FINAL DRAFTCOMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANCYROCHEM SUPERFUND SITE

Prepared for

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYOffice of Waste Programs Enforcement

Washington, D.C. 20460

Work Assignment No.EPA RegionSite No.Contract No.CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMSCORPORATION Document No.Work Assignment Project ManagerTelephone NumberPrimary ContactTelephone NumberDate Prepared

C03034III3PB468-W9-0004

TES7-C03034-CR-BTRT-02Kathryn Garris(215) 293-0450William Toffel(215) 597-6180July 16, 1990

500029

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN

CRYOCHEM SITEEARL TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

JULY 10, 1990

Prepared for:

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III

Prepared by;BOOZ, ALLEN £ HAMILTON INC.

Under Subcontract No. TESK-TEAM-013, W.A. Number C03034EPA Contract No. 68-01-7331

500030

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Community Relations PlanCryoChem Site

Earl Township, Pennsylvania

PageNumber

Section A — Overview and Purpose of Plan 1

Section B — Capsule Site Description and History 2

Section C — Community Background 4

1. Community Profile 4

2. History and Analysis of CommunityConcerns 6

3. Summary of Key Issues andCommunity Concerns -. 7

Section D — Community Relations Objectives andTechniques 10

Section E — Schedule and Timeline 15

Appendix A — List of Contacts and InterestedParties A-l

1. Federal Elected Representatives A-l

2. Federal Agency Officials A-l

3. State Elected Representatives A-2

4. State Agency Officials A-2

5. County and Local Officials A-3

6. Local Media A-5

Appendix B— Suggested Locations for InformationRepositories and Public Meetings B-l

1. Information Repositories B-l

2. Public Meetings B-l

ii500031

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANCRYOCHEM SITE

EARL TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

This Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the CryoChem Site was.prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RegionIII Office. Preparation of a Community Relations Plan is requiredunder the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as "Superfund") asamended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and ReauthorizationAct (SARA).

A. PURPOSE

The purpose of this plan is to facilitate communication andconstructive interaction between the agencies conducting remedialactivities for the CryoChem site in Earl Township, Pennsylvania, •and the community affected by the site. The plan describescommunity concerns related to the site and outlines communityrelations activities EPA Region III proposes to conduct during thesite investigation and cleanup actions. These community relationsactivities are designed to provide interested citizens, governmentofficials, potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and localorganizations with general information about the Superfundprocess, site plans, developments, and findings. PRPs areindividuals or companies whom EPA believes may be responsible for,or may have contributed to contamination associated with aSuperfund site. Whenever possible, EPA uses administrative orlegal enforcement measures to compel PRPs to clean up hazardouswastes sites where evidence suggests they are liable for thecontamination.

The goal of the Superfund Remedial Investigation andFeasibility Study (RI/FS) is to characterize the nature, extent,and source of contaminant releases, and to select the appropriatetechnologies for cleanup of contaminated soil and ground water atthe site. An initial RI/FS was performed at CryoChem for drinkingwater contamination by the environmental engineering firm, PRCEnvironmental Management/ Inc, with a second RI/FS for area groundwater to be completed in Spring 1990. The goal of the CommunityRelations Plan is to provide EPA with the appropriate informationand mechanisms for responding to existing community issues andconcerns that may arise during the remainder of the remedialprocess at the site. The Plan reflects current site cleanupcircumstances and community interests. Should these circumstanceschange appreciably during the remaining site activities, revisionsto the plan may be required.

The EPA Region III Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania hasprimary responsibility for ensuring that comprehensive andaccurate technical work, and effective community relationsactivities are performed at the site. The Pennsylvania Department

500032

of Environmental Resources (PADER) has and will continue to reviewand comment on the preparation of major reports for the site andwill participate in the selection of a remedy for the final phaseof the RI/FS process. This Community Relations Plan reflects theneed for regular interaction among EPA, State and local officials,parties engaged in site cleanup activities, and interestedcitizens in the community.

Preparation of this Community Relations Plan involved personaland telephone interviews with local citizens and officials, Stateofficials, and EPA staff. The information presented here also isbased on the review of numerous site documents. The revieweddocuments included materials in the EPA Region III site file, suchas the results of EPA's Phase I RI/FS, the 1989 Record of Decision(ROD) for Phase I, county and township planning documents, andmemoranda or correspondence documenting the Superfund process atthe site. In addition, economic, public service-related, andhistorical data on Earl Township, Douglass-Berks Township, andBerks County were used in developing portions of this plan. Thisinformation was supplied by local agencies such as the BerksCounty Planning Commission and the Berks and Boyertown Chambers ofCommerce.

