Ha 0 0 0 0 0 19

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUPData

09/16/91TO: [Name, ofWca symbo/, cm number.

ice,

3. Joe Dufficy, Unit Chief

[Action

REMARKS

Initials Date

"""•'--.

File Return[ApprovalAs RequestedCirculateCommentCoordination

X

For Clearance I [Per ConversationFor CorrectionFor Your InformationInvestigateJustify

Prepare ReplySee MeSignature

DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,clearances, and similar actions

FROM: (Name, org. symbof, Agency/Post) Room No.—Bldg.

Phone No.

8041-102

• i IS. TEC iSSa- .?n?_-QHa

OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)GSAiftX-U.2OS

CONTROLLED CORRESPONDENCE

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR (5RA - 14)

FROM :HON. JOHN BOEHNERHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESWASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

CONSTITUENT :

CONTROL NO : ORAC-000158

DATE RECEIVED : 08/16/91

DUE DATE : 08/30/91

EXTENSION :

INTERIM :

FINAL DUE DATE :

SUBJECT : REQ. FOR EXTENSION ON USEPA'S COMENTSPERIOD FOR SUPERFUND SITE

ASSIGNED TO : WMD OS P "1

SIGNATURE : RA

DATE : 08/16/91

DATE : HUG 3 01991,

COURTESY COPIES :

1) ORA W/CONTROL SLIP

3) CANAVAN

2) AL W/CONTROL SLIP

4) FREEMAN

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS :

COORDINATE EXTENSION REQUESTS WITH APPROPRIATE ORA STAFF PERSON : ORA, 3-1080

( OMMi' f f I S

AGRICULTURE

EDUCATION ANDLABOR

SMALL BUSINESS

R E C E I V E D

AU 6 1 6 1991U S. ERA REGION 5

OFFICE OF REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

D A T E :

SENT T O i

CONG JOHN B O E H N E R

fltongre** of tt}c tBniteb States$ou*e of

1020 UtNf.MIOIIH HOUII O'rict 8105

WMIIIIICIOI DC J 0 9 1 S(702) :J8 B!0fi

56 1 7 I lltHTY FtlHFIKO RnAO

HAMILTON OH 4901 I(913)184-8003

12 aoUTH PlUM S '« I !TTnov. OH 4 ( 3 7 3

OitrnicT Toil Fmi NUMIII1-800-H4-1001

T E L E C O P I E R COVER SHEET

, C*

J ET7A

R E C E I V E D

AU6 0 5 1991U. S. EPA REGfON 5

OFFICE Of REGJOMAl MMlWtmm

PHONE:

SENT FROHs

PAX N U M B E R :

P H O N E ; ( 2 0 2 ) 2 2 5 - 6 2 0 5 FAX N U M B E R : ( 2 0 2 ) 2 2 5 - 0 7 0 4

. w/nild l.i.ka a. written. r ta this

request for an extension of the comment period, that is normally

30 days. _________ ________ ___ __

THERE ARE A TOTAL OF > PAGESINCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IFYOU DO NOT RECEIVE THEM OR THEREIS A PROBLEM IN TRANSMITTAL,PLEASE CALL ME AT (202)225-6205.

- I..I CONG JOHN BOEH NEK

Congressman John BoShner5617 Liberty Fairfield RdHamilton, Ohio 45011 "AU8»*1991 August 1, 1991

RE: Request for sxtension on US EPA's comment period forauperfund 9itt in Union Township, Butler County

Dear Congressman Boehnex:Please accept this lettat as a request for youz assistance in thematter of the Skinner Landfill Superfund Site. *iCLEAN has received copies of the Health Assessment and l;he SecondPhase of the Remedial Investigation upon request from SheilaSullivan of US EPA. We are looking at the contaminants that theagencies are aware of and the health risks ofi those contaminants,

In mid-June, Public Relations Coordinator, Oina Weber informed methat there is a Technical Assistance Grant available for groupslike CLEAN. I believe the gxant would help our community tounderstand' what the proposed clean up plan will entail,is released foe public perusal.

once it

CLEAN is concerned that the environmental protection agencies areallowing very little time in their schedules to assess (theFeasibility Study (clean up plan) which the US EPA's contractorwill release in August. They are entitled to 30 days tjo reviewthat study; apparently, they are willing to spend about a weekreviewing the study in order to meet the comment deadline ofSeptember 30. CLEAN withes for a thorough, well-scrutinizedassessment o! the clean up plan.

