FINAL DRAFT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN OSBORNE DUMP SITE PINE TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

Prepared for

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20460

Work Assignment No. : C03039 EPA Region : III Site No. : 3B38 Contract No. : 68-W9-0004 COM Federal Programs Corporation Document No. : TES7-C03039-CR-BFCF-04 Prepared By COM Federal Programs Corporation Work Assignment Project Manager Deirdre O'Dwyer Telephone Number (215) 293-0450 Primary Contact Barbara Brown Telephone Number (215) 597-9871 Date Prepared August 24, 1989. TABLE OF CONTENTS Community Relation Plan Osborne Landfill Sits Pine Township, Pennsylvania

SECTION PAGE Purpose of Plan 1 Section A — Site Background and Key Issues 1 1. Site History and Background 1 2. Community Profile . 7 3. History and Analysis of Community Involvement 9 4 . Summary of Key Issues and Community Concerns 11 . * Section B — Community Relations Techniques and Objectives 14 Section C — Schedule and Timeline 13 Appendix A — List of Interested Parties A-l A. Federal Representatives A-l B. Federal Agency Officials A-l C. State Representatives - A-2 D. State Officials A-3 E. Local Officials A-3 F. Local Media A-5 G. Other Interested Parties A-9 Appendix 3 — List of Sites for Information Repository and Public Meetings B-l

ii COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN , OSBORNE LANDFILL SITE PINE TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

This Draft Community Relations Plan has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III Office as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) OF 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1966. The plan describes community concerns related to the Osborne Landfill site, located in Pine Township, This Draft Community Relations Plan is designed to provide EPA with the appropriate mechanisms for responding to existing community concerns or concerns that arise during the RI/FS. The EPA Region III Office will oversee technical and community relations work at the Osborne Landfill site. Special emphasis has been placed on the need for communication and coordination among EPA, State, and local officials, and interested citizens in the community. The findings of the RI/FS and any actions subsequently taken may make it necessary to modify the community relations plan or specific activities detailed in this plan. Preparation of this Draft Community Relations Plan (CRP) involved the review of numerous documents about the site, as well . . as personal and telephone interviews with local citizens and Federal, State, and local officials. The documents used include materials obtained from the EPA Region III site file, such as the Consent Order executed between the State of Pennsylvania and a potentially responsible party, the existing Revised CRP dated November 1986, and correspondence about site activities between EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER). Newspaper articles from The Herald, Allied Newsf and Thq Butler Eagle were also reviewed.

A. SITE BACKGROUND AND KEY ISSUES The Osborn" " • e site is a 15-acr.*• e abandone' d waste disposal area located on Diamond Road in Pine Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The site lies approximately one-half mile east of the Borough of Grove City. 1. Site Background and Histor.!'"•..y . The Osborne Landfill site originally was developed as an underground coal mine during the 1800s, and then as a strip mine in the 1940s. The extent of deep mining beneath the site is unknown. From the 1950s through the early 1960s, the site was operated as a waste disposal area. The site was sold to James Osborne in 1963, and continued to operate as a dump until December

AR5000U8 31, 1937, when it was closed by PADER. The current owner purchased the site in 1979 as part of an 80-acre tract of land. The site is bordered on the east by a strip mine highwall remaining from previous surface mining operations and an adjacent cornfield; on the north by woods; on the west and southwest by swamplands, which serve as a habitat for migratory waterfowl and birds, and mine spoils, which are overgrown with small trees and vegetations; and on the south by Diamond Road. There is light residential development approximately one-quarter mile to the north. A small, intermittent stream emerges from the swamp area and flows under Diamond Road in a southeast direction. Several intermittent streams flow through the site to feed an unnamed tributary of Swamp Run, a local fishing area, which in turn flows into Wolf Creek. A 1,500-foot long pit that was excavated during the strip mining operation begins near Diamond Road and "extends in a southeast-to-northwest direction. The site has been roughly regraded, and remnants of the mining operation are still evident. (See the site map on the following page.) Three small ponds are situated at the base of the highwall. The largest pond, which covers an area of about one square acre, is located at the northeast corner of the site; it is estimated to be 30-35 feet deep. A small, intermittent stream enters this pond from the north. The second pond is located south of the large pond and is estimated to be one-half acre in size. The smallest pond is situated about 100 feet south of the second pond and is currently dry. The ponds receive surface water runoff and their water levels appear to fluctuate with the water table. After Mr. Osborne purchased the site property in 1963, he entered into an agreement to operate a landfill to dispose of plant wastes with the Cooper-Bessemer Company, a division of Cooper Industries Inc. (Cooper). Cooper is a Houston-based firm with local foundry facilities. Throughout the remainder of the 1960s and most of the 1970s, the Osborne Landfill site received industrial, hazardous, and municipal wastes, largely from Cooper's Grove City plant but also from other local manufacturing facilities. Wastes accepted during this period included paints, asbestos, solvents, waste coolants, spent foundry sand, acid, scrap metal, cooling system sludge, slag, and waste oils. The Pennsylvania Department of Health inspected the landfill operations on several occasions during the site's active period; reports from a March 1971 visit showed that in addition to disposing of industrial waste, the landfill contained an accumulation of garbage and discarded appliances. PADER first conducted on-site sampling of the environmental media on June 22, 1977, in response to a request by tha Department of Health. Samples were collected from the mine ponds and surface water runoff; analytical results showed iron, a heavy metal characteristic of acid mine drainage, in all threa pools at levels OSBORNE SITE LOCATION MAP

