//// DRAFT CROYDON TCE SITE BRISTOL TOWKSHIP, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY MEETING DATE: August 20, 1987 TIME: 7:00 PM LOCATION: Bristol Township Municipal Building 2501 Oxford Valley Road Levittown, Pennsylvania 19057 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (EPA) held a public meeting at the Bristol Township Municipal Building on August 20, 1987. The purpose of the meeting was to explain the Superfund process and to discuss the remedial investigation (RI) that the EPA is planning to conduct at the Croydon TCE Site in Bristol Township. Representing the EPA were Abraham Ferdas, Assistant Superfund Branch Chief; Harry Harbold, Regional Project ' Manager; Nanci Sinclair, Community Relations Coordinator; and Richard Brunker, Toxicologist. The EPA's contractors for the Croydon TCE Site were represented by Ray Wattras, REM III Site Manager, and Carrie Deitzel, REM III Community Relations Coordinator for Region III. Edna Roth, Bristol Township Administrator; Councilman David Hite; and Councilwoman Terry Bradley were also present. At 7:00 pm, few people had arrived, and the start of the meeting was delayed. At 7:20, Ms. Sinclair called the meeting to order. She then presented an overview of the Superfund process and the upcoming RI. She stressed that the EPA encourages citizen participation throughout the remedial process and explained how residents can become involved. Before turning the program over to Mr. Harbold, Ms. Sinclair provided her address and phone number, as well as the locations of local information repositories where residents can find copies of site-related documents. AR5DOOI9 DRAFT During Mr. Harbold's presentation, he explained how the study area boundaries were established for the Croydon TCE Site. He also discussed the three primary objectives of the Phase I RI: to determine the quality of the groundwater, to assess the impact of groundwater on public health and the environment, and to. identify potential contaminant sources. In addition, Mr. Harbold said that 29 new monitoring wells will be installed, and several existing monitoring wells will be resampled in order to collect data about contaminants and local hydrology. Mr. Harbold reminded meeting attendees that domestic well sampling will not occur until October and encouraged everyone who has not yet responded to the EPA's well-users' survey to return the questionnaires or contact the Agency as soon as possible, if they want their wells sampled. Following the presentations, questions were presented by members of the audience. Below is a summary of public comments and concerns and the EPA's responses to them. 1. Several questions concerned the RI conducted at the Rohm & Haas Superfund Site immediately adjacent to the Croydon TCE Site. Residents wanted to know if data from the Rohm & Haas investigation will be used in the Croydon TCE Site study and if the Rohm £ Haas Site will be resampled. They also wanted to know whether the EFA will split samples with Rohm & Haas, if company property is resampled, and if the company's data will be made available to the public, if sample splitting occurs. EPA RESPONSE: Data from the Rohm & Haas Site RI will be reviewed, and some of the existing Rohm & Haas monitoring wells will be resampled. No decision has been made regarding the splitting of samples. (A member of the audience, who identified himself as the public affairs manager for Rohm & Haas, stated that if samples are split, the company will make its data available to the public.) 2. One resident wondered what might happen if Rohm & Haas data and EFA data are widely divergent or if EFA data from the Croydon TCE Site suggests that the existing Rohm & Haas Site RI data is wrong. He reminded the EPA representatives that both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) and the EFA had already sampled in the Croydon area during the Rohm & Haas site investigation and, therefore, should already have pertinent information about the current site. 2 AR500020 DRAFT EPA RESPONSE: The Rohro & Haas RI was performed by a contractor hired by Rohm & Haas. The EPA did not perform a quality check of the data and will not be relying on it during the Croydon TCE site study. During the Croydon TCE Site investigation, the Agency will sample new monitoring wells, as well as some existing Rohm & Haas monitoring wells. Although both PADER and the EPA did do some sampling during the Rohm & Haas study, no sampling occurred north of State Road. The Croydon TCE Site RI extends the study area so that sampling will occur in that area. Since new data will be gathered, there is no need to depend on historical data from previous studies. 