final community relations plan (signed)
TRANSCRIPT
39509
FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILLSTARK COUNTY, OHIO
United States Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Public Affairs
Region V
August 1985
13
FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
INDUSTRIAL EXCESS SITE
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
AUGUST 1985
Work Assignment No.: 48-5LW2
Document No.: 157-CR1-OP-BKFL-2
COMenvironmental engineers, scientists,planners. & management consultants
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
11 East Adams Street, Suite 1100Chicago, Illinois 60603312 786-1313
August 23, 1985
Mr. Gregory VanderlaanRegional Project OfficerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, IL 60604
Ms. Margaret McCueRegional Superfund Community RelationsCoordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, IL 60604
Subject:
Work Assignment No:
EPA Contract No.:
Document No.:
Final Community Relations Plan for the Industrial ExcessLandfill Site
48-5LW2
68-01-6939
157-CR1-OP-BKFL-2
Dear Mr. Vanderlaan and Ms. McCue:
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. is pleased to submit this Final Community RelationsPlan for the Industrial Excess Landfill Site.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Hawthorne, P.E.Regi6n V Manager
PERFORMANCE OF REMEDIAL RESPONSEACTIVITIES AT UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES (REM II)
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-6939
FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
FOR
INDUSTRIAL EXCESS SITE
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
REM II DOCUMENT NO.: 157-CR1-OP-BKFL-2
Prepared By:Carol KennedyREM II Community RelationsSpecialist
Date:
Approved By:
Approved By:
Marion Cox //REM II Community RelationsCoordinator
, d/>Ag \~ ytSid PaigeREM II Site Manager
Approved By:Hawthorne , R . E .[I Regional Manager
Date:
Date:
Date:
0 " ̂ ( ~~ * ~>
1 "fef
ICF INCORPORATED International Square, 1850 K Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 862-1100
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hawthorne, REM II Region V Manager
FROM: Marion Cox, NPMO Community Relations Manager
DATE: August 22, 1985
DOCUMENT NO: 157-CRI-OP-BKFL-2
PROJECT: REM II Contract No.: 68-01-6939
SUBJECT: Final Community Relations Plan for the Industrial ExcessLandfill Site
ACTION: Transmit to EPA
The attached final community relations plan (CRP) was prepared by ICFstaff after receiving comments from EPA on the draft CRP submitted in February1985. Please transmit to EPA as soon as possible.
Please call me if you have any questions.
^terion Cox, ICF Incorporated/ /NPMO Community Relations Manage*
Djjfte
cc: Sidney Paige, REM II Site Manager
COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUMMARY STATEMENTINDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL
UNIONTOWN, OHIO
The Industrial Excess Landfill was proposed for inclusion to the NationalPriorities List (NPL) in October 1984 because of possible contamination ofground water with organic substances. The aquifer under the site suppliesdrinking water to roughly 19,000 residents in Uniontown, Ohio. Uniontown is asmall town in northeast Ohio between the cities of Canton and Akron. Majorpoints contained in the attached draft community relations plan are summarizedbelow:
• The privately owned landfill was permitted between1966 and 1980 and accepted residential, commercial, andindustrial wastes.
• Sampling of ground water and leachate by Ohio EPAindicated low levels of organic contaminants includingphenol, xylene, methylene chloride, andtetrachloroethylene.
• Elevated levels of methane gas have been detectedoff-site. Explosive levels were detected in the fallof 1984 and a limited evacuation of two residences anda day care center was necessary.
• Community interest is high. Primary concernsinclude: (1) possible ground water contamination andassociated public health risks; (2) explosive levels ofmethane gas in nearby residences and management oflandfill gases through controlled venting; and (3)property devaluation.
• Community residents have formed the ConcernedCitizens of Lake Township. This group closely monitorsall activities at the site.
• Properties adjacent to the landfill were devalued 40%in late 1984 by the County Auditor's Office in responseto the threat of explosive levels of methane gas.
• State and county health departments are planning toconduct jointly a health study to address citizens'health concerns.
• An EPA-sponsored information repository housingpublic materials on the Industrial Excess Landfill willbe located at the Lake Township Trustees Office, 12360N. Market St., Hartville, Ohio.
FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANINDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL, STARK COUNTY, OHIO
This final community relations plan describes community relations activi-ties to be conducted during Superfund remedial actions at the IndustrialExcess landfill in Uniontown, Ohio. This plan assesses local concernsrelated to the remedial actions and proposes a schedule of activities toensure an accurate and timely release of information to interested privatecitizens and public officials. This schedule also identifies specificopportunities for the local community to talk with agency officials and staffand to comment on current or proposed activities associated with theIndustrial Excess Landfill.