HAARISBUAQ • PHILADELPHIA*

wr • « •**» 9 ttc uu «o« err

Thto map has b«*n adapted from documents prtpand by th« NUS Corporation. ranging from 260 to 6,020 parts per million (ppm) and in sita discharges at levels as high as 19,650 ppra. Phenols also were discovered at 133 ppm in the strip mine pool. On July 28, 1977, Cooper was informed in a meeting with Mercer County and PADER officials that the site was to be sold. The company also was informed that, because the landfill had been operating without a permit under Pennsylvania's 1963 Solid Waste Management Act, the Osborne site did not qualify as a State- approved landfill. Cooper was, therefore, instructed to discontinue dumping wastes in the landfill by December-31, 1977, and to install any needed monitoring or cleanup equipment during 1973. The State closed the site in 1973 for accepting hazardous wastes for disposal without an appropriate permit. At the time of closure, the site contained numerous drums, most of which were empty and crushed, while others contained liquids and solids. The site also had areas of contaminated soil. The next year, in 1979, Mr. Osborne sold the site. To follow up the site's closing, the PADSR Bureau of Solid Waste Management on April 17 and 13, 1979, conducted a site inspection. Additional samples of surface water collected from each pond showed the presence of a variety of heavy metals including zinc, lead, nickel, and copper. The inspection report filed at the time also recorded the inspectors1 finding that disposal of 55-gallon drums had continued after the site was closed. The report recommended that the site be referred to EPA for action as a hazardous waste site. The first major EPA involvement with the site occurred on July 6 and 7, 1931, when the Agency inspected it. Samples were taken from the two larger ponds and from the stream off site; these were tested for phenols, cyanides, and heavy metals. Test results from surface water samples showed elevated levels of manganese and iron as well as selenium at nearly three times the drinking water standard. Air samples collected at the same time showed low levels of organic vapors inside one drum but did not detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the ambient atmosphere. A preliminary assessment of the Osborne Landfill site was conducted by PADER on August 19, 1931. As a result of these activities, the Osborne site was named to EPA'3 Interim Priorities List, the Agency's initial listing of sites eligible to receive Federal cleanup funds, in October 1931. EPA conducted a sita inspection on July 2, 1932, and used data to develop a Hazard Ranking System (MRS) score for the site. The site's HRS score was 53.41, and Osborne was added to the Expanded Eligibility List in July 1932, and to the National Priorities List (NPL) when it was originally announced in December 1932. Cooper subsequently

AR5U005I challenged the MRS, score and asked EPA tovdelete the Osborne Landfill site from the NPL. ' ... - Further site characterization was conducted when EPA undertook additional sampling of site environmental media on November 4, 1982. Samples from the swamp near the site showed levels of zinc at 4,809 ppm. Organic contaminants found in samples taken from the two ponds included chloroethane, dichloroethane, and phenols, as well as cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc. Soil samples taken at the same time also showed elevated levels of lead, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. During that sampling, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, iron, and manganese were all above EPA Interim Drinking Water Standards. . In February 1983, because of concerns about possible contamination of drinking water-in the area of the site, DER tested the water in seven nearby private, residential wells. Analyses on the samples collected did not detect the presence of priority pollutants and residents were informed that the water was safe to drink. The site's high HRS score, which at the time of initial listing made it the third-highest ranked site in the state, indicated that further actions were needed to address the site. In March 1983, EPA completed a Remedial Action Mast Plan (RAMP) for the Osborne Landfill site to summarize the existing data and develop a plan for future response. Among other findings, the RAMP recommended that several Initial Remedial Measures {IRMs) be implemented at the site to prevent any immediate threat to the public health. Meetings were held between EPA, FADER, and Cooper to discuss the possibility of the firm conducting the IRMs. In May 1983, Cooper agreed to initiate these actions, which included constructions of a security.fence, installation of warning signs, and removal and disposal of on-site drums and contaminated soils. Later inventories determined that there were 45 cubic yards of contaminated soils and 603 drums then present on the site: 83 of these were filled with liquids; 60 contained bulk solids; and 460 were empty and crushed. Cooper completed the IRMs in the summer of that year. : . While the IRMs were underway, Cooper, PADER, and EPA also negotiated a settlement concerning the Osborne Landfill site. A Consent Order and Agreement ,was executed between PADER and Cooper on September 20, 1983. In the Order, Cooper agreed to: • Provide a list and quantification of wastes it had sent to the site • Complete the IRMs listed in the RAMP • Conduct an RI/FS and follow-up remedial activities.

