&EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Region 5

Community Involvement Plan
  Burnham Canal - Miller Compressing Company
     City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
          May 2010

-------
Contents
1    Introduction	1-1

2    What is Superfund?	2-1

3    Site Background	3-1
     3.1   Site Description	3-1
          3.1.1   Location and Site Features	3-1
          3.1.2   History and Cleanup Progress	3-2
4    Community Background	4-1
     4.1   Milwaukee Facts	4-1

5    Environmental Justice	5-1

6    Community Issues and Concerns	6-1
     6.1   Summary of Community Interviews	6-1

7    Community Involvement Goals	7-1
     7.1   Community Involvement Tools and Activities	7-1
     7.2   Public Availability Sessions	7-1
     7.3   Public Forums	7-2
     7.4   Public Meetings	7-2

8    EPA's Input Tools and Activities	8-1
     8.1   EPA'S Toll-Free Phone Number	8-1
     8.2   E-mail	8-1
     8.3   Mailing List Expansion	8-1
     8.4   Public Comment Period	8-2
     8.5   Public Input	8-2
     8.6   Stakeholder Group Interaction	8-2
     8.7   Surveys	8-3

9    EPA's Output Tools and Activities	9-1
     9.1   EPA's Web Sites	9-1
     9.2   Fact Sheets	9-1
     9.3   Infield Notification	9-2
     9.4   Information Repositories	9-2
     9.5   Listserv 	9-2
     9.6   Maps and Visual Aids	9-3
     9.7   Media Distribution / Media Events	9-3
     9.8   Project Roadmap	9-3
     9.9   Public Notices	9-3
     9.10 Reports / Concept Documents / Work Plans	9-4

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN	


10   EPA's Outreach Tools and Activities	10-1
     10.1  Community Events	10-1
     10.2  Environmental Justice Activities	10-1
     10.3  Project Site Visits / Tours	10-1
     10.4  Public Television / Public Access Television Shows	10-1
     10.5  School / Education Outreach Activities	10-2
     10.6  Workshops / Seminars	10-2
11   Involvement Tools and Activities	11-1

     11.1  Coordination with Local Government and Agencies	11-1
     11.2  Technical Assistance Provision (TAP)	11-1

12   Community Involvement Plan and Activities	12-1

13   Updates to the Community Involvement Plan	13-1
Appendices
Appendix A- Burnham Canal Miller Compressing Company Contact List	A-l
Appendix B - List of Abbreviations and Acronyms	B-l
Appendix C - Glossary	C-l

Figures

2-1    The Superfund Process	2-2
3-1    Burnham Canal and Miller Compressing Company property	3-1
3-2    Burnham Canal Site Location	3-2
5-1    United Community Center	6-4
5-2    Forest Home Library	6-4
12-1    Community Involvement Issues and Tools	12-1

-------
1   Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prepared this Community Involvement Plan
(CIP) for the Burnham Canal site in the Menomonee River Valley of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The CIP:

•  Provides the public with accurate, timely and understandable information and access to
   the information needed to understand the project as it moves forward

•  Allows the public to provide informed and meaningful input

•  Ensures adequate time and opportunity for the public to provide input and for that
   input to be considered

•  Respects and fully considers community input

•  Assists the public in understanding the project decision-making process during project
   design and cleanup and the community's role in that process
 EPA
 Environmental
 Protection Agency

 CIP
 Community
 Involvement Plan
                      This CIP provides background information on the site, describes
                      activities EPA will perform to keep the public and local officials
                      informed about progress at the site, and encourages community
                      involvement during site cleanup.

                      This CIP also discusses the concerns of nearby residents and local
                      officials regarding the site and ways for EPA to address those
                      concerns. The information in this CIP is based primarily on
                      discussions with residents, business owners and government
officials that occurred on August 5 and 6, 2009.

This draft CIP is being released to the public by EPA for review and comment. If you are
interested in submitting comments or have questions about this draft CIP, please contact:

Ginny Narsete
Community Involvement Coordinator
EPA Region 5 (SI-7J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago,  IL 60604-3507
Phone: 312-886-4359 or
(800) 621-8431 x 64359
narsete.virginia@epa.gov

For more information on the Burnham Canal Superfund Alternative Site, visit
http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/burnham/ or request information by contacting
Community Involvement Coordinators Ginny Narsete (see address above).

-------
2  What  is  Superfund?
Superfund is the nickname for the environmental cleanup program legally known as the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a
federal law enacted in 1980. CERCLA provides the authority through which the federal
government can compel people or companies responsible for creating hazardous waste sites
to clean them up. CERCLA also created a public trust fund, known as the Superfund, to
assist with the cleanup
of inactive and
abandoned hazardous
waste sites or
accidentally spilled or
illegally dumped
hazardous materials.
                 See also EPA's Superfund
                    Internet Resources
                    Superfund Process:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/sfprocess.htm
                    General Superfund:
           ttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.h
The Superfund program is overseen by EPA, and has four basic goals:
   •   It establishes a system for identifying hazardous substances and listing contaminated
       sites on EPA's National Priorities List. Sites are placed on this list when they are
       found to contain contaminants that have the potential to affect residential areas or
       impact the environment.

   •   It gives the federal government the authority to clean up a site if the owner or
       operator cannot be found or does not do the work themselves.

   •   It sets up a trust fund to pay for cleanup activities by imposing a tax on chemical and
       petroleum companies and other polluting industries.

   •   It makes persons or parties responsible for hazardous releases liable for costs and
       damages resulting from those releases.

The flowchart on Page 2-4 provides an overview of the Superfund process.  The  Superfund
cleanup process begins with site discovery or notification to EPA of possible releases  of
hazardous substances. Sites are discovered by various parties, including citizens, state
agencies, and EPA regional offices.

2.1.1   Hazard Ranking System

Once discovered, sites are entered into the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System, EPA's computerized inventory of potential
hazardous substance release sites. A site is added to the National Priorities List and is called
a Superfund Site if it has a score of 28.5 under the Hazard Ranking System. The Hazard
Ranking System considers the relative threat to public health and the environment, using data
from site investigations, to assign a score ranging from zero to 100. The score is based on the
likelihood that contaminants have been or will be released from the site; the types of
                                                                               2-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
contaminants present; and the human population or sensitive environmental areas that could
be impacted by a release.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no "most polluted site" on the list, and a site with a higher
hazard ranking is not necessarily more contaminated than one with a lower score. While it is
a measure of relative threat, the hazard ranking is based on a formula that allows the score to
be high even if just one pathway (air, underlying ground water, surface water or soil) score is
high.

As a result, a moderately contaminated site that impacts air, soil and ground water pathways
could have a score similar to an extremely dangerous site that poses a threat through only one
pathway  (e.g., deeply buried, leaking hazardous waste storage drums that threaten drinking
wells but have no impact on other pathways).

In addition, the Hazard Ranking System takes into account requirements established by
CERCLA, EPA policy decisions, and risk assessment principles. Because these relationships
are complex, hazard rankings do not imply, for example, that a site with a score of 70 is a
greater threat than a site with a score  of 50, or that two  sites with equal scores should have
equal priorities for cleanup action.