This final plan is organized into the following four sections:
A. Community Relations BackgroundB. Objectives of the Community Relations ProgramC. Community Relations TechniquesD. Schedule and Staffing Plan
The information in sections A through C is based on discussions conductedin the Uniontown area during February 1985 with representatives of State ofOhio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), Ohio Department of Health,Stark County Department of Health, Lake Township Board of Trustees, ConcernedCitizens of Lake Township, and residents of Uniontown, Ohio. The scheduleand staffing plan presented in section D are based on remedial technicalmilestones for the site during the remedial investigation and feasibilitystudy (RI/FS). U.S. EPA Region V has lead responsibility for managing thisRI/FS; the EPA Region V Office of Public Affairs will coordinate allcommunity relations activities with other EPA staff relating to the site.Close coordination will be also maintained with Ohio EPA and state and countyhealth departments during the RI/FS.
A mailing list of local officials, key members of the community, andmedia representatives that should be informed of ongoing or new activities atthe site is included in Appendix B. Individuals who were consulted duringthe preparation of this plan are indicated on this list. Appendix B alsoidentifies the location of the information repository and suggests a locationfor public meetings ;.n the Uniontown area during the remedial activities.
-2-
SITE LOCATION MAP
Industrial Excess Landfill SiteStark County, Ohio
Industrial ExcessLandfill
• WILLIAMS I FULTON I LUC»S
I___ [ HENKY
-3-
SITE MAPINDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL
KEY
— — Stream
— -- County Boundary
= Roads
EH Landfill INDUSTRIALEXCESSLANDFILL
LAKE CENTER STREET
-*f-
A. COMMUNITY RELATIONS BACKGROUND
1. Site History
The Industrial Excess Landfill is located near the center of Uniontown, inLake Township, Stark County, Ohio. Lake Township, population roughly 20,000,is a rural residential community in the northeast portion of the state in anarea that was formerly Amish farmland. The 30 acre landfill accepted solidwaste from 1966 until 1980, when Stark County Department of Health ordered thelandfill closed.
Prior to its use as a landfill, the site was a sand and gravel mine. Thearea may also have been mined for coal at one time and is suspected to containdeep mine shafts. The site is bordered by homes and businesses on ClevelandAvenue to the west and is surrounded by farmland and private property on theother sides.
Industrial Excess began operations in 1966 under the authority of the LakeTownship Zoning Board, although waste disposal at the site may have begun asearly as 1959. The landfill was officially licensed as a solid waste disposalfacility in 1969 by the Stark County Department of Health; the Zoning Boardcontinued to issue conditional use zoning permits. The site was licensed toaccept industrial wastes, including latex, oil, and residential refuse. Inlate 1971, the community complained to the county about odors and fire hazardsat the landfill. In addition, citizens suspected that toxic wastes were beingillegally dumped or mixed with the latex wastes. In January 1972, the CountyHealth Department issued a resolution that ordered the landfill to ceaseliquid waste disposal operations.
On May 28, 1980, the landfill was closed by a Stark County Court orderbecause the landfill did not have adequate space to continue operations. Thecourt order required proper closure of the landfill. County health and OhioEPA personnel inspected the site in late 1981 during landfill closureprocedures and reported no violations of state solid waste regulations.
In 1983, community interest in the site increased after active individualsin the community learned of the site's listing on ERRIS. Area residentsbecame concerned about ground water contamination and possible associatedhealth problems. Ohio EPA and state and local health agencies conductedpreliminary field studies to address community concerns. In addition, theU.S. EPA was taking steps to evaluate potential hazards to public health posedby the site. Appendix A highlights major activities conducted by governmentagencies in 1984 concerning the site. Data from preliminary field studieswere reviewed by Ohio EPA, Ohio Department of Health, and the Center forDisease Control, in association with the U.S. EPA, and released in March1984. The consensus of the reviewers was that ground water that is believedto be downgradient from the site contained low levels of phenol but wassatisfactory for human consumption.
-5-
An impromptu investigation conducted by the Uniontown Fire Chief in April1984, revealed explosive levels of methane gas along the western perimeter ofthe landfill. Ohio EPA assisted the Uniontown Fire Department in surveyinghomes adjacent to the landfill for explosive gas levels. Explosive levelswere found underneath one home. Ohio EPA and local agencies concluded that anongoing methane gas monitoring program was needed. In October 1984,approximately 12 homes located adjacent to the landfill were equipped withmethane detection meters for the gas monitoring program.