AR500052 Other provisions in the Consent Order included assisting PADER in conducting community relations activities. The company began RI site sampling work in the Fall of 1983 and installed monitoring and test wells in late 1933 and early 1984 to determine the extent of contamination. Cooper submitted its Draft RI Report to PADER and EPA on June 25, 1984. Findings in the report indicated low-level ground- and surface-water contamination, and concluded that the site posed little environmental risks. As a result, the report recommended that a follow-up FS be conducted prior to regrading and reseeding the site. A final version of this report was submitted in September 1984. After completing their review of the Draft RI Report, both agencies suggested that the company conduct further testing and monitoring of the ground and surface water and on-site soils. Representatives from PADER and EPA met with Cooper officials to discuss these recommendations, and informed Cooper that neither the RI Report nor future activities could be approved until these recommendations had been acted upon. Cooper disagreed with the agencies' findings, maintaining that it had complied with the Consent Order and Agreement. Subsequent meetings between PADER, EPA, and Cooper failed to result in an agreement by the company to conduct the additional testing; the company also appealed PADER's recommendation to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board in June 1935. As a result of Cooper's reluctance to comply with the recommendations for more tests, PADER and EPA collected additional environmental samples during the week of September 23, 1935. These were taken from the site ponds, adjacent stream, cornfield above the highwall, swamp, and lime pit area in the southwest corner of the site. Twenty test pits also were dug to sample the soil. Samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), VOCs, and heavy metals. In April 1936, PADER formally requested EPA to assume the lead for the Osborne Landfill site. After meeting with PADER representatives, EPA initiated a technical review of Cooper's RI Report. The review was completed in April 1987. Review findings stated that Cooper's RI should be supplemented by additional environmental sampling and characterization of the underlying ground water. EPA entered into discussions with Cooper and PADER concerning the conduct of additional studies; no agreement was reached with Cooper to undertake these actions. A Fund-financed RI, led by EPA with oversight by Cooper, was initiated in the Spring of 1938. Actions completed through June 1933 included the installation of 15 additional monitoring wells to determine the presence of ground-water contamination, characterize ground-water flow, and investigate the relationship between the aquifers. In addition, local residential and existing monitoring wells have been sampled. Future sampling will focus on s 4R500053 surface water and sediments from the stream, ponds, and swamp, and on on-site soils. Data generated from the RI will be combined with previously collected results to summarize the existing site conditions, assess whether any hazard exists, and evaluate future actions in an FS Report. Community relations activities have been conducted periodically throughout the site response. A CRP was developed by PADER in May 1983, a revised version of which was produced in November 1986. EPA and PADER held two public meetings, the first on January 17, 1983, and the second on May 3, 1984. In addition, PADER established an information repository at the Grove City Community Library in April 1984. 2. Community Profile f -.-..'-• Pine Township is located in the southwestern portion of Mercer County, on the Ohio border in western Pennsylvania. With an area of approximately 24 square miles and a population of 3,762 individuals as recorded in the 1980 census, the Township is largely rural-residential. Only about 10 to 15 percent of its land area is developed. T.he largest population center in the vicinity of Pine Township is Grove City, with a population of over 8,400 persons in an area of about two square miles. Geographically, Grove City is surrounded by Pine Township. Other municipalities in the Pine Township-Grove City area include Mercer, the County Seat, about 9 miles to the northwest; Pittsburgh, 45 miles to the south; Erie, 65 miles to the north; and Youngstown, Ohio, 30 miles to the west. Although Pine Township and Grove City are geographically contiguous, they are separate governmental entities. Pine Township is governed by a board of three Supervisors which make all Township decisions. Engineering and legal services are contracted by the Township on an as-needed basis. Grove City is governed by the Borough Council and a Mayor. The Borough also . employs a full-time manager, who is responsible for overseeing the provision of services and other functions. Traditionally, Pine Township and Grove City relied upon agriculture and coal mining as mainstays of their economies. First settled in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the area attracted prospective farmers by its temperate climate, fertile soils, and a gentle topography of rolling hills, streams, and small ponds. Prime crops included and continue to be corn, table vegetables, and orchard fruit. Today, agriculture remains important to the local economy; family farms predominate. Coal mining, on the other hand, is no longer a significant industry. Abundant and relatively accessible deposits of anthracite coal in the region attracted a large number of persons to the area in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the boom period for coal mining. During those years, Grove City and Pine Township boasted numerous profitable underground mining operations. As technology evolved

ARS0005U and it became economically feasible to access the coal deposits from the surface/ some of these deep mines were converted to strip mines. These operations continued through the 1960s, when the demand for coal decreased and the importance of mining around Grove City declined sharply. Today, many old mining shafts and tunnels remain in the Borough and Township, and incidents of mine subsidence have been reported. The modern local economy has expanded to encompass light and service-based industry. Cooper is the major employer in the area. Other primary industries include facilities that manufacture, service, and repair diesel engines; produce wire shelving and materials* testing systems; and process foods and beverages. The presence of Grove City College, a rehabilitative education institution, and a large hospital also make the service industry a substantial source of livelihood. According to recent statistics published by Grove City, approximately 25 percent of local jobs are in manufacturing, with the remaining 75 percent distributed among the service and agriculture industries. Local officials characterize the economy as strong but not rapidly expanding, with unemployment currently estimated to be just under 6 percent of the available workforce. * • Perhaps because Pine Township and Grove City are relatively distant from large population centers, both municipalities have experienced little population growth over the last several decades. Grove City is an older, established community of largely single-family homes. It has been growing at the rate of only one to two percent per decade, a trend that is projected to continue until at least the year 2000. Pine Township reflects similar growth patterns. As a result of its almost unchanged population, area officials report little demand for housing; there has been no significant construction of subdivisions or housing developments. The major variable in housing demand in the area is the presence of Grove City College, which adds approximately 2,000 individuals to the local population during the academic year. Although most of the students live on campus, rental units near the college are in demand. The area's healthy economy and lack of growth pressures combine to form a community that residents describe as close-knit, with a high proportion of elderly residents and family groups spanning several generations. Host. Pine Township residents rely on private wells to supply their potable water. Approximately 150 homes in the Township, including those in the immediate vicinity of the Osborne Landfill site, rely upon Grove City's public water supply. Grove City maintains its own water supply and sewerage systems. Public water is provided by the Grove City Utilities Department and is managed by a full-time superintendent. The Department maintains approximately 3,000 water connections in the Borough and some of the immediately adjacent portions of Pine Township. Until late last year, the primary water source for the Borough's public water was three drilled wells located approximately one mile west of the Osborne Landfill site and 200 yards from the active Cooper

