SFUND RECORDS CTR 88134295
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN SITE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
January 1986 0900365 n o n n COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN SITE IN 1- LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
H January 1986 n Pi WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 10-9L59.3 I -*-
Prepared by: CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.
00054 0000365
CDM CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Federal Programs Center. 0 environmental tngineers. scientists. ptanntn. A management consultants ' .. ., . _. _ .. _ .. ,... * * 7611 Little River Turnpike. Suite 104 Annandale, Virginia 22003 703642-0544 January 15, 1986 Ms. Patricia Cleary Regional Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 215 Fremont St. San Francisco, CA 94105
Mr. Timothy Vendlinski D Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 215 Fremont St. San Francisco, CA 94105
Project: EPA Contract No.: 68-01-6939 Work Assignment No.: 10-9L59.3 Document No.: 114-CR1-EP-BDFA-2 Subject: Final Community Relations Plan for the San Fernando Valley Basin Site in 0 Los Angeles County, California
G Dear Ms. Cleary and Mr. Vendlinski: Camp Dresser & McKee is pleased to submit this final community relations plan for the San Fernando Valley Basin Site in Los Angeles County, California. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Marion Cox or the REM II Community Relations Specialist for the site. Very truly yours, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
__ 7~^7 'avid F. Doyle, P.E. /JonathaJon n G. Curtis, P.E. " ' /Vice President //Vice President Technical Operations Manager /' Finance and Administration Manager 0900365
PERFORMANCE OF REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIVITIES AT UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES (REM II)
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-6939
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN FOR SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN SITE LOS ANGELES COUNTY. CALIFORNIA REM II DOCUMENT NO.: 114-CR1-EP-BDFA-2
Prepared By: ,• /y• . Date: Carol M. Kxertnedy REM II Community Relations Specialist
Approved By: Marlon Cox f REM II Community Relations / T Manager
Approved Date: im Goodrich 0 II Site Manager
Approved By: Date: /,/Oa'/id F. 'DoyTe, (• f-Vice President "I REM II Technical Operations \, Manager
Approved By: Date: Jon/ithan G.-Curtis, P.E. Vice President RE%\\*M\ \ IA IA FinancI IIIUIIWw-UIIe andU / .''Administration Manager 0900365
FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN SITE LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Li
United States Environmental Protection Agency Toxics and Waste Management Division Region 9
| i January 1986 G 0 n o n n n Q0GH365
o COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN SITE n LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 0
INTRODUCTION
This Community Relations Plan describes EPA's community relations program to be implemented during site investigation and clean-up activities at the San Fernando Valley Basin (SFVB) sites, located in Los Angeles. The purpose of this program is to involve the community and other interested persons in the decision-making process by establishing procedures for the accurate and timely release of information to interested citizens and public officials, and encouraging two-way communication between EPA and the community. This community relations program will require close coordination among local, state, and federal officials.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has assumed the lead responsibility for conducting the Remedial Investigation of the ground-water contamination problem in the Basin. Lead responsibility for federal Superfund sites is usually assumed by EPA or a state agency. While the California Department of Health Services (DOHS) is ordinarily involved in Superfund actions, it supports the participation of LADWP in the Remedial Investigation. n 0000365 -2-
A Cooperative Agreement, to be signed by EPA and LADWP, defines the role of each agency in the Remedial Investigation. In accordance with the Cooperative Agreement, this plan refers to EPA and LADWP as the agencies responsible for the SFVB Superfund action. EPA's Toxics and Waste Management Division located in San Francisco will oversee LADWP's activities at the site. The community relations program will be conducted jointly by EPA and LADWP during the Superfund process.
This Community Relations Plan for SFVB is divided into the following four sections:
A. Community Relations Background B. Goals of the Community Relations Program C. Techniques to Reach Community Relations Goals D. Schedule and Staffing Plan
The analysis in Sections A through C is based on interviews with local officials, agency representatives, and interested citizens in the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale, and San Fernando, and the n unincorporated area of La Crescenta. The schedule.presented in Section D provides a proposed sequence of community relations activities at SFVB. These activities coincide with the technical milestones for the site. A staffing plan is included in Section D that highlights the distribution of responsibilities between EPA and LADWP for implementing community relations activities.
EPA and DOHS representatives conducted community interviews during March 1985 to gather information for this plan. Agencies contacted include Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDOHS), California Department of Health Services, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A full list of individuals contacted to discuss the SFVB site and a list of key officials, media representatives, and 0900365 -3-
interest groups is included in Appendix A. This appendix also identifies possible locations for information repositories in Los Angeles County. EPA will keep site fact sheets, key technical documents, and the Community Relations Plan at these repositories as reference materials for community members during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Appendix B shows a complete list of acronyms used in this plan.
A. COMMUNITY RELATIONS BACKGROUND
1. SITE HISTORY
The San Fernando Valley Basin sites (SFVB or "the site") represent four areas in the San Fernando Valley where ground water is contaminated with industrial solvents. The ground-water reservoir in the Basin represents an important source of drinking water for at least three million persons in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Exact boundaries of the site have not been defined, but water wells in the following cities or communities are affected: Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale, and the unincorporated community of La Crescenta. Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the San Fernando Valley and n Figure 2 shows a map of the cities within the San Fernando Valley Basin. An understanding of the way water resources are distributed in the Valley will help to put the site history in its proper context. In general, Los Angeles County and neighboring counties do not have adequate water supplies to meet their needs. Because of water supply constraints, Watermasters have been appointed by the Superior Court of California to allocate water rights among competing users.
In 1975, water rights in the San Fernando Valley Basin were redistributed and placed under Watermaster control by a court order. As a result of this redistribution, the cities of Burbank and Glendale lost most of their water rights in the Basin. The lost water represented approximately twenty percent n of water consumed by each city. These cities increased the volume of water -4- OQOO'365
La Crescenta Burbanki IGlendale
10 15 miles
Figure 1. VICINITY MAPOF THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY -N-
San Gabriel Mountains
Santa Susana Mountains
La Crescenta City of (Unincorporated San Fernando Los Angeles County) <
Ul Simi Hills i
Santa Monica Mountains
Figure 2. CITY BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY BASIN •in -6-
purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to replace the lost water. The MWD imports surface water from Northern California and the n Colorado River to distribute among six counties in Southern California. MWD water is more expensive than water obtained from the Basin. Because some of the purchased water returns to the Basin aquifer through natural percolation, Burbank and Glendale have water rights in the Basin equal to a percentage of the water that they purchase annually from MWD.