Residents criticized the survey during the first months of operationbecause methane readings were not taken on a regular basis. Interruptions inthe survey were due to a misunderstanding among the agencies about who wouldconduct the survey Methane readings are now taken daily by the UniontownFire Safety Officer at designated locations near several residences and alongthe perimeter of the landfill, weather permitting. In September 1984,explosive gas levels were again detected, leading to temporary evacuation oftwo residences and a day care center. The day care center relocated soonafter the evacuation.
In October 1984, the Office of the Ohio Attorney General initiated legalaction to force the landfill owner to take steps to mitigate the methaneexplosive hazard posed by off-site migration of landfill gas. In response,the owner installed a gas ventilation system, which required drilling wellsinto the landfill to allow gases to escape. However, prior to the venting,some members of the community objected to the gas ventilation system becausethey were concerned that landfill gases may contain hazardous substances inaddition to methane and, therefore, may pose a health threat to thesurrounding residences. Ohio EPA collected and analyzed samples of landfillgas and accepted operation of the ventilation system on a trial basis. Thisacceptance was incorporated into a county court order. In addition, U.S.EPA's emergency response section conducted air testing in March, 1985.Results showed extremely low levels of substances other than methane.
Industrial Excess was proposed for inclusion to the NPL in October 1984.The listing in the NPL cites the threat of contamination of ground water withorganic substances because the landfill is on sand and gravel soils andresidential wells are located nearby. All Uniontown residents use groundwater for drinking water.
2. History of Community Involvement
Residents of Uniontown have been aware of the landfill's presence for manyyears. Overall community interest in and concern about the landfill hasfluctuated. Some members of the community expressed opposition to earlylandfill operations at zoning hearings during the late 1960's. Communityopposition grew stronger in the early 1970's when several active residentsheld meetings and distributed petitions against the landfill. Complaintsabout landfill operations included foul odors, frequent fires, late nightdumping, and suspected illegal dumping of hazardous substances. After theCounty Health Department suspended the disposal of liquid wastes at thelandfill in 1972, community interest about landfill operations subsided.
-6-
Current interest in the Industrial Excess Landfill developed in mid-1983.Members of the community were concerned about a perceived high rate ofmiscarriages and other health problems in several neighborhoods located nearthe landfill. Residents claimed that these problems or health complicationsresulted from drinking water that was contaminated with substances from thelandfill. To investigate these concerns, the Stark County Health Departmentconducted a mail-in survey of miscarriages in the neighborhoods.Approximately 30 percent of the residents in the study responded to themail-in survey. This response was not adequate to determine if miscarriagerates in the community were higher than normal.
The community was not satisfied with the limited scope of the miscarriagesurvey or the manner in which it was conducted. They complained that thesurvey area was too small, all health problems should have been investigatedin the survey, and postage paid envelopes should have been provided to thesurvey participants. The residents requested a comprehensive health study ofthe area to determine if contaminants from Industrial Excess were causingperceived high incidences of cancers, rashes, and allergies among residents inthe vicinity of the landfill.
Several members of the community have complained that the County HealthDepartment has not been responsive to their needs and their requests forinformation about what had been dumped at the site; they felt that moreaggressive action was needed. In addition, residents who were activelyinvolved with issues related to the landfill were not satisfied with themethane survey and other actions initiated by state and local agencies. In anattempt to uncover more detailed information about the site and possiblehealth effects, the community organized and formed the Concerned Citizens ofLake Township in midsummer 1984.
By organizing into a community group, the members felt that they couldmore effectively express their opinions to local, state, and federal electedofficials and to involved government agencies and staff. Concerned Citizensof Lake Township have contacted all of their state and federal representativesabout problems at the site and have lobbied their congressionalrepresentatives and EPA Headquarters office in Washington for inclusion of thesite on the NPL.
Relations between active members of the Concerned Citizens of LakeTownship and involved county health officials have been strained for severalreasons. The Concerned Citizens of Lake Township believe that the StarkCounty Department of Health has not been honest with them. Representatives ofthe Stark County Department of Health believe that the Concerned Citizens ofLake Township has damaged the County Health Department's reputation by makingunfounded accusations and criticisms about their past efforts to monitor andregulate landfill operations.
In February 1983, the Lake Township Trustees formed the Lake TownshipTrustees Committee to Investigate the Industrial Excess Landfill in responseto community inquiries about the site. The Committee had eleven members•iiffeVu&Liig iorfrxsritmaVs irom t/nio *LTk, "Unio "Department of Health, Stark CountyDepartment of Health, Board of Lake Township Trustees, Concerned Citizens ofLake Township, and other interested and active citizens from the Uniontowncommunity.