Following placement on the National Priorities List, the lead agency, whether it be EPA or a
state agency, conducts an investigation at the site to collect data and determine the nature and
extent of contamination. This investigation includes sampling and monitoring of air, water
and soil,  and also  evaluates current risks to public health and the environment.

Since the investigation and cleanup process takes several years, sites are evaluated early in
the process to determine if any short-term actions or cleanup actions need to be taken. Details
are provided in comments associated with certain steps in the flowchart shown on Page 2-4.

As displayed in this flowchart, after the site investigation is completed or underway, several
cleanup options are  developed. These options are then evaluated against nine EPA criteria to
determine which will be most protective of human health and the environment. This process
and an explanation of the preferred alternative are described in detail in the proposed cleanup
plan.


2.1.2  EPA's Nine Criteria
Threshold Criteria
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state laws

Balancing Criteria
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
5. Short-term effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. Cost
2-2

-------
Modifying Criteria
8.  State acceptance
9.  Community acceptance
2.1.3  The Community's Role

While public participation is encouraged throughout the process, the release of the proposed
cleanup plan is a key point in time for public input. Area residents and the general public are
encouraged to ask questions and express concerns during a public comment period and at a
public meeting. These comments, as well as EPA's response to them, are included in a report
called the Responsiveness Summary.

At this point, EPA and other regulatory agencies overseeing the process select what they
believe is the most appropriate cleanup option, taking into account public concerns, which
are finalized in a legally-binding document known as the Record of Decision.

The next step is the cleanup design, which sets out the detailed plans and  specifications for
the cleanup. The final  step is the cleanup action, or actual construction and implementation of
the selected option.
Under Superfund law, all of the documents listed above, once each is completed, become
part of the Administrative Record for the site. This Administrative Record is available for
public review at information repositories (See Section 9.2).
                                                                                   2-3

-------
          COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
FIGURE 2-1 SUPERFUND PROCESS
  Site Discovery
                                          Superfund  Process
  Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
  Hazard Ranking System
  Is Immediate action
         needed?
Yes
           No
                                         Removal Action
                                         EPA has three categories of removal actions, emergency, time-critical, and non-
                                         time-critical. Removal actions are taken to eliminate extreme hazards at a site
                                         (I.e., chemical tanker fire) and/or provide short-term solutions such as providing
                                         drinking water while the site is more thoroughly investigated and evaluated, and
                                         more permanent solutions are developed in the RI/FS and cleanup occurs after
                                         a Record of Decision is finalized.
                                                                                    Action
                                                                               Memorandum
   Remedial
  Investigation
     Report
Presents the nature and
extent of contamination,
   evaluates human
     health and
    ecological risk  rt
   Feasibility

     Study
  Presents cleanup
alternatives where each
  is evaluated using
  EPA's nine criteria
  (i.e., protection of
  human health and
  environment, cost,
 implementability, etc.^
                                                    Proposed

                                                       Plan
                                                 Presents the preferred
                                                   cleanup alternative
                                                     and is issued
                                                   for a 30-day public
                                                    comment period
                                              Record of

                                               Decision
                                           Contains the selected
                                            remedy for a site and
                                            the Responsiveness
                                          Summary which provides
                                              responses to all
                                            comments received
                                             during the public
                                             comment period  y
        Remedial
        Action,
        Long-term
        Monitoring,
        and
        Operation &
        Maintenance
     Five-Year
      Review
       Report
                                                          Site Deletion
                                                          After all sites on a Superfund Site
                                                          are investigated and cleanup
                                                          levels have been achieved, the
                                                          Site can begin the process to
                                                          delete it from the NPL
                                                                    Site Reuse/

                                                                    Redevelopment
                                                                    The Superfund program
                                                                    works with communities
                                                                    and other partners to
                                                                    return hazardous waste
                                                                    sites to safe and
                                                                    productive use without
                                                                    adversely affecting the
                                                                    remedy

-------
3  Site  Background
In 2008, Miller Compressing Company entered into a formal agreement with EPA to study
the Burnham Canal site under EPA's Superfund Alternative Sites Program. The Superfund
Alternative Sites Program takes sites that might otherwise be eligible for the National
Priorities List (described in Section 2, What is Superfund), but which will be investigated and
cleaned up by a cooperative responsible party (in this case Miller Compressing Company),
without formally listing the site on the National Priorities List. Miller Compressing
Company and EPA, in consultation with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the
City of Milwaukee and area residents, will determine the extent of contamination on the site
as well as final cleanup remedies.
 PAHs
 Polycyclic aromatic
 hydrocarbons (motor
 oil compounds)
                      Miller Compressing Company currently operates a recycling
                      facility on the site for iron and non-iron metals. Sediment in the
                      Burnham Canal shows high levels of metals (copper, lead,
                      cadmium, nickel, silver and zinc) and polycyclic aromatic
                      hydrocarbons (PAHs, or compounds commonly found in motor
                      oils). A wire reclamation furnace, approximately 100 feet west of
the canal, which has contributed to the contamination in the area, was used from the early
1970s to the mid 1990s for copper wire recycling. Miller Compressing Company has
volunteered to address contamination from its facilities in the Canal.
3.1  Site Description

3.1.1   Location and Site Features
The Burnham Canal used to be a federally authorized navigation channel. The site, shown
in Figure 2-1, is bounded on the west by S. 17th Street, on the east by S. 16th Street, on the
south by Bruce Street and on the north by a rail yard. The site is located 0.4 miles south of
the Menomonee River (Figure 2-2).
FIGURE 3-1
Burnham Canal
and Miller
Compressing
Company property
                                                                                 3-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
FIGURE 3-2
Burnham Canal Site Location
3.1.2  History and Cleanup Progress
Prior to getting involved with EPA's Superfund Program, Miller Compressing Company
conducted its own investigations of the Burnham Canal, including the western end. In July
2008, Miller Compressing Company signed an agreement with EPA to investigate the site
contamination and to determine possible cleanup methods. The investigation is currently in
progress and will be completed by December 2010.
3-2

-------
4  Community Background
Milwaukee is the county seat of Milwaukee County and is the largest city in Wisconsin.
Milwaukee is located on the southwestern corner of Lake Michigan and at the confluence of
the Menomonee, the Kinnickinnic and the Milwaukee Rivers.

The Menomonee Valley was once the industrial
heart of the city of Milwaukee, employing
thousands of people in heavy industry and
railroading. Despite decades of decline, the Valley is
still home to several manufacturers, the Potawatomi
Casino, the Harley-Davidson Museum, which
opened in July 2008, and Miller Park, the home field
of the Milwaukee Brewers.

            Redevelopment in the Menomonee
             Valley has added thousands of jobs and transformed once-
            blighted former industrial land into a parkland and
            community gathering space. In 2007, the Sierra Club
            recognized the Menomonee Valley as a national example of
            environmentally-friendly urban renewal.


