NUS CORPORATION =ARK WEST II, CLIFF MINE ROAD PITTSBUHQH. PENNSYLVANIA 1 5275 D-31-6-3-13 DRAFT ORIGINAL
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE LOCK HAVEN, PENNSYLVANIA
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 98.3L31 CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-6699
NUS PROJECT NUMBER S921
JANUARY 1986
SUBMITTED FOR NUS BY: APPROVED:
•-' / A wv, GILBERT J. M&YERMEYER,, JR.JRVI £ DAVID E. MacINTYRE. P.E. MANAGER REGIONAL MANAGER COMMUNITY RELATIONS REGION III ft B 5 0 !
A Halliburton Company ORiGINAl, ^XdRecQ DRAFT CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 2-1 2.1 SITE BACKGROUND 2-1 2.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 2-6 3.0 ISSUES AND CONCERNS . 3-1 4.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES . 4-1 5.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES 5-1 6.0 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES 6-1 7.0 BUDGET AND STAFFING PLAN 7-1 8.0 LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES 8-1
FIGURES
NUMBER 2-1 LOCATION MAP 2-2
AR50GQ7I* -DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the Drake Chemical Site discusses the previous and current involvement of the public with the site and outlines the objectives and techniques recommended for an effective community relations program. Also included are scheduling and budgeting of activities and a fist of parties interested in the site.
The primary sources of information for this plan were file materials from the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III (EPA), telephone interviews with officials at EPA, and a previous community relations plan prepared by NUS Corporation. Additional information came from newspaper articles about the site and from the Remedial Investigation Report and Feasibility Study Report for the Drake Chemical Site prepared by NUS Corporation.
The EPA will retain the lead in the implementation of the community relations program. The contractor will provide support as requested.
1-1 ORIGINAL, (RecQ
DRAFT 2.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
2.1 Site Background
The Drake Chemical Site is located in the City of Lock Haven and Castanea Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania. A manufacturer of chemical intermedi- ates used in the dye, cosmetic, textile, pharmaceutical, and pesticide industries, the Drake Chemical Company was in operation from 1962 until it filed for bankruptcy in August 1981. Previously the site was occupied by the Kilsdonk Chemical Company, which also manufactured chemicals. The American Color and Chemical Company is located adjacent to the site.
The Drake Chemical Site covers approximately 8 acres and contains six buildings including offices, production facilities, and an effluent treatment building. A leachate stream originates from an unlined lagoon at the rear of the site. The stream flows under a major highway and through Castanea Township Park and then empties into Bald Eagle Creek, a major tributary of the Susquehanna River. The site also contains two lined pretreatment impoundments and an unlined sludge disposal area. Within 1/4 mile of the site are located a large apartment complex with many elderly residents, a large shopping center, and a municipal park called Castanea Park. Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, elementary schools, several residences, and several churches are located within 1-1/2 miles of the site. The west branch of the Susquehanna River is located approximately 3/4 mile to the north of the site, while Bald Eagle Creek is located approximately 1/2 mile to the south. In general, the area is mixed residential and commercial. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of the site.
In addition to the leachate stream migrating off site, problems at the Drake Chemical Site include organic chemical contamination of groundwater, contamina- tion of the soil, the possibility of buried drums, an unlined chemical sludge lagoon, and buildings and debris that are contaminated. When tested, the soil showed high concentrations of 2,3,6-trichlorophenylacetic acid, a herbicide commonly known as AR5QOQ76
2-1 ORIGINAL
2-2 /ORIGINAL
DRAFT Fenac. Sediment samples along the leachate stream and at the mouth of Bald Eagle Creek also show concentrations of Fenac in addition to other contaminants.
The first event of environmental importance involving the Drake Chemical Site occurred in January 1973 when the company received a citation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) for violating the Clean Streams Act. Apparently the citation was issued as a result of the flooding of the City of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania that occurred in June 1972. The company was cited again in November 1973 and January 1977. In April 1979, Drake Chemical Company signed a Consent Order and Agreement with PADER for interim waste handling. In September 1979 the company was found to be in violation of the agreement. EPA personnel made a site inspection in June of 1980 for a preliminary assessment of the site.