The first section of the Community Relations Plan summarizesthe site history, provides a profile of the affected community,and contains a history and an analysis of community concerns. Thefollowing section discusses specific community relationsactivities. Appendix A of the Plan provides a list oforganizations and individuals who are interested or responsiblefor activities associated with the site. Appendix B listssuggested locations for public information repositories and publicmeetings.

B . CAPSULE SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The CryoChem site (or "the site") is a 19-acre propertylocated on Route 562, approximately 3 miles west of Boyertown,Pennsylvania, in a semi-rural area of Earl Township, historicallyreferred to as the Village of Worman. The site takes its namefrom CryoChem/ Inc./ a metal fabrication company, which consistsof a workshop area/ office buildings, and a warehouse occupyingthe southern four acres of the site (See Figure 1).

tCryoChem manufactures custom metal pressure vessels for the

cryogenic and chemical industries and has been in operation since1962. Part of the metal fabrication process involved the use ofChlorathane/ a commercial chemical solvent comprised of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), which is used to remove dyes from productsafter the products are dye-tested for faulty welds.

CryoChem reportedly used two or three 55-gallon drums ofChlorathane per year, from approximately 1970 until 1982. In July1982, the company reported a spill of Chlorathane into a drain in

500033

O

DTJUU

the fabricatipn building. The building drain empties into asurface water discharge area and eventually leaves the siteuntreated. CryoChem did not specify the time at which the spilloccurred or the quantity of material released.

According to area residents, in the late 1970s or early 1980s,an area student tested the family's tap water as part of a scienceproject and detected the presence of volatile organicchemicals in the water. This finding, and complaints by arearesidents about their water, led PADER to sample the waterbeginning in August 1981. Between 1981 and 1985, PADER, EPA, andCryoChem sampled water at and surrounding the CryoChem property.The samples revealed the presence of TCA, trichloroethene (TCE),tetrachloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, and 1,1-dichloroethane innearby home wells and the on-site CryoChem production well. Thefield investigations also revealed the presence of TCA in on-sitesoils. As a result of these and follow-up studies, the CryoChemsite was proposed for inclusion on the EPA National PrioritiesList (NPL) in June 1985 and added in the Agency's October 1989update of the list. The NPL is EPA's list of the most seriousuncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified forpossible long-term remedial response with Superfund financing.

In September 1987, EPA sampled the residential water supplywells within a 1/4 mile radius of the CryoChem site. Based onanalytical results, EPA installed carbon filters in 13 homes where1,1-dichloroethene concentrations exceeded Federal limitsestablished to protect human populations.

EPA divided the CryoChem site into two areas, 'or operableunits (OU) to simplify and expedite actions to be taken. Theseare:

• OU 1 to focus on drinking water and

• OU 2 to focus on area-wide ground-water and sourcecontamination.

In February 1988, EPA signed a consent agreement with CryoChem andeight additional PRPs whereby the PRPs agreed to perform soil,ground water/ and surface water sampling and analyses aspreparation for further cleanup determinations.

In the Spring of 1989, EPA conducted a Focused FeasibilityStudy on OU 1. This study evaluated remedial alternatives forproviding affected residential homes with an alternate drinkingwater supply. As a result of the Focused Feasibility Study, inJuly 1989, EPA initially proposed to connect the affected homes tothe Boyertown municipal water supply. The Agency notified membersof the community of this proposed plan through a notice in theReading Times and The Mercury newspapers, and by distributingcopies of the plan to local officials. EPA also held a publiccomment period on the proposal from mid-July to mid-August, 1989

500035

and held a public meeting on August 9, 1989 to receive communitycomments and questions. In response to public comment, EPAselected an alternative remedial action, specifically, developmentof a new uncontaminated water supply to provide safe drinkingwater to affected homes.

The RI for OU 2 was completed by the potentially responsibleparties' contractor, JACA Corporation, and submitted to EPA inNovember 1989. Following Agency review, work will begin on the FSand on selection of a proposed plan for this operable unit.

C . COMMUNITY BACKGROUND

The following three sub-sections provide a general profile ofthe CryoChem site community, a history and analysis of communityconcerns, and a summary of the current interests or concernsrelating to the site. This information, together with the sitebackground and history, provide the context for EPA's proposedcommunity relations activities.

1 . Community Profile

The CryoChem Superfund site community consists of theresidents surrounding the site in Earl and Douglass-BerksTownships, and their elected representatives. Approximately40 homes have been identified by EPA as affected, orpotentially affected, by the site. Although the site islocated in Earl Township, Berks County, most of thehouseholds are located in Douglass-Berks Township (DouglassTownship, in its entirety, straddles Berks and MontgomeryCounties). Approximately 6,100 people reside in the twotownships.