4.1  Milwaukee Facts

Milwaukee is approximately 97 square miles. As of the 2000 census, the city had a
population of 596,974. Its estimated 2008 population was 604,447. Other census data:

•  The median household income in 2000 was $32,216, with 21.3 percent of the population
   and 17.4 percent of families living below the poverty line

•  Out of the total population, 31.6 percent of those under the age of 18 and 11 percent of
   those 65 and older are living below the poverty line

As of the 2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau:

•  White Americans made up 45.2 percent of Milwaukee's population
•  Blacks or African Americans made up 38.7 percent of Milwaukee's population
•  American Indians made up 0.7 percent of the city's population
•  Asian Americans made up 3.3 percent of the city's population
•  Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.1 percent of the city's population
•  Individuals from other races made up 10.0 percent of the city's population
•  Individuals from two or more races made up 2 percent of the city's population
•  Hispanics and Latinos made up 15.1 percent of Milwaukee's population.1
 U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2007 American Community Survey.
                                                                              4-1

-------
5  Environmental Justice
The Environmental Justice Act 1992 obligates federal agencies to make "environmental
justice" part of its overall mission by "identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations."

Following this order, the Office of Environmental Equity within EPA became the Office of
Environmental Justice. EPA's Office of Environmental Justice ensures that all people,
regardless of race, color, national original, or income, enjoy the same degree of protection
from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process for
a healthy living, learning,  and working environment.

When making decisions about a cleanup and planning their community involvement
initiative for a community, EPA must take environmental justice issues into account. As part
of this effort, EPA is working to improve collaboration between federal agencies and
communities, and addressing environmental challenges in more effective, efficient, and
sustainable ways.

EPA is currently working  to further the redevelopment of the 30th Street Industrial Corridor
relatively near the area. The corridor, a former rail line in the north-central part of
Milwaukee, is home to low income minority communities. Using environmental justice
goals, this project seeks to improve the human, environmental and economic health of these
neighborhoods by redeveloping brownfields sites along the corridor. This project also
includes goals for implementing sustainable stormwater management practices, and
developing urban agriculture, such as community gardens.

These are high-priority goals shared by EPA and the community, as demonstrated by the
discussion, comments and questions received by residents, business owners and
government officials that occurred on August 5 and 6, 2009. A summary of this discussion
follows.
                                                                                 5-1

-------
6  Community Issues and Concerns
6.1  Summary of Community Interviews

To learn about resident and community concerns regarding the site, EPA held several
community interviews on August 5 and 6, 2009. EPA talked with local officials and residents
living and working in the vicinity of the Burnham Canal and asked them about various
issues related to the contamination and cleanup at the site, the community involvement
process, the communication process to date and how the community involvement process
could be improved.

Below are the specific questions EPA asked and a summary of the answers that were
provided at the August 2009 community interviews.

Note to the reader: This summary is intended to faithfully record and reflect the issues and
concerns expressed to EPA by residents, officials and others on the days of the community
interviews. By necessity, this is a collection of opinions, thoughts and feelings.  Therefore, please
be cautioned that the statements contained in this section may, or may not, be factual and the
opinions and concerns expressed may, or may not, be valid. Where questions are asked, EPA 's
responses are provided in italics.
    1. Are you aware of contamination at the Burnham Canal site near the former
    Miller Compressing Company located on Bruce Street?
Most people interviewed were not aware of the contamination and EPA's involvement in
the cleanup at the Burnham Canal site, although most were familiar with Miller
Compressing Company's recycling operations on the site. Some public officials were aware
of contamination on the site, but were unsure of the extent and nature of the contamination.
Only a few residents were aware of contamination at the site and had seen oil and white
dust in the area.
    2. If so, what do you know about the Burnham Canal site?
The most frequently asked question among residents was where the Burnham Canal is
located. Except for those living immediately adjacent to the Miller Compressing Company,
most residents didn't know about the Burnham Canal.
                                                                             6-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Most of those interviewed were not familiar with the Burnham Canal site. They were
however, generally aware of the recycling operations on the Miller Compressing Company's
property and some referred to the site as a junk yard. Most residents are unhappy with
Miller Compressing Company's operations, siting noise and air contamination, as well as
debris in the river and fires on the site due to oil and grease.

Public officials however, consider Miller Compressing Company as a progressive company,
providing jobs while meeting its environmental responsibilities. Officials consider the site a
brownfield, ready for cleanup and redevelopment. Other residents knew of efforts to clean
up the site and plans for improvement through the Menomonee River Valley Partners.
     3. How long have you been aware of the site?
Most of those interviewed were not aware that the Burnham Canal was an official
Superfund Alternative Site, or that EPA was managing the cleanup of the site. However,
most were familiar with the recycling operations at the site, and some also knew of the
Kinnickinnic River cleanup going on in the area.
     4. Are you interested in receiving more information about the site? If yes,
     what's the best wav to provide that information to you (e-mail, regular mail) ?
All of those interviewed would like to receive more information about the site that is simple
and easy to understand. Most prefer to receive e-mails, but a few people prefer regular mail.
Other suggested forms of information include fact sheets (written in both Spanish and
English), radio, direct calls, and face-to-face meetings. Several organizations also
volunteered to forward information from EPA to their member lists.
     5. Do you feel the site has received adequate coverage by the local/regional
     media?
Nobody interviewed had heard or seen the Burnham Canal site mentioned on the radio, on
television or in the newspaper. However, a fire at the Miller Compressing Company was
seen mentioned on the news about a year prior to the Burnham Canal community interviews.
6-2

-------
                                                              5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
     6. Where do you get your information about the site? Are there particular
     newspapers, radio or TV stations or Internet sites that you prefer?
Although nobody interviewed had heard or seen anything in the media about the site, the
preferred sources of information in the community (listed in order of popularity) are:
   Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Dan Egan is
   the environmental reporter)
   Word of mouth
   Online websites
   WITI, Fox News, Channel 6
   TMJ4, NBC Channel 4 (on TV and the
   Internet)
   WISN, ABC Channel 12
   RiverWest Community Papers
   Milwaukee Magazine
   Bay View Compass
   Milwaukee Business Journal
   Menomonee Valley Partners
   Aldermadic Newsletters
County Supervisor Newsletters
Southside Post
Southsider
Southside Organizing Committee
Newsletters
WQBW 97.3 FM
WTMJ 620 AM
WUWM 89.7FM
WISN, 88.9 FM
WYMS 89.9 FM
WHAD 90.7 FM
WMSE91.7FM
Spanish Media listed included:

•  El Conquistador (top paper on the
   Southside)
•  Spanish Journal
•  ACJUI! Milwaukee
Spanish Times
TeleMundo, WYTU-LP (Channel 63)
La Grand, 104 7 FM
El Nuevo Ritmo, 1460 AM
Other sources of information included the Menomonee Valley Business Association through
its e-mail list and through its monthly meetings. Also, signage was suggested to indicate
fishing is not recommended for the Hmong population that fishes along the canal, as well as
other communication through the Hmong American Friendship Association.

