DRAFTCOMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN

OSBORNE LANDFILL SITEPINE TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

July 21, 1988

Prepared for:Region III

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Prepared by:BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc.

Under Subcontract No. TESK-TEAM-13, HA Number 783EPA Contract No. 68-01-7331

500003

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Community Relations PlanOsborne Landfill Site

Pine Township, Pennsylvania

SECTION PAGE

Purpose of Plan .................... 1Section A — Site Background and Key Issues ...... 1

1. Site Background and History ......... 22. Community Profile .............. 73. History and Analysis of Community Involvement. 104. Summary of Key Issues and Community Concerns . 12

Section B — Community Relations Techniques andObjectives ................ 14

Section C — Schedule and Timeline .......... 19Appendix A — List of Interested Parties ....... A-l

A. Federal Representatives ........... A-l•(j B. Federal Agency Officials ........... A-l^^ C. State Representatives ............ A-2

D. State Officials ............... A-2E. Local Officials ............... A-3F. Local Media ................. A-4G. Other Interested Parties ........... A-8

Appendix B — List of Sites for InformationRepository and Public Meetings ..... B-l

\J

500004

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANOSBORNE LANDFILL SITE

PINE TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

This Draft Community Relations Plan has been prepared forthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IIIOffice as required by the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, asamended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA) of 1986. The plan describes community concerns relatedto the Osborne Landfill site, located in Pine Township,Pennsylvania, approximately one-half mile outside of GroveCity. The plan also outlines proposed community relationsactivities to be conducted by EPA Region III during theRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Theseactivities are designed to provide interested citizens,officials, and local organizations with general informationabout site plans, developments, and findings.

This Draft Community Relations Plan is designed to provideEPA with the appropriate mechanisms for responding to existingcommunity concerns or concerns that arise during the RI/FS.The EPA Region III Office will oversee technical and community

/ relations work at the Osborne Landfill site. Special emphasisW has been placed on the need for communication dnd coordination

among EPA, State, and local officials, and interested citizensin the community. The findings of the RI/FS and any actionssubsequently taken may make it necessary to modify thecommunity relations program or specific activities detailed inthis plan.

Preparation of this Draft Community Relations Plan (CRP)involved the review of numerous documents about the site, aswell as personal and telephone interviews with local citizensand Federal, State, and local officials. The documents usedinclude materials obtained from the EPA Region III site file,such as the Consent Order executed between the State ofPennsylvania and a potentially responsible party, the existingRevised CRP dated November 1986, and correspondence about siteactivities between EPA and the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources (PADER). Newspaper articles from TheHerald, Allied News, and the Butler Eagle were also reviewed.

A. SITE BACKGROUND AND KEY ISSUES

The Osborne site is a 15-acre abandoned waste disposalarea located on Diamond Road in Pine Township, Mercer County,Pennsylvania. The site lies approximately one-half mile eastof the Borough of Grove City.

-1- 500005

o

o

1. Site Background and History

The Osborne Landfill site was originally developed as anunderground coal mine during the 1800s, and then as a stripmine in the 1940s. The extent of deep mining beneath the siteis unknown. From the 1950s through the early 1960s, the sitewas operated as a waste disposal area. The site was sold toJames Osborne in 1963, and continued to operate as a dumpuntil December 31, 1977, when it was closed by PADER. Thecurrent owner purchased the site in 1979 as part of an 80-acretract of land.

The site is bordered on the east by a strip mine highwallremaining from previous surface mining operations and anadjacent cornfield; on the north by woods; on the west andsouthwest by swamplands, which serve as a habitat formigratory waterfowl and birds, and mine spoils, which areovergrown with small trees and vegetation; and on the south byDiamond Road. There is light residential developmentapproximately one-quarter mile to the north. A small,intermittent stream emerges from the swamp area and flowsunder Diamond Road in a southeast direction. Severalintermittant streams flow through the site to feed an unnamedtributary of Swamp Run, a local fishing area, which in turnflows into Wolf Creek. A 1,500-foot long pit that wasexcavated during the strip mining operation begins nearDiamond Road and extends in a southeast-to-northwestdirection. The site has been roughly regraded, and remnantsof the mining operation are still evident. (See the site mapon the following page.)

Three small ponds are situated at the base of thehighwall. The largest pond, which covers an area of about onesquare mile, is located at the northeast corner of the site;it is estimated to be 30-35 feet deep. A small, intermittentstream enters this pond from the north. The second pond islocated south of the large pond and is estimated to beone-half acre in size. The smallest pond is situated about100 feet south of the second pond and is currently dry. Theponds receive surface water runoff and their water levelsappear to fluctuate with the water table.

After Mr. Osborne purchased the site property in 1963, heentered into an agreement to operate a landfill to dispose ofplant wastes with the Cooper-Bessemer Company/ a division ofCooper Industries Inc. (Cooper), a Houston-based firm withlocal foundry facilities. Throughout the remainder of the1960s and most of the 1970s, the Osborne Landfill sitereceived industrial, hazardous, and municipal wastes, largelyfrom Cooper's Grove City plant but also from other localmanufacturing facilities. Wastes accepted during this periodincluded paints, asbestos, solvents, waste coolants, spentfoundry sand, acid, scrap metal, cooling system sludge, slag,and waste oils.

-2- 500006

The Pennsylvania Department of Health inspected thelandfill operations on several occasions during the site'sactive period; reports from a March 1971 visit showed that inaddition to disposing of industrial waste, the landfillcontained an accumulation of garbage and discardedappliances. DER first conducted on-site sampling of theenvironmental media on June 22, 1977, in response to a requestby the Department of Health. Samples were collected from themine ponds and surface water runoff; analytical results showediron, a heavy metal characteristic of acid mine drainage, inall three pools in levels ranging from 260 to 6,020 parts permillion (ppm) and in site discharges at levels as high as19,650 ppm. Phenols also were discovered at 138 ppm in thestrip mine pool.

On July 26, 1977, Cooper was informed in a meeting withMercer County and PADER officials that the site was to besold. The company was also informed that, because thelandfill had been operating without a permit underPennsylvania's 1966 Solid Waste Management Act, the Osbornesite did not qualify as a State-approved landfill. Cooper wastherefore instructed to discontinue dumping wastes in thelandfill by December 31, 1977, and to install any neededmonitoring or cleanup equipment during 1978.

The State closed the site in 1978 for accepting hazardouswastes for disposal without an appropriate permit. At thetime of closure, the site contained numerous drums, most ofwhich were empty and crushed, while others contained liquidsand solids. The site also had areas of contaminated soil.

The next year, in 1979, Mr. Osborne sold the site.To follow up the site's closing, the PADER Bureau of Solid

Waste Management on April 17 and 18, 1980, conducted a siteinspection. Additional samples of surface water collectedfrom each pond showed the presence of a variety of heavymetals including zinc, lead, nickel, and copper. Theinspection report filed at the time also recorded theinspectors' finding that disposal of 55-gallon drums hadcontinued after the site was closed. The report recommendedthat the site be referred to EPA for action as a hazardouswaste site.

