleblower Officials Forced Out and/or Persecuted

Multiple complaints have been made to these agencies since 1998, while asbestos
contamination has become an epidemic. The federal and state agencies on the task
force knowingly “cooked” or “rigged” the protocols in order to guarantee their
outcomes, which were designed to cover-up the massive asbestos contamination they
created. These agencies know that they have been responsible for contaminating the
entire Illinois shoreline, where millions of people have been unwittingly exposed to
asbestos fibers on the Illinois beaches. Non-occupational mesothelioma victims are
showing up in Illinois. We personally know one victim whose only exposure pathway
was walking the beaches.

In addition to the responsible agencies, we have sent copies of many of our letters and
emails to Governor Blagojevich and his predecessors. The politics of asbestos and Big
Business, with their asbestos lobby, is an unfortunate example of Illinois and the way
it avoids prosecution on major asbestos business. It would be very interesting to see if
ANY of the companies in Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway group and W.R. Grace
or their law firms have contributed to the campaign coffers of the politicians who are
supposed to make sure the statutes and regulations that are designed to protect the
health and safety of the public and the environment are enforced.

We are proud that you and your staff have ferreted out the cronyism and corruption in
Illinois. Some of the officials in these agencies are not qualified and should never have
been given the positions of authority they have of protecting the environment and the
public health. As you may know, many of these officials are political appointees and
not professionals in their fields. They have committed scientific fraud; politics and
cover-up is more important to them than the health and safety of the public and
protecting the environment. Some government employees who refused to go along
                                                                                        4
with the cover-up have been harassed and/or forced out of government service after
many years, or decades, of service because they wanted to do the right thing. I’m sure
that some of them would be available for an interview; we have contact information.
Dunesland Requests Criminal Investigation; Offers Documented Evidence

There appear to be many public officials and agencies who may have committed
criminal behavior. Dunesland thinks that there should be a criminal investigation into
the willful expenditure of public funds used to knowingly cover-up illegal dumping of
regulated asbestos waste and/or discharging asbestos and other contaminants into
the navigable waters of the United States and the contamination of the Illinois
shoreline and beaches. In order to cover-up this behavior, the public officials “rig”
these studies in secrecy, using public dollars to make it appear that the Illinois
shoreline is safe and not contaminated with asbestos. Unfortunately, it is
contaminated and puts millions of citizens at risk from asbestos exposures along the
Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline and through secondary exposures when families track
this deadly asbestos contamination home with them.

An independent evaluation by your office is necessary to resolve the chronic asbestos
contamination that continues to plague the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline and
beaches. These problems have been created and covered-up by officials in the federal
and state agencies. We have exhausted all channels for remedy by filing formal
complaints to federal and state agencies, including the Illinois Attorney General who
has become part of the problem instead of the solution. It appears that unchecked
public official corruption needs to be brought to your attention because the enforcers
and regulators have become part of the problem. The checks and balances are gone.
Your involvement is necessary.

Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. We look forward to meeting with
you or your staff. We would be glad to assist in any way. We have a plethora of
documents and a PowerPoint outlining the issues to share.

Sincerely,
Paul A. Kakuris
Paul A. Kakuris, President

c.      Senator Dick Durbin
        Senator Barach Obama
        Donald L. F. Metzger, Attorney for Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society
        Jeffery C. Camplin, CPS, CPEA

Attachments:
     1. Letter from Jeffery Camplin to Michael Cook, USEPA, April 14, 2006
     2. Complaint from Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan,
        May 17, 2006
     3. Complaint from Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan,
        copied to approximately 70 government officials by Dunesland, June 21, 2006
     4. Dunesland Email Cover with Jeffery Camplin’s Letter to Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary; Howard
        Frumkin, ATSDR Director; Julie Gerberding, CDC Director; copied to approximately 70 government
        officials by Dunesland, June 28, 2006
     5. FOIA Request from Dunesland to Lisa Madigan, Ann Spillane, Terry Mutchler, July 7, 2006
     6. Email from IAG Chief of Staff Ann Spillane to Dunesland [by mistake], July 7, 2006
     7. Email Request from Dunesland to Terry Mutchler, et al., July 7, 2006


                                                                                                            5
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                              1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                            Fax: 1-847-837-1852



April 14, 2006                                             COMPLAINT
                                                           COMPLAINT
United States Environmental Protection Agency


Attention:       Michael Cook, Director
                 Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI)

Re: ● Region 5 Hides Asbestos Contamination of Illinois Shoreline from Superfund Site
       ● USEPA OSRTI Director Disregards Own Asbestos Guidance to Cover for EPA Region 5
       ● USEPA “Cooks” Protocols that Justify their Projects in Order to Garner Federal Funds
       ● EPA Region 5 Covers-up Finding Asbestos Willfully Using Less Sensitive Asbestos Tests
       ● USEPA Allows Region 5 Staff to Cover-up Bungling of Johns-Manville Superfund Site
       ● EPA Knowingly Hides Asbestos Shoreline Contamination from Superfund Site Discharge
       ● Independent Investigation Requested into USEPA Region 5 Statements of Scientific Fraud
       ● OSRTI Director Cook Evades Answering Misapplication of Superfund Asbestos Guidance

Dear Mr. Cook,

I have received your evasive non-response dated March 23, 2006 to my complaint that I filed with your
office on January 30, 2006. Please provide me with a written response to my previous complaints that
you ignored or gave non-answer responses in your letter. I brought to your attention several troubling
statements regarding USEPA Superfund asbestos guidance interpretations made by USEPA Region 5
staff. You authored an August, 2004 USEPA Superfund guidance directive to all Regions stating that
materials containing less than 1% asbestos could still pose a threat to human health. You further
explained in you Superfund asbestos guidance that site-specific, risk-based testing was necessary to
determine clean-up objectives that are appropriate for use at sites containing low level asbestos
contamination.

Region 5 USEPA used the 1% asbestos threshold to state that asbestos was not a contaminant of concern
in Waukegan Harbor lake-bottom sediments. Site manager Mark Adler of Region 5 Superfund said that
your memo did not apply to project sites outside of Libby, Montana. I asked you to correct his
misstatement. You ignored this request in your non-response to me. Why are you covering up for Region
5 when you know the virulent amphibole asbestos fibers have been identified along the Illinois Lake
Michigan shoreline from your Superfund site discharge? Can you explain how the 1% threshold guidance
found in your August, 2004 Superfund asbestos guidance applies to the sediments in the Waukegan
Harbor area?

Instead of answering my request to correct the misuse of USEPA Superfund asbestos guidance, you
informed me that you would have Region 5 USEPA respond to my inquiries, diverting the intent of the
August, 2004 guidance documents. In doing this, you are not taking responsibility for clearly
communicating the intent of your Superfund asbestos guidance document the USEPA Region 5 has
spurned. It is obviously not being followed properly, which puts public health at risk. This is
unacceptable. Attached is my response to a letter from Wendy Carney, USEPA Region 5 Superfund

                                                   1
containing inadequate, incompetent, non-answer, and explanations to my previous complaint letter. Also
attached is my response to a letter from Richard Karl, Director of Region 5 Superfund and Gary Gulezian,
Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office containing non-responses to my formal complaint
letter to you. These letters and my responses to them indicate that Region 5 USEPA is in severe cover-up
mode to 1) hide massive asbestos contamination they have caused along the Illinois Lake Michigan
shoreline from their bungling of the Johns-Manville and Waukegan Harbor Superfund clean-ups in
Waukegan, Illinois, and, 2) disregarding complaints from members of the community addressing illegal
asbestos discharges into the navigable waters of the United States from the Johns-Manville Superfund
site.

I demand that your office launch an immediate investigation into the charges of misconduct, scientific
fraud, and ignoring of USEPA Headquarters policy and guidance documents by USEPA Region 5
regarding asbestos contamination. You have passed the buck to Region 5 and they have proceeded to
continue to disregard your August, 2004 Superfund asbestos guidance document. This mindset continues
to allow asbestos contamination to expose millions of unwitting citizens. The buck now stops with you.
Answer my complaints regarding USEPA Region 5.

I would also like you to defend a few statements that you made in your March 23, 2006 non-response to
me.

   1. In the first paragraph of page 2 of your letter you state “The Region is aware that asbestos has
      been reported to be present in harbor area sediment. As long as the asbestos is located in
      sediment mud under 18-20 feet of water, the fibers would not pose a threat to human health if left
      in place.” First, there have been no scientific evaluation or risk assessments that have evaluated
      the threats to human health from asbestos in lake-bottom sediments. Therefore, this is an
      unsubstantiated statement. The coastal process continually moves sands onshore, offshore, and
      along the shoreline by the currents and wave action. This is why dredging is necessary in the
      harbor area. There are no EPA studies that indicate the asbestos fibers remain in the lake-bottom
      sediments if undisturbed. This is an absurd assumption on your part. There is evidence to show
      that asbestos fibers move along the shoreline just like the sand and sediments move along the
      shoreline thorough normal coastal processes. Second, these sediments in Waukegan Harbor, the
      Approach Channel, and the Advanced Maintenance area are not “left in place,” they are being
      moved and disturbed. The Army Corps of Engineers dredges in and around these known amosite
      asbestos contaminated areas each year. The preliminary draft design for Waukegan Harbor calls
      for the dredging of Waukegan Harbor (inner harbor) and the dredging of amosite asbestos
      contaminated lake-bottom sediments in the Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel and Advanced
      Maintenance Area to be dumped back into Waukegan Harbor (inner harbor) as a “clean fill” cover
      over remaining PCB lake-bottom contamination. What documentation supports your assertion
      that asbestos fibers would not pose a threat during dredging, dumping and disposal at Waukegan
      Harbor? It is my opinion that there is no risk assessment data available which further illustrates
      the lies and deception being presented by USEPA Region 5 in their non-responses to my
      complaint letters.
   2. When lake-bottom sediments are disturbed, including during dredging and dumping activities,
      large asbestos-contaminated plumes are generated that wash onto the shoreline through wave
      action. Once onshore, the waterborne microscopic asbestos fibers dry and become airborne. This
      now establishes a human exposure pathway to airborne asbestos fibers associated with dredging
      and dumping asbestos-contaminated sediments found under water in and around Waukegan
      Harbor. Can you produce any evidence that USEPA Region 5 has evaluated the airborne pathway
      exposure route caused by the disturbance of asbestos in lake-bottom sediments during dredging
      and dumping activities that produce waterborne plumes of asbestos contamination that wash
                                                      2
   onshore, dry and become airborne? It is my opinion this evidence does not exist. If USEPA
   Region 5 honestly answered my previous inquiries and complaints they would have to expose
   their long standing, willful cover-up of the massive asbestos contamination they caused by their
   bungling of the Johns-Manville Superfund asbestos clean-up in Waukegan whose asbestos has
   now contaminated much of the Illinois shoreline.
3. The first paragraph on page 2 states, “The asbestos could present a materials handling issue
   during dredging, however, and the Region responded by testing the targeted sediment removal
   areas using EPA-approved methods.” However what you failed to clarify is that the “approved”
   analytical methods used by Region 5 were inferior and less sensitive for identifying the presence
   of asbestos below 1% than other “EPA-approved methods.” Why was Region 5 USEPA allowed
   to use inferior, less sensitive asbestos testing protocols when more sensitive, risk-based testing
   methods were available? It appears USEPA Region 5 is using analytical methods designed to
   cover-up the presence of asbestos in lake-bottom sediments in Waukegan Harbor in order to have
   the dredgings appear “clean” when they are, in reality, contaminated. This is a maneuver to justify
   the requests for federal funding so USEPA can justify their projects. In essence, USEPA Region 5
   has apparently “cooked” the protocols. This approach channel area was tested at approximately
   the same time by the USEPA and the IAG/UIC Asbestos Task Force. However, the Asbestos Task
   Force used more sensitive testing which found “statistically significant” levels of amosite asbestos
   in these lake-bottom sediments. The USEPA sat on the IAG/UIC Asbestos Task Force and knew
   that a more sensitive method exists. This is a major breakdown in the integrity of USEPA Region
   5, adding further to their deception and misconduct.
4. In this same paragraph you state “Following the analysis of these harbor sediments, EPA has
   made a preliminary determination that asbestos is not a contaminant of concern in Waukegan
   Harbor.” I have understood that this determination was made by USEPA as far back as the
   Waukegan Harbor CAG meeting in November 2005. However, as I outline in the attached Carney
   letter, USEPA has stalled, mislead, deceived, willfully misrepresented, and contradicted itself in
   trying to explain how USEPA Region 5 determined that asbestos was not a contaminant of
   concern in Waukegan Harbor. USEPA Region 5 refuses to provide a consistent answer to this
   question that can be supported with documented evidence on how this determination was made.
   Regions are supposed to evaluate contaminants in accordance with the Superfund risk assessment
   guidance and document their findings and conclusions. Therefore, I am asking you to provide me
   with written evidence of the site-specific, risk-based threshold that was used by USEPA Region 5
   to determine asbestos was not a contaminant of concern at Waukegan Harbor and that sediments
   in the Approach Channel and Advanced Maintenance Areas are asbestos “clean” and can be used
   as fill material in the inner harbor. Ms. Carney already admits that there is no documentation that
   exists supporting how USEPA Region 5 determined asbestos was not a contaminant of concern.
   Therefore, it is apparent that USEPA Region 5 is covering up the fact that they never formally
   made a determination that asbestos is not a contaminant of concern at Waukegan Harbor. The
   USEPA and Region 5’s deception is further complicated by evidence of 100,000 pounds of
   tremolite-contaminated vermiculite from Libby, Montana being delivered into the Waukegan
   Harbor area.
5. The second paragraph on page 2 states “The qualitative and quantitative analytical methods
   Regional staff used for harbor sediment asbestos testing are sufficient to make material handling
   and disposal decisions for the dredged sediments.” This is a misstatement of fact. The
   “qualitative and quantitative analytical methods” used by Region 5 USEPA are not sensitive
   enough to make a qualitative determination for the presence of microscopic asbestos fibers in lake-
   bottom sediments, which of course you already know. You also know that these qualitative
   analytical protocols are not accurate for materials containing less than 1% asbestos. These
   “qualitative and quantitative analytical methods” do not provide site-specific, risk-based results for
   Region 5 to make material dredging, handling, transportation, dumping, or disposal determinations
                                                    3
       that are consistent with USEPA Superfund asbestos risk assessment guidance. Can you explain
       why USEPA Region 5 utilized inferior, outdated, less sensitive qualitative and quantitative
       analytical protocol when more accurate and sensitive, risk-based analytical methods were
       available for use? It is apparent that agency officials at USEPA Region 5 have purposely gone out
       of their way to not find asbestos contamination in lake-bottom sediments so they can fraudulently
       make unsupported statements with undocumented evidence that asbestos is not a contaminant of
       concern at Waukegan Harbor.

The asbestos contamination issues created by the bungling of the Johns-Manville Superfund site and
Waukegan Harbor sediments clean-up must be investigated outside of Region 5 USEPA. The attached
letters show a pattern of deception designed to cover-up the severe mishandling of two key Superfund
sites that have now spread significant microscopic asbestos contamination, including tremolite, along the
entire Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. The Directors of USEPA Region 5 Superfund and GLNPO show
no interest in addressing their lack of supervision that lead to the botching of the Superfund clean-up in
Waukegan and the asbestos contamination of the entire Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline by their
incompetent staff. Non-occupational mesothelioma has already appeared in and around Waukegan,
Illinois. How large must the body count be before you will take actions that may be already too late to
protect public health? Immediate attention is necessary by your office to address this public health
emergency that is being covered up by Region 5 USEPA Administration and staff. Your office and
Region 5 EPA have not answered my complaints.

I look forward to your prompt and complete reply to the issues underlined above in my complaint.

Cordially,

Jeffery C. Camplin
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA


attachments

c:     Barack Obama, U.S. Senator
       Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator
       Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor, Illinois
       Steve Johnson, Administrator of USEPA
       Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator, USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
       Gary Gulezian, Director, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
       Thomas V. Skinner, Administrator of USEPA Region 5
       Richard Karl, Director, USEPA Region 5 Superfund Division
       Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General
       Douglas P. Scott, Director, Illinois EPA
       Sandra Bron, Illinois EPA, Bureau of Land, NPL Unit
       Representative Mark Kirk
       Representative Melissa Bean
       Representative Jan Schakowsky
       Paul A. Kakuris, President, Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society



                                                    4
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                                1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                              Fax: 1-847-837-1852



March 21, 2006                                                             COMPLAINT
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Superfund Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590

Attention: Wendy L. Carney, Chief of Remedial Response Branch #1

Re:      ● USEPA Region 5 Allows Staff to Cover-up Waukegan Harbor Asbestos Contamination
         ● Story Changes Again by USEPA Region 5 Superfund Chief on Safe Asbestos Threshold
         ● Citizen’s Questions Deceivingly Miscast in USEPA Region 5 Inadequate Non-Response
         ● Questions Dodged By USEPA Managers in Region 5 Cover-up; Answers Still Required
         ● USEPA Top Management and Inspector General Office Asked to Investigate Cover-up

Dear Ms. Carney,

   I have received your letter dated March 10, 2006; this letter is written regarding your non-response
to my asbestos concerns at Waukegan Harbor Superfund sites. You chose to have your site managers
provide responses on your and Mr. Mike Cook’s behalf. I wrote to Mr. Cook, Director of USEPA
Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation, because he would immediately be able to
resolve the concerns I have with asbestos in lake-bottom sediments at Waukegan Harbor.
Unfortunately, your letter states he asked you to respond, and in turn, you delegated your response to
the three individuals about whom I have concerns. It is obvious by the deceptions and misstatements
made in your letter that you are facilitating the asbestos cover-up and deception by your Region 5 staff
to avoid responsibility for your own lack of diligent staff management and project oversight. Your
cavalier handling of this extremely important asbestos contamination issue affecting the entire Illinois
Lake Michigan shoreline is quite troubling. You leave me no other choice than to file a formal
complaint regarding the falsehoods contained in your ineffectual March 10, 2006 letter. Proper
answers have still not been given.

Superfund Remediation Chief’s Response Exposed as Deceptive Before it is Mailed
    By coincidence, as you were writing your flawed response action to me, I had just finished a 22
page “Complaint” letter to Region 5 USEPA regarding the deceptive statements made in your Region
5 public relations officer Mike Joyce’s February 15, 2006 letter. You mistakenly relied upon his
deceptive letter as the foundation for arguments found in your recent communication with me. I have
attached my complaint to this letter, although I assume you probably have a copy of it already. My
Complaint clearly shows a pattern of deceptive behavior and inappropriate, scientifically unsound and
undocumented site decisions by your field staff at the Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern and the
Johns-Manville Superfund sites. Your recent response letter to me gives the impression you are also
involved in this cover-up by shamefully repeating the unreliable, scientifically invalid and misleading
responses spewed forth by your unethical, incompetent field personnel. You now have ownership of
these deceptive misstatements made by your staff by putting your name on them. You have also
responded on behalf of Mr. Cook who will continue to hear about the misconduct of you and your staff

                                                   1
until he properly addresses my concerns. Your answers have been non-answers filled with deceit. We
need proper answers to protect the health and safety of the citizens who use the Illinois shoreline.

USEPA Region 5 Can’t Explain How Asbestos Contamination Was Ignored in Harbor
    The genesis of my asbestos concerns at the Waukegan Harbor sediment clean-up was based upon a
statement made at the November, 2005 Waukegan CAG meeting by Scott Cieniawski, your Region 5
site manager. He presented an overview of his preliminary design document and stated that asbestos
was determined not to be a contaminant of concern in lake-bottom sediments. I simply followed up
with the question of what threshold was used to determine that asbestos was not a contaminant of
concern. This began stall, dodge, lie, and cover-up tactics in the ensuing three months, culminating
with Mr. Joyce’s February 15, 2006 letter. Specifics on these charges are found in my March 13, 2006
Complaint letter. In a desperate cover-up attempt, you now send me a letter on behalf of Mr. Cook,
only to contradict the February 15, 2006 Joyce letter and willfully misrepresent what Mr. Cook’s 1%
memo actually means. USEPA Region 5 went on record in this February 15, 2006 letter and stated
that 1% asbestos was used to determine if lake-bottom sediments were a contaminant of concern.
Specifically, Mr. Joyce stated:
        “EPA has made a preliminary decision that asbestos is not a contaminant of concern in the
        Waukegan Harbor sediments based on: 1. Low levels (<1%) to non-detect levels of asbestos
        identified in sediments collected during the 2005 sampling event.”

Region 5 Superfund Chief Admits that Harbor Asbestos Levels Exceeded Background
    Region 5 USEPA participated on the technical committee of the Illinois Attorney General’s
Asbestos Task Force that investigated asbestos contamination along the shoreline of Lake Michigan.
USEPA Region 5 reviewed and approved the testing and analytical protocols that found “statistically
significant” concentrations of asbestos in Waukegan Harbor. Your staff at Region 5 provided an
internal review of the findings of this report that USEPA Region 5 signed off on and approved. The
review of the testing results by your staff was submitted in a June 2, 2005 letter to Matthew J. Dunn,
Chief of Environmental Enforcement for the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. Ms. Carney, you
provided the cover letter of this review, which found, “We agree that for the sake of an extra measure
of safety, lake-bottom sand should not be deposited directly to onshore areas of the beaches because
asbestos levels of the lake bottom sand exceed levels in the background beaches identified in the
report.” You provided this statement to the state of Illinois in June, 2005 which acknowledges that
“lake-bottom sand exceeds levels in background beaches.” Just five months later, Mr. Scott
Cieniawski of USEPA Region 5 stated at the Waukegan Harbor Citizen Action Group (CAG) meeting
that, “asbestos was not a contaminant of concern at Waukegan Harbor.” I followed up this statement
by simply asking what threshold of asbestos contamination was used to determine that asbestos was
not a contaminant of concern at Waukegan Harbor. Four months, and several lies later, I am now
asking you this same simple question.
    In the June 2005 Illinois Attorney General Asbestos Task Force interim asbestos report, you found
that these lake-bottom sediments exceeded background concentrations of asbestos fibers enough to
recommend that an extra measure of safety was necessary to protect the citizens of Illinois. Suddenly,
you and your staff call these same asbestos-contaminated lake-bottom sediments “clean” without
providing any evidence of how this incredible find was determined. In your March, 2006 letter to me,
you admit that there are no documents available that explain how this fraudulent determination was
made. Now you want me to accept the statements in your March 10, 2006 letter concocted by the three
USEPA staff members who have already lied to me in several previous written communications. Now
you want me to accept the statements in your March 10, 2006 letter that was contradicts the last “final”
story provided by the same USEPA Region 5 staff members on February 15, 2006, that attempted to
explain how asbestos was evaluated at Waukegan Harbor. It now appears you have something to
                                                   2
cover-up as well. What “new” story will you and your staff try to palm off to respond to my charges in
your willful attempt to continue this lurid cover-up that harms our environment and places citizens of
Illinois at risk?

Region 5 Superfund Remedial Chief Contradicts Staff in Attempt to Defend Them
   I wrote to Mr. Cook because use of the 1% asbestos threshold by USEPA Region 5 is in complete
opposition to guidance contained in his August 2004 memo. This is the same memo that you cite in
your March 10, 2006 letter as a defense for stating why “…we did not use the 1% level as a means to
determine whether asbestos was a contaminant of concern in the harbor.” I assume that as Chief of
Region 5 Superfund Remedial Response Branch #1, you are truthfully answering when stating what
was not used (1% threshold) to evaluate asbestos as a contaminant of concern. You accurately stated
that “There are no documents showing what level of asbestos is considered to be contamination in
Waukegan Harbor. The February 15, 2006 letter provides the detailed rationale.” Since you have
now contradicted the February 15, 2006 explanation provided by Mike Joyce, you must now define
what threshold was used for determining asbestos as a contaminant of concern as I had originally asked
back in November 2005. So I will now ask you one final time to personally respond on behalf of
Region 5 USEPA with the official position to this simple question:
WHAT THRESHOLD WAS USED TO DETERMINE THAT ASBESTOS WAS NOT A CONTAMINANT
OF CONCERN IN YOUR PRELIMINARY DESIGN DOCUMENT AT WAUKEGAN HARBOR?
Explaining that the 1% asbestos threshold does not apply at Waukegan Harbor does not explain what
asbestos threshold does apply to determine if asbestos is a contaminant of concern at Waukegan
Harbor.