EPA was told that main post offices and libraries, particularly at 11th and Greenfield, are
used by the Hispanic community and are good places to disseminate information.
     7. How frequently do you think public meetings about the site should be held?
     Where is a eood location for the meetings? Would you attend?
The majority of the people said they would attend meetings about the site to hear about the
cleanup progress. They suggested an open house format that allows for interaction with
EPA, with Spanish translation available. They listed the following possible meeting
locations (in order of popularity):
                                                                                   6-3

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
   United Community Center (recommended as a good place for a site repository -
   Figure 5-1)
   Forest Home Library (could hold up to 50 people — Figure 5-2)
   Longfellow Elementary School
   (21" & Scott)                      FIGURE 6-1
   Mitchell Park                     United Community Center
   Rice Palace Restaurant (has a
   community room)
   Prince of Peace Church
   Victory Church
   Koczwisco Park
   The Domes
   Senior Center on Greenfield
   Community Warehouse (920 W.
   Bruce) but, not Americans with
   Disabilities Act accessible
   The former Manitoba Bowling
   Lanes, which are now used for
   banquets
   Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
   Esperanza Unita
   Harley Davidson Museum
   Miller Park
   Downtown Library
   Marquette University - Ron Altenburs is the community outreach director
   Menomonee Valley Business Association luncheons
FIGURE 6-2
Forest Home Library

-------
                                                             5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
     8. Are there any other people or groups you think we should talk to about the
     Burnham Canal site?
The following were mentioned as people or groups to talk to:

•  Esparanza Unito - Robert Miranda (6th/14th & National)
•  16th Street Community Health Center
•  United Community Center
•  The Alderman for Area 3
•  Layton Boulevard Neighborhood Association
•  Menomonee Valley Partners
•  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Will Wawrzyn)
•  State Representative Pedro Colon
•  Aldermen Witt Kowiak and Donovan
•  County Supervisor Peggy West
•  Menomonee Valley Business Association
•  Marsha Bzinski from the Kinnickinnic River list
•  River Revitalization Association
•  Hispanic and Hmong communities (possibly through the schools)
•  Hmong American Friendship Association
•  Neighbors
•  Fishing groups/boaters in the area
•  IULC - seniors (9th & Washington)
•  Department of City Development (Jose Perez)
•  Former Alderman, Mary Ann McNulty
•  16th Street Business Improvement District
•  Mitchell Street Organization
•  Southside Landlord Association (Bruce/Canal Streets)
•  Council for Spanish Speakers
•  Milwaukee Christian Center 2
•  Southside Organizing Committee (Steve Fendt)
•  Community Shares - John, Jenson, Executive Director
•  Journey House
•  Casa Esperanza
•  City of Milwaukee
•  Community Partners - Maria Sandoval
•  Local journalists with the Spanish press
•  Georgia Papps - journalist
•  Fongs Garden Temple - Buddhist Temple (19th & National)
•  Historic 3rd Ward
•  Miller Park director
•  Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District
                                                                                 6-5

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
     9. When possible, site information is posted on EPA's Web site. Have you used
     the EPA Region 5 Web site?
Most of those interviewed had not visited EPA's Web site prior to being contacted for an
interview. Those who had used the site were generally not been looking for information
about the Burnham Canal site.

EPA was told that the Internet is not a good source of information for the community; radio
announcements would be better. Radio Sol (WJTI, 1460 AM) and WMSE, 91.7 FM (Felix
Rodriguez) were suggested for announcements.
     10. How interested are you in environmental issues in general?
Most of those interviewed were either generally or very interested in environmental issues.

Issues of concern include:
   Health
   Urban sprawl
   Urban gardens
   Farming and the use of pesticides
   Water
   Lake Michigan - sewer system failures
   Air quality
   Green space
   Going green
Recycling
Pollution
Contaminated grounds
Trash
Concern that plastics are putting
estrogen/ hormones into the drinking
water
Lead-based paint
     11. Have you had contact with government officials about the site? Do you feel
     these officials have been responsive to vour concerns?
The majority of residents and local officials who were interviewed had not had contact with
government officials concerning the site. Some officials had discussed the site with the
Wisconsin EPA and Department of Health and Family Services. One family near the site had
spoken with an alderman but did not feel their concerns were addressed.
6-6

-------
                                                                  5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
     12. What are your concerns about the contamination at the site (if yes to #1)?
Most of those interviewed said they didn't have any concerns about the site. Most just want
to see the cleanup finished. Residents expressed the following ideas regarding potential
cleanup options:

•   Damming and dredging is the best cleanup idea.

•   The deeper the canal is left, the better off the water will be.

•   If the site is going to be cleaned up, people want it done properly. Sediment needs to be
    disposed of properly.

•   It would be unfortunate if there is not a thorough characterization of the site. It should
    all be addressed up front.

•   If dredging sediment, need to make sure it is contained. The less disturbed in the water,
    the better. Dewatering the area is a better idea.

•   EPA oversight of the cleanup is appreciated.

EPA received several questions about potential cleanup options. These questions and EPA's
response to them follow:

•   Is EPA locked into a few cleanup options?

No. Currently Miller Compressing Company is investigating the extent of the contamination at the
site and reasonable cleanup alternatives. The results of this investigation and study respectively will
be released in a report called a remedial investigation/feasibility study, expected to be completed in
December 2010. EPA is required to consider the "no action" cleanup option  and will also evaluate an
array of cleanup alternatives. Remedial  technologies likely to be considered include dredging, capping
and treatment. The selected cleanup action must protect people and the environment; comply with all
applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental regulations (or establish grounds for a waiver);
use permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and be cost
effective. We will also consider long-term effectiveness, short-term effectiveness, and
implementability; as well as community and state acceptance of evaluated  remedial actions before the
final remedial action is selected. EPA welcomes ideas from the public and the public will have a
chance to comment on the cleanup plan EPA proposes before it is selected by EPA.

•   What will the cleanup consist of?

When the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete (December 2010), EPA will have a
better understanding of the extent of the contamination on the site and potential realistic cleanup
alternatives. It is possible that the  contamination will be excavated. Before any cleanup remedy is
selected, a proposed plan will be presented to the public and you will have an opportunity to comment
on the various cleanup alternatives.
                                                                                        6-7

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
•   If the cleanup involves dredging, how much contamination would get stirred up and
    where would the contamination be taken?

The array of potential site remedial options  has not yet been determined or evaluated.  If dredging is
evaluated as part of a potential remedial action, there will be an evaluation conducted regarding the
volume of material to be dredged and that will be stirred up, and well as where the contaminated
materials will be disposed. If developed, this dredging evaluation will be available to the public for its
review and comment before the final remedy is selected by EPA.

•   Will the site be capped? If the site is capped, what does that include; what kind of
    capping would be done?

The array of potential site cleanup options has not yet been determined or evaluated. If capping is the
preferred cleanup approach, there will be an evaluation and description of this option available to the
public for its review and comment before the final remedy is selected by EPA.

•   How deep is the water where the sediment is contaminated?

The water is deepest nearest the llth Street Bridge. The canal ranges from 10 to 22 feet deep.

•   Could the canal be dammed  and then dug out without spreading the contamination?

EPA does not know yet. If this approach will be considered as a potential remedial action, it will be
evaluated.

•   Will the site be excavated?

