Halliburton Company R-31-7-3-13 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN HELEVA LANDFILL SITE NORTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 98.3L59 NUS PROJECT NUMBER S920 AUGUST 1985 AR50000I Park West Two IMUS Cliff Mine Road Pittsburgh, PA 15275 CORPORATION 412-788-1 oso R-31-7-3-13 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN HELD/A LANDFILL SITE NORTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 98.3L59 NUS PROJECT NUMBER S920 AUGUST 1985 SUBMITTED FOR NUS BY: APPROVED: GILBERT J. NteYER, JR. ' DAVID E. MaclNTYRE, P.E. / MANAGER REGIONAL MANAGER COMMUNITY RELATIONS REGION III AR5000 Halliburton Company CONTENTS SECTION PAGE - *AL 1.0 INTRODUCTION {,;jrjj 2.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 2-l"" 2.1 SITE BACKGROUND 2-1 2.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 2-2 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 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Community Relations Plan (CRP) discusses the previous and current ••(. involvement of the public with the Heleva Landfill Site. The CRP outlines the objectives and techniques recommended for the community relations program. Also included in the plan are a schedule, a budget, and a list of interested parties. The plan is based on information obtained from file documents of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (EPA). In addition, phone contacts were made with local citizens who are interested in the site. Throughout the community relations program, EPA will retain the lead in the activities. The contractor will provide support as requested. 1-1 ARSQQQOlf 2.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 2.1 Site Background The Heleva Landfill Site consists of about 20 acres that are part of a 93-acre tract of land. The site is located on the Ironton-Ormrod Road in the township of North Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, between Ironton on the west and Ormrod on the east (Figure 2-1). Originally, the Heleva Landfill Site was an iron ore mining pit. The site was permitted for sanitary operations in 1967 to receive municipal and commercial solid wastes, and accepted between 250 and 350 tons of waste per day. In addition to the municipal and commercial wastes, industrial wastes were reported to have been sent to the site in the late 1960's. Documentation of the exact volumes and chemical makeup of the industrial wastes \$ spotty. However, known industrial wastes include liquid wastes that contained various concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE), ethyl alcohol, and acetic acid. In 1977, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) denied Heleva Landfill, Inc., a permit to continue operating the landfill, and ordered the landfill closed. Heleva brought legal action in an attempt to overturn the order to close the landfill. This action resulted in an out-of-court settlement to allow the landfill to continue operation and to clean up the groundwater problem. Measures involved new efforts to abate the TCE contamination. Site visits during and after these proceedings indicated that the landfill was continuing to operate in violation of the rules of the PADER. The site continued operation until its closure on May 1, 1981. As part of the closure procedure, the landfill was covered with 2 feet of soil and then seeded. During a recent site visit, it was observed that the soil covering was eroding and that very little vegetation was present. 2-1 2-2 2.2 Community Relations History / . , li >• "' Documented contacts from the public regarding the Heleva Landfill Site began in 1970 when members of the West Ormrod Community Association, which owned and operated a community well serving 35 homes, complained-bf bad taste and odor in the water from the well. This resulted in an investigation and report by officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, which concluded that the pollution of the well probably came from the Heleva Landfill. Additional efforts to try to determine the source of pollution were completed in 1971, and TCE was identified as a contaminant. At this time, the effects of TCE on human health were not known. The West Ormrod Community Association continued to complain about the quality of the water in its well through contact with the governor, their state representatives, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health (later the Department of Environmental Resources) about the contamination. In 1977, TCE was identified as a potential carcinogen. In addition, the EPA received a congressional request to investigate the TCE contamination at the West Ormrod Community Association well. As a result, the Association and all of its members were advised to discontinue the use of the well water for drinking, cooking, and bathing. This identification of TCE as a potential carcinogen raised community concern, since it was believed the residents had been using water that contained TCE since the time of their original complaints in 1970 and 1971. From July 1977 through July 1978, the residents served by the West Ormrod Community Association well carried water into their homes for cooking and drinking and had to travel to friends' homes to bathe. During this time, Federal and State grants were obtained to pay for approximately 60 percent of the estimated $510,000 cost to extend public water supply lines to their homes. The remaining 40 percent was paid for by the residents through frontage assessments. Residents were very upset at having to pay to hook up to the water line, in part because 50 percent of the residents reportedly lived on pensions. Payment for the water hookup is an issue that is continually raised by the residents. 2-3 Community concern about the operation of the landfill subsequently focused on an April 15, 1980 application by Heleva Landfill, Inc., to develop a new 43-aere section adjacent to the existing site. Community concern about the landfltf expansion was extremely high. Residents cited problems caused by the landfill, such as truck noise, traffic, odor, and mud and trash on the streets. More than 200 residents sent letters to the DER protesting expansion. The issue resulted in public hearings in October of 1980. Two hundred residents attended, and twelve presented statements expressing their views about the expansion of the landfill. File material indicates the deep concern of the residents. Media interest in the site was also high. As a result of these activities and the technical problems associated with the expansion of the landfill, a permit for the new landfill was denied in November 1980, and the site was permanently closed in May of 1981. The Heleva Landfill was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1982. In December 1983, the EPA held a public meeting to explain the work plan for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI/FS was completed in January 1985, and it identified several alternatives which ranged from taking no action to hauling wastes off site to a Federally-approved landfill. The selected alternative involved connecting the 35 homes to the municipal water supply, capping the landfill, and testing the landfill for contamination. A public meeting was held on February 19, 1985, to present the preferred cleanup alternative. The meeting was attended by approximately 25 residents, and questions focused on liability for the site, past mining operations nearby, and the proposed water line. The fact that residents paid for past water line hookups remains a sensitive issue to some. EPA explained that there is no mechanism within Superfund for victim compensation at present. Since the February meeting, planning has begun on the Hill Street water line that will connect the remaining affected residents to the municipal water supply. Most residences on Hill Street are still relying on a well as their water source, although two residences are being supplied with bottled water. These Hill Street residences will be supplied with municipal water as part of continued remedial action. 2-4 flR500008 3.0 ISSUES AND CONCERNS —— - - - ^ The primary issue voiced by the residents contacted by phone was the extremely long time period that the site has been in its present condition. Residents stated that conditions at the site have remained unchanged since it was closed in 1981. Several concerns were voiced about this issue, including the fact that the capping and revegetation effort was not effective, and the site is currently not vegetated; rain is eroding the cap and is running off into surface water bodies; the people on Hill Street were promised that municipal water would be supplied to them, but they are still waiting; and there has been no noticeable effort to clean up the site. All of the citizens contacted would like to see a fence or barricade erected around the site. There currently is no restriction of access to the landfill, and children have been observed playing on the site. People expressed a great deal of concern for the health of these children. An elementary school is within 400 feet of the landfill. Some of the citizens felt that the contents of the landfill were an issue. One individual believed that there are drums of hazardous chemicals buried there. However, there was a dichotomy of opinions regarding whether to excavate the sJte. 'Approximately half of the citizens contacted felt that all hazardous materials should be excavated and removed. Others felt that doing so would pollute the air with the same chemicals that are now in the water supply. People are also very concerned about the risk of cancer posed by TCE. All of the residents stated that there was an extremely high cancer rate in the community, and they all requested that a public health survey be conducted.