In 1979, after ground-water contamination was discovered in the San Gabriel Ground-water basin, DOHS required that all major water purveyors conduct tests to determine if industrial chemicals were present in the ground n water. Results of tests conducted by the Cities of Los Angeles, Glendale, and Burbank, and the Crescenta Valley County Water District (CVCWD) revealed ground-water contamination with concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) and, in lesser concentrations, carbon tetrachloride and chloroform. The primary contaminant, TCE, is an industrial solvent that was found at concentrations that exceed the current California State Action Level of 5 parts per billion (ppb) TCE for drinking water in 42 of the 135 n production and monitoring wells tested. PCE was detected above the California State Action Level of 4 ppb in 17 wells. Action levels are nonenforceable guidance levels established by DOHS. DOHS recommends that water purveyors refrain from supplying customers with water that contains contaminant concentrations above these action levels. The impact on water resources of each Valley community is described below.
* The City of Los Angeles has TCE contamination above the action level in 34 of 73 wells located in the San Fernando Valley. PCE contamination is present in 9 of the 73 wells. Los Angeles customers rely on water from the San Fernando Basin to provide 15 percent of the city's total water supply. According to LADWP, the ground-water contamination has not caused a health problem because (1) Los Angeles has alternate sources of water, and (2) the contamination problem has been temporarily dealt with by shutting down wells or blending 00003G5 -7-
contaminated water with clean water supplies to dilute contaminant concentrations to below action levels. If a contaminated well that is used for blending reaches a level of 40 ppb of TCE or PCE, it is shut down and removed from the blending program.
In normal years, LADWP imports 80 percent of its water from the Owens Valley, 300 miles north of Los Angeles, and purchases an average of 5 percent from MWD to serve its 3.1 million residents. In periods of drought, however, loss of the San Fernando Basin wells would force LADWP to purchase more water from MWD.
* The City of Burbank has 4 contaminated wells that are either not usable or usable only when the water is blended. An additional 3 wells have mechanical problems. Four remaining wells are usable. Burbank Public Service Department serves 85-90,000 persons. MWD supplies Burbank with 80 percent of its water needs. Burbank purchases some of its MWD water at a reduced price with the understanding that the water purchased at this price may be interrupted, or unavailable, during periods of water shortages. To qualify for the reduced price, MWD customers must be able to verify that they can replace water withheld by MWD.
According to a recent MWD evaluation, Burbank must improve its ability to pump local water to replace the volume of MWD water purchased at the reduced price. To obtain water in periods of short supply or when MWD withholds water, Burbank stores water in the Basin by not withdrawing its full allocation of water. Although Burbank has the right to take addition amounts of water from the Basin because of its storage program, it may be unable to pump replacement water during an extended dry period because 7 of its 11 wells either are contaminated or have mechanical problems.
U 0000365 -8-
* The City of Glendale blends water from 3 wells because of TCE and PCE contamination. Four wells are not usable because of contamination with nitrates and PCE. Nine wells are operating. MWD supplies 85 percent of the water needed by Glendale to serve 138,000 persons. Although some of its wells cannot be used because of contamination, Glendale has made up for the loss by pumping more water from remaining wells and has not needed to increase water purchases from MWD.
* Crescenta Valley County Water District has all 9 of its wells operating, although four wells are contaminated by PCE. All of La Crescenta's wells require blending due to high nitrate levels. For this reason, it has operated two aeration towers for approximately twenty years. La Crescenta must import 55 percent of its water from MWD.
* The City of San Fernando uses ground water from the Sylmar Ground-Water Basin and does not draw any ground water from the San Fernando Valley. Although the city's water supply has not been affected by contamination, the industries located in San Fernando may have contributed to contamination of the San Fernando Valley Ground- Water Basin. For this reason, the Public Works Department of San Fernando has been working with other cities in the Valley to resolve the contamination problem.
1.1 Ground-water Quality Management Plan
In July 1981, LADWP and SCAG obtained Planning Grants under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act to study the ground-water contamination problem of the San Fernando Valley. The two-year study was designed to evaluate the extent of contamination, to identify potential sources of contamination, and to develop recommendations for future ground-water management in the Basin. 0000385
-9-
To conduct the study, a Technical Advisory Committee and a Citizens' Advisory Committee were formed to involve local agencies and community groups. The technical committee consisted of engineering representatives from city, county, and state agencies with expertise in water issues. The citizen committee consisted of representatives from local governments, public interest groups, business groups, and private citizens. In July 1983, both committees reported their recommendations in the Ground-water Quality Management Plan — San Fernando Valley Basin, (hereafter referred to as the Ground-water Plan). In addition to technical recommendations, this report includes a plan for public education and participation.
The Ground-water Plan reported that the ground-water contamination in the Basin originated from numerous and often unidentified sources. The Ground-water Plan concluded that contamination resulted from many years of improper waste disposal of organic and inorganic chemicals from the aircraft, electronic, metal plating, automotive, and dry cleaning industries located in the Basin. In several areas of the Basin, industrial and household wastes were discharged into the aquifer from septic systems. The Ground-water Plan identified North Hollywood in the City of Los Angeles as an area of particular concern because this area is unsewered, highly industrialized, and contains porous soils.
The Ground-water Plan made several recommendations to help remedy current ground-water contamination and to ensure long-term water quality. Recommendations included: regulation of private disposal systems including storage tanks, sumps, and pipelines; waste disposal enforcement; development of small quantity generator hazardous waste disposal programs; regulation of landfills; and ground-water monitoring, management, and treatment.
1.2 InteragencT Coordinating Committee
With the purpose of restoring and protecting the ground-water quality of the San Fernando Valley, an Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) was 0000365 -10-
forraed to implement the recommendations from the Ground-water Plan. The ICC consists primarily of representatives of member agencies from the Technical Advisory Committee and, more recently, EPA representatives. The ICC has met bimonthly since the study was released in mid-1983 and is organized into six subcommittees covering different projects. The subcommittee titles are:
* Public Education * Small Quantity Generator/Hazardous Waste Disposal Program * Regulation of Private Disposal Systems * Augmented Enforcement Program * Regulation of Storage Tanks, Sumps, and Pipelines * Regulation of Landfill and Ground-water Monitoring and Aquifer Management Program.
The ICC presented the Ground-water Plan to the Los Angeles City Council and the Council adopted measures to implement some of the recommendations of the study. These measures include taking steps to end septic tank usage, installing sewer lines in North Hollywood, and initiating a hazardous waste collection program for small quantity generators. To inform the Council of progress on these actions and of other activities, ICC member agencies frequently report to the Public Works Committee.
In an effort to obtain federal assistance in remedying the ground-water contamination problem, SCAG and LADWP recommended that four well sites in the San Fernando Valley be included on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) of hazardous waste sites. In October 1984, all four areas were proposed for the NPL. The final NPL, which will be released after public comment and EPA review, is expected in the winter of 1985-86. Under the proposed Remedial Response, the four areas will be approached jointly; specific actions in individual areas will be taken as necessary.
[j r 0900865 -ii-
Since the time when SFVB was proposed as a Superfund site, the ICC has fostered information exchange among local, state, and federal agencies. Although the implementation of many of the recommendations of the Ground-water Plan is outside the scope of EPA's Superfund action, EPA and LADWP will coordinate site investigation and clean-up efforts with ICC activities as appropriate.