When the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete (in approximately December 2010),
EPA will have a better understanding of the extent of the contamination and potential cleanup
alternatives. It is possible that the contamination will be excavated. Before any cleanup remedy is
selected, a proposed plan will be presented to the public and you will have an opportunity to comment
on the various  cleanup alternatives.

•   Will the cleanup involve dredging? Will dredging disturb any buried contamination?

It is possible that the proposed cleanup options will involve dredging; however, that will not be
determined until the remedial investigation/feasibility study is completed in December 2010. A
dredging option will likely disturb some buried contamination.

•   Will contaminated sediment be taken off site? Out of the community?

How the contamination  will be disposed of and whether it will remain onsite or be taken out of the
community will be determined when the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete and the
community and state have an opportunity to comment on the proposed plan.

•   Are federal regulations less stringent than state regulations?

It depends on the regulation. The selected remedy is required to comply with all federal and more
stringent state environmental regulations, or invoke grounds for a waiver.

•   What contamination is there and what has happened historically there?

Miller Compressing Company currently operates a recycling facility on the site for iron and non-iron
metals. Sediment in the  Burnham Canal shows high levels of metals (copper, lead, cadmium, nickel,
silver and zinc) and PAHs. A wire reclamation furnace, approximately 100 feet west of the canal,
6-8

-------
                                                                  5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
which has contributed to the contamination in the area, was used from the early 1970s to the mid
1990s for copper wire recycling. Non-site related contaminants exist in the canal that may be
attributed to other industrial practices along canal; those contaminants will be indirectly addressed
by the canal cleanup.

•   Is EPA planning to do a Phase 1 study? And if the results show a need then a Phase 2?

A phased approach for studying site contamination will be used if appropriate.

Residents asked the following questions about funding and timing of the cleanup, as well as
the possibility of a federal match with Great Lakes Legacy Act funds.

•   When did this project start?

On May 30, 2008, Miller Compressing Company entered into a formal agreement with EPA  to study
the nature and extent of the contamination at the Burnham Canal site and to evaluate potential
cleanup options under EPA's Superfund Alternative Sites Program.

•   How much will the cleanup cost?

Cleanup cost will be determined when the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete and a
cleanup plan is selected.  Certain remedies take longer and cost more than others. The feasibility
study will evaluate the estimated cleanup time frame and cost for all proposed options.

•   Who is financing  the study and cleanup?

The Miller Compressing Company is  the potentially responsible party. It has agreed to fund the
remedial investigation/feasibility study. EPA will also attempt to reach an agreement with the
company for implementation of the cleanup and future monitoring.

•   What's the timeframe? How long will it take to clean it up?

The remedial investigation/feasibility  study is currently scheduled for completion by December 2010.
Shortly after approval of the study, EPA will, in consultation with the State of Wisconsin,
recommend a proposed final remedial  action at the site. The proposed final remedial action, and
EPA's rationale for this  recommendation, will be presented to the public. The public will be invited to
comment on the proposed remedial action. After comments are received and evaluated, EPA will
select the final site cleanup plan. Once the cleanup alternative  is selected, the timeframe for the
cleanup will be determined.

The following questions about the contamination were asked:

•   Is there contamination on the  property lines?

There is contamination on the Miller  Compressing Company property - a small area of soil at the
west end of the canal.

•   Will it spread through air?

There is no  evidence that site contamination is spread through the air.  Precautions will be taken to
ensure that the contamination will not be spread through the air during the cleanup.
                                                                                        6-9

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
•   Are there mutated frogs?

Mutated frogs have not been identified in the area; EPA is unaware of reports of mutations to living
organisms in the canal.

•   Was the contamination caused by a manufacturing process? What was the process of
    metal reclamation?

Yes, Miller Compressing Company currently operates a recycling facility on the site for iron and
non-iron metals. Sediment in the Burnham Canal shows high levels of metals (copper, lead, cadmium,
nickel, silver and zinc) and PAHs. A wire reclamation furnace, approximately 100 feet west of the
canal, which has contributed to the contamination in the area, was used from the early 1970s to the
mid 1990s for copper wire recycling.

•   Several people asked about the characterization of the site; that is, what the nature of
    the contamination is. What are the contaminants?

The contaminants of concern include metals (copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, silver and zinc) and
PAHs.

•   What chemicals are involved? What's the contamination? What's the particulate
    matter?

The contaminants are thought to include six heavy metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver and
zinc) and PAHs.

•   Is copper the issue?

Copper is one of the contaminants of concern.

•   What is in the water? What's in the ground?

The contaminants of concern are copper, PAHs, lead, and other metals. The levels of contamination
that are likely to present a concern to people or the environment are in the sediment and soil. No
significant amount of contamination is present in the surface water.

•   How far down did the contamination get?

According to a previous study completed in 2007, the contamination concentrations significantly
drop and stabilize  a little over halfway down the canal. The copper contamination tends to increase
with sediment depth, while lead and PAHs are highest in the first 5 feet of sediment.

•   What do you mean by cleaning it up?

By cleanup, we reduce exposure of harmful contaminants to people and the  environment. Cleanup
does not necessarily mean that we will remove all contamination from the area. If the exposure can be
reduced by installation of a cap or implementation of a specific treatment, it will be considered.

•   Is the contamination airborne? Is the slurry powder spread through air rather than
    water? Is it known?

The contamination is not airborne; it is confined to the surface water, soil and sediment. There is  no
evidence of airborne contamination.
6-10

-------
                                                                  5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
•   If more contamination is found downstream, could Miller Compressing Company
    still be held liable for the cleanup?

Yes. If contamination above environmental or health-based limits that can reasonably attributed to
Miller Compressing Company operations is found past the llth Street Bridge, the company may be
held liable.

•   Has the contamination migrated?

The contamination is highest near the western terminus of the canal and it decreases as it goes east.
Therefore, the contamination most likely originated from the western terminus and migrated east in
the canal.

•   Is Miller Compressing Company responsible for all the contamination?

Miller Compressing Company is the only party currently identified as potentially responsible for site
contamination. Although contaminants not attributable to Miller Compressing operations exist in
the canal, no other companies have been identified as potentially responsible parties.

EPA was given several comments and questions about the potential impacts the
contamination could have on the health of the community, including estrogen levels in Lake
Michigan, further contamination past the 11th Street Bridge due to tide effects, and fishing
activities off the bridge. Additional questions included:

•   Except for fish, does it affect the community in any other way?

An assessment of site risks is currently under development. The known contamination in canal
sediment and soil on the site property currently poses a risk to organisms that fish eat (benthic
organisms), outdoor workers,  construction workers and trespassers on the site whose skin may come
in contact with the contamination or who accidentally ingest it.

•   Will there ever be a time when the fish can be eaten?

We do not know. Because contaminants from other sources affect fish in the canal, it is likely that the
Burnham Canal cleanup will not affect the safety of eating fish from the  canal.

•   Risks from site - are there health issues?

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services conducted a health consultation for the Burnham
Canal Site. The Department concluded that there is no harm to public health associated with the site,
aside from fish consumption, because access to highly contaminated areas is restricted. Further
investigation of risks to trespassers and onsite workers is being conducted as part of the remedial
investigation.