-7-
On September 7, 1984, the Committee released a report on the IndustrialExcess Landfill. The report recommends a comprehensive federal and statestudy of the site to evaluate fully possible risks to the population of LakeTownship posed by the presence of the landfill in the community. The reportcompiled records, government materials, an unofficial deposition, and othermaterials and statements from various sources. According to some committeemembers, the report was largely the product of active residents whoparticipated in the investigation. Not all committee members saw the reportbefore it was issued to the community.
Members of the community who do not belong to the Concerned Citizens ofLake Township or who are otherwise not active in the site are nonethelessinterested in activities at the site. Some residents are concerned aboutproperty devaluation in the town. For the most part, longtime residents ofthe community have expressed a "wait and see" attitude. They understand thatthe ground water was tested and they believe that the well water is safe todrink. However, they are interested in the results of the remedialinvestigation becau.se they feel that these results will put an end to therumors and controversies about the landfill by showing conclusively whether ornot there is ground water contamination from the landfill.
3. Potential Issues and Community Concerns
The issues of greatest concern to some members of the affected communityand local officials are identified below. These issues are based oninformation gained from interviews with several residents of Uniontown andstate and local officials. The persons interviewed represent a variety ofperspectives regarding the Industrial Excess Landfill.
a. Threat of Ground Water Contamination. All individualscontacted about the site are concerned about contamination of local groundwater from the site. However, the level of concern about ground watercontamination varies among different segments of the community.
Local county and state health officials feel that well water is notcontaminated and is currently safe to drink. Low concentrations of phenolwere detected in some water samples, but concentrations were below thestandard for drinking water. The Stark County Department of Health statedthat its primary concern was for the health and welfare of the local communityand the safety of the community's ground water.
Ohio EPA representatives also feel that the quality of Uniontown drinkingwater is suitable for human consumption. However, Ohio EPA is investigatingthe site further to be responsive to requests from the community and the LakeTownship Trustees. Ohio EPA is concerned about the potential for movement ofsubstances from the sandy soils of the landfill into the aquifer that servesthe community.
According to a Township Trustee, numerous residents in the town have madegeneral inquiries a'bout the quality of the water and have requested to havetheir well water sampled. Some residents of Uniontown currently use bottled
-8-
water, including many of the members of Concerned Citizens of Lake Township.These residents do not trust the water quality standards for phenol becausethey feel that not enough is known about possible health effects of prolongedexposure to low concentrations of phenol in drinking water. They do notbelieve that the water is safe to drink. Residents who are using bottledwater are also concerned about bathing in well water because they fear theywill absorb hazardous substances through their skin. Many other residentsappear to be unconcerned about drinking and bathing in well water.
In response to these health complaints., the Ohio Bei?ar_tmfijo:L of. H&a.1_tb.-, in.conjunction with the Stark County Health Department, is planning a"hypothesis-generating" health study which will identify whether the Uniontowncommunity is experiencing abnormal health problems. If abnormal healthproblems exist, the state health department will conduct a second study todetermine what factor(s) may be causing high incidences of disease.
The state health department proposes to establish a Citizens' HealthAdvisory Committee to incorporate the citizens' viewpoints into the healthstudy. The committee will include a statistician and a cancer societyrepresentative to help the community understand the procedures involved in ahealth study and to interpret the meaning of the study results.
b. Threat of Harmful Landfill Gases. Residents of Uniontownexpressed concern about the explosive threat posed by off-site migration ofmethane gas. The majority of the community is aware of the ongoing methanemonitoring survey that is being conducted by the Uniontown Fire Safety Officer.
Members of Concerned Citizens of Lake Township expressed concern aboutventing potentially harmful gases from the site in order to control gasmigration from the landfill. The residents have criticized Ohio EPA for notadequately monitoring the landfill owner's activities to control offsite gasmigration. The wells of the gas ventilation system were drilled without thecommunity's knowledge and without formal approval by Ohio EPA. The residentsbelieve that a thorough examination of the well drilling plan was necessary toensure that the wells were located correctly and to minimize explosion hazardsduring drilling. Most important to the residents, landfill gases were nottested before the ventilation system was installed to guarantee that nohazardous substances, would be released into the community. Ohio EPA collectedand analyzed samples of landfill gas and accepted operation of the ventilationsystem on a trial basis. This acceptance was incorporated into a county courtorder.
c. Lack of Trust Between Residents and Local Officials. Thereis a general lack of trust between the Concerned Citizens of Lake Township andmost government agencies involved with the site. Some residents expresseddoubt about the ability of local and state agencies to coordinate siteactivities. They feel that they must continually monitor and make follow uprequests on activities organized by state and local officials to ensure properattention to their health concerns. Residents are currently optimistic aboutU.S. EPA involvement at the site.
