Group sues EPA for Tar Creek documents
Staff Writer jwingerter@oklahoman.com
A national watchdog group embroiled in a legal battle with the Oklahoma attorney general’s office over a state audit into the Tar Creek Superfund site has now sued the Environmental Protection Agency for more Tar Creek documents.
Campaign for Accountability filed an open records lawsuit Thursday to compel the EPA, led by former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to release all communications between Pruitt’s EPA staff and the state attorney general’s office; all communications between Pruitt’s staff and several news outlets, including The Oklahoman, involving Tar Creek; and other communications between EPA staffers that mention Tar Creek.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, where Campaign for Accountability and the EPA are both located.
“First, Scott Pruitt and his cronies covered up evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing at a Superfund site, and now they’re trying to cover their tracks,” said Daniel Stevens, executive director of Campaign for Accountability. “Oklahomans deserve to learn who profited from the Tar Creek cleanup process. “What are Scott Pruitt and Mike Hunter so desperate to hide?”
A request for comment from the EPA was not answered Friday.
The audit in question concerns the LeadImpacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, a board established to provide assistance to residents of far northeast Oklahoma whose health was threatened by the Tar Creek Superfund site. In 2014, then-Attorney General Pruitt refused to allow an audit that uncovered alleged fraud to be released. Hunter, the current attorney general, has continued that policy.
Campaign for Accountability’s first lawsuit, which seeks to force Hunter to release the audit, is pending in Oklahoma County District Court.
On Feb. 23, District Judge Patricia Parrish rejected a request by Hunter to throw out the lawsuit.
Hunter’s office filed a response Monday and Campaign for Accountability will now draft its own response.
In its court filing, the attorney general’s office argued the Tar Creek audit is a public record but not an open record because it is a grand jury document, though the Tar Creek case was never heard by a grand jury.