REDACTED CH2M HILL INC - FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS … · Approximately 50 residences and several businesses are within 1 mile of the site. The nearest homes (5) are along Demode

HAZARDOUSSITE CONTROL

DIVISION

RemedialPlanning/

FieldInvestigation

Team(REM/FIT)

ZONE II

CONTRACT NO.68-01-6692

CH2MBHILLEcology &

Environment

* ?

FINAL

CEMETERY, ROSEAND SPRINGFIELD SITES

OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

July 18, 1984

0 7 - 5 V C 2 . 007-5VS3.007-5VA7.0

•:, vfc ,~.... •';'•£,!

1

]

FINAL

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN

CEMETERY, ROSEAND SPRINGFIELD SITES

OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

July 18, 1984

07-5VC2.007-5V83.007-5VA7.0

GLT476/3

Section AINTRODUCTION

This community relations plan has been prepared for Phase I(Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study) of a remedialresponse for the Cemetery, Rose, and Springfield Townshipsites in Oakland County, Michigan. Because the background,issues, and participants are similar for the three sites,the community relations plan addresses the sites together.The plan is divided into the following sections to facili-tate reference and use:

I o Introductiono Community Relations Backgroundo Community Relations Work Plano Mailing List

The Community Relations Background (Section E) provides sitedescriptions, a history of community relations activities,

I and a discussion of interested parties and their concerns.This information was used to design community relations objec-tives for the sites. Development of this section was based

• on discussions with the following persons:

o Mark Filippini, U.S. EPA—Region Vi1 o Jim Knoy, U.S. EPA—Region V

^ o Jim Linton and Gary Klepper, Remedial Action Sec-1 tion, Michigan Department of Natural Resources

o Ron Grimes, Oakland County Health Department

1 o Mike Izzo, Town Supervisor, Rose Township

• o Collin Walls, Town Supervisor, Springfield Town-j ship

o , Homeowner, Cemetery site

• Addresses and telephone numbers for the above individualsare included in Section D.

IThe community relations work plan (Section C) describes thetechniques that will be used and designates specific tasksto be undertaken during the RI/FS for each site. The schedulefor implementing activities for each site has also been includedwith an estimate of the staff time and budget required toaccomplish the work.

Section D is a mailing list of interested agencies; groupsand individuals; elected officials; and the media.

Exemtion 6 - Non-Responsive

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), RemedialAction Section, is the lead agency for the three sites undera cooperative agreement with the U.S. EPA. MDNR will haveprimary responsibility for implementing the community rela-tions plan.

Section BCOMMUNITY RELATIONS BACKGROUND

SITE DESCRIPTIONS

Between 1966 and 1968, disposal of drum and tanker wastescontaining both liquid and solid industrial wastes is knownto have occurred at three separate sites in Oakland County,Michigan. The sites are all within 5 miles of each other ina rural residential area. Two sites, referred to as theCemetery site and the Rose Township site, are located inRose Township. The third site, located in Springfield Town-ship, is referred to by the same name, the Springfield Town-ship site.

Hazardous materials found at all three sites are believed tohave been dumped by the same hauler, Tucker Ford. Rose andSpringfield Township sites v/ere both discovered in April1979; the Cemetery site was not found until September 1981.Individual descriptions of each site follow:

ROSE TOWNSHIP SITE

The Rose Township site is in Oakland County, approximately40 miles northwest of Detroit. The site encompasses about12 acres of open field. The site bordered by Demode Road issurrounded by largely undeveloped lands. Much of the areawithin 1 mile of the site is lakes, wetlands, and woodlands.Approximately 50 residences and several businesses are within1 mile of the site. The nearest homes (5) are along DemodeRoad about 1/3 mile from the site. Site access is providedby an unpaved road that is unrestricted.

The Rose Township site, an illegal dump site, is believed tohave received industrial wastes between 1966 and 1968. Tanktrucks were emptied at the site and approximately 5,000 drumswere dumped there. The first official notification of illegaldumping at Rose was by the Rose Township supervisor in aletter to the Oakland County Health Department in June 1968.Court actions were taken against Ford in 1969 and in 1971against Ford and the site owner. Orders to clean up wereignored in both cases. In 1979, a Pollution Emergency AlertSystem complaint was sent to MDNR by the Oakland County HealthDepartment. In June 1979, drum sampling by MDNR shewed thecontents to be paint sludges, solvents, PCB's, oils, andgreases. In August 1979, residential wells were sampled;sampling continued until June 1980. Analysis of the samplesindicated that various wells had higher than normal levelsof lead, trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE),or di-ethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP).

In September 1979, the site, along with the Springfield Town-ship site, was declared an environmental emergency. Excava-tion and removal of the drums began the same month. By July1980, about 5,000 had been removed. Several mounds of conta-minated soils are now located in the southwest corner of thesite. These mounds are spoils from drum excavation and removalfrom sites. The potential for groundwater contamination isthe single most significant threat to public health and safetyposed by the site. Of secondary importance would be a healththreat from contaminated soils or air contaminants. Thepresence of pollutants in the groundwater up to 650 feetoffsite has been documented. The full areal extent of thesecontaminants is the subject of the remedial investigation.During residential well sampling, 12 were sampled initiallyand 24 later. In the first survey (August 1979) two wellswere found to have lead at levels exceeding drinking waterstandards. Six others contained DEEP, and one well containedlow levels of TCE and PCE. Subsequent sampling (September1979) showed TCE and PCE in small amounts up to 3.7mg/l.Neither lead nor DEHP were found in subsequent samples.Based on 4 consecutive months of uncontaminated samples dur-ing 1980, the monitoring program was discontinued.

