i NQ 0 0 0 0 1 37 i i i i DRAFT i COMMUNITY RELATIONS i PLAN ALLIED CHEMICAL IRONTON COKE SITE i LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO 91.5LE4.0 March 21, 1984 This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-6692. The material contained herein is not to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person or persons for any reason without the prior expressed approval of a responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GLT428/25 DRAFT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN -CHEMICAL AND IRONTON COKE SITE LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO INTRODUCTION An important aspect of U.S. EPA's response to hazardous waste sites is an active community involvement program to inform local citizens and officials of study activities and recommen- dations. To promote this exchange of information, U.S. EPA requires that a Community Relations Plan be prepared in connec- tion with each Remedial Action Site. This plan for the Allied- Chemical and Ironton Coke site serves as a guide for conducting specific community relations activities in the community during the period of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Community relations activities were identi- fied through meetings and conversations with regulatory agency personnel and local citizens. The Community Relations Plan for the Allied-Chemical and Ironton Coke site is presented in two parts. The first part is a community relation assessment, addressing the following items: o An overview of the site status o A history of community interest GLT428/31 1 I o Identity of persons, groups, and officials who i have been at the forefront of community action i o A discussion of the issues that concern the public i o Communication techniques i o Public involvement in decisions concerning the i selection of a site remedy. 1 A community relations assessment was prepared in connection with the Allied-Chemical and.Ironton Coke site Remedial Action i Master Plan (RAMP) in August 1983, which has been included in this document. The assessment involved personal interviews i with U.S. EPA Region V staff; Ohio EPA; Lawrence County Health Department and Board of Commissioners; the City of Ironton, Coal Grove Village Administrator, the local Community Action Organizations and local citizens (see Table 1 for addresses and telephone numbers) . Some of the interviews have been updated since the completion of the RAMP. The second part of this document is a plan for implementing the community relations techniques. It recommends the type and sequence of community relations activities during the period of the RI/FS. Included in Part 2 is a task-by-task work plan, a schedule of activities, persons/agencies respon- sible for executing the task, manpower allocations, and GLT428/31 4 DRAFT I budgeting considerations. The U.S EPA will be responsible I for implementing the community relations plan. i I I 1 I I 1 I 1 GLT428/31 DRAFT \ COMMUNITY RELATIONS ASSESSMENT SITE LOCATION The Allied-Chemical and Ironton Coke site is located in the City of Ironton, Lawrence County, Ohio (see Figure 1). The site is on the southwestern boundary of Lawrence County, about 100 miles southeast of Columbus on the Ohio River. The site comprises an active tar processing plant owned by Allied Chemical Corporation and an inactive coke plant formerly owned by Ironton Coke Corporation and now owned by Iron City Fuels. The industries are bordered by Ice Creek on the north- east, Lorrain Street and Cemetery Road on the north, an auto- mobile salvage facility on the south and the Norfolk and Western Railroad right-of-way on the southwest (see Figure 2). The Allied Chemical Plant property includes a 3-acre waste disposal pit formerly called the Goldcamp Dump. In the early 1970's, Ironton Coke Corporation installed a series of waste- water treatment lagoons on the east side of its property by rechanneling Ice Creek. Three lagoons received plant effluent for settling. Wastewater was discharged to a fourth pond prior to disposal in Ice Creek, and sludge was disposed of in a fifth lagoon. Currently, lagoons Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are nearly dry, with sludge material remaining on the bottom. Lagoon No. 5 is covered. GLT428/31 ! 1 N«I^'/.