•   Do you have any idea how many people are using the area for fishing and boating?

EPA does not know how many people are using the area for fishing. Hmong have been reported
subsistence fishing off the bridge near the canal. No boating is occurring in the canal.

•   Should activities take place in the water if it is contaminated?

There is no evidence that the water itself is contaminated from the Miller Compressing Company
operations.  There are concentrations of contaminants in the sediments that may be of concern. There
                                                                                       6-11

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
is a fish advisory in the area due to contamination from other sources in the site area. Contamination
in the fish has not been shown to be associated with the site, but with the watershed.

•  What kind of fish are people catching?

EPA is not sure what kind of sport fish are being caught in the canal.

•  Is the canal a fish habitat?

A 2008 report, compiling all existing data, states that no areas where aquatic vegetation or habitat are
present are in the canal. Pish are in the water but the canal ecosystem does not provide a suitable fish
habitat. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources studies show that sport fish freely roam
throughout the Milwaukee River Estuary, including the Burnham Canal.

•  Is there a danger to people living near the site?

Risks posed from the site are currently under evaluation. EPA recommends that people do not
trespass on the site property, and do not come into contact with the sediment in the canal. There is a
watershed fish advisory recommending that fish caught in the Menominee River Watershed not be
consumed.

Some of  the comments EPA heard had more to do with the activities of the Miller
Compressing Company than the contamination at the Burnham Canal  site, including:

•  Because the contamination is their fault, Miller Compressing Company should want to
   clean it up.

•  Something is not right with Miller's volunteering to do the cleanup. Miller Compressing
   Company is not trustworthy and is not a good environmental steward.

•  Recycling activities at the site, like car grinding, are very loud.

•  Most people don't know what goes on at the site.

Questions that EPA was asked about Miller Compressing Company include:

•  Why does Miller Compressing Company want to do this right now? What's going on?
   Does Miller Compressing Company still own the  site?

Miller Compressing does not own the canal; however, it does own the north bank and western
terminus. The company is potentially responsible for the contamination on the property and in the
canal. Miller Compressing Company has agreed to study the nature and extent of site contamination,
and to evaluate potential cleanup alternatives for the site. EPA will ask Miller Compressing
Company to implement the final site property and canal remedial action that we select in the future.
EPA cannot speak for the reasons that Miller Compressing is currently cooperating with us; however,
parties potentially liable for contamination often agree  to studies and to cleanup measures at
Superfimd sites.

•  Is Miller Compressing Company going to stay?

EPA is not aware of Miller Compressing Company's plans to remain operating on the site.
6-12

-------
                                                                  5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
•   What areas would be covered by a "covenant not to sue" Miller Compressing
    Company?

Currently EPA has given Miller Compressing a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106 and
107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.
งง 9606 and 9607 (a), for performance of the remedial investigation and feasibility study and for
recovery of future response costs. This covenant not to sue is conditioned upon the complete and
satisfactory performance by Miller Compressing of all obligations under the agreement. Additional
potential covenants from the EPA will depend on additional work the company agrees to conduct.

The following additional thoughts were shared about the site:

•   There is limited fish spawning in the area. Burnham Canal is a good place for that. Some
    would like the site to be used for that.

•   The river needs to be cleaned up.

•   Cleaning it up would be a good thing.

The following additional questions were asked about the site:

•   What is the Burnham Canal site and what's going on with it?

The Burnham Canal Site is a Super fund Alternative Site. The Burnham Canal used to be a federally
authorized navigation channel. The site is located in an industrial area, in the southern portion of the
Menomonee River Valley of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Miller Compressing Company, the potentially
responsible part, operates a copper wire  reclamation and non-iron recycling facility located adjacent
to the Burnham Canal. Copper reclamation operations were performed on the site from late 1970s
through the mid 1980s. Miller Compressing Company has agreed to study the nature and extent of
contaminant on its property and in the canal; and evaluate cleanup alternatives for the contamination
caused by its operations. The canal has high levels of copper and PAHs in the sediment. EPA is
overseeing the investigation.

•   Is this site in the Menomonee Valley?

Yes, the site is in the Menomonee Valley.

•   Will the canal issue affect the lake?

There is little to no flow in  the canal. It is not likely that contamination in the canal will affect Lake
Michigan.

•   Will the canal be opened up to be freer flowing for activities?

It is unclear at this time how the cleanup will affect water flow in the canal. Because the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has ceased dredging the canal, it is not anticipated that the canal will be opened
up for recreational activities or navigational use. The anticipated use of the site is industrial.

•   What is the air quality?

The air quality in the area has not been tested. There is no indication that site contamination has
adversely affected air quality.
                                                                                       6-13

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
•   Why is EPA looking for public participation?

EPA is required by law to include the community when deciding how best to clean up a Superfund
Site. The community may have important information about the site or its history or about how a
particular remedy would affect the community's future plans.

•   Who is using the canal?

Since the canal is no longer being dredged, it is not accessible for recreational use. There are reports
that people have been seen fishing off the bridge over the canal.

•   How is Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources involved in the project? Where is
    the Department in all of this?

The Department is the support agency for the project; and EPA is the lead agency the Department
provides consultation to throughout the remedial investigation/feasibility study process. The
Department is invited to comment on all site-related documents; it identifies state environmental
regulations for proposed remedial actions, and its input is carefully considered by EPA before the
final site cleanup action is selected.

•   How might the cleanup affect businesses in the area?

The remedy has  not yet been selected; therefore, the affect it will have on the business community is
unknown.
     13. What risks do you think the site, in its current state, poses to you or your
     children?
Most of those interviewed did not feel the site posed risks to them or children. Those who
had concerns discussed risks to boats due to debris; risks to those fishing in the canal; and
noise, dust and dirt from Miller Compressing Company operations and possible health
effects such as headaches.

Some officials didn't think the site posed a risk because of restricted public access to the
area. However, EPA was told of potential environmental justice issues, particularly for
homeless people in the area. EPA was also told that "Superfund" frightens people, and
needs to be explained to those living near the area.
     14. Would you like to see the site redeveloped? How?
Most of those interviewed would like to see the site redeveloped for recreational or
industrial, purposes, but not for residential use. Most would like to see the area reused as a
park or kept as green space with a walking area and bike trail, to improve water quality for
water sports, fish habitat and fishing. Those interviewed also suggested the area would be
6-14

-------
                                                                5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
useful for bringing in jobs, especially for green technology projects, in keeping with the
site's current use for recycling. The concerns that were expressed regarding site
redevelopment included potential flooding and potential capping as a cleanup option, since
capping had not worked at an upstream site.
                                                                                    6-15

-------
7  Community Involvement Goals
EPA is committed to involving the public in the cleanup of the Burnham Canal site in a
substantial and significant manner and established the following goals for the overall
community involvement program. EPA will:

•  Provide the public with accurate, timely, and understandable information and/or access
   to the information needed to understand the project as it moves forward.

•  Provide the public with the opportunity to give informed and meaningful input.

•  Ensure adequate time and opportunity for the public to provide input.

•  Give full consideration to community input.