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SITE

The Springfield Township site is about 5 miles from the RossTownship site. The Springfield site is located on a topo-graphic high and is surrounded by largely undeveloped landsconsisting of wetlands and woodlands. Few residences arewithin 1 mile of the site; however, approximately 3,000 resi-dences and businesses are within 3 miles of the site. Thereis only one home adjacent to the site and 14 households nearlyalong Schindler Road. Site access is provided by a dirtroad that is presently unrestricted.

The 4-acre Springfield site has a very similar history tothe Rose site. Dumping of barrels occurred along the dirtroad that winds through the site, and industrial wastes weredrained into excavated pits or low areas. The Springfieldsite was discovered at the same time as Rose, therefore thesteps that occurred at Rose also happened simultaneously atSpringfield.

Groundwater contamination was identified in monitoring wellson the main disposal area in the form of TCE, dichloroethane,and metals. Results showed that contamination is limited towells found on or near the main disposal site. Most offsitewells are reportedly uncontaminated. Some TCE and PCE weredetected in the first round of residential well monitoring,but were not found in subsequent sampling. Soil samplingdetected PCB's, DDT, DDP, phenols—all with relatively highconcentrations to depths of at least 25 feet. High metal

concentrations were also found including lead, zinc, chromi-um, and copper.

CEMETERY SITE

The Cemetery site is in a rural residential section of OaklandCounty. The site is about 300 to 400 feet west of NorthMilford Road in the 8900 block. Three residences are withina few hundred feet of the site.

The site is less than 1 acre and is known to contain burieddrums. The disposal area conforms with the topography ofthe land and the presence of drums is not obvious from thesurface. The area is accessible by way of two residentialdriveways facing Milford Road. No fence exists on the site.

An estimated 300 to 600 drums of industrial wastes were dumpedin an old sand and gravel pit at the Cemetery site, a namederived from its close proximity to the Rose Township Cemetery,Evidence suggests Tucker Ford (a waste hauler) was involvedwith this site as well as the Rose and Springfield sites.Cemetery was used as a substitute when weather conditionsprevented access to the Rose Township site.

In September 1981, the disposal area was sampled to determinethe contents of the buried drums. The chemical analysis of

J the drum contents indicated the presence of various industrialsolvents and compounds. The readily identifiable compoundswere xylene, cumene, toluene, benzene, and chlorobenzene.

Like the other sites, potential contamination of domesticwells is potentially the greatest health threat. About 20to 30 domestic wells are within a half-mile radius of the

I site. Boring logs suggest that waste is buried in the samegeologic deposit that is used by nearby residents as a potableaquifer. Although domestic well sampling has not detectedany contamination, the potential for contamination exists.

HISTORY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES

The history of community relations activities is presentedindividually for the Cemetery site and is combined for theRose and Springfield Townships. The Rose and Springfieldsites are discussed together because they were discovered atthe same time and remedial and community activities haveproceeded together. Since Cemetery was discovered later, itis discussed separately.

ROSE AND SPRINGFIELD SITES

The first official notification of illegal dumping was madeby the supervisor of Rose Township in a letter to the OaklandCounty Health Department (OCHD) in June 1968. In a Michigan

DNR memorandum dated December 10, 1968, a staff member reportedthat the OCHD had recently found another dumping site whichbecame known as the Springfield site.

In April 1979, the Oakland County Health Department (OCHD)was contacted by a Springfield Township resident complainingof the presence of 55-gallon drums on the Springfield site.The OCHD forwarded this complaint to the Michigan Departmentof Natural Resources (MDNR) and notified it about potentialcontaminated materials at a second site in Rose Township.OCHD and MDNR investigated the Rose and Springfield Townshipsites, both contained contaminated materials.

The initial response from the MDNR was to conduct furtherinvestigations at the local level. Search warrants wereobtained to gain access to the property and to collect water,soil, and drum samples.

In August 1979, the MDNR completed laboratory analyses ofprivate well water samples adjacent to the site. Trace levelsof toxic chemicals, including trichloroethylene (TCE), perchlo-roethylene (PCE), lead, and diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)were found. During the second round of testings conductedby the MDNR, trace levels of toxic chemicals were not found.

During August 1979, the Detroit Free Press printed a storytitled, "Dump Sites Leak PCB's in Oakland: Tests Due." Thearticle was the first notice for many residents and localofficials that a toxic chemical problem existed at the Roseand Springfield Township sites. Local and state agenciesmet in September 1979, to determine areas of responsibilityfor future testing and cleanup activity. Subsequently, theMichigan Toxic Substance Control Commission declared an envi-ronmental emergency for the Rose and Springfield Townshipsites and received a legislative appropriation to fund partialcleanup activities.

When the Rose and Springfield Township sites were discoveredin 1979, the news media gave the situation extensive coverage.Many residents became concerned about the effect of the presscoverage on their property values. Legal actions were filedby the residents of the Townships, both jointly and sepa-rately, to assure action would be taken to clean up the sites.With only one exception, all lawsuits have been either settledor withdrawn. Of the individuals interviewed, no one hadinformation as to how the legal actions were resolved.

The sole suit still active has been filed by property ownersin Springfield Township against the companies that may havegenerated the wastes dumped at the sites. The suit is stillpending.