Site Manager Bradley’s Deceptive Cover-up Can be Easily Verified to Expose His Lies
    My March 13, 2006 Complaint letter to Region 5 identifies Mr. Brad Bradley as one of many
Region 5 staff members who bungled the Johns-Manville Superfund site and created a situation where
trillions upon trillions of microscopic asbestos fibers were released into Lake Michigan. This massive
release of serpentine and amphibole asbestos fibers has contaminated lake-bottom sediments impacting
Waukegan Harbor and the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. Mr. Bradley has been covering up his
role in this significant release of asbestos by making misleading statements. Your office should be
investigating my concerns with these deceptive statements by Mr. Bradley instead of blindly repeating
them. A few of Mr. Bradley’s untruthful and misleading statements you can easily verify include:
     • USEPA utilized inferior soil sampling methodologies when testing soils at the Johns-Manville
         Superfund site and in Waukegan Harbor. Illinois EPA recommended a more sensitive test
         method that was recently used by the state of Illinois Attorney General’s Asbestos Task Force
         to test Waukegan Harbor and Illinois Beach State Park sediments and sands. This more
         sensitive testing found microscopic asbestos in “statistically significant” concentrations above
         defined background levels. Mr. Bradley does not want microscopic asbestos pollution
         uncovered since his Johns-Manville Superfund site contributed to the majority of this asbestos
         contamination. Your letter claims that the more sensitive technique is a “draft” technique that
         has not been “reviewed and approved by EPA to date.” This is not true and you would have
         known that if you had researched this before you wrote to me. Mr. Bradley was the USEPA
         Region 5 representative on the Illinois Attorney General’s Asbestos Task Force that utilized the
         more sensitive testing in late 2004 which found elevated levels of asbestos in Waukegan
         Harbor sediments. Mr. Bradley reviewed and approved this more sensitive asbestos testing
         method as an official representative of USEPA Region 5 on the Illinois Attorney
         General/University of Illinois at Chicago Asbestos Task Force asbestos study technical
         committee. Mr. Bradley apparently thought the more sensitive asbestos tests would not find
         asbestos contamination. Now that asbestos has been confirmed above background levels, Mr.
                                                   3
       Bradley is fraudulently claiming these test results are draft and not approved by Region 5
       USEPA. He obviously states this so that Region 5 would deceptively not have to use the more
       sensitive testing which was used in the Illinois Attorney General Asbestos Task Force asbestos
       study. Mr. Bradley knows better and so does Mr. Cook. These results cannot be ignored.
   •   The February 15, 2006 Mike Joyce letter contained a statement from Mr. Bradley that claims
       asbestos was not a contaminant of concern in Waukegan Harbor based upon “extremely low
       levels of asbestos identified in sediments.” In fact, the state of Illinois sediment testing in late
       2004 (reported in June 2005), using the more sensitive analytical methods, found “statistically
       significant” concentrations of amosite asbestos in Waukegan Harbor lake-bottom sediments.
       Mr. Bradley’s choice of words to define and cover-up elevated levels of asbestos as “extremely
       low” is disturbing and requires internal and external investigation. Again, the results showing
       asbestos contamination cannot be ignored.
   •   Mr. Bradley also provided the discussion in the February 15, 2006 Mike Joyce letter that
       asbestos was not a contaminant of concern because sediments contained “low levels (<1%)” of
       asbestos. You clearly found in your March 10, 2006 letter that 1% was not used as a threshold.
       Therefore, the statement made by Mr. Bradley in the February 15. 2006 Mike Joyce letter is
       misleading to say the least. Asbestos contamination is being deceptively covered-up and
       ignored by Region 5 USEPA.
   •   Mr. Bradley has provided you with a deceptive and misleading response regarding the presence
       of tremolite asbestos at his Johns-Manville Superfund site and at Illinois Beach State Park. His
       method of deception is quite simple to uncover since it is my question he is desperately trying
       to evade acknowledging. His inability to admit the hard facts that tremolite asbestos is present
       on his site Johns-Manville Asbestos Superfund site and a neighboring property are disturbing.
       His deceptive behavior is most disturbing because he is knowingly allowing the public to be
       exposed to asbestos, including tremolite, while he hopes his superiors don’t notice.
           o I found tremolite asbestos identified in a 2002 and 2005 lab report for the Waukegan
                Park District and the state of Illinois.
           o According to your letter to me, Mr. Bradley denied that tremolite was identified on his
                site. He claims there is no evidence of tremolite in any “USEPA” or “Johns-Manville”
                tests. How convenient that he refuses to acknowledge the 2002 Waukegan Park District
                study that was performed by the Park District while investigating the potential purchase
                of the Johns-Manville manufacturing site property for an outdoor sports field. The
                other study was the 2005 Illinois Attorney General’s Asbestos Task Force interim
                asbestos report of which Mr. Bradley was a member of the technical committee.
           o Is Mr. Bradley claiming in statements found in your letter that he is unaware of the
                presence of tremolite on his site? Is he claiming in statements provided in your letter he
                has no knowledge of these important studies regarding asbestos? He has copies of both
                reports in his possession but chooses to pretend only USEPA and Johns-Manville
                asbestos reports exist, and that these studies do not mention tremolite.
       I am including the lab results with the tremolite designation circled to dismiss Mr. Bradley’s
       insulting hide-the-tremolite charade. I would be willing to meet with you and Mr. Bradley and
       show him in his copies of these two reports where lab results identifying tremolite are found.
       Maybe if you ask him specifically about the 2002 and 2005 reports, his memory will be jogged.
       Tremolite and other amphibole asbestos minerals cannot be ignored by USEPA Region 5 along
       the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline.

Waukegan Harbor Region 5 Site Manager Caught in Lie about Evaluating Asbestos
  As discussed above, I asked your Waukegan Harbor site manager Scott Cieniawski, how asbestos
was determined not to be a contaminant of concern at Waukegan Harbor. This began a month long
                                                    4
delay, followed up by a claim of ignorance, and finally followed up by a lie over two months later.
Your public relations officer Mike Joyce attempted to cover-up Scott’s lie with deception of his own in
February 2006. Now your letter of March 10, 2006 contradicts Mike Joyce’s cover-up responses. The
question still remains, “What threshold did USEPA Region 5 use to determine that asbestos was not a
contaminant of concern in Waukegan Harbor sediments?” Can you please answer this question?
    Mr. Cieniawski determined last fall that asbestos was not a contaminant of concern. Yet, when he
is asked to explain this decision he refuses. To date, Mr. Cieniawski’s deceptive responses are as
follows:
    • At the November 2005 CAG meeting he said he thought 1% or less asbestos in sediments was
        considered “clean,” but he would check and get back to me.
    • After over one month of stalling, Mr. Joyce, your USEPA Region 5 public relations officer,
        emailed me saying Scott could not answer because “he was not an asbestos expert.”
    • I immediately responded to say he did not have to be an expert to tell me what threshold was
        used to determine asbestos was not a contaminant of concern. Scott did not respond for a
        month.
    • At the end of January, Mr. Cieniawski in a substantial blunder, lied to me in writing. He
        emailed a response to me stating that USEPA Region 5 had not yet evaluated asbestos to
        determine if it was a contaminant of concern in Waukegan Harbor. His hastily concocted lie
        was in response to a complaint letter sent to Illinois EPA Region 5 administrator Thomas V.
        Skinner. I immediately responded back to Mr. Cieniawski stating this was a “lie” because the
        preliminary design document had already been completed by him months earlier and asbestos
        was excluded. I copied Administrator Tom Skinner on all of this correspondence.
    • In mid-February, I received an alleged “final response” from Mr. Joyce which was contributed
        to by Mr. Cieniawski and Mr. Bradley. This letter indicated that 1% was actually used as a
        threshold to determine if asbestos was a contaminant of concern in Waukegan Harbor
        sediments. As you know, your March 10, 2006 letter to me contradicts this “final response.”
        The Region 5 staff has falsely and disingenuously misrepresented the Cook letter and
        deceptively tried to use it to support the misguided Region 5 dredging/remediation agenda.
        They arrogantly insinuate that the Illinois EPA’s opinion is really of no consequence to Region
        5 USEPA since they have already decided their plan of action while repudiating scientific truth.

Internal Email Reveals Truth of USEPA Region 5 Cieniawski’s Deception in Deciding
Asbestos was Not a Contaminant of Concern when Sensitive Tests Show Differently
   In another act of deception, USEPA Region 5 has only used less sensitive and inferior asbestos
testing methods that cannot accurately define toxic levels of asbestos contamination in lake-bottom
sediments. Asbestos testing of lake-bottom sediments in late 2004 indicated that Waukegan Harbor
contained asbestos at “statistically significant” levels above background concentrations. In other
words, Waukegan Harbor sediments are contaminated with asbestos. Yet, USEPA site manager Scott
Cieniawski claims that asbestos is not a contaminant of concern. When asked how this was
determined, he provides the scenario bulleted above. However, I have found an email from December
2005 where Mr. Cieniawski provides his “true” feelings about asbestos in sediments. In an email to
the Illinois EPA, which was considering requiring USEPA Region 5 to use the more sensitive asbestos
testing methods, Mr. Cieniawski writes:
         “As you can tell from the calls, the federal participants feel we have sufficient information
         to select a remedy for the site and move into the design phase. This places IEPA on the critical
         path. We need to determine what additional information we need to meet our technical and
         legal requirements prior to remedy selection. The quicker you can develop that list, the quicker
         this project can move forward.

                                                   5
        “Additionally, you should anticipate that we may push back hard on some of the issues,
        especially if we feel they are policy calls and not statutory requirements. For example, the
        general consensus around here is that the asbestos sampling and analysis methods your are
        proposing, while doing a better job of extracting asbestos from samples, will not assist us in
        evaluating the risks from asbestos in sediments any better than the data we currently have.
        Therefore, could you provide me with a citation of the Illinois statute or policy that requires the
        asbestos sampling and analysis method you are proposing? Having this citation would help
        put the asbestos issue to rest very quickly.”
This arrogance is indicative of a disregard for the public health and safety and the state environmental
statutes and regulations. It is a further repudiation of scientific truth.

USEPA Region 5 Ignores Elevated Asbestos Test Results to Expedite Flawed Plan
   I have underlined the most egregious misstatement made above by Mr. Cieniawski that identifies
the culture of ignoring science-based risk methodologies in a cover-up of asbestos contamination,
contributed to in part by Region 5 USEPA. The statement above indicates that USEPA Region 5
doesn’t want to be confused with the facts that asbestos is a contaminant in Waukegan Harbor. Mr.
Cieniawski should be reprimanded for such an incompetent statement made to Illinois EPA that
significantly impacts the environment, as well as the safety and health of Illinois citizens. Mr.
Cieniawski had already made up his mind that USEPA Region 5 had “sufficient information” to select
a remedy that did not include asbestos as a contaminant of concern. Ironically, Mr. Cieniawski was
making these statements to Illinois EPA at the same time he was stalling a response to me by stating he
was not an “asbestos expert.” I would agree Mr. Cieniawski is not an asbestos expert and not qualified
to be evaluating lake-bottom sediments to determine that asbestos is not a contaminant of concern in
Waukegan Harbor. Does Region 5 USEPA have anyone who is knowledgeable enough to address the
already known levels of elevated South African amphibole asbestos (amosite) concentrations existing
in Waukegan Harbor lake-bottom sediments?

All Deceptive and Misleading Statements Made by Region 5 Staff That Have Been
Challenged in Complaints Need to be Independently Investigated to Expose Truths
    There are numerous lies and misstatements made by Mr. Alder, Mr. Cieniawski, and Mr. Bradley in
their several deceptive attempts to try to respond to my many inquiries without actually answering
them. Every single lie, misstatement and deceptive response has been addressed in previous
correspondence that I am attaching to this letter. Because you rely upon these three for statements in
your letter, you are now included in the list of those who put out deceptive and misleading responses
that fail to answer my concerns with asbestos at Waukegan Harbor. You have had an opportunity to
respond to serious charges about your staff’s inappropriate behavior and misconduct and have chosen
to ignore them. At this point, I cannot determine if you are just an incompetent manager or are
purposefully putting forth misinformation to protect errors and misconduct made by yourself and your
staff in this cover-up. Either way, it is time for independent investigators to unravel the deceptive
culture that has blossomed in USEPA Region 5, arrogantly and carelessly causing and facilitating
extensive environmental damage and contamination.

Accurate Investigative Findings Long Overdue From USEPA Region 5 Administration
   Evidence of USEPA Region 5’s deception, misstatements, and lies put forth over the last four
months have reached very disturbing levels, including potential criminal misconduct. It is time for you
to properly answer for your staff’s misconduct. I demand a truthful response that defines the
undocumented threshold that was used by USEPA Region 5 to determine that asbestos was not a
contaminant of concern at Waukegan Harbor. You admit that there is no documented evidence
provided by your staff on how they made this decision to ignore asbestos contamination in harbor
                                                    6
sediments. I have clearly demonstrated that the “fluid” attempts at an explanation by you and your
staff are designed to deceive and mislead those looking for answers. Where is the proper
documentation that is required on your projects? Without a properly documented asbestos risk
assessment, your staff must be compelled to start the sediment evaluation process over and withdraw
their fraudulently prepared preliminary design plan for Waukegan Harbor, which is infamous and
nationally known for its extensive pollution. The Region 5 staff’s unconscionable behavior regarding
the Waukegan Harbor area and the Johns-Manville Superfund sites plays directly into the USEPA
Inspector General’s recently released March 15, 2006 letter severely criticizing the USEPA staff for
not determining the full extent of contamination in sediments. This report found that, “Due to
incomplete Strategy implementation, EPA cannot assure that resources devoted to addressing
contaminated sediments provide the most effective and efficient solutions for reducing the
environmental and human health risks posed by this national problem.” It is apparent that Region 5
seems to be at the top of the list for the Inspector General’s description for this misconduct and
incompetence.
  Since you have relied upon your deceptive staff, you and Region 5 Administrator Thomas V. Skinner
must also take full responsibility for statements made in your letter to me and explain its many
inconsistencies and misstatements of fact. I look forward to your prompt and accurate response to the
charges I have made. I also look forward to a full, independent investigation into the motives and
deceptive behavior of USEPA Region 5 Administration and its staff.

Cordially,



Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA


c: Steve Johnson, Administrator of USEPA
   Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator, USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   Mike Cook, Administrator, USEPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
   Gary Gulezian, Director, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
   Thomas V. Skinner, Administrator of USEPA Region 5
   Richard Karl, Director, USEPA Region 5 Superfund Division
   Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General
   Douglas P. Scott, Director, Illinois EPA
   Sandra Bron, Illinois EPA, Bureau of Land, NPL Unit
   G. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman, Illinois Pollution Control Board
   Kathleen M. Crowley, Senior Attorney, Illinois Pollution Control Board
   Paul A. Kakuris, President, Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society




                                                 7
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                               1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                             Fax: 1-847-837-1852



April 14, 2006                                             COMPLAINT
                                                           COMPLAINT
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590

Attention:       Richard Karl, Director, Superfund Division
                 Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office

Re:    ●Two USEPA Region 5 Directors Ignore Serious Asbestos Risk Complaints
       ● Dredging in Waukegan Harbor Spreads Deadly Asbestos Fibers
       ● Non-Response and Cover-up Perpetuated by Region 5 Superiors
       ● Region 5 USEPA Lacks Documentation of Flawed Asbestos Position
       ● Complaint Charges USEPA Cover-up in Role as Asbestos Polluter
       ● USEPA Region 5 Directors Caught Hiding Asbestos Contamination

Dear Mr. Karl and Mr. Gulezian,

I have received your inadequate, non-response to the complaint letters I submitted on March 12,
2006 to Scott Cieniawski (GLNPO) and on March 21, 2006 to Wendy Carney (Superfund). Please
note that these were “COMPLAINT” letters regarding serious charges of your staff’s misconduct.
Your mischaracterizations of these serious charges as mere “questions and concerns raised in your
most recent correspondence” sets a disturbing tone at the onset of your non-response to them. I am
charging that the USEPA Region 5 has knowingly allowed the discharge of massive amounts
of microscopic asbestos into the Federal and State Navigable waters of Lake Michigan from
its Johns-Manville Superfund site since the early 1990’s that has resulted in “statistically
significant” levels of amosite asbestos contamination in lake-bottom sediments in the
Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel that you and your Region 5 staff are covering up.

I have asked through multiple correspondence to various Region 5 USEPA staff (from November
27, 2005 to today’s letter) for an explanation of how manufacturing grade asbestos fibers from
South Africa, that are at “statistically significant” concentrations above background, found in the
Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel lake-bottom sediments, are considered to be “clean,” and,
“preliminarily determined not to be a contaminant of concern” by USEPA Region 5. These
inquiries by me to USEPA Region 5 began a string of stall tactics, misleading statements,
contradictory statements, non-responsive answers, and willful misstatements of facts by each of
your USEPA Region 5 staff. Now you both provide an inadequate, non-responsive reply that still
fails to answer the very simple question I posed at the November, 2005 Waukegan Harbor Citizens
Action Group meeting that no one within Region 5 USEPA can adequately respond to:

How did USEPA Region 5 determine that sediments found to be contaminated with asbestos
in Waukegan Harbor, Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel, and the Waukegan Harbor


                                                 1
Advanced Maintenance Area were “clean” and preliminarily “not a contaminant of
concern?”

Asbestos is a contaminant of concern at the Johns-Manville Superfund site in Waukegan, Illinois.
The mismanagement of the Johns-Manville Superfund site by USEPA Region 5 since the late
1980’s has resulted in the discharge of unfiltered asbestos-polluted water from this site (where
asbestos is a contaminant of concern) into the Federal and State Navigable waters of Lake
Michigan. This massive discharge of unfiltered microscopic asbestos fibers was a result of USEPA
Region 5’s failure to construct a berm between the Johns-Manville Superfund site and the Federally
Protected Critical Habitat and State Dedicated Nature Preserve of Illinois Beach State Park. The
berm was supposed to have been constructed in compliance with a Federal Consent Decree to
prevent the asbestos-polluted water from the Johns-Manville Superfund site from continuously
discharging illegally into the Federally Protected Critical Habitat and State Dedicated Nature
Preserve of Illinois Beach State Park. USEPA Region 5 and the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources “modified” the consent decree without any studies or supporting documentation to
prevent the construction of this pollution barrier berm. The USEPA and Illinois EPA then allowed
the asbestos polluted waste water from the Johns-Manville Superfund site (where asbestos is a
contaminant of concern) to be discharged unfiltered into the Federal and State Navigable waters of
Lake Michigan in an attempt to prevent the continuous, illegal discharges of the asbestos polluted
waters from the Johns-Manville Superfund site into the Federally Protected Critical Habitat and
State Dedicated Nature Preserve of Illinois Beach State Park.

The unfiltered asbestos-polluted wastewater discharge from the Johns-Manville Superfund site was
allowed by a flawed NPDES discharge permit to release up to 7 million asbestos fibers per liter
above 10 microns in length (and unlimited asbestos fibers 10 microns and smaller), to be discharged
into the Federal and State Navigable waters of Lake Michigan. A violation measurement of over 22
million unfiltered asbestos fibers per liter above 10 microns (and an unmeasured and unknown
quantity of asbestos fibers 10 microns and smaller), were discharged into Lake Michigan in May,
2002. I have reviewed NPDES discharge reports from this site and calculated that on many
occasions since the early 1990’s over a trillion unfiltered asbestos fibers a day have entered the
Federal and State Navigable waters of Lake Michigan from the Johns-Manville Superfund site,
where asbestos is a contaminant of concern. An interim study released by the University of Illinois
at Chicago on behalf of the Illinois Attorney General found amosite asbestos (originating from
South Africa) in “statistically significant” concentrations above background levels in Waukegan
Harbor Approach Channel lake-bottom sediments. At the November, 2005 Waukegan CAG
meeting Scott Cieniawski of USEPA Region 5 GLNPO stated that these lake-bottom sediments
were “clean” and “asbestos was not a contaminant of concern” in Waukegan Harbor, the Approach
Channel, and Advance Maintenance Area lake-bottom sediments. Since this statement was made
by Mr. Cieniawski last November, USEPA has not produced any evidence in support of this
deceptive claim in spite of my persistent inquiries, requests, and complaints. Your April 5, 2006
inadequate, non-response is an example of how even the Director level positions at USEPA Region
5 refuse to provide an explanation (with supporting documentation) that indicate how Region 5
determined that asbestos is not a contaminant of concern and that the lake-bottom sediments are
considered “clean” for dredging purposes at Waukegan Harbor. The inadequate, non-response in
your letter to me is obviously designed to cover-up for your lack of oversight and mismanagement
of your staff who have allowed their Superfund sites to contaminate the Illinois Lake Michigan
shoreline with asbestos contamination, including tremolite asbestos. When can I expect a proper
response to these “questions and concerns” I am raising once again in this formal complaint to both
of you?