The first major EPA involvement with the site occurred onJuly 6 and 7, 1981, when the Agency inspected it. Sampleswere taken from the two larger ponds and from the stream offsite; these were tested for phenols, cyanides, and heavymetals. Test results from surface water samples showedelevated levels of manganese and iron as well as selenium atnearly three times the drinking water standard. Air samplescollected at the same time showed low levels of organic vaporsinside one drum but did not detect volatile organic compounds(VOCs) in the ambient atmosphere.

~3~ 500007

OSBORNE SITELOCATION MAP

tut mr « 4pomoi or ne uiti *o* err, n

This map has been adapted from documentsprepared by the NUS Corporation.

O

"4"\iSuuuuS

.- A preliminary assessment of the Osborne Landfill site was^J conducted by PADER on August 19, 1981. As a result of these

activities, the Osborne site was named to EPA's InterimPriorities List, the Agency's initial listing of siteseligible to receive Federal cleanup funds, in October 1981.EPA conducted a site inspection on July 2, 1982, and used datato develop a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score for the site.The site's HRS score was 58.41, and Osborne was added to theExpanded Eligibility List in July 1982, and to the NationalPriorities List (NPL) when it was originally announced inDecember 1982. Cooper subsequently challenged the HRS scoreand asked EPA to delete the Osborne Landfill site from the NPL.

Further site characterization was conducted when EPAundertook additional sampling of site environmental media onNovember 4, 1982. Samples from the swamp near the site showedlevels of zinc at 4,809 ppm. Organic contaminants found insamples taken from the two ponds included chloroethane,dichloroethane, and phenols, as well as cadmium, chromium,lead, nickel, and zinc. Soil samples taken at the same timealso showed elevated levels of lead, arsenic, chromium,copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. During that sampling,cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, iron, and manganese were allabove EPA Interim Drinking Water Standards.

Because of concerns about possible contamination of( * drinking water in the area of the site, in February 1983, DER^~J tested the water in seven private, residential wells located

nearby. Analyses on the samples collected did not detect thepresence of priority pollutants and residents were informedthat the water was safe to drink.

The site's high HRS score, which at the time of initiallisting made it the third-highest ranked site in the State,indicated that further actions were needed to address thesite. In March 1983, EPA completed a Remedial Action MasterPlan (RAMP) for the Osborne Landfill site to summarize theexisting data and develop a plan for future response. Amongother findings, the RAMP recommended that several InitialRemedial Measures (IRMs) be implemented at the site to preventany immediate threat to the public health. Meetings were heldbetween EPA, PADER, and Cooper to discuss the possibility ofthe firm conducting the IRMs. In May 1963, Cooper agreed toinitiate these actions, which included construction of asecurity fence, installation of warning signs, and removal anddisposal of on-site drums and contaminated soils. Laterinventories determined that there were 45 cubic yards ofcontaminated soils and 603 drums then present on the site: 83filled with liquids, 60 containing bulk solids, and 460 emptyand crushed. Cooper completed the IRMs in the summer of thatyear.

G-s- 500009

- While the IRMs were underway, Cooper, PADER, and EPA also\_J negotiated a settlement concerning the Osborne Landfill site.

A Consent Order and Agreement was executed between PADER andCooper on September 20, 1983. In the Order, Cooper agreed to:

Provide a list and quantification of wastes it hadsent to the site

Complete the IRMs listed in the RAMP

Conduct an RI/FS and follow-up remedial activities.

Other provisions in the Consent Order included assisting PADERin conducting community relations activities*

The company began RI site sampling work in the Fall of1983 and installed monitoring and test wells in late 1983 andearly 1984 to determine the extent of contamination. Coopersubmitted its Draft RI Report to PADER and EPA on June 25,1984. Findings in the report indicated low-level ground- andsurface-water contamination, and concluded that the site posedlittle environmental risks. As a result, the reportrecommended that a follow-up FS be conducted prior toregrading and reseeding the site. A final version of thisreport was submitted in September 1984.

f , After completing their review of the Draft RI Report, both^ agencies suggested that the company conduct further testing

and monitoring of the ground and surface water and on-sitesoils. Representatives from PADER and EPA met with Cooperofficials to discuss these recommendations, and informedCooper that neither the RI Report nor future activities couldbe approved until these recommendations had been acted upon.Cooper disagreed with the agencies' findings, maintaining thatit had complied with the Consent Order and Agreement.Subsequent meetings between PADER, EPA, and Cooper failed toresult in an agreement by the company to conduct theadditional testing; the company also appealed PADER'srecommendation to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Boardin June 1985.

As a result of Cooper's reluctance to comply with therecommendations for more tests, during the week of September23, 1985, PADER and EPA collected additional environmentalsamples. These were taken from the site ponds, adjacentstream, cornfield above the highwall, swamp, and lime pit areain the southwest corner of the site. Twenty test pits werealso dug to sample the soil. Samples were analyzed forpolychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), VOCs, and heavy metals.

In April 1986, PADER formally requested EPA to assume the/ . lead for the Osborne Landfill site. After meeting with PADER^ representatives, EPA initiated a technical review of Cooper's

RI Report. The review was completed in April 1987. Review

-6- 500010

,o

o

findings stated that Cooper's RI should be supplemented byadditional environmental sampling and characterization of theunderlying ground water. EPA entered into discussions withCooper and PADER concerning the conduct of additional studies;no agreement was reached with Cooper to undertake theseactions.

A Fund-financed RI, led by EPA with oversight by Cooper,was initiated in the Spring of 1968. Actions completedthrough June 1988 included the installation of 15 additionalmonitoring wells to determine the presence of ground-watercontamination, characterize its flow, and investigate therelationship between the aquifers; in addition, localresidential and existing monitoring wells have been sampled.Future sampling will focus on surface water and sediments fromthe stream, ponds, and swamp, and on on-site soils. Datagenerated from the RI will be combined with previouslycollected results to summarize the existing site conditions,assess whether there is any hazard, and evaluate futureactions in an FS Report.

Community relations activities have been conductedperiodically throughout site response. A CRP was developed byPADER in Hay 1983, a revised version of which was produced inNovember 1986. EPA and PADER have led two public meetings,the first on January 17, 1983, and the second on May 3, 1983.In addition, PADER established an information repository atthe Grove City Community Library in April 1984.

2. Community Profile

Pine Township is located in the southwestern portion ofMercer County, on the Ohio border in western Pennsylvania.With an area of approximately 24 square miles and a populationof 3,762 individuals as recorded in the 1980 census, theTownship is largely rural-residential. Only about 10 to 15percent of its land area is developed. The largest populationcenter in the vicinity of Pine Township is Grove City, with apopulation of over 8,400 persons in an area of about twosquare miles. Geographically, Grove City is surrounded byPine Township. Other municipalities in the PineTownship-Grove City area include Mercer, the County seat,about 9 miles to the northwest; Pittsburgh, 45 miles to thesouth; Erie, 65 miles to the north; and Youngstown, Ohio, 30miles to the west.

Although Pine Township and Grove City are geographicallycontiguous, they are separate governmental entities. PineTownship is governed by a board of three Supervisors whichmakes all Township decisions. Engineering and legal servicesare contracted by the Township on an as-needed basis. GroveCity is governed by the Borough Council and a Mayor. TheBorough also employs a full-time manager, who is responsiblefor overseeing the provision of services and other functions.