In addition to these citations, 10 counts of health violations were noted by inspectors from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in March 1981. The NIOSH staff found poorly maintained equipment, leaking pipes, dripping tanks, spills, and corrosion.
In February 1982 the EPA sent a letter to both Drake Chemical Company and American Color and Chemical informing them that they could clean up their sites voluntarily or the agency would step in and conduct the cleanup for them under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) which would allow the EPA to sue the companies to recover damages. American Color and Chemical subsequently filed a closure plan with the PADER and is presently negotiating revisions of that plan, but Drake Chemical Company did not respond. Consequently, the EPA and the PADER began to remove drums and tank contents and to fence the site in February 1982. On February 23 and 24, 1982, the Environmental Response Team (ERT) representatives from the EPA, PADER, and the Region III Technical Assistance Team, inspected the site and noted 1,700 drums filled with waste and sludge. Some of the drums were rusted, others were bulging and leaking their contents. In addition, the team found cyanide compounds stored outside. A pond, unlined lagoons, and
2-3 DRAFT impoundments were also located on the property. A fence was constructed around the perimeter of the site in 1982 to restrict access; however, people could still come into contact with contamination from the site through contact with the leachate stream that flowed off site.
From March 2 to April 23, 1982, the ERT conducted an emergency cleanup at the site. The cleanup involved putting up a fence and removing the drums and tank contents from the site. On March 15 acid mist from a tank of oleum, a fuming sulfuric acid, escaped and a cloud of the mist moved off site. Five workers 1-1/2 miles from the site reported respiratory irritation, and there were numerous incidents of paint peeling off vehicles in the town. An insurance program was set up to handle the claims as a result of this mist cloud. The next day a 2-inch gas main was accidentally ruptured during site work. Although the gas was turned off, nearby stores and buildings were evacuated. On March 23 a second cloud of oleum mist escaped, and the fire company had to form a water screen to contain the acid mist. People in the area were told to stay inside to avoid the cloud. From April 15 to April 21 wastes were trucked off site, and on April 23 the work was completed. A snow fence was later erected around the leachate stream flowing through Castanea Park, and warning signs were put up.
A Remedial Investigation (Rl) was initiated in May of 1983. Surface water, groundwater, building material, soil, and sludge samples were obtained and analyzed. Additionally, aquatic and terrestrial ecology surveys were performed. Results of these field monitoring and sampling programs were detailed in a two- phased Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study {RI/FS) Report. At this site the Phase I RI/FS pertains to the offsite leachate stream running through Castanea Township Park. The Phase II RI/FS pertains to onsite and groundwater contamination. The results of the remedial investigation were as follows:
flR500079
2-4 DRAFT • Contamination was detected in onsite surface water, groundwater, soil/sludge, buildings, tanks, and process equipment.
• Contamination was found in various offsite media in the vicinity of the leachate stream, including groundwater, soils, surface water, and sediment.
• Organic and inorganic contaminants were detected in both onsite and offsite monitoring wells.
The feasibility study for Phase I presented a series of alternatives for remedial action. A record of decision (ROD) has been issued for Phase I. The selected remedy includes the following elements:
• Covering the upper reach of the leachate stream with natural soils, capping it with clay, and grading the cap to the contours of surrounding land for surface water management.
• Partial excavation of contaminated sediments and construction of a conduit drain in the lower reach of the leachate stream.
• Installation of a granular drain at the toe of the railroad embankment.
• Temporary disposal of excavated sediments in a storage facility constructed on site.
• Operation and maintenance consisting of visual inspection of the area on a semi-annual basis and possible repair to the cap, if necessary, subsequent to visual inspection.
A draft FS for Phase II was submitted to EPA in August 1985. Seven alternatives were identified for the treatment and/or disposal of sludge, soil, and sediment. Four groundwater remedial action alternatives were presented and
2-5 AR500080 ORIGINAL \
" DRAFT alternatives for handling buildings and contaminated structures were identified. Further action on this site will be documented in the pending ROD.