                                                 2
Your inadequate, non-response made several unsupported statements that I believe were purposely
designed to deceive me and others to whom you have presented your April 5, 2006 letter. I would
like you to provide written evidence in support of the following unsupported claims and statements
found in your inadequate, non-response to me:
    1. The second line of your non-response states, “It is our position that the USEPA has been
       straightforward and thorough in our correspondence with you regarding the Waukegan
       Harbor Matters.” I documented the series of stalls, misstatements of fact, deceptive
       responses, non-responses, and willful misstatements of fact by each of your staff in my letter
       to Wendy Carney dated March 21, 2006. I am including a copy of my letter to Ms. Carney
       for your review and reevaluation.
       I would like a written response to each of the charges I made of the improper conduct of
       your staff including their deceptive behavior that is chronologically presented in my letter to
       Ms. Carney. I specifically would like to know which stall tactics, lies, contradictory
       statements, and non-responses each of you found to be “straightforward and thorough” from
       your staff?
    2. The second paragraph of your non-response attempts to explain why asbestos is not a
       contaminant of concern in Waukegan Harbor. You state, “Other contaminants have been
       identified in the harbor sediments during the pre-cleanup investigative stage, but PCB was
       the ‘risk driver’ in accordance with Superfund risk assessment guidance and thus a focus of
       our subsequent clean-up actions.” However, no USEPA Region 5 documentation exists for
       performing evaluations of asbestos as a risk driver in accordance with Superfund risk
       assessment guidance at Waukegan Harbor. Scott Cieniawski has confirmed that no risk
       assessments were performed on asbestos at Waukegan Harbor, the Approach Channel, and
       the Advanced Maintenance Area lake-bottom sediments.
       Therefore, how did USEPA Region 5 determine asbestos was not a risk driver and not a
       contaminant of concern in Waukegan Harbor lake-bottom sediments if no USEPA
       Superfund risk assessment guidance documentation was followed?
    3. The third paragraph explains that your initial clean-up of Waukegan Harbor was not as
       protective as originally designed and that unsafe levels of PCB’s still exist in Lake Michigan
       fish. You state, “Therefore, USEPA and other federal, state, and local agencies are
       exploring another sediment cleanup action in Waukegan Harbor under the Great Lakes
       Legacy Act to address the residual PCB levels in the harbor sediments.” However, this
       proposed cleanup will disturb lake-bottom sediments in the Waukegan Harbor Approach
       Channel that were documented in 2005 testing by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office to
       contain “statistically significant” concentrations of amosite asbestos fibers that originate
       from South Africa. Mr. Cieniawski, stated these asbestos-contaminated sediments were
       considered “clean” and would be used as cover in the harbor-bottom and for other purposes.
       How did Mr. Cieniawski and Region 5 USEPA conclude that lake-bottom sediments
       containing amosite asbestos in concentrations “statistically significant” above background
       levels was clean for use as fill in Waukegan Harbor and other onshore locations?
    4. Your fourth paragraph discusses why PCB’s are a main focus of the clean-up and why
       asbestos is not. You state, “PCB’s are accumulating in harbor fish and people are catching
       and eating fish from the harbor, completing the exposure pathway for PCB’s.” However,
       trillions of unfiltered asbestos fibers have been discharged, often daily, from the Johns-
       Manville Superfund site since the early 1990’s with USEPA Region 5 knowledge. Asbestos
       is a contaminant of concern at this site. These massive discharges of trillions of unfiltered
       asbestos fibers occur almost daily and have settled into the lake-bottom sediments in and
       around Waukegan Harbor and are carried as far south as Chicago. Dredging activities
                                                    3
     disturb the massive accumulation of microscopic asbestos fibers in lake-bottom sediments
     forming plumes of asbestos-contamination that wash onto the public shorelines in
     Waukegan. The waterborne asbestos fibers then dry on the shoreline where they become
     airborne. Children and adults frequenting the public beaches are then exposed to airborne
     amosite asbestos, “completing the exposure pathway” for asbestos.
     What risk assessments following USEPA Superfund risk assessment guidance have
     determined that this exposure pathway for asbestos is not a “risk driver” for sediment
     dredging activities in Waukegan Harbor?
5.   Paragraph four continues by half heartedly acknowledging that I am correct that amosite
     asbestos from South Africa does not belong in Waukegan Harbor sediments. You state,
     “EPA agrees that some asbestos fibers are present in sediment and that they may not be
     naturally occurring.” In fact, all of the asbestos fibers found in the approach channel of
     Waukegan Harbor in the summer of 2005 by the University of Illinois at Chicago report
     were amosite asbestos, which originates in South Africa. The approach channel sediments
     were then determined to be “clean” by USEPA Region 5 in fall, 2005.
      How did USEPA Region 5 determine that non-naturally occurring amosite asbestos-
     contamination (apparently originating from the Johns-Manville Superfund site discharge)
     found in lake-bottom sediments of Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel were “clean” for
     use as fill in Waukegan Harbor?
6.   Paragraph four continues to try to ignore the sediment-to water- to land- to air asbestos
     exposure risk pathway explained in point 4 above. You state, “Asbestos fibers are harmful if
     inhaled, but no one is inhaling asbestos fibers from sediment that is 18-20 feet under water.”
     However, the amosite asbestos contamination in the Waukegan Approach Channel lake-
     bottom sediments will be dredged, brought to the surface, transported, and dumped into
     Waukegan Harbor as cover/fill material. This process will disturb the amosite asbestos
     contamination in sediments that are 18-20 feet under water. Large asbestos-contaminated
     plumes generated during the dredging and dumping will transfer the toxic amosite asbestos
     fibers to the shoreline where they will dry, then become an airborne exposure pathway to the
     public.
     Can USEPA Region 5 explain how amosite contaminated lake-bottom sediments in the
     Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel will be dredged, transported, and dumped into
     Waukegan Harbor without creating an airborne exposure pathway from the plumes
     generated during these activities that will wash onto the shoreline?
7.   Paragraph four also attempts to suggest that removal of PCB-contaminated harbor sediments
     will somehow reduce the other contaminants in the sediments including asbestos. You state,
     “It is expected that measures taken to remove PCB’s from the harbor sediments would also
     be beneficial for the removal of asbestos as well as other contaminants.” However, your
     draft remedial design calls for re-covering the Waukegan Harbor PCB dredge area with
     amosite-contaminated sediments dredged from the Waukegan Approach Channel.
     Can USEPA Region 5 explain how dumping amosite asbestos-contaminated lake-bottom
     sediments from Waukegan Approach Channel directly into Waukegan Harbor will “be
     beneficial for the removal of asbestos” in Waukegan Harbor?
8.   Paragraph four concludes with a misstatement that USEPA Region 5 would “consider”
     asbestos during the harbor clean-up. You state “EPA would consider the precautions that
     are necessary to protect workers and the public from exposure to asbestos as well as PCBs
     during the handling, transportation and disposal stages of the cleanup, and incorporate this
     into any actions that are undertaken.” However, the preliminary design document for
     Waukegan Harbor excludes asbestos in any work plan. In fact the word asbestos can not be
     found in the document. If USEPA is “considering” precautions necessary to protect workers
     and the public from asbestos during Waukegan Harbor clean-up, then why is asbestos not
                                                 4
        currently addressed in the preliminary design document where consideration was already
        given to PCB precautions? Why cover-up?
     9. Your last paragraph attempts to pawn off your agencies’ responsibility for addressing the
        massive asbestos contamination created by Region 5 USEPA’s mishandling of the Johns-
        Manville Superfund site and Waukegan Harbor lake-bottom sediments. You state, “While
        we cannot readily address your lakefront-wide asbestos concerns under the scope of our
        Superfund and Great Lakes Legacy Act cleanup programs, EPA will continue to work with
        our asbestos task force partners…” However, the Johns-Manville Superfund site has
        apparently created the amosite asbestos contamination of lake-bottom sediments in the
        Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel, which would make its clean-up the responsibility of
        Region 5 Superfund. Secondly, the dredging of the amosite-contaminated lake bottom
        sediments of the Waukegan Harbor Approach Channel for use in the Waukegan Harbor
        cleanup is also the responsibility of the Great Lakes Legacy Act cleanup program.
        Can USEPA Region 5 explain how amosite asbestos-contamination from one Superfund site
        (Johns-Manville) contaminating lake bottom-sediments in a second Superfund site
        (Waukegan Harbor) cannot be “readily addressed” under the responsibility of USEPA
        Region 5?

I find the non-responses a deceptive effort to cover-up your lack of supervision over the bungling of
the Johns-Manville Superfund site and the Waukegan Harbor clean-up by your staff and agencies.
USEPA Region 5 has created additional contamination in an already horribly contaminated area.
Your previous attempts at removing PCB contamination at Waukegan Harbor have failed requiring
yet another attempt by the bunglers. The mishandling of the Johns-Manville clean-up has spread
massive amounts of microscopic asbestos fibers outside of its fence line through an unfiltered
discharge directly into the Federal and State Navigable Waters of Lake Michigan.

Now, Region 5 USEPA is covering up the botching of the clean-up of Johns-Manville and
Waukegan Harbor with unsupported statements regarding asbestos-contaminated sediments as
“clean.” Region 5 has used inferior testing and undocumented reasoning to claim asbestos is not a
contaminant of concern in Waukegan Harbor and that lake-bottom sediments that contain amosite
asbestos can be used as “clean” fill. These conclusions are made by the site managers who created
this mess and are attempting to cover up their mishandling of contamination at these sites. Now
you both are actively involved in the cover-up. Your words are meaningless. I demand that you
provide written evidence to support the claims made in previous correspondence by you and your
staff.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Cordially,

Jeffery C. Camplin
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA

c:      Michael Cook, Director, USEPA-OSRTI
        Thomas V. Skinner, Administrator, USEPA Region 5
        Steve Johnson, Administrator of USEPA
        Susan Bodine, Asst. Administrator, USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
        Tammy Mitchell, Illinois EPA

                                                  5
                                Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society
                                       Paul A. Kakuris, President
                                       P.O. Box 466        Zion, IL 60099
                                       Phone Number: 312 332-3377
                                       FAX Number: 312 332-3379           ildunesland@aol.com

May 15, 2006                                                      COMPLAINT
                                                                   Immediate Response Requested


Memo:          Douglas Scott, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
               Bernard P. Killian, Deputy Director, IEPA
               Laurel Kroac, Bureau Chief, IEPA Air Pollution Control
               Dale Halford, IEPA Air Pollution Control
               Bill Child, Bureau Chief, IEPA Land Pollution Control
               Marcia Wilhite, Bureau Chief, IEPA Water Pollution Control
               Chris Kallis, IEPA Water Pollution Control
               Dale Galassie, Director, Lake County Health Department
               Michael Waxman, President, Lake County Board
               Carl B. Hagstrom, Vice President, Lake County Board

Subject:
   1. State Attempts to Cover up New Asbestos Discoveries at Illinois Beach State Park
   2. State’s Deceptive New Asbestos Cover-up Riddled with Violations of Statutes and
      Regulations
   3. State’s Asbestos Consultant PSI has Begun Picking up and Removing Friable
      Asbestos Pieces, Apparently Attempting to Circumvent Public Scrutiny and
      Disclosure While Apparently Violating State Statutes and Regulations
   4. State’s Attempt to Keep Asbestos Secret Backfires, Causes Public Health Risk, and
      Further Environmental Contamination

Scope:
   • Several hundred square feet of friable/regulated transite sheeting is scattered across more than
     100 acres of public property.
   • The asbestos demolition debris is located at the Lake Michigan shoreline just south of Camp
     Logan and north of the Zion nuclear power plant in the north unit of Illinois Beach State Park.
     The damaged and weathered asbestos transite sheeting and piping is scattered across an old
     residential neighborhood that the State of Illinois has owned since the early 1970’s when the
     demolition apparently occurred.
   • It appears the old homes were demolished; some of the debris was buried onsite and some was
     left on the surface, which left hundreds of asbestos pieces scattered throughout the acreage and
     exposed to the environment and weathered.
   • Some of the razed buildings may be from a military installation on the site.
   • Over the years, the materials have surfaced and contaminated a several acre area with visible
     and microscopic asbestos.
                                                                                                        1
Earlier this year, a field burn in the area consumed grasses and brush that had previously concealed the
extent of the friable asbestos debris. There are several hundred square feet of asbestos debris ranging in
size from crumbs to as large as several square feet. Several hundred pieces of this asbestos debris is
scattered on the surface of the acreage. There are other pieces emerging from the soil, heaved up during
the freeze and thaw cycles, indicating an unknown amount of similar pieces of debris buried at the site.
The area is state property that is laden with asbestos debris; it is currently open to the public from
sunrise to sunset each day. The demolition debris located in and above ground has created airborne
hazards, land pollution, and shoreline/water pollution and safety concerns.

Complaint:
The presence of friable and regulated asbestos-containing materials in the Camp Logan area of Illinois
Beach State Park has created and continues to create an environmental, safety, and public health
emergency.

The asbestos debris appears to have originated from residential building materials and a military
installation. These residential structures were owned by the state of Illinois prior to being demolished
sometime in the early 1970’s. Demolition of these structures occurred under ownership of the state of
Illinois. This asbestos-regulated, friable demolition waste debris poses a threat to human health and the
environment for the following reasons:
     1. Asbestos cement building materials have become damaged and friable due to previous
         demolition activities approximately 30 years ago. These materials have been a danger for all
         these years and are even more dangerous now due to weathering.
     2. The demolition debris originated from publicly owned structures and is therefore regulated
         under the NESHAP asbestos regulations that apply if this debris is disturbed by the state’s
         asbestos consultant PSI.
     3. A majority of the asbestos cement demolition debris appears to have been land-filled.
         However, there are several hundred square feet of damaged asbestos cement demolition debris
         that are lying on the ground or have become partially exposed to the surface.
     4. The asbestos cement debris exposed above the ground surface is severely damaged, resulting in
         asbestos fiber releases along damaged edges.
     5. The asbestos cement debris exposed above the ground surface has been exposed to weathering
         and is deteriorating on all areas of its exposed surface area. The weathering and damage has
         rendered the asbestos debris friable on exposed surface areas.
     6. A recent field burn conducted by the IDNR occurred in the former residential community where
         the asbestos cement debris was exposed on the ground surface. The fire further deteriorated the
         asbestos cement debris and also created an airborne asbestos hazard with intense updrafts
         during the burning process, exposing staff and firefighting officials to further asbestos
         contamination.
     7. The asbestos cement debris and partially buried asbestos debris no longer has the protection of
         groundcover due to the fire. Some of the larger pieces were never covered. The asbestos debris
         is more readily affected by weathering and wind. Partially buried asbestos debris is now
         becoming more exposed to the surface, creating and increasing asbestos hazards.
     8. The IDNR is aware of the presence of the massive amounts of damaged and weathered asbestos
         cement debris that covers several acres of public land. Previously landfilled demolition debris
         has emerged from the ground and surfaced; it has also eroded onto the shoreline on the eastern


                                                                                                         2
       edge of the property. No steps have been taken to warn the public of these known hazards in
       this area.
   9. The public has not been restricted in any manner from entering this area.
   10. The IDNR has contracted with an environmental consultant, PSI, to manually pick up this
       regulated asbestos debris, apparently wearing gloves, street clothing, and no respirator.
   11. IDNR is apparently not using a licensed asbestos abatement contractor to remove the asbestos
       debris.
   12. IDNR does not appear to have a NESHAP trained person onsite supervising activities while
       asbestos debris is being removed by worker(s), sidestepping union contractors to avoid paying
       union scale.
   13. Asbestos debris is being removed by unsupervised personnel who are apparently not using
       appropriate personal protective equipment or following OSHA work practices.
           a. Workers must have OSHA Class II training
           b. Workers must have a negative exposure assessment (personal exposure monitoring)
               specific to work in this area. Without site-specific air monitoring, workers must wear
               respiratory protection. Hygiene facilities must be available at the work site to
               decontaminate workers prior to leaving the work area.
           c. OSHA requires prompt clean-up and disposal. Last week, asbestos debris was piled in
               multiple areas for collection at a later date. No signage or regulated areas were
               established keeping unauthorized people out of the work areas.
           d. OSHA requires the use of wetting agents when handling asbestos. Materials were
               handled dry last week.
           e. Vehicle (gator) was not decontaminated after leaving the work areas.
           f. State workers and the public are exempt from OSHA compliance. However, the EPA
               enforces OSHA for public workers under the worker protection rule.
   14. Regulated asbestos waste is being transported in uncontainerized bags through publicly
       accessible areas by the lone environmental consultant. There is no warning sign on the vehicle
       transporting the asbestos waste.
   15. No wetting agents are used during the removal of the asbestos debris.
   16. The areas where asbestos debris is removed are not isolated from the public.
   17. The areas where asbestos debris is removed do not have appropriate warning signs.
   18. There are no decontamination facilities being utilized by the lone environmental consultant who
       is involved in the removal of friable asbestos from this area.
   19. Erosion of the shoreline has caused the asbestos cement debris to discharge into the Federal and
       State navigable waters of Lake Michigan with IDNR’s and IEPA’s knowledge.
   20. Annual beach clean-ups are allowed by IDNR along shoreline areas known to contain friable
       asbestos debris and fibers from this site, resulting in the removal of regulated asbestos by
       untrained and unsuspecting volunteers.
   21. Signage in the area does not properly warn the public of the asbestos and other safety hazards
       found in the Camp Logan area and along the shoreline.

Actions Requested:
   1. These asbestos-contaminated and debris-laden hazard areas should be immediately isolated
      from the public.
   2. The apparently illegal asbestos removal should cease immediately.
   3. The Illinois EPA should investigate the asbestos debris on the surface to determine proper
      clean-up.
                                                                                                      3
    4. The Illinois EPA should evaluate the partially exposed asbestos debris to determine the extent
       of sub-surface clean-up necessary.
    5. The Illinois EPA should evaluate the volume of asbestos debris buried on state property and
       implement a remedy that is protective of human health and the environment.
    6. The Illinois EPA should take emergency action to prevent any further erosion of the shoreline,
       which causes regulated asbestos debris to be discharged into the Federal and State Navigable
       Waters of Lake Michigan.
    7. The Illinois EPA should prepare a public announcement notifying the community that the area
       was contaminated with friable asbestos for an undetermined period of time in areas they may
       have frequented.
    8. A public health assessment should be conducted by the Lake County Health Department to
       determine the past risk to the public that frequents the area.
    9. An investigation should be conducted into why the IDNR:
           a. Refused to restrict access into an area containing friable asbestos.
           b. Did not utilize properly credentialed, protected, and supervised personnel
           c. Did not notify the Illinois EPA of the situation.
           d. Possibly engaged in criminal activities and regulatory violations.
           e. Willfully bulldozed and spread asbestos-containing materials during the demolition
              activity, leaving it exposed to the elements.
           f. Left the public to be unwittingly exposed to asbestos fibers as they hike and bicycle
              through the area.
           g. Apparently tried to hide the asbestos removal, using unqualified personnel. IDNR
              apparently quietly removed asbestos, while violating statutes and regulations, allowing
              workers, subcontractors, and volunteers to be unwittingly exposed in this contaminated
              area.

Please respond by email or FAX.

Sincerely,
Paul A. Kakuris
Paul A. Kakuris, President

c.
Governor Rod Blagojevich
Sam Flood, Acting Director, IDNR
Leslie Sgro, Deputy Director, IDNR
William K. Richardson, Legal Counsel, IDNR
Tim Hickman, IDNR Division of Land Management
Todd Rettig, IDNR Division of Natural Resources Review
Tony Mayville, IDNR Office of Land Managements
Murray R. Savage, CEO, PSI
Howell Baranum, President, PSI
George Lytwynyshyn, Vice President, PSI
Gregory G. Smith, PSI
David A. Dunn, PSI




                                                                                                        4
Attachment:
5/12/06 Photo Showing Scattered Piles of Asbestos Debris




5/12/06 Photo of Pile of Friable Asbestos Debris




                                                           5
5/12/06 Photo Showing Asbestos Fibers on the Edges of Debris




                                                               6
                      Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society
                           Paul A. Kakuris, President
                           P.O. Box 466        Zion, IL 60099
                           Phone Number: 312 332-3377
                           FAX Number: 312 332-3379
                                                                ildunesland@aol.com

June 21, 2006                       SECOND FORMAL COMPLAINT

Memo: Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan                      by email

Subject: Attorney General Does Not Respond to Complaint about New,
Serious Asbestos Discovery on the Illinois Coast

  • IAG Ignores Formal Complaint of Asbestos Exposure and New
    Contamination Found

  • Public Officials Cover up Their Own Asbestos Contamination,
    Including Tremolite, While Millions are Unwittingly Exposed on the
    Illinois Shoreline and Beaches

  • Federal and State Agencies Rig Testing and Sampling to Cover up
    Their Involvement in Asbestos Contamination of Illinois’s Shoreline

  • ATSDR/CDC Stands by, Ignoring Violations They Observe

  • Apparent Obstruction of Enforcement by IAG, IDNR, IEPA, IDPH

  • Government Agencies Waste Federal and State Tax Dollars, Rigging
    Asbestos Studies to Cover up Their Own Polluting of the Illinois
    Shoreline, State Park, & Lake Michigan with Deadly Asbestos Fibers

  • Dunesland Responds to False, Deceptive, and Misleading Statement
    from Regulatory Agencies that Allow Serious Asbestos Violations to
    Continue, Endangering Public Health and Safety

  • Hikers Unaware of Their Exposure to Asbestos While Walking
    Through Camp Logan at Illinois Beach State Park

  •   Special Report by Asbestos Health & Safety Expert Attached


                                                                                      1
NO RESPONSE FROM IAG’S OFFICE TO FORMAL COMPLAINT ABOUT ASBESTOS
There has been no response from you for five weeks to our May 17 complaint
about hundreds of square feet of regulated, friable asbestos contamination at
Illinois Beach State Park and the Lake Michigan shoreline. Why? We have made
other complaints about overlapping asbestos beach issues which you have
either not addressed at all or have not made a serious response. Why? The
environmental, safety and public health violations, in addition to the apparent
misconduct and cover-up by state officials you represent, still exist.
Why haven’t we heard from you about our May 17 complaint? Why haven’t you
or the Illinois EPA visited the sites of our complaint where hundreds of square
feet of regulated asbestos-containing, friable demolition debris were still
present (and photographed) in public areas of the park as late as June 8, 2006.

IDNR’S RESPONSE DOES NOT ADDRESS SERIOUS ISSUES, COVER-UP ATTEMPT
We have received a letter from IDNR’s Tim Hickman, dated May 19, postmarked
May 22, and received about May 25. The letter contained many false,
misleading, and deceptive statements; it does not address many of the serious
issues raised. It appears to be drafted as a cover-up by public officials of their
own apparent misconduct. The letter is inaccurate, disingenuous, and
unsatisfactory.

IDNR’s Hickman, in a phone call, said that the letter was drafted (obviously
including the false, deceptive, and misleading statements) by and/or with staff
from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), Illinois Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR), Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and
“possibly” with the advice/assistance of the Attorney General’s office. Were
your lawyers really involved in drafting the letter sent to us by one of the
apparent polluters (IDNR)? If so, who was involved?

If that is the case, it is extremely troubling because the May 19 IDNR response
from Mr. Hickman contains fallacies, willful misstatements of fact, and
fraudulent claims designed to mask and cover-up their misconduct and careless
disregard for public health and safety. How can the public trust the Attorney
General’s office and other state enforcement agencies, particularly when they
operate in secret, apparently make false statements, and obstruct enforcement
of obvious asbestos and public health violations that they are supposed to
enforce, thereby allowing the public to become the “asbestos experiment,” just
like lab rats? It is even more disturbing if lawyers from the Attorney General’s
office participated in, or were aware of, the willful, deceptive, and false
statements made in the IDNR document that try to avoid and evade civil and
criminal violations of asbestos statutes and regulations and then attempt to
cover-up past misconduct and chronic threats to public health.

REPORT FROM JEFFERY C. CAMPLIN ENUMERATES SCIENCE OF DECEPTION
Enclosed is a report to the Dunesland Society that was written for the Society
by Jeffery C. Camplin, Dunesland’s asbestos health and safety expert, in
response to the inaccurate statements found in the Hickman/IDNR letter
(which was apparently drafted by IEPA, IDPH, additional IDNR staff, and IAG
                                                                                 2
attorneys). It also reveals the broader underlying issues of the science by
deception of asbestos on the Illinois shoreline. Therefore, the public continues
to be unwittingly exposed to deadly asbestos fibers while those charged with
clean-up and enforcement thumb their noses at federal and state statutes and
regulations, while continuing to ignore or diminish the clear and legitimate
concerns put forth by the Society.

AGENCIES DUMPED OR FACILITATED DUMPING OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS
The report portrays a sad and apparently corrupt picture of state and federal
officials “out of control,” seemingly involved in scientific fraud and blatant
deception targeted to cover up asbestos contamination on the Illinois shoreline
that some of these agencies actually dumped or discharged and/or facilitated
the dumping or discharging. These are the very same regulators who are
supposed to protect the health and safety of the public! Their willful, deceptive,
and careless actions have exposed millions of innocent families to microscopic
carcinogenic and disease-causing asbestos, including tremolite and amosite
asbestos fibers that are now known to be present on the Illinois shoreline, at
least as far south as Chicago’s Oak Street beach. The microscopic fibers found
on Chicago’s beaches appear to be from the Johns Manville Superfund site in
Waukegan, IL, where state and federal regulators have allowed asbestos fibers
to enter Lake Michigan. Then the currents carry the fibers south, contaminating
much of the Illinois shoreline and its beaches with deadly microscopic
asbestos.

DATA IS “RIGGED,” OUTSIDE SCIENTIFIC INPUT BLOCKED
Your office and the other agencies have made statements to the press that
implied that inhaling asbestos is not a risk and that it is safe. Yet, your office
and these agencies also know that the data referred to is “cooked” or “rigged”
and is saturated with conflicts of interest and bad science. Lulling the unwitting
public into believing that breathing asbestos (including tremolite and amosite)
that is over 5 microns in size is “safe,” is indicative of an arrogant disregard of
the public health and safety and a desperate attempt by federal and state
regulators to cover-up their own apparent criminal misconduct and willful
nonenforcement. The public officials (the regulators) either willfully
dumped/discharged, or facilitated the asbestos contamination. Therefore, they
seem to think the data needs to be manipulated and “protected” from outside
public scrutiny and input in order to show that it is “safe” and to prevent some
of the regulators who are now apparently polluters from being subject to
criminal prosecution.

The willful blocking of outside scientific input in the design stages for sampling
and testing protocols and cloaking it in secrecy allowed the “agency
regulators” to rig your results, wasting thousands of federal and state tax
dollars. When public officials say the beaches are safe by citing so-called
“independent” studies that they know are rigged and which they had
deceitfully co-authored, they commit the ultimate violation of public trust and
should be prosecuted because they have purposefully lulled the innocent public

                                                                                   3
into exposure to deadly asbestos fibers, apparently in order to cover-up their
own misconduct .