The Oakland County Health Department took steps to ensurethat local residents were adequately informed. Some resi-dents were personally notified (via telephone) of the wellsampling results. Most residents learned the results of thetests through a "Special Newsletter to Residents," outliningthe problem and what was being done to solve it. The news-letter provided a name and telephone number (the Director ofthe Health Department) for people to call for further infor-mation. The Oakland County Health Department continued touse newsletters to keep residents informed. In addition, aRose Township resident, Joe Gorka, represented the affectedhouseholds at meetings and planning sessions held by theHealth Department.

In August 1979, Oakland County Health Department began deli-very of water for drinking and cooking purposes to all resi-dents whose wells had shown trace levels of contaminantsduring the first round of testing. On September 17, 1979,the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approved an expendi-ture of $10,000 in community development funds for this pro-

1 gram.

The Michigan Department of Public Health and the OCHD con-ducted water supply sampling from the fall of 1979 to latespring 1980. Sampling over several months showed no evi-dence of contamination in wells around the dump sites. TheMichigan Department of Natural Resources began Phase I of ahydrogeologic investigation in the summer of 1980 at bothsites. Excavation of the barrels began in 1979. By July1980, excavation and removal of the barrels had been com-pleted. Approximately 1,500 55-gallon drums were recoveredfrom the Springfield Township site and 5,000 from the RoseTownship site.

On August 31, 1980, bottled water delivery was discontinuedto the residents of Springfield and Rose Townships, sincefour consecutive rounds of testing showed no evidence ofwell contamination. In April 1981, the Oakland Health Depart-ment again tested water from Rose and Springfield Townshipwells. All wells were determined safe at that time. Theresults of all well tests were communicated in writing toresidents with a personal typed letter. The letters werecosigned by the Directors of the Oakland County Health Depart-ment and the State Health Department.

In October 1981, the DNR released data from the firr-t phaseof its hydrogeologic investigation of Rose and SpringfieldTownship dump sites. The soil and groundwater samples weretaken from areas where the greatest contamination was expected,Several contaminants were found in the soil ?.t each site.

During early February 1983, 711 tons of soil contaminatedwith PCB's and other substances were removed from the

1

]

1

Springfield Township site. Using the remainder of statefunds appropriated to the Toxic Substances Control Commis-sion, all the heavily contaminated soils from the Springfieldsite, and a portion of the contaminated soils from the Rosesite, were excavated. These contaminated soils were trans-ported to out-of-state disposal facilities in Ohio.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources held publicmeetings before and after the excavation and removal actionat the Springfield and Rose Township sites. At the followupmeeting in March 1983, the results of the second phase ofthe hydrogeologic investigation were announced. The find-ings indicated contaminants are present in the groundwaterat the Rose and Springfield sites, but they have not migratedoffsite.

CEMETERY SITE

Prior to September 1981, there were rumors that another siteexisted in Rose Township. Based on these rumors, State Rep-resentative Claude Trim commissioned a local resident, HowardWilson, to search for the barrels. Mr. Wilson reported thatduring 1967 to 1969 he was approached to bury 500 barrels atthe old gravel pit near Milford Road. He did not take thejob. Later, Mr. Wilson was also requested to cover the barrelsat the pit with his equipment, which he declined to do.

Between Septembe 11 , Mr. excavated a smallrig behind the , , and homes on MillfordRoad. There was approximately 18 to 20 barrel fragments,some of which contained paint waste, grease, oils, latex,plus other sludges.

Representative Trim was besieged by reporters from Channels2 and 4 in Detroit, newspaper reporters, and other residentsand sightseers attracted to the site. It was agreed by DNRand OCHD that the barrel fragments should not be reburied.On September 11, 1981, a dump truck was hired to haul thebarrel fragments away for testing and disposal.

On September 21, 1981, OCHD notified MDNR that barrels con-taining industrial waste were found near the Rose TownshipCemetery. The Department of Natural Resources investigatedthe problem and found that wastes from the barrels were sim-ilar to samples analyzed from the Rose and Springfield Town-ship sites.

During September and October 1981, Rose Township residentswrote to U.S. Congressman Williams Broomfield, State Rep-resentative Claude Trim, and the Oakland County Health Depart-ment complaining about the Cemetery toxic waste site. Theseletters expressed concern about potential health problemsfrom the water. U.S. Congressman Broomfield in turn wrote

Exemtion 6 - Non-Responsive Exemtion 6 - Non-Responsive Exemtion 6 - Non-Responsive

to U.S. EPA urging site cleanup. In late October 1981, wellsampling showed no contamination. Monitoring wells wereinstalled at that time, but have not been tested recently.

With the exception of the barrels removed and tested in late1981, no removal or cleanup activity has been conducted atthe Cemetery site. No hydrogeologic studies or testing hasbeen done since the initial discovery of the site. It issuspected that there is groundwater contamination at theCemetery site.

INTERESTED PARTIES AND KEY CONCERNS

LOCAL RESIDENTS

As part of the onsite interviews conducted for this plan,community relations staff met with residents and officialsconcerned about the Rose, Springfield, and Cemetery sites.A complete list of names and addresses is included at theback of this plan.