2.2 Community Relations History
The people of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, first became aware of the problems with the Drake Chemical Site as a result of fires there. According to volunteer firemen in the area, there has been a history of fires on the company site, and the son of the owner mentioned that the main processing building burned in 1969. One of the fires reportedly sent a cloud over the city that damaged the paint on several hundred vehicles.
During the emergency action at the site in the spring of 1982, concerned Lock Haven and Castanea Township officials cooperated with the EPA and the PADER. Township officials were on call 24 hours a day in case an emergency developed. At the same time, local officials were critical of the EPA because they did not receive notification of the work at the site before the emergency action began.
The EPA held a public meeting on September 18, 1982, to discuss the Drake Chemical Site. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting, including the mayor of Lock Haven and representatives from the Clinton County Commissioners and from the PADER. At the time, citizens expressed a fear that flooding would spread the contamination from the site throughout the city. They also questioned whether site work would provide jobs for the area's many unemployed. The meeting was attended by the media, and it was noted that there was extensive radio coverage.
A public meeting was held in January 1983 before the beginning of the remedial investigation to discuss the Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP). Later, the local newspaper commented that the residents could not understand the RAMi P and that they also found the EPA answers difficult to understand. The city made similar comments. ftRSOGOS! 2-6 DRAFT Another public meeting was scheduled for April 1983 but was postponed because the Work Plan for the RI/FS had not yet been finalized. However, during April the Rural Development Committee, a group established in 1982 by representatives from local agencies and designed to help rural development, decided to forward their questions about the site in writing to the EPA. Following a committee meeting on April 26, 1983, a letter was sent. The questions in the letter were detailed and covered all aspects of concern at the site. The committee requested that the questions be answered during the upcoming public meeting. Copies of the letter were sent to a list of representatives of the Federal, State, and local governments and to the media. A newspaper article in the local press the next day reported on the committee's activities and summarized the contents of the letter.
A second group of citizens interested in the Drake Chemical Site was formed during April 1983. Called CLEAN (Citizens and Laborers for Environmental Action Now), the group was composed of former Drake Chemical Company workers and interested citizens. CLEAN was formed as a result of the investigative articles that had appeared in the local press. In the local paper the group announced its desire to form an organization and commented that it would be releasing a public statement and sending letters about the site to Federal and state officials. CLEAN's main concern was to secure health screening for former Drake Chemical Company employees.
The public meeting, which was postponed from April, was held on May 24, 1983, on the campus of Lock Haven State College. Approximately 250 people attended the meeting. Present were representatives from the EPA, NUS Corporation, PADER, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH).
The meeting was opened by the EPA, and slides were shown covering the proposed RI/FS activities. After the slide program, health issues were discussed by representatives from NIOSH and the CDC. A doctor from NIOSH discussed the risks of bladder cancer from beta-naphthylamine, a chemical present at the site. He emphasized that exposure does not mean that everyone will get cancer^ •
2-7 DRAFT During the question and answer period, the audience had many questions ranging from health costs for those who are unemployed to whether tests at the site would cover dioxin. The people seemed particularly worried about the health effects of the chemicals and the financial burdens if they would incur they did become ill. People were angry and dissatisfied with the answers provided during the meeting. They were particularly perturbed by the fact that NIOSH and the CDC would not commit to a health study. At one point, CLEAN presented a petition with 1,500 signatures asking for health screening. Reportedly the signatures were collected with little effort in one week. Residents also voiced concern that employee records left at the Drake plant were vulnerable to mishandling. A separate meeting to discuss the health issue was scheduled for May 25, 1983. A fact sheet was distributed to try to cover some citizen questions.
Media coverage of the meeting was heavy, including crews from 3 television stations. This coverage included a spot on the nationally televised "CBS Morning News" the following day, which was taped by a CBS crew at the meeting.