-9-
d. Concern about Property Devaluation. Concerned Citizens ofLake Township believes that the site has affected property values throughoutUniantown. hecaJi&e, afL <yCTiELeL H?«t̂ r_ *>f£-l-i'£j-sai* i&dt* •y&ff&nfn ̂ dt̂j.'-.rcrx'vy to "cuetown. Other residents of the community feel that Concerned Citizens of LakeTownship has caused declines in general property values by needlessly stirringup bad publicity about the landfill.
In December 1984, the Stark County Auditor's office reduced the taxassessed value of twelve properties located adjacent to the Industrial ExcessLandfill because of the potential threat of explosive levels of methane gas.Assessments were decreased by roughly 40 percent. The County Auditor's officeexplained that future assessments would take into account conditions at thelandfill to determine property values. As of February, the Auditor's officehad not received any formal challenges against the new lower assessments. Oneaffected couple in the town felt that the assessments were unfair because theydid not cause the problems at the landfill yet they seemed to be paying forthem.
Through its review of the problem, the County Auditor's office concludedthat the landfill has not affected general property sales in Uniontown. TheStark County Regional Planning office explained that although Uniontownexperienced a strong surge of residential development during the 1970s, it hasrecently dropped off sharply. The planning office attributes this slowing tonormal development factors, such as the past economic recession and reducedavailable land in the area, and not to adverse notoriety caused by theSuperfund.site.
SUMMARY. There is a high level of concern about the Industrial ExcessLandfill. Some residents perceive immediate and chronic health threats tothemselves and their children. Local officials want to be responsive to thecommunity needs and are concerned about the emotional nature and visibility ofthe problem, yet are constrained by difficult relations with the community inthe past, administrative requirements, and budget limitations. If new groundwater studies discover contamination of drinking water wells, it is likelythat previously uninvolved members of the community would become interested inthe site and would join Concerned Citizens of Lake Township in expressingstrong demands about how problems at the site should be addressed.
B. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM
The site specific objectives for the community relations program for theremedial action at Industrial Excess landfill are presented below.
1) Provide accurate and timely information about the remedial action tothe community, local officials, and other interested parties.Information may be disseminated through public and informal meetings,press releases, fact sheets, and an information repository. Inaddition, the EPA Region V office has a toll-free number so thatresidents can direct questions to the EPA Community RelationsCoordinator for the site.
-10-
2) Ensure active and regular coordination of activities among state andlocal agencies. Inform Ohio EPA, Ohio Department of Health, StarkCounty Department of Health, County Auditor's Office, Lake TownshipTrustees, Uniontown Fire Safety Officer, and the Regional PlanningDepartment about findings and new developments at the site. Stateand local officials, particularly health officials, should beinformed of findings related to possible health issues in advance ofpublic release of the information.
3) Encourage involvement of citizens, environmental groups, or otherinterested groups at the site, including the Concerned Citizens ofLake Township. Community involvement during the RI/FS will helpU.S. EPA understand the community's perspective on issues related tothe site. This understanding will enable U.S. EPA to better planactivities during the RI/FS and to develop remedial alternatives inthe draft feasibility study that are responsive to communityconcerns. Announce all public information meetings and the 3-weekcomment period on the proposed remedial alternatives through publicnotices and press releases.
C. COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES
The following community relations techniques are suggested for thecommunity relations program during the RI/FS at Industrial Excess.
Technique
1. Information Repository
Methodology
Objective: To provide the community access todetailed and technical information about thesite.
An information repository will be located atthe Lake Township Trustee office at 12360 N.Market Street, Hartville, Ohio, 44632. Therepository should include newspaper clippings,historical or background documents on the site,an explanation of Superfund and EPA remedialactions, and public technical documents --including the final community relations planand the technical work plan. The repositorywill be updated throughout the RI/FS, as otherdocuments are prepared, such as the remedialinvestigation report and the draft feasibilitystudy.
-11-
Technique Methodology
2. Mailing List
3. News Releases
Objective: To identify private citizens andpublic officials who should receive fact sheetsor site updates throughout the remedial action.
A partial mailing list is found in Appendix B.Tnis partial "list includes representatives fromOhio EPA, Ohio Department of Health, StarkCounty Department of Health, Lake TownshipTrustees, and Concerned Citizens of LakeTownship. Individuals that were interviewedabout the site for the preparation of this planare indicated on this list. A full mailinglist is located at the EPA Region V office andincludes attendees of the December 11, 1984public meeting that was conducted by U.S. EPAand Ohio EPA.