3 . Several questions concerned households with wells as the sole source of their domestic water supply. One resident wondered if he and the five other families on his street (Pine Street), who depend on wells, will have to wait until the RI is completed before alternate water supplies will be provided, if their wells are found to be contaminated. The costs that homeowners might incur, if alternate water supplies are needed, were also a major concern. EPA RESPONSE; The well samples will be collected and analyzed as soon as possible, and if a health threat is found, the EPA will take emergency action to provide an alternate source of potable water. This will be provided at no cost to the homeowners. Two possible alternatives might be bottled water or the installation of carbon filters on existing plumbing. A long term solution may be to extend the public water supply lines to households with contaminated or potentially contaminated wells. The affected households could be connected to the public water supply with Super fund money; however, the homeowners would then have to pay the resulting monthly water bills. 4. Several questions were raised about TCE. The currently-known level of TCE contamination in Rohm £ Eaas monitoring wells and the concentration level, or parts per billion (ppb) , of TCE that might pose a health threat were of concern. One resident asked several questions about the regulation of TCE in the workplace and the potential routes of TCE exposure, including whether the chemical is mobile in groundwater. He stated that at his workplace, no precautions are employed in handling TCE. He and others reportedly mix it with their bare hands and 3 AR50G02! DRAFT dump it on the ground at the end of the day. Residents also asked if TCE was the only chemical of concern to the EPA. EPA RESPONSE ; The concentrations of TCE present in some monitoring wells were very low - - "a thimble-full in a tank car". But the level of TCE that poses a danger to human health depends on the length of exposure and the type of health threat. There are three types of health threats: acute, chronic, and the longer-term cancer threat. An acute threat would be a situation in which concentrations are so high that drinking a single glass of water causes illness. A chronic threat refers to a concentration level that causes illness in a limited period of time - - for instance, a period of a week or a month. A cancer threat involves a much smaller concentration over a much longer period of time several decades. In addition to TCE, samples will be analyzed for all volatile organics and priority pollutants. In the work place, the use of TCE is regulated by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) , not by Super fund. TCE can be taken in by normal breathing, and it can be absorbed through the skin. Anyone putting bare hands into TCE is taking an unnecessary risk. If this is occurring where you work, you should report it to OSHA. TCE is very mobile in groundwater; this is the primary problem at the Croydon site. If TCE is being dumped on the ground, that should also be reported to OSHA. (Ms. Sinclair spoke privately with the resident who raised the occupational-use concerns and exchanged information so that the proper authorities can be notified of the situation described.) 5. A number of residents wondered if it is possible to determine the source (s) of contamination and if the groundwater can be treated. Come expressed fear that the problem might be permanent and might cause their property values to drop; they wondered if Croydon might be another Love Canal. They were also concerned about how long treatment will take, if it is found feasible. EPA RESPONSE; Croydon is not another Love Canal, and it is not an isolated situation. Groundwater contamination is typical throughout Bucksp r However , because there are so many industries3,'-' 4 DRAFT source (s) may be hard to find. This type of groundwater contamination is treatable, but this is a very large area, and treatment will be a difficult process. It is not possible to predict how long treatment will take. 6. Residents also asked about the proposed monitoring veils. They wanted to know how large an area could be monitored by a single well and whether it would be more practical to sample the existing, non-functional domestic wells than to install new monitoring wells. EPA RESPONSE; The area covered by a single well is dependent on subsurface conditions, but it is a relatively small area. In Phase I, monitoring wells will be concentrated in the "focus area", but throughout the rest of the site, surface waters and intermittant streams will be sampled. Groundwater discharges into surface waters, so if contaminants show up in the surface waters, that will indicate a need for additional monitoring wells. Samples will be collected at numerous locations along Neshaminy Creek, Hog Run Creek, and smaller intermittant streams. Dependent upon Phase I findings, additional monitoring wells may be installed in Phase II.