On the morning of May 25, 1983, representatives from the local government met with members of the CDC and NIOSH to try to settle the question of medical monitoring for the citizens. Although the CDC and NIOSH would not conduct the monitoring, a CDC representative agreed to send information to local officials on a monitoring program set up at another site. The Drake employee health records were also discussed at the morning health meeting, and it was agreed to try to move them to the Lock Haven Hospital. State Representative Russell Letterman, a member of his staff, James Lovette, and an aide to U.S. Representative William Clinger attended the meeting to express the legislators' interest in the status and location of the records. A local newspaper reported that a task force, made up of local officials, doctors, and interested groups, would assist the CDC and the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) in conducting a medical study.
According to officials from the PADOH, data collection for two separate studies is complete. The two studies are aimed at characterizing the likelihood of chronic and/or acute effects that could be associated with exposure to phfrnical(R50GOSplisillicals at th3ee 2-8 Cited)
DRAFT Drake Chemical Site for (1) former employees of the company and their families and for (2) residents living within 1/2 mile of the site. A report has been issued on the latter of these studies.
The findings of the residential study were as follows:
• Analysis of the exposed group versus a control group showed that there was no significant difference in incidence of chronic disease. PADOH, therefore, concluded that the study did not indicate the presence of serious chronic health conditions that could be attributed to contamination at the site.
• PADOH did, however, find that there were significantly more incidences of skin disorders and sleeplessness among the exposed group.
PADOH hypothesized that these acute symptoms could be a result of exposure to a single chemical, exposure to several chemicals, the results of stress induced from site testing and study, or merely spurious findings.
The results of the occupational study, which includes an extensive survey of a group of 79 former employees and their families, are scheduled for release in early 1986. The study consisted of an extensive questionnaire and cytology testing, i.e., urine tests to indicate the potential for bladder cancer.
Currently NIOSH and PADOH are collaborating on a proposal to perform a 5-year study on the occupationally exposed group. They hope to implement a full cohort identification study which would include a mortality/morbidity analysis of approxi- mately 400 workers who were occupationally exposed throughout the operating life of the plant. This study will strengthen findings of the current PADOH occupa- tionally exposed worker study by establishing the disposition of the full population of exposed individuals. The long-term study would also be accompanied by periodic cytology testing of living workers, AR!
2-9 DRAFT Throughout the work and the discussions regarding the Drake Chemical Site, the media has provided continuous coverage. The local press has covered the story extensively, often running stories several times a week. While these stories generally report the facts regarding the case, at one point they reported that dioxin was present at the site although it has not been found during testing.
flB500085 2-10 DRAFT
3.0 ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Of primary concern at the Drake Chemical Site is the issue of health. Both ex-employees of the chemical company and residents of the area are extremely worried about the effect the chemicals associated with the site may have on their health and the health of their families.
Among former employees of the Drake Chemical Company, the health issue focuses on the possibility of exposure to beta-naphthylamine (BNA), and the potential that exposure may cause bladder cancer. This chemical was manufactured by Drake's predecessor on the site, Kilsdonk Chemical Company, until its manufacture was outlawed in 1961. BNA is also formed as a by-product of improperly synthesized Broenner's acid, which was produced by Drake. According to a former Drake employee, one batch of the acid was returned to the company because it contained too much BNA. The batch was returned marked "carcinogenic."
Because the remedial investigation determined that chemicals have migrated off site, the residents are worried that they too may have been exposed to BNA and are in danger of developing cancer. Several doctors and public officials have been quoted in reference to the health issue. The local chapter of the American Cancer Society has been contacted by numerous residents. According to an article in the Centre Daily Times, the executive director of the local chapter reported, "People are very much concerned about the health effects of these chemicals. I've had numerous calls asking: What should we do?" These calls have been increasing since the public meeting of May 24, 1983.
Although the health effects that may result from exposure to the chemicals on site are the primary concern of the citizens, residents are also interested in other aspects of the site. There has been some concern about contamination of both Bald Eagle Creek and the Susquehanna River. A local newspaper reported that fish from the creek are not edible, and this caused concern for some residents. However, tissue samples of fish taken from Bald Eagle Creek and water samples from the AR500086 3-1 DRAFT creek and the river indicate that the site presently has very little impact on water quality or on aquatic life in these waterways. At a public meeting held on September 6, 1984, several recreation-related concerns were raised regarding the playground area and the baseball field at Castanea Park.