-7- 500011

o

o

Traditionally, Pine Township and Grove City relied uponagriculture and coal mining as mainstays of their economies.First settled in the late 1700s and early 1600s, the areaattracted prospective farmers by its temperate climate,fertile soils, and gentle topography, with its rolling hills,streams, and small ponds. Prime crops included and remaincorn, table vegetables, and orchard fruit. Today, agriculturecontinues to be important to the local economy; family farmspredominate. Coal mining, on the other hand, is no longer asignificant industry. Abundant and relatively accessibledeposits of anthracite coal in the region attracted a largenumber of persons to the area in the late 1600s and early1900s, the boom period for coal mining. During those years,Grove City and Pine Township boasted numerous profitableunderground mining operations. As technology evolved and itbecame economically feasible to access the coal deposits fromthe surface, some of these deep mines were converted to stripmines. These operations continued through the 1960s, when thedemand for coal decreased and the importance of mining aroundGrove City declined sharply. Today, many old mining shaftsand tunnels remain in the Borough and Township, and incidentsof mine subsidence have been reported.

The modern local economy has expanded to encompass lightand service-based industry. Cooper is the major employer inthe area. Other primary industries include facilities thatmanufacture, service, and repair diesal engines; produce wireshelving and materials' testing systems; and process foods andbeverages. The presence of Grove City College, arehabilitative education institution, and a large hospitalalso make the service industry a substantial source oflivelihood. According to recent statistics published by GroveCity, approximately 25 percent of local jobs are inmanufacturing, with the remaining 75 percent distributed amongthe service and agriculture industries. Local officialscharacterize the economy as strong but not rapidly expanding,with unemployment currently estimated to be just under 6percent of the available workforce.

Perhaps because Pine Township and Grove City arerelatively distant from large population centers, bothmunicipalities have experienced little population growth overthe last several decades. Grove City is an older, establishedcommunity of largely single-family homes. It has been growingat the rate of only one to two percent per decade, a trendthat is projected to continue until at least the -year 2000.Pine Township reflects similar growth patterns. As a resultof its almost unchanged, population, area officials reportlittle demand for housing; there has been no significantconstruction of subdivisions or housing developments. Themajor variable in housing demand in the area is the presenceof Grove City College, which adds approximately 2,000individuals to the local population during the academic year.Although most of the students live on campus, rental units

~8~ 500012

-^ near the college are in demand. The area's healthy economy\_J and lack of growth pressures combine to form a community that

residents describe as close-knit, with a high proportion offamily groups spanning several generations and elderlyresidents.

Most Pine Township residents rely upon private wells tosupply their potable water. Approximately 150 homes in theTownship, including those in the immediate vicinity of theOsborne Landfill site, rely upon Grove City's public watersupply. Grove City maintains its own water and sewerage.Public water is provided by the Grove City UtilitiesDepartment and is managed by a full-time superintendent. TheDepartment services approximately 3,000 water connections inthe Borough and some of the immediately adjacent portions ofPine Township. Until late last year, the primary water sourcefor the Borough's public water was three drilled wells locatedapproximately one mile west of the Osborne Landfill site and200 yards from the active Cooper plant in Grove City. Thewells, which were approximately 300 feet deep, were cased forabout 70 feet below the ground's surface. These wells tappedthe underlying Burgoon Sandstone formation, but also drewwater from overlying formations because of the shallow wellcasings. Water drawn from the wells was treated at the GroveCity water treatment plant built in 1980. During testsconducted in 1985, the water supply was found to contain low

( ^ levels of VOCs, which caused the community to register concern**-~s about the safety of the water supply wells. In early 1988,

Grove City switched its primary source to newly drilled wellslocated about three miles from the site and two miles from theCooper plant. These wells also tap the Burgoon Sandstoneformation to a depth of approximately 350 feet, but aresupplied with casings through 100 feet. Water pumped fromthese wells is treated in the existing water treatment plant;however, Grove City has undertaken a long-term initiative toreplace its old facility and may construct a new treatmentplant in the near future. Even though the chief water sourcehas been changed, residents continue to cite water quality asa major problem. Borough officials maintain that thelow-level contamination discovered in 1985 has beeneliminated, but many residents still use bottled water.

Residents in the Grove City and Pine Township areacharacterize the local population as environmentally aware andconcerned. Residents and local officials ascribe this in partto the presence of Grove City College and the proximity toSlippery Rock University and Slippery Rock College. Concerncontinues about the local water supply. Officials themselvesestimate that approximately 40 percent of local residents whoare connected to public water use bottled water for drinkingand cooking. An additional environmental issue now the focus

(, ~*'t of community attention is the Cooper plant located in GroveW City next to the college. EPA and PADER are taking action at

-9- 500013

the plant under the Federal Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct because of solvents and degreasers detected in HcMillenRun/ a small stream near the plant, which may result fromfoundry operations.

3. History of Community Concerns

Prior to October 1981, when Osborne Landfill was listed onEPA's Interim Priorities List, there appears to have beenlittle interest concerning the site. Pine Township and GroveCity officials recall having received several inquiries aboutsite operations while the landfill was active, but there is norecord of any formal complaints being lodged. Some of theresidents who lived in the vicinity of the site at the timehad discussed among themselves site-related problems, whichpertained mostly to noise made by trucks hauling waste to thesite. These individuals stated that they did not take theirconcerns to local authorities because they thought of theseproblems as nuisances rather than hazards.

Appearance of the Osborne Landfill site on EPA's NPL andits predecessors sparked citizen, media, and local officials'concern. Public interest about the site rose dramaticallybeginning in the summer of 1962. On June 4, 1982, a group ofconcerned citizens met with then-EPA Administrator Gorsuch todiscuss a number of Superfund issues in Western Pennsylvania,one of which was Osborne. The next month, July 1982, GovernorThornburgh formally announced the site's inclusion on EPA'sExpanded Eligibility List of Superfund sites, and theavailability of Federal funds to address hazardous wasteproblems there. At the time, the high HRS score given to theOsborne Landfill site caused it to be ranked as the third mosthazardous in Pennsylvania, primarily for its potential tocontaminate ground water.

This announcement brought the site to the attention oflocal residents and to environmental groups formed to considerenvironmental problems of all kinds; the most notable groupsthat became involved with the Osborne site were WesternPennsylvania Citizens for Safe Communities (WPCSC) andPennsylvanians United to Rescue the Environment (PURE).Representatives from WPCSC wrote letters to elected and agencyofficials at the local, State, and Federal levels, expressingconcern about the site's possible linkage to deterioration ofwater in private wells and the Grove City water supply, andrequesting EPA funds to improve the existing water treatmentsystem. Citizens in the area also placed a number of calls tothe Grove City Utilities Department and the Mercer CountyEmergency Management Agency.

Concern continued at a high level through 1984. InJanuary and May 1983, two public meetings were held by PADERand EPA at which citizens continued to express concerns aboutpotential site impacts on ground water, as well as about

~"~ 500014

.- health effects and the amount of time needed to clean up the'\J site. The landfill became a topic of Grove City Council

meetings, particularly as it related to water quality,although concerns about the site itself were tied into andsuperceded by the broader concern about general public water;the site was also discussed by the Pine Township Supervisors.Environmental groups and local citizens continued to writeletters to EPA, requesting more information on potentialground-water impacts. The level of citizen concern remainedhigh throughout Cooper's performance of the IRMs and RIsampling.

