AR50000I Park West Two IMUS Cliff Mine Road CORPORATION
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
»—M I———I CORPORATION ^3A Halliburton Company R-31-11-4-21 \C(L COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 12.3V62.0 CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-6699 NUS PROJECT NUMBER S217 (0718.67) MARCH 1985 AR50000I Park West Two IMUS Cliff Mine Road CORPORATION R-31-11-4-21 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE WILLIAMS TOWNSHIP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA ERA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 12.3V62.0 CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-6699 NUS PROJECT NUMBER S217 (0718.67) MARCH 1985 SUBMITTED FOR NUS BY: APPROVED: GILBERT J.^MEYER, J& y DONALD SENOVlCH [U\ 3 - " W MANAGER, COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER, REMEDIAL PLANNING IA Halliburton Company CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 2-1 2.1 SITE HISTORY 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 6.1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 6-1 6.2 FEASIBILITY STUDY 6-1 7.0 BUDGET AND STAFFING PLAN 7-1 8.0 LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES 8-1 AR500003 FIGURES NUMBER PAGE 2-1 LOCATION MAP 2-2 2-2 LANDFILL LAYOUT 2-4 ARSOOOOti iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The information contained in this Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the Industrial Lane Site has been compiled to provide the lead agency with the most current overview of issues and concerns of people living in or near the affected community. This document includes community relations objectives and suggested techniques to facilitate open communication between the lead agency and the citizens of the surrounding communities. An estimated budget and a list of interested parties concerned with the site conclude this plan. Information for this plan was obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III office files and a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Work Plan prepared by the NUS Corporation, a technical consultant to the EPA. Onsite discussions were conducted with Federal, State, and local officials and concerned citizens, in cooperation with the EPA Region III. Because this site is a Federal lead, the EPA Region III office is coordinating site activities. 1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY The Industrial Lane Site is located 50 miles north of Philadelphia in Williams Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania (see Figure 2-1, Location Map). The site is identified as an area of groundwater contamination in and around the Borough of Glendon. The Chrin Landfill, a possible source of the contamination, is located just south of Easton, Pennsylvania. The Delaware River is located 1-1/2 miles to the east; the Lehigh River, 1/2 mile to the west. A small unnamed tributary to the Lehigh River flows west-northwest 1/2 mile south of the site. Land use in areas adjacent to the site includes farming to the southeast and fight industry to the north, east, and west. Residential housing exists both south and west of the site; approximately 300 families live within 1 mile of the Chrin Landfill. The City of Easton Bureau of Water and the Easton Suburban Water Authority serve the South Easton and Glendon area. Water for potable use is obtained from the Delaware River approximately 1 mile upstream of its confluence with the Lehigh River. The majority of residents affected by the site live in the Borough of Glendon and have access to municipal water supply services. However, there are families within 1 mile of the site that either elected not to connect, or are too far away to connect to the public water supply because of prohibitive costs. They use private wells for their potable water supply. The residential wells range from 600 to 3,500 feet away from the landfill. Sampling and analysis of domestic wells south, west, and northwest of the landfill by various agencies have identified intermittent and varied concentrations of organic and heavy metal contaminants. 2.1 Site History Although possible sources of contamination have not been clearly established, one potential source has been identified as the Chrin Landfill. Most of the preliminary investigations have been conducted at the landfill; however, future studies will &R50QOO& 2-1 &>-^t ••'."'-'•'• — ,/' ,' -^ss .-'':•'' •'' ; 5=' /S^Vyf;!