The site community is part of the Manatawny drainagearea, in which both surface and ground water drain toward thesouth. Manatawny Creek, the principal surface water sourcein the area, flows through both townships. Ground-watermovement is of special interest in the site area because itsupplies homes/ farms, and businesses with their watersupply. Specific ground-water patterns are difficult topredict/ however, due to the region's underlying karst(weathered limestone) features, which permit numerousinstances of lateral and downward movement of the water.

The site topography, level land rising abruptly to aforested hill, reflects the overall topography of the region.The two townships lie in the foothills of two AppalachianMountain ridges that transect the county and the region.Earl Township is predominantly hilly, whereas land inDouglass Township levels out and supports some farms.

County-wide, agriculture remains a strong sector of theeconomy despite repercussions from development pressures.

500036

Approximately 2,000 family-owned farms represent more than 40percent of the land use in the county. These farms andagriculture-related businesses account for an estimated30,000 jobs. Dairy and cattle products comprise theprincipal agricultural products in the county, having acombined economic value that approaches $100 million dollarsper year. In conjunction with corn and hay, which net anadditional $38 million dollars annually, these statisticsrank Berks County as 79th in the nation for agriculturalproduction. According to area residents and officials,however, escalating land prices created by urban expansionhave resulted in the sale of farms for development.

Population in the immediate site area has remained fairlystable over the past ten years, with a modest net growth inthe two townships estimated at 520 people. Many localresidents are'employed in small local businesses such asCryoChem, Inc. Growth in the region, however, has created .impacts throughout Berks County. Berks County is located atthe northeast edge of a suburban growth path extending fromPhiladelphia, which has been influenced by the recentcompletion of Route 422. Within the past several years, thesoutheastern portion of the county has experiencedsignificant in-migration by residents who commute toPhiladelphia for employment.

Chamber of Commerce reports indicate that Berks County isgrowing at a continuous and steady rate. The county's 864square miles contained a 1980 population of approximately312,500. This is projected to increase by roughly 21,000people or six percent by 1990. Douglass-Berks is one ofnumerous growing communities which officials and residentsdescribe as becoming a "bedroom community " of commuters tothe Philadelphia area. Earl Township, on the contrary, hasnot grown similarly because of its greater distance fromgrowth corridors and its hilly terrain, which increasesdevelopment costs.

Solid waste management issues are a predominant concernof area residents and officials. One local officialexplained that seven major landfills, at various stages ofoperation, exist within a 25-mile radius of the sitecommunity and another reported that 175 trucks haul garbagethrough Boyertown daily. Solid waste concerns have spawnedone local citizen's group and the holding of public meetingsand workshops. Officials and residents indicate that solid-waste and land-use issues have heightened environmentalawareness and concern among area residents. Currently,Township planning discussions are focused on solid wastemanagement plans, park land preservation, and water resourceprotection. Townships are beginning to address theseconcerns when updating their master plans.

500037

Most attention regarding the site has been focused inDouglass-Berks Township, where the majority of affectedhouseholds are located. The primary voice in localgovernment for site area residents is that of the TownshipBoard of Supervisors whom residents elect, at-large, to. four-year terms.

2 . Hiatery and Analysis of Community Concerns

Community involvement has played a key role inactivities at the CryoChem Superfund site, from early effortsto curb CryoChem expansion to recently opposing EPA'sproposed remedial action plan thereby prompting the Agency'sselection of an alternative action. The level of interestand involvement has varied over time, peaking after theinitial discovery of contamination and declining after EPAinstalled carbon filtration systems in affected homes and afew houses were successfully sold. In addition, thecommunity has turned its attention in the past few years toother environmental issues such as population growth andlandfill expansion and siting. As recent events indicate,however, the surrounding community is still able to mobilizequickly in order to voice their concerns regarding theCryoChem Superfund site.

Prior to the discovery of contamination, longtimeresidents recall attending meetings approximately 15 yearsago to protest the lack of strong zoning restrictions tolimit expansion of the CryoChem facility. In addition toattending meetings, residents documented their complaints informal correspondence dating from 1974.