In addition, the socioeconomic effects of these toxic wastesites are contained in a report entitled "Social and EconomicImpacts of Toxic Waste Sites: Rose and Springfield Town-ships, Oakland County" by the Southeast Michigan Council ofGovernment. The major findings of this report are:

o The range of social and economic impacts exper-ienced by residents is extremely broad. Some per-sons have experienced severe stress, fears offuture health problems, feelings of being trapped(due to the perceived difficulty in selling homes),and have paid for laboratory tests of drinkingwater. Others have experienced few social andeconomic effects.

o Lower property values (or marketability of property)are viewed by nearly all persons interviewed asone of the most significant effects created by theRose Township toxic waste site.

o Costs have been incurred for laboratory tests onwater supplies, attorney's fees, purchase of bottledwater, telephone and mileage costs related to publicmeetings and contacts with state and county agencies,and business liability against future groundwatercontamination.

o Eight of the 13 persons interviewed were cynicalabout the government agency cleanup effort. Theyview county and state agencies as part of a coverupeffort, citing the pattern of water well test results

(some contamination followed by none) to supporttheir view.

o Nine of the persons interviewed raised questionsand concerns about communication between state andcounty agencies and residents affected by the con-tamination. Some residents feel strongly thatadditional information should be provided citizensand that there was little effort on the part ofthe county and state agencies to communicate thetrue facts.

ROSE AND SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS

Major participants in the past have been the SpringfieldTownship Supervisor, Mike Izzo, and Rose Township Supervi-sor, Collin Walls. They both learned of the hazardous wastethrough the news media. Once they were apprised of the pro-blem they became active in seeking resources to alleviatethe problem.

The Rose and Springfield Township supervisors share localresidents' concerns about the impacts of the Superfund sites.They are aware of the loss of property value and believe itis the most serious local concern. The potential for short-range and long-range groundwater pollution is also a problem.

Communication among various levels of government has beenvery good. Mr. Walls and Mr. Izzo are hopeful that thisspirit of cooperation will continue. The need to be keptinformed is important so that these officials can respond toquestions concerning ongoing Superfund activities.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The major area of concern and responsibility of this depart-ment relates to potential impacts of hazardous waste on cropsand animals. The Michigan Department of Agriculture initi-ated an agricultural products survey and related laboratorytesting in early September 1979, when it was informed aboutthe toxic waste sites in Rose and Springfield Townships.There were no significant problems identified with any cropsor animals found close to the site or on a nearby dairy farm.

OAKLAND COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

The major concern of the Oakland County Health Department isthe potential for groundwater pollution. The major activityof OCHD regarding these sites is continued residential wellsampling. Samples were collected and then taken to Lansingfor analysis in the laboratories of the Michigan Departmentof Public Health.

10

Staff of the MDPH worked closely with the OCHD in designinga well testing program. The MDFH also directed the labora-tory analysis of well water samples and provided informationon health standards of toxic chemicals. The results of allwell tests were communicated in writing to residents with apersonal typed letter. The letters were cosigned by theDirector of the Oakland County Health Department and StateHealth Department.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Following the notification of the presence of the drums andthe declaration of a toxic emergency, the Michigan DNR focusedon site cleanup. Hydrogeologic studies were conducted todetermine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination.Removal of the drums and contaminated soil was completedunder the direction of DNR.

Michigan DNR quickly began to communicate to local residentsand officials through the Michigan Environmental ProtectionReport, which began publication in November 1982. This doc-ument was issued on an as-needed basis to keep people informed,DNR set up and attended several public meetings prior to andduring cleanup activities to facilitate communication.

TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL COMMISSION

The Toxic Substance Control Commission (TSCC) was establishedto coordinate hazardous waste problems among-state agencies.They have the responsibility to alert the governor and legis-lature when problems exist.

In September 1979, the TSCC declared the Rose/SpringfieldTownship disposal sites to be an emergency for certain toxicsubstances. In late December 1979, the legislature appro-priated $1.2 million for toxic substance cleanup operationsat the two sites.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN

The following section describes the community relations ob-jectives for the Cemetery, Rose, and Springfield Townshipsites. Objectives are the same for all three sites becauseof their similar background, issues, and participants.

o Provide concerned citizens, local officials, stateagencies, media, and other interested parties withtimely, consistent information about the scope,progress, and findings of the Remedial Investiga-tion and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site(s).Provide a means for interested parties to express

11

concerns and make inquiries, to ensure effectivetwo-way communication.

Inform local officials and residents that attemptsare being made to evaluate the hazards associatedwith the sites and to achieve appropriate remedialactions.

Maintain active contact with Ron Grines of theOakland County Health Department, Supervisor CollinWalls of Springfield Township, and Supervisor MikeIzzo of Rose Township. They have been active par-ticipants in the past and can assist in informinglocal residents of remedial objectives.

Provide information on the results of the remedialinvestigation in a manner that is useful and time-ly to the interested parties. Provide an oppor-tunity for public review and discussion of techni-cal information.

Provide residents, Township and County government,agencies, and other interested parties an oppor-tunity to comment on remedial action alternativesidentified by the feasibility study before thefinal selection of a remedy. Summarize publiccomments received and respond to them.

Monitor public concerns and information needs throughthe RI/FS. Modify the community relations plan asnecessary to respond to changes in community atti-tudes and needs.

Ensure that involved agencies are kept informed onthe technical activities at the site.