The state and federal agencies involved have apparently willfully “obstructed
enforcement” of obvious asbestos and pollution violations they were charged
to enforce, resulting in the massive contamination of trillions upon trillions of
microscopic asbestos fibers on our Illinois beaches and in the source of our
drinking water, Lake Michigan. Families that visit the beaches and park then
track these toxic fibers home with them on their shoes, clothing, hair, skin,
pets, and belongings where secondary exposures can occur.

Let no one think that this problem is confined to the Waukegan/Zion area and
they can breathe a sigh of relief if they attend North Shore or Chicago beaches!
The concerns apply to all who frequent Illinois beaches. How does this deadly
mix affect Lake Michigan’s riparian property owners, or even those who live a
few blocks from the beaches? Riparians would be outraged if they found out
that public officials covered up the contamination and were involved in the
dumping of it.

Illinois is already paying a deadly price for careless asbestos exposures caused
by the negligent government enforcement and politicized regulation of
manufacturing asbestos products. Now the public is further exposed by the
carelessness and willful nonenforcement of local, state, and federal officials
and agencies who are the regulators.

ATSDR/CDC INVOLVEMENT IN MASSIVE ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION
ATSDR/CDC staffers Mark Johnson and James Durant (from the agency that
partners with some of your Asbestos Task Force members) were at IBSP the
week of May 21 and apparently visited some of the asbestos-contaminated
areas mentioned in this letter and Camplin’s report. Did they view the
violations and improper clean-up procedures, consult to, and advise the state
staff? If so, what did they say? Is it in writing or did they ignore the massive,
systemic RACM contamination that they were shown throughout the park and
shoreline? On the other hand, did they blindly continue with the rigged air
testing?

During the activity-based testing, James Durant and Mark Johnson were at
IBSP while the public was allowed to use the testing area and be exposed to
the asbestos fibers stirred up by the testing. They also observed the asbestos
debris at Camp Logan, which continues to be accessible to the public. In both
areas, they witnessed egregious violations of environmental, safety, and health
rules, as described in the attached Camplin report, which includes pictures.
How can ATSDR/CDC staffers stand by, allowing the public to be exposed and
not insist that proper enforcement of regulations be followed? Doesn’t that
make ATSDR/CDC (which is working on an aspect of your Asbestos Task Force
report) a party to these violations, too?


                                                                                    4
Mr. Camplin wrote to ATSDR/CDC and copied Mr. Durant before they arrived at
the park that week. Mr. Camplin requested that he and I meet with them, then
show and discuss with them the areas of massive contamination. Mr. Durant
(apparently by his own volition or yielding to the state’s request) once again
ignored a request for outside scientific and community input, contradicting the
ATSDR/CDC/HHS policies, further implicating the government agencies in a
cover-up. Their activities were covered in the press, which labeled it as “weird
science.”

LAKE & COOK COUNTIES MESOTHELIOMA DEATH RATES 3RD HIGHEST IN U.S.
LAKE COUNTY MESOTHELIOMA RATE 7 TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
ASBESTOS DOES NOT OCCUR NATURALLY IN THIS AREA
Lake and Cook counties (collared around Lake Michigan) have the third highest
mesothelioma death rate in the United States. Lake County alone has a
mesothelioma rate seven times the national average. Non-occupational
mesothelioma victims are appearing who have the common thread that they
have visited the asbestos-contaminated beaches along the Illinois shoreline. By
continuing to ignore our complaints and the hundreds of square feet of friable
and regulated asbestos debris in unsecured public areas of the park and the
Illinois shoreline, new exposures to asbestos by an unwitting public will
continue.

These public exposures to toxic asbestos fibers by Illinois families could have
been avoided if state agencies (polluters) had been held to the same
environmental enforcement standards as the non-governmental or corporate
polluters that you criminally prosecute and threaten with jail in your press
releases. Large, corporate polluters and government agencies, including the
regulatory agencies, have caused and perpetrated massive contamination on
the Illinois shoreline that these same regulatory agencies often ignore for
political reasons. Major violations seem to be enforced arbitrarily and
capriciously, and at a much lower level than the violations warrant. Often,
relatively small infractions by individuals such as the man your office criminally
prosecuted for leaving asbestos building materials in a dumpster at the park
are pursued with vigor, while major, corporate or government polluters are
ignored, given a pass. The regulatory agencies, as polluters, cannot and will
not enforce and prosecute violations against themselves, will they?

Who will protect the families visiting the Illinois beaches and the state park if
the Attorney General’s office is involved in the apparent misconduct described
in the enclosed Camplin report? Who is your client? Do you represent state
regulatory agencies (now the polluters) or the public? It appears that the
public is not your primary concern when your clients (the agencies) become
the polluters and the Attorney General’s office represents or defends them.
Who will enforce the asbestos pollution violations now that the enforcement
agencies and officials are compromised? Who will protect the public?



                                                                                    5
IS SOMEONE BLOCKING IEPA FROM PROPER REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT?
The Formal Complaint was also sent to IEPA state NESHAP manager Dale
Halford who said he was directed by management through Bureau Air Chief
Laurel Kroac to “…let IDNR handle it,” even though the evidence supplied by
our expert clearly showed continuing violations that were never corrected and
the contamination was widespread. Was the Attorney General’s office involved
with tying the hands of the IEPA in this matter?

STATE/CONSULTANTS SKIRT STRICT ABATEMENT REMOVAL STATUTES; IS
IAG’S OFFICE PROTECTING IDNR & IEPA IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THAT BREAK
LAWS, COMPROMISE THE PUBLIC’S HEALTH & WASTE TAX DOLLARS?
In a shamelessly transparent act, state consultants PSI and CCA apparently
“took the money” and masqueraded as asbestos inspectors conducting a study,
when in reality they were acting as abatement contractors. However, they
never really cleaned up the asbestos fibers and debris; it is still there at Camp
Logan and on the beaches. As so-called consultants/inspectors for the state,
they were skirting the strict abatement removal statutes and regulations in
order to avoid scrutiny by the press and the public. The public would question
why the workers were wearing protective clothing, respirators and posting
cautionary signage while the public was given free access to visit the park or
beach, and observe while the “abatement contractors” removed regulated
asbestos debris and left behind other chunks of deadly asbestos debris and
microscopic asbestos mixed in the sand and soils, causing further exposure.
Was the Attorney General’s office involved with the IDNR and IEPA in this
matter?

If the Attorney General chooses to PROTECT and legally represent IDNR, IEPA,
and IDPH in their apparent misconduct and involvement in asbestos
contamination of the Illinois shoreline and IBSP, then who is left to ENFORCE
the asbestos violations, whether they are civil or criminal, for the public health
and safety? Doesn’t representing both sides compromise the Attorney General
further and render the office impotent? Also, your new and “unusual”
relationship with these agencies as your “partners” and members of your
Asbestos Task Force, (who then author and review their own asbestos
contamination activities), leaves the Attorney General’s office severely
compromised, and rudderless at best. Some of these agencies are your legal
clients, too.




                                                                                     6
DUNESLAND REQUESTS RESPONSE FROM IAG’S OFFICE
PUBLIC’S CONCERNS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, NOT IGNORED
  • Will you read the enclosed Camplin report, which exposes deceptive
    behavior by IDNR and other state officials and agencies, and then launch
    an investigation? It may be difficult to investigate the agencies the
    Attorney General’s office and your staff lawyers have apparently colluded
    with concerning the willful contamination and non-enforcement of
    asbestos pollution issues for years, causing the public at least as far south
    as Oak Street beach in Chicago to be exposed to invisible and deadly
    asbestos fibers, including tremolite.
  • Will you act upon it and end over 30 years of unnecessary public
    exposures to airborne asbestos fibers generated by washing up on the
    Lake Michigan beaches and from damaged, weathered and burned
    asbestos-containing demolition debris found scattered in publicly
    accessible areas of Illinois Beach State Park?
  • Will you enforce the more recent illegal discharge of asbestos
    contaminated demolition debris (RACM) which is illegally eroding from
    the Camp Logan area into Lake Michigan? The loss of this State Dedicated
    Nature Preserve is caused by the North Point Marina accelerating the
    erosion on the park’s shoreline, which is a manifestation of the negligence
    of state officials.
  • Will you investigate IDNR ‘s violation of the Marina’s coastal construction
    permit which is causing damage and contamination to its own property,
    IBSP, and the State Dedicated Nature Preserve, destroying habit and
    threatened and endangered species?
  • Will you answer our many complaint letters and allow open and
    transparent public participation in resolving the chronic asbestos
    problems that local, state, and federal agencies have failed to resolve?
  • Will you answer this letter and the May 17 complaint regarding the new
    widespread, friable asbestos contamination that the state agencies are
    allowing to litter the ground of IBSP?


Sincerely,
Paul A. Kakuris
Paul A. Kakuris, President

Attachments: Special Report from Jeffery C. Camplin, June 3, 2006
             IDNR Letter from Tim Hickman, May 17, 2006

c.
U. S. Senator Dick Durbin
U.S. Senator Barach Obama
Governor Rod Blagojevich
Bradley Tusk, Governor’s office
Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary
Julie Gerberding, ATSDR Administrator
Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General HHS
Alex Michael Azar II, Deputy Secretary HHS
Rich McKeown, Chief of Staff, HHS

                                                                                7
Paula M. Stannard, Acting General Counsel HHS
Henry Falk, MD, MPH, Director, ATSDR
Howard Frumkin, M.D., DrPH, Director ATSDR
Drue Barrett, PhD, Acting Deputy Director, ATSDR
Lynn Austin, PhD, Chief of Staff, ATSDR
Paula Kocher, JD, Deputy Associate Counsel, ATSDR
Dixie Snider, Jr, MD, MPH, Chief Science Officer, ATSDR
John Wheeler, PhD, ATSDR
Susan Metcalf, ATSDR
James Durant, ATSDR
Mark Johnson, PhD, ATSDR Region V
Bill Roderick, USEPA Acting Inspector General
Bharat Mathur, Acting Administration, USEPA Region V
Richard Karl, USEPA Superfund
Brad Bradley, USEPA Superfund
Arunas Draugelis, USEPA
George Czerniak, USEPA
Lynn Roberts, USEPA
Brent Marable, USEPA
Ann Spillane, IAG
Diane Saltoun, IAG Inspector General
James A. Wright, Illinois Executive Inspector General
Sydney R. Roberts, Illinois First Deputy Inspector General
Douglas P. Scott, IEPA Director
Bernard Killian, IEPA
Alec Messina, IEPA Chief Legal Counsel
Marcia Wilhite, IEPA
Mike Garretson, IEPA Compliance Assurance
Toby Frevert, IEPA Manager
Roger Selburg, IEPA Manager
Laurel Kroac, IEPA
Julie Armitage, IEPA Compliance Enforcement
Jim Ross, IEPA Manager
Bill Child, IEPA
Michael Nechvatal, IEPA Manager
Michael King, IEPA Manager
Chris Kallis, IEPA
Dale Halford, IEPA
Sandra Bron, IEPA
Eric Whitaker, IDPH
Marilyn Thomas, IDPH Acting Chief Counsel
Ken Runkel, IDHP
Gary Flentge, IDPH
Tom Schafer, IDPH
Jennifer Davis, IDPH
Sam Flood, Director, IDNR
Tony Mayville, IDNR
Tim Hickman, IDNR
Bill Richardson, IDNR Chief Legal Counsel
Robert G. Mool, IDNR Assistant Counsel
Jack Price, IDNR Assistant Counsel
Virginia F. Yong, IDNR Assistant Counsel
Stan Yonkauski, IDNR
Todd Rettig, IDNR
Pat Giordano, IDNR
Dale W. Galassie, Director, Lake County Health Department
William Mays, Lake County Health Department
Mark Pfister, Lake County Health Department
Stephen A. Martin, Jr., PhD, M.P.D., Director, Cook County Department of Health
Sadhu Johnston, Commissioner, City of Chicago Department of Environment
Jeffery C. Camplin




                                                                                  8
June 3, 2006 Email to Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society
Dear Mr. Kakuris,

I have reviewed the IDNR/Hickman letter that attempts to address your asbestos complaint letter you have submitted to
the Illinois EPA and Lake County Department of Public Health. I have found fatal flaws in the arguments put forth by
IDNR. I have visited Illinois Beach State Park on June 2, 2006. The asbestos hazards still exist in public areas of Illinois
Beach State Park and immediate actions are necessary to protect the public from asbestos exposures.

Please read my letter and forward this information to individuals and agencies that can take proper actions to mitigate this
public health emergency created by the state of Illinois' lack of diligence and regulatory enforcement.

Cordially,


Jeff
Jeffery C. Camplin
1681 Verde Lane
Mundelein, IL 60060-4823
Cell: 1-708-284-4563




                                                                                                                               9
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                                   1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                                 Fax: 1-847-837-1852


Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society                                                June 3, 2006
P.O. Box 466
Zion, IL 60099

Attention: Paul A. Kakuris, President

Re:    Correction of Multiple Factual Misstatements and Deceptive Misrepresentations made by IDNR
       ● IDNR’s May 19, 2006 Response Letter to Dunesland’s Asbestos Complaint Letter to IEPA
       ● Asbestos Discoveries at Illinois Beach State Park Mishandled by INDR in Public Areas

Dear Mr. Kakuris,

As you have requested, I have reviewed the May 19, 2006 letter from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR) Chief of Parks and Recreation, Mr. Tim Hickman, explaining the actions taken by his department in response to
recently discovered “potential” asbestos-containing materials at Illinois Beach State Park (IBSP).

The explanations provided in Mr. Hickman’s response letter were prompted by a May 15, 2006 Illinois Dunesland
Preservation Society (Dunesland) complaint letter to the Illinois EPA and Lake County Department of Public Health
regarding the IDNR’s improper response to the discovery of hundreds of square feet of suspected asbestos-containing
materials found scattered between 21st Street and Kellogg Creek (approximately 1 square mile area) in publicly
accessible areas in Camp Logan at the IBSP North Unit. That complaint letter was followed by a Dunesland letter of
complaint to the Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan on this same topic. The response letter from Mr. Hickman
appears to have been written for other eyes in an attempt to cover-up their potentially criminal actions that
unnecessarily exposed an unwitting public, subcontractors, IDNR workers, and volunteers to friable and microscopic
asbestos exposures, attempting to extricate themselves from the blame. Even more pathetic is IDNR’s exploitation of
a draft interim study that IDNR, IEPA, IDPH, IAG, USEPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, and UIC skewed and which
they are now trying to use to support IDNR’s self-serving position, quoting their fabricated contributions as gospel.

Mr. Hickman cannot be allowed to cite an unproven, non-peer reviewed, interim draft report that his agency helped
author as a defense for his agency’s creation of hazardous asbestos scenarios which have created a public health
emergency and apparently violated state and federal environmental, safety and public health regulations. This point
aside, Mr. Hickman’s claims of the responses conducted by his agency to asbestos debris found at IBSP is not
supported by the facts. All three paragraphs of this IDNR letter, signed by Mr. Hickman, contain falsehoods that are
easily identified and refuted.

I visited the subject area at IBSP on the afternoon of Friday, May 26, 2006 and confirmed that the hundreds of square
feet of assumed asbestos-containing debris are still present in unsecured and unrestricted public areas of the park.
Members of the media were present with me and photographed the same debris that has been scattered throughout
this site since our initial discovery in early May 2006. IDNR vehicle tracks were noted during our several weeks of
walking through the demolition site, providing evidence that IDNR has previously scanned and disturbed the massively
asbestos-contaminated area. Some debris has been piled or consolidated in several public areas of the Park,
presumably by park staff or consultants. A few of the larger pieces have been wrapped, left unsupervised overnight,
and eventually removed. Hundreds of square feet of friable, regulated, assumed asbestos-containing demolition debris
are emerging from its subsurface grave of thirty plus years ago where it has now become partially or fully exposed at
the surface. Some of the asbestos-containing debris was carelessly left and spread out on the ground’s surface for
years. A complaint phone call during the week of May 8, 2006 by Dunesland to Dale Halford, NESHAP asbestos
regulatory enforcement official for the Illinois EPA has gone uninvestigated. A written complaint by Dunesland to the
Illinois EPA and Lake County Department of Public Health followed-up this phone complaint on May 15, 2006. Yet, as
of the afternoon of June 2, 2006, nothing has changed because friable pieces still remain and no formal enforcement
has been taken to abate serious environmental, safety and public health regulations that are harming human health
and the environment.

As explained below, I will dissect the IDNR letter Mr. Hickman signed, including the incredible misstatements of fact
and a deceptive misrepresentation of IDNR’s chronic bungling of asbestos issues at IBSP. His agency’s clumsy attempt
to cover-up apparent regulatory violations and possible criminal activities at all cost illustrates IDNR’s lack of any
standards of care and an obvious disregard for the public’s safety and health. The Illinois EPA’s and Illinois Attorney

                                                                                                                       10
General’s offices’ failure to investigate these serious charges reveals a larger attempt at collusion by the state of
Illinois to cover-up chronic asbestos problems and public exposures at IBSP that they have knowingly created and hid
from the public over many years.

IDNR attempts to distract from Dunesland’s charges in an IEPA complaint letter by making
unsubstantiated claims that the Dunesland charges “mischaracterize” IDNR issues and their responses to
these issues. IDNR also falsely states that the asbestos debris they created over 30 years ago is
“potential” asbestos that they misleadingly claim was “recently” discovered.

   1.   The first paragraph begins by stating, “The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”) is in receipt of
        your complaint directed to the Illinois EPA dated May 15, 2006. While your correspondence mischaracterizes
        the nature of issues and the IDNR’s response to those issues, IDNR will explain the actions taken in response
        to the potential asbestos containing materials recently discovered at Illinois Beach State Park (“IBSP”).
            a. IDNR states that the Dunesland complaint letter “mischaracterizes the nature of issues and the IDNR’s
                 response to those issues.”
                       i. Mr. Hickman failed to provide one example of any mischaracterizations made by the Illinois
                          Dunesland Preservation Society in their complaint letter to the Illinois EPA and Lake County
                          Department of Public Health.
                      ii. IDNR’s response letter actually confirms many of the charges put forth in the Dunesland
                          complaint letter, which will be itemized further in this letter.
                     iii. The statement made by Mr. Hickman regarding the “mischaracterizations” lacks any
                          foundation. It is my opinion that any attempt by IDNR to provide specific explanations of the
                          alleged mischaracterizations found in Dunesland’s complaint would only further perjure IEPA
                          and IDNR regarding their apparent cover-up of apparent regulatory violations and potential
                          criminal conduct.
                     iv. Dunesland must challenge Mr. Hickman and the IDNR to officially respond on the record and
                          itemize any mischaracterizations of IDNR issues or responses to those issues that are found in
                          the May 15, 2006 Dunesland complaint.
            b. Mr. Hickman, on behalf of IDNR, mischaracterizes the known or assumed asbestos-containing
                 materials at issue in the Dunesland complaint as “potential asbestos containing materials” at IBSP.
                       i. IDNR has characterized similar materials on its property as “assumed asbestos containing
                          material” during previous clean-ups conducted over a several year period. If there were any
                          doubt about the presence of asbestos in this debris the materials should have been sampled to
                          determine if the materials were asbestos containing.
                      ii. The attempt by Mr. Hickman, and apparently others, to insert doubt about the presence of
                          asbestos in the hundreds of square feet of debris scattered in publicly accessible areas of IBSP
                          is deceptive. The materials are being handled as asbestos-containing materials and therefore
                          are “assumed” by IDNR to be asbestos due to previous testing and past knowledge of the
                          content of similar debris by their consultant PSI.
                     iii. The IDNR must produce analytical results demonstrating these “potential” asbestos-containing
                          materials are not asbestos or concede that they are similar to the known asbestos-containing
                          materials and are assumed to be asbestos-containing.
                     iv. If IDNR doubted that the debris contained asbestos, they would have had them tested by the
                          licensed asbestos inspector who ended up improperly removing the debris, which was
                          eventually disposed of as a regulated asbestos-containing material.
            c. Mr. Hickman also mischaracterizes the presence of asbestos debris in the Camp Logan area of IBSP as
                 “recently discovered.”
                       i. The knowledge of asbestos debris has been known for at least several years as identified in
                          the initial April 2005 draft of the Illinois Attorney General’s Asbestos Task Force interim report.
                          The first paragraph on page 45 of the final IAG/UIC draft report dated June 2005 states, “ACM
                          [asbestos-containing materials] may still be present in the remainder of housing infrastructure
                          located near Kellogg Creek and 21st Street.”
                      ii. Mr. Hickman’s own response letter states that on November 2, 2005 a habitat management
                          burn uncovered materials that may contain asbestos. Over six months later the hundreds of
                          square feet of uncovered, assumed asbestos-containing materials, are still present in public
                          areas of IBSP as late as June 3, 2006.
                     iii. I accompanied Mr. Kakuris into the area where the assumed asbestos debris was present in
                          early May 2006. IDNR was asked about the status of the debris by a reporter from the
                          NewsSun newspaper on or about May 18, 2006 and was told by Mr. McCloud, Department of
                          Central Management Service – Communications Office, that all debris had been removed. I
                          accompanied the NewsSun reporter into the area the following day and identified hundreds of
                          square feet of assumed asbestos-containing debris still present in the area.
                     iv. On May 24, 2006, I escorted a reporter from the Lakeland Media Group into the area and
                          confirmed that friable and regulated materials were still present in unrestricted public areas of
                                                                                                                          11
                        IBSP. A busload of schoolchildren was observed in the area where the assumed asbestos
                        debris was present in public areas of IBSP.

IDNR blatantly makes false claims that their responses to asbestos issues at IBSP are “consistent” with
recommendation made in previous reports. These fraudulent statements are easily disproved in an
avalanche of evidence while IDNR’s real motives for making such bold, phony claims are uncovered
because they are obvious and self-serving.