Mail-in address coupons may be distributed tothe community by EPA with the first fact sheetto allow all interested individuals anopportunity to be included on the site'smailing list to receive future updates from EPA.
Objective: To inform and update the communityabout the schedule for the RI/FS and anyintermediate results that are available to thepublic.
According to residents and local officials, TheBeacon Journal, an Akron newspaper, and theHartville News are the best means of informingthe general community about the site. Newsreleases should also go to The CantonRepository and other media outlets in thearea. The first news release should provide anintroduction to the purpose and procedures ofSuperfund remedial actions and what kinds ofactivities may occur at Industrial Excess. Itshould also announce the public informationmeeting at the beginning of the remedialinves t igat ion.
News releases during the remedial investigationwill be issued as needed. A news releaseshould be issued two weeks prior to the startof the 3-week public comment period on thedraft feasibility study to present the remedialalternatives and to explain comment procedures.A public meeting may also be announced by thissame press release. A release issued at theend of the RI will announce the public meetingto explain the results.
-12-
Technique Methodology
4. Fact Sheets
5. Public Meetings
Objective: To inform and update the communityabout the schedule for the RI/FS and anyintermediate results that are available to thepublic.
Because there are numerous individuals in thecommunity who are actively involved with issuesrelating to the site, fact sheets will be animportant means of reaching interestedUniontown residents. Fact sheets should bedistributed when new or significantdevelopments occur at the site, includingdelays in the project if they occur, due tolaboratory delays, policy changes, weatherconditions, etc.
The fact sheet prepared for the publicinformation meeting at the start of theremedial investigation should provide ahistorical perspective on the site and anexplanation of the Superfund program, inaddition to the RI/FS schedule. The fact sheetshould also include a glossary of Superfundtechnical terms, the location of theinformation repository, and the name andtoll-free telephone number of the EPA Region VCommuruLtY BaLatlnns.
Additional fact sheets should be distributed asneeded during the remedial investigation. Afact sheet will be prepared at the end of theRI to summarize the results from theinvestigation and to describe future FSactivities .
During the comment period on the draftfeasibility study, a fact sheet will beprepared that summarizes past remedialactivities at the site and explains theremedial alternatives presented in thefeasibility study and the procedures forcommenting on the recommended alternative.
Objective: To provide a forum for publicinquiries at the start of the remedialinvestigation and to facilitate citizen inputduring the public comment period on the draftfeasibility study.
-13-
Technique Methodology
6. Informal Discussion
7. 3-Week Comment Period
At least three public meetings will beconducted. The first meeting was held inDecember 1984, at the start of the remedialinvestigation to introduce the key personnelresponsible for the site. The second meetingwill be held to describe the results from theremedial investigation. The third meeting willbe scheduled to receive public comment on theremedial alternatives proposed in thefeasibility study.
Additional meetings may be scheduled as neededduring or at the end of the remedialinvestigation to announce interim findings andto address community inquiries.
Objective: To clarify issues and explainongoing and future activities for the site inan informal setting.
As an alternative to formal public meetings,EPA may conduct small meetings with communitygroups. Informal discussions will enableresidents to focus on site issues that arerelevant to t'hem and would provide EPA anopportunity to explain to the residents thegoals., constraints.., and. ojiflnrsJc. o.£ tha, ntauttLktJi.action.
Topics that would be particularly relevant tothe community include: scope of ground watersampling plans, results of ground water and airsampling activities, gas venting, EPA'sremedial investigation schedule, and status ofresponsible party involvement in the remedialaction.
Objective: To provide for community input toand comment on the remedial alternativesproposed for Industrial Excess.
A minimum 3-week comment period will bescheduled when the draft feasibility study isreleased to the public. The comment periodwill be announced two weeks in advance througha press release.
-14-
_______Technique______ _______________Methodology______________
8. Responsiveness Summary Objective: To document public inquiries andcomments and EPA responses for inclusion to theRecord of Decision (ROD).
The summary will include community comments andconcerns on the proposed remedial alternativeand how EPA responded to these concerns.
9. Revision of Community Objective: To reflect changing communityRelations Plan concerns and opinions and to incorporate
important developments during the RI/FS.
This plan will be revised on an as-needed basis.
This plan will be revised following the ROD toincorporate community relations activities tobe conducted during the design and constructionphase of the selected remedial action.
D. SCHEDULE
1.2.
*>*> *
»4.
5.
6.
/.
8.
9.