2. HISTORY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
According to local agency representatives and elected officials, it seemed that community interest was low throughout the Valley when ground-water contamination was first reported. A small number of public inquiries concerned drinking water quality. The affected cities closed the contaminated water wells or blended the well water soon after contamination was discovered. Government officials therefore were able to inform the community that ground water from the Basin met State drinking water standards. Local agency and city government officials generally attribute the continued low level of community concern to the fact that immediate action was taken to provide water that met State drinking water standards and that the water wells in question continue to be monitored to ensure acceptable water quality.
Those government officials who were interviewed indicated that they frequently receive non-site specific inquiries about hazardous waste problems whenever there is media coverage of any hazardous waste issue. Frequently, the media discusses SFVB when reporting on other, local Superfund sites. Notable Superfund sites in the area include the Stringfellow site and the San Gabriel Valley Ground-Water Basin.
Representatives from Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), an environmental organization focusing on hazardous waste issues, discuss the SFVB site with residents during canvassing efforts in the Valley. CBE canvassers said that although there is a general awareness of toxics problems, most individuals are surprised to learn of local ground-water contamination. 'V 0000365
-12-
It appears that Valley residents are not well informed about the source of residential water.
A Los Angeles County Department of Health Services representative stated that the majority of individuals in the community do not know about the Valley's ground-water contamination and the well water monitoring program because the smell and taste of the water were never affected. He explained, however, that community members, like citizens across the nation, are becoming increasingly aware of toxic waste issues. Similarly, representatives from the MWD referred to a recent MWD survey where household water users in Los Angeles County selected water quality as their foremost concern. These comments suggest that site technical and community relations staff should anticipate that ground-water quality in the Basin may become a significant community issue during the site.investigation and cleanup.
The Citizens' Advisory Committee incorporated community concerns into the Ground-water Plan. In an effort to involve the community, LADWP advertised in local newspapers to solicit applications for the Committee. The Committee recommended programs to educate the public on household waste disposal and hazardous waste management issues including waste disposal, transport, and the siting of disposal or transfer facilities. Committee members were also active in keeping their respective organizations informed about the progress of the Ground-water Plan study. The group disbanded after one and one-half years when the report was completed.
Citizens' Advisory Committee members who were interviewed believed that the Committee successfully represented the interests of affected communities during the development of the Ground-water Plan. In the opinion of representatives from the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the American Association of University Women, and the San Fernando Valley Industry and Commerce Association, the Technical Advisory Committee was genuinely receptive and responsive to comments from citizen representatives about potential areas of community interest. The participants contacted felt that continued r 0'900365
-13-
technical work on the SFVB site would benefit greatly from long-terra citizen involvement.
Several Los Angeles City Councilraerabers with districts in the San Fernando Valley have been concerned about the ground-water contamination problem. Several persons interviewed mentioned that Councilwoman Joy Picus — Chairperson of the Public Works Committee — is very interested in toxic waste issues and has closely monitored the progress of the ground-water study. In addition, she participates on the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Project that deals with issues of hazardous waste transport and facility siting. Also, she has worked to inform her third district community about toxic waste and ground-water issues. A full list of councilmembers who represent districts in the San Fernando Valley is included in Appendix A.
2.1 ICC Community Activities
ICC member agencies have released information about the ground-water problem to the public through various ICC subcommittees. Two subcommittees — the Small Quantity Generator/Hazardous Waste Disposal Program and the Public Education Program — are conducting public information activities in the Valley, as recommended by the Ground-water Plan. These subcommittees have established networks of individuals in the Valley communities who are active and concerned about hazardous waste issues. EPA and LADWP can build on these efforts for the SFVB Superfund action by using established mailing lists and n by coordinating community information and involvement with ICC member agencies. The public information activities of two ICC subcommittees are described below: n * Small Quantity Generator/Hazardous Waste Disposal Program. To develop a waste collection program for San Fernando Valley businesses that generate small quantities of hazardous waste, SCAG and the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation conducted surveys of n •0900365 -14-
businesses in North Hollywood regarding waste disposal practices. Through the surveys, the participants became aware of the ground-water contamination problem and the efforts of local and state agencies to prevent additional contamination and to provide clean water to consumers. This subcommittee may prepare brochures, issue news releases, and inform generators about the proposed waste collection program.
* The Public Education Program subcommittee will be initiating a public awareness program on hazardous waste and ground-water quality topics throughout the Valley. The program's goal is to help the public understand the importance of responsible hazardous waste management, treatment alternatives, transportation safety, siting reliable waste facilities, and preventing new areas of contamination. The program will focus on distributing information through presentations, news releases, and handouts. This effort may improve the public's understanding of hazardous waste transportation and n facility siting issues in the future. o 3. POTENTIAL ISSUES AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS In March 1985, representatives from EPA and DOHS identified the following community issues and concerns during interviews with elected officials, residents, agency representatives, environmental groups, and civic organizations in San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles.
a) Current Ground-vater Contamination. All persons contacted indicated that ground-water contamination is a major community concern. Most view the current monitoring program as only a short-term solution to the problem. The following concerns relate to the ground-water contamination issue: n 0000365
-15-
* Blending of Drinking Water. Representatives from public p interest and environmental groups (including the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women, the Sierra Club, and Citizens for a Better Environment) (J expressed concern about the blending of contaminated water with clean water to meet drinking water standards. All had doubts as to whether this type of water quality restoration could guarantee acceptable drinking water.
0 * Ground-water Monitoring. These same public interest and environmental groups were concerned about the ongoing n ground-water monitoring program. They were concerned that monitoring may be too infrequent, the analyses of water samples may not be extensive enough, and that time delays between the discovery of contamination and the release of the information fi to the public may be too long.
b) Future Ground-water Contamination. Representatives from several ICC member agencies expressed concern about the possibility of future contamination of the Basin. They believe that a program of prevention should be undertaken immediately. Most of the recommendations in the Ground-water Plan were aimed at preventing new or additional contamination of the Basin. n Local government representatives and elected officials in Los Angeles, Burbank and Glendale believe that an active program to protect the quality of ground water is long overdue. The city governments of Los Angeles, Glendale and Burbank are implementing prevention programs in their communities, including r better waste disposal enforcement and public awareness activities. A Citizens for a Better Environment representative believed that wastes V J from industrial practices in Chatsworth and Northridge — located in the northwestern portion of the Valley — may contribute to future contamination of the Basin because the direction of the ground-water flow was northwest to southeast through the Valley. He was dissatisfied that the boundaries n 0900365 n -16-
of the area to be included in the Superfund Remedial Investigation did not appear to encompass this industrial area.
c) Water Quality Standards. Several members of the Citizens' o Advisory Committee felt frustrated about the lack of water quality standards for PCE and TCE. EPA has not yet established Maximum Contaminant Levels of I ! TCE and PCE in drinking water. In the interim, DOHS has set recommended State action levels which are being followed voluntarily by Los Angeles, Burbank and Glendale. Members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee argued that not enough 0 was known about the health effects of TCE and PCE. They are worried that EPA standards, if less stringent than DOHS action levels, would be used by the ICC n to define levels for drinking water safety in SFVB wells. Standards set at higher concentrations would allow the use of many marginal water wells in the n Valley that are currently closed or blended. M LADWP representatives indicated that without a standard for the chemicals of concern, it will be difficult to design treatment or clean-up options.