12

Section CCOMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK PLAN

The community relations plan will be implemented by MDNR,Groundwater Quality Division. Specific staff and U.S. EPAresponsibilities will be identified in the work plan for theRI/FS. The techniques listed below are designed to meet thecommunity relations objectives outlined in the previous sec-tion.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNIQUES

| 1- Local Official Briefings

Briefings for the Rose Township, Springfield Township,and Oakland County Health Department will be held asnecessary. These are intended to be informal telephoneconversations or one-on-one meetings with local person-nel to keep them informed of current activities. Astest results become available, increased citizen inter-est may occur, possibly requiring some adjustment inthe types and numbers of meetings.

2. Press Releases

; Press releases will be distributed at appropriate timesi during the RI/FS. In general, press releases will be

issued at:

o The beginning of the RI/FS, to provide a descrip-tion, the purpose, and the schedule of these investi-gations

o The conclusion of Phase I sampling activities duringthe remedial investigation

o The conclusion of remedial investigation activ-ities, to provide a summary of the findings

o The conclusion of the feasibility study to provideinformation on the recommended alternative(s) andto notify residents of the public review periodand availability of study documents

o After the Record of Decision, to announce the se-lected remedy(ies)

Press releases will be issued to the local and regionalmedia, including newspapers, radio, and television.All press releases will be coordinated between MDNR andEPA staff in Chicago.

13

In addition to those above, press releases should beprepared as the need arises throughout the RI/FS.

3. Fact Sheets

The fact sheets distributed by the MDNR have been ex-tremely helpful. These fact sheets should continue tobe distributed to all residents adjacent to the site,officials at Rose and Springfield Townships, OaklandCounty Health Department, Michigan Department of PublicHealth, Toxic Substances Control Commission, other in-terested officials, and other interested local resi-dents. A detailed mailing list has been prepared andwill be used for distribution of fact sheets, which are2- to 3-page summaries written in a style easily under-stood by nontechnical people. Fact sheets will be pre-pared at the following stages:

o At the beginning of the RI/FS.

o When Phase I of the remedial investigation sam-pling activities is completed.

o When the remedial investigation report is issued.

o At the completion of the feasibility study to pre-sent study findings and the recommended alterna-tive (s) .

o After the Record of Decision, to present the se-lected remedy(ies).

4. Citizen Information Committee

Establish a Citizen Information Committee composed ofcommunity representatives and organizations to keepresidents and other interested parties fully and regu-larly informed about the details and status of the RI/FS.The committee is also intended to keep DNR advised oflocal concerns and preferences.

The committee should be established before onsite acti-vity begins. Regular meetings will be scheduled asnecessary.

The Citizen Information Committee is being interpretedby the U.S. EPA as a "type" of advisory committee; there-fore, it is specifically excluded from grant eligibility,as noted in the cooperative agreement. The U.S. EPAwill be obliged in the state's request to form such acommittee, but cannot participate in its financing. Aruling from the U.S. EPA's Office of General Counsel

14

is pending on this issue. If the decision is in favorof the state, appropriate compensation will be granted.

5. Community Meetings

An initial community meeting will be held to informinterested citizens and officials of the procedures andthe timetable for the RI/FS. The need for additionalsmall community meetings will be determined during theRI/FS

A second community meeting will be held following thecompletion of the final remedial investigation report.The conclusions of the remedial investigation will bepresented and the remedial actions that will be evalua-ted during the feasibility study will be outlined.

A final public meeting(s) will be held following theconclusion of the feasibility study to present the recom-mended alternative(s) and to invite public comment.Any community meeting should be coordinated with Oak-land County and the Township.

6. Local Repository of Information

A local file of information concerning the site will bemaintained and regularly updated as activities at thesite progress. It will be located at a local publicfacility. The file will include the name and phonenumber of a person to contact for additional informa-tion. Copies of the RAMP and RI/FS will be availablefor public review, as well as other relevant informa-tion as it becomes available.

7. Public Comment Period

A 3-week comment period will be provided after releaseof the feasibility study. Notice of the comment periodand of the availability of the feasibility study willbe issued 2 weeks before the comment period begins.The feasibility study and technical summary will bemade available at the local information repositoriesand other locations as appropriate.

8. Responsiveness Summary

A response summary will be prepared to summarize com-munity concerns discovered during the community rela-tions activities. The summary will be included in theinformation repository file and will be distributed tointerested parties.

15

COMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK PLAN—ROSE TOWNSHIP SITE

Rose Township site will be the first site to receive en RI/FS.The cooperative agreement for the Rose Township site wassigned in September 1983, and work is expected to begin in1984.

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Briefing of Local Officials

Briefing A: Month 1, to describe upcoming RI/FS activ-ities.

Briefings:

Press Releases

Ongoing throughout RI/FS activities and priorto public announcement of study results.

Press Release A: Month 1, to announce the grant awardby EPA for the cleanup activities.

Press Release B: Month 1, to announce startup of theRI/FS, schedule of activities and pro-ducts, contact person, location ofinformation repositories, and Meet-ing A.

Press Release C: Month 4, to announce Phase I samplingresults.

Press Release D: Month 9-10, to announce availabilityof remedial investigation report andMeeting B.

Press Release E: Month 14-15, to announce availabilityof feasibility study, Meeting C, and3-week public comment period.

Press Release F: Month 16, to announce Record of Deci-sion.

Fact Sheets

Fact Sheet A:

Fact Sheet B:

Month 2, to summarize onsite activ-ities since discovery of contamina-tion.

Month 5, to summarize the results ofPhase I sampling activities, announcethe location of information repositoriesand contact person.