AR500055 plant in Grove City%>'• The wells, which were ^approximately 300 feet deep, were cased to a 70-foot level below the ground's surface. These wells tapped the underlying Burgoon Sandstone formation, but also drew water from overlying formations because of the shallow well casings. Water drawn from the wells was treated at the Grove City water treatment plant, built in 1980. During tests conducted in 1985, the water supply was found to contain low levels of VOCs, which caused the community to register concern about the safety of the water supply wells. In early 1988, Grove City switched its primary source to newly drilled wells located about three miles from the site and two miles from the Cooper plant. These wells also tap the Burgoon Sandstone formation to a depth of approximately 3560 feet, but are supplied with 100-foot casings. Water pumped from these wells is treated in the existing water treatment plant; however, Grove City has undertaken a long-term initiative to replace its old facility and may construct a new treatment plant in the near future. Even though the chief water source has been changed, residents continue to cite water quality as a major problem. Borough officials maintain that the low-level contamination discovered in 1985 has been eliminated, but many residents still use bottled water. « Residents in the Grove City and Pine Township area characterize the local population as environmentally aware and concerned. Residents and local officials ascribe this in part to the presence of Grove City College and the proximity to Slippery Rock University and Slippery Rock College. Concern continues about the local water supply. Officials estimate that approximately 40 percent of local residents who are connected to public water use bottled water for drinking and cooking. An additional environmental issue, now the focus of community attention, is the Cooper plant located in Grove City next to the college. EPA and PADER are taking action at the plant under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act because of solvents and degreasers detected in McMillen Run, a small stream near the plant. EPA will investigate whether the presence of the contaminants result from foundry operations. 3. History of Community Concerns Prior to October 1981, when Osborne Landfill was listed on EPA's Interim Priorities List, there appears to have been little interest concerning the site. Pine Township and Grove City officials recall having received several inquiries about site operations while the landfill was active, but there is no record of any formal complaints being lodged. Some residents who lived in the vicinity of the site rat the time had discussed among themselves site-related problems, which pertained mostly to noise made by trucks hauling waste to the site. These individuals stated that they did not express their concerns to local authorities because they thought of these problems as nuisances rather than hazards.

AR500056 Appearance of the Osborne Landfill site on EPA's NPL and its predecessors sparked citizen, media, and local officials' concern. v j Public interest about the site rose dramatically beginning in the* summer of 1932. On June 4, 1992, a group of concerned citizens met with then-EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch to discuss a number of Superfund issues in Western Pennsylvania, one of which was Osborne. The following month, July 1982, Governor Thornburgh formally announced the site's inclusion on EPA's Expanded Eligibility List of Superfund sites, and the availability of Federal funds to address hazardous waste problems there. At the time, the high HRS score given to the Osborne Landfill site caused it to be ranked as the third most hazardous in Pennsylvania, primarily for its potential to contaminate ground water. This announcement brought the site to the attention of local residents and to environmental groups formed to consider environmental problems of all kinds; the most notable groups that became involved with the Osborne site were Western Pennsylvania Citizens for Safe Communities (WPCSC) and Pennsylvanians United to Rescue the Environment (PURE). Representatives from WPCSC wrote letters to elected and agency officials at the local, State, and Federal levels, expressing concern about the site's possible linkage to deterioration 61 water in private wells and the Grove City water supply, and requesting EPA funds to improve the existing water treatment system. Citizens in the area also placed a number of calls to the Grove City Utilities Department and the Mercer County Emergency Management Agency. •^S Concern continued at a high level through 1984. In January and May 1933, two public meetings were held by PADER and EPA at which citizens continued to express concerns about potential site impacts on ground water, as well as about health effects and the amount of time needed to clean up the site. The landfill became a topic of Grove City Council meetings, particularly as it related to water quality, although concerns about the site itself were tied into and superseded by the broader concern about general public water; the site also was discussed by the Pine Township Supervisors. Environmental groups and local citizens continued to write letters to EPA, requesting more information on potential ground-water impacts. The level of citizen concern remained high throughout Cooper's performance of the IRMs and RI sampling. The site has also received substantial media coverage, especially by Ths Allied M<*W« and The Herald, initial newspaper articles concerning the site appeared in July 1982, after the announcement of its inclusion on EPA's list of waste sites. The story was picked up by other western Pennsylvania newspapers, and figured prominently in the local press for some time after the site was named to the NPL and the RI was begun. Press coverage then tapered off somewhat, but resumed again in 1935 when EPA and PADER negotiated with Cooper to conduct further testing, and again