According to several residents, one neighborhood studentdiscovered the drinking water contamination after testing histap water as part of a school project. In August 1981, PADERbegan sampling residential wells in response to complaints byarea residents. In the summer of 1982, the Douglass-BerksConcerned Citizens (D-BCC) was formed by several residentswith the goals of locating the sources of contamination,assessing the health effects of the contaminants, andcleaning up the ground water. The D-BCC met regularly andorganized group drinking water testing. The D-BCC alsoundertook extensive research efforts including contactingscientific experts in the academic community; visitingnational libraries, associations, and centers; and contactingnational, non-profit citizens groups. After examining theavailable information, D-BCC proposed their preferred courseof action, drilling a common well and employing air strippingto treat contaminated water. All of D-BCC's findings andrecommendations were reported to State and Federalauthorities, as well as to area politicians.

500038

During the early and mid-1980s, several potentialsources of contamination were investigated with theassistance of community members. PADER notified CryoChemthat it was in violation of the Clean Streams Law of 1937following the initial sampling of residential drinking water,CryoChem1s shop drain, and an unnamed tributary to ManatawnyCreek. In the late 1970s, a fire occurred at the nearbyBoyertown Scrap and Metal Yard, which was difficult toextinguish. One resident, alarmed by the presence of severalbarrels, took a sample from a barrel and had it analyzed by aprivate lab. Test results identified the substance astoluene. The resident subsequently publicized his findingsand EPA completed the removal of numerous drums in May 1983.The contaminant TCE, however, continued to be detected inresidential drinking water. In May 1983, D-BCC accompaniedPADER representatives on an inspection of a smallneighborhood dump site. As a result of this investigation,PADER reportedly issued a cease and desist order to the ownerof the site (the State file on this investigation has sincebeen lost).

During this period, at least two local lawyers attemptedto organize residents to file a lawsuit against CryoChem.One of the lawyers advised residents to maintain records ofall documentation, including bills, in order to file a classaction lawsuit. Many of those interviewed attribute the lackof a response to the fact that several residents areemployees of the PRPs and to the tendency of many arearesidents towards privacy.

Most recently, citizens mobilized in response to EPA'spublic notice in July 1989 announcing the proposed plan foraddressing drinking water contamination and offering citizensthe opportunity for a public meeting. One residentcirculated a petition to request a public meeting andcollected 40 signatures. Approximately 70 people attendedthe public meeting to voice their objection to EPA's proposedplan, which was subsequently changed because of citizens'comments.

3 . fltmgagv ot Kav Issues and Community Concerns

During interviews conducted in November and December1989, area residents, county and local officials, andbusiness owners discussed a wide range of issues regardingthe site. This dialogue revealed a low to moderate level ofconcern, with many of the community members sharing documentsfrom personal files. Major issues of concern were publichealth and the proposed remedies for the site. Otherconcerns expressed included water testing and filtrationprocedures; economic considerations; Federal, State, andlocal agency involvement; and current operations at the

500039

CryoChem site. A summary of these concerns is providedbelow.

a. Public Health

Several residents, business owners, and publicofficials expressed concern over potential healtheffects, from the ground-water contamination. They citedcancer deaths among neighbors, uncertainty over theeffects of trace amounts of contaminants, and theexposure of children and customers to their drinkingwater as the major reasons for their concerns. Onepublic official asked whether a health survey had everbeen conducted in the area, and if so, requested thatresults be released. In addition, one homeowner, notcurrently on an EPA-supplied filtration system, statedthat family members experienced itching after bathingwith well water in the spring following heavy rains andspeculated that the death of tropical fish in a familyaquarium may have been due to contaminated water. Sincethey installed their own carbon filtration unit,however, they have not experienced additional problems.Another business owner expressed concern over thepotential health effects of the food he produces on hisproperty because of levels of TCE found in nearby water.

b. Proposed Remedy

Almost all the residents, business, owners, andpublic officials interviewed had concerns about theproposed remedy for drinking water contamination. Chiefamong these concerns was where and when the new wellwill be located, who will be hooked up, and if userswill have to bear any costs. Among those concerned,opinions were unanimous that residents should not bearany costs, but many expressed concern that ultimatelycosts will be passed on to the consumer. In addition,residents questioned whether the new well willaccommodate future development and/or additionalexisting homes should more wells become contaminated inthe future. Residents not currently using carbonfiltration units expressed concern that development of anew well will affect their existing wells and wonderedif EPA would choose to develop an existing, unaffectedresidential well as the proposed new supply. Homeownersand officials asked who will monitor the site, for whatsubstances, and for how long. Opinions were divided asto whether CryoChem should be given responsibility formonitoring their new well with EPA oversight. Onehomeowner also questioned whether the new well will haveadequate storage and be capable of maintaining adequatepressure.