I-1 d) Water Use in the LOS ANGELES Metropolitan Area. Water from the San Fernando Basin represents a significant amount of the water supply for the O Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale. The presence of contamination is a problem that has been temporarily dealt with by shutting down certain n wells and blending some water supplies. o In periods of drought, however, water obtained from the Basin would be a more important concern across Los Angeles County. During a drought, Burbank and Glendale would need to operate all their water wells to meet the demand n for water. However, because of ground-water resource limits and the fact that many wells throughout the Valley are closed due to contamination, MWD doubted o that it would be able to supply enough water to all water users if Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale all needed MWD water during a drought. 1 n -I?- 0900365 n The importance of the San Fernando Basin as a source of water will increase in the future. After 1985, Southern California will lose to the State of Arizona a substantial amount of water that it currently draws from the Colorado River. As greater demands are placed on the Basin, protecting the ground water will become even more critical to ensure adequate water n 1 supplies. According to a representative from Councilwoman Picus office, a related concern is that restricted water supply will discourage industrial and n residential development in Valley communities and therefore reduce or slow economic growth.
e) Vater Storage Program. Several hydrogeological characteristics of the San Fernando Basin enhance its use for water storage. The MWD is currently evaluating a proposal to use the SFVB for long-terra water storage. n The MWD will closely monitor the results of the Remedial Investigation to determine if water stored in the SFVB is vulnerable to contamination. The outcome of the MWD water storage program is important to the Cities of Burbank n and Glendale because they have interests in storing water in the Basin. In addition, the pending MWD water storage program could result in a lower price n for MWD water. n There are several ground-water recharge spreading areas in the San Fernando Valley located near landfills or industrial areas. Clean water is spread on porous soils where it percolates into the aquifer, thereby artificially recharging the ground-water basin. In Southern California, artificial recharge programs provide an important means to store water in ground-water basins for use in drought years. Representatives from Glendale Public Service Department and MWD are concerned that these spreading areas may now be contaminated with hazardous wastes or may become so in the future.
f) Press and Notoriety. Representatives from local water agencies in Burbank, Glendale, and La Crescenta expressed concern about potential media coverage. These agencies believe that the media coverage associated with a Superfund action may stir up in the community unnecessary worries about
P 0 0000365 fi -18-
I 0 drinking water quality. Water agency representatives believe that their organizations have been doing a good job in providing water that meets State health standards.
g) Air Stripping. One of the treatment alternatives proposed in the Ground-water Plan is air stripping, a process whereby volatile chemicals in n water are released from aeration towers into the air. Some representatives from public interest and environmental groups did not favor the air stripping o alternative; they felt that air stripping may be unacceptable because of the possible health risks associated with releasing PCE and TCE into the air. Although air stripping is being considered as an alternative, members of the ICC generally recognize it to be unpopular with local communities. LADWP representatives explained that the South Coast Air Quality Management District n (SCAQMD) would be responsible for evaluating and approving the use of an r aeration tower. h) Role of LADWP in Conducting the Remedial Investigation. After the four areas in the San Fernando;Valley Basin were proposed for the National D Priorities List, there was much disscussion among LADWP, DOHS, and EPA about the role LADWP would assume in the Superfund process. EPA decided to conduct the Remedial Investigation jointly with LADWP. Although partnership between EPA and a local agency in a Superfund action is unusual, LADWP will have the lead in the Remedial Investigation because of its considerable ground-water experience and its interest in protecting and preserving the quality of ground water in the region. In compliance with federal regulations, all site work done by LADWP will be monitored by EPA and all remedial actions paid for by 0 the Superfund program will be selected by EPA. i) Concerns Regarding LADWP*s Priorities and Leadership Ability. Representatives from Citizens for a Better Environment and the Sierra Club as well as several elected officials expressed concern about a potential conflict of interest if LADWP assumes the lead role in conducting the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. These individuals believe that LADWP has a different set of priorities than EPA and would focus more -19-
on treating the water supply than on restoring and protecting the ground-water 0 aquifer. Moreover, several individuals questioned LADWP's ability to lead such a complex site investigation and clean-up effort. D B. GOALS OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM Under a Cooperative Agreement between EPA and LADWP, LADWP will participate in the community relations program for the site during the Remedial Investigation; LADWP's role in the Feasibility Study has not been determined. The goals for the community relations program during the Superfund action at SFVB are presented below.
1) PROVIDE TOE COMMUNITY WITH INFORMATION. EPA and LADWP will provide accurate and timely information to citizens about sampling and clean-up activities and respond to inquiries from community members. Because of n the large geographical area involved, community relations efforts will be coordinated with existing methods of disseminating information to the community. These methods include announcements in newsletters of elected officials and environmental groups, notices in water company bills, and presentations at regular meetings of organized groups in the Valley. Community relations staff for the site will work with members of the Small Quantity Generators/Hazardous Waste Disposal Program Subcommittee and the Public Education Subcommittee of the ICC to coordinate public involvement activities and releases of information. Community relations staff will also initiate community meetings and r workshops, prepare fact sheets and news releases, and establish information repositories at libraries located throughout the Valley. Site n information will be presented in a way that is easily understood. 2) ESTABLISH TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE MORI AND THE COMMUNITY. Communication with the community during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study will help EPA and LADWP to understand the community's perspective on issues related to the site, and to be more aware of the community's information needs. Frequent communication will also enable the agencies responsible for the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to develop clean-up alternatives in the draft Feasibility Study report that are responsive to community concerns. In addition to community meetings, the Community Relations Coordinator for the site may schedule presentations and informal discussions with homeowner associations, public interest groups, private citizens, and local business representatives. 0900365 -20-
EPA and LADWP will either establish a Citizens' Participation Group or form an additional subcommittee of the ICC to include representatives from local governments, public interest groups, environmental groups, offices of elected officials, and business organizations. Involvement by key representatives from interested organizations and affected;communities will facilitate effective communication between the agencies and community members. Such involvement will help ensure that the Superfund effort addresses ground-water restoration and protection as well as water supply n issues. Also, community members will be able to provide input on the appropriateness and location of such possible technical remedies as air stripping towers and waste transfer stations. 3) CONSIDER COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND HEEDS THAT ARISE PORING SUPERFDND ACTIVITIES. A major objective of the community relations program for SFVB is to use meetings and correspondence to identify concerns that develop in Valley communities and to address these concerns quickly and appropriately. EPA and LADWP should identify, for each community in the Valley and for the City of Los Angeles, a contact person who can monitor concerns in the community. These individuals should report changes in community concerns at regular Citizens' Participation Group meetings. Community concerns within the City of Los Angeles will be monitored by members of LADWP's affilates program. -e. A) PROVIDE FOR CITIZEN INPUT AND INVOLVB1ENT. While community members will [j be encouraged to provide input throughout the Remedial Investigation and ••J Feasibility Study, a minimum three-week comment period on the proposed clean-up alternatives will be held to receive formal comments from the community. This comment period will be announced at least two weeks in advance through public notices, fact sheets, and press releases and will be highlighted by a community meeting. A Responsiveness Summary will be prepared that describes and responds to verbal and written comments received during the formal comment period. C. TECHNIQUES TO REACH COMMUNITY RELATIONS GOALS
This section presents the community relations techniques to be employed during the SFVB Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to ensure that the community is properly informed and included in the Superfund process. The following techniques are organized according to the goals of the community relation program (Section C) to which each technique best applies.