The site has also received substantial media coverage,especially by the Allied News and The Herald. Initialnewspaper articles concerning the site appeared in July 1982,after the announcement of its inclusion on EPA's list of wastesites. The story was picked up by other western Pennsylvanianewspapers, and figured prominently in the local press forsome time after the site was named to the NPL and the RI wasbegun. Press coverage then tapered off somewhat, but resumedagain in 1965 when EPA and PADER were negotiating with Cooperto conduct further testing, and again when EPA assumed thelead for the site. Interest on the part of the media remainshigh, although there have been few stories published in thelast two years.

Local governmental involvement with the Osborne Landfillsite has been sporadic. The Mercer County Division of SolidWaste Management was involved in initial discussions withCooper concerning the landfill's closure in 1978. When thesite was included on EPA's Interim Priorities List,representatives from the County Emergency Management Agencyvisited the site and developed an emergency evacuation planfor hazardous substance emergencies. The site has alsoreceived considerable attention by the Grove City Council,more as an aspect of the larger problem of public distrustabout public water quality, as well as by the Pine TownshipSupervisors; concerns have not been vocal, however, for thepast two to three years. No single agency has emerged as thelocal leader for the site.

Recently, interest in the site appears to have flagged.Most of the attention that it has received in the last twoyears is to question whether it may be a source ofcontamination of the Grove City public water supply, althoughthere is no evidence that contamination exists. Individualswho have expressed the most interest are generally thoseliving in the immediate vicinity of the Osborne Landfillsite. The site has also received some attention by theWestern Pennsylvania DER Citizens Roundtable, but thisdiscussion has been in the context of general water quality.

G

""" 500015

o 4. Key Issues and Potential Community Concerns

Discussions with EPA, PADER, Mercer County, Pine Township,and Grove City officials and residents revealed that recentcitizen interest relating specifically to the Osborne Landfillsite has been relatively low. Interviews indicated thatconcerns center chiefly upon the site's affect on localmunicipal and well water; most problems cited by municipalwater users, however, seemed to pertain to distrust of waterquality and were not necessarily caused by or attributable tothe Osborne Landfill site. Other comments and questions dealtwith health effects, potential problems that the site maypose, the progress of remedial activities, and the need todisseminate accurate information concerning the site.

a. Drinking HaterAll individuals interviewed have expressed concern

about the site's potential impact upon local private wellsand the public water supply in Grove City. Much of thisconcern seems to be the result of uncertainties of, first,whether the site has contaminated the ground water, andsecond, the relationship between all of the underlyingaquifers and the primary direction of ground-water flow.

Several residents who live near the site and useprivate wells fear that their wells may be contaminated bythe site. These wells have been tested, in 1983 by PADERand recently during the expanded RI activities. Althoughthe citizens were informed by PADER that the earliertesting was negative, they are extremely interested inreceiving the results of the more recent well wateranalyses. One individual also asked whether EPA willprovide information about health effects associated withany substances that may be found in the wells and whetherEPA will supply alternate drinking water if wells aredetermined to be unuseable.

Officials and residents who use Grove City municipalwater are concerned about the Osborne Landfill site'spotential effect on the public water supply. On the onehand, Grove City officials stated that, although they donot think there is any interrelationship.between thepublic water supply and the site, they are concerned aboutthe public's perception of a link. They maintain thateven though the water is safe to drink, especially sincethe primary water source was changed earlier this year,many people in the Grove City area continue to questionits quality; they express concern that the recent RIactivities and the resulting return of the site to thepublic's awareness will feed public fears. Residents, onthe other hand, are concerned that the site may indeed berelated to what they perceive as problems with the publicwater supply. They question whether the site has

-12- 500016

.o contaminated the aquifer from which the water supply isdrawn, and wonder whether it could have been a source forthe VOCs found in the water in 1985. They see the OsborneLandfill site as one potential cause of what they perceiveto be a decrease in water quality, and would like EPA toprovide definitive information on the subject.b. Health Effects

Potential health effects related to the site alsoposed a major concern to some interviewees. Severalstated that the area seems to have an unusually highconcentration of certain types of cancers, such as braincancer, and other chronic illnesses, such as kidneydisease. One also stated that there is also a largenumber of birth defects in the Grove City area, andwonders whether they could be due to the site.Interviewees also explained that there appears to be ageographical pattern to or concentration of these healthproblems. Although they are not sure how these illnesses,the perceived problems with the public water supply, andthe Osborne Landfill site are interrelated, residentswould like to have EPA examine the reasons for theseillnesses.c. Remaining Site Problems

Several residents questioned whether the site couldpose a danger to public health or the environment in itspresent state. One resident in the immediate vicinity ofthe site expressed her concern about possible hazardous .substances remaining there. This, individual stated thatthe larger of the two remaining ponds sometimes becomesdark green in color, and speculated that this could be dueto the episodic release of substances from submergeddrums. This interviewee also stated that two formerlyhealthy pets, a dog and a horse, died unexpectedly lastwinter; both of these animals had regularly drunk from thestream emanating from the site and from the nearby swamp.She is concerned that their deaths could be linked to sitecontamination. Others reported seeing dead animals on thesite property and would like to know whether this meansthat hazardous materials remain on site or havecontaminated the environmental media.

d. Progress of Remedial ActivitiesSeveral individuals interviewed expressed frustration

about the length of time it has taken to get the sitecleaned up and concern about the amount of money spent onthe site to date. They pointed out that PADER and/or EPAactivities had been in progress for over 10 years and thatthe hazard had not yet been eliminated at the site. Oneindividual evinced skepticism about whether current

~13~ 590017

o

o

o

actions would succeed in cleaning up the site. Hostinterviewees requested that EPA provide them withinformation about future site plans, especially aboutprojected cleanup dates.

Another concern cited related to future cleanupactivities. Several area residents would like to see thesite property restored to some economic as well asesthetic value. They pointed out that the OsborneLandfill site is an eyesore and that its proximity totheir land may decrease their property values. At thesame time, however, these individuals stated that thecleanup should not be limited to addressing surfaceproblems.e. information Dissemination

All individuals contacted by telephone or in personstated their concerns about the difficulty in gettinginformation about the site. This was an underlying themefor many of the other concerns voiced by interviewees aswell. The types of information requested included thesite's possible effect on drinking water quality,contaminants found on and off site, and potential healtheffects. County and local officials were especially eagerto receive information from EPA during the RI and futureresponse actions; representatives from the Mercer CountyEmergency Management Agency, Pine Township, and Grove Cityrequested that EPA contact them to explain site status andprovide them with updated information as activitiesprogress. The Grove City Utilities Department isespecially interested in working with EPA to determinewhether there is any contamination of the underlyingaquifers, specifically those tapped for the public watersupply; they would also like to be informed of whatsubstances are found on site and in the ground water.

B. COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES AND OBJECTIVES

The following community relations techniques andobjectives are suggested for the Osborne Landfill site. Thecombination of techniques is recommended to enable EPA torespond to the existing situation at the site and in thesurrounding community.1. Establish an Information Contact

Objective; To provide accurate and timely responses toquestions from residents, State and local officials,citizens' groups, and the media throughout the Superfundprocess, and to coordinate communications with otherofficials and agencies.

~14~ 500018

^ Method: Patricia Tan, the EPA Enforcement Project Manager(J for the Osborne Landfill site, in coordination with

Colleen Leyden of the EPA Region III Community RelationsStaff,.are the primary contacts to respond to questionsfrom interested parties. (See Appendix A for addressesand telephone numbers.)

2. Maintain the Information Repository

Objective; To ensure that accurate, understandableinformation is available to interested parties.

Method; Fact sheets and site reports (i.e., the CommunityRelations Plan, RI Report) and other pertinent siteinformation, as well as general information on theSuperfund program and enforcement process, will beincluded in the repository. As events at the siteprogress, updated information will be placed in therepository. (For the repository location and the name ofa contact person see Appendix B.)

3. Fact Sheets and Updates on Site Progress for AreaResidents and Other Interested Parties

Objective; To provide the community with factualinformation about Superfund, the Osborne Landfill site,and site activities.

Method; Basic information about the Superfund program andenforcement process should be provided. (This activitymay be satisfied by using existing EPA brochures or othermaterials, or may be included as .part of a site-specificfact sheet.) A site-specific fact sheet should bedeveloped by EPA technical staff to clarify the roles ofvarious Federal, State, and local agencies and explain thepurpose and plans for site activities during the RIactivities and the FS.

Additional fact sheet(s) explaining and summarizing thefindings of the RI and the next steps to be taken at thesite may be prepared. EPA's remedial action plans mayalso be explained in a fact sheet, if appropriate. Shouldcontamination of residential wells be identified in theRI, a fact sheet should include information on potentialhealth effects of exposure to the contaminants.

4. Informal Meetings With Area Residents, Citizens' Groups,and Local and State Officials, as Needed

Objective; To continue to monitor and assess concerns,promote communication with local officials and communitymembers, and provide information updates as siteactivities take place.

-15- 500019

o

u

Method; An initial meeting (or series of small meetings)may be held with area residents to introduce EPA'spresence in the community. The meeting(s) should becoordinated by EPA in conjunction with appropriaterepresentatives from State and local governments. Thepurpose of the meeting(s) would be to explain upcomingsite activities and the Superfund process. If there isinterest, a second meeting (or series of meetings) may beheld before completion of the RI to explain the purposeand rationale for EPA's activities and to answerquestions. Initially, the individuals interested inreceiving information include residents in the site area,the Mercer County Emergency Management Agency, and theGrove City Utilities Department, especially if there is apotential to affect the public water supply. Thesemeetings may include Patricia Tan, the Enforcement ProjectManager, Bucky Walters, EPA's liaison to the Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry, and Colleen Leydenof the EPA Region III Community Relations Staff.

5. Telephone Updates With State and Local Officials and KeyArea Residents, as Needed

Objective; To inform officials and key interested groupsor individuals of the schedule of activities and any majorfindings during the RI, and to continue to monitorcommunity concerns.

Method; EPA should inform local and State officials,particularly the County Emergency Management Agency andthe Grove City Utilities Department, and key arearesidents about all site activities (subject to changes inthe enforcement activities by EPA). Notification of anysignificant delays or changes in the schedule of on-siteactivities may be provided by periodic telephone updates.This activity effectively complements the use of informalmeetings.

•

6. News Releases

Objective; To ensure that the media and general publicreceive accurate information on site findings anddevelopments as they occur.Method; News releases will be issued as needed, such asupon the availability of the additional RI test results,the completion of the RI to EPA's and PADER'ssatisfaction, or at other major milestones* , (See AppendixA for local media contact information.)

u-«- 500020

.o 7. Periodic Newspaper Articles

Objective; To develop accurate, informative articles toapprise the site community of the status and findings ofthe investigations conducted at the Osborne Landfill site.Method; Periodically throughout site response, EPA maycontact representatives of local newspapers, such as theAllied News and The Herald, to develop an updated story onthe progress of activities at the Osborne Landfill Site.EPA staff will inform the journalists of the recentinformation to be communicated, and will work closely withthese individuals to develop stories that accuratelysummarize recent site events and findings. Involved EPAstaff will review for accuracy the stories prepared by thereporters and will help to determine appropriate layoutsand presentations that convey accurate informationconcerning activities. (See Appendix A for the contactnames and telephone numbers at local newspapers.)

8. Public Notice and Hail-in Coupon

Objective; To provide official notice of public meetingsana public comment periods, and to provide a convenientmeans for area residents to receive site information.Method; EPA Region III staff would be responsible forproviding public notice at least one to two weeks prior toa public meeting or public comment period. This publicnotice may take the form of a display ad and/or anannouncement in the legal notice section of areanewspapers and/or may be broadcast via local radio andtelevision public service announcements.The public notice in the newspapers may be accompanied bya mail-in coupon for interested persons to send to EPARegion III, requesting to be placed on the mailing list.This effort to inform citizens by meeting their needs forprivacy is likely to increase confidence in EPA whether ornot individuals respond by signing up for the mailing list,(See Appendix A for the local advertising and publicservice announcement contacts.)

9. Public Meetings

Objective; To facilitate public input on major agencydecisions concerning the site.Method; Public meetings may be held to receive citizenquestions and comments concerning the site. Opportunityfor a meeting will be provided to consider EPA's proposedremedial alternative for the site at the conclusion of theRI/FS. Additional public meetings may be held atsignificant milestones in the Superfund process, as

-17- 500021

o needed. The degree of public participation andinformation available for public comment may changesubject to the development of EPA enforcement efforts.

10. Public Comment Periods

Objective; To provide for public input to site-relatedissues and decisions.

Method; Public comment periods will be held at certainmilestones in dealing with Superfund sites (e.g., when theRI/FS is completed). A minimum 30-day public commentperiod will allow members of the public to comment on theFS. In addition, public comment periods may be providedprior to EPA decisions on other major site actions (e.g.,on possible deletion of the site from the NPL or oncleanup activities).

11. Responsiveness SummaryObjective; To ensure that public input and comments areconsidered by EPA decision-makers.

Method; Following a public comment period, aResponsiveness Summary will be written to summarize publicconcerns and issues raised during the public commentperiod. The Responsiveness Summary will accompany theappropriate decision document.

12. Community Relations Plan Revisions

Objective; To reflect changes in the level and nature ofcommunity concern during site activities, in plannedactivities, and in EPA's enforcement efforts.Method; The Community Relations Plan will be revised ifthere are indications of major changes in the enforcementprocess, community concerns, or scheduled work activities.

500022

o

•» w w -«!**!-<srg&

' «*-

• w^ o

•- xio-

If*,3h

gM5Cf*^* « ***£f**O gi I

™« °*a** E *>

--M*l u«

>jII*<!/)Cl

aO oi

! sf II i%w» k« «*> *»l«w I i

x

i x «o «M'

»*» ct- J

X X X

ist*

X W

8?