5000408

In addition to drinking water contamination, oneresident and one official expressed concern for generalground-water contamination. Specifically, they wantedto know EPA's plans for remediation.

c . Drinking Water Testing and FiltrationProcedures

Residents and business owners expressed specificconcerns over drinking water testing and filter changingprocedures. One resident and one business owner statedthat they had not yet received recent drinking watertest results in writing. Although the resident statedthat test results have normally been received withouttrouble, another resident said that historically,PADER/EPA personnel have tested drinking water, promisedtest results, and then not been heard from again.Another homeowner, surrounded by homes with filtrationunits but without one on her own water system, expressedconcern that she will not know if her water becomescontaminated because EPA has stopped testing it.Additionally, one resident was concerned, that herfiltration system has not been changed every six monthsas initially promised. Another couple questioned howEPA knows when filters should be changed becausedifferent households use different amounts of water.

d. Economic Considerations

Several homeowners expressed concern about theeffects of the drinking water contamination on theresale value of their houses. One resident was upset athaving "bought into it blind" and worried about theeffect of visible filtration equipment on the marketvalue of her home. In addition to homeowners, a localbusinessman was upset over the loss of his business(producing a food item) and future development potentialdue to a TCE-contaminated stream. Although notprevented from selling his product, he has voluntarilywithheld it from the market after tests revealed thecontamination.

•. Federal, State, and Local Agency Involvement

A few residents and local officials expresseddissatisfaction with the involvement of various publicagencies. One resident noted that the location,"Village of Worman" used in EPA meeting announcementswas not readily identifiable as the location of thesite, and was upset that the August 1989 public meetinghad ended abruptly. In addition, she was concernedbecause an EPA mailing to all affected homeownersreached her house several days later than surroundingneighbors. Another resident felt that the announcement

500041

requesting a public meeting was a "sneak job" becauseEPA did not expect much public opposition (severalresidents, however, were surprised and pleased when theproposed plan changed as a result of public comment).One homeowner and several public officials were alsoupset at EPA's failure to contact the Borough ofBoyertown before proposing to use their municipal watersupply. Another homeowner appeared frustrated andconfused by the fact that one EPA contractor did notknow the name or role of another EPA contractor at thesite. Both residents and business owners expressedfrustration over the amount of time it has taken toidentify and implement solutions, and generally "cutthrough red tape."

A few residents also expressed dissatisfaction withearlier PADER efforts, and one local official recalledhaving heard similar complaints by township residents. •One resident noted that the negative public perceptionof PADER involvement began when the initial PADERrepresentative at the site was not authorized to speakto the public. Another homeowner noted that work at thesite seemed to be affected because personnel at theState and Federal levels appeared to change constantly.In addition to State involvement, one couple stated thatlocal officials were unresponsive to the situation, andnoted that two township zoning officials had resigned.

£. Current CryoChem Operations

One couple expressed great concern over CryoChem'scurrent operations. They allege that the facilityoperates nearly around the clock, with the dust andnoise posing environmental and health threats, damagingpersonal property, and interfering with their lifestyle.In addition, they were concerned about operations theyhave witnessed outside, such as washing and x-raying ofvessels, apparently without proper health andenvironmental controls. These homeowners also wereupset that zoning laws appear to have been changed toaccommodate CryoChem's growth instead of helping toavoid the current problems.

D . COMMmtTTY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES AND TECHNIQUES

The following community relations objectives are recommendedto develop constructive two-way communication between thecommunity affected by the site and those performing remedialactivities. Some of these activities have been conducted for OU Iand are noted below.

50004210

1 . Establish Regional EPA Information Contacts

. Objective: To coordinate community relations activitiesand to answer questions regarding scheduling and policymattersrelated to the site.

Method: The EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for theCryoChem Site, in coordination with the EPA Region IIICommunity Relations Coordinator, will be available to respondto questions from interested parties regarding EPA'sactivities and responsibilities. To initiate this contact,for example, the Community Relations Coordinator met withsite area residents and officials as part of the developmentof this Community Relations Plan. (See page A-l forcontacts, addresses, and phone numbers.)

2 . Establish and Maintain an Information Repository

Objective: To ensure that accurate, understandableinformation is available to interested parties.

Method: Fact sheets and site reports (i.e., CommunityRelations Plan, RI/FS reports), the Administrative Recordwhich is a compilation of key site documents used forchoosing the response action(s), other pertinent siteinformation, and general information on the Superfund programhas been made available for public review in the Earl andDouglass Township Buildings. (See Page B-l.)

3 . Fact Shaata and Updates on Site Prop-rasa for AreaRaaidanta and Other Interested Parties

Objective: To provide the community with factualinformation about the Superfund program and the CryoChemSite.

