Remedial Planning Activities at the Picillo Farm Site ...

! SDMS DocID 549656

Reviewed by:

Kristen M. Steck Community Relations Coordinator

David E. Langseth Program Manager

id Records Center

./iliER: 5 M M ^ _

Community Relations Plan for

Remedial Planning Activities at the Picillo Farm Site Coventry, Rl

Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study

Revision No. 2

Submitted to

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I

September 7, 1990

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

ADL Reference 62352

ARCS 68-W8-0120 W.A. 01-1L01

62352ARCV042

Picillo Farm Community Relations Plan Work Assignment No. 01-1L01

September 7, 1990 Revision No. 2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Overview of the Community Relations Plan 1

2.0 Site Description 2

2.1 Location 2 2.2 Area Residents 2

2.3 History of the Site 2

3.0 Community Background 5

3.1 Community Profile 5

3.2 Summary of Community Involvement 5

4.0 Chronology of EPA Community Relations Activities 6

5.0 Key Community Concerns 10

5.1 Drinking Water Quality/Ground Water Contamination 10 5.2 Short and Long Term Health Risks 11 5.3 Property Value 11 5.4 Information Distribution/Education 11 5.5 Choice of Remedial Action 12 5.6 Trust in EPA 12 5.7 Duration of the Study 12 5.8 Cost Management 12 5.9 Quality of Studies Being Conducted 12 5.10 Development of Neighboring Land 13 5.11 Site Security 13 5.12 Existing Contamination 13

62352AROJ042 Arthir D Little



Table of Contents

Page

6.0 Objectives of the Community Relations Program 13

6.1 Keeping the Community Informed 14 6.2 Responding to Community Concerns 14 6.3 Updating Local Officials on Site Activity 14 6.4 Maintaining Contact with Picillo Farm Residents 14 6.5 Communicating to Members of Save Our Water 14 6.6 Keeping the Media Well Informed 15 6.7 Providing Timely Information 15 6.8 Notifying the Public About Enforcement Actions 15

7.0 Techniques and Timing 15

7.1 Establish Two EPA Contacts 15 7.2 Maintain a Mailing List 15 7.3 Public Meetings 15 7.4 Publish Public Notice 17 7.5 Prepare a Responsiveness Summary 17 7.6 Maintain Information Repository 17 7.7 Design and Distribute Fact Sheets and Technical Summaries 18 7.8 Press Releases 18 7.9 Community Interviews 18 7.10 Telephone Contact With Local Officials and Picillo Residents 18 7.11 Participate in Citizens Meetings 18

Appendix 1 Key Contacts Appendix 2 Information Repositories and Public Meeting Locations Appendix 3 Local Newspapers

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Site Location Map 3 Figure 2 - Future Community Relations Activities 16

H r f c f o i r P L i t t l e 62352ARO042



Page 1 of 18

1.0 Overview of the Community Relations Plan

The purpose of the Superfund Community Relations Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to respond to community concerns in an appropriate and timely manner and to ensure that the information provided to the community is accurate and clearly presented.

The Community Relations Plan (CRP) for Picillo Farm is intended to serve as guidance for Community Relations activities throughout the continuing Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) work and subsequent phases of EPA management at the Picillo Farm Superfund site.

Investigation and clean-up operations at Picillo Farm began in 1977, three years before the U.S. Congress authorized the Superfund legislation that now regulates the management of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Selection of initial response actions at the Picillo Farm site did not occur under well-institutionalized Federal and State hazardous waste management programs. Federal and State hazardous waste site program goals and procedures have evolved substantially between 1977 and the present. Key changes during that period include passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986, and continuing development of extensive EPA regulations and guidance regarding inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.

Initial government activities at the Picillo Farm Superfund site addressed immediate threats to human health and the environment. After the site was discovered, EPA and RIDEM (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management) removed 10,000 barrels of hazardous chemicals. Later, following the passage of SARA, EPA removed contaminated soil from the Picillo site to a licensed, hazardous waste disposal facility in another state. These government activities focussed on removal of known contaminant sources and immediate threats to public health. Previous investigations had not revealed any immediate public health threats related to ground water contamination. Present EPA investigations at the site focus on determining if additional disposal activities occurred at the site and the extent and severity of ground water contamination. Future remedial goals will include restoration of aquifers to preserve their beneficial use and remediation of potential chronic threats to public health or environmental quality.