1) GOAL: PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY WITH INFORMATION
a. Establish Purpose. To provide site specific information to the Information communities by establishing numerous information Repositories repositories throughout Los Angeles County. n 0000365
-21-
Procedure. To cover the large geographical area of the San Fernando Valley, information repositories will be located at the branch libraries of the Los Angeles City Library, and the libraries of the Cities of Burbank and Glendale. (Addresses and contacts at these libraries are included in Appendix A.) The information repositories will provide historical information on the ground-water problem and explanations of current and anticipated activities to be undertaken at SFVB by EPA and LADWP. Material in the repositories will include fact sheets and selected public documents relating to the site. These documents include the Ground-water Plan, the final community relations ;plan, and the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports. Information available at the repository will be updated as needed during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. b. Creating Purpose. To establish a mailing list of O Mailing elected officials, interest groups, residents, List agency representatives, and news media representatives for distributing information directly to community n members via fact sheets and background pamphlets. Procedure. This plan includes a partial mailing list in Appendix A. This list includes all individuals interviewed during the preparation of this plan. The full mailing list will be located at the EPA Region 9 office. To expand the current mailing list for the site, EPA and LADWP will include an address form in fact sheets or other publications to be filled out by interested persons and returned to EPA for entry on EPA's computer mailing list. In addition, individuals who contact the agencies with inquiries about the site will be added to the computer mailing list at their request. It may also be useful to place mail-in address forms or requests for addresses in the following newsletters and notices. These newsletters and notices are currently distributed by city governments, water companies, and public interest groups. -22-
(b. Continued) * Glendale in Action, a quarterly newsletter distributed by the City of Glendale; * Pipeline, a quarterly newsletter distributed by Crescenta Valley County Water District (CVCWD); * Forum, a quarterly newsletter distributed by the Southern California Association of Governments; * Currents, a quarterly newsletter distributed by LADWP; and * Utility and water bills sent by the Public Works Departments of Burbank and Glendale, and CVCWD. c. Prepare Purpose. To provide community members with Fact Sheets detailed information about site activities, to announce community meetings and the public comment period, and to provide verified results of soil and ground-water sampling. Procedure. At least three fact sheets will be prepared and sent to interested individuals. The first fact sheet will be distributed widely throughout the community during the early stages of the Remedial Investigation. It will provide an historical perspective on the site and briefly explain the Superfund program. A second fact sheet will be issued at the conclusion of the Remedial Investigation to summarize the Remedial Investigation report. A third fact sheet will be prepared by EPA and distributed, concurrent with a press release, when the draft Feasibility Study report is released for comment. The fact sheet will explain the remedial alternatives presented in the Feasibility Study report and the procedures for commenting on the clean-up alternatives. Additional fact sheets will be prepared and distributed during the Superfund action as appropriate. All fact sheets will include the names and phone numbers of the EPA and LADWP personnel responsible for the site. d. Prepare Press Purpose. To inform the news media, and Releases thereby the general community, about site events. 0 OQ(lf>365 0 -23- r^. (d. continued) Procedure. At least three press releases will be prepared and distributed during the Remedial Investigation. The first press release will occur in the early stages of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to inform the community of the purpose n and procedures of Superfund actions, the role of LADWP in the site investigation, arid the kinds of investigation activities that will be conducted in the Valley. The second press release will announce the completion of the H Remedial Investigation. The third press release will be issued two weeks prior to the start of the public comment period on the draft Feasibility Study report. Additional .0 press releases during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study will be issued as needed. n Whenever dealing with a Superfund action, EPA and LADWP will issue joint press releases and cooperation between the two agencies will be stated explicitly. Press releases will be issued by EPA state-wide through the 13 wire service. In addition, LADWP will simultaneously release an EPA-approved news release to local community n newspapers. In the early stages of the Remedial Investigation, EPA and LADWP will also provide desk references to media n representatives containing Superfund and site background information. 2) GOAL: ESTABLISH TWO WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE n FOR SITE WORK AND THE COMMUNITY a. Hold Purpose. To provide an opportunity for community-wide n Community comment on Superfund site activities and proposed Meetings clean-up alternatives in the draft Feasibility Study report. Ti Procedure. At least three community meetings will be scheduled. The firstimeeting will be scheduled at the beginning of the Remedial Investigation to explain upcoming activities arid:to introduce the key personnel responsible for the site. EPA will encourage meeting participants to sign up for the site mailing list. A 0 second community meeting will be held when the Remedial Investigation report is completed. The third community meeting will be scheduled during the minimum three-week n comment period to receive comments on clean-up alternatives proposed in the draft Feasibility Study report. 0 n 0000365
-24-
Each community meeting will have identical agendas and will be held one day apart in different locations in Los Angeles County to increase the opportunity for citizen involvement. For example, the first meeting covering the Remedial Investigation could be held on a;Tuesday evening in Burbank and on the following Wednesday;evening in downtown Los Angeles. b. Establish a Purpose. To promote community involvement in Citizens' the SFVB Superfund action by assisting the formation Participation of Citizens' Participation Group or an additional Group subcommittee of the ICC. Procedure. EPA and LADWP will invite organized groups, elected officials, city officials, and residents to participate in a citizens' group on the SFVB Superfund action that will meet bimonthly on dates that coincide with ICC meetings. A major goal of the Citizens' Participation Group will be to establish an effective system for information exchange among the diverse public and private interests in the region. The group will also help EPA and LADWP plan and implement community meetings, presentations and forums, fact sheets, and other community relations activities. In addition, by keeping their respective organizations informed about site activities, members of the citizens' group can play an important role in providing information to the community and influencing community involvement during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Meetings of the Citizens' Participation Group will complement, rather than replace, regular community meetings. The chairmanship of the Citizens' Participation Group meetings will be determined later. Conduct Forums, Purpose. To provide site information to community Workshops, and groups and to respond to inquiries and concerns Presentations about the site. Procedure. The agencies responsible for the site may give presentations about site investigation and clean-up activities at regularly scheduled meetings of organized groups in the Valley. LADWP already conducts a speakers program in which general lectures on water resources are presented at public schools, and before community and business groups. These presentations could be modified or expanded to discuss the SFVB Superfund action. Such presentations would provide EPA and LADWP an opportunity to explain the goals, constraints, and meaning of the Superfund action at SFVB. 0900365 -25-