There has been little, if any, Investigation into what the risksof the site are via the air pathway. We are aware that there axecontaminants which readily evaporate. Many o£ the knotncarcinogens are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). At this^ •*• «* •«• v **v^(^*»»» •• i*m TV*rV»**«w^i •̂̂ •9 v* * f » ** w w »»»BJ» w W«»*M ̂ i " w^» f * nv «• • • • mr

point, the studies do not include whet the risks will tie if thesite is disturbed and these VOCs are exposed. This is(extremelyimportant since there axe homes and an elementary school severalhundred feet from the site.

It is CLEAN'6 goal that this site be remedied swiftly, but with aminimal impact upon the health and welfare of our community.Timeliness is important, but correctness is a priority^We would sincerely appreciate anything you can do to hthe 30 day comment period, that will end on Septemberour gzoup has a fair amount of time foe processing ofapplication by US EPA.

Sincerely yours,

sip delay10, so that;he TAG

Lisa White ere6976 Gary Lee DriveWest Chester, OMO 45069(513) 779-6026

P.S. The US EPA and OE9A will meet with CLEAN on August 12, toHealth Assessment. You are

' n i-, 4P

CimimLourIM Eim'tiiwu Action NII.IIC. i ».o. 1011, HIT ww«, on

Ms. Sheila SullivanU.S . EPA 5HS-11230 8. Dearborn St.Chicago, Illinois 6QS04 July IB, 1991

Dear He. Sullivant i

Please accept this letter as a formal request for al 6 monthextension of the comment period that Is scheduled, for theVfcVuM.1 Landfill Superfund Site, to commence In August when theUS EPA makes the FeasY&VAVf S-tudv available for public comment.

Technicalloop, TAG>ven months forof thebe extendedconditionali processed,be helpful in

CLEAN it currently preparing an application for thAssistance Grant (TAO). 1 understand, from Kancy ;Coordinator, that It way take as much as five to athe -grant application to be processed. This la onjgrounds for CLEAN's request that the comment pariojby six months, Because we axe requesting a delay,upon the time required.for the TAG application toIt would be to everyone*a advantage If US SPA coullexpediting the review process.It Is very clear, fttsm the Health RV»X Assessment lot the SkinnerSuperfund Site, that US SPA lacked either the funding, or elsethe will, to include the pupils and staff of Union ElementarySchool in this study. The Ohio State Board of Health Isconducting such a study at this time, It la Imperative that thisstudy tun its course and that the results be Included In theinformation that will be used to determine the Remedial Action,It our state Board of Health requires more time tp properlyinvestigate the health risks o£ the elementary school 'population,which la several hundred yards from the Skinner LandfillSupesfund Site, then CLEAN requests that tha comnjent period be

beyond the requested six months..

In addition, because of a CLEAN member '« recent nquiries, it hasba«n brought to OSPA's attention that there are Jrater wells inthe vicinity which have not been tested for contamination, It IsCLEAN 's opinion that the environmental agencies should make surethey have incorporstud all naceseary data in the) studies leadlnqup to the Feasibility Study and Remedial Action i

Thft£« has been very littlt opportunity Cor public involvementbecause the environmental protection agencies had vezy littleKnowledge of the site specific!, Now a huge amount cfinformation is being made available for the US EPA, the Ohio EPA,and the residents of Union Township. The Remedial Irvestlgationsand the Health Assessment indicate that the majority of thecontaminants are contained and do not pose a serious risk to thegeneral public at this time. With the feasibility Study due tobe completed in August, and a September 30 deadline : or theRecord of Decision, CLEAN is not confident that suff cient timeis being given to attend to the welfare of the public and theenvironment,

'which will.ftt the

to participate in the clean up decisionbe rendered after the Feasibility Vttrtr? Vh vtVtpublic, It is our slncetest hope that the environmentalregulatory agencies acknowledge the value of well-ininvolved .citizenry. Certainly, this is the primarythe establishment of the TAG: to create well-infortne Iwho have a say in the decision making of criticalissues affecting our community,

Jotmed andreason forcitizens

environmental

We are all concerned that this landfill be remediedthoroughly responsible manner with minimal risk tolarge, While timeliness is important, correctness 1

We look forward to your reply on whether an extension of thecomment period will be favorably considered.