Past investigation work at the Picillo Farm site was hampered by many factors related to the pioneering nature of the work at this site. These factors included contractor changes, difficulty in obtaining funds, lead agency role changes, and contractor licensing complications. Substantial funding was absorbed by the lagtime involved in decision making. As a result, EPA, the lead government agency managing the investigation and remedial activities at Picillo Farm, does not have a strong history of public support in reference to the site.

Arthir D L M e 62352ARCN042



Page 2 of 18

Since the most recent site activity, the removal of contaminated soil in 1988, public concern about the site has diminished. However, there is still some concern in the community about potential ground water contamination. Ground water quality andrisk to human health need to be thoroughly addressed in future EPA community relations efforts.

Sources of information used in developing the Community Relations Plan include community interviews conducted by EPA and RIDEM on June 4, 1990, review of local newspaper articles, and EPA documentation regarding the site.

2.0 Site Description

2.1 Location

The Picillo Farm site is located in the western part of Coventry, Rhode Island. The farm is located on Piggy Hill Lane, approximately one mile southwest of the intersection of Perry Hill Road and Route 102. The Farm occupies approximately 100 acres of wooded and cleared area. The hazardous.waste disposal area that has been excavated, the area in which the soil removals occurred, occupies approximately 8 acres of the Farm. The land surrounding the site is primarily woods and wetland. (See Figure 1 for Site Location map.)

The Picillo Farm lies one mile west of the Quidnick Reservoir, which is used for recreational purposes. There is a wetland on the farm that drains into Whitford Pond, that in turn feeds into a cranberry bog. Approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the farm lies Great Grass Pond, Little Grass Pond, Great Cedar Swamp, and Arnolds Pond. There are other, smaller wetlands on the Farm.

2.2 Area Residents

The area surrounding the Picillo Farm is sparsely populated, though there are plans for housing developments that could significandy increase the number of residents on Perry Hill Road and adjacent areas.

Presently four families reside on the Picillo property and there are as many as 50 homes within a one mile radius of the site. All homes in the area have private drinking water wells.

2.3 History of the Site

Picillo Farm is Rhode Island's oldest National Priorities List (NPL) site. It is located on a formerly active pig farm in a rural part of Rhode Island. Contamination has been identified on an eight acre portion of the 100-acre farm, where approximately 10,000 drums and an undetermined volume of bulk wastes were disposed of in five trenches prior to 1977. Wastes disposed of at the site

Arthir D Little 62352ARCN042

Figure 1 Arthir D Little



Page 4 of 18

included industrial solvents, waste oils, pesticides, PCB's, paint sludges, plasticizers, resins, still bottoms, and other potentially hazardous materials.

The site was discovered in September 1977, when drums containing sodium aluminum hydride, a compound which is explosive on contact with water, caused an explosion and fire at the farm. Subsequently, RIDEM conducted an investigation that revealed trenches containing drums of waste, evidence of bulk liquid chemical discharges, and air, soil, ground water, and surface water contamination at the site. RIDEM found that leachate from the disposal area was seeping into a wetland northwest of the site, and the ground and surface waters were contaminated with a variety of volatile organic compounds. In 1979, RIDEM conducted an emergency removal of barrels containing sodium aluminum hydride. Air monitoring in the area detected the presence of volatile organic compounds near the site.

The initial site investigation that followed identified five trenches where chemicals had been buried on the eight acre site. Removal actions occurred between 1980 and 1982. Under the direction of RIDEM and EPA, the trenches were excavated, and approximately 10,000 drums were removed and disposed of off site. Most of the contaminated soil was removed from trenches and disposed of offsite. Some contaminated soil, however, was stockpiled onsite. Offsite disposal of excavated drums, liquid wastes, and contaminated soil was completed in mid 1982.

From 1978 through 1985, a number of environmental sampling and assessment studies were conducted, primarily on the Picillo Farm property, to determine the extent of contamination, risk to public health, and optimal cleanup procedure for any contamination remaining on site.

In 1985, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that called for disposal of contaminated soil onsite in an onsite landfill. The state of Rhode Island contested EPA's decision, and, in 1987, EPA issued an amended ROD which called for the offsite disposal of contaminated soil and required that a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) be conducted to address the contaminated ground water.

Enforcement action at Picillo Farm started in 1977 and is still continuing; some costs of the clean up have been recovered through joint negotiation of EPA and RIDEM with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), other funding has come from the Superfund. Rhode Island filed suit under CERCLA against thirty-five defendants in 1983 to recover its site clean up costs. Although not a party to the State's lawsuit, the United States entered into four settlements with twelve of the defendants for a total recovery of $1,681,800. Four of the settling parties also agreed to perform removal of contaminated soil in the summer of 1988.