During the preparation of this plan, representatives from the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women, and 'the Valley Industry and Commerce Association expressed iinterest in participating in workshops or forums regarding site activities. Other organizations that may be interested in these meetings include homeowner associations and chambers of commerce. 3) GOAL: CONSIDER COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND NEEDS THAT ARISE DURING SUPERFOND ACTIVITIES a. Monitor Purpose. To ensure that community concerns of Community Burbank, Glendale, and unincorporated areas of the City Concerns of Los Angeles are continually assessed. Procedure. EPA and LADWP will identify a contact person for each community in the Valley and for the City of Los Angeles to report on current attitudes and information needs to the Citizens' Participation Group. One possible option would be to designate |an ICC member as a contact person. The individual selected should be familiar with community leaders and the ground-water problem. To effectively monitor concerns \of his or her community, the contact person should contact other agencies and organizations in the community to get feedback on the nature of public inquiries or comments received by those offices. Within the City of Los Angeles, LADWP community affiliates, who are involved with various groups city-wide, will provide community feedback. 4) GOAL: PROVIDE FOR CITIZEN INPUT AND INVOLVEMENT a. Provide a Purpose. To encourage community input regarding the Minimum proposed clean-up alternatives for the SFVB site. Three-week Comment Period Procedure. A minimum three-week comment period will be scheduled when the draft Feasibility Study report is released to the community. The comment period will be announced two weeks in advance through a press release. EPA may need to extend this comment period, especially if community interest is high, to allow citizens adequate time to review and comment on the remedial alternatives. -26- b. Prepare Purpose. To document public comments and agency Responsiveness responses for inclusion into the Record of Decision Summary (ROD), which discusses the clean-up program and explains the reasons for selecting specific clean-up and containment technologies. Procedure. The Responsiveness Summary will discuss community comments and concerns on the proposed clean-up alternatives and how EPA and LADWP responded to these concerns. The agencies must consider these comments when selecting a permanent clean-up alternative. Revise Purpose. To ensure that community concerns emerging as Community a result of the selection of the clean-up alternative Relations are reflected in the community relations program during Plan design and construction of the remedial project. Procedure. EPA will revise the community relations plan following the Record of Decision. D. STAFFING PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Community relations activities during the Remedial Investigation will be conducted by the EPA Community Relations Coordinator, Timothy Vendlinski, and LADWP Public Affairs Officer, Sandra Tanaka. A staffing plan, presented in Figure 3, highlights EPA and LADWP responsibilities throughout the Remedial Investigation. LADWP has provided partial cost estimates for conducting community relations activities; these estimates do not include EPA or EPA contractor costs.
A schedule of community relations activities, based on technical milestones, is provided in Figure 4 after the staffing plan. During the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, EPA will evaluate the SFVB community relations program in terms of community involvement and revise the schedule of community relations techniques and the staffing plan accordingly. i " ' * " "'•" i <'•• • '•• '* ' I • , --- 1 , _____I [ ____J • -*' '~- -
Figure 3 SFVB COMMUNITY RELATIONS STAFFING PLAN
ACTIVITY LADWP RESPONSIBILITIES EPA RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Information * LADWP sends technical studies and Estimated Cost EPA sends all materials to LADWP Repositories public information materials to $ 5,000 mailing, for forwarding to repositories. official repositories: messenger A. UCLA; service, B. CSUN; printing C. City and county libraries; D. Major community organization offices; and E. City halls. $ 5,000 Subtotal
2. Mailing List LADWP forwards names to EPA for Estimated Cost EPA maintains computer mailing updating mailing list. $ 5,000 postage list and prints mailing labels. LADWP mails all printed materials. and EPA includes all interested handling parties on site mailing list: A. Citizen groups; B. Media representatives; C. Elected officials; D. Involved government agencies; $ 5,000 Subtotal E. and Others at their own request.
OD .-75 wl • .— 1 »-»-—4 !••—-•• «• "| —— r < " '• -1 "<—• -J i. -J
(Figure 3 Continued)
ACTIVITY LADWP RESPONSIBILITIES EPA RESPONSIBILITIES 3. Citizens' Parti- LADWP assists EPA in contacting Estimated Cost * EPA contacts public and private cipation Group public and private organizations ($10,000 charge to organizations in the region to and with the selection of group technical receive designates to the members. budget for Citizens' Participation Group. LADWP supports group meetings staffing) * EPA supports group meetings including: presenting information, including presenting information. taking meeting notes, arranging meeting places, announ- ing meetings, and developing meeting agendas.
4. Community Monitor- * LADWP affiliates in LA city Estimated Cost * EPA and LADWP agree upon ing Program monitor community concerns. LADWP affiliates responses to community comments LADWP works with ICC to assign time to be absorbed inquiries, and information needs. community monitors to areas by LADWP. beyond LA city. LADWP staff informs EPA about changing community concerns, as reported by LADWP affiliates, ICC community monitors, and the Citi- zens' Participation Group. LADWP staff provide EPA-approved responses to community inquiries.
o
CO w^l (Figure 3 Continued)
ACTIVITY LADWP RESPONSIBILITIES EPA RESPONSIBILITIES 5. Fact Sheets LADWP prepares draft text and gra- Estimated Cost * EPA provides background informa- and Background phics for periodic Superfund fact $ 7,500 two tion on the Superfund process. Pamphlets sheets to update site activities. fact sheets * EPA reviews all LADWP-prepared LADWP produces draft Superfund 25,000 text and graphics. project pamphlets covering back- copies * EPA provides mailing labels. ground information and special $15,000 background * EPA prepares a fact sheet which topics. pamphlets, describes FS report. LADWP arranges final production five pieces: and mailing of printed materials. $3000 each, LADWP includes Superfund updates 5,000 copies in its "Currents" newsletter. $ 4,800 160 workhours at $30/hr. $27,300 Subtotal
6. News Releases * LADWP, with EPA assistance, pre- Estimated Cost EPA provides Superfund infor- pares desk references with com- $ 3,000 100 desk mation and site background. piled site information. references EPA works with LADWP to issue * LADWP works with EPA to issue at $30 each joint press releases. joint press releases. for media and key pro- ject contacts $ 1,800 60 workhours at $30/hr. $ 500 postage $ 5,300 Subtotal
OP ' — ' — I —___ — * 1 •s -______•* J i_ _ I
(Figure 3 Continued)
ACTIVITY LADWP RESPONSIBILITIES EPA RESPONSIBILITIES
7. Presentations for * LADWP prepares a draft slide pro- Estimated Cost EPA comments on LADWP Community Groups gram, a reusable exhibit of site $10,000 slide pre- presentation content. in the Region information for display at shop- sentation EPA joins presentations to ing centers and other public $10,000 speakers1 community organizations at its events, and a speakers' program. staff time discretion. LADWP contacts groups and conducts $15,000 exhibit presentations. $ 3,000 100 workhours at $30/hr. $38,000 Subtotal
8. Public Meetings * LADWP arranges meeting logistics Estimated Cost EPA advises LADWP on meeting for meeting at start and end of RI $20,000 public format and content. including notices two weeks prior. notice ads EPA participates in the meetings.: * LADWP participates in the meetings. for two EPA announces and conducts FS meetings meeting during public comment $20,000 Subtotal period.