«£

*

t;oIDu

M

ttv « t. eo 6 e >*'*'$'• g£ «~ * * f t> «-

O ec£*> M M £ M K « £ K ££ £ £ & UCLIls5.tJsS'T'C ? w « » w « S S e ^ o ^ w

t3

500023

-x kPPEKDlX A

List of Interested Parties

A. Federal RepresentativesSenator John H. Hein2, III

Washington/ D.C. Office222 Russell senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510-2801(202) 224-6324

District OfficeSuite 2031, Federal BuildingLiberty Avenue - Grant StreetPittsburgh, PA 15222(412) 562-0533

Senator Arlen SpectorWashington, D.C. Office303 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510-2802(202) 221-4254

District OfficeSuite 2017, Federal BuildingLiberty Avenue - Grant StreetPittsburgh, PA 15222(412) 644-3400

Representative Tom RidgeWashington, D.C. Office1714 Longworth Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C.(202) 225-5406

District Office91 East State StreetSharon, PA 16146(412) 981-8440

B. Federal Agency OfficialsMs. Patricia Tan

Site Project Manager841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-3164

A-l500024

.— Ms. Colleen Leyden(} Community Relations Coordinator

841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-9825

Mr. Bucky WaltersAgency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry

841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-7291

C. State RepresentativesGovernor Robert P. Casey

Room 225, The CapitolHarrisburg, PA 17120(717)m787-2121

State Senator Roy K. WiltSenate P.O. Box 6Main Capitol BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120(717) 787-1322 Harrisburg(412) 962-2000 Shenango

State Representative Howard L. Fargo315 Elm StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-4911

D. State OfficialsMr. Leslie N. Firth

Mercer County Agricultural ExtensionAssociation

P.O. Box 530Mercer, PA 16137(412) 662-3141

Mr. James ShackProject CoordinatorPA Department of EnvironmentalResources

Bureau of Solid Waste Management121 South HighlandPittsburgh, PA 15206(412) 645-7100, 7205

A-2 500025

Ms. Susan HaskinsCommunity Relations CoordinatorPA Department of EnvironmentalResources

1012 Water StreetMeadville, PA 16335(814) 742-8557

E. Local OfficialsMr. Terrence Ferren

Grove City Borough Manager123 West Main StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-7060

Mr. Jeff HcKeeGrove City Water Superintendent123 West Main StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-9440

Mr. Richard StevensonGrove City Council Chairman512 West Main StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-8811

Mr. Karl BlackDirectorEmergency Management AgencyRD 2, Box 2055Mercer, PA 16137(412) 662-2603

Mr. Les Spaulding, DirectorMr. Steven Grenick, Assistant Director

Mercer County Regional PlanningCommission

94 East Shenango StreetSharpville, PA 16150(412) 962-5787

Mr. Harold E. BellChairman, County CommissionersCommissioners' Office101 CourthouseMercer, PA 16137(412) 662-3800, ext. 506

A-3 500026

Mr. Jim HondokDirector, County Conservation DistrictRD 2, Box 2055Mercer, PA 16137(412) 662-2242

Mr. Joe GonczPine Township Engineer319 Garden AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-6999

Ms. Marilyn GregonisPine Township SupervisorRD 4, Box 4159Grove City, PA 16127(412) 458-6573(412) 748-3833 (0)

Mr. Edward L. McDougallPine Township SupervisorRD 4Grove City, PA 16127(412) 456-5878

Mr. George TucciPine Township SupervisorBox 471Grove City, PA 16127(412) 748-3353 (H)(412) 458-9330 (0)

Ms. Shirley VintonPine Township SecretaryPine Township BuildingRD 1Grove City, PA 16127(412) 458-8224

P. Local Media

1. Newspapers

Allied News (Weekly, Wednesdays)113 North Broad StreetP.O. Box 190Grove City, PA 16127(412) 458-5010Circulation: 3,781Cost: 16.10 per column inchDeadline: Friday, noonEditor: Lillian ReeherContact: Hank Kress

A"4 500027

Butler Eagle (Daily)114 West Diamond StreetButler, PA 16001(412) 262-8000Circulation: 30,955Cost: 47.50 per column inchDeadline: 4 days prior to publication, by noonContact: Geoff Becker

The Franklin News-Herald (Daily)Box 928————————Oil City, PA 16301(814) 676-7414Circulation: 7,837Cost: $6.99 per column- inchDeadline: 4 days prior to publication, by noonNews Editor: Robert Venturella

Greenville Record-Argus (Daily)10 Pennsylvania AvenueBox 711Greenville, PA 16125(412) 588-5000Circulation: 5,105Cost: 46.35 per column inchDeadline: 5 days prior to publication, by 4 p.m.Editor: Larry Howsare

The Herald (Daily)S. Dock & E. State StreetsSharon, PA 16146(412) 981-6100Circulation: 27,056Cost: $9.95 per column inchDeadline: 3 days prio/ to publication, by 11 a.m.Contact: Wendy Hawthorne

2. Radio Stations

WEDA (FH)125 South Broad StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-6500Format: Kiddle of the RoadNews Director: Kayne LightnerDeadline for PSA: Morning of day to be readSend to: Dave Kardasz

500028

WSAJ (AM/FM)Grove City CollegeGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-3303Format: Big BandProgram Director: Deena L. SnyderDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

WWI2 (FH)——— Box 1120

Hermitage, PA 16148(412) 981-4580Format: Country and WesternNews Director: John BorelliDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

WKTX (FM)BOX 358Mercer, PA 16137(412) 662-5361Format: Continuous Christian MusicNews Director: Ron WasilchakDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

WBZY (AM)Kennedy Square WestNew Castle, PA 16105(412) 656-1140Format: Country and Western, Special ProgrammingNews Director: Scott BurkettDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

WKST (AM)219 Savannah-Gardner RoadNew Castle, PA 16101(412) 654-5501Format: Adult Contempory, Special ProgrammingNews Director: Herb MorganDeadline for PSA: 2 days in advance

WGM2 (AM)——— BOX 1470

Sharon, PA 16146(412) 981-4487Format: Contemporary HitsNews Director: Jack SandstromDeadline for PSA: 3 days in advance, to Karen Blake

A-6 500029

WPIC (AM)——— 2030 Pine Hollow Blvd.