   2.   Paragraph 1 concludes by stating, “As explained below, the IDNR’s actions are consistent with the Asbestos
        Task Force final draft report entitled Illinois Beach State Park (IBSP): Determination of Asbestos
        Contamination in Beach Nourishment Sand prepared by UIC School of Public Health on behalf of the members
        of the Asbestos Task Force (Office of the Illinois Attorney General, the UIC School of Public Health, Illinois
        Department of Public Health, IDNR, United States EPA, Illinois EPA, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
        Lake County State’s Attorney, the City of Waukegan and the Waukegan Park District).
            a. The Illinois Attorney General’s Asbestos Task Force is comprised of agencies that have directly or
                indirectly contributed to the chronic asbestos pollution at IBSP or have bungled or rigged studies,
                investigations, and/or enforcement. These agencies also wrote the draft IAG/UIC interim
                Asbestos Task Force report from which the state now deceptively quotes or cites as an
                authentic, scientific document when, in fact, it is riddled with conflicts of interest and self-
                serving, filtered, flawed data. The apparent fraud is to then cite the document and have the
                individual authors hide behind the name of the government agencies that were involved in
                writing the report while attempting to deceive the public, pretending it is an independent,
                scientific document. This is the epitome of scientific fraud.
                       i. This biased collection of polluters and ineffective enforcement personnel, has also operated for
                          nearly three years under a secret veil created by IAG Lisa Madigan and some of her staff.
                      ii. This secret Asbestos Task Force was ruled by the Illinois Attorney General’s office to be
                          exempt from the Open Meetings Act, thereby willfully eliminating outside, and unbiased,
                          scientific input from her own task force. Why should her group be exempt? Apparently, the
                          IAG did not want outside, scientific scrutiny because it would have illuminated the office’s
                          cover-ups and the misconduct of the state agency clients of the IAG.
                     iii. The clandestine activity of this secret group operated under the direction of Assistant Attorney
                          Generals Matt Dunn and Beth Wallace who have eliminated public involvement and
                          transparency while inappropriately applying shields and exemptions from the Freedom of
                          Information Act to protect their clients at IDNR, IEPA, and the IDPH. This action by the IAG
                          helped them hide the fact that some of these agencies actually polluted the park and Lake
                          Michigan with asbestos, becoming polluters just like those they are charged to regulate then
                          using their positions of authority to try to cover it up. They allowed the polluters to continue
                          polluting and looked the other way.
            b. The second paragraph on page 46 of the IAG/UIC interim report Recommendation section states, “The
                management of IBSP must minimize potential for human exposure to ACM whenever possible. ACM is
                still in the general area.” The public has had full access to multiple areas of the park known by IDNR
                to have asbestos-containing debris. No efforts have been made by IDNR to isolate the public from
                locations of IBSP where “ACM is still in the general area.” IDNR has failed to properly identify and
                remove this asbestos-containing waste material at the expense of public health and safety.
            c. The IAG/IAG/UIC interim report further states that because ACM is still in the general area,
                “Therefore, four recommendations are presented.” Obviously, the actions of IDNR and its accomplices
                are NOT consistent with three of the specific recommendations presented in the interim IAG/UIC
                report which will be itemized below. The fourth recommendation was very general and had no specific
                actions for IDNR to follow other than to explore other options for beach nourishment sources.
            d. The first recommendation found in the IAG/UIC interim report discussed continued beach surveillance
                and pick-up. However, the IAG/UIC interim report also recommended an expansion of the current
                beach surveillance and pick-up program by recommending two weekly surveillances and pick-ups
                during non-beach seasons (March-May and September-November) and three weekly surveillances and
                pick-ups during beach season (June-August). Obviously, this has not been followed by the state.
                       i. In the last year since the release of the IAG/UIC interim report recommendations, only one
                          surveillance and pick-up per week is being conducted by IDNR along the IBSP shoreline.
                      ii. The “pick-up” is being performed by unqualified and improperly insured consultants who have
                          violated worker protection rules during beach “pick-up” activities that I have personally
                          observed. The lone consultant does not wet materials that are picked-up and does not remove
                          asbestos-contaminated sands beneath the asbestos debris identified during the surveillance.
                     iii. The IAG/UIC interim draft report recommended that the beach surveillance should be
                          conducted in accordance with OSHA and/or Illinois Department of Labor regulations. The
                          IAG/UIC interim draft report conveniently omitted discussing which other safety and
                          environmental regulations should be followed during the “pick-up” portion of the beach
                                                                                                                           12
             sweeps. USEPA and Illinois EPA regulations were never discussed in the interim draft UIC
             report.
                  1. The “pick-up” activity should be classified as asbestos removal and not the sham
                       activity IDNR attempts to mischaracterize the clean-up as “identification and testing.”
                       No asbestos testing is actually performed. If the debris were actually tested, the
                       materials would not be mischaracterized by IDNR as “potential” asbestos, because
                       results would verify and confirm whether asbestos was actually present in the debris.
                       Removing asbestos debris is not sampling, it is removal.
                  2. The IDNR’s asbestos consultant, PSI, apparently does not have an asbestos abatement
                       license or asbestos worker licenses.
                  3. The IDNR’s asbestos consultant, PSI, apparently does not carry asbestos removal
                       insurance, which is required by state contracts for asbestos abatement activities.
                  4. The assumed asbestos-containing materials are not wetted prior to “pick-up” by
                       IDNR’s asbestos consultant, PSI, which is required by OSHA worker protection
                       asbestos regulations.
                  5. Areas within IBSP where assumed asbestos debris is being removed are not properly
                       demarcated with OSHA asbestos signage and the areas do not restrict access to
                       unauthorized personnel including the public. This is a violation of OSHA asbestos
                       regulations.
                  6. OSHA and other asbestos regulations also call for prompt clean-up and disposal of
                       asbestos debris. Weekly “pick-ups” and stockpiling of waste in public areas does not
                       constitute prompt clean-up and disposal. These regulations are blatantly being violated
                       by IDNR and ignored by enforcement agencies.
        iv. I personally followed the lone asbestos consultant as he conducted his beach sweep during the
             week of May 15, 2006. I found four, fist-size pieces (after he had just swept the area) of
             suspected asbestos-containing materials within a 50-yard area of the main IBSP beach. These
             discoveries occurred immediately after I watched IDNR’s consultant, PSI, conducted a weekly
             “surveillance and pick-up.” There is no required supervision or verification that all visible
             asbestos is removed during the single weekly beach sweeps. Very small and microscopic
             asbestos is ignored or missed during the single weekly beach sweeps for asbestos debris,
             which puts the public at risk to the visible, friable, regulated pieces and microscopic asbestos
             that is overlooked by the lone consultant.
         v. The absurdity of a single “beach sweep” that requires a lone consultant to scan several
             hundred square feet of beach for asbestos debris per minute in order to cover the entire 6.5
             miles of shoreline in one shift is the epitome of incompetence and shows a cavalier attitude
             toward the health and safety of the unwitting public. IDNR and its partners IEPA and IDPH,
             together with their lawyers at the IAG’s office, have been involved for years in covering-up
             their own apparent violations with regard to the chronic presence of asbestos debris on the
             Illinois shoreline.
                  1. The asbestos debris has been abraded in the surf zone giving many of the pieces of
                       debris the same appearance as rocks, stones, and pebbles on the shoreline. This
                       abrasion process continually generates more microscopic asbestos.
                  2. There are literally billions of rocks, stones, and pebbles on the 6.5 miles of shoreline
                       that resemble asbestos debris.
                  3. It is apparent that only a very small fraction of potential asbestos debris is identified
                       during the hurried beach sweep conducted by the unsupervised, lone consultant, let
                       alone the cancer and disease-causing microscopic asbestos fibers left behind in the
                       beach sands that can become airborne and inhaled.
                  4. The weekly sweep does not identify the asbestos debris that is partially covered by
                       sand or is located just off-shore in the surf zone where it eventually washes up on the
                       public beaches, dries, becomes airborne, and potentially inhaled.
        vi. Mr. Hickman was not truthful when he stated that IDNR’s asbestos activities are consistent
             with the first recommendation found in the IAG/UIC interim report, which IDNR and other
             agencies wrote, masquerading it, and deceptively touting it as an independent,
             scientific report.
e.   The second recommendation found in the IAG/UIC interim report discusses IBSP visitor education. The
     recommendation further stated that visitor education on recognizing asbestos debris and
     understanding the issues of the presence of this debris on beaches is a “high priority.”
          i. There has been no attempt to inform the public regarding how to recognize and avoid the
             presence of asbestos debris at IBSP.
         ii. The IDNR is aware that the virulent asbestos mineral tremolite and other microscopic asbestos
             fibers were found in IBSP beach sand and on Chicago’s popular Oak Street beach. Although
             awareness of the presence of tremolite existed as early as January 2005, no warning was
             provided to the public at IBSP or Chicago’s Oak Street beaches regarding the finding of the
                                                                                                               13
              rare, but extremely toxic, tremolite mineral on the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline by an state
              agency or Asbestos Task Force member. Hiding the presence of tremolite on the shoreline of
              Lake Michigan should be considered a criminal act by those with knowledge who remained
              silent while families and individuals unwittingly exposed themselves to this virulent asbestos
              mineral during the 2005 beach season.
         iii. No precautionary warnings were provided to park visitors regarding the statistically significant
              levels of microscopic asbestos fibers found in beach sands, including the presence of tremolite
              asbestos. Deceptive press releases by the state of Illinois actually downplayed the presence of
              statistically significant levels of tremolite and other carcinogenic and disease-causing asbestos
              minerals.
         iv. The flawed Public Health Assessment (PHA) prepared by the Illinois Department of Public
              Health and reviewed by the Centers for Disease Control in May 2000, also recommended
              distributing asbestos information pamphlets and displaying examples of asbestos debris to
              warn and educate the public. In addition, these recommendations were purposefully neither
              being implemented by IDNR nor enforced by IDPH, IAG, and IEPA for at least the last four
              years.
          v. As a public service, I assisted the Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society in preparing an
              asbestos pamphlet based on recommendations made by state and federal agencies. IDNR
              would not allow the pamphlet to be made available to the public on general brochure racks
              located at the park office. A federal “free speech” lawsuit has subsequently been filed by
              Dunesland to force the IDNR and its IAG lawyers to provide asbestos information as
              recommended in May 2000 in the PHA and in June 2005 in the IAG/UIC interim report.
         vi. Mr. Hickman was apparently not truthful when he stated that IDNR asbestos activities are
              consistent with the second recommendation (distributing information pamphlets and informing
              the public) found in the IAG/UIC interim draft report. The IDNR and other agencies cite it as
              an independent, scientific report, but in reality, the individuals and their agencies served on
              the Asbestos Task Force, “ghost-writing” their own defenses and palming it off as an
              independent, scientific report by UIC. What a deceptive, egregious conflict of interest! UIC
              apparently did not check the accuracy of their data. This has woefully compromised the report,
              its integrity, and the authenticity of UIC’s ethics!
f.   The third recommendation found in the IAG/UIC interim report discusses the presence of asbestos
     debris in the area in which Dunesland has filed its recent complaint to the Illinois EPA. The interim
     IAG/UIC report states, “Areas impacted by erosion, that had housing communities present in the past,
     and that still have housing infrastructure in place should be surveyed for ACM. The area from Kellogg
     Creek to 21st Street in the IBSP North Unit may be one such area. If infrastructure that contains ACM
     is present, it should be remediated by using techniques in accordance with Illinois Department of
     Public Health, OSHA, and/or Illinois Department of Labor rules and regulations for asbestos
     abatement.”
           i. Assumed asbestos debris is located in this one square mile area. I have personally verified the
              existence of this assumed asbestos-containing debris through site visits as late as June 2,
              2006. I have photos and several hours of video evidence documenting the extent of asbestos
              materials and the friable condition of this regulated asbestos-containing debris (see figure 1).
          ii. The assumed asbestos debris appears to be cement asbestos products that have become
              damaged and deteriorated due to demolition, weathering, and exposure to fire during field
              burns that released airborne, microscopic fibers, to which employees and firefighting officials
              were most likely exposed (see figures 1 and 2).
         iii. IDNR stated in the press, through the Department of Central Management Services, in May
              2006, that they were aware of such debris in this area and that it was all removed. This false
              and misleading statement provided by public information officers at the state was quietly
              revised a week later by state officials indicating that the clean-up was still ongoing. Now if
              appears that there is no schedule for removing this asbestos debris from the public areas of
              Illinois Beach State Park.
         iv. On the eastern edge of the property, the housing infrastructure is currently eroding into the
              lake. There have been no attempts by IDNR to address the erosion of these housing areas or
              the safety hazards posed by the exposed concrete foundations, piping, and rebar. The rubble
              also contains asbestos-containing building debris (see figure 8).
          v. Visible debris assumed to contain asbestos has been present in this area for at least 30 years.
              Only a very small amount of debris was removed by the lone PSI consultant in the last week,
              apparently in violation of USEPA and OSHA asbestos regulations. This was the basis of
              Dunesland’s complaint filed in May to the Illinois EPA, the Lake County Department of Public
              Health, and the Illinois Attorney General to which none of them have replied. The improper
              removal procedures will be further delineated later in this letter.


                                                                                                            14
                   vi. No attempts have been made by IDNR to isolate these known areas that contain assumed
                        asbestos debris from the public. Many large pieces of debris are within a few feet of popular
                        trails utilized by hikers, bikers, and joggers.
                  vii. The IAG/UIC interim draft report conveniently omitted recommending that the debris removal
                        should be conducted in compliance with Illinois EPA and USEPA asbestos regulations, even
                        though the Asbestos Task Force members are the enforcers of those regulations. These public
                        officials would rather practice hypocrisy than enforce the regulations and protect the health
                        and safety of the public. Mr. Hickman’s inaccurate assertion that IDNR asbestos activities are
                        consistent with the IAG/UIC interim recommendations in no way attempts to address the
                        Illinois EPA violations discussed in the Dunesland complaint letter since compliance with IEPA
                        and USEPA asbestos regulations is omitted in the IAG/UIC interim report recommendations.
                  viii. Dunesland must request an immediate response from IDNR on whether or not the assumed
                        asbestos debris is being removed in compliance with USEPA and Illinois EPA regulations.
                   ix. The Illinois EPA’s and Illinois Attorney General’s offices must be compelled to view the area
                        first hand and immediately enforce all violations to asbestos, environmental, safety, and public
                        health regulations.

IDNR pretends that the source of the chronic appearance of asbestos debris at IBSP is unknown or
unsubstantiated. INDR, along with the IEPA, IAG, USEPA and CDC have rigged previous testing reports
and public health studies to downplay their involvement and bungling of the presence of visible and
microscopic asbestos fibers at IBSP and the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. There is adequate evidence
that indicates the asbestos debris at IBSP originates from both the Johns-Manville site in Waukegan and
the rubble from the homes owned by IDNR. Most of the asbestos fibers in Lake Michigan and on the park’s
beaches apparently originate from the Johns Manville Superfund site.

   3.   Paragraph 2 of the Hickman letter discusses a habitat management field burn that uncovered materials “which
        may contain asbestos and appear to be building materials.”
            a. Mr. Hickman claims, “…the source of the material is currently unknown, but may have resulted from
               construction or demolition activities decades earlier.”
                     i. IDNR had knowledge that homes were present in this area when they conducted
                        condemnation proceedings against the property owners, obtained the land, and incorporated
                        the parcels into IBSP.
                    ii. It appears that IDNR conducted much of the demolition of these structures: they buried
                        and/or spread out as fill much of the asbestos-contaminated demolition debris onsite.
                   iii. IDNR has had knowledge for years that many of these homes had eroded into the lake. Signs
                        in the area warn of underwater obstructions just off-shore.
                   iv. Subsurface evidence of housing foundations and building material can currently be observed
                        from severe erosion along the shoreline south of Kellogg Creek, further confirming the
                        presence of assumed asbestos-containing demolition debris.
            b. IDNR has had knowledge of the presence of the assumed asbestos-containing debris materials from
               the June 2005 recommendations discussed above in the IAG/UIC interim draft report. They also had
               this knowledge earlier because IDNR sat on the IAG/UIC Asbestos Task Force and
               contributed inaccurate information for inclusion in the initial versions of the draft that they
               now palm off as the authoritative, “scientific” UIC interim draft report which conveniently
               supports their own positions. Isn’t this scientific fraud?
            c. They also had this knowledge earlier because IDNR sat on the IAG/UIC Asbestos Task Force and was
               supplied with initial versions of the information that was quoted in the final interim draft report.
            d. IDNR has had knowledge of the presence of the assumed asbestos-containing debris materials
               uncovered during the November 2005 field burn.
            e. The assumed asbestos-containing debris has been quantified as several hundred square feet of
               material scattered over at least a one square mile area.
            f. The debris has been damaged, exposed to severe weather for decades, and has been exposed to fire
               during the November field burn.
            g. The outer surfaces of the debris are “fuzzy” with assumed fibers. The jagged, broken, and exposed
               edges of the debris are friable and can be crushed or pulverized by mere hand pressure (see figures 1
               and 2).
            h. Only a few pieces of debris have been removed by a lone asbestos consultant since the field burn
               exposed these materials over six months ago. The majority of the assumed asbestos-containing debris
               has either been inappropriately stockpiled in the public park area or left in place (see figure 3).
            i. No attempt has been made by IDNR to restrict public access to these assumed asbestos-containing
               debris locations.
            j. The source of the assumed asbestos-containing materials discussed in the Dunesland complaint letter
               to IEPA, IAG, and Lake County Health Department is from the demolition of former homes obtained by
               IDNR. The movement of this debris has apparently violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
                                                                                                                    15
               and the Clean Air Act. The Illinois EPA and Illinois Attorney General’s Office must prosecute the owners
               of the property for any and all violations of these and other applicable environmental, safety, and
               public health regulations.
IDNR attempts to distract the public and regulatory enforcement officials from the improper and
apparently illegal removal of asbestos debris at IBSP by characterizing the massive and chronic clean-up
as a simple “inspection and sample collection.” Most asbestos consultants would not remove hundreds of
pieces of asbestos debris, especially when they do not have the appropriate credentials, experience,
supervision, and insurance. IDNR is conducting large-scale asbestos removal at IBSP in violation of state
and federal environmental and safety regulations. The IDNR is committing apparent criminal acts by
claiming inspections and testing are somehow resulting in the removal of tons of asbestos debris from
IBSP in obvious violation of applicable asbestos abatement regulations.

   4.   Paragraph 3 of this IDNR letter discusses IDNR’s response to the finding of these assumed asbestos-
        containing materials.
            a. Mr. Hickman attempts a “bait and switch” by discussing the routine beach sweeps for asbestos at IBSP
                instead of addressing the removal of the several hundred square feet of assumed asbestos-containing
                building demolition debris located in a one square mile area along the Lake Michigan shoreline south
                of Kellogg Creek.
                      i. Mr. Hickman describes how their consultant, PSI, conducts regular beach sweeps for
                         inspecting and sampling of the materials. Yet, Mr. Hickman characterizes the demolition debris
                         as “potential” asbestos-containing materials. If their consultant is inspecting and sampling the
                         materials, as Mr. Hickman states in his letter, wouldn’t he have knowledge that the debris is
                         asbestos-containing?
                     ii. If the debris was inspected and sampled, then why isn’t IDNR acknowledging that the debris is
                         in fact asbestos-containing instead of deceptively describing the debris as potentially asbestos-
                         containing?
            b. The second “bait and switch” put forth by Mr. Hickman is the statement that, “These beach sweeps
                were recommended by the Asbestos Task Force report identified above.”
                      i. The beach sweep recommendations apply to the 6.5 miles of shoreline at IBSP. What Mr.
                         Hickman deceptively omitted was recommendation three of the IAG/UIC interim report which
                         specifically identified suspected asbestos-containing housing infrastructure between Kellogg
                         Creek and 21st Street that “should be remediated by using techniques in accordance with
                         Illinois Department of Public Health, OSHA, and/or Illinois Department of Labor rules and
                         regulations for asbestos abatement.”
                     ii. IDNR did not conduct remediation of the several hundred square feet of assumed asbestos-
                         containing housing infrastructure present in the one square mile public area of IBSP as
                         recommended by the Asbestos Task Force/IAG/UIC interim report.
            c. The third “bait and switch” put forth by Mr. Hickman is the statement that, “PSI personnel involved in
                the inspection/sample collection were IDPH trained and licensed to conduct inspections and sampling
                for suspect materials.”
                      i. Although IDNR’s consultants may have been qualified to take samples of the debris to
                         determine if they are asbestos-containing, Mr. Hickman omits the fact that their consultant,
                         PSI, was not credentialed by IDPH to perform asbestos abatement activities.
                     ii. PSI does not possess an IDPH asbestos abatement contractor license.
                    iii. PSI personnel do not possess IDPH asbestos workers’ licenses.
                    iv. PSI apparently does not carry asbestos abatement insurance for performing the removal of
                         the assumed asbestos found on the beaches or in the Camp Logan areas of IBSP.
                     v. IDNR has a union, licensed, experienced, and properly insured asbestos abatement contractor
                         under contract, which they refuse to utilize for asbestos clean-up because proper asbestos
                         removal would require isolating contaminated areas of the park from the public. It would also
                         draw attention to a situation IDNR would prefer to keep under wraps.
            d. The fourth “bait and switch” put forth by Mr. Hickman is the statement that, “All suspect materials
                sampled were handled in a manner to minimize the opportunity for personal exposure.”
                      i. Mr. Hickman deceptively discusses the sampling of the materials that apparently have never
                         been sampled.
                     ii. Mr. Hickman deceptively omits a discussion of how the removal of the assumed asbestos-
                         containing demolition debris was accomplished.
                    iii. Mr. Hickman states materials were handled to minimize personal exposure, but did not itemize
                         what steps were taken, if any, to minimize the public’s exposure to the damaged, weathered,
                         and burned assumed asbestos-containing demolition debris.
                    iv. Mr. Hickman ignores addressing the charges in the Dunesland complaint letter, which
                         discusses inappropriate “removal” of this assumed asbestos-containing debris by an
                         unqualified consultant without proper supervision and oversight.

                                                                                                                       16
          v. Why would Mr. Hickman describe sampling procedures that were apparently not performed in
              this area instead of discussing the appropriate work procedures and completeness of the
              asbestos removal unless his intent was to mislead or deceive?
         vi. The Illinois EPA and Illinois Attorney General’s offices must be compelled to investigate who
              removed the limited amounts of asbestos debris and whether this removal violated any
              regulations. There is apparently a major conflict of interest because the Attorney
              General is charged with enforcement of state laws and regulations, yet her agency
              co-authored the IAG/UIC interim draft report, which the state falsely relies upon as
              an alibi for not adhering to statutes and regulations.
e.   Mr. Hickman inaccurately states that, “The material was not consolidated in the Nature Preserve, but
     was bagged and collected from where it was discovered. Once collected, the material was placed in
     covered containers and will be disposed of at a permitted landfill.”
           i. I have personally observed and photographed several areas where debris was picked up and
              consolidated in public areas of IBSP (see figure 3).
          ii. I have personally observed and photographed assumed asbestos debris wrapped in unlabelled,
              plastic sheeting that remained unattended in unsecured public areas of the park overnight
              (see figure 4 and 5).
         iii. I have personally observed and photographed the unlabelled, wrapped debris being
              transported through public areas of IBSP without containers (see figure 6).
         iv. I have personally observed and photographed this unlabelled, wrapped debris consolidated at
              the maintenance office of the park lying unsecured on the ground without being containerized
              (see figure 7).
          v. I also have quite a bit of video documenting the improper waste handling and storage issues
              addressed above since the Illinois EPA refused to visit this site and see the apparent illegal
              activities for themselves. I will make several hours of video available to an independent
              investigator who will enforce environmental regulations.
         vi. The Illinois EPA and Illinois Attorney General’s office must be compelled to investigate the
              alleged improper waste handling and misstatements provided by Mr. Hickman that attempt to
              cover-up the apparent illegal activities.
f.   The most deceptive IDNR attempt at covering-up the inappropriate handling of damaged and
     weathered assumed asbestos-containing demolition debris in the Camp Logan areas made is the
     statement that, “PSI reported that the material collected from the Nature Preserve was not friable.”
           i. Dunesland should immediately demand that Mr. Hickman provide evidence to substantiate
              such a claim.
                  1. The individual making this unsubstantiated claim should be identified.
                  2. The source of the definition of PSI’s use of the term “non-friable” should be identified.
                  3. PSI should state whether the assumed asbestos debris is “regulated” by any federal,
                       state, or local regulations. The waste was disposed of as regulated.
                  4. PSI should provide examples of the materials that they claim are non-friable so that
                       an independent evaluation can be made by other state and/or federal officials. I would
                       like to walk both PSI and IEPA representatives into the asbestos-contaminated areas
                       and have them identify the non-friable asbestos.
          ii. Cement asbestos building materials similar to those found at IBSP were manufactured as a
              non-friable material. However, when these materials are subject to extreme forces (such as
              demolition), weathering, and fire, these materials become characterized as friable and/or
              regulated.
                  1. The source of the assumed asbestos debris is from demolition of buildings owned by
                       INDR.
                  2. The cement asbestos materials became severely damaged during the demolition
                       activities over 30 years ago.
                  3. The cement asbestos materials became severely deteriorated due to exposure to
                       seasonal weather conditions for several decades.
                  4. The cement asbestos materials were exposed to intense heat and flames during field
                       burns in the area on at least one occasion.
                  5. The cement asbestos materials have damaged and exposed edges that can be
                       crumbled or pulverized by hand pressure. These materials are friable.
                  6. The exterior surfaces of the cement asbestos materials have a visible “fuzz” of
                       apparent asbestos fibers that can be released by hand pressure. These materials are
                       friable.
                  7. Cement asbestos materials in residential structures owned by the state of Illinois are
                       regulated by the demolition requirements of the National Emissions Standards for
                       Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act.
                  8. NESHAP regulations state that cement asbestos products (Category II non-friable) that
                       are subject to demolition, severe weathering, and/or fire, are regulated. These
                                                                                                             17
                                  regulated cement asbestos materials must be removed from buildings prior to
                                  demolition or burning.
                             9. The presence of demolished, damaged, weathered, and burned assumed cement
                                  asbestos materials poses an immediate threat to human health and the environment
                                  at Illinois Beach State Park.
                             10. The Illinois EPA and Illinois Attorney General’s office must immediately perform a site
                                  visit and determine if regulatory and/or criminal violations regarding the presence and
                                  apparently willful mishandling of known and/or assumed asbestos-containing materials
                                  have occurred in the Camp Logan and shoreline areas of IBSP.
           g.   Mr. Hickman provides another “bait and switch” by stating, “The inspection and material removal was
                conducted in a manner which provides for minimal disturbance of the ecosystem in the Nature
                Preserve.”
                      i. The Dunesland complaint to IEPA did not address disturbance of the eco-system, rather it
                         addressed the unrestricted access and subsequent exposures to the several hundred square
                         feet of assumed asbestos-containing debris by an unaware public frequenting these areas.
                     ii. Mr. Hickman did not address why all assumed asbestos debris has not been identified in this
                         area.
                    iii. Mr. Hickman did not address why known locations of assumed asbestos-containing debris were
                         not isolated by establishment of regulated areas as required by OSHA and/or Illinois
                         Department of Labor asbestos regulations.
                   iv. Mr. Hickman did not address why prompt clean-up and disposal has not occurred in violation
                         of OSHA regulations.
                     v. Mr. Hickman did not address why asbestos debris was also improperly collected and stockpiled
                         in public areas for several weeks.
                   vi. Mr. Hickman did not address why these areas were not closed to the public until a thorough
                         and proper clean-up had been conducted by properly credentialed, insured, and supervised
                         asbestos abatement contractors.
           h.   The final “bait and switch” put forth by IDNR, under Mr. Hickman’ signature, is in the final sentence of
                paragraph three when he states, “IDNR will also be posting signage directing visitors to remain on
                established trails within the portion of the Nature Preserve where the materials were found.”
                      i. State and federal asbestos regulations require the establishment of a regulated area that
                         prevents unauthorized personnel from entering areas contaminated with asbestos debris.
                             1. Regulated areas must have OSHA asbestos signs as illustrated below.