In May 1990, a Federal court in Rhode Island ruled that two more companies, American Cyanamid Company and Rohm and Haas Company, were liable under CERCLA/SARA for site costs incurred by EPA. EPA set the total cost for these

62352AROM2 ArthirD Little



Page 5 of 18

two companies at $3.5 million in past costs and interest, and required that they be held responsible for future clean up costs at the site. EPA has settled with a total of twelve PRPs regarding the responsibility for contamination at Picillo Farm, and is continuing enforcement action against other PRPs in an effort to recover additional site clean up costs.

Currently, an RI/FS is being conducted at Picillo Farm to identify the nature and extent of ground water contamination, the level of risk, and possible remedial alternatives. Upon completion of the RI/FS, EPA will select a remedy to protect human health and the environment. Remedy selection and issuance of the ROD is expected to be complete in approximately two years.

3.0 Community Background

3.1 Community Profile

Named after Coventry, England, the town is one of the state's largest in area, encompassing 64.8 square miles. It extends from West Warwick, RI to the Connecticut boarder. While the western portion of Coventry near the Picillo Farm site is rural in nature, eastern Coventry is a rapidly growing residential community. The community retains some old textile mill villages, and the housing pattern consists of multi-family units in the older sections of town, and owner occupied single family units in more recently developed areas. Strip commercial and shopping centers are the main commercial outlets.

Population estimates for 1990 show 32,500 people residing in the town. The town government includes a five member Town Council and a Town Manager. Approximately one half of Coventry's working population is employed in manufacturing industries.

3.2 Summary of Community Involvement

On September 30, 1977, an explosion led to thefirst public attention to, and official state investigation of, the disposal of hazardous wastes at the Picillo Farm site. Leachate from the site was discovered in nearby ground and surface water. Citizen concern about pollution at the site began soon after initial discovery of the site.

The first community organization to be involved in the site, Concerned Parents and Taxpayers, sponsored a public meeting in 1979 that was attended by over 100 persons. The meeting followed 18 months of legal actions against Warren Picillo Sr., and discussed enforcement actions regarding the case.

During removal action at the site between March 1980 and April 1982, local, state, and federal officials tried to work in close coordination with local citizen's groups. Public meetings were held and area residents were briefed at citizen group

l i f t l w P l i t t le 62352ARO042



Page 6 of 18

meetings. The townspeople relied upon the Town Manager for information about ongoing work at the site.

In July 1980, a citizen's group called Save Our Water (SOW) was organized. The group served as a mediator between the community and various government agencies throughout removal and investigative activity. Over the ten year history of the site, SOW members have initiated public meetings and provided testimony regarding Picillo Farm. Following a cleanup funding depletion, SOW asked the state delegation for federal funding assurance. When more funding complications led to delays in cleanup at the site, SOW sponsored a public meeting to gauge public response to establishing a state managed Superfund program. SOW also sponsored a public meeting where the RIDEM explained the status of the site and the problems associated with the cleanup and participated in public hearings involving a moratorium on building homes near the dumpsite.

Recently, SOW's membership, once numbering 50 persons, has diminished to eight to ten core members. Participation in SOW may increase with the new investigative work at the site.

4.0 Chronology of EPA Community Relations Activities

Since Picillo Farm was added to the National Priorities List in 1983, EPA has conducted a variety of Community Relations activities for the site, including the maintenance of a mailing list, active communication with the public and local town officials, the maintenance of an information repository for the administrative record regarding the site, in addition to the following specific activities.

December 1980 - Public Announcement. Announcement indicated that the EPA and the RIDEM detennined that a cooperative effort would be started to fund excavation and disposal of waste from the northwest trench at the site. EPA was to provide $1.5 million for the excavation, and the state was to provide $1 million for the disposal of the wastes.

September 1981 - Notice to Residents. EPA and RIDEM detonated lab packs discovered during excavation activity at the Picillo Farm. EPA gave residents a briefing of the disposal procedures and a 48 hour notice oftimes when materials were being destroyed.

October 1981 - Community Relations Plan Thefirst community relations plan was drafted for the planned removal work at the Picillo Farm site.

Hir t fwPLMJe 62352ARCN042



Page 7 of 18

December 1981 - Fact Sheet, Public Meeting. During a period when barrels on site were being excavated and lab packs were being detonated at the Picillo Farm site, a public hearing was held at Coventry Town Hall. At the meeting, removal activity was discussed and an EPA fact sheet was distributed oudining the chronology of events at the site from September 30, 1977 through September 7, 1981.