16

i1

Fact Sheet C: Month 9-10, to summarize results ofremedial investigation report.

Fact Sheet D: Month 14-15, to summarize results offeasibility study, announce availabil-ity of feasibility study, announceMeeting C, and 3-week public commentperiod.

Fact Sheet E: Month 16, responsiveness summary tooutline comments received and finalselected remedy.

Citizen Information Committee

CommitteeMeeting A: Month 1, to establish the Citizen Informa-

tion Committee.

CommitteeMeetings: Ongoing throughout RI/FS activities and prior

to public announcement of study results.

Community Meetings

Meeting A: Month 1, to discuss upcoming RI/FS activ-ities, schedule, and products.

Meeting B: Month 9-10, to present remedial investigationstudy.

Meeting C: Month 14-15, to discuss results of feasibilitystudy and obtain public comment.

Information Repository

Establishment: Month 2, establish local informationrepository.

Public Comment Period

Period A: Month 14-15, a 3-week public comment periodwill be provided for review of the RI/FS.

Responsiveness Summary

Period A: Month 16, record of comments received andhow they were addressed in the remedial ac-tion decision.

17

STAFFING PLAN


Work Hours Cost

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 32 $ 620MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 16 340

Press Releases

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 12 235MDNR Press Officer 36 860MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 12 255MDNR Clerical 24 300

Fact Sheets

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 80 1,555MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 30 630MDNR Clerical 40 500U.S. EPA Comm. Relations Specialist 16 340


MDNR Community Relations Specialist 40 *MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 20 *

Community Meetings

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 60 1,165MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 30 630MDNR Graphics 24 300MDNR Clerical 18 225


MDNR Community Relations Specialist 8 155MDNR Clerical 12 150


MDNR Community Relations Specialist 12 235


MDNR Community Relations Specialist 16 310MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 8 170MDNR Clerical 8 100U.S. EFA Comm. Relations Specialist 8 170

SummaryMDNR Community Relations Specialist 260 4,270

*This activity is not funded by U.S. EPA.

18

U.S. EPA Coitun. Relations Specialist 24 $ 510MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 116 2,020MDNR Press Officer 36 860MDNR Graphics 24 300MDNR Clerical 102 1,280Expenses 1,500

Total 562 $10,740

These figures do not include costs for the Citizen Informa-tion Committee because it is not funded by U.S. EPA. Thecost of this activity would be about $1,200.

Figure 1 depicts the community relations plan schedule forthe Rose Township site.

if

19

Figure 1

ROSE TOWNSHIP (DEMODE ROAD) SITECOMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SCHEDULE

____Activity_____

Briefing of LocalOfficials

Press Release

Fact Sheets

Citizen Info. Comm.

Community Meetings

Information Re-pository


ResponsivenessSummary

1° 2 3 U 5 6

A ——————————————————————————————

B C

A B

A ——————————————————————————————

A

Month7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

D E F

C D E

———— — — as required ——————————————————— — ———— — ——

B C

Month 1 begins once the cooperative agreement to conduct an Rl/FS for the Springfield Township site has been signed.

GLT476/2-1

COMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK PLAN—SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SITE

The date on which the cooperative agreement for the Spring-field Township site will be signed has not yet been deter-mined. Work plan activity dates are therefore identified bythe number of months the RI/FS will be in progress. Afterthe cooperative agreement is signed, specific dates can beassigned to each activity.



Briefing A: Month 3, to describe upcoming RI/FS activi-ties.

Briefings:

Press Releases/Advisories

Ongoing throughout RI/FS activities and priorto public announcement of study results.

Press Release A: Month 1, to announce the grant awardby EPA for the cleanup activities.

Press Release B:

Press Release C:

Press Release D:

Press Release Ei

Press Release F;

Fact Sheets

Fact Sheet A:

Fact Sheet B:

Month 3, to announce startup of theRI/FS, schedule of activities and pro-ducts, contact person, location ofinformation repositories, and Meet-ing A.

Month 1, to announce Phase I samplingresults.

Month 10/11, to announce availabilityof remedial investigation report andupcoming Meeting B.

Month 14/15, to announce availabilityof feasibility study, Meeting C, and3-week public comment period.

Month 16/17, to announce Record ofDecision.


Month 7, to summarize the results ofPhase I sampling activities, announce

20

the location of information repositoriesand contact person.

Fact Sheet C: Month 10/11, to summarize results ofremedial investigation report.

Fact Sheet D: Month 14/15, to summarize results offeasibility study, announce availabil-ity of feasibility study, announceMeeting C, and 3-week public commentperiod.

Fact Sheet E: Month 16/17, responsiveness summary tooutline comments received and finalselected remedy.



tion Committee.



Community Meetings


Meeting B: Month 10/11, to present remedial investigationstudy.

Meeting C: Month 14/15, to discuss results of feasibil-ity study and obtain public comment.

j Information Repository

Month 3/4, establish local information repository.


Period A: Month 14/15. A 3-week public comment periodwill be provided for review of the RI/FS.


Period A: Month 17. Record of comments received andhow they were addressed in the remedial actiondecision.

21

STAFFING PLAN


Work Hours Cost


Press Releases

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 12 235MDNR Press Officer • 18 430MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 6 125MDNR Clerical 24 300

Fact Sheets

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 40 800MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 10 200MDNR Clerical 20 250U.S. EPA Comm. Relations Specialist 16 340


MDNR Community Relations Specialist 40 *MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 20 *

Community Meetings

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 40 170MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 24 500MDNR Graphics 12 150MDNR Clerical 18 225







Summary*This activity is not funded by U.S. EPA.