///////-ll In llll It , -fuKST// Mij. I I liUte, U i nun Mi LEGEND ——— PROPERTY BOUNDARY /^7 IRONTON COKE PLANT LAGOONS 1000 500 SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 2 SITE MAP ALLIED CHEMICAL - IRONTON COKE SITE DRAFT I The Ohio Attorney General's Office is currently conducting i discussions with the potentially responsible parties. SITE HISTORY I The Goldcamp Company Gravel pit began disposal operations in 1947 and accepted approximately 103,000 tons of waste materials I until 1977. Allied Chemical company annexed this property and used the dump for disposal of plant wastewater pending I issuance of an NPDES permit to discharge into the Ohio River. In the early 1970 's, Semet-Solvay, a division of Allied Chemi- cal, re-routed Ice Creek to form four settling lagoons for use in their process wastewater handling. Ironton Coke, a subsidiary of McLouth Steel Co. of Detroit, purchased the property in 1977. McLouth Steel filed for bankruptcy in 1982 and the property was purchased by ARMM Coal. Iron City Fuels acquired the property from ARMM within a few weeks of the purchase. In 1979 a groundwater investigation was performed at Allied Chemical Company by Geraghty and Miller, Inc., during which time 13 monitoring wells were installed. This study led U.S. EPA to identify the Goldcamp Dump as the principal source of phenol contamination in the groundwater. Allied Chemical initiated a series of five groundwater surveys for routine characterization of the water quality in 1979 and 1980. GLT428/31 •q DRAFT mi In 1980, field investigations were initiated at Allied Chemi- cal and Ironton Coke. Access to the areas for investigation 9•U was limited due to employee strikes at the two companies. n Site visits in 1981 revealed possible sources of contamination H at lagoon 5 and storage areas at Ironton Coke. HISTORY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES — The Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke site has generated only ^ a small amount of community reaction. An article appeared f in the Ironton Tribune and in the Huntington ———————Herald-Dispatc— ———h when the site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1982. According to Mr. Bob Evans of the Lawrence County Health Department, an article about dioxin that appeared in the Herald-Dispatch the week of August 8, 1983, referred to the presence of dioxin at this site. In 1982, WOWK-TV (Channel 13) and WGNT Radio, both in Huntington, West Virginia, contacted OEPA to inquire about the site; WOWK-TV provided news coverage of the site investigations. Documented public concern has been negligible. Two complaints about site odors were made in 1982 to then-State Representa- tive Ron James, who in turn contacted Ohio EPA. No other inquiries or complaints have been received by Ohio EPA, the City of Ironton, the Village of Coal Grove, the Lawrence County Health Department, the Lawrence County Board of Com- missioners, or the Ironton/Lawrence Community Action GLT428/31 8 DRAFT Organization. No site specific public information activities have been conducted in the area by Ohio EPA or any of the above local entities. I COMMUNITY RELATIONS ISSUES AND PARTICIPANTS I Hydrologic data indicate that the contaminated plume could be migrating toward the Village of Coal Grove's municipal well field, located less than 3,000 feet from the site. i This well field has approximately 1,250 service connections, serving 4,000 to 4,500 residents. The village is connected to the City of Ironton's water system. The Ironton system I is available as a backup water supply. Monitoring of the village wells has shown no contamination to date. Ohio EPA 1 routinely provides Mr. Mike Myers, Village Administrator, with information and sampling results. He has received no public inquiries about the site, but believes that public 1 interest would increase if more media coverage occurs or if contamination began to show up in private or public wells. He believes two concerns would arise from contaminated water supplies: 1) health impacts and 2) increased costs to water users if alternative water sources must be used. Mr. Meyers stated that it is important for the village to be kept in- formed of site developments in order to respond to public inquiries that might arise. GLT428/31 I DRAFT The City of Ironton's water supply intake is located on the Ohio River about 2 miles downstream from the site. The pos- sibility exists that the contaminated plume is migrating into Ice Creek and the Ohio River, above Ironton's intake. Flooding of the wastewater lagoons could also occur, affect- ing the river's water quality. When contacted during the on-site community relations assessment, both the Mayor and I the Public Works Department indicated little knowledge about site activities. No public inquiries have been received by I the city. Area industries could be affected if groundwater used for 1 industrial processes becomes contaminated. Economic hard- ship could result if they must treat the contaminated water I before use. In addition, some private wells along Third I Street, between the site and Ice Creek, may still be used. At this time, the number of wells in private use that might be affected is not known. The Lawrence County Health Department has received informa- tion about the site from Ohio EPA. Again, this agency believes that public awareness and concern are very low at this time. No active local environmental or public interest groups ex- ist in the Ironton area.