January 1982 - Public Announcement. EPA announced that it had approved $4.9 million in Superfund money for the site and Picillo Farm became one of the first sites to be cleaned up with Superfund money. The announcement also indicated that a cooperative agreement was reached between RIDEM and EPA to resume cleanup efforts April 1.

February 11, 1982 - Press Release. An EPA press release announced that the EPA administrator approved a cooperative agreement with RIDEM for the Picillo Farm site. Under the agreement, the state of Rhode Island was to begin removing 8,500 drums of chemical wastes, conduct a feasibility study for a ground water treatment system, and perform additional sampling and analysis at the site.

1984 Community Relations Plan In 1984, the community relations plan was reworked and redesigned. EPA met with townspeople and SOW representatives; EPA also checked and verified citizen's files about the site.

January 16, 1984 - Press Release An EPA press release indicated that officials from RIDEM and EPA disagreed over cleanup of the Picillo Farm waste site. A consultant hired by the state recommended that $2.5 million be spent to pump and treat contaminated water, but EPA officials rejected the recommendation, saying the consultant's feasibility study was flawed Up to that date; the state had spent $1.5 million to clean up the site and EPA had spent $5 million from Superfund. The press release also indicated that EPA, after performing an additional study of the site, was considering a proposal to buy 115 acres around the site, fence off the site, and allow for natural cleaning of ground and surface water to occur over a thirty year period.

April 1984 - Meeting With Town Manager EPA and RIDEM met with the Town Manager, other town officials, and neighbors of the Picillo Farm property to discuss concerns, the status of the Picillo Farm property, and future work to be completed at the site.

May 1984 - Meeting With SOW EPA and RIDEM met with members of SOW to review SOW's records and to be brought up to date on SOW's past activities.

UrtfoirP Little 62352ARCN042



Page 8 of 18

June 14, 1984 - Public Meeting A meeting was held by RIDEM and EPA with Coventry residents and interested parties. GCA, Inc., an EPA contractor, discussed the results of a risk assessment conducted at the site.

January 1985 - Fact Sheet EPA distributed a fact sheet that summarized the informational meeting held June 14, 1984. It also indicated that two public meetings would follow the release of the RI/FS: at the first, consultants would discuss the results of the study and give the community an opportunity for comment; at the second, near the end of the 30-day review period, oral and written public comment would be accepted.

April 8, 1985 - Press Release EPA and RIDEM announced options and projected costs for addressing contamination remaining at the Picillo Farm site. The press release indicated that after public comment, EPA and RIDEM would choose the remedial action to be taken. The news release also announced an informational public meeting to explain the results of the FS on April 23, 1985, a hearing to accept public comment on May 1, 1985, and that written comments would be accepted until May 6, 1985.

April 22, 1985 - Public Meeting An information meeting was held at the Western Coventry School for RIDEM, EPA, and GCA, Inc. to present the results of the final RI/FS and to answer questions from the public. At the meeting many residents expressed concern over what was felt to be an insufficient period of time allowed for report review and preparation of comments. The formal public meeting, originally schedule for May 1, 1985, was rescheduled for May 15, 1985.

May 15, 1985 - Public Meeting EPA held a meeting to accept public comment on the remedies for the Picillo Farm site. I he subject of the discussion was the fate of soil piles on site. At the meeting, RIDEM stated that they wanted the soil removed and representatives from SOW expressed that not only did they want the soil removed, but they also wanted the ground water pumped and treated.

October 1, 1985 - Press Release The Record of Decision for Picillo Farm was announced by EPA. EPA selected a $1.1 million remedy for the Picillo Farm site, calling for landfilling contaminated soil onsite to prevent further soil or ground water contamination. Ground water would continue to be monitored at the site.

The press release also indicated that EPA entered into an agreement with four potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to conduct and pay for the soils removal and site closure under EPA supervision.

62352ARCN042 Arthir P Little



Page 9 of 18

March 5, 1987 - Press Release EPA announced an amendment to the 1985 cleanup plan for Picillo Farm. The new remedy was to cost $3 million and called for offsite disposal of contaminated soil in a licensed, secure, hazardous waste landfill.

May 7, 1987 - Public Meeting A public meeting was held by SOW, EPA, and RIDEM at Western Coventry School Library. EPA stated at the meeting that steps to remove PCBs on site and cleanup of ground water could not be continued without an additional $200,000 study.