Because of high unemployment in the area, many residents are worried about the financial burden caused by the site. Not only have they expressed concern about their personal financial liability should they become ill from the chemicals, but they have expressed concern that the site will cost the city more money. According to a spokesman for the city's public works department, an abandoned waterline running under Drake Chemical Company's property was destroyed by chemicals from the site. The city had to replace it with a pressurized line so that groundwater from the site cannot enter the waterline. The city has also had to clean and regrout sewer lines at the site to prevent seepage into the sewer system; the process was televised locally. During the emergency action in the spring of 1982, the local fire companies had to set up a screen of water to contain a cloud of acid mist that was threatening to migrate off site. Residents were initially concerned that the city would have to pay for equipment that the fire companies may need in order to handle future problems at the site during work there. However, they were reassured that if EPA determined a need for 'special equipment, Superfund would pay for it.
Because of the publicity that has been generated as a result of the findings at the Drake Chemical Site, the City of Lock Haven is concerned that it may develop a poor image in the eyes of the public. Linked to this is the concern voiced by the local Chamber of Commerce that other companies may leave Lock Haven because of the contamination. The Chamber would like to see the Drake Chemical Company land used for future industries but it fears that industries will not want to locate in the city in the future. Recently, this concern has been increasing. Local government officials have indicated that they have tried to reduce inflammatory statements related to the Drake Chemical Site.
AR5QGG87 3-2 ' DRAFT Residents in the area are concerned about the contamination of the surface water and the possibility that flooding may spread the contamination farther. There is also concern about contamination of the groundwater. Although groundwater in the immediate area is not used for drinking, and the town well has been tested and found to be uncontaminated, several comments regarding groundwater flow and levels of contamination were raised at a September 1984 public meeting.
It is also interesting to note that articles in the local press have given the impression that some residents do not seem to harbor ill feelings toward the Drake Chemical Company or its owner. Repeatedly in news articles, former workers at the plant declined to be identified, in spite of the fact that the company is no longer in business. Several ex-employees quoted in the newspapers have said that they do not hold the company responsible for what happened. However, they do seem to be frustrated by the situation.
Increasingly, CLEAN has expressed concern that its recommendations are not acted upon. A representative from CLEAN stated that maps in Phase II of the Remedial Investigation Report show incorrect placement of water and sewer lines. The CLEAN representative also stated that the group felt its suggestion to test for BNA in the leachate stream was not properly addressed. This suggestion was made after recent tests at American Color and Chemical showed some BNA in the groundwater. The EPA has indicated that the presence of BNA in the groundwater will not change the Phase I or the Phase II remedial action. Therefore, no further tests are planned. CLEAN has also voiced a desire to provide citizen oversight of the project. CLEAN believes that a liaison in the community would be able to enhance the effectiveness and timeliness of communication between citizens and officials of PADOH and the EPA. The organization intends to submit this idea in writing to the EPA.
3-3 ORib \0ted)
DRAFT
4.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES
The following objectives are recommended for the community relations program at the Drake Chemical Site:
• To maintain effective communication between government agencies and citizens in order to keep citizens informed of ongoing activities and the status and results of those activities.
• To maintain effective communication between government agencies and local officials in order to keep officials abreast of progress and plans at the site so they can respond knowledgeably to citizen inquiries.
• To establish and maintain more effective communication between government agencies and the media in order to provide media representatives with accurate information on the status of the project and the ongoing project activities.
• To seek opinions of community citizens and public officials on the methods of remedial action being considered and to provide opportunities for the community to comment on remedial alternatives.
• To establish reasonable expectations for site activities on the part of the public and public officials.
• To disseminate clear information to help citizens and local officials understand the complexities of the site.
ftR500089
4-1 ORIGINAL (Red) DRAFT
5.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES
The following techniques are recommended as methods of meeting the objectives listed in Section 4.0:
______Objectives______Techniques______
To maintain effective communication Maintain information repositories between government agencies and convenient for use by all citizens. citizens in order to keep citizens informed of ongoing activities Issue press releases to correspond to and the status and results of those project milestones. activities.