Community RelationsTechnique
Information Repository
Ma i I ing Li st
News Releases (3)(more as needed)
Fact Sheets (3)(more as needed)
Pub I ic Meetings
Informal Meetings(as needed)
Public Comment Period
Responsi veness Summary
Revision of CRP
Start of DuringCompleted Remedial Remedial Feas ib i l i t y Record ofWork Plan Investigation Investigation Study Decision
- — —— - — - — ---- — --- — - —— -(update as needed)-- — — - —— - —— —— — ------
— --- — _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ — __ — ---( update as needed) — - — - — -- — --- — -- — - — —
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
X —————————— x * —————— x
( three weeks)
o
o(more as needed)
APPENDICES
A-2
APPENDIX A
MAJOR ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT INDUSTRIAL EXCESSBY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DURING 1984* and 1985
1984
March Available ground water data from sampling efforts in January andFebruary 1984 were reviewed by Ohio EPA, Ohio Department ofhealth, and Center for Disease Control. General consensus wasthat the contaminated ground water downgradient of the siteremained satisfactory for human consumption.
April Uniontown Fire Chief announced discovery of explosive gasesoff-site along the landfill's western perimeter. Ohio EPA metwith Fire Chief and East Ohio Gas Company to survey site.Explosive levels of gas were found in the backyards of severalresidential properties, an explosive gas level was identifiedin-ground underneath one home; no explosive levels were found inthe ambient air of any homes or commercial buildings. Gastesting showed that the in-ground gas was not pipeline gas. FireChief initiated site monitoring with Ohio EPA assistance.
May Ohio EPA met with landfill property owner's consultant to conducta preliminary methane survey. Ohio EPA informed landfill ownerthat landfill is the source of methane and requested a remedialaction plan.
The Canton City Air Agency conducted limited ambient airmonitoring on the landfill. Chemical parameters included in thissampling were: unsaturated hydrocarbons, halogenatedhydrocarbons, and amines. No airborne chemicals were detectedduring this study.
Ohio EPA initiated a second ground water monitoring study. Agroup of 24 wells was sampled for the following parameters:phenol, general inorganic ground water indicators, and one toxicmetal. One well was sampled for the acid extractable fraction ofthe priority pollutant group. Results of sampling showed littlechange from the March 1984 results: although the ground waterdowngradient of the landfill appeared contaminated by phenols anddissolved solids, it remained satisfactory for human consumption.
June Ohio EPA conduced a third round of surface water monitoring.Chemical parameters included in this sampling were: phenolics,cyanides, and selected inorganic surface water indicators.Results were consistent with March results: no surface waterdegradation was noted.
This list was taken in part from the October 1984 Status Report onInvestigation and Monitoring of the Industrial Excess Landfill, preparedby Gary Gifford of Ohio EPA.
A-3
Ohio EPA and Stark County Health Department met withrepresentatives of the landfill and requested that theyvoluntarily install a methane monitoring and/or ventilationsystem.
Routine gas monitoring no longer identified explosive gas levelsunderneath the adjacent home. Ohio EPA with county healthpersonnel, township fire safety officers, and the state firemarshall's office conducted a comprehensive methane-explosiveatmosphere survey of the landfill areas. Although no imminenthazard was detected at this time, it was agreed that routinemonitoring was needed to ensure the safety of nearby residents.
September Changes in gas migration resulted in explosive gas levels withinthe ground underneath adjacent residences and required a limitedresidental evacuation.
Ohio EPA requested the Ohio Attorney General's assistance inenforcement of applicable state environmental laws.
October U.S. EPA announced the proposed inclusion of the IndustrialExcess landfill to the National Priorities List (NPL). Ohio EPAinstalled methane monitors in approximately 12 homes.
December In response to community concerns, U.S. EPA and Ohio EPAconducted a public meeting. Approximately 150 people attended.Meeting topics included: an overview of Superfund, status ofmethane gas control, and plans for the remedial investigation.
1985
February
March
Ohio EPA conducted air sampling of gas to determine if flaringwas safe.
Results of U.S. EPA ambient air monitoring of the venting systemshowed that levels of contaminants other than methane were lowerthan workplace standards.
Results from Ohio EPA's sampling of 24 drinking water wellsshowed that the water was safe to drink (levels of contaminantswere below standards).