22

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 182 $ 2,740U.S. EPA Conun. Relations Specialist ?4 510MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 84 1,335MDNR Press Officer 18 430MDNR Graphics 12 150MDNR Clerical 76 95C

Expenses 1,500

Total 396 S 7,615

The figures do not include costs for the Citizen InformationCommittee because this activity is not funded by U.S. EPA.

* The costs would be about $1,200.i

Figure 2 depicts the community relationships plan schedulefor the Springfield Township site.

23

Figure 2

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SITECOMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SCHEDULE

Monthla 2 3 4 5

Activity

Briefing of Local Officials A ----------

Press Releases A B

Fact Sheets A

Citizen Info. Comm. A ---------------

Community Meetings A

6 7 8 9 10 11

—— ——————————————— as required ——

C D

B C

B

12 13 14 15 16 17

E F

D E

C



Month 1 begins once the cooperative agreement to conduct an RI/FS for the Springfield Township site has been signed.

GLT476/2-2

COMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK PLAN—CEMETERY SITE

The date on which the cooperative agreement for the Cemeterysite will be signed has not yet been determined; it is onlyknown that it will follow the Springfield Township site co-operative agreement by several months. Work plan activitydates are therefore identified by the number of months theRI/FS will be in progress. After the cooperative agreementis signed, specific dates can be assigned to each activity.



Briefing A: Month 3, to describe upcoming RI/FS activi-ties.

Briefings: Ongoing throughout RI/FS activities and priorto public announcement of study results.

Press Releases/Advisories

Press Release A:

Press Release B:

Press Release C:

Press Release D:

Press Release E:

Press Release F;

Fact Sheets

Fact Sheet A;

Fact Sheet B:

Month 1, to announce the grant awardby EPA for the cleanup activities.

Month 3, to announce startup of theRI/FS, schedule of activities and pro-ducts, contact person, location ofinformation repositories, and Meet-ing A.

Month 6, to announce Phase I samplingresults.

Month 9/10, to announce availabilityof remedial investigation report andupcoming Meeting B.

Month 14/15, to announce availabilityof feasibility study, Meeting C, and3-week public comment period.

Month 16/17, to announce Record ofDecision.


Month 6, to summarize the results ofPhase I sampling activities, announce

24

the location of information repositoriesand contact person.

Fact Sheet C: Month 9/10, to summarize results ofremedial investigation report.

Fact Sheet D: Month 14/15, to summarize results offeasibility study, announce availabil-ity of feasibility study, announceMeeting C, and 3-week public commentperiod.

Fact Sheet E: Month 16/17, responsiveness summary tooutline comments received and finalselected remedy.



tion Committee.



Community Meetings


Meeting B: Month 9/10, to present remedial investigationstudy.

Meeting C: Month 14/15, to discuss results of feasibil-ity study and obtain public comment.


Month 3/4, establish local information repository.


Period A: January/February 1985. A 3-week public com-ment period will be provided for review ofthe RI/FS.


Period A: March 1985. Record of comments received andhow they were addressed in the remedial actiondecision.

25

STAFFING PLAN


Work Hours Cost


Press Releases

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 12 235T MDNR Press Officer 18 430

MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 6 125MDNR Clerical 24 300

ii Fact Sheets

I MDNR Community Relations Specialist 4C 800I MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 10 200

MDNR Clerical 20 250U.S. EPA Comm. Relations Specialist 16 340

•• Citizen Information Committee

•T MDNR Community Relations Specialist 40 *| MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 20 *

( Community Meetings

• MDNR Community Relations Specialist 40 770MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 24 500

j MDNR Graphics 12 1501 MDNR Clerical 18 225



i Public Comment Period




*This activity is not funded by U.S. EPA.

26

Summary

MDNR Community Relations Specialist 182 $ 2,740U.S. EPA Comm. Relations Specialist 24 510MDNR On-Scene Coordinator 84 1,335MDNR Press Officer 18 430MDNR Graphics 12 150MDNR Clerical 76 950

Expenses 1,500

Total 396 $ 7,615

These figures do not include costs for the Citizen InformationCommittee because this activity is not funded by U.S. EPA.The cost of this activity would be about $1,200.

Figure 3 depicts the community relations plan schedule forthe Cemetery site.

GLT476/1I

27

Figure 3

CEMETERY SITECOMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SCHEDULE

l a 2 3 4 5Activity

Briefing of Local Officials A ----------

Press Releases A B

Fact Sheets A

Citizen Info. Comm. A --------- ------

Community Meetings A

Month6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

C D E

B C D

——————————— —— aa required ———— ———————————————

B C

15 16 17

F

E



Month 1 begins once the cooperative agreement to conduct an Rl/FS for the Cemetery site is signed.