^ '"Z^J^l^ ^-^x^-^^^/V SOURCE* US6S EASTON,NO-PA QUAD. {7.5 MINUTE SERIES) 1973 n r <-• ~ n n 1 A R b « J j U / FIGURE 2-1 STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE, WILLIAMS TWP., PA SCALE I"=2000* 2-2 A Halliburton Company involve other possible contaminant sources. According to file information, these other possible sources include local industry and on-lot septic disposal systems. The landfill is located within the limits of an abandoned iron ore mine and pit (quarry) that was operated as an open dump from the late 19th century until 1958. At that time, the current owner purchased the landfill and, desiring to upgrade the facility, undertook action to convert the open dump into a sanitary landfill. Since 1961, the landfill has operated as a sanitary landfill that accepts municipal and certain industrial wastes from the surrounding area. There are three sections of the landfill in which waste material has been disposed (see Figure 2-2, Landfill Layout). Two of the sections, encompassing 50 acres, are now closed. The oldest section (Area 1), which was closed about 20 years ago, had been operated as an open dump. A second area (Area 2) that operated as a landfill was closed in the late 1960"s, A third area (Area 3), which began operation following the filling of Area 2, occupies 29 acres and is presently active. This third area is expected to achieve final grade by December 1984. Sampling at the Industrial Lane Site to date has focused upon characterization of the landfill's groundwater monitoring wells and leachate collection system and the offsite residential wells in the area. Numerous groundwater and leachate samples have been collected by various agencies, including the EPA, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), and consultants for the landfill owner. These samples have shown the presence of organic and metal contaminants, with the highest levels occurring in the leachate samples. The EPA, PADER, and a local citizens' group, Save Our Lehigh Valley Environment (SOLVE), allege that industrial and potentially hazardous wastes have been accepted for disposal by the landfill. However, no direct evidence of the possible presence of hazardous wastes on the landfill property, such as waste-containing drums, has been documented to date. Investigations conducted by SOLVE have yielded records (including manifests) from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Massachusetts Water Resources AR500CC8 2-3 CM I <NJ oUJr 2 * Q. H OT UJ UJ -Jl..CO. U. o O UJ 01 CO Q AR5C:QOS 2-4 Commission (MAWRC) that identify various generators and transporters who allegedly used the landfill to dispose of hazardous wastes from 1977 to 1979. Action concerning these allegations is still pending. According to file information, these records show that approximately 630,000 gallons of various liquid wastes and 240,000 pounds of other chemical wastes have been deposited at the landfill. The wastes were in either liquid or semiiiquid (sludge) state and are thought to have contained organic and inorganic chemicals, heavy and trace metals, industrial oils, pigments, paint sludge, and various industrial solvents. ~ The detection of organic and metal contaminants in the landfill's groundwater monitoring wells and leachate collection system and offsite residential wells tends to support the claim that industrial wastes have been deposited at the landfill. However, the factual connection between the alleged disposal of hazardous wastes and contaminated water supplies is complicated by (1) the lack of analytical data defining the concentration of contaminants in the landfill, (2) the complex hydrogeologic conditions around the site, and (3) other potential sources of contamination. The landfill does not have an impermeable liner and is not considered a secured landfill; therefore, it was never approved to accept hazardous wastes. The operators of the landfill and their consultants have prepared and submitted an application for permit amendment. This amendment contains plans for the closure of the existing landfill; the operation of a demolition-waste disposal site; and the operation of a proposed 10-acre expansion landfill area. PADER is currently reviewing the permit amendment application. Permit activities to upgrade the landfill from a sanitary landfill to a solid waste disposal site were initiated in 1972. In 1975, PADER issued a permit enabling the landfill to be operated as a solid waste disposal and/or processing facility. Landfill construction plans, including the implementation of an onsite leachate treatment facility, were approved by PADER in 1976. During a routine field visit to the landfill in 1977, PADER officials discovered that the onsite u 2-5 facility had not been completed, and the owner apparently indicated that he did not plan to finish construction of the facility. PADER informed the owner of violations of the approved landfill plans, and by mutual consent, the parties agreed that there would be no further disposal of hazardous wastes. The owner submitted an application to PADER in 1978 to amend the solid waste disposal permit; PADER indicated several items that needed to be resolved before the permit could be approved. Inspections of the landfill by PADER officials in July and August of 1979 resulted in citations for noncompliance with solid waste disposal requirements. Additional inspections were conducted during 1980 and 1981, including periodic collection and analysis of groundwater samples. In mid-1982, PADER issued a Solid Waste Consent Order and Agreement.