10 AR500057 when EPA assumed the lead for the site. Interest on the part of the media remains high, although there have been few stories published in the last two years. Local governmental involvement with *thil; Osborne Landfill site has been sporadic. The Mercer County Division of Solid Waste Management was involved in initial discussions with Cooper concerning the landfill's closure in 1978. When the site was included on EPA's Interim Priorities List, representatives from the County Emergency Management Agency visited the site and developed an emergency evacuation plan for hazardous substance emergencies. The site also has received considerable attention by the Grove City Council and the Pine Township Supervisors as an aspect of the larger problem of public distrust about public water quality. Concerns have not been vocal, however, for the past two to three years. No single agency has emerged as the local leader •for the site. Recently, interest in the site appears to have diminished. Most attention focused on the site in the last two years relates to the question of whether it may be a source of contamination of the Grove City public water supply, although no evidence of contamination exists. Individuals who have expressed the most interest are generally those living in the immediate vicinity of the Osborne Landfill site. The site has also received some attention by the Western Pennsylvania DER Citizens Roundtable, but. this discussion has been in the context of general water quality. " .-'•''• 4. Key Issues and Potential Community Concerns Discussions with EPA, PADER, Mercer County, Pine Township, and Grove City officials and residents revealed that recent citizen interest relating specifically to the Osborne Landfill site has been relatively low. Interviews indicated that concerns center chiefly upon the site's affect on local municipal and well water; most problems cited by municipal water users, however, seemed to pertain to distrust of water quality and were not necessarily caused by, or attributable to, the Osborne Landfill site. Other comments and questions dealt with health effects, potential problems that the site may pose, the progress of remedial activities, and the need to disseminate accurate information concerning the site. a. Drinking Water All individuals interviewed have expressed concern about the site* s potential impact upon local private wells and the public water supply in Grove City. Much of this concern seems to be the result of uncertainties of, first, whether the site has contaminated the ground water, and second, the relationship between all of the underlying aquifers and the primary direction of ground-water flow.

AR5U0058 Several residents who live near the site and use private wells fear that their wells may be contaminated by the site. These wells have been tested, in 1933 by PADER and recently x—^ during the expanded RI activities. Although the citizens were informed by PADER that the earlier testing was negative, they are extremely interested in receiving the results of the more recent well water analyses. One individual also asked whether EPA will provide information about health effects associated with any substances that may be found in the wells and whether EPA will supply alternative drinking water if wells are determined to be unusable. Officials and residents who use Grove City municipal water are concerned about the Osborne Landfill site's potential effect on the public water supply. On the one hand, Grove City officials stated that, although they do not think there is any relationship between the public water supply and the site, they are concerned about the public's perception of a link. They maintain that even though the water is safe to drink, especially since the primary water source was changed earlier this year, many people in the Grove City area continue to question its quality; they express concern that'the recent RI activities and the resulting return of the site to the public's awareness will feed public fears. Residents, on the other hand, are concerned that the site may indeed be related to what they perceive as problems with the public water supply. They question whether the site has contaminated the aquifer from which the water supply is drawn, and wonder whether it could have been a source for the VOCs found in the water in 1935. They see the Osborne Landfill site as one potential cause of what they perceive to be a decrease in water quality, and would like EPA to provide definitive information on the subject. b. Health Effects Potential health effects related to the site also posed a major concern to some interviewees. Several stated that the area seems to have an unusually high concentration of certain types of cancers, such as brain cancer/ and other chronic illnesses, such as kidney disease. One also stated there there is also a large number of birth defects in the Grove City area, and wonders whether they could be due to the site. Interviewees also explained that there appears to be a geographical pattern to or concentration of these health problems. Although they are not sure how these illnesses, the perceived problems with the public water supply, and the Osborne Landfill site are related, residents would like EPA to examine the reasons for these illnesses.

