[prepend]

#3 doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. There are no epa actions and it seems like a routine inspection to make sure controls are in place and proceeding to plan. Presenting it as something bad or substantiating her claim that work area is unsafe is stupid or duplicitous.

#1 is unrelated to her claim. Just because a company with tens of thousands of workers does something bad doesn’t mean all claims are valid.

#2 is not unusual so not remarkable unless those inspections show something dangerous. I think this is more a misunderstanding of how superfund sites are frequently remediated and used.

All this seems like a shrug and reminds me of 10 hour YouTube videos where someone is hysterically ranting because someone neglected to say “bless you” once and the video hypothesizes a lot of imaginary backstory while showing clips of unrelated explosions (not saying “bless you” is rude, Nazis are bad, here’s a video of goosestepping Nazis).

[viraptor]

> #1 is unrelated to her claim.

What do you mean by this? The article mentions 3 things NRLB talks about. All were related to her claims, first two were confirmed, the last one is pending. The last two are related to the OP's list.

> There are no epa actions

Do you mean something very specific here? You may be referring to something I'm not familiar with as "EPA actions" but this is just a write-up of a site visit and it explicitly lists some things that need to be fixed or stop sucking bad things back into the building. These are just notes I would expect to be followed up with an actual report/summary, and wouldn't include any analysis of what the findings actually mean.