Method: Basic information about the Superfund programwill be provided. This activity may be satisfied by usingexisting EPA brochures or other materials, or may be includedas part of site-specific fact sheets. EPA distributed a factsheet on the OU 1 proposed plan to affected residents andattendees of the public meeting held in August 1989.

Fact sheets will be prepared and issued every othermonth, based upon guidance provided by EPA Work AssignmentManagers. Such fact sheets could address technical andhealth-related issues, explain and summarize the findings ofthe RI for OU 2, and describe the next steps to be taken atthe site. A Record of Decision (ROD) fact sheet for OU 2will be prepared that explains the rationale for EPA'sproposed remedial action plan and other pertinent facts orany questions that remain regarding the site. EPA will work

50004311

with Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry toensure that accurate information on potential health effectsis reported. In addition to mailings, EPA may distributefact sheets by working in cooperation with local leaders orresidents including, for example, the Earl and Douglass-BerksTownship Supervisors representing the area.

4 . Informal Maatinga with Local Officials. AreaResidents . Citizen Grous. and State Offieiala. aa

Objective: To continue to monitor and assess concerns,and promote communication with local officials and communitymembers .

Method: Small and informal meetings or round-tablediscussions may be held periodically with local officials,civic leaders and area residents as the work progresses. Thepurpose of the meetings would be to: (a) strengthen andreconfirm EPA's presence in the community, (b) brief arealeaders and interested citizens on key developmentspertaining to the site cleanup, and (c) answer officials' andinterested citizens' questions about the status of thecleanup and findings at the site.

Meetings may be held before completion of the RI/FS toexplain the purpose and rationale for EPA's activities and toanswer questions. These meetings may be held at the homes ofinterested citizens, if they volunteer to do so, or inlocations near the site which are convenient for arearesidents .

5 . Nava Ralaaaaa

Objective: To ensure that the media and general publicreceive accurate information on the findings and developmentsas they occur.

Method: News releases will be issued as needed and uponcompletion of major milestones such as the remedialinvestigation .

6 .

ObjttCtiv«: To provide official notice of publicmeetings and public comment periods and to provide aconvenient means for area residents to receive siteinformation.

Method: EPA Region III has published three publicnotices in July, August, and November 1989, to announceactivities for OU 1. For additional events concerning OU 2,EPA Region III Community Relations staff will be responsible

12 500044

for providing public notice at least one to two weeks priorto a public meeting or public comment period. This publicnotice may take the form of a display ad and/or anannouncement in the legal notice section of area newspapersand broadcast via local radio and television public serviceannouncements .

7 . Public Maatinya

Objective: TO inform the site community of theSuperfund Process and to facilitate public input on majoragency decisions concerning the site.

Method: EPA held a public meeting in August 1989, toreceive comments on the proposed plan for OU I prior todocumenting a final decision on the selection of a remedialaction. Prior to the completion of OU 2, EPA representativesmay conduct a public meeting to inform officials andinterested citizens in Earl and Douglass-Berks Townships ofthe proposed remedial action plan for OU 2. The degree ofpublic participation and information available for publiccomment may change subject to the development- of EPA'senforcement efforts. When a public hearing is held toreceive oral and written comments on the feasibility study,the services of a court reporter will be obtained to recordproceedings in an official meeting transcript.

8 . Public C.rtnUflf»nt Parioda

Objective: To provide for public input on site-relatedissues and decisions.

Method: EPA held a public comment period on theproposed plan for OU 1 from mid- July through mid- August 1989.When the RI/FS study for OU 2 is completed, EPA will hold aminimum thirty-day public comment period to allow the publicto comment on the draft Feasibility Study report and EPA'sproposed remedial action plan. In addition, public commentperiods may be provided prior to EPA decisions on other majorsite actions/ for example, possible deletion of the site fromthe NPL or cleanup activities.

9 . Haapenaivanaaa

Objective: To ensure that public input and comments areconsidered by EPA decision-makers.

Method: EPA prepared a responsiveness summary forcomments received during the public comment period, includingthe public meeting for OU 1. Following the RI/FS publiccomment period for OU 2, EPA will prepare a responsivenesssummary to summarize public concerns, issues raised duringthe OU 2 public comment period, and EPA's responses to those

50004513

comments, and will attach the responsiveness summary to theappropriate decision document.

10. Community Relations Plan Revisions

Objective: TO reflect significant change in the leveland nature of community concern during the RI/FS process andespecially following selection of a final cleanup decisionprior to remedial action.

Method: The Community Relations Plan will be revised ifthere are indications of major changes in the enforcementprocess or community concerns.