September 24, 1987 - Press Release At a public meeting held by the EPA and the RIDEM, a cleanup settlement for the Picillo Farm site was announced. Under the settlement, four companies were to pay $100,000 as a partial reimbursement to EPA and the State for previous cleanup work. A decree also called for the companies to dispose of approximately 6000 yards of contaminated soil offsite in a secure landfill.

The press release announced an informal public meeting was to be held on October 6, 1987 to discuss the settlement, and would be followed by a thirty day public comment period on the consent decree.

May 1988 - Fact Sheet EPA distributed a fact sheet containing the following: details of upcoming contaminated soil pile removal activities conducted under agreement between U.S. EPA and four companies; a brief history of the site and clean up activities to date; information about ongoing studies being undertaken by EPA to determine the most effective way to address existing or future ground water contamination; and opportunities for community involvement in the cleanup process.

May 11, 1988 - Press Release EPA announced that contaminated soil pile removal activities would begin May 16, 1988 at the Picillo Farm Superfund site and take approximately 14 weeks to complete. The contaminated soil piles were to be taken to an offsite licensed hazardous waste facility. The press release described materials being removed from the site, truck routes to be used in the disposal operations, enforcement actions leading to the removal activities, and a brief site history.

Arthir D LetHe 62352ARC\042


September 7, 1990 Revision No. 2 Page 10 of 18

May 22, 1990 - Press Release EPA announced that it was beginning an RI/FS to further define the nature and extent of ground water contamination and the need for further clean up measures at the Picillo Farm site. The first phase of the investigation that includes sampling of existing onsite monitoring wells and nearby residential wells should be completed in October, while the entire RI/FS should run about eighteen months.

June 13, 1990 - Press Release The EPA released information regarding enforcement action; a federal court ruled on May 31, 1990 that two companies were liable for Picillo Farm site costs under CERCLA/SARA.

June 1990 - Community Interviews Interviews were conducted by EPA, RIDEM, and Arthur D. Little, a contractor to EPA, to identify key issues of concern in the community at the beginning of a ground water Remedial Investigation of the site.

5.0 Key Community Concerns

According to the Town Manager and some of the citizens interviewed by EPA and RIDEM, because recent activity at the Picillo Farm has been limited, the level of public concern about the site has diminished considerably. There are, however, some citizens who live near the site, new home buyers in western Coventry, and other members of Save Our Water who are still concerned about conditions at and around the Picillo Farm.

The following are the most prominent community concerns regarding Picillo Farm based upon interviews conducted by EPA in June 1990.

5.1 Drinking Water Quality/Ground Water Contamination

Citizens in the area get their drinking water from private wells. Newspaper articles have stated that laboratory tests on samples taken from monitoring wells and adjacent waters found the presence of toluene, xylene, chloroform, trichloroethylene (TCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). TCE and chloroform, classified by EPA as probable carcinogens, cause liver and kidney cancer in laboratory animals.

EPA studies have indicated that chemicals from the site are moving underground and seeping into a nearby wetland north of the site. Because the wedand drains into Whitford Pond, which feeds into a nearby cranberry bog, there is a concern about health risks from ingesting cranberries from the location.

62352AROJ042 ArthirD Little



The Town Manager was dissatisfied with the priority that public health holds in State Government. Many residential drinking water wells, that were supposed to have been tested by the State Department of Public Health every six months, have not been sampled in over a year. He stated that extending the public water supply to the western part of Coventry would be extremely cosdy to the town.

5.2 Short and Long Term Health Risks

Citizens are worried about the possible link between the site and a number of recent cancer deaths in the community. At least five individuals residing near Picillo Farm site have died of different types of cancers in the past five years. In 1988 a six year old child living next to the site became ill. A link between contamination at the Picillo Farm site and the deaths or illness has not, however, been established. Citizens expressed concern about the potential long term health effects from living in the area. One citizen felt that a health survey should be conducted.

5.3 Property Value

Property value is a concern of both developers and homeowners in the area. Property value can be affected by the possibility of drinking water contamination and the stigma of owning a home near a Superfund site. One new homeowner, however, saw it as an advantage to live in an area that had been investigated rather than in an area where there is a possibility for discovering previously unknown environmental problems.

5.4 Information Distribution/Education

Citizens are often uncertain what information is available and who to ask for it. They would like information about ground water flow, surface water flow, contamination in the area, and general government plans for the site. Citizens expressed concern that they are not always getting the most recent and accurate information.