12 AR500059 c. Remaining ..-Site Problems ?%*$ Several residents questioned whether the site could pose a danger to public health or the environment in its present state. One resident in the immediate site vicinity expressed her concern about possible hazardous substances remaining there. This individual stated that the larger of the two remaining ponds sometimes becomes dark green in color, and speculated that this could be due to the episodic releases of substances from submerged drums. This interviewee also stated that two formerly healthy pets, a dog and a horse, died unexpectedly last winter; both of these animals regularly drank from the stream emanating from the site and from the nearby swamp. She is concerned that their deaths could be linked to site contamination. Others reported seeing dead animals on the site property and would like to know whether this means that hazardous materials remain on site or have contaminated the environmental media. d. Progress of Remedial Activities Several individuals interviewed expressed frustration about the length of time it has taken to get the site cleaned up and concern about the amount of money spent on the site to date. They pointed out that PADER and/or EPA activities had been in progress for over 10 years and that the hazard had not yet been eliminated at the site. One individual evinced skepticism about whether current actions would succeed in cleaning up the site. Host interviewees requested that EPA provide them with information about future site plans, especially about projected cleanup dates. Another concern cited by interviewers related to future cleanup activities. Several area residents would like to see the site property restored to some economic as well as esthetic value. They pointed out that the Osborne Landfill site is an eyesore and that its proximity to their land may decrease their property values. At the same time, however, these individuals stated that the cleanup should not be limited to addressing surface problems. e. Information Dissemination All individuals contacted by telephone or in person stated their concerns about the difficulty in getting information about the site. This was an underlying theme for many of the other concerns voiced by interviewees as well. The types of information requested included the site's possible effect on drinking water quality, contaminants found on and off site, and potential health effects. County and local officials were especially eager to receive information from EPA during the RI and future response actions; representatives from the Mercer County Emergency Management Agency, Pine Township, and Grove City requested that EPA 13 AR500060 contact them to explain site status and provide them with updated information as activities progress. The Grove City Utilities Department is especially interested in working with EPA to determine whether there is any contamination of the underlying aquifers, specifically those tapped for the public water supply; they also would like to be informed of what substances are found on site and in the ground water. B. COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES AND OBJECTIVES The following community relations techniques and objectives are suggested for the Osborne Landfill site. The combination of techniques is recommended to enable EPA to respond to the existing situation at the site and in the surrounding community. 1 . Establish an Information Contact objective; To provide accurate and timely responses to questions from residents, State and local officials, citizens' groups, and the media throughout the Superfund process, and to coordinate communications with other officials and agencies. Method; Frank Vavra, the EPA Enforcement Project Manager for the Osborne Landfill site, in coordination with EPA Region III Community Relations Staff, are the primary contacts to respond to questions from interested parties. (See Appendix A for addresses and telephone numbers . ) 2 . Maintain the Information Repository To ensure that accurate, understandable information is available to interested parties. Method; Fact sheets and site reports (i.e., the Community Relations Plan, RI Report) and other pertinent site information, as well as general information on the Superfund program and enforcement process, will be included in the repository. As events at the site progress, updated information will be placed in the repository. (For the repository location and the name of a contact person see Appendix B.) 3. Faet Sheet a and Updatea on Site Prooreaa for Area Residents and Other Interested Parties Objective; To provide the community with factual information about Superfund, the Osborne Landfill site, and sita activities.

14 AR50006I Basic information about the Super fund program and enforcement process should be provided. (This activity may be satisfied by using existing EPA brochures or other materials, pr-may be included as part of a site-specific fact sheet.) * A site-specific fact sheet should be developed by EPA technical staff to clarify the roles of various Federal, State, and local agencies and explain the purpose and plans for site activities during the HI activities and the FS. Additional fact sheet (s) explaining and summarizing the findings of the RI and the next steps to be taken at the site may be prepared. EPA's remedial action plans may also be explained in a fact sheet, if appropriate. Should contamination of residential wells be identified in the RI, a fact sheet should include information on potential health effects of exposure to the contaminants . 4. Telephone Updates With State and Local Officials and Key Area Residents, as Needed • . . - • • • Objective; To inform officials and key interested groups or individuals of the schedule of activities and any major findings during the RI, and to continue to .monitor community concerns. Method? EPA should inform local and State officials, particularly the County Emergency Management Agency and the Grove City Utilities Department, and key area residents about all sites activities (subject to changes in the enforcement activities by EPA) . Notification of any significant delays or changes in the schedule of on- site activities may be provided by periodic telephone updates . Initially, the individuals interested in receiving information include residents in the site area, the Mercer County Emergency Management Agency, and the Grove City Utilities Department, especially if there is a potential to affect the public water supply. These meetings may include the Enforcement Project Manager, EPA's liaison to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the EPA Region III Community Relations Coordinator. 5. New Releases objective; To ensure "that the media and general public receive accurate information on site findings and de ve lopment s as they occur .

is AR500062 Method; News releases will be issued as needed, such as upon the availability of the additional RI test results, the completion of the RI to SPA'3 and PADER's satisfaction, or at other major milestones. (See Appendix A for local media contact information.) 6. Periodic Newspaper Article^ ob-1 active; To develop accurate, informative articles to apprise the site community of the status and findings of the investigations conducted at the Osborne Landfill site. Method; Periodically throughout site response, EPA may contact representatives of local*newspapers, such as the Allied New^ and The Herald, to develop an updated story on the progress of activities at the Osborne Landfill Site. EPA staff will inform the journalists of the recent information to be communicated, and will work closely with these individuals to develop stories that accurately summarize recent site events and findings. Involved EPA staff will review for accuracy the stories prepared by the reporters and will help to determine appropriate layouts and presentations that convey accurate information concerning activities. (See Appendix A for the contact names and telephone numbers at local newspapers.) 7. Piiblie Notiee and Mail-in Coupon OMective; To provide official notice of public meetings and public comment periods, and to provide a convenient means for area residents to receive site information. Method; EPA Region III staff would be responsible for providing public notice one week prior to a public meeting or public comment period. This public notice may take the form of a display ad and/or an announcement in the legal notice section of area newspapers and/or ' may be broadcast via local radio and television public service announcements. The public notice in the newspapers may be accompanied by a mail-in coupon for interested persons to send to EPA Region III, requesting to be placed on the mailing list. This effort to inform citizens by meeting their needs for privacy is likely to increase confidence in EPA whether or not individuals respond by signing up for the mailing list. (See Appendix A for the local advertising and public service announcement contacts.)