9. Three-week Public Not applicable - Feasibility Study Phase EPA announces the public comment Comment Period period through news releases, a fact sheet, and public notices in community newspapers. EPA responds to written and telephone inquiries.
10. Responsiveness Not applicable - Feasibility Study Phase EPA prepares a Responsiveness Summary Summary that describes and responds to community comments on the draft FS report. *'m m
(Figure 3 Continued)
ACTIVITY LADWP RESPONSIBILITIES EPA RESPONSIBILITIES 11. Community Relations Not applicable - Feasibility Study Phase EPA reviews the community Plan Revision relations plan and revises it to reflect new community concerns during remedial design/remedial action following release of the Record of Decision.
LADWP Estimated Budget for RI $ 5,000 Information repositories 5,000 Mailing list 27,300 Fact sheets 5,300 Press releases and desk references 38,000 Presentations 20,000 Public meeting notices $100,600 TOTAL
o oo FIGURE 4
SCHEDULE OP COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
SFVB COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM
TECHNICAL MILESTONES COMMUNITY Start of RI Tests Final FS PS FS RELATIONS Remedial Sampling, and RI Notice Comment Record of ACTIVITIES Investigation Analysis Report Period Period Decision information Repository
U-%4 1 Inn t *«•»• 1 »c nar>ACCAi*\f \ —
Citizens' Participation Group community Monitoring I penoaic j Program
Fact sheets X X X
Press Releases X X X Public Presentation Program community Meeting X X X Three-week Comment Period
Responsiveness Summary X community Relations Plan X Revision APPENDIX A LIST OF CONTACTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
A. Federal Elected Officials Senator Alan Cranston Washington. D.C. Office Hart Senate Office Bldg., Suite 112 Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 District Office 5757 W. Century Blvd., Room 515 Los Angeles, CA 90045 (213) 215-2186 Senator Pete Wilson Washington. D.C. Office Hart Senate Office Bldg., Suite 720 Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 District Office Federal Building, Suite 11221 11000 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 (213) 209-7543 Representative Anthony Beilenson Washington, D.C. Office US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-5911 District Office (23) Federal Building, Suite 14223 11000 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 (213) 209-7801 Representative Howard Berman Washington. D.C. Office US House of Representatives 0 Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-4695 District Office (26) 14600 Roscoe Blvd., Room 506 0 Panorama City, CA 91402 (818) 891-0543
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted n about the site in March and April, 1985. n 090(1365 Representative Bobbi Fiedler Washington. D.C. Office US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-5811 District Office (21) 21053 Devonshire St., Suite S-204 Chatsworth, CA 91311 (818) 341-2121 Representative Carlos Moorhead Washington. D.C. Office US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-4176 District Office (30) 425 N. Brand Blvd., Room 304 Glendale, CA 91203 (818) 247-8445 B. State Elected Officials State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Governor George Deukmejian (916) 445-2841 State Senate (SD = Senate District) Senator Edward Davis (SD 19) Senator Gary Hart (SD 18) 11145 Tampa Ave., Room 21-B 1216 State StJ, Room 507 Northridge, CA 91326 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (818) 368-1171 . (805) 966-1766 Senator David A. Roberti (SD 23) Senator Herschel Rosenthal (SD 22) 6671 Sunset Blvd., Suite 1508 11340 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 250 Hollywood, CA 90028 los Angeles, CA 90064 (213) 464-1178 (213) 479-5588 Senator Newton R. Russell (SD 21) 401 S. Brand, Room 424 Glendale, CA 91203 (818) 247-7021 State Assembly (AD «= Assembly District) Assemblyman Thomas Bane (AD 40) Assemblyman Gray Davis (AD 43) 5430 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 206 15300 Ventura Blvd., Room 401 Van Nuys, CA 91401 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 (818) 986-8090 (818) 705-3793
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted about the site in March and April, 1985. •0900365
Assemblyman Richard Katz* (AD 39) Assemblywoman Marian La Follette (AD 38) 9140 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 109 11145 Tampa Ave., Suite 17-A Panorama City, CA 91402 Northridge, CA 91326 (818) 894-3671 (818) 368-3838 Assemblyman Burt Margolin (AD 45) Assemblyman Patrick Nolan (AD 41) 8425 W. 3rd St., Room 406 143 S. Glendale Ave., Room 208 0 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Glendale, CA 91205 (213) 655-9750 (818) 240-6330 Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (AD 37) 250 E. Easy St., Suite 7 Simi Valley, CA 93065 (805) 522-2920 C. Local Elected Officials County of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Hall of Administration 500 W. Temple Los Angeles, CA 90012 Supervisor Edmund Edelman (3rd District) (213) 974-3333 Supervisor Michael Antonovich (5th District) (213) 974-5555 City of Los Angeles Los Angeles City Hall 200 N. Spring St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Office of the Mayor (213) 485-3311 Honorable Tom Bradley Mr. Keith Comrie, City Manager Mr. Tom Brady*, Environmental Advisor Los Angeles City Council Ms. Pat Russell, President (213) 485-3357 Districts within San Fernando Valley Mr. Howard Finn (1st District) (213) 485-3451 Mr. Joel Wachs (2nd District) (213) 485-3391 Mr. Joy Picus (3rd District) (213) 485-3486 Mr. Ernani Bernardi (7th District) (213) 485-3671 Mr. Marvin Braude (llth District) (213) 485-3811 Mr. Hal Bernson (12th District) (213) 485-3343 Mr. Jim Dawson*, 3rd District Council Aide
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted about the site in March and April, 1985. 00003.65 City of Burbank Burbank City Hall 275 E. Olive St. Burbank, CA 91502 (818) 953-9708 Office of the Mayor Honorable Marylou Howard Burbank City Council Mr. Bob Bowne Mr. Al Dossin Mr. Michael Hastings City of Glendale Glendale City Hall 613 E. Broadway St. Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 956-4844 Office of the Mayor Honorable Jerold Milner Mr. Jim Rez*, City Manager Glendale City Council Ms. Ginger Bremberg* Mr. John F. Day Mr. Carl Raggio Mr. Larry Zarian D. State and Local Agencies Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (213) 481-6181 111 North Hope St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Larry McRenolds*, Executive Asst. to Chief Engineer of Water Works Mr. Ed Freudenburg*, Public Relations Supervisor Mr. Mel Blevins*, ULARA Watermaster (213) 481-5339 Southern California Association of Governments (213) 739-6761 600 S. Commonwealth Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90005 Ms. Miriam Gensemer*, Project Manager Metropolitan Water District (213) 250-6000 1111 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Bernie Tom*, Senior Engineer