Several citizens interviewed noted that during a drum removal operation at the site in 1981, Picillo Farm neighbors wanted more information about the evacuation plan and more information about safety and public health issues than EPA had provided.

Some citizens interviewed were not aware that a full investigation of the site had not been completed, some knew that the site might not be completely clean but they were unaware that EPA had returned. In general, there is considerable confusion over the status of the site.

Artiiiir I? Little 62352ARC042



5.5 Choice of Remedial Action

Representatives from SOW would like to see treatment of the ground water, as recommended by RIDEM. They did not agree with EPA's choice of remedial action (stated in the amended ROD), which does not include treatment of ground water.

Several citizens commented that there has been a lack of agreement between RIDEM and EPA as to the remedies recommended in previous studies. The agencies appear to the community to have difficulties making decisions and agreeing upon them.

5.6 Trust In EPA

SOW members indicated that the state has been more responsive to their concerns than EPA. They felt that EPA had broken past promises, and made compromises regarding the clean-up.

5.7 Duration of Site Activity

Citizens expressed discontent with the ten-year duration of the program at the site. They feel there have been a great number of studies conducted at the site, a lengthy decision process regarding remedial action, and repeated delays in cleanup activities once the decisions have been made. Citizens interviewed wanted remedial activity completed as soon as possible.

5.8 Cost Management

Community members voiced concern over financial management at the facility. They feel a considerable sum of money has been used to conduct studies, and remove barrels of waste and contaminated soils from the site. Citizens feel that despite all of the expenditures, there is very little clear information available regarding ground water flow in the area, or the true extent of contamination on site.

5.9 Quality of Studies Being Conducted

According to citizens interviewed, a lot of conflicting data have been presented regarding the site. Some people expressed concern that there is a lot of speculation, rather than factual information, available about issues such as the extent and direction of ground water contamination, the relationship of surface and ground water and how drilling of additional drinking water wells in the area might effect ground water flow.

Urthir H> Little 62352AROJ342



5.10 Development of Neighboring Land

Citizens who live near the site worry that the installation of additional drinking water wells may adversely effect existing private wells in the area. Concern intensified when the town well driller allegedly refused to dig wells near Picillo Farm. A one year moratorium was placed on building near the site in 1988. After a court hearing, however, the town was forced to issue building permits in the Picillo Farm vicinity. Citizens would like to know what danger new development poses.

According to a developer interviewed, developers in the area are primarily concerned about future restrictions on land development, and what kind of cooperation could be expected from the town government in the future. They have faced inconsistencies in the way that the town has handled building permits; in 1987, one developer was issued a permit to build a foundation for a house in the area but later denied a permit for the next phase; also in 1987, another developer was issued a permit to build. There was a building boom in Coventry at the time that the moratorium was imposed in 1988 (developers had expressed an interest in building up to 80 homes near the site), but once building permits could again be obtained, in 1989, the market had slowed. This, say the developers, has cost time and money.

Representatives of the town conveyed a concern that though town plot maps of the area outline the hazardous waste site, not all home buyers in the area are aware of the Picillo Farm site.

5.11 Site Security

There is presently no official onsite attendant at Picillo Farm. A trailer left on site in the past has been vandalized, and residents on the site have indicated that the gates to the site may have been left unlocked at times. Presently, eight acres of the Farm are fenced in, while the rest of the Farm is generally open.

5.12 Existing Contamination

Citizens mentioned that there is a continuing odor and a yellow sheen apparent in a wedand immediately to the north of the site.

6.0 Objectives of the Community Relations Program

The following objectives will help to establish a predictable and flexible program for promoting communication between the public and EPA during remedial activities.

62352ARO042 lirtharP Little



6.1 Keeping the Community Informed

Residents should be educated by EPA about the Superfund program and the Picillo Farm site investigation. Information should be provided regarding the phase of the Superfund process currently affecting Picillo Farm; past remedial activities and their relationship to present activity at the site; and present and future plans at the site.

It should be noted that community awareness of site activities is high for residents living near the site but awareness and interest decrease with distance from the site. Therefore, educational efforts would be best targeted to western, rather than eastern Coventry residents.

6.2 Responding to Community Concerns

There should be a mechanism for the public to voice concerns about the site, and community concerns should be factored into the remedial action decision making process.

