DOH/DEP asbestos fact sheet draft, 105 Duane Street

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Jenkins v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 88-SWD-2 (ALJ July 10, 1998) Page 17 of 34

Dr. Jenkins met with two agents from the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), a division of the EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, concerning her allegations of fraud (TR 732). After this meeting, Jenkins wrote two follow-up memoranda to the NEIC, one dated November 16, 1990 and the other dated January 24, 1991, detailing how she believed the alleged Monsanto fraud affected the EPA regulatory process (CX 305, CX 307). She sent copies to a number of outside parties (CX 305 at 6, CX 307 at 9-10). After writing the first memo, Jenkins was contacted by one of the investigators and asked not to reveal that there was an ongoing criminal investigation (TR 1206-07). Jenkins informed the investigator that she already had spoken to a veteran's group and sent copies of her memo to outside groups which revealed a criminal investigation was underway (TR 1207). She told the investigator there "was no way I could honor his request at this point, whether or not I agreed with whether or not such a request was appropriate" (TR 1207-08). Jenkins' supervisor, Mike Petruska, testified that he considered disciplining Jenkins for publicly revealing an ongoing criminal investigation because doing so violated EPA policy (TR 1574). However, Petruska decided against disciplining Jenkins because the policy had not yet been codified as a regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations (TR 1574-75). Jenkins had no further contact with the NEIC after the second memo was sent (TR 758).

Monsanto wrote its first letter to the EPA about Jenkins' fraud accusations on March 26, 1990 (CX 321). Monsanto stated its concern that Jenkins' memo, which was characterized as "simply parroting unsupported arguments contained in a plaintiffs brief," was now being viewed by the media as the official EPA position (id.). The assistant administrator of the EPA, Don Clay, responded with a letter stating that Jenkins' memo reflected only her opinion and not that of the EPA and regretted "any problems that Monsanto may have had as a result of the news media's use of this memorandum" (CX 321).

Monsanto wrote a second letter to the EPA on April 8, 1991 which also was concerned with Jenkins revealing the preliminary criminal investigation to the public (CX 305). The letter stated in part that:

[Page 1

[O]ur basic frustration with this investigation does not extend to the EPA criminal program's handling of this matter. However, this investigation has become a media event through the unprofessional efforts of a single EPA employee not resident in the criminal program. Specifically, memoranda . . . prepared by this employee detailing many untrue allegations provoking the investigation have been improperly released to the public . . . and, consequently, have been widely discussed in the lay and scientific press.

CX 323 at 1. In a third letter on November 15, 1991, Monsanto's attorney expressed more concern over "Dr. Jenkins' insistence in a continued public discussion of the matters addressed in . . .her affidavit" (CX 324 at 1). This letter stated that:

it is highly inappropriate and a violation of the agency's responsibility . . . for an employee publicly to discuss matters of the type to which Dr. Jenkins refers. This is the third occasion on which this has happened.

CX 324 at 1. Jenkins testified that she learned in 1992 that both the Department of Justice and the EPA's Inspector General's office investigated possible personnel actions that could be taken against

file://A:\Dismissed.html 12/21/01

NYC-WTC 000125953