Sincerely yours,

"1Lisa Whitacre, Trustee.-. .CLEAN, Inc. Board of Trustees

6976 Gary Lee DriveWest Chester, Ohio 45069(513) 779-6026

cct Mark Lahar, OEPA Site ManagerRob Sergar, OEPA Public Interest CenterQina Weber, US EPA Public tntar*9t CenterRepresentative Scott Heir.,Senator Barry LeveyCongressman John

In atie public at

a priority.

COIMG JOHN B O E H M E

EVENTS LEADINIQ UP TO FINAL RECORD OP DECISIONON SKINNER LANDFILL 8UPERFUND SITEUNION TOWNSHIP, BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

September 1990The site was closed, and further dumping was prohibited

April 1991Tht second phaet of tht Remedial Investigation (Rl) waecompltttd. The purpott ofi tht study was to determine tha typt ofcontaminants and the extent of contamination. This was anecessary study because tha first phate waa not *uf£iql«nt todetermine what tht contaminants art.

aunt 1991US EPA and OEPA hald a public meeting to discuss the atcond phaseof the (RI), Thank you for vou^ attendance^July 1991Tht Health Aaatsamtnt was completed. Tht purpott it to determinehealth risks based upon information from tht RemedialInvestigations, • iAugust 1991Tht Feasibility Study (FS) is due to bt complete. Th ito help US IPX and OEPX determine what tht approprlatplan should tntall,A public meeting will be held to announce tha agencit icltan up plan. With thii matting/ the public conmtntbegin, Tht public will have 30 days to rtview tht prup plan and comment on all tht studies and propottd pSeptember 30, 1991The Record o£ Decision (ROD), which is tht final planup, will bt rtndertd. After tht ROD IB itsued, tht anot obligated to consider further citizen comment.will not contlder grant applications rtctlvtd afttt t

purpost lacltan up

1 propostdperiod willpoatd cleanan.

for cltanancles art

Mao, US 1PAUB ROD.

AUG 3 0 1991

5 RA-14

Honorable John BoehnerHouse of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Boehner:

Thank you for forwarding the letter of August 1, 1991, from yourconstituents of CLEAN, Tnc, regarding the Skinner LandfillSuperfund site in West Chester, Ohio. CLEAN'S specific requestis for assistance in obtaining an extension of the 30-day publiccomment period for the proposed remedial action plan(Proposed Plan) for the site.

CLEAN'S purpose for requesting this extension relates to severalconcerns expressed in the subject letter. These concerns in-clude: inadequate amount of time for CLEAN to secure a U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Technical Assistance Grant(TAG) to assist them in reviewing the documents; insufficientamount of time for the agencies and public to review the ProposedPlan and related documents generated by U.S. EPA contractors;and, lack of investigation into the health risks posed by the airpathways at the site.

In the letter you attached of July 30, 1991, from Ms. LisaWhitacre of CLEAN to Project Manager Ms. Sheila Sullivan, CLEANrequested a 6-month extension of the 30-day Proposed Plan (PP)public comment period. The extension is needed to compensate forthe 5 to 7 months usually required to process a TAG application,however, CLEAN would like the length of this extension to becommensurate with whatever amount of time is required to processthe application. Although Ms. Whitacre stated in her letter thatCLEAN was only informed of the availability of this grant in mid-June, I would like to point out that an advertisement announcingavailability of the TAG and soliciting applications from con-cerned citizen's groups was published in the Pulse-Journal ofMason, Ohio, on June 22, 1988 (see attachment).