50004614

Uj .S3gjf Q̂ b*

a < 1s S] iF « §QZ

Qaa

Sc08i"S"5

H

C3o $ns o o|«|

CD COe? ss«E TgflL CD

CD CDQ 'o O

"8

ICM!$ O CC

||

i|S.CM

<£o£

B

JCM3O

>.

IllHio e •O a £

2

1S

f

i*|llo§

S1ifI

Information

Repository

tCM

£IIoCDCD

"2CD

1

5'.1ifto:

I

ItW 3,

O

-.s111•d

«Ifi^15

X

«jj<a|

ii

it

i

*in

X

X

11

CO

*"*

X

a.e

h»

X

•g

ll'A 02°-t

CO

X

«

Responsivenes

Summary

.0>

•n

13Q1IT

u)O'v>oQC0.CCo6

5000/17

APPENDIX A

List of Interested Parties

1 . FEDERAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

Senator John HeinzWashington, D.C. Office277 Russel Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510-3801(202) 224-6324District Office2031 Federal BuildingPittsburgh, PA 19522(412) 562-0533

Senator Arlen SpectorWashingtonf D.C. Office303 Hart Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510-3802(202) 224-4254District OfficeSuite 9400600 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19106(215) 597-7200

Representative Gus YatronWashington, D.C. Office2205 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515-3806(202) 225-5546District Office1940 North 13th StreetReading, PA 19604(215) 929-9233

2. FEDERAL AGENCY OFFICIALS

Michael TowleRemedial Project ManagerU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-3166

William ToffelCommunity Relations CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 597-6180

A-l

3. STATE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

Governor Robert P. CaseyRoom 225Main Capitol BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120(717) 787-5962

Representative Dennis LehState OfficeHouse of RepresentativesP.O. Box 77Room 164A-East WingHarrisburg, PA 17120-0028(717) 787-6417District OfficeMain and Richmond StreetsFleetwood, PA 19522(215) 944-0418

Senator Michael O'PakeState OfficeSenate Post OfficeRoom 543Main CapitolHarrisburg, PA 17120(717) 787-8925District Office645 Penn StreetSuite 100Reading, PA 19601(215) 375-8584

4. STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS

Brian BoydEnvironmental Protection SpecialistBureau of Waste ManagementPennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources1875 New Hope StreetNorriatown, PA 19401(215) 270-1948

David CrownoverSection ChiefFederal and State EnforcementBureau of Waste ManagementPennsylvania Department of Environmental ResoucesP.O. Box 2063Harrisburg, PA 17120(717y 783-7816

500049A-2

5. COUNTY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS

Berks County

Steven BoyerPlanner, Berks County Planning CommissionSuite 203645 Penn StreetReading, PA 19601-3509(215) 378-8703

Boyertown

Robert BechtelCouncil MemberBoyertown Borough CouncilBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

Dennis FreyCouncil MemberBoyertown Borough CouncilBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

Clarence FulmerCouncil MemberBoyertown Borough CouncilBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

Richard IreyCouncil MemberBoyertown Borough CouncilBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

Robert LaymanManagerBorough of BoyertownBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

'500050

Kane LorahCouncil MemberBoyertown Borough CouncilBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

Michael MaggioCouncil MemberBoyertown Borough CouncilBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

Kay StaufferCouncil MemberBoyertown Borough CouncilBorough Hall100 S. Washington StreetBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-2688

Douylass-Berks County

Stephen BoettgerMember, Board of SupervisorsDouglass-Berks TownshipRD 2, Box 944Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-8500

Dale HeimbachChairman, Board of SupervisorsDouglass-Berks TownshipRD 2, Box 894Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-8500

Eugene RinehimerMember, Board of SupervisorsDouglass-Berks TownshipRD 2, Box 494Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-8500

Earl Township

Henry ClemmerMember, Board of SupervisorsEarl TownshipRD 3, Box 571Boyertown, PA 19512<215, 367-9673 ^

A-4

Leroy HeimbachChairman, Board of SupervisorsEarl TownshipRD 3, Box 511Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-9673

Harvey MoyerMember, Board of SupervisorsEarl TownshipRD 3, Box 571Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-9673

Tony ParishSolicitorEarl Township138 S. Reading AvenueBoyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-6991

6. LOCAL MEDIA

A. Newspapers

The Boyertown Times (Weekly on Thursdays) andShopper's Digest (Free biweekly on Wednesdays)124 N. Chestnut StreetP.O. Box 565Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-6041Rates:Times• $5.60/column inchDigest: $8.40/column inch