16 AR500063 8. Public _MeeE ings Objective; To facilitate public input on major agency decisions concerning the site. Method* Public meetings may be held to receive citizen questions and comments concerning the site. Opportunity for a meeting will be provided to consider EPA's proposed remedial alternative for the site at the conclusion of the RI/FS. Additional public meetings may be held at significant milestones in the Superfund process, as needed. The degree of public participation and information available for public comment may change subject to the development of EPA enforcement efforts. 9. Public Comment Periods Objective; To provide for public input to site-related issues and decisions. Method; Public comment periods will be held at certain milestones in dealing with Superfund sites (e.g., when the RI/FS is completed). A minimum 30-day public comment period will allow members of the public to comment on the FS. In addition, public comment periods may be provided prior to EPA decisions on other major site actions (e.g., on possible deletion of the site from the NPL or on cleanup activities) . 10. Responsiveness Summary Objective; To ensure that public input and comments are considered by EPA decision-makers. Method? Following a public comment period, a Responsiveness Summary will be written to summarize public concerns and issues raised during the public comment period. The Responsiveness Summary will accompany the appropriate EPA site decision document. 11. Community Relations Plan Revisions QMeettve; To reflect changes in the level and nature of community concern during site activities, in planned activities, and in EPA's enforcement efforts. Method; The Community Relations Plan will be revised if there are indications of major changes in the enforcement process, community concerns, or scheduled work activities.

17 AR50006U >, W uWr hn»j o 4> O 19 4t r>2Z e -» I

u § 3 »T3 a 2 ,, o- iH • f O C|

§ 2S^ §J2

zea x S *a 3Mo 4i«J . "; 5o •H O 4J § § o =>' 8 ^ •5 (4 P 9 0,^90" «U 3 J3 O Tj 9 (X S I * -ti _ a O O *J 97Z O » tM *J O *4 ~~ » c a 4 CM

O O i H O » § ?^n« ^ G P Sa33

AR500065 APPENDIX A •£'••:*( :• List of Interested Parties

A. Federal Representatives Senator John H. Heinz, III Washington. D.C. Office 222 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-2801 (202) 224-6324 District Office Suite 2031, Federal Building Liberty Avenue - Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 562-0533 Senator Arlen Specter - Washington. D.C. Office 303 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-2802 (202) 221-4254 District Office Suite 2017, Federal Building Liberty Avenue - Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 644-3400 Representative Tom Ridge Washington. D.C. Office 1714 Longworth Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. (202) 225-5406 District: Office 91 East State Street Sharon, PA 16146 (412) 981-8440 B. Federal Agency Officials Mr. Frank Vavra Site Project Manager 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 597-0676

AR500066 Ms. Barbra Brown Community Relations Coordinator 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 597-0798 Mr. Bucky Walters Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 341 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 597-7291 C . State Representatives Governor Robert P. Casey Room 225, The Capitol Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 737-2121 State Senator Roy W. Wilt Capital Office Senate P.O. Box 50 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 737-1322 Harrisburg (412) 962-2000 Shenango Valley Office 236 Chestnut Street Meadville, PA 16335 (314) 336-2760 State Representative Howard L. Fargo Capitol Office House of Representatives P.O. Box 125 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 787-3283 District; Office 315 Elm Street Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-4911

A-2 AR500067 o. Stata Officials .

A-3 flR500068 Mr. Las Spaulding, Executive Director Mr. Steven Grennefc, Assistant Director Mercer County Regional Planning Commission 94 East Shenango Street Sharpvilla, PA 16150 (412) 962-5787 Mr. Harold E. Bell Chairperson, County Commissioners Commissioners' Office 101 Courthouse Mercer, PA 16137 (412) 662-3800, ext. 506 Mr. Jim Mondok Director, County Conservation District RD 2, Box 2055 Mercer, PA 16137 (412) 662-2242 Mr. Joe Goncz , Pine Township Engineer 319 Garden Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-8999 Ms. Marily\ n Gregonis Pine Township Supervisor 745 Barkeyville Road Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-6573 (H) (412) 743-3333 (0) Mr. Edward L. McDougall Pine Township Supervisor 203 Diamond Road Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-5378 Mr* George Tucci Pine Township Supervisor Box 471 Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 748-3353 (H) (412) 453-9330 (0) Ms. Shirley Vinton Pine Township Secretary Pine Township Building HO 1 Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-7229