                            2.  Regulated areas must have sufficient barriers that prevent unauthorized access into
                                them.
                            3. Regulated areas must be secured to prevent unauthorized access into them.
                    ii. The signs proposed by Mr. Hickman do not properly warn the public of the asbestos hazards
                        and do not prevent unauthorized access into these areas (see figure 11).
                   iii. The signs proposed by Mr. Hickman are just as absurd as the signs posted on the IBSP
                        shoreline in their attempt to notify the public of the asbestos exposure hazards posed by
                        damaged, weathered, and burned assumed friable asbestos-containing materials.
                   iv. No other public areas in Illinois allow families to enter areas known to be chronically
                        contaminated with damaged, weathered, and burned asbestos-containing materials.
                    v. No other public areas in Illinois allow families to enter areas known to be
                        contaminated with statistically elevated levels of microscopic tremolite and other
                        toxic and disease-causing asbestos fibers and friable asbestos pieces.
                   vi. The proposed signage does not prevent the hundreds of square feet of damaged, weathered,
                        and burnt asbestos debris from releasing asbestos fibers into the air where unaware hikers,
                        joggers, bikers, and naturalist can then inhale them.

The Illinois EPA’s and Illinois Attorney General’s offices have harmed the public and the environment by their apparent
cover-up and lack of attention to the hundreds of square feet of friable asbestos debris found in Camp Logan between
Kellogg Creek and 21st Street. These agencies are allowing the IDNR to casually and blatantly disregard significant
                                                                                                                     18
environmental, safety, and public health regulations and statutes, as illustrated by Mr. Hickman’s deceptive and
misleading non-response letter to you. These agencies would never allow polluters to respond directly to citizens who
made charges against them.

The enforcement agencies know that safety and environmental violations exist at IBSP, but choose to
allow the asbestos contamination to continue by looking the other way. The local, state, and federal
agencies will cover-up for the polluters, because they have participated directly, or indirectly, in the
polluting of the Illinois shoreline with asbestos debris. They are all covering for each other through a lack
of enforcement or by participating in the fabrication of fraudulent studies. If I can uncover what appears
to be a conspiracy, any credible independent investigation agency should also be able to uncover the
apparent conspiracy in obstructing enforcement of egregious violations of environmental, safety and
public health regulations. Federal prosecutors must put an end to the potentially criminal violations being
perpetrated by federal, state and local agencies and officials involved with the willful obstruction of
enforcement by covering-up massive asbestos problems along the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline.

The Illinois EPA and Illinois Attorney General’s office must not take the deceptive and misleading word of their sister
agency, IDNR. There is no reason that either agency could not perform a site visit and enforce obvious violations to
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and other environmental, safety, and public health regulations. These are
serious charges of harm to public health and the environment that should have been investigated years ago. The
Illinois EPA and Illinois Attorney General’s office has willfully failed to perform their duties and has violated the public
trust. I am recommending that Dunesland forward this letter and their previous IEPA complaint letters to the Illinois
Inspector General’s office and to Federal Prosecutors to investigate potential criminal violations by IDNR, IEPA, the
Illinois Attorney General’s office, and members of their Asbestos Task Force.

Please contact me with any questions.

Cordially,


Jeffery C. Camplin
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA




                                                                                                                           19
          Photographs from Illinois Beach State Park
Former Home Sites South of Kellogg Creek and North of 21st Street
                 North Unit at the Lake Front




            Figure 1- Close-up of Damaged Transite Found near Kellogg Creek




    Figure 2 – Close-up of Broken, Weather, and Burned Asbestos Debris near Kellogg Creek
                These Materials are Friable and Regulated.
                IDNR claims the debris to be non-friable, which is untrue.



                                                                                            20
Figure 3 – Large Amount of Asbestos Debris Consolidated in an Area South of Kellogg Creek
        IDNR claimed that this debris was not stockpiled onsite.
        This pile can still be found in public areas.




        Figure 4 - Wrapped, Unlabeled, and Unsecured Waste in Kellogg Creek Area
         Regulated Asbestos is wrapped, unlabelled, in a dry condition,
         then left unsecured overnight.


                                                                                            21
             Figure 5 – Wrapped, Unlabeled, and Unsecured Waste South of Sand Pond near 21st Street
      More unlabelled, dry, unsecured waste found within 3 feet of a trail in a public area.




           Figure 6 – Non-containerized, Unsecured, and Unlabeled Waste Transported through Public Areas
This dry, unlabelled, uncontainerized, and unsecured regulated asbestos waste transported
through public areas of Illinois Beach State Park in the middle of the day. This debris was later
photographed in an uncontainerized and unsecured area of the IBSP Maintenance Garage area.




                                                                                                      22
         Figure 7 - Unsecured, Non-Containerized, Unlabeled Asbestos Waste Found at Maintenance Garage
              Maintenance Garage Area at Illinois Beach State Park - Main Beach
        The dry debris lies stockpiled next to an unlocked entrance to the garage area.




               Figure 8 – Foundations and Building Debris Entering Lake Michigan near Kellogg Creek
IDNR knowingly allows demolition debris and asbestos materials to enter the Federal and State
Navigable waters of Lake Michigan. Visible pieces of asbestos debris were noted in the eroded
banks of this unrestricted public access area.



                                                                                                         23
                        Figure 9 - Large pieces of asbestos debris photographed in mid-May after being
                        exposed on the ground surface by a field burn that was conducted by the IDNR.




Figure 10 – This is the same asbestos debris as viewed in figure 9 which was photographed again on June 2, 2006. Notice how
the debris is once again becoming hidden by the growth of groundcover in the area where it was previously hidden for
decades. This groundcover growth occurred in just over two weeks. The pictured piece of debris is about 4 feet in length.
Hundreds of smaller shards and pieces of friable asbestos debris have already become covered over again by similar
vegetation growth in public areas of Illinois Beach State Park near heavily traveled trails. The friable debris is still subject to
wind and weathering that can release asbestos fibers into the air where hikers, jogger, bikers, and naturalist frequent.
                                                                                                                                  24
  Figure 11 - This is an example of the new signage Mr. Hickman states will keep the public out of areas contaminated with
  hundreds of square feet of regulated, friable, asbestos debris found in public areas at Illinois Beach State Park North Unit.
This new sign was installed a few days ago and is located over one mile from the asbestos-
contaminated area at the south entrance to Illinois Beach State Park off Shiloh Blvd. in Zion, IL.
There were no other signs found during the mile plus walk north into the asbestos-
contaminated area that would identify the “site designated trails” for the public to follow.
There are no warning signs or barriers on paved roadways preventing the public (including
school-aged children) from walking/hiking, jogging, or biking on the various paths and trails
leading directly into the asbestos-contaminated areas of the IBSP North Unit. The signs assume
visitors know where site-designated trails are located. The sign also assumes visitors can read
and understand English. This sign does not contain any asbestos warnings and does not
prevent the public from entering areas contaminated with hundreds of square feet of damaged,
weathered, friable asbestos-containing debris.

This sign does not prevent asbestos fibers from becoming airborne off the damaged,
weathered, and burned, friable asbestos building debris found in public areas of the park,
where an unaware public can then inhale them each visit.




                                                                                                                            25
26
27
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                                1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                              Fax: 1-847-837-1852



June 26, 2006                                ETHICS COMPLAINT ABOUT ATSDR STAFF
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention                   Via E-mail
Mail Stop D-14
Atlanta GA 30329-4018

Attention:      Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
                Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH, ATSDR Director
                Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Director of CDC, Administrator of ATSDR

RE:    ATSDR Exposes Public During Rigged Asbestos Activity-Based Testing at Illinois Beach State Park
       ATSDR Staff and Exposure Investigation Team Leader James Durant Supervise Inappropriate Tests
       Independent Investigation Demanded to End Unethical Skewing of Public Asbestos Exposure Risks

Dear Secretary Leavitt, Dr. Frumkin, and Dr. Gerberding:

I am requesting an investigation into the unethical, inappropriate, unprofessional, and careless actions of your
ATSDR staff, which resulted in uncontrolled asbestos exposures to unwitting citizens during an activity-based
asbestos evaluation at Illinois Beach State Park in May 2006. I am specifically requesting an independent
investigation into the unethical behavior of ATSDR Exposure Investigation Team leader James Durant and
ATSDR Chicago staffers, who personally supervised and approved activity-based testing protocol that placed
the public at risk from asbestos exposure during sampling conducted during the week of May 22, 2006.

Top ATSDR Administrators’ Mismanagement Facilitates Staffs’ Culture of Elitism and Abuse of Power
I have complained to your agency for nearly a year about misconduct and unprofessional behavior by
ATSDR/CDC/HHS and your Illinois partners involved in covering up massive asbestos contamination along
the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. Many of my complaints have been addressed directly to Dr. Gerberding
who has allowed compromised staffers to pen boilerplate non-responses to very serious charges of your staff’s
behavior. Your agency has willfully delayed properly responding to these charges by providing non-responses
or by taking unreasonable extensions to avoid responding to me.

Unfortunately for you, your delays in acting upon my complaints have allowed my warnings of your staff’s
predicted motivations and actions to come to fruition. I am attaching a small sampling of my previous
complaints and warnings to you regarding ATSDR and its Illinois partners’ inappropriate behavior regarding
their involvement with asbestos contamination at Illinois Beach State Park in Zion, Illinois. Your lack of staff
supervision has resulted in egregious misconduct and ethical violations by your agency and its Illinois
partners. Please take immediate actions to properly investigate and thoroughly respond to the charges
found in this letter and my previous correspondence.

ATSDR Supervises Tests that Expose Illinois Families to Asbestos During Secretly Skewed Study
ATSDR staff from the Atlanta and Chicago offices was present while men, women and children were exposed
to asbestos fibers during recent activity-based asbestos testing designed to measure airborne asbestos exposure
on public beaches. The unprotected public was allowed to enter the testing areas while the worker performing
the exposure sampling was warned of the hazards of asbestos and protected during the event by wearing a
respirator. The unethical and irresponsible actions conducted under ATSDR staff supervision involved a small
                                                        1
bulldozer dragging a section of chain link fence while air monitoring devices measured asbestos fibers being
released from the asbestos-contaminated beach sand on the main public beach at Illinois Beach State Park.

Members of the public were not notified of the testing, which was designed to generate dust and fibers in areas
populated with innocent families. The bulldozer and dust-generating chain link fencing operation was
performed within a few feet of the unaware families. This thoughtless act demonstrates a pattern of careless
and unethical behavior by ATSDR and its Illinois partners that have resulted in asbestos exposures that would
have been prevented if diligent actions had been taken. The Illinois partners included in this activity-based
testing (as well as other failed attempts to determine public safety of the asbestos-contaminated shoreline)
include the Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, University of
Illinois-Chicago, Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Illinois EPA, ATSDR-Chicago Office, USEPA Region 5,
and an array of well paid consultants. It now appears that ATSDR and many of its Illinois partners have
determined “in advance” that there is no need to warn or protect the public from unknown health hazards
presented from the chronic asbestos contamination that is found along the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline.
ATSDR staff should know better and set a proper example. Mr. Durant has let your agency down by
apparently concluding no airborne asbestos hazards existed before the asbestos testing was performed,
samples were analyzed, or a risk assessment on this data was conducted.

Evidence of ATSDR/CDC Staff Misconduct Grows Without Any Formal Management Response
I have complained to your agency on multiple occasions (see attached letters) regarding the inappropriate and
unethical conduct of ATSDR/CDC staff and its Illinois partners involved in covering-up chronic asbestos
contamination and public exposures at Illinois Beach State Park. In July 2005 I challenged the validity of a
scientifically unsupported public health assessment (PHA) conducted by ATSDR in 2000. I appealed an
embarrassing non-response provided by CDC’s Chief Science Officer Dr. Dixie Schneider in December 2005.
I am still waiting for a proper response from your agency to my July 2005 request for information correction.

I have also asked to be involved with the secret activity-based asbestos exposure testing that was conducted in
May 2006 at Illinois Beach State Park. I was provided with a copy of ATSDR’s vague, activity-based plan a
few days before testing was to take place. ATSDR and its Illinois partners developed this study in secrecy
over an eight-month period while battling requests from the Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society and me to
review the protocols and provide comments prior to starting the testing. On a tight deadline of two days, I was
able to provide a quick response to the obvious problems I noted upon review of the plan in a May 19, 2006
letter sent to your Chief of Staff.

I asked that ATSDR delay the study until more representative dry conditions were present later in the summer.
I also asked to meet with ATSDR to discuss my concerns (copy of May 19, 2006 letter attached) prior to the
testing. A month has passed and I have not received any response from ATSDR or CDC. In fact, the activity-
based asbestos exposure testing proceeded just a few days after Illinois experienced nine straight days of rain
and only one day above 70° F during the previous two weeks in May. Not surprisingly, I also discovered that
ATSDR and its Illinois partners strayed from the plan provided to us when modifications were made in the
field during the testing.

I have many outstanding complaints into your office regarding this activity-based testing. When can I expect a
response and an offer to meet and end this public health charade being perpetrated by ATSDR and its Illinois
partners?

Sloppy ATSDR Testing Uncovered and Documented with Video and Photographic Evidence
ATSDR/CDC and its Illinois partners have repeatedly denied requests for public involvement and oversight of
the planned activity-based asbestos testing that was conducted in May 2006 at Illinois Beach State Park. This
secret study was conducted in public areas of the park’s beaches while families were present. I performed
surveillance on the beaches for several days until I observed this activity-based testing taking place. I was able
                                                        2
to take video and photographs of ATSDR staff supervising activities that endangered the public. The video
and photos reveal several apparent environmental, safety and public health violations perpetrated by
ATSDR/CDC staff and its Illinois partners. The video incredibly depicts families being used as human guinea
pigs while asbestos-contaminated sands were disturbed by heavy machinery during the careless testing that
was designed, approved, and supervised by ATSDR’s James Durant and its Chicago staffers.

Unprotected ATSDR Staff Caught Drinking Soda in Regulated Asbestos Testing Area
This first picture below is a frame from video that was taken in the early evening of May 23, 2006.
Recognize anyone? Note one individual is holding a bottle of soda in the testing area.




                                                      3
The second picture on the previous page places ATSDR staff, its Illinois partners, and their consultant
standing in the test area without any personal protection. The worker in the bulldozer performing the asbestos
activity-based testing is wearing respiratory protection while your staff takes pictures, drinks soda, and
socializes. Is this appropriate conduct for ATSDR project supervisors performing testing in a public area?

There are no warning signs or physical barriers preventing unauthorized individuals from entering the
regulated testing area. Note that the worker in the bulldozer disturbing the asbestos-contaminated sand in the
picture above is wearing proper respiratory protection as required by worker safety regulations. The beach
should have been closed to the public and unauthorized or unprotected workers (including ATSDR staff)
should not have been allowed near the test vehicle during the activity-based testing. Why did Mr. Durant and
other agency officials allow these sloppy, uncaring, and unprofessional work practices to take place? Why
weren’t these simple precautionary steps taken to protect workers and the public from unknown airborne
asbestos exposures?

Skewed Activity Testing Minimizes Sampling Devices Ability to Capture Airborne Asbestos Fibers
The picture below is a close-up of the air testing equipment used to allegedly measure airborne asbestos fibers
that could be released during beach maintenance and grooming activities conducted by park staff. This picture
demonstrates that air testing equipment was placed too high above a majority of the dust that was generated by
simulating the beach maintenance and grooming activity. The air-sampling cassette was also turned facing
towards the back, which clearly will minimize the study’s potential to capture any airborne asbestos fibers,
which by chance, might be able to reach the elevated testing equipment. This strategy of aiming air testing
cassettes away from the dust-generating activity was not specified in the vague study plans provided by Mr.
Durant, so I was not able to provide any advance comments on this flawed test method.




However, my photos and video have uncovered the many gaps in the vague testing protocol developed by
ATSDR and its Illinois partners. Now I can provide more accurate and specific comments with first-hand
knowledge of the flawed and skewed work product being produced by your staff and its Illinois partners.
ATSDR staff supervised and apparently approved the inappropriate placement of the testing devices used in
the airborne asbestos evaluation. They were certainly close enough to the testing equipment, as illustrated in
                                                       4
several of my photos, to observe and comment on their placement. The test devices should be further back
from the dragging chain link fence and much lower to the ground if the goal of the test is to trap airborne
asbestos fibers. The air testing cassettes should also be facing the dust generating activity instead of facing
away. No one would be standing on the back of this maintenance equipment. Why was the air testing
measured there? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to place air monitoring devices on your staffers who
were exposed during the study?

There was a very brisk wind present during the testing that appeared to push dusts away from the testing
device as the vehicle faced north, east and west. When the bulldozer was facing south (into the wind), dust and
fibers would be expected to blow right past the testing devices at a velocity too fast to be captured and
measured by the inappropriately placed testing equipment. It appears from the video evidence that
ATSDR/CDC staff supervised and approved the placement of the air testing devices and the publicly
accessible area in which the testing would occur in.

ATSDR/CDC Staff Inexplicably Allows Unwarned Families to be Exposed in Asbestos Test Areas
ATSDR/CDC and its Illinois partners were more concerned about public perceptions than public protection
during their skewed activity-based asbestos testing. Workers who were visible to the pubic did not wear
respirators even though no proper OSHA asbestos negative exposure assessments were conducted that would
indicate whether respiratory protection was necessary. No warning signs or barriers were present to educate
unsuspecting families about the potential asbestos exposures in the test areas. Although workers were
educated about the risks from asbestos and offered respiratory protection, this same information and protection
was not provided to unaware families. This is a willful violation of safety and health standards by State of
Illinois and ATSDR/CDC staff. Why was the public allowed to be exposed to asbestos by your testing?




Note in the picture above that an unprotected citizen is walking along the shoreline in the background while
the activity-based asbestos testing is taking place. This was an unnecessary exposure to an individual who is
clearly unaware of what is in the cloud of dust he is inhaling. Signage and barriers could have easily been
placed along the shoreline to warn the public that this portion of the beach was temporarily closed. Instead,
ATSDR/CDC and its Illinois partners apparently decided that the study could only remain “secret” if no one
wore visible personal protection, warning signs and barriers were not constructed, and the public had full and
                                                       5
unrestricted access during the testing event. ATSDR/CDC staff did not wear protective equipment and did not
prevent a citizen from entering the testing area where simulated maintenance activities were disturbing
asbestos-contaminated beach sands. However, the unethical behavior of your staff continued to emerge as
families ventured into the testing zone without any warning or directions to leave the beach testing area.

ATSDR/CDC Refuse to Warn Families/Public While Test Designed to Disturb Asbestos Takes Place
The following photos are frames from a several minute video I took that documented egregious violations of
common precautionary measures almost always taken at sites by CDC/ATSDR when potential asbestos
exposures are being measured and evaluated.




Unfortunately, ATSDR staff appears to be more concerned about keeping the study secret than they are about
warning unprotected members of the public of potential exposures to asbestos during the activity-based
testing. Note that the worker in the vehicle is wearing a respirator as required by worker protection
regulations. An uninformed public does not even have the chance to avoid the vehicle as it churns up dust
from the asbestos-contaminated beach.




                                                     6
In the above picture, a member of the public bends down to pick up a shell, a rock, or possibly a weathered
piece of asbestos debris that is commonly found in this area while the other person observes. The testing
equipment is dragged within a few feet of their position. Why weren’t these innocent bystanders warned of the
potential asbestos hazards and asked to leave the immediate area prior to the activity-based testing that is
designed to generate airborne dusts? The inappropriate and unethical behavior exhibited by ATSDR/CDC
staff must be investigated and promptly corrected. ATSDR staffer James Durant (who supervised and
approved this testing in publicly accessible areas) along with other ATSDR staffers and their Illinois partners,
should be held accountable and disciplined for his egregious lack of care for public health.




                                                       7
The second picture on the previous page depicts the windy and cold conditions under which ATSDR/CDC’s
activity-based asbestos testing operated. As the testing continues, part of the ATSDR/CDC/Illinois partners
“testing observation group” walks back to their cars with the belief that their skewed testing will deliver the
negative airborne asbestos results they seek. Note that wind gusts are so brisk that one of the test observers
must hold onto her hat as her jacket is kicked up by the stiff, cold breeze. The testing performed on a cool,
windy day after more than a week of rain is hardly representative of a hot summer day in July or August. Also,
note the soda bottle in the right hand of the test observer to the right. Worker protection regulations prohibit
eating, drinking and smoking in regulated asbestos areas where asbestos exposure is unknown. The
ATSDR/CDC staff members appeared quite proud of themselves thinking they had successfully hidden the
activity-based asbestos exposure testing from beachgoers, even if it was at the expense of a few members of
the public.

ATSDR Claims the Presence of Water is “Not Critical” in Inhibiting Airborne Asbestos in Study




The picture above was published in the May 25, 2006 edition of the Waukegan News Sun newspaper. It shows
an unprotected worker disturbing wet asbestos-contaminated sands near the Lake Michigan shoreline. The
unprotected worker is wearing a heavy coat due to the cool, damp conditions found at the testing site. A
newspaper reporter asked one of ATSDR’s Illinois partners to comment on the wet, cold conditions of the
beach. Pat Giordano from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (the Agency that runs Illinois Beach
State Park) provided quite an exaggerated description of the skewed activity-based testing being performed by
ATSDR and his agency. Mr. Giordano was quoted in the newspaper as saying

               Giordano of the IDNR said he was out at the park Tuesday when testing was going on and he said the sand
               was dry as a bone. “It was blowing all over the place, you feel like you are getting sand blasted," he said,
               adding that there were three dry days.

Unfortunately for Mr. Giordano, my pictures and video along with those of the media portray a cold, damp
environment that does not resemble summertime beach activities. Why would ATSDR’s Illinois partner at the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources attempt to mischaracterize the poor testing conditions found during
the weeklong tests? Does anyone really believe that conditions resembled anything close to sand-blasting
conditions? Mr. Giordano’s statement was disingenuous and apparently meant to deceive the media and the
public about the true conditions found during the skewed testing. However, ATSDR was present and had the
opportunity to set the record straight regarding the wet conditions found during testing.
                                                        8
ATSDR’s James Durant was also asked by the media to comment on charges that the sand was too wet to
simulate airborne asbestos exposures during summertime beach activities being conducted by children. Mr.
Durant was quoted in the newspaper as stating:

                James Durant, an environmental health scientist with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
                which is a branch of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was in the area to observe and
                helped develop the protocol used for testing.