To maintain effective communication Establish telephone contact with officials between government agencies and and provide them with regular updates on local officials in order to keep site progress. officials abreast of progress and plans at the site so they can re- Conduct briefings of officials to inform spond knowledgeably to citizen them of planned work at the site. inquiries.
To establish and maintain more Maintain contact with the press. effective communication with the media in order to provide them Issue press releases. with accurate information on the status of the project and the Supply fact sheets on past findings. ongoing project activities.
AB500090
5-1 I \ (F-rf) DRAFT
______Objectives______Techniques______
To seek opinions of community Conduct a public meeting to communicate citizens and public officials on information and solicit citizen input. the methods of remedial action being considered and to provide opportunities for the community to comment on remedial alternatives.
To establish reasonable expectations Stress the necessity of the procedures in- for site activities on the part of volved in site remediation in information the public and public officials. provided to the press and the public. Clarify reasons for scheduling and the time involved.
To disseminate clear information to Issue fact sheets. help citizens and local officials understand the complexities of the When developing information, strive for site.. clear and concise wording with a mini- mum of technical language. Explain terms when technical language is in- cluded.
Hold workshops to discuss alternatives in clear, nontechnical language.
5-2 \0tod> DRAFT 6.0 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
The Phase I RI/FS has been completed for the Drake Chemical Site. The EPA and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers are currently preparing engineering and design plans for the leachate stream remediation.
The Phase II RI/FS is nearly completed. The following community relations activities should be considered for use during the remaining portion of the Phase II RI/FS and during the engineering, design, and construction phases of the project.
• Conduct a briefing of public officials and issue press releases on remedial alternatives being considered.
• Update officials on the feasibility study through regular telephone contacts.
• Develop a fact sheet on the findings of the Phase II RI/FS.
• Hold workshops for interested citizens and local officials prior to the public meeting.
• Hold a public meeting to explain the findings of the Phase II feasibility study, to announce the recommended alternatives, and to announce the 3-week comment period.
AR500092
6-1 DRAFT 7.0 BUDGET AND STAFFING PLAN
The following list contains the community relations activities that might be required during the remainder of the Phase II RI/FS and the engineering, design, and construction phases of work.
______Activity______Work Hours
Press Releases (4) 12 Fact Sheets (3) 33 Information Repository Maintenance (4) 8 Public Meeting (1) 35 Briefings of public officials (2) 16 Ongoing telephone contact with officials 30 Workshops (2) 24 Total 158
AR500093 7-1 ORIGINAL (Red) ' DRAFT
8.0 LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES
Federal Officials
Senator John Heinz 277 Senate Russell Office Building Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-6324
Regional Office: Room 9956 Federal Building Sixth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 (215) 925-8750
Senator Arlen Specter 331 Senate Hart Office Building Second Avenue and Constitution Avenue N.E. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-4254
Regional Office: Room 9400 Federal Building Sixth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 (215) 597-7200
fi'R5G009i* 8-1 DRAFT Representative William F. Clinger, Jr. 1122 Longworth House Office Building Independence Avenue between C Street & South Capital Street S.E. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-5121
District Office: Suite 219 315 South Alien Street State College, Pennsylvania 16801 (814) 238-1776
Paul A. Schulte National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 (513) 841-4207
Ray Germann Community Relations Specialist Office of Public Affars U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 597-4081
8-2 AR500095 ORIGINAL
DRAFT William Hagel Regional Site Project Officer Hazardous Waste Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 597-3161
State Officials
Senator J. Doyle Corman Senate Post Off'ce Room 170 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-1377
District Office 219 W. High Street Beliefonte, Pennsylvania 16823 (814) 355-0477
Representative Russell P. Letterman P. 0. Box 120 Main Capitol Building Pennsylvania House of Representatives Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-8956
District Office P. O. Box 285 Milesburg, Pennsylvania 16853 (814) 355-4684 6R500096 DRAFT Daniel Spadoni, Community Relations Coordinator Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 217 Washington Boulevard Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 (717) 327-3659
