The Osborne Landtill Was Used for Many Years by Numerous Companies and Individuals in and Around Grove City Es a Place to Dispose of Unwanted Waste
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUMMARY OF COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. INVOLVEMENT IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE OSBORNE LANDFILL RI/FS The Osborne LandTill was used for many years by numerous companies and individuals in and around Grove City es a place to dispose of unwanted waste. In 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) began their investigation of the need to clean up this site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation end Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund"), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et sea. The efforts by U.S. EPA and Pennsylvania DER have involved the continuing cooperative effort of Cooper Industries, inc. whose C-B Reciprocating Division plant in Grove City used the Osborne Landfill to dispose of its foundry sand. EPA has identified parties who owned or operated this site, or who sent waste to it, including General Electric Corporation, Ashland Chemical Company, and Wolfe Iron & Metal Company (now Castle Iron & Metal). Typically, such parties, known as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), attempt to reach agreement with the government to perform the investigative and remedial work at their expense. This avoids the need for the government to spend Federal Superfund monies for the task. It also has been shown that these privately funded projects are done more efficiently and at less cost than those done by government contractors. This is in the best interests of these PRPs, because the government can require them to reimburse the Superfund for all such expenses that are performed consistently with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. None of the other PRPs at the Osborne site has stepped forward to participate in the clean up or remediation of the site, or contribute financially to the high cost of doing EPA's bidding; EPA has not pursued them in an attempt to secure their participation. Cooper voluntarily came forward in early 1983 and has spent over $1.5 million since then studying the contamination and risks at the site, removing sources of contamination and securing the site. Cooper's participation in this effcrt has been one of continuing cooperation with EPA and DER, and Cooper stands ready today to take reasonable steps, in conjunction with other responsible parties, to protect the citizens of Grove City from any danger from this site. The history of Cooper's involvement is as follows. On January 14, 1963, EPA notified Cooper Industries and other PRPs that it was prepared to spend Superfund money to investigate the Osborne Landfill site and perform any necessary cleanup (Exhibit 1). This same letter demanded that Cooper identify which of the proposed activities it would be willing to undertake. Cooper was the only PRP to step forward and enter into discussions with the Pennsylvania DER and EPA and offer to take the actions demanded. By May 12, 1983, Cooper had 303247 submitted to EPA and DER a program which included the performance of a remedial investigation (RI), the implementation of interim remedial measures (including the removal of drums and other containers as well as contaminated soil from the site), and the preparation of a feasibility study (FS) to evaluate options for any additional remedial action that the RI might indicate would be required (Exhibit 2). On May 13, 1963, Thomas C. Voltaggio, Chief, Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region III, responded to Cooper's offer by stating: [Respecting the implementation of certain initial remedial measures at the Osborne Landfill ... I acknowledge and applaud the willingness of Cooper industries, Inc. to implement these initial remedial measures. I find that the implementation of these measures, as described in your letter, would be consistent with the National Consistency Plan. (Exhibit 3). Dwight D. Worley, Chief, Division of Operations, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, PA DER wrote to Cooper on May 23, 1983, and reiterated Mr. Voltaggio »s praise and finding that the proposal was consistent with the National Contingency Plan (Exhibit 4). However, at a meeting on May 31, 1963, among DER, EPA and Cooper, EPA announced that it was rejecting Cooper's offer to do the work because, under EPA's then interim policy, the PRPs would not be allowed to undertake remedial action unless they committed in advance to perform whatever cleanup EPA determined was necessary after completion of the studies (Exhibit 5, Letter from James A. Rogers to Gene A. Lucero and Stephen R. Wassersug, June 16, 1983). EPA announced that it 30324* intended to have its own contractor, NUS Corporation, perform the RI and FS work. On June 16, 1983, Cooper objected to EPA's refusal to allow Cooper to perform the RI/FS, and Cooper reiterated its offer. Cooper