Box 211Sharon, PA 16146(412) 346-4113Format: Middle of the Road, 6 Hours Farm ProgrammingNews Director: Kelly KraynakDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

WYFM (FM)same as above (co-owned by WPIC)Format: Oldies, Adult ContemporaryNews Director: Michael RingDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

3. Television Stations

KDKA-TV (CBS Affiliate)T~Gateway CenterPittsburgh, PA 15222(412) 392-2200Assignment Editor: Steve JoyceDeadline for PSA: 1 week in advance

WPXI (NEC Affiliate)——— 11 Television Hill

y. , Pittsburgh, PA 15214(412) 237-1100Assignment Editor: Carrie PastelakDeadline for PSA: 2 months in advanceSend to: By Williams, Public Affairs Director

WQED (PBS, PPTN)——— 4802 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15213(412) 622-1300Program Director: Sam SilbersonDeadline for PSA: 1 month in advance

WTAE-TV (ABC Affiliate)400 Ardmore BoulevardPittsburgh, PA 15221(412) 242-4300Assignment Editor: Several; address to

•Assignment Editor*Deadline for PSA: 1 month in advance

500030

G. Other Interested Parties

American Cancer SocietyMercer County Unit19 Jefferson AvenueSharon, PA 16146(412) 346-3529

Ms. Shirley DonanNorthwestern Pennsylvania DERCitizens Roundtable

524 Woodland AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 456-8076

Ms. Brenda BilliardNorthwestern Pennsylvania DERCitizens Roundtable

301 Elm StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-5025

Mrs. Janice KopniskyNorthwestern Pennsylvania DER

Citizens Roundtable301 South Broad StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-5633

Prof. John A. Sample504 Woodland AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-8413

Mr. Frank SimunicCooper Energy Services150 Lincoln AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 456-8000

A-8 500031

INFORMATION ON GROVE CITYPUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

Obtained from Interviews with LocalResidents and Officials and Background Documents

Source: Layne-New York Co. Survey of Wells (September 18, 1973)Summary of Well tit - located in back of plant on

Lincoln Avenue- drilled to a depth of 304 ft.- 8 in. diameter- cased to a depth of 70 ft,from 70-304 ft, open rock

PTWyry of Well <3: - drilled to a depth of 312 ft.- 12 in. diameter- cased to an undetermineddepth, but less than 100 ft.

General Comments; * Seems to be interference withintapped formation by industrialveils located nearby

[There was no information given for veil 12]Source: Grove City's Grove City's Response to PA Dept.

of Health Water Study (date unknown)vater produced per day: 394,000 gal.vater source: veils drilled at vater treatment plant onLincoln Avenue in Grove Cityestimated yield from source: 1,000,000 gal/daytreatment method for* domestic vater: 20 Ib/dayphosphate, 9 Ib/day chorinate

Source: Osboroe Site Remedial Action Master Plan (March 1983)The major aquifer for high-capacity veils in the GroveCity area is the Burgoon Sandstone, although shalloweraquifers are also used for veilsWells in the Grove City vater supply are approximately300 ft. deep, with casings to approximately 70 ft.The Grove City veils penetrate the Burgoon Sandstoneformation, but also take vater from shallower aquifersbecause of the shallow veil casings.Intake for the Grove City veils at that time vasapproximately one mile vest of the Osborne site.

500032

O

Source: Interviews with Jeff Hckee, Grove City WaterSuperintendent (telephone; June 17, 1988; on-scene:June 23, 1988)In approximately 1985, low concentration of volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) were found in the Grove Citywater supply (compounds were trichloroethylene,1,2-dichloroethane, and dichloroethylene).This led to a Borough Council meeting to discuss waterquality. This was the first major event that causedvocal concern about the public water supply in theGrove City area.

* The issue become extremely emotionally heated, andremains so within the community today.Last year the Borough Council voted to change watersources because of concern with VOCs. The old wellswere located very near Cooper's plant in downtown GroveCity, and the people in the town were blaming Cooperfor the presence of the contaminants.In January 1988, the Borough started using new drilledwells located "up hill" from the Cooper plant, aboutone mile away. The new water source tests negative forany contaminants.New wells continue to tap the Burgoon Sandstoneformation. Total well depth is 150-350 ft, withcasings through the first 100 ft.The water company has about 3,000 connections in theGrove City area. The limits to the water company'sjurisdiction are the city limits, although it alsoprovides some water to adjacent portions of PineTownship.

Although the water now tests negative for contaminants,up to 40 percent of those connected to Grove City wateruse bottled water for cooking and drinking.

• Certain water customers have expressed general concernabout the water quality over the years, and continue tobe worried. For example, a recent mailing about leadproblems in water caused a considerable number ofquestions about water quality. The perception that thewater is not safe continues.The water company recently had tests run on theirsupply. Results should be available by the end ofJuly.

500033

Source: Interviews with Ms. Janice Kopnisky, Hs. Shirley Donan,v, and Hs. Brenda Hilliard (telephone interview June 19,

199Q; onscene interview June 23, 1988)Water problems were first discovered in the early1980s, when the supply was found to be contaminatedwith levels of industrial pollutants. There vasspeculation that the source vas the local Cooper plant.Grove City has been troubled with poor water qualityfor a considerable length of time. Many people in thetown seen to think that they've got major problems.Problems with water quality have destroyed the copperpipes in the apartment building for the elderly thatHs. Kopnisky manages. This problem seems to be commonin Grove City. Ms. Kopnisky suggests that Jim Bovis(412-748-4545), a local plumber, be contacted becausebe has extensive first-hand experience with theproblem.The town is experiencing quite a few water problems.People are having some problems with discolored water,and water staining their laundry. These intervieweesalso cited the city's "psychadelic" water, and "pinkslime" coming from water taps.

\_j • There seem to be fluctuations in water quality from dayto day, and from location to location within GroveCity. Water pH can vary considerably within the spaceof several blocks, without a reasonable explanation.Ks. Kopnisky has tested her water using two firms:Water Tests, Inc., and Pipe Savers (HI).The GE plant near Grove City recently installed a$50,000 filtration System so that it could use Boroughwater in its manufacturing processes.The perception in the town is that the Borough Councileither deliberately, or through some inability tounderstand the nature of the problem, misinformed thetown about the water quality. Town officials appearreluctant to blame Cooper for the water problem, andthere seems to be some feeling that local officials arecovering up for Cooper.Some townspeople think that the water problems can betraced to malfunctions in operation of the watertreatment plant built in 1980. Hs. Kopnisky reportsbut even the engineer who designed the plant has saidthat it is not operating properly, and that the watersuperintendent has unoffically acknowledged these

-> malfunctions.

500034

DER has been monitoring the water quality problems inGrove City, but hasn't obtained information about whatspecifically has been wrong, or hasn't provided theinformation to Grove City area residents. The peoplewho are working on the problem are Charles Kilt andKerry Diesak, of the Headville DER office.

O

500035

I i

/p +

•»/ C

/-. -'t

J<Jz__ T A c&

~ ? f / -

o £j; l

6/7/

500037

__ i APPENDIX A

I t- ^ / fl IXU r ' <- —List of Interested Parties

A.

Senator John K. Heinz, IIIL. JJ C.