James M. Fox, M.D. Pennsylvania Department of Health P.O. Box 90 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-4227
Dr. James Logue, D.P.H. Pennsylvania Department of Health P.O. Box 90 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-1708
James S. Lovette, Executive Director House Game and Fisheries Committee 213 S. Office Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-8956
Local Officials
Diane H. Stuempfle, Mayor City of Lock Haven 20 E. Church Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-5901
8-4 AR5G009? DRAFT
Frank L Taggert, City Manager City of Lock Haven 20 East Church Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-5901
Scott Smith, Councilman George Shade, Councilman Jerome Decker, Councilman June L Houser, Councilwoman George Hendricks, Councilman City of Lock Haven 20 East Church Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-5901
Richard Ardner, Director Department of Public Works City of Lock Haven 20 East Church Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-5910
Rich Marcinkavage, Engineer City of Lock Haven 20 East Church Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-5904
ftRSOQOSS 8-5 DRAFT James Bottorf, Chairman Earl Lentz Larry Kephart Clinton County Commissioners Clinton County Court House Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-4000
Thomas Bauman, Chairman Board of Supervisors Castanea Township 2 Quiggle Avenue Castanea, Pennsylvania 17726 (717) 748-3406
John F. Harvey, Supervisor Castanea Township 109 Log Grape Street Castanea, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-2401
Harry C. McKeague, Supervisor Castanea Township 304 Logan Avenue Castanea, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-2818
Township Supervisors may also be reached at: (717) 748-9070
JIR5Q 8-6 DRAFT Joe Quercia, Director Clinton County Emergency Center 405 W. Church Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-2936
Dr. James L. Dolan Clinton Assoc. of Physicians & Surgeons Professional Corporation 955 Bellefonte Avenue Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-7714
Local Organizations
n Furl, Spokesman x 856 , Pennsylvania 17745 (home)
Harriet Cooper, Executive Director Clinton County Cancer Society 200 N. Fairview Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-6072
SR500
8-7 ORu.- 0to DRAFT
Jann Chapman Clinton County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee 326 Main Street Mill Hall, Pennsylvania 17751 (717) 726-3196
Vera vfe^cher. President League of WomenXoters 1304 CommerpesPark Drive Williamspc>rt PennsV^ania 17701
Ellen Dietrich Soil Conservation Service R326 Main Street Mill Hall, Pennsylvania 17751 (717) 726-4928
Julie Brennan, Executive Director Chamber of Commerce City of Lock Haven 138 E. Water Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-5782
Al Speth, President Lock Haven Hospital 24 Cree Drive Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-5024 AR500IO 8-8 ORiGINA
DRAFT Citizens
See Appendix
Media
Lock Haven Express W. Main Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-6791
Centre Daily Times P. 0. Box 89 3400 E. College Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 (814) 238-5000
Daily Collegian Penn State University 126 Carnegie Building University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 (814) 865-2531
Chuck Yorks Sunday Grit 208 West Third Street Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 (717) 326-1771
Dwayne Bower Williamsport Sun-Gazette 252 West Fourth Street Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 (717)326-1551 HR50GI02 8-9 ORIGINAL X@k4>/ DRAFT John Hogg, Jr. WJAS 262 Allegany Street Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania 17740 (717) 398-7200
John Lipez WBPZ-Radio P.O. Box 420 Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-4038
Gary Girard, News Director WSQV Box 354 Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania 17740 (717) 398-4867
Vanessa Hunter WLYC-WILQ 353 Pine Street Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 (717) 326-6367
Pam Collins WWPA P.O. Box 2168 Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 (717) 323-7118
A-R5QOI 8-10 DRAFT Rick Mason WBRE-TV 316 West Fourth Street Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701 (717) 327-1415
Public Meeting Location
Ulmer Planetarium Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania Fairview Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-2022
Information Repositories
Annie Halenbake Ross Library 232 West Main Street Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 748-3321
Stevenson Library Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-2309 *
Clinton County Court House Jay & Water Streets Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745 (717) 893-4000
8-11 'DRAFT Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Solid Waste Management 217 Washington Boulevard Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701
U.
• 1
8-12