I understand that CLEAN is preparing the TAG application and thatit has yet to be filed with our office. It is also important torealize that in addition to the time required for receiving andprocessing the application itself, additional months could beneeded for CLEAN to hire the necessary expertise, and to allow

their consultant to acquire sufficient familiarity with the site-related documents and PP before they can achieve effectiveresults. Therefore, it is realistic to conclude that 6 monthsmay really be a minimum estimate for the extension.

The U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA staffs have been responsive to CLEAN'Sneeds for technical assistance by making every effort to facili-tate CLEAN'S understanding of the Remedial Investigations (RI)and Baseline Risk Assessment reports. This has involved meetingwith CLEAN at their request on several occasions to explain anddiscuss the reports' contents. This included a meeting onAugust 12, when U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA staffs presented a previewof alternatives under consideration for the site.

Under the National Contingency Plan, the U.S. EPA is required togrant 30-day extensions to the public comment period to request-ors. In order to be considered for an extension, CLEAN shouldsubmit a written request detailing the exact length and rationaleto Ms. Sullivan as soon as the public comment period has started.It is my understanding that Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Whitacre havediscussed the attendant procedures.

The U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA encourage and appreciate the input andassistance of concerned and well-informed citizens, such asCLEAN, during the Superfund remedial process. We also believethat the chosen remedial solution must be technically sound andappropriate for the site conditions, acceptable to the community,and capable of achieving our goals of public health and environ-mental protection. Our concern regarding an extension is thatdelaying the multi-staged remedial process for an unknown amountof time would impact the overall clean up schedule by more thanjust the length of the comment period extension, and ultimatelythe health and welfare of the community.

In order to respond to CLEAN'S concern that the U.S. EPA and OhioEPA are not. allowing adequate time for their respective reviewsof the Feasibility Study (FS) and PP, it is important to firstunderstand the origin and intent of these documents. The FS isbased on the results of the RI and Baseline Risk Assessment andserves to identify and evaluate in detail, several clean upalternatives and remedies that are designed to protect humanhealth and the environment.

Typically, the RI and FS are conducted concurrently, making thedevelopment and analysis of alternatives an interactive process,in which potential alternatives and remediation goals are contin-ually refined as new RI information becomes available. There-fore, the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA project managers have beenworking with this site information and discussing various poten-tial site alternatives for nearly a year. The newly availablebaseline risk assessment information has served to confirm thelevel of protectiveness that will need to be achieved at the

site, allowing us to narrow our focus to the most promisingalternatives. When the final FS is released to the public, theagencies will have spent many months in its review and develop-ment.

The PP is intended to facilitate public participation in theremedy selection process by identifying the preferred alternativefor a remedial action at a site, describing other remedialoptions that were carried through detailed analysis in the FS,soliciting public review and comment on all alternatives, andproviding information on how the public can be involved in theremedy selection process. The U.S. EPA will not release the PPdocument to the public unless there is full confidence in thepreferred alternative's effectiveness.

Regarding air risks at the site, exposure to site contaminantsfrom the air pathway was discussed with CLEAN during theAugust 12 meeting. The preliminary air pathway analysis andqualitative assessment at the site did not warrant a quantitativerisk assessment. Under the current conditions at the site, risksposed via the air pathway are negligible when compared to siterisks from other exposure pathways. We are currently conductinga quantitative assessment of air risks that could occur duringsite remediation or under future land use scenarios. Thesescenarios primarily include excavation of the most contaminatedportion of the site (buried waste lagoon) and would be expectedto pose the highest air risks to the onsite and adjacent popula-tions.

I hope this information has been helpful in clarifying ouractivities and objectives at the Skinner Landfill site. We willbe happy to continue meeting with CLEAN as needed, to explainfurther site activities and to receive their input and concerns.If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate tocontact me.

Sincerely yours,rts/ —iginal Bipnol by

Valdas V. Adamkus•Regional Administrator

Enclosure

cc: ORA w/control slipM. CanavanAL w/control slipR. Freeman

Cy

cc: ORA w/control slipM. CanavanAL w/control slipR. Freeman

bcc: M. Lehar, Ohio EPA, Southwest District OfficeF. BartmanJ. DufficyD. BruceG. Weber