 Coalition for
Responsible Waste Incineration
March 5, 2001
Docket Coordinator
Headquarters, U.S. EPA
CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and
Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program
The Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI) is
pleased to submit comments on the Draft Guidance for National
Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Ombudsmen Program (66 FR
365, January 3, 2001). CRWI represents twenty companies with hazardous
waste combustion interests. These companies account for a significant
portion of the U.S. capacity for hazardous waste combustion. In
addition, CRWI is advised by a number of academic members with research
interests in hazardous waste combustion. As such, CRWI is a unique
technical resource on combustion. CRWI seeks to help its member
companies both to improve their combustion operations and to work
constructively with lawmakers and regulators to develop effective and
workable policies and rules that ensure protection of public health and
the environment.
In general, CRWI supports the draft guidance document, as
written. However, there are a number of general and specific points
where we believe the guidance document can be improved.
General Comments:
- Throughout the document, the point is correctly made that
the Ombudsman must be impartial and an objective reviewer of the
situation that he/she is investigating. In fact, Section XIV
(Accountability of the Ombudsman) makes it clear that the Ombudsmen and
their staff are expected to act in a professional, objective, and
impartial manner. However, the draft guidance is not clear what would
happen if the Ombudsman does not act in this manner. What recourse does
anyone have? Perhaps, the final guidelines should develop a procedure
that can be brought to bear if any interested party believes that the
Ombudsmen or their staff did not act in an appropriate manner.
- Part of the role of the Ombudsman is to conduct
investigations and make recommendations on possible solutions to Senior
Agency managers. To be able to make sound judgements, the Ombudsman
must have access to expertise in the areas being investigated. Without
having experts, sound technical and rational recommendations are not
possible. CRWI believes that EPA should provide sufficient resources
for the Ombudsmen to conduct their investigations. This does not mean
developing a large staff but it may mean developing a method of loaning
appropriate personnel or contract support to that office for conducting
specific investigations. The guidance should also address how experts
are to be qualified.
- CRWI believes that the Ombudsman should be as independent
as possible. However, with this independence comes significant
responsibility to act in a professional, objective, and impartial
manner. Failure to maintain a professional, objective, and impartial
manner should result in a significant curtailment of the independence
of the Ombudsman.
Specific Comments
- Matters in Litigation: It is CRWI's opinion that the
Ombudsman should never investigate any issue in litigation. This
includes all criminal and civil litigation. In the same manner, we
support the concepts outlined in the Inspector General Investigative
Issues section.
- Public Meetings: CRWI believes that public meetings, if
properly run, can be used by the Ombudsman to develop an understanding
of the issue. CRWI believes that some method of recording the events of
the meeting should be kept. This can range from personal notes for
small, informal meetings to the use of a court reporter for larger,
more complicated meetings. For certain investigations, it may be
appropriate for the Ombudsman to set up a docket where all materials
presented and used to develop recommendations can be view by the
public. CRWI does not believe that the Ombudsman should need the
Assistant Administrator's or the Deputy Assistant Administrator's
permission to conduct a public hearing, unless there is
pending/potential litigation of the issue being investigated. However,
the Ombudsman should be encouraged to coordinate any public hearings
with the appropriate authorities to ensure that efforts are not being
duplicated or conflict with other Agency actions.
- Technical Support: CRWI believes that the Ombudsman should
be required to ensure that experienced and properly trained technical
or regulatory staff work on any investigation. Without knowledgeable
staff, the Ombudsman will have difficulty defending their conclusions
and recommendations as being technically sound.
- After the Inquiry: In general, CRWI supports this section.
However, one point should be made. While the draft guidance allows the
Ombudsman to share the draft report with the party being criticized, it
is not mandated. CRWI believes that the party being criticized has a
right to review the draft report prior to release. This would allow the
criticized party the ability to respond to any issues they believe are
not fairly presented.
- Review of Draft Reports: In general, CRWI supports this
section. However, the draft guidance allows up to 30 days review time
for a criticized party at the discretion of the Ombudsman. CRWI
suggests that the final guidance require the Ombudsman to allow 30 days
(no more, no less) for criticized parties to respond.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft
guidance document. If there are any questions, please contact me at
202-775-9869 or at crwi@erols.com.
Sincerely yours,
Melvin E. Keener, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Return to Comments
Return to Main Page
|