Circulation:Times i 6600Digeati 17,500

Advance:Times• Tuesdays, 10 a.m.Digeat; Thursday before publication

Contact: Paul Dapp

The Mercury (Daily)Hanover and King StreetsPottstown, PA 19464(215) 323-3000Rates: $10.45/column inchCirculation: 31,500 daily and SundayAdvance: 3 days in advanceContact: Mike Comfort

500052A-5

The Reading Times/Eagle^345 Penn StreetReading, PA 19601(215) 371-5105Rates: $19.88/column inch (combined dailies and

Saturday)$21.08/column inch (Sunday)

Circulation: 78,000 combined daily63,000 Saturday

112,000 SundayDeadline: Thursday for Sunday and Monday papers

Friday for Tuesday and Wednesday papers3 days in advance for Thursday, Friday,Saturday papers

Contact: Bob Wanner

B. Radio Stations

WAGO (1240 AM)Box 165745 S. Front StreetReading, PA 19603(215) 376-3987News Director: Susan SandsProgram Director: Steve HaageDeadline for PSA: None

WEEU (850 AM)34 N. Fourth StreetReading, PA 19601(215) 376-7335News Director: Lew RunkleProgram Director: Richard SchilppDeadline for PSA: 4 days in advance

WPAZ (1370 AM)Box 638PottStown, PA 19464(215) 326-4000News Director: Dale InghamProgram Director: John LamonicaDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

WRAW (1340 AM) and WRFY (102.5 FM)1265 Perkiomen AvenueReading, PA 19602(215) 376-7173News Director: David SteinProgram Director: Bob MinnichDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

1 The Baatdlncj Timaa is daily weekday morning's; The R«=>adinc/ Eagle isdaily evenings, Saturday, and Sunday. Weekday ads are run inthe morning and evening editions.

A-6

WYCL (107.5 FM)P.O. Box 14747Reading, PA 19612(800-926-1075)News Director: Jim PlummerProgram Director: Al BurkeDeadline for PSA: 2 weeks in advance

C. Television Stations

KYW (NEC Affiliate, Channel 3)Independence Mall EastPhiladelphia, PA 19106(215) 238-4700News Director: Randy CovingtonProgram Director: Jerry EatonDeadline for PSA: 4 weeks in advance

WCAU (CBS Affiliate, Channel 10)City Avenue and Monument RoadPhiladelphia, PA 19131(215) 668-5510News Director: Paul GluckProgram Director: Dan SitarskiDeadline for PSA: 4-6 weeks in advance

WLTV (Public Television, Channel 39)Mountain Drive(215) 867-4677Bethlehem, PA 18015Program Director: Donald RobertDeadline for PSA: 2-3 weeks in advance

WPVI (ABC Affiliate, Channel 6)4100 City Line AvenuePhiladelphia, PA 19131(215) 878-9700Assistant News Director: Edward SchimmelProgram Director: Charles BradleyDeadline for PSA: 3 weeks in advance

A-7 500054

APPENDIX BSuggested Locations for

Information Repositories and Public Megt:incrs

1. Information Repositories

Douglass-Berks Township Municipal BuildingRD 2, Box 513Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-8500Joan Adams - Secretary TreasurerHours: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m.- 1:00 p.m.

Closed Saturday and SundayCopying available to the public ($.25/page)Handicapped accessible via emergency exit

Earl Township Supervisors' BuildingRD 3, Box 571Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-9673Donna Hydock - Administrative AssistantHours: 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.Copying available to the public ($.25/page)Handicapped accessible

2. Public Meetings

Douglass-Berks Municipal BuildingRD 2, Box 513Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-8500Seating capacity: 35Cost: NoneAvailability: Room is reserved every Wednesday evening;

for other days, call as far in advance aspossible

Access: Handicapped accessible via emergency exitContact: Joan Adams, Secretary-TreasurerAudio-visual: Cassette player

Earl Township Supervisors' BuildingRD 3, Box 571Boyertown, PA 19512(215) 367-9673Seating capacity: 70Cost: No chargeAvailabilty: Reserve as far in advance as possibleAccess: Handicapped accessibleContact: Donna Hydock, Secretary-TreasurerAudio-visual: None

500055B-l

Pine Forge AcademyP.O. Box 338Pine Forge, PA 19548(215) 326-5800Seating Capacity: The gymnasium can seat up to 1,000Cost: NoneAvailability: Need to send a written request specifying

all details (including audio-visualneeds) as far in advance as possible

Access: Handicapped accessibleContact: Efrain Murillo, Assistant Business ManagerAudio-visual: The Academy has most audio-visual aids

available (e.g., overhead and 16-mmprojectors, screen, etc.). Audio-visualneeds should be specified in writtenrequest for gymasium reservation.

B-2 500056