•  Assist the public in understanding the project decision-making process during project
   design and cleanup and the community's role in that process.

Community involvement goals and needs must be considered and balanced with the
project's technical and scientific requirements. To date, EPA has focused its community
involvement efforts on getting public input on the issues that are most important to
community members and organizations through the community interview process.


7.1  Community  Involvement Tools and Activities

EPA has identified and developed a wide variety of community involvement tools and
activities that can be used to implement this program. The objectives of these tools  and
activities generally fall into one or more of four categories:

•  Input - How EPA receives information from the public.
•  Output - How EPA shares information with the public.
•  Outreach - How EPA promotes education and awareness about the project.
•  Involvement - How EPA encourages public participation in the project.

Some tools and activities cross many categories. These include public availability sessions,
public forums and public meetings.
7.2  Public Availability Sessions
Description: Public availability sessions are effective,
informal sessions open to the general public. They
feature posters, displays and interaction between EPA
staff and the public. These sessions present detailed
information in understandable terms, allow
individuals to inquire about issues that most concern
them, and give each citizen a chance to speak freely to EPA personnel and contractors on a
                                                                             7-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
one-to-one basis. Public availability sessions do not require the use of court reporters and
transcripts, although meeting summaries may be prepared.

Goal: The goal of these sessions is to educate the public on important project issues and to
enable community members to ask questions in a comfortable and informal setting.
Public availability sessions also provide EPA with feedback from the community and can
uncover issues not fully understood by the community.

Method: Sessions are conducted as needed at convenient times and places. Whenever
possible, public notice is given at least 2 weeks before scheduled public availability sessions.


7.3  Public  Forums

Description: Public forums are semi-formal public sessions that are characterized by a
presentation, a question-and-answer session, and/or a less formal poster/ display session.
This format allows members of the public to participate in both large and small group
settings. Public forums do not require the use of court reporters and transcripts, although
meeting summaries may be prepared.

Goal: Public forums are opportunities to update the community on site developments and
address community questions, concerns, ideas and comments.

Method: Sessions are conducted as needed at convenient times and places. Whenever
possible, public notice is given at least 2 weeks before scheduled public forums.
7.4 Public Meetings
Description: Public meetings are structured, formal meetings open to the general public,
featuring a presentation and interaction with the public. Formal public meetings may
involve the use of a court reporter and the issuance of transcripts. Formal public meetings
are required only for a proposed cleanup plan, called a record of decision (ROD), and ROD
amendments.

Goal: Public meetings are opportunities to update the community on site developments
and address community questions, concerns, ideas and comments.

Method: EPA schedules, prepares for, and attends all announced meetings. Whenever
possible, public notice is given at least 2 weeks before scheduled public meetings.

EPA will hold public availability sessions, participate in public forums and schedule public
meetings at key cleanup milestones. The meetings will be announced via newspaper notices,
e-mail messages and fact sheets. The preferred location for meetings is the United
Community Center or the Forest Home Library.

See Appendix A for details on suggested meeting locations.
7-2

-------
8  EPA's  Input Tools  and Activities
8.1  EPA'S Toil-Free Phone Number
             Description: EPA has established toll-free service to improve access to project
             information.
             Goal: Extending toll-free access to community members
             improves the flow of information between EPA and the
             community.
             Method: EPA routinely publicizes the toll-free number
through announcements, events and publications.
                                                                   Toll-Free:
                                                                   1-800-621-8431
8.2 E-mail

Description: E-mail can be used to contact EPA representatives for information or to ask
questions about this site.

Goal: This provides another method for citizens to provide input or request information.

Method: E-mail EPA's site community involvement coordinator, Ginny Narsete, at
narsete. virginia@epa. gov.
For full EPA contact information, see Appendix A.
8.3 Mailing  List Expansion

Description: EPA has an extensive mailing list of individuals and
organizations. Using several methods, EPA has solicited additional
mailing addresses from community members interested in the
                     Burnham Canal cleanup.
 EPA is not required,
 nor does it intend to
 prepare
 responsiveness
 summaries for each
 comment submitted
 during design.
 However, EPA will
 summarize how
 comments were
 used or considered
 in the decision-
 making process.
Goal: Mailings effectively communicate
project and event information to a wide
and diverse audience and provide
information to community members who
do not purchase newspapers, use
computers, or have access to the Internet.
The Burnham Canal
Superfund Alternative
Site public mailing list
is expressly intended
for distributing
project-related
information. The
mailing list is not
public information and
is not available for
public viewing. While
EPA may identify
recipients to other
agencies for project
information
distribution, EPA will
not release this list to
outside parties.
Method: Methods for increasing the mailing list will include
coordination with elected officials using constituent mailing lists,
sign-up sheets at public meetings, availability sessions and festivals,
and contact with community-based organizations to invite their
members to sign up. Community members on the mailing list should
notify the community involvement coordinator of any changes to their mailing address.

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
8.4 Public Comment Period

Description: This is a formal opportunity for community members to review and contribute
comments on various EPA documents or actions. Comment periods are legally required for,
among other things, proposed cleanup plans, cleanup agreements (known as consent
decrees), and the addition or deletion of a site to the National Priorities List (NPL). For the
Burnham Canal Superfund Site, EPA has gone well beyond these minimum requirements
by holding comment periods on key design issues.

Goal: Comment periods allow the public to  provide meaningful input in the process and
provide EPA with valuable information for use in making decisions.

Method: EPA announces comment periods with newspaper postings, listserv notifications,
and EPA fact sheets to ensure the public understands what is being presented, when
comments will be accepted, how long the comment period will be open, and how to submit
comments.

See Appendix A for a list of regional newspapers.
8.5 Public Input
Description: Letters and informal discussions with EPA staff allow the public and EPA to
communicate about the project. EPA wants to understand the public's concerns so they can
be addressed.

Goal: Verbal comments and letters allow continued opportunity for the public to give input
and, consequently, allow EPA to recognize trends in issues of public concern and identify
areas that require more information or clarification.

Method: Informal comments can be offered at any time, such as during availability sessions,
open houses, community visits, and workshops. Written comments may be submitted by
mail or e-mail.

See Appendix A for EPA contact information.
8.6 Stakeholder Group Interaction
Description: EPA will coordinate with and, upon request, attend meetings of stakeholder
groups.

Goal: Such interaction helps ensure that members of these organizations receive the
information that they need and that EPA receives their input and understands their
concerns. Interaction with stakeholder groups also can extend EPA's outreach by sharing
EPA notices of events, site updates and other information with their members and
constituents.

Method: EPA regularly coordinates with and, upon request, will attend meetings of
stakeholder groups that have identified the Burnham Canal cleanup project as a focus of
their organization.
8-2

-------
                                                              7 /BEPA'S INPUT TOOLS AND ACTIVITIES
See Appendix A for stakeholders and interested party contact information.


8.7 Surveys

Description: EPA will consider print or telephone surveys to solicit feedback about the site.

Goal: Surveys allow EPA to identify and update community concerns and issues.