A-4 flRSOO'069 F. Local Madia . -r '•'.:'':• "."• 1. Newspapers • ' '-#'.-• Allied News (Weekly, Wednesdays) 113 North Broad Street P.O. Box 190 Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-5010 Circulation: 3,781 Cost: $6.10 per column inch Deadline: Friday, noon Editor: Lillian Reeher Contact: Hank Kress Butler Eagle (Daily) 114 West Diamond Street Butler, PA 16001 (412) 282-8000 Circulation: 30,955 Cost: $7.50 per column inch Deadline: 4 .days prior to publication, by noon Contact: Geoff Becker The Franklin News-Herald (Daily) Box 928 Oil City, PA 16301 (814) 676-7414 Circulation: 7,837 Cost: $8.99 per column inch Deadline: 4 days prior to publication, by noon News Editor: Robert Venturella Greenville Record-Argus (Daily) 10 Pennsylvania Avenue Box 711 Greenville, PA 16125 (412) 588-5000 Circulation: 5,105 Cost: $6.35 per column inch Deadline: 5 days prior to publication, by 4 p.m. Editor: Larry Howsare The Herald (Daily) S. Dock t E. State Streets Sharon, PA 16146 (412) 981-6100 Circulation; 27,056 Cost: $9.95 per column inch Deadline: 3 days prior to publication, by 11 a.m. Contact: Wendy Hawthorne

A-5 AR500070 Radio Stations

WEPA (FM) 125 South Broad Street Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-6500 Format: Middle of the Road News Director: Wayne Lightner Deadline for PSA: Morning of day to be read Send to: Dave Kardasz WSAJ (AM/FM) Grove City College Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-3303 Format: Big Band Program Director: Deena L. Snyder Deadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance i WWIZ (FM) Box 1120 Hermitage, PA 16143 (412) 931-4530 Format: Country and Western News Director: John Borelli Deadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance WKTX (FM) Box 353 Mercer, PA 16137 (412) 662-5361 Format: Continuous Christian Music News Director: Ron Wasilchak Deadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance WBZY (AM) Kennedy Square West New Castle, PA 16105 (412) 656-1140 Format: Country and Western, Special Programming News Director: Scott Burkett Deadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance WKST- (AM) 219 Savannah-Gardner Road New Castle, PA 16101 (412) 654-5501 Format: Adult Contemporary, Special Programming News Director: Herb Morgan Deadline for PSA: 2 days in advance

A-6 AR50007I WGMZ (AM) "< Box 1470 Sharon, PA 16146 (412) 981-4487 Format: Contemporary Kits News Director: Jack Sandstrom Deadline for PSA: 3 days in advance, to Karen Blake WPTC (AM) 2030 Pine Hollow Blvd. Box 211 Sharon, PA 16146 (412) 346-4113 Format: Middle of the Road, 6 Hours Farm Programming News Director: Kelly Kraynak Deadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance WYFM (FM) same as above (co-owned by WPIC) Format: Oldies, Adult Contemporary News Director: Michael Ring Deadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance 3. Television Stations

KDKA-TV N(CBS Affiliate) 1 Gateway Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 392-2200 Assignment Editor: Steve Joyce Deadline for PSA: 1 week in advance WPXI (NEC Affiliate) 11 Television Kill Pittsburgh, PA 15214 (412) 237-1100 Assignment Editor: Carrie Pastelak Deadline for PSA: 2 months in advance Send tot By Williams, Public Affairs Director WQEP (PBS, PPTN) 4802 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 622-1300 Program Director: Sam Silberson Deadline for PSA: 1 month in advance

fiR500072 WTAE-TV (ABC Affiliate) 400 Ardmore Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15221 (412) 242-4300 Assignment Editor: Several; address to "Assignment Editor" Deadline for PSA: 1 month in advance 6. Other Interested Parties American Cancer Society Mercer County Unit 19 Jefferson Avenue Sharon, PA 16146 (412) 346-3529 Ms. Shirley Oonan Northwestern Pennsylvania DER Citizens Roundtable 524 Woodland Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-3076 « Ms. Brenda Milliard Northwestern Pennsylvania DER Citizens Roundtable 301 Elm Street Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-5025 Mrs. Janice Kopnisfcy Northwestern Pennsylvania DER Citizens Roundtable 301 South Broad Street Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-5633 Prof. John A. Sample 504 Woodland Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-8413 Mr» Frank Simunic Cooper Energy Services 150 Lincoln Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-3000

A-3 AR500073 APPENDIX B List of Sites for Information Repository and Public Meetings

1. Information Repository Grove City Community Library 125 West Main Street Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-7320 Linda Bennett, Head Librarian Hours: 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Wednesday 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. Thursday and Friday 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Saturdays (10 a.m. - 2 p.m. in July and August) 10:00 - 5:00 on Saturdays in other months Copying: Available at $.20 per page

2 . Public Meatinya ' Grove City Area Schools - Highland and Park Elementary Schools 511 Highland Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-8101 Contact: Debbie Royal Seating capacity: 2 rooms, each 15-100 people Cost: $20 per use Access: Facility accessible to persons with physical handicaps Reservations: 2 weeks in advance Grove City College [attn. Bursar's Office in summer months, attn. Student Affairs during school year] Memorial Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-6600

B-l AR50007U Contact: Carl Sautter, Bursar Seating Capacity: Classrooms 50-100 persons; Auditorium, 150 persons; Auditorium, 200 persons Cost: Approx. $0.35-50 per seat Access: Facility accessible to persons with physical handicaps Reservations: 1st come, 1st served Insurance: College has liability ins.; does not extend to individuals renting facility who cause accidents

Pine Township Building RD 1 Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 453-3224 Contact: Shirley Vinton, Pine Township Secy. Seating Capacity: 14-15 persons Cost: None Access: Facility is accessible for persons with physical handicaps Reservations: Call to reserve as early as possible

B-2 AR500075