6.3 Updating Local Officials on Site Activity

EPA should keep the Coventry Town Manager and Town Planner informed of site activities. Local officials need advance notice of activities as they are frequently asked by citizens for updates. Most inquiries received at the Town Hall are from potential property buyers, so information related to soil and ground water quality, and other information of interest for new home buyers would be most useful.

6.4 Maintaining Contact With Picillo Farm Residents

Residents of the Picillo Farm property would like to be updated about activity at the site. There are presendy four families residing on the Picillo Farm property who wish to be informed when EPA and other contractors are going to be working at the site. They have felt in the past that they were ihe least informed about remedial activities at the site.

6.5 Communicating to Members of Save Our Water

EPA should maintain communication with members of SOW, be responsive to the group's concerns, and possibly send a representative to attend SOW meetings. The organization is currendy somewhat inactive, but during future remedial action interest and activity may grow. EPA should keep aware of changes in the concerns of the group.

62352ARC\042 A r t h i r D L i t t le



6.6 Keeping the Media Well Informed

Perceptions can have a significant effect on public concern. A well informed press can ensure that the public is supplied with factual information regarding the site. EPA should provide the media withtimely, detailed, and accurate information about the remedial investigation/feasibility study and subsequent activity at the site.

6.7 Providing Timely Information

Information about remedial action should be presented to the community in a timely manner. Citizens should be notified of upcoming public comment periods well in advance of future RODs.

6.8 Notifying the Public About Enforcement Actions

Because of a large interest in enforcement proceedings related to the site, the EPA Superfund enforcement process should be explained to the public and the community should be informed of ongoing enforcement action at the Picillo Farm site.

7.0 Techniques and Timing

In order to satisfy the community relations objectives oudined above, the following specific activities should be conducted. (See Figure 2 for Matrix of Activities)

7.1 Establish Two EPA Contacts

To meet the information needs of the community, local officials, Picillo Farm residents, neighbors of the site, members of SOW and the media, the EPA Community Relations Coordinator and the Remedial Project Manager for the site will be established as information contacts. Contact addresses and telephone numbers will be listed in fact sheets, and other public site information.

7.2 Maintain a Mailing List

A mailing list of community members, town officials, and other interested parties will be maintained by the EPA Superfund community relations office to be used for mailing of fact sheets, public notices, etc. The list will be updated when new names for the list are obtained through returned coupons from fact sheets or phone calls from citizens interested in being added to the list.

7.3 Public Meetings

To address the information needs of the community, local officials, and the press, EPA will sponsor public meetings to present information about the remedial investigation, clean up alternatives, public comment periods, enforcement

62352AROJ042 Ar th i r D l i t t l e

Figure 2: Proposed Community Relations Schedule

Activity Technical Milestones

1. Two EPA contacts

L Remedial -|— Feasibility —|— Comment — j —Investigation Study Period

[

Record of — I — Decision

Remedial—J— Remedial—J Design Action

2. Mailing list |

3. Public meetings A A A A A

4. Public notice f~~ A A A A 1

5. Responsiveness summary ^

6. Information repository

7. Fact sheets/Technical summaries A A A

8. Proposed plan A

9. Press releases [ A A A A A A I

10. Community interviews A

11. Telephone contact | 1

12. Informal citizen meetings | 1

—- - A

= Continuous Activity = Periodic Activity = Discrete Activity

Note: Table approximates community relations activities as they relate to site activities



action, and other updates regarding the site. EPA community relations and technical staff will be present at these meetings to respond to citizens' questions and provide information. The following list outlines meetings that are likely to be held. (See Figure 2 for relationship to technical milestones of Superfund activities.)

• Meeting #1 Fall of 1990 to present the initial results of the pretiminary remedial investigation.

• Meeting #2 Following the final results of the remedial investigation (approximately 18 months from initiation of the project) to discuss investigation results.

• Meeting #3 Following the Feasibility Study to present the Proposed Plan.

Meeting #4 (Public Hearing) To accept public comments on the Proposed Plan.

• Meeting #5 Nearing remedial design work completion to discuss remedial design.

Additional meetings may be required contingent upon further remedial action, significant finding during RI/FS or major enforcement activities.

7.4 Publish Public Notice

Public notices will be published in the local newspaper to announce the public meeting and comment period for the Proposed Plan, the ROD, and to make any other public announcements pertaining to the site. Announcements will be published well in advance of meeting days, and other site activities.

7.5 Prepare a Responsiveness Summary

EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary following the comment period prior to the ROD. This document will list and respond to all comments received during the comment period. Appropriate changes will be incorporated into the ROD.