APPENDIX B
LIST OF CONTACTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
A. Federal Elected Officials
Senator John GlennWashington, DC Office503 Hart BuildingWashington, DC 20510
District Office200 North High Street, Room 600Columbus, OH 43215
Senator Howard MetzenbaumWashington, DC Office363 Russell BuildingWashington, DC 20510
District Office200 North High Street, Room 405Columbus, OH 43215
Representative Ralph RegulaWashington, DC Office2209 Rayburn BuildingWashington, DC 20515
District Office4150 Belden Village St.Canton, OH 44718
B. State Elected Officials
Senator Scott Dels lagerState SenateColumbus, OH 42316
Representative Dave JohnsonOhio House of RepresentativesColumbus, OH 43215
District Office4150 Belden Village St. N.WCanton, Ohio 44718
C. Local Elected OfficialsStark County Board of Commissioners209 W. Tuscarawas Rd.Canton, OH 44702
(202) 224-3353
(614) 4469-6697
(202) 225-3876
(614) 469-6774
(202) 225-3876
(216) 489-4414
(614) 466-0626
(216) 492-3781
B-2
Lake Township Board of TrusteesOffice of Trustees12360 N. MarketHartville, OH 44632 (216) 877-2239
James Kins ley*David HerbertDon Cassetty*, 3450 Edison St., Uniontown, OH 44685
D. State and Local Agencies
Stark County Department of HealthCounty Office Building29 W. Tuscarawas Rd.Canton, OH 44702 (216) 438-0470
Bill Franks*, County Health CommissionerBob Shadle*, Supervising SanitarianJoseph Dopier*, Dir. of Environmental Health
Stark County Auditor's OfficeCounty Administration BuildingCanton, OH 44702
William Bellman*, Auditor (216) 438-0357
Stark County Regional Planning CommissionCounty Office Building29 W. Tuscarawas Rd.Canton, OH 44702
James Holl*, Chief Regional Planner (216) 438-0389
Lake Township Fire DepartmentWilliam Allgood*, Lake Township Fire
and Safety Officer3875 Broad VistaUniontown, OH 44685 (216) 877-2239
Ohio EPA, NE District OfficeGary Gifford*, Unregulated Sites Coordinator
2110 E. Aurora Rd.Twinsburg, OH 44087 (216) 425-9175
Ohio Department of HealthRobert Indian*, Supervisor
Chronic Disease and Environmental UnitDivision of EpidemiologyP.O. Box 118Columbus, OH 43216 (614) 466-0281
*These individuals were consulted about the site in February 1985.
B-3
Ohio EPAMichael GreenbergPublic Participation Coordinator
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste ManagementP.O. Box 1049Columbus, OH 43216 (614) 466-1596
Pat MadiganOhio Public Interest CenterP.O. Box 1049Columbus, OH 43216 (614) 466-8508
E. U.S. EPA Region V Officials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency230 S. Dearborn St.Chicago, IL 60604
Jay Plucinski, Region V Remedial ProjectManager (312) 353-6316
Margaret McCue, Region V Superfund (312) 886-1728Communiry Relations Coordinator
Kerry Street, CERCLA Enforcement Section (312) 886-7240Barbara Magel, Office of Regional Counsel (312) 886-6726
Toll-free call (800) 621-8431
F. Media
Newspapers:
Akron Beacon Journal (216) 375-811144 E. Exchange St.Akron, OH 44328
Alliance Review (216) 821-130040 S. Linden Ave.Alliance, OH 44601
Cleveland Plain Dealer (216) 344-45001801 Superior Ave.Cleveland, OH 44114
Canton Repository (216) 454-5611500 Market Ave S.Canton, OH 44702
Hartville News (216) 877-9345P.O. Box 428Hartville, OH 44632
Television:
WAKR (ABC - Arkron)P.O. Box 1590 (216) 535-7831Akron, OH 44309
B-4
WOKW (CBS - Cleveland)5800 S. Marginal (216) 431-8888Cleveland, OH 44103
WYKC (NCB - Cleveland)1403 East 6th St. (216) 344-3333Cleveland, OH 44114
G. Other Interested Organizations and Individuals
Concerned Citizens of Lake Townshipc/o Lake Township Trustee Office Attn: Chris Borello12360 Market NorthHartville, OH 44632
Chris Vorello*, PresidentRuth Katzenmeyer*, Vice PresidentDottie Morris, Secretary and Treasurer
Mr. and Mrs. Alvin Griffiths*12550 Cleveland Ave.Uniontown, OH 44685
Mrs. James Kins ley*3421 Northdate Ave.Uniontown, OH 44684
H. Public Information Repository
Lake Township Trustee Office12360 Market NorthHartville, OH 44632 (216) 877-2239
additional location, if needed:
Stark County District Library, Hartville Branch411 E. MapleHartville, OH 44632 (216) 877-9975
I. Public Meeting Locations
Community Park Hall3693 Apollo St.Uniontown, OH 44685
Contact: Tom Besenyodi (216) 699-9373