continued to send its "site activity reports" to EPA and DER and to inventory and prepare for the removal of the drums and contaminated soil (Exhibit 6). EPA continued to "thank" Cooper for its "cooperation" in taking these actions at the site (Exhibit 7), and Cooper continued to respond quickly and helpfully to requests made by EPA (Exhibits 7 6 8). During June and July 1963, Cooper continued its efforts to reach agreement with the government to perform this work. Working with DER, Cooper developed a Consent Order and Agreement that incorporated to the maximum extent possible those elements EPA deemed essential (Exhibit 9). When an agreement acceptable to DER was reached, DER sent the proposed Consent Order and Agreement to EPA for comment (Exhibit 10). Thomas Voltaggio, Chief, Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region III, responded that: Since Cooper's commitment to perform the remedial investigation consistent with the Agency's March 1983 Remedial Action Master Plan satisfies the National Contingency Plan ("NCP") and its commitment to perform the remedial cleanup satisfies the Agency's current requirements for a private party cleanup, we will defer to your request that the site be "State lead . ." (Exhibit 11, letter from Thomas C. Voltaggio (EPA) to Donald Lazarchik (DER)). -4- As a result, on September 23, 1983, DER and Cooper entered into a Consent Order which required Cooper to do the work in lieu of the government or its contractors. This included the following: (1) identify types and quantities of wastes sent to the Osborne site; (2) implement specified interim remedial measures; (3) conduct an RI in accordance with a work Plan attached to the Consent Order, which was to meet the requirements of the National Contin- gency Plan (NCP); (4) upon approval by DER of the RI report, submit a proposed FS plan that meets the requirements of the NCP; (5) submit a final FS report to DER so that DER could issue a record of decision selecting a remedial alter- native; (6) implement the remedial alternative selected by DER. (Exhibit 12, Consent Order and Agreement between EPA and DER). After signing the Consent Order and Agreement, Cooper proceeded with the project. On November 1, 1963, DER acknowledged that Cooper had satisfactorily completed the initial remedial measures in accordance with the Consent Order, and authorized Cooper to continue the site investigation phase (Exhibit 13). DER further acknowledged that Cooper had satisfactorily completed the first phase in less than half the time allotted in the order. Id. On December 16, 1983, DER -5- 303250 acknowledged Cooper's successful completion of Phase II of the work plan pursuant to the Consent Decree, and again, credited Cooper with having completed the task in nearly half the estimated time allocated (Exhibit 14). On December 29, 1983, Cooper received a letter from the Appalachian Audubon Society stating: The Appalachian Audubon Society understands that one of your subsidiaries, Cooper Energy Service of Grove City, Pennsylvania, is in the process of cleaning up toxic wastes found at the Osborne landfill near Grove City in Mercer County. we want you to know we applaud their efforts. The initiative your company shows in this project is highly commendable. Thank you for keeping our environment and Grove City's water supply clean. (Exhibit 15). On June 19, 1984, the RI was completed in final form. In response to a request from DER and EPA, Cooper performed additional investigations for and evaluations of data at the site (Exhibit 16). On December 19, 1984, Cooper's consultant extracted and analyzed soil samples from the site even though this exceeded what Cooper had agreed to do (indeed exceeded what EPA and DER had asked Cooper to agree to do) in the Consent Decree (Exhibit 17). The analysis supported Cooper's earlier conclusions regarding soil contamination at the site, i.e. that the levels of contamination at the site were not affecting groundwater or surface water quality. Id. -6- On January 20, 1985, Cooper stood ready and willing to perform a feasibility study, and requested approval from DER to begin. Id. In May 1985, DER requested Cooper to undertake an additional round of sampling (Exhibit 18, letter R.w. Teets (Cooper) to Abreu-Cintron (EPA), Sept. 16, 1985). Cooper, believing the additional sampling wasteful and unnecessary, appealed the request to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board. Id. On August 30, 1985, EPA also requested of Cooper additional sampling at the site; but the protocol was not the same as that established by DER in May. Id. In October 1985, DER withdrew its request for additional sampling because EPA had conducted five days of sampling at the site in late September (Exhibit 19). It was not until May 1986 that EPA sent some of the sampling results to Cooper. However, after reviewing the results, both EPA and DER concluded (as had Cooper) that no further investigative work was needed at the site, and authorized Cooper to take the next step, i.e.