7.6 Maintain Information Repository

A collection of all key documents for the site has been compiled into the administrative record, which will be maintained at the Coventry Public Library. Communityrelations information will also be available at the Greene and Summit Libraries.

Aithsr P Little 62352ARCN042



7.7 Design and Distribute Fact Sheets and Technical Summaries

Fact sheets will be developed by EPA and distributed to the mailing list to explain major activity at the site. For example, fact sheets will be distributed:

following the preliminary remedial investigation (RI), covering results of the investigation and a summary of community concerns voiced during interviews conducted prior to the investigation.

• upon completion of the RJ, including information regarding risk assessment.

• following remedial design work at the site.

7.8 Press Releases

Periodic press releases will be sent to the media and mailing list to announce site investigation, remediation, and enforcement activities. Periodic telephone contact will be maintained with reporters for local newspapers. EPA will contact Coventry town management prior to issuing press releases.

7.9 Community Interviews

Community interviews were conducted in June 1990 to let citizens voice their concems over the site and provide backup information for revisions of the Community Relations Plan. Follow up interviews may be conducted to help revise the CRP at the start of remedial design work.

7.10 Telephone Contact With Local Officials and Picillo Residents

EPA will call the Town Manager, and other public officials to update them on activities related to the site. Also, residents on the Picillo property will be notified when EPA or its contractors will be present at the site.

7.11 Participate In Citizens Meetings

If SOW activity increases, EPA will attend SOW meetings as needed.

62352ARCND42 ill-thai- P Little



Appendix 1 Page 1 of 3

Appendix 1. Key Contacts

US EPA Region I Officials

Anna KraskoRemedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Management Division JFK Federal Building (HSV-CAN-5) Boston, MA 02203-2211

(617)573-5749

Jim SebastianSuperfund Community Relations Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Public Affairs

(617)565-3423

JFK Federal Building (RPA-2203) Boston, MA 02203-2211

Federal Elected Officials

Senator John Chafee (202)224-2921 567 Dirksen U.S. Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Senator Claiborne Pell (202)224-4642 335 Russel U.S. Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Representative Claudine Schneider (202)225-2735 1512 Longworth U.S. House of Representatives Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Arthir D Little 62352ARCMM2




Appendix 1 (continued)

State Elected Officials

Senator Leo D. Blaze 41 Bank Street Coventry, RI 02816

(401)277-2708

Representative Bradford Gorham 58 Weybosset Street Providence, RI 02903

(401)277-2259

State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Jim Ball (401)277-2797 Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Division of Air and Hazardous Materials 291 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908-5767

Local Officials

Francis Frobel (401)822-9185 Town Manager Coventry Town Hall 1670 Flat River Road Coventry, RI 02816

Charles Gricus (401)822-9182 Director of Planning & Development 1670 Flat River Road Coventry, RI 02816

Ernest Lagault Town Selectman (401)822-2525 c/o Icehouse Flowers 655 Washington Street Coventry, RI 02816

62352ARCN042

Appendix 1 (continued)

Cynthia FaganVice Chair, Conservation Commission 770 Phillips Hill Road Coventry, RI 02816

Thomas Haynes, Fire ChiefWestern Coventry Fire District 2084 Plainfield Pike Greene, RI 02827

Community Organizations

Robert GuastiniSave Our Water Perry Hill Road Greene, RI 02827




(401)822-9182

(401)397-7682

(401)397-9508

62352ARO042 Arthir D Little




Appendix 2. Information Repositories and Public Meeting Locations

Information Repositories

Coventry Public Library* (401)822-9101 1672 Rat River Road Coventry, RI 02816

Greene Public Library (401)397-3873 Hopkins Hollow Road Greene, RI 02827

Summit Free Library Old Summit Road Greene, RI 02827

*contains administrative record

Suggested Public Meeting Locations

Western Coventry Elementary School (401)397-3355 Route 177 Coventry, RI 02816

Coventry Town Meeting Hall (401)821-6400 1672 Flat River Road Coventry. RI 0281.6-

62352ARO042

Appendix 3. Local Newspapers

Providence Journal-Bulletin Providence, RI

Pawtucket Valley Daily Times West Warwick, RI

Pendulum East Greenwich, RI




(401)277-7000

(401)821-7400

(401)884-4662

Arthir D LitUe 62352ARO042

Remedial Planning Activities at the Picillo Farm Site ...

Documents

Transcript of Remedial Planning Activities at the Picillo Farm Site ...