                He disagreed that it was too wet for testing. The tests didn't begin until after there was over 48 hours of no
                precipitation as measured at Waukegan Regional Airport. Durant also said that there is another aspect of
                the issue.

                "The size of the asbestos fibers were dealing with is not wettable by water,” he said, explaining that during
                asbestos removals, water is amended to reduce the surface tension so it adheres to the fiber." So water is not
                a critical role," he added.

Is Mr. Durant speaking on behalf of ATSDR when he makes such a statement to the media? Does ATSDR
agree with Mr. Durant’s position that asbestos fibers bound in sand are not wettable by water? Is it ATSDR’s
position that simulated children’s activities on cold, wet sand will generate the same airborne exposure to
asbestos fibers performed on hot, dry sand? This unsupported, willfully deceptive, and misleading statement
further illustrates the extent to which ATSDR staff and its Illinois partners will go in order to cover-up the
flawed science utilized in a sham study designed to underestimate airborne asbestos exposures to the public.

Mr. Durant then has the nerve to follow-up this incredible quote above with another revealing and
incriminating statement:

                "We're not here to cover anything up," he said, "and we're not an alarmist agency."

Source: May 25, 2006 Waukegan News Sun (www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/top/5_1_wa25_asbestosbeach_s1.htm)


Apparently, Mr. Durant believed that he was being an “alarmist” if he informed the public of the
asbestos air testing being performed or took basic precautionary steps preventing unprotected access
into the testing area. What is truly alarming is the conduct of ATSDR staff and that of its Illinois
partners.

Air Testing Results will Remain Secret until ATSDR Crafts a Biased Evaluation to Rig Final Report
ATSDR/CDC and its Illinois partners worked on the design of the activity-based testing protocol at Illinois
Beach State Park in secrecy for approximately eight months. Your agency repeatedly ignored the public’s
request to participate in this process. There is no logical reason why members of the public were unknowingly
allowed into the testing areas to become inadvertent participants in the activity-based asbestos exposure
monitoring when knowledgeable members of the public were prohibited from participating. ATSDR/CDC
staff must be held accountable for their careless, unethical, and unprofessional actions that allowed families to
wander into areas that should have been isolated from the public. However, it appears that ATSDR/CDC and
its Illinois Partners have cleverly colluded to withhold testing results from the public until your agency
evaluates the laboratory data by a yet-to-be determined risk modeling methodology.

The consultant for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources specifically is omitting the sample results
from their report to you. They will simply discuss sampling and analytical methodologies while excluding the
laboratory data or any interpretations of them. The results will be secretly provided to your agency as a
“draft,” where they will remain void of public scrutiny in the State of Illinois. If we dare ask ATSDR for
copies of the air testing results we will be redirected, of course, to the Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, which will pretend the lab results are draft and therefore cannot be released to the public. Why
would ATSDR handle lab test results that should clearly be in the consultant’s report? I am very suspicious
                                                          9
about this abnormal handling of sample results that have already been analyzed, but withheld from the public.
It appears that Mr. Durant wants to control analytical data and risk modeling selection so that the preconceived
conclusions that the beaches are “safe” can be manipulated into fruition.

Mr. Durant’s apparent unethical behavior has tarnished the credibility of your agency. The public is losing
trust in you agency’s ability to objectively evaluate the chronic asbestos issues that have plagued the Illinois
Lake Michigan shoreline for decades.
    • Will you end the secrecy and open this asbestos evaluation process up to the public in an honest and
         transparent manner?
    • Will your agency end the collusion with your Illinois partners that ensures the testing data would
         remain secret until your final report could be suspiciously prepared?
    • Will you break the secrecy involved with the unethical behavior of your staff and allow the laboratory
         results you will be reviewing to be available to the public immediately upon request?
    • Will you also investigate why Mr. Durant was allowed to withhold his revelation of the selection of a
         risk model to evaluate the lab samples until sampling results are reviewed? Page 7 of Mr. Durant’s
         study design states, “The appropriate risk model used will be determined by the mineralogy and length
         of the asbestos structures in the samples.” Is it appropriate to get results first and then select a method
         to evaluate them? Shouldn’t an appropriate risk model be determined at the onset of the study to
         minimize the appearance of bias by your staff?
    • When will the public learn about the risk model Mr. Durant selects for his evaluation?
    • Will the public have an opportunity to review the lab results and provide comment to ATSDR on what
         risk model is appropriate from our perspective PRIOR to ATSDR’s and Mr. Durant’s (post-testing)
         handpicked health risk model selection?
    • Will ATSDR staff honor my request to meet and discuss more appropriate activity-based testing
         protocols that should be performed more accurately in the hot, dry, summer months or will you
         continue to skew the testing and risk modeling protocol?
    • Will Health and Human Services ever honestly answer my “Request for Information Correction” of
         your 2000 PHA (which I challenged in July 2005) and end the chronic non-responses and delays?

Although in my opinion, the activity-based testing was skewed by Mr. Durant to minimize airborne asbestos
that could be measured; my pictures and video clearly show the public at risk. I demand an independent
investigation into this complaint and my other previous charges of ATSDR/CDC staff misconduct and
unethical behavior. This investigation must be conducted in a manner that is open and transparent to
the public. ATSDR/CDC and its Illinois partners must also make a good faith effort to notify the public
along with those family members who were present and potentially exposed to airborne asbestos during
any and all activity-based asbestos testing at Illinois Beach State Park.

I will make my incriminating video available to the independent investigators who will handle this compliant.
Thank you for your prompt attention into investigating potential public harms created by the reckless and
unethical behavior of ATSDR and CDC staff members.

Cordially,

Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA
c:     Daniel R. Levinson, Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services
       Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General’s Office
       Douglas P. Scott, Director, Illinois EPA
       Sam Flood, Director, Illinois Department of Natural Resources
       Eric E. Whitaker, M.D., Director, Illinois Department of Public Health
       Dale Galassie, Director, Lake County Health Department
       Paul A Kakuris, President, Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society
       Alison Young, Nancy Albritton, Atlanta Journal
                                                         10
                          ATTACHMENTS


Previous Letters Submitted to ATSDR/CDC/HHS Regarding Staff Misconduct

                           February 7, 2006

                           March 13, 2006

                            April 17, 2006

                            May 19, 2006




                                 11
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                               1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                             Fax: 1-847-837-1852


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention                         February 7, 2006
Management Analysis and Services Office
1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Mailstop E-11
Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Attention:     Request for Information Correction Appeal Officer

Regarding:     CDC/ATSDR Staff Misconduct
               Request for Information Correction Appeal Follow-up
               Camplin Appeal of Dixie E. Snider, Jr., M.D., M.P.H Response Letter
               Illinois Beach State Park PHA of June 2000

Dear Sirs:

I submitted an appeal to you regarding the December 6, 2006 response signed by Dixie E. Snider, Jr.,
M.D., M.P.H., Chief Science Officer of CDC to my request for information correction. I believe it is
necessary to follow-up this appeal to head off further misconduct by Region 5 ATSDR and CDC
Atlanta personnel in their attempts to continue to protect their Illinois partners: the University of
Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health and the Illinois Department of Public Health.

I admonished and criticized Dr. Snider for blindly signing off on the December 6, 2005 response letter
to my July 28, 2005 request for correction of the June, 2000 PHA for Illinois Beach State Park. Since
I submitted my December 22, 2005 appeal with ATSDR, I have discovered that, in fact, this letter was
apparently authored with the assistance of ATSDR Associate Administrator for Federal Programs, Dr.
Mark M. Bashor in cooperation with your Illinois partners at the Illinois Department of Public Health.
What is more disturbing is that the draft work product was apparently reviewed by Labretta Lanier-
Gholoston, Management and Program Analyst whose office I submitted my appeal to. The HSS
policy clearly states that those who authored the initial December 6, 2005 response to me will not be
involved in responding to my appeal request. This appears to be a gross violation of Agency policy
and an obvious conflict of interest if Ms. Lanier-Gholoston or Dr. Bashor is involved in responding to
my appeal. If this is true, is ATSDR/CDC organizational compliance of their agency policies that
corrupt? Where is the internal oversight of your agency staff? I am asking the office of the inspector
general to look into this apparent misconduct and violation of agency policy and the agencies role in a
potential cover-up of past inappropriate behavior.

Now I have been recently informed through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources that Region
5 ATSDR (apparently at the direction of CDC in Atlanta), is assisting the Illinois Department of
Public Health, University of Illinois-Chicago, PSI Consultants, Brad Bradley of USEPA Region 5,
Illinois EPA, and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources with conducting activity-based
asbestos risk assessments at Illinois Beach State Park. The reality and deception is that this
organized, exclusive group is operating in a clandestine manner, excluding the public from what
should be an open and transparent process. You agency is currently participating in a group that has
historically gone out of its way to exclude the public or avoid performing their work in an open and
transparent manner while actively spending taxpayer resources. This is contrary to your


                                                  1
ATSDR/CDC policies for conducting risk studies and casts doubt on the scientific integrity of this
secret group, including your agency. This would now be the fourth time ATSDR has tried to help its
Illinois Partners cover-up the massive asbestos contamination they are responsible for accelerating
along the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. I, therefore, must act preemptively and bring light to
current and anticipated future actions by your Agency and staff. This apparent cover-up must cease.

First, it appears that my appeal will be conveniently deferred another 60 to 90 days to allow your
ATSDR Region 5 and headquarters staff to further assist your Illinois partners in a unwise attempt to
save face with the scientific manipulation and blunders conducted by their 2000 PHA and the recently
released June, 2005 Interim UIC report. If you are contemplating further stall tactic by requesting
additional time to review my appeal, I will not accept it. As a Safety and Health professional, I will
consider any delay as an act of scientific fraud in an attempt to perpetrated a last ditch effort to cover-
up potentially criminal acts by ATSDR and your Illinois partners that put the citizens of Illinois at
further risk from tremolite asbestos. My July 28, 2005 request for correction and my December 22,
2005 appeal have provided enough information and time for even the most junior of staff members in
ATSDR and CDC to make a proper and timely response. I assume a timely response will not be
difficult for your agency to provide since your Chief Science Officer chose to initially respond to my
original request. Anything less than a timely response to my appeal would be a bold move on the part
of ATSDR and CDC to obstruct due process requiring further investigation into the motives of what
appears to be such a shameful and transparent act. However, I request per your agency policy that
those CDC staff members and the Illinois partners involved in ghost writing and reviewing the
December 6, 2005 response for Dr. Snider, not have anything to do with reviewing or responding to
my December 22, 2005 appeal.

Second, my original request of correction has nothing to do with the June, 2005 UIC interim report or
the planned activity-based asbestos risk assessment scheduled for this spring at Illinois Beach State
Park. Citing these ongoing studies as a reason not to respond to my appeal in a timely manner is an
obviously deceptive move aimed to avoid a proper and timely response. This was already attempted
in Dr. Bashor’s apparent ATSDR authored response that was blindly signed off by Chief Science
Officer Dixie Snider. I have succinctly articulated multiple reasons to ATSDR and CDC in my
appeal for labeling the 2000 PHA as “no longer valid as a public health assessment.” My appeal left
no doubt that the 2000 PHA has no relationship to any other study and is no longer valid based on
current asbestos risk protocols. There are no other legitimate excuses or delay tactics left in defense
of the now-outdated June, 2000 PHA for Illinois Beach State Park. Respond to my appeal in a timely
manner. Again, do not delay a response to my appeal.

Third, since ATSDR is compelled by some unknown force to remain actively involved in these covert
activities, I request that you require your Illinois partners and ATSDR’s Region 5 office to open up
their closed and secretive activity based asbestos risk assessment process planned for this spring at
Illinois Beach State Park. The secrecy and unscientific approaches previously used to hide the
massive tremolite and other microscopic asbestos contamination from the Illinois-Wisconsin border
down to the shores of Oak Street beach in Chicago must end. The Chicago Park District recently
performed secret activity-based asbestos air tests last summer to claim the Chicago beaches were safe
from asbestos accidentally found by your partially funded June, 2005 UIC interim report. Was it a
coincidence that one of the major sources of past and current asbestos releases into Lake Michigan
(Johns-Manville) currently uses the same consultant that performed the Chicago Park District’s



                                                     2
activity-based asbestos study? How can the public have confidence in a secret report conducted in
Chicago with such an apparent conflict of interest? Why won’t the Chicago Park District publicly
release this secret study conducted by Johns-Manville’s Superfund site asbestos consultant (the
polluter) for taxpayers to review? Yet your Illinois partners quote these surreptitious studies as
science-based fact that support the beaches are safe from asbestos hazards for adults and children.
You need to pay more attention to the motives, activities, and claims made by your Illinois partners
regarding tremolite and other microscopic asbestos contamination along the Illinois Lake Michigan
shoreline.

Finally, there is not enough scientifically valid testing of the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline to
properly characterize what areas are actually contaminated with tremolite and other microscopic
asbestos fibers. The shoreline is a dynamic process, constantly changing based upon weather and
seasons. A limited set of sampling data generated by a state of Illinois sponsored secret asbestos task
force can hardly be definitive in determining where activity based risk studies should be conducted.
The limited number of beach samples, the use of extensive compositing protocols, and significant
issues with internal analytical laboratory quality control, require the use of more detailed sampling
and analytical protocols to properly characterize the extent of tremolite and other microscopic
asbestos contamination in shoreline sands. Your agency must demand additional, transparent,
lakefront sampling using proper protocols and with public involvement, prior to overseeing any
activity-based risk assessments. Otherwise, your agency’s integrity will fall further by endorsing the
use of this “junk science” in the interim June, 2005 UIC report, that ATSDR refuses to peer review.
The fatal flaws of the sampling and analytical protocols found in the interim June, 2005 UIC report
would have been easily identified by your agency as a significant problem nearly 6 months ago had
ATSDR agreed to perform a scientific peer review of this limited document when you were asked to
by UIC back in June 2005. Why is this non-peer reviewed, scientifically flawed document being
propped up by your agency and used as a basis for the future activity-based risk assessment that is
planned for this spring? Shouldn’t you peer review it first?

ATSDR and CDC tout that risk assessments should be conducted in an open and transparent manner
inviting its most contemptuous challengers into the process. Your website states:
         Recognize the importance of community input. Citizen involvement is important because (a)
         people are entitled to make decisions about issues that directly affect their lives; (b) input
         from the community can help the agency make better decisions; (c) involvement in the process
         leads to greater understanding of - and more appropriate reaction to - a particular risk; (d)
         those who are affected by a problem bring different variables to the problem-solving equation;
         and (e) cooperation increases credibility. Finally, battles that erode public confidence and
         agency resources are more likely when community input isn't sought or considered.
I won’t give you the indignity of quoting all of the points about public involvement in open and
transparent risk assessments found on your website. It is clear your agencies, staff and funding is
involved in the secretly conducted asbestos activities along the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. You
have a responsibility to require this process to be conducted with public involvement, in an open and
transparent manner. Once this fourth attempt to downplay asbestos risks to Illinois citizens is
completed, a legitimate scientific peer review must be conducted by your agency of all past and
current alleged risk-based testing and studies. This is necessary to sort out the facts (if any) from the
fiction behind your Illinois partner’s claims that there are no apparent asbestos hazards along the
Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline.



                                                   3
If ATSDR/CDC is not actively and willfully involved in the apparent efforts to cover-up asbestos
hazards in these reports on the Illinois shoreline, then they have been duped by their Illinois partners.
Either way, your agency needs to take immediate actions to protect its scientific integrity and ethics.
It is obvious that ATSDR/CDC has been deficient in properly verifying or attempting a meaningful
vetting of this process because the results are a tragic betrayal of the public by your agency. Illinois
citizens have endured the incompetence of your Illinois partners and now deserve integrity and
science to be brought into evaluating a serious public health emergency of microscopic tremolite
asbestos on the Illinois Lake Michigan shorelines. The unprofessional conduct and actions of
ATSDR/CDC and its Illinois partners are creating the perception of the Illinois beaches turning into a
“Libby east,” both in the health threats to citizens and indictments of those who fail to act on their
knowledge of these hazards.

I look forward to a timely response to my December 22, 2005 appeal letter and an invitation to
participate in the development of the protocols for the activity-based risk assessment being conducted
at Illinois Beach State Park this spring. Please copy me on your correspondence with your Illinois
partners in response to my requests.

Cordially,

Jeffery C. Camplin
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA

c:     Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services
       Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
       Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, CDC Director and ATSDR Administrator
       Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH, ATSDR Director
       Dixie E. Snider, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., CDC/ATSDR Chief Science Officer
       Drue Barrett, PhD, Acting Associate Director, ATSDR Office of Science
       Mark Johnson, ATSDR Region 5
       Dr. Mark Bashor, Associate Administrator for Federal Programs
       Labretta Lanier-Gholoston,




                                                    4
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                               1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                             Fax: 1-847-837-1852


March 13, 2006

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Office of the Director
1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Mailstop D-14
Atlanta, Georgia 30333

To:    Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
       Director of CDC, Administrator of ATSDR

Re:    ●HHS Refuses to Correct Flawed PHA Ignoring Tremolite Asbestos at Public Beaches
       ●ATSDR Administrator’s Cold Response Ignores Serious Charges of Staff Misconduct
       ●CDC Head Covers-up Fact that Staff Knowingly Ignores Response Deadline to Appeal
       ●Conflict of Interest Charge and Appeal Process Policy Violation Not Addressed
       ●Request for Open and Transparent Asbestos Studies at Illinois Beach Disregarded
       ●ATSDR Ignores Charges of Collusion with Illinois Partners in Flawed 2000 PHA
       ●Asbestos Expert Accuses ATSDR of Cover-up – Administrator Provides no Response
       ●ATSDR Ignores Millions of Citizen’s Exposure to Asbestos Including Tremolite
       ●ATSDR, CDC, and HHS Cover-up Compared to Indicted Officials in Libby, Montana

Dear Dr. Gerberding,

I have received your evasive, inadequate response which is really a non- response and bureaucratic boilerplate,
dated February 23, 2006, to the serious charges made in my February 7, 2006 letter to your agency. I wrote the
February 23, 2006 letter (copying the Secretary of HHS and the Director of CDC) as a preemptive charge that
ATSDR was in collusion with your state of Illinois partners to delay a proper and timely response to my
December 2005 appeal in order to cover up incompetence and errors. The December, 2005 appeal was in
response to an ethically and scientifically bankrupt denial of my July, 2005 request for correction for the very
outdated 2000 Public Health Assessment (PHA) which used inadequate risk analysis that created a fraudulent
document of public asbestos exposures at Illinois Beach State Park in Zion, Illinois. The initial denial of my
request by CDC Chief Science officer Dixie Schneider refused to address the correction requested in my July
26, 2005 information quality challenge. No one at ATSDR, CDC, or HHS has ever responded to my July, 2005
request to add a disclaimer to your flawed non-risk based 2000 Public Health Assessment (PHA) that states it is
no longer valid based upon current risk-based knowledge.

My February 7, 2006 letter to you accurately predicted that your agency would continue to stall a proper
response to my original, unanswered, July 2005 information request. In the February 23, 2006 response letter
that you signed, it claimed “My understanding is that a response to your appeal is in development and we
anticipate it will be finalized by the required 60-day period.” However, two days prior to you signing this
generic statement I received a response from your staff (as I had predicted in my February 7 letter to you)
stating an additional 60 days would be necessary, beyond the initial 60-days, to respond to my appeal.

How can you claim, as you do in your recent form letter, that “The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) takes all information quality complaints

                                                       1
seriously” when in actuality, they haven’t?” It is apparent that in your response, your staff used you by further
misstating the facts in order to further cover-up their own incompetence. Do you also take charges of staff
misconduct and misbehavior seriously as well? Dr. Gerberding, actions speak louder than words. I have
accused your agency of conspiring to cover-up mistakes made by your agency and your Illinois partners
(Illinois Department of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health) in evaluating
the public health risks from asbestos-contamination (including tremolite) at public beaches along the Illinois
Lake Michigan shoreline. Your sole response to these grave charges is an inaccurate, evasive, boilerplate, non-
response letter that refuses to address serious charges of HHS staff misconduct including violation of agency
policies in responding to my appeal. I demand that you do more than just sign a non-personal, boilerplate
response letter that is robotically generated by your clerical staff. I expect you to actually investigate my
charges and respond back to me with answers. Unfortunately, to date, you have remained silent on charges of
staff misconduct which manifests into millions of Illinois citizens being unwittingly exposed to microscopic
asbestos, including tremolite.

By ignoring these charges, your approach appears to be arrogant, detached, and evasive; it is a blatant attempt to
put HHS staff above policy or the law. You are government employees who are accountable to citizens to
follow established protocols and investigate charges of misconduct by your staff. I will continue to demand that
you and HHS staff play by the rules and seek scientific truth. Your response letter shows that you are
uninterested and/or unaware of the inappropriate actions of your staff. How can you claim that a timely
response to my appeal is being worked on when your staff already had sent out a letter to me indicating they
had failed to meet your agency’s required 60-day response deadline? Let me remind you that I made this
request on July 26, 2005; it is now March 13, 2006. You said they were finalizing my appeal response when all
they were preparing was another 60 day stall. How hard is it for your office staff to make a simple phone call
and check the facts for you before asking you to blindly put your name on an inaccurate boilerplate response to
a concerned citizen? Or, were you actually aware that they were preparing another 60 day staff letter when you
signed your letter to me? Your failure to properly acknowledge, investigate and respond to the serious charges
of misconduct by HHS staff makes you, along with Dr. Frumkin, and Secretary Leavitt, facilitators of this
misconduct and inappropriate behavior of your staff and their Illinois partners. I asked for answers from you,
not an evasive boilerplate response concocted by your underlings. Is my assumption right that you were not
part of this scheme?

Let there be no confusion of the charges I am making against ATSDR, CDC, and HHS staff and the answers I
seek from YOU:
    1. No one at HHS has ever responded to the sole request in my July 26, 2005 request for correction of an
        invalid 2000 PHA for asbestos at Illinois Beach State Park. It took nearly 5 months to get a bogus and
        unsupported denial response from your Chief Science Officer. You failed to answer why my initial
        request was never answered in your agencies denial response. When can I expect a proper answer to my
        July 26, 2005 request for correction?
    2. I quickly, accurately, and severely criticized and discredited the thoughtless and evasive response by
        your Chief Science Officer, Dr. Schneider, with a mountain of facts in a December 2005 appeal of your
        agencies denial of my July, 2005 request for correction. I had the feeling HHS would have a significant
        problem addressing the eye-opening charges found in my appeal and wrote a preemptive letter in
        February 7, 2006 that anticipated another 60-day delay by your staff. I asked that you not delay your
        response to my appeal due to the potential public health emergency regarding tremolite and other
        asbestos-contamination on the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. I also outlined misconduct by your
        staff due to the fact that you allowed the same individuals involved with preparing your extremely
        flawed initial response that denied my July 2005 request to my December 2005 appeal. Your staff failed
        to address this charge in the form letter they had you sign. Will you now answer this charge of policy
        violations in the handling of my appeal response?
    3. I charged ATSDR Region 5 and their Illinois partners with covering-up their apparent bungling of a very
        flawed 2000 PHA and subsequent interim asbestos report by the University of Illinois at Chicago,
                                                          2
      School of Public Health which used that document to support their very flawed interim report. (Let us all
      be reminded that ATSDR subsequently reviewed that UIC document informally and found the UIC
      document to contain significant flaws.). You failed to respond to this serious charge regarding HHS
      staff behavior and the secrecy and flaws contained in these CDC/ATSDR funded projects. Will you
      address my charges of a cover-up by your staff and your Illinois partners regarding asbestos-
      contamination at Illinois Beach State Park?
   4. I found out that Region 5 ATSDR is informally assisting the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
      with a secret activity-based asbestos study scheduled for this spring at Illinois Beach State Park. I stated
      in my letter to you that HHS would probably delay a response to my appeal so that this secret asbestos
      study could be completed. It is my opinion that you and your Illinois partners hope this secretly
      conducted activity-based asbestos study will somehow save you all from the embarrassing reality that
      your past PHA claims about the safety of Illinois beaches from asbestos-contamination is fraudulent. I
      know better and so do you. I asked that you compel the IDNR through Region 5 ATSDR to open up this
      secret activity-based asbestos study your agency has offered to assist at Illinois Beach State Park. You
      and your Illinois partners have strayed away from science and are too eager to quote outdated and
      secretive non-peer reviewed documents to make unsupported public health claims from asbestos-
      contamination at Illinois Beach State Park. This is in direct opposition to your agencies’ policies of
      transparency. Will you officially ask IDNR in writing that this study should be conducted in an open
      and transparent manner with public involvement? Will you also ask that this information undergo peer
      review before it is cited?
   5. Your Chief Science Officer cited a fatally flawed UIC interim asbestos study as a defense that your
      outdated 2000 PHA was still valid. However, by ATSDR’s own admission, there were significant
      problems with the UIC interim report; in essence the data did not support UIC’s conclusions. I stated in
      my letter that your agency refused to perform an official peer review of this document even though
      ASTDR and CDC partially funded it. Will you officially peer review this interim UIC report that is
      cited by you and your Illinois partners in support of fraudulent claims Illinois beaches are safe from
      asbestos-contamination?
   6. I made a simple statement in my letter to you on February 7, 2006 which said, “You need to pay more
      attention to the motives, activities, and claims made by your Illinois partners regarding tremolite and
      other microscopic asbestos contamination along the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline.” What
      assurances can you provide me (beyond your impersonal form letter) that HHS, CDC, and ATSDR will
      investigate my charges regarding the behavior of your Illinois partners that you fund and support?