GLT476/2-3

Section DMAILING LIST

James Knoy andMark FilipiniEPA Region X230 S. DearbornChicago, Illinois 60604312/886-6945

Jim Linton and Gary KlepperRemedial Action Section

f Michigan Department of Natural Resources• Box 30028

Lansing, Michigan 48924517/373-8448

Ron Grimes•( Supervising Sanitarianj Oakland County Health Department

1200 N. Telegraph PoadPontiac, Michigan 48053

I 313/858-1322i

Mike Izzo, Town Supervisori Rose Township] 204 Franklin Street

Holly, Michigan 48442313/634-9331

•• Collin Walls, Town SupervisorSpringfield Township

j P.O. Box 38| Davisburg, Michigan 48019

313/634-3111-t41 Homeowner (Cemetery site)

Holly, Michigan 48442(unpublished)

iCollin Walls, Supervisor

t Springfield TownshipP.O. Box 38Davisburg, Michigan 48019313-625-4802

Micheal Izzo, SupervisorRose Township204 Franklin StreetHolly, Michigan 48442313-634-8701

GLT476/4

Exemtion 6 - Non-ResponsiveExemtion 6 - Non-Responsive

I

Robert P. Locey, M.D.Medical DirectorOakland County Health Department1200 North Telegraph RoadPontiac, Michigan 48442313-858-1280

William KelleyWater Supply Services DivisionMichigan Department of Public HealthBox 30035Lansing, Michigan 48909517-373-1387

j Davisburg, Michigan 48019

t Toxic Substances Control Commissionj 101 South Pine' Lansing, Michigan 48909

517-373-1031

GLT476/4




Ms. Sandra CoombsOakland PressP.O. Box 9Pontiac, MI 48056

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIESRose/Springfield Twps.

Mr. Cliff PetersTri-County NewsBox 311Fenton, MI 48430

Mr. Larry Laurain"Oakland PressPontiac, MI 48053 48053

Mr. A. Leon Peck1141 First National BuildingDetroit, MI 48226

Mr. David TrippDykema, Gossett35th Floor400 Renaissance CenterDetroit, MI 48243

Mr. John C. EidtWashington Sq. Office Center18877 W. Ten Mile RoadSuite 101Southfield, MI 48076Ms. Oanice BobrinSEMCOG800 Book Building1249 Washington BoulevardDetroit, MI 48226

U.S. EPA, Region VOffice of Superfund111 W. Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60604

016

Mr. E. Wayne Say, DirectorEnv. Control Tech. Corp.3965 Research Park Dr.Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Michigan Audubon Society7000 Westnedge Ave.Kalamazoo, MI 49007

ods, MI 48070

H

.Davisburg, MI 48019 Davisburg, MI 48019

1 -Ir. Hakim Shakir- State FairI.D. MAIL

nXx. umn Mr. John BollmanBob Carr's Office14921 Karl Dr.Lansing, MI 48906

f Ms. Joyce SlaughterTreasurer of Rose Township

' 10450 Oakhurst Rd.Holly, MI 48442

Springfield Twsp. Supervisor650 BroadwayDavisburg, MI 48019 Holly, MI 48442

etroit, MI 48226 Detroit, MI 48221 H

Press

442 2 48020

2 48442 48207

2

9 9 9

* 9 9 9

8019

9

8019

9

8019

*

8019 8019 48019

8019 42

48019 48019 48016

M 2

H 8019

»

, 9I

. 48019 9

8019 8019 8019

2 8019

8019 8019

8019 8019 D 8019

.8019 Davisburg, MI 48019

Davisburg, MI 48019

2

48019 Datf'isburg^I 48019

Holly, MI 48442

r

D

b 48019

8019

8019

j 8019 I 48076 8019

1

I i H

s

Davisburg, MI 48019 6 2

1D 8019 D 8019

I 48019 D I 48019

j

19 19

. 48019 9 19

" ,sb 19 Holly, MI 48442

C 16 6 6

C 6 Clarkston, MI 48016 6

6 8019 48019

48019 Holly, MI 48442 9

C 6 C 6 6

Clarkston, MI 48016

Clarkston, MI 48016

Clarkston, MI 48016

I 48016

Clarkston, MI 48016

Clarkston, MI 48016

Clarkston, MI 48016 8019 8019

Davisburg, MI 48019 430 Holly, MI 48442

Detroit, MI 48236 6 ield Hills, MI 48013

42

Holly, MI 48442 H Holly, MI 49442

8019 H 9

8430

? 42

H 2

48016

442

H

Holly, MI 48442

* HI 48019

I I 48019

48019

48019

I 48019

\

Oavisburg, MI 48019

Pontiac, MI 48053

Detroit, MI 48206

Holly, MI 48442

9

48019

•lolly, MI 48442

. 2

5Ann Arbor, MI 48104

2 48019

I 48033 9

.S 336 isb 9 9

fD 9

1 Davisburg, MI 48019

Davisburg, HI 48019

D 48019

48019

48019

48019

I1 Davisburg, MI 48019 8019 Davisburg, MI 48019

Davisburg, MI 48019 19 Davisburg, MI 48019

19 Holly, MI 48442 D 19

Holly, HI 48442 MI 48019 Holly, MI 48442

* MI 48014 Holly, MI 48442

*

H Holly, MI 48442

9

6 48019 19

19 48019

48824 8019

442 8019 8019

9 19 9

D 19

48019

9 D 19

48019

D 8019 Holly, MI 48442

, Holly, MI 48442 2 8019

8019

Holly, MI 48442.

Davisburg, MI 48019 Davisburg, MI 48019

.)avisburg, MI 48019 Mil ford, MI 48042 Holly, MI 48442

.lavisburg, MI 48019 19

I

3 H 9 48019

.8019

Holly, MI 48442

'-

Documents

REDACTED CH2M HILL INC - FINAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS … · Approximately 50 residences and several businesses are within 1 mile of the site. The nearest homes (5) are along Demode