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted about the site in March and April, 1985. 00(10365
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (213) 744-3251 Bureau of Environmental Protection 2615 S. Grand St. Los Angeles, CA 90007 Mr. Richard Rinaldi*, Director Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (213) 485-5746 Research and Planning Division City Hall East 200 N. Main St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Del Biagi*, Director Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (818) 989-8428 14410 Sylvan St. Van Nuys, CA 91401 Mr. Albert Solomon*, Assistant District Engineer Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (213) 620-4460 107 S. Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Hank Yacoub*, Water Resources Control Engineer California Department of Health Services (DOHS) (213) 620-2980 1449 W. Temple St. Los Angeles, CA 90026 Mr. Gary Yamamoto*, Senior Sanitary Engineer DOHS Toxics Substance Control Division (213) 620-2380 107 S. Broadway, Room 7011 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Nestor Acedero, Senior Engineer DOHS Toxic Substances Control Division- (916) 324-1789 Office of Public Information and Participation 714/744 P Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Marcia Murphy*, Information Officer Glendale Public Service Department (818) 956-2137 119 N. Glendale Ave. Glendale, CA 91206 Mr. Ed Cameron*, Director Burbank Public Service Department (818) 953-9647 P.O. Box 631 Burbank, CA 91503 Mr. Thomas McCauley*, General Manager
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted about the site in March and April, 1985. nooosss
Crescents Valley County Water District (818) 248-3925 2700 Foothill Blvd. La Crescenta, CA 91214 Mr. Robert Argenio*, General Manager San Fernando Engineering and Water Department (818) 365-2541 117 Mac Neil St. San Fernando, CA 91340 Mr. Rick Navarro*, Assistant Manager Public Works E. U.S. EPA Region 9 Officials 215 Fremont St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Ms. Patti Cleary, Region 9 (415) 974-8141 Remedial Project Manager Mr. Timothy Vendlinski, Region 9 Community Relations Coordinator (415) 974-0255 F. Other Organizations and Individuals Sierra Club Ms. Liz Allen, Chair of Hazardous Material (714) 624-5823 (H) Committee of the Angeles Chapter 394 Blaisdell D Claremont, CA 91711 Ms. Maxine Brickman*, Hazardous Material Committee of the Regional Chapter Citizens for a Better Environment (213) 935-0117 5539 W. Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90019 Mr. John Leddy* Mr. Mike Lang* San Francisco Chapter (415) 788-0690 942 Market St., Suite 505 San Francisco, CA 94102 Mr. Greg Karras* League of Women Voters Ms. Lynne Goldsmith* . (818) 368-0845 (H) 10847 Rathburn Ave. Northridge, CA 91326 Ms. Betty Trotter 10855 Darby Ave. Northridge, CA 91326 (818) 360-4849 (H)
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted about the site in March and April, 1985. (MH10365 j Valley Industry and Commerce Association (818) 892-8431 (H) Mr. George Canning* 16048 Calahan St. Pi Sepulveda, CA American Association of University Women p, Ms. Barbara Ross*, President (818) 347-2602 (H) I j 6151 Woodlake Ave. Woodland Hills, CA 91367 fj G. Media City Desk, Los Angeles Times. Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90012 pi (213) 972-7000 City Desk, Herald Examiner, 1111 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90054 p (213) 744-8000 ! Vj City Desk, Daily News. 14539 Sylvan St., Van Nuys, CA 91408 p_ (213) 997-4140 i- City Desk, Glendale News Press. Ill N. Isabelle St., Glendale, CA 91206 (818) 241-4141 P [ • City Desk, Burbank Leader. 220 Magnolia St., Burbank, CA 91502 (818) 843-8773 City Desks, San Fernando Sun. Valley View. 314 Chatsworth St., San Fernando, CA 91340 (818) 365-3111 !j Associated Press, 1111 South Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90015 (213) 748-3590 I j United Press international, 316 West 2nd St., Sixth Floor, Los Angeles, CA (213) 620-1230 Assignment Editor, KTTV (11), 5746 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90038 n (213) 462-7111 Planning Desk, KABC TV (7), 4151 Prospect Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90027 n (213) 557-7777 News Planning Desk, KNBC TV (4), 3000 West Alameda Blvd., Burbank, CA n (818) 840-4444 News Planning Desk, KNXT (CBS) TV (2), 6121 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA |i 90028 (213) 460-3000
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted about the site in March and April, 1985. n Assignment Editor, KHJ TV (9), 5515 Melrose Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90026 (213) 462-2133 Assignment Editor, KTLA TV (5), 5800 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90028 (213) 460-5500 H. Information Repositories City of Burbank; • City of Burbank Public Library (818) 953-9737 110 N. Glenoaks St. Burbank, CA 91502 Contact: Ms. Helen Wang City of Glendale; City of Glendale Public Library (818) 956-2020 222 E. Harvard St. Glendale, CA 91205-1075 Contact: Mr. Jack Ramsey City of San Fernando; City of San Fernando Public Library (818) 365-6928 102 N. MacNeil St. San Fernando, CA 91340 Contact: Mr. Barry Shemaria City of Los Angeles; The Rufus B. von KleinsSmid Central Library (213) 612-3200 630 West 5th St. Los Angeles, CA To arrange use of regional branch libraries contact: Ms. Elizabeth Gay San Fernando Valley Branch Libraries; North Hollywood Regional Branch Library (818) 766-7185 5211 Tujunga Ave. North Hollywood, CA Contact: Ms. Rosemary Hayes West Valley Regional Branch Library (818) 345-4393 19036 Vanowen St. West Valley, CA Contact: Ms. Marsha O'Neil
* These individuals and representatives of organizations were contacted about the site in March arid April, 1985. 0000365
APPENDIX B
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAUW American Association of University Women CAC Citizens' Advisory Committee CBE Citizens for a Better Environment CVCWD Crescenta Valley County Water District DOHS California Department of Health Services (State) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ICC Interagency Coordinating Committee , LACDOHS Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (County) LADWP City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power MWD Metropolitan Water District NPL EPA's National Priorities List PCE Perchlorethylene RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SFVB San Fernando Valley Basin TAG Technical Advisory Committee TCE Trichloroethylene