You must compel your staff to respond immediately to my appeal and answer the simple request contained in
my July 26, 2005 request for correction that asks:
   1. There should be a qualifier added to the document stating the health assessment is no longer valid
       because analytical data used to determine that there is “no significant public health threat at IBSP
       due to asbestos exposure” is not supported by current science on public risk to asbestos exposure in
       contaminated soils.
   2. A qualifier should be placed on the document stating it should not be cited or quoted and that the
       report is no longer valid as a public health assessment.

                              Note: This information is provided for historical reference purposes
                              only. It is now outdated and no longer valid as a Public Health
                              Assessment based on new knowledge and science of asbestos risk.
                              Do not cite this document as a valid Public Health Assessment.


Your agency has taken significant and valuable time in their delay responding accurately to my July 26, 2005
request for correction. These delay tactics by your staff and your ignoring of the misbehavior of your staff must
end. I understand that by making the corrections I request you will also have to address the same issues with
                                                         3
scores of other asbestos PHA’s from around the country that used this same flawed risk approach throughout
the years. However, your agency has known for quite some time that the 1% asbestos threshold and aggressive
outdoor clearance air sampling are not measures used to evaluate risks from asbestos exposures to human
health. Your agency should have taken the necessary actions I request years ago. How many citizens of Illinois
must be exposed to tremolite and other asbestos fibers before you decide to stop stalling and respond in a
manner that is protective of human health?

These delay tactics have caused millions of citizens of Illinois to be unwittingly exposed to asbestos, including
tremolite. It is difficult to imagine how ATSDR, CDC, and HHS, in order to cover-up their own incompetence,
would manipulate and skew data while adults and children are exposed to inhaling these microscopic asbestos
fibers on the Illinois shoreline. What would you think, as a parent, that your children were building sand castles
in sand that contained the most deadly form of the asbestos mineral, tremolite asbestos, and you found out that
public officials who are supposed to protect you skewed and manipulated data to save their own hides?
Indictments were recently issued to officials in Libby, Montana for doing just that.

Stop delegating your responsibilities to incompetent staff that are out to protect themselves, their state partners,
and possibly their superiors. Show some leadership in managing and adhering to the policies of your agencies
and accept nothing less than scientific truth. I look forward to a prompt and complete response from you to this
letter and my July 26, 2005 request for correction regarding your 2000 PHA of asbestos-contamination at
Illinois Beach State Park. You must also demand a full response from your staff to charges found in my
December 2005 appeal.

I request that you rescind the last 60 day extension to my appeal that your staff wrote in February 2006 and
compel your staff to immediately honor my original request for correction from July 2005.

Cordially,

Jeffery C. Camplin
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA

c:     Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services
       Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
       Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH, ATSDR Director




                                                         4
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                                 1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                               Fax: 1-847-837-1852


April 17, 2006

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Office of the Director
1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Mailstop D-14
Atlanta, Georgia 30333

To:    Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
       Director of CDC, Administrator of ATSDR

Re: HHS Cover-up: Refuses to Fix Flawed Asbestos PHA Ignoring Tremolite in Sand
   ● CDC Allows Millions to be Exposed to Unknown Asbestos Risks for Six Years
   ● CDC Hides Knowledge of Citizens’ Asbestos Exposure to Deadly Tremolite
   ● Surreptitious Involvement by ATSDR Regional and Atlanta HQ Staff Uncovered
   ● ATSDR Staff Politically Motivated in New Secret Asbestos Study Cover-up by State
   ● CDC Director Gerberding Asked to Admit Agency Mistakes and Protect the Public

Dear Dr. Gerberding,

I wrote to you on March 13, 2006 to inform you that your staff had not answered the request for
information correction that I made in July, 2005 regarding an outdated asbestos public health assessment
conducted at Illinois Beach State Park. Your Chief Science Officer; Dr. Dixie Schneider, embarrassed your
agency when he refused to properly answer my request in his non-responsive December, 2005 reply.
Instead, your Chief Science Officer made unsupported and knowingly false statements in his December
correspondence with me. I quickly appealed his misleading and inaccurate reply demanding a proper
response from the Department of Health and Human Services. I followed up with a letter to you on
February 7, 2006 in which I predicted your agency would once again delay a response to my appeal so your
staff could surreptitiously assist your Illinois partners with a non-transparent, activity-based asbestos study
to cover-up for your lack of diligence in responding to my July, 2005 information correction request. You
wrote back to me on February 23, 2006 stating a prompt response was forthcoming. Unfortunately your
lack of oversight on this issue surfaced when your agency delayed responding to my appeal for an
additional 60 days. I wrote to you on March 13, 2006 requesting that you immediately overturn this delay
and promptly respond. I also asked that you request your Illinois partners to conduct the activity-based air
monitoring in a publicly inclusive transparent format. You never responded to these requests to conduct
asbestos risk assessment activities in an open and transparent manner.

Since I wrote to you last month I discovered that ATSDR Region 5, Region 8, and your Atlanta
headquarters staff have been leading participants in the development of activity-based asbestos air testing at
Illinois Beach State Park. In fact, your agency has funded a risk-based evaluation of the activity-based
asbestos testing being conducted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources later this spring. I asked
you in my February and March, 2006 letters to request that the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
asbestos study be conducted in an open and transparent manner with public involvement. You have
decided to remain silent on my request. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has officially denied
our request to review the work plan for this new asbestos risk study, citing your agency as the reason for
keeping the public out.
                                                      1
   •     Why won’t you request that this important asbestos risk evaluation be made open and transparent to
         the public? It is apparent that you are involved in a cover-up of flawed studies and unknown
         asbestos public health risks at Illinois Beach State Park with your Illinois partners.
     • Why did your agency proactively approach the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and
         request involvement in this secret study? It is because you need to cover-up your shameful defense
         of an outdated and flawed asbestos public health assessment that never evaluated public risk to
         airborne asbestos at Illinois Beach State Park. This has resulted in asbestos exposures to millions of
         citizens who were allowed back into an asbestos-contaminated area after an inadequate clean-up.
     • Why does your agency continue to stall responding to my request to label your faulty 2000 public
         health assessment as outdated? You fail to respond because you cannot explain why your agency
         remained silent for six years while millions of Illinois citizens visited a shoreline contaminated with
         microscopic asbestos fibers including tremolite asbestos.
     • Why does your agency sit quietly while millions of citizens are exposed to unknown airborne
         asbestos risks? Your agency does not want to take responsibility for potential harms to the public
         health that have occurred over the last six years to millions of citizens by allowing a flawed and
         outdated asbestos public health assessment to downplay known asbestos hazards in public areas.
Your agency’s complacency in addressing asbestos-contamination at Illinois Beach State Park has now
resulted in this contamination spreading as far south as Oak Street Beach in Chicago where tremolite and
other toxic asbestos fibers were found in 2005. The silence of your agency is harming the public. Our
Illinois Lake Michigan tremolite asbestos-contaminated shoreline is now considered “Libby East.”

You have delayed responding to my request for information correction for nine months. It is estimated that
two million people have been exposed to microscopic asbestos fibers at Illinois Beach State Park during
your unjustified delay. Who knows how many others have been exposed along the 40 miles of asbestos-
contaminated shoreline of communities to the south on the North Shore and Chicago. A response to my
appeal is due this Thursday, April 20, 2006. I fear your agency will once again delay a proper response so
that the secret asbestos activity-based air sampling that you are leading with your Illinois partners will be
completed. You need a new report that finds no asbestos risk to the public so you can hide the fact that
your agency remained silent for six years as parents and children were exposed to microscopic asbestos,
including tremolite. How many more will be exposed to asbestos on our beaches as you sit silently while
covering-up your agency’s past mistakes and your staff’s current misconduct?

I have recently come across several individuals in Lake County, Illinois that have non-occupational
mesothelioma. They have a history of visiting Illinois Beach State Park. Lake County, Illinois has an
occupational mesothelioma death rate nearly seven times above what is expected. Now the community
related mesothelioma cases are appearing. How many new cases of non-occupational mesothelioma will
manifest themselves from airborne asbestos exposures that have occurred over the last six years? The same
six years your agency did nothing to protect the public. The same six years your agency defended a flawed
and outdated public health assessment that citizens of Illinois depended upon for the safety of their
families. How much longer will your agency remain silent on this issue? How much longer will your
agency work against public health?

You spoke at the James E. Webb Lecture on November 18, 2004, in Washington, DC. In this presentation
you cited how your agency had responded poorly to the occupational vs. community exposures to asbestos
hazards at Libby, Montana. You stated:
        “As we have tried to build a less structured CDC, we have developed some clusters.
        For example, it may not be intuitively obvious why we have three infectious disease
        centers but they are working together in a cluster to try to get efficiencies of shared
        business services and look for synergy and innovation across each other.
        Meanwhile, other parts have overlapping interests but no real integrated systems.
                                                       2
         For example, vermiculite—a toxin—has plagued the community of Libby, Montana.
         When this asbestos product first became a problem, our Agency for Toxic
         Substances went there to help the community. Unknown to them at the time was
         that our Occupational Safety and Health Group already had been there since
         workers had been affected. Many years lapsed between the time when we knew
         this was an occupational issue and when we knew it was a community issue.”
Now we have a lapse in time when your agency knew a flawed public health assessment published in 2000
did not accurately evaluate asbestos exposures to millions of men, women and children along the Illinois
Lake Michigan shoreline. Instead of correcting this public health assessment, your agency decided to
defend this scientifically bankrupt document which fraudulently claims there is no significant health risk
from asbestos exposure along the Illinois Lake Michigan shoreline. This indefensible position places
millions of citizens at risk when they visit this tremolite (and other toxic forms of non-indigenous
microscopic asbestos) contaminated shoreline. These unwitting asbestos-exposed citizens have blindly
relied upon the CDC and its partners’ previous conclusions that no airborne asbestos risks are present at
Illinois Beach State Park for their safety. Since this non-factual public health assessment was released six
years ago, nearly 2 million visitors per year have been exposed to the microscopic asbestos hazards that lay
undefined in the beach sands. Many millions more have been exposed to asbestos along shoreline
communities to the south, including Chicago. Yet, all your agency can do is to avoid answering my July,
2005 challenge to this flawed public health assessment and delay a proper response to my December, 2005
appeal.

It is time for your agency to admit that it made mistakes in the past. It is time that your agency takes
responsibility for an outdated and flawed public health assessment. It is time that your agency involves the
public as a partner in resolving the uncertainty in health risks created from microscopic asbestos fibers that
have plagued our community for decades. Practice what you preach. Protect our community in an open
and transparent manner. The first step is to properly respond to my outstanding request for information
correction from July, 2005: do not allow your outdated 2000 public health assessment to be cited as a valid
risk study. Next, demand that your Illinois partners immediately allow public review and oversight of any
new studies or reports that are designed to evaluate public health risks from asbestos exposure. Finally,
your agency must lead an investigation into the occurrence of non-occupational asbestos diseases in Lake
and Cook County, Illinois.

The integrity of your agency is at a crossroads. Do you choose science and sound risk-based policy or do
you choose political cover-up? I guess we will find out this Thursday when you respond to my appeal.

Will you end your agency’s silence on this matter and respond to my charges? I look forward to your
response.

Cordially,

Jeffery C. Camplin
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP, CPEA

c:     Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services
       Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
       Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH, ATSDR Director



                                                      3
Jeffery C. Camplin, CSP                                                 1-708-284-4563
1681 Verde Lane, Mundelein, IL 60060                               Fax: 1-847-837-1852


May 19, 2006

Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Mail Stop D-14
Atlanta GA 30329-4018

Attention:     Lynn Austin, Ph.D., Chief of Staff

Subject:       Asbestos Public Health Emergency
               Illinois Beach State Park, Zion, Illinois

Dear Dr. Austin,

I received your response letter dated April 25, 2006. In your letter, you stated and requested that, “In
the meantime, to be respectful of your time and efforts, unless you have new information regarding
IBSP, please accept this letter as a final interim response while waiting to hear from CDC regarding
your letters to CDC and HHS.” I am compelled and obligated to provide you with the following new
information because the health and safety of the public is at stake and your responses have been late
and inappropriate. Please provide me with prompt answers to the following inquires.

   1. I challenged ATSDR findings of the 2000 Public Health Assessment for Illinois Beach State
      Park through a Request for Information Correction on July 28, 2005. Your agency delayed
      responding until December, 2005, yet failed to answer my request for information correction. I
      filed a detailed, highly critical appeal of the non-response to my request for information
      correction by CDC’s Chief Science Officer Dixie Schneider. Since my appeal to your non-
      response was filed in December, 2005, I have received two, 60-day delays from your agency. I
      have still not received a proper and complete response. Your new response date is June, 2006,
      nearly one year from my initial challenge of the 2000 PHA. Dr. Gerberding stated back in
      April, 2006 that a timely response was forthcoming. Unfortunately, a few days later I once
      again received a letter informing me a response would be delayed until June 20, 2006. This is
      unacceptable for such a simple request. Will you respond to my appeal immediately?
   2. I expect the current validity of the 2000 PHA to be judged on its own. Your agency has
      attempted to cite newer “interim” studies in hopes of somehow saving the defective and
      doomed 2000 PHA. The 2000 PHA was based upon data collected in 1998. I accurately
      challenged this data as not evaluating human health risk to asbestos. The 2000 PHA and its
      conclusions should only be defended based upon the data that was used to write it. That data
      has been shown to be skewed and defective and appears to be scientific fraud. Your current
      attempt to use smoke and mirrors (using non-applicable interim studies performed years later to
      defend the fatal flaws of the 2000 PHA) is unprofessional and is using flawed, rigged data to
      shore up other rigged reports to make it appear that the health and safety of the public is being
      addressed. Answer the simple question which is, “Does the data used in the 2000 PHA support
      the findings?” If not, then the 2000 PHA must be labeled as no longer valid based upon current
      risk assessment protocols. Will you respond to my appeal immediately?
   3. ATSDR/CDC is now colluding with its Illinois partners to downplay the chronic findings of
      visible and microscopic asbestos on public shorelines that 1.5 to 2 million visitors are

                                                    1
unwittingly exposed to each inhaling microscopic asbestos each year since its initial discovery
in 1990. ATSDR/CDC appears now to be involved in a cover-up of the bungling and
misinterpretation of previous studies at IBSP that falsely which were rigged and “cooked” to
make it appear that the beaches are safe. You are now assisting IDNR in performing activity-
based asbestos exposure scenarios that allegedly mirror typical or expected beach activities. I
have asked your agency to open up this study on the front end of its design for public
involvement and comment. Your agency refused to allow any public involvement in the design
of this study. I have now obtained a copy of the final study parameters and have once again
identified fatal flaws in the scope of work in your agency’s new study. You and your Illinois
partners are about to launch into a further cover-up the past “cooked” and rigged studies and
attempt to tell the public that the beaches in Illinois are safe and it’s OK for beach users to sit
amongst fragmented asbestos-containing waste pieces and inhale the visible fibers in the sand,
some of which is tremolite and amosite.
    a. The activity-based air testing at IBSP is being conducted in late May, 2006. It is my
         understanding the activity-based air testing is scheduled for next week (May 22-26,
         2006). Zion, Illinois has received precipitation every day for the last 10 days. The
         beach sands are saturated. It is inappropriate to state that activities conducted on
         saturated beach sand in the damp month of May will represent exposure scenarios found
         in hot, dry, summer months of July and August. Your schedule for releasing your
         findings is listed as September, 2006. This is after the beach season has ended.
         Therefore, there is no need to rush the activity-based tests for this year’s beach season.
         Why won’t you and your Illinois partners perform the activity-based tests in the hot,
         dry, months of July and August instead of the record breaker month for rain this May?
    b. Aside from the unusually wet season, the moisture and dampness embedded in the sand
         through the winter months is not released until approximately late June. After that,
         typical beach moisture conditions begin and the hot, dry summer days attract crowds of
         people who are exposed to the more readily released fibers. Why are you allowing your
         partners to rig the sampling protocols by conducting activity-based asbestos testing in
         May when the beaches are saturated?
    c. Dr. Schneider addressed the inappropriateness of performing activity-based air testing
         during damp months when he responded to my July, 2005 Request for Information
         Correction. I wrote that the 1998 air testing at IBSP that was used in the 2000 PHA was
         conducted on a wet beach. Dr. Schneider wrote:
                 “The next concern raised is the seasonality of the sampling that occurred for
                  the IBSP PHA. Even though leaf blowers were used to suspend asbestos
                  fibers in to the air, ATSDR agrees that had the samples been collected
                 during a dry summer they would have been more representative of a ‘worst
                 case scenario’."
         Your agency claims this new activity-based testing scheduled for the damp month of
         May, 2006 was necessary because “ATSDR reviewers felt that there were some
         uncertainties in the exposure assessment, and recommended activity-based sampling to
         more directly evaluate the levels of asbestos exposure for people using the beach.”
         Wouldn’t activity-based testing in the hot, dry, months of July and August provide a
         better evaluation of levels of people using the beach to clarify the “uncertainties” of
         previous studies, particularly when there are many more people on the beaches when
         children are out of school?
    d. Your agency determined that there were no asbestos clusters on the beaches based upon
         the location of where asbestos chunks had been located and removed over the last two
         years. Your activity-based testing will evaluate airborne microscopic asbestos and not
                                             2
     airborne chunks. There is no correlation between the visible chunks of debris and the
     location of where microscopic asbestos fibers might cluster on a beach area. The
     visible chunks previously tested on IBSP contain chrysotile asbestos. Beach samples
     taken in 2004 found asbestos fibers other than chrysotile in beach sand, which would
     indicate other sources of the microscopic asbestos fibers on the beaches. Therefore,
     why isn’t your agency taking sand samples to determine whether microscopic asbestos
     fiber clusters are present on the beaches? Or, are ATSDR/CDC and its partners
     avoiding dealing with the sources of the asbestos fibers in order to skew the results?
e.   Your agency’s study does not evaluate take-home asbestos-contamination that would
     occur when families bring asbestos-contaminated belongings into their cars and back to
     their homes. You have also disregarded the exposure of the state employees and their
     subcontractors who have worked on the beaches over the years. Why is your activity-
     based study excluding activities that occur off-site of the beaches where microscopic
     asbestos-contamination from IBSP will be taken home by beach visitors, park staff, and
     subcontractors?
f.   Your agency’s study will allow activity-based testing to be performed 24 hours after
     precipitation has occurred for many days. The USEPA provided comments on this
     study stating activity-based testing should not be conducted until at least 48 hours had
     passed after precipitation has occurred. May 18 marked the ninth consecutive day this
     month of measurable rain, making this May one of the wettest on record. Next week,
     rain is predicted for every day but one according to the WGN forecast in the Chicago
     Tribune. Why did your agency schedule activity-based testing for next week when the
     USEPA recommends a 48 hour wait time?
g.   Your agency requires moisture testing yet does not set a maximum moisture level under
     which the activity-based testing will occur. Moisture in beach sand will be much less in
     July and August than it is in May. ATDSR/CDC will waste taxpayer dollars on futile
     testing which will have predictable results neatly covering your past mistakes and
     rigging. Why didn’t your agency establish maximum moisture levels in sand that
     cannot be exceeded prior to conducting the activity-based testing, otherwise, the results
     would be significantly skewed?
h.   Your agency’s citing of the interim UIC report in the Exposure Investigation Protocol is
     inappropriate. Your agency found “uncertainties” in the findings of the UIC interim
     report, yet still cites this inconclusive, interim report by stating, “Available analysis
     indicate that while exposure to asbestos is possible in these activities, it is likely that
     even under worst case situations to be well below 1 in 1,000,000 lifetime risk range.” In
     general, it is known that the data generated in the UIC Interim Report is manipulated,
     rigged, and does not support the report’s conclusions. It is extraordinarily inappropriate
     for your agency to have “dirtied” its hands in dealing with its partners and contaminated
     its own integrity. How can ATSDR find that the UIC interim report has uncertainties
     requiring activity-based support, but still cite these uncertain UIC “finding” in the
     Exposure Investigation activity-based protocol?
i.   Your agency’s Exposure Investigation Protocol included the PSI (consultant who will
     perform the activity-based testing) proposed work plan. I understand that this document
     has been reviewed and modified multiple times from comments received from your
     agency over an eight-month period. I was quite surprised to read that PSI was using
     asbestos exposure monitoring from previous beach clean-up activities to represent
     exposures during the activity-based testing. PSI states, “Based on this data, it is not
     anticipated that the exposure level shall exceed the OSHA permissible exposure limit of
     0.1 f/cc. Therefore, personal protective equipment for airborne asbestos fibers shall not
                                          3
               be required.” The beach clean-up protocol that PSI uses as a negative exposure
               assessment for your agency’s study is designed to minimize fiber disturbance and
               generation. On the other hand, the activity-based protocol in your agency’s study is
               specifically designed to disturb asbestos fibers. PSI’s justification for not wearing a
               respirator is based on significantly flawed data that hides the true risk exposure for the
               personnel. Your partners and the consultant PSI are more concerned about appearing on
               the beaches with respirators for the public to view than the health and safety of the
               workers. Is public visibility also why activity-based testing is scheduled in May as
               opposed to the busy month of July? Why would your agency approve and allow the
               practice of non-mandatory respiratory use for personnel involved in the activity-based
               study using an inappropriate negative exposure assessment?

There are many more comments I have on the Exposure Investigation Protocol for IBSP that have been
finalized by your agency. I am asking that you delay your investigation so that activity-based testing
can occur in appropriate and representative summer months of July and August for beach activities.
This would also give us time to meet and discuss the other issues I have with your agency’s activity-
based testing and proposed risk assessment criteria. All of the previous studies and asbestos risk
assessments conducted at IBSP with involvement of your agency have significant, fatal flaws. It is
apparent that your agency’s new exposure investigation protocol designed to resolve these
“uncertainties” of previous reports will only further enhance the “uncertainties” regarding the public’s
asbestos exposures at IBSP. Will you delay your activity-based testing until July, 2006 and allow me
to prepare and present my complete comments to your agency?

Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters because the health and safety of the public is at
stake.

Cordially,

Jeffery C. Camplin


c:     Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services
       Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
       Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH, ATSDR Director
       Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Director of CDC, Administrator of ATSDR
       James T. Durant MSPH, CIH, ATSDR Exposure Investigation Team
       Drue H. Barrett, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for Science, ATSDR
       Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society




                                                   4