222 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510-2801(202) 224-6324

Suite 2031, Federal BuildingLiberty Avenue - Grant StreetPittsburgh, PA 15222(412) 562-0533

Senator Arlen Specter 'Washington. P. C. Office303 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510-2602(202) 221-4254

rHafrlet; Off 4 reSuite 2017, Federal BuildingLiberty Avenue - Grant StreetPittsburgh, PA 15222(412) 644-3400

Representative Tom RidgeWashinton. P.C.1714 Longworth Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C.(202) 225-5406

Off •>«*•91 East State StreetSharon, PA 16146(412) 981-8440

B . Federal Agency Official*

Mr. Frank VavraSite Project Manager841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-0676

A-I 5000 8

Ms. Barbra Brown .jCommunity Relations Coordinator341 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-0798

/

Mr. Bucky WaltersAgency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry

841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-7291

C. State RepresentativesGovernor Robert P. Casey

Room 225, The CapitolHarrisburg, PA 17120(717) 787-2121

State Senator Roy W. WiltatfeolSenate P.O. Box 50Main Capitol BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120(717) 787-1322 Harrisburg(412) 962-2000 Shenango ValleyPiatriet286 Chestnut StreetMeadville, PA 16335(814) 336-2760

State Representative Howard L. FargoCaitolHouse of Representatives P.O. Box 125Main Capitol BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120(717) 787-3288

315 Elm StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-4911

D. State Official* &*H

Mr. James ShackProject CoordinatorPA Department of Environmental ResourcesBureau of Solid Haste Management121 South HighlandPittsburgh, PA 15206(412) 645-7100, 7205

Ms. Susan HaskinsCommunity Relations CoordinatorPA Department of Environmental Resources1012 Hater StreetMeadville, PA 16335

Local Official*Terrence FerrenGrove City Borough Manager123 Weat Main StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 456-7060

Mr. Leslie K. FirthCounty Extension DirectorMercer County Agricultural ExtensionAssociation

P.O. Box 530Mercer, PA 16137(412) 662-3141

Mr. Jeff McKeeGrove City Water Superintendent123 West Main StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 456-9440

Mr. Richard StevensonGrove City Council President512 Hest Main StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 456-6611

Mr. Carl BlackDirectorEmergency Management AgencyRD 2, Box 2055 r . y ftJMercer, PA 16137 *>\ V JCU*-* PZ.p1-(412) 662-2603 ,

A-3 500040

Mr. Lea Spaulding, Executive DirectorMr. Steven Grennek, Assistant Director

Mercer County Regional PlanningCommission

94 East Shenango StreetSharpville, PA 16150(412) 962-3737

Mr. Harold S. BellChairperson, County CommissionersCommissioners' Office101 CourthouseMercer, PA 16137(412) 662-3300, ext. 506

Mr. Jim MondokDirector, County Conservation DistrictRD 2, Box 2055Mercer, PA 16137(412) 662-2242

_{/-_ Mr. Joe Goncz/} Pine Township Engineer

319 Garden AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 453-8999

Ms. Marilyn GregonisPine Township Supervisor745 Barkeyville RoadGrove City, PA 16127(412) 453-6573 (H)(412) 748-3333 (0)

Mr. Edward L. McDougallPine Township Supervisor203 Diamond RoadGrove City, PA 16127(412) 453-5378

Mr. George TucciPine Township SupervisorBox 471Grove City, PA 16127(412) 743-3353 (H)(412) 458-9330 (0)

Ms. Shirley VintonPine Township SecretaryPine Township BuildingRD 1Grove City, PA 16127(412) 453-7229

500041

P. Local- Kedi*

N»VS (Weekly, Wednesdays)113 North Broad StreetP.O. Box 190Grove City, PA 16127(412) 456-5010Circulation: 3,761Cost: $6.10 per column inchDeadline: Friday, noonEditor: Lillian ReeherContact: Hank Kreas

(Daily)114 West Diamond StreetButler, PA 16001(412) 282-8000Circulation: 30,955Cost: $7.50 per column inchDeadline: 4 days prior to publication, by noonContact: Geoff Becker

Mews-Herald, (Daily) .Box 926Oil City, PA 16301(614) 676-7414Circulation: 7,637Cost: $6.99 per column inchDeadline: 4 days prior to publication, by noonNews Editor: Robert Venture1la

Greenville Rpr;erd~Ar<pMa (Daily)10 Pennsylvania AvenueBox 711Greenville, PA 16125(412) 588-5000Circulation: 5,105Cost: $6.35 per column inchDeadline: 5 days prior to publication, by 4 p.m.Editor: Larry Howsare

H«ralH (Daily)S. Dock £ E. State StreetsSharon, PA 16146(412) 961-6100Circulation: 27,056Coat: $9.95 per column inchDeadline: 3 days prior to publication, by 11 a.m.Contact: Wendy Hawthorne

500042A-5

2 . Radio

(FM)125 South Broad StreetGrove City, PA 15127(412) 453-6500Format) Middle of the RoadNews Director: wayne LightnerDeadline for PSA: Morning of day to be readSend to: Dave Kardasz

HSM (AM/FM)Grove City CollegeGrove City, PA 15127(412) 458-3303Format i Big BandProgram Director: Deena L. SnyderDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

Hail (FM)BOX 1120Hermitage, PA 16143(412) 931-4530Format: Country and WesternNews Director: John BorelliDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance ,.

WKTX (FM)Box 358Mercer, PA 16137(412) 662-5361Format: Continuous Christian MusicNeva Director: ??r. wasilchakDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

WB2Y (AM)Kennedy Square WestNew Castle, PA 16105(412) 656-1140Format: Country and Western, Special ProgrammingNews Director: Scott Burke ttDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

(AM)219 Savannah-Gardner RoadNew Castle, PA 16101(412) 654-5501Format: Adult Contemporary, Special ProgrammingNews Director: Herb MorganDeadline for PSA: 2 days in advance

500043A- 6

WflME (AM)BOX 1470Sharon, PA 16146(412) 981-4487Format: Contemporary HitsNews Director: Jack SandstromDeadline for PSAj 3 days in advance, to Karen

BlakeWPTC (AM)

2030 Pine Hollow Blvd.Box 211Sharon, PA 16146(412) 346-4113Format: Middle of the Road, 6 Hours Farm

ProgrammingKews Director: Kelly KraynakDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance(FM)

same as above (co-owned by WPIC)Format: Oldies, Adult ContemporaryKews Director: Michael RingDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

3. Television Stating

KDKA-TV (CBS Affiliate)1 Gateway CenterPittsburgh, PA 15222(412) 392-2200Assignment. Editor: Steve JoyceDeadline for PSA: 1 week in advance

WPXI (NEC Affiliate)11 Television HillPittsburgh, PA 15214(412) 237-1100Assignment Editor: Carrie PastelakDeadline for PSA: 2 months in advanceSend to: By Williams, Public Affairs Director

HQEfi (PBS, PPTN)4802 Fifth AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15213(412) 622-1300Program Director: Sam SilbersonDeadline for PSA: 1 month in advance

50004''A-7

(ABC Affiliate)400 Ardmore BoulevardPittsburgh, PA 15221(412) 242-4300Assignment Editor: Several; address to

"Assignment Editor"Deadline for PSA: 1 month in advance

0. Other Interested Parties* A/4American Cancer Society ' xTwV€t^

Mercer County Unit | "Id Jefferson Avenue \ r»Sharon, PA 16146 Ojo u(412)

Ms. Shirley DonanNorthwestern Pennsylvania DER

Citizens Roundtable524 Woodland AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-8076

Ms. Brenda HilliardNorthwestern Pennsylvania DER

Citizens Roundtable301 Elm StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-5025

Mrs. Janice KopniskyNorthwestern Pennsylvania DER

Citizens Roundtable301 South Broad StreetGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-5633

Prof. John A. Sample504 Woodland AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-8413

Mr. Frank SimonicCooper Energy Services150 Lincoln AvenueGrove City, PA 16127(412) 458-8000

A— o