Method: Random surveys may be used as necessary, particularly in communities that have
questions and concerns about the project but that have not necessarily had much access to
other community involvement activities.
                                                                                  8-3

-------
9  EPA's Output Tools and  Activities

9.1  EPA's Web Sites

Description: Major technical reports and updates on the Burnham Canal can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/bur   BBBBBJBIBJBJBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIBBBBBBB
nham/ or                                        ••>—•-••—ซ—
http://www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/sfd/npl/
sas_sites/WIN000510222.htm.

Many other sources of information are
available through the EPA Web site at
www.epa.gov.

Goal: EPA's web sites provide key
resources for accessing both general and
site-specific information about the site
and the Superfund Alternative Process. Access to EPA's web sites is available through home
and public computers and libraries in the Milwaukee area.

Method: EPA posts updates and major technical reports, generally within 2 business days of
their release. Notice of all public meetings, forums and availability sessions and
announcements related to the project are posted. Items will be posted in languages
consistent with the affected communities, including Spanish, Hmong, etc). The Web site will
continue to be updated and
enhanced regularly so that
users can easily search for
information. EPA will provide
links to important project-
related information posted  on other sites.


9.2  Fact  Sheets

Description: Fact sheets, sometimes called site or project updates, are brief documents
written in plain language, often containing user-friendly graphics (pictures and maps), to
help residents understand highly technical reports, concepts and information, and inform
the public about upcoming meetings and community involvement opportunities.

Goal: Fact sheets provide site-related information and notice of community involvement
opportunities in an easy to understand format.

Method: Fact sheets will be produced throughout the project design and cleanup process to
promote understanding of the cleanup. Fact sheets will be posted on EPA's Web site, made
available at public forums and will be mailed to individuals and organizations on the site
mailing list. Fact sheets will also be produced in languages other than English when
                              http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/burnham/ or
                              www. epa.gov/reg5sfu n/sfd/npl/sas_sites/WIN000510222. htm
                                                                                9-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
community demographics indicate such languages (Spanish, Hmong, etc) are commonly
used. In addition to sending fact sheets via first class mail, EPA will distribute fact sheets at
locations in the neighborhood where they can be conveniently picked up by residents,
including the United Community Center, 16th Street Community Health Center, post offices
and libraries. EPA will also develop an e-mail distribution list for interested parties who
prefer e-mail. Each fact sheet will be sent to e-mail recipients as a ".pdf" file at the same time
the fact sheet is mailed.


9.3   Infield Notification

Description: This type of information consists of advisories, restrictions and explanatory
signs posted to clearly mark project work areas and river access restrictions.

Goal: Advisories, restrictions and explanatory signs are intended to keep the public
informed and maintain safety.

Method: All advisories, explanatory signs and restrictions on river access or to project work
areas will be clearly posted, including on locks and buoys. Signs will be posted in Spanish,
Hmong and English.
9.4  Information Repositories
Description: Information repositories are local public buildings such as libraries, community
centers or government offices where site-related and supporting documents are available for
review. There are a total of three information repositories for the Burnham Canal site. All
repositories have printed copies of major documents. Information repositories, as well as
most public libraries throughout the site, have public-use computers that provide access to
additional information. Two repositories house all project-related documents for the
Burnham Canal site.

Goal: Information repositories provide accessible public locations where residents can read
and copy official documents and other pertinent information about the site, EPA activities,
and the Superfund process.

Method: EPA maintains three information repositories, two near the project area, and will
continue to add documents as they become available.

See Appendix A for  a listing of all information repositories.


9.5  Listserv

Description: The EPA-Burnham Canal  listserv is a free, subscription-based electronic news
distribution system used by EPA to distribute updates, notifications and progress reports
via e-mail; this is the fastest way to get the latest information. The listserv cannot be used to
transmit graphics and photos. All  information conveyed via the listserv is text only. EPA
will make graphics-rich documents available on the Burnham Canal Web site in .pdf format.

Goal: The goal of listserv is to disseminate information as quickly and effectively as possible
to large numbers of interested parties.
9-2

-------
                                                            8 SBEPA'S OUTPUT TOOLS AND ACTIVITIES
Method: Information about how to subscribe to the listserv is available at
www.epa.gov/burnham/listserv.htm.
9.6  Maps and Visual Aids
Description: Maps and visual aids help people understand the geography of the site and the
locations of activities and resources.

Goal: The visual aids communicate complex issues effectively.

Method: EPA regularly uses maps, photographs, and other visual aids in documents and
fact sheets, at public sessions, and on the Web site.


9.7 Media Distribution / Media Events

Description: EPA provides updates and information to key local newspapers and radio and
television stations and encourages them to further distribute this information on a regular
basis. EPA representatives provide information and are accessible to the news media.

Goal: News releases and other types of information distribution to the media help EPA to
reach large audience quickly and to reinforce and distribute information further. Media
stories help explain technical information and track sequences of events for the public.

Method: Common methods of providing information to the media include the distribution
of press releases on developing issues related to the project, individual interviews with
project staff, or statements made by EPA representatives during public. Media briefings
before public sessions may be used by EPA to summarize the purpose and main points of
the event and to enhance accuracy of media coverage.

See Appendix A for a list of media contacts.
9.8  Project Roadmap
Description: EPA will map the project schedule to illustrate the general sequence of events
during the design period leading up to, and including, the cleanup activities. The roadmap
will describe the interrelationship of major project elements, discuss technical reports and
documents and identify opportunities for public input.

Goal: Project roadmaps help the public see the big picture.

Method: A timeline that uses graphics to identify elements and their relationships is
displayed in fact sheet form and is available on the project Web site. The project roadmap
may also be presented at meetings and events.


9.9  Public  Notices

Description: Public notices can be advertisements published in local newspapers or
mailings, including postcards that announce public comment periods for EPA decisions,
public meetings, and major project milestones.
                                                                                 9-3

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Goal: The goal of public notices is to communicate an important announcement to as many
community members as possible.

Method: EPA uses public notices to announce public comment periods and public meetings.
In certain cases, EPA will supplement published notices with radio announcements. The
most widely read English newspaper by local residents is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; the
most widely read Spanish publication is the El Conquistador; however, local community
groups newsletters are also a source of local information for the residents. It is expected that
EPA would publish all notices in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as well as El Conquistador as
appropriate. Fact sheets and other information will be sent to the media contact list,
including community group newsletter contacts for their use.

See Appendix A for a list of newspapers and other media outlets.


9.10  Reports / Concept Documents / Work  Plans

Description: These reports detail the investigations, studies, findings and decisions about the
site and have been made available at the repositories and, in most cases, on EPA's Burnham
Canal Web site for public access.

Goal: To allow the public access to detailed information on the decision-making process.

Method: EPA will continue to make these documents public. However, the complexities of
these reports can make them difficult to understand for those without technical or scientific
expertise. EPA recognizes that these reports need to be supported with other community
involvement activities to give the public a clear understanding of the material presented in
these documents. Fact sheets and various types of public meetings will be prepared and
conducted to ensure that the public is educated about  project activities and afforded an
opportunity to provide input. Reports are available at  the site  repositories.

-------
10   EPA's Outreach Tools and Activities
10.1 Community Events

Description: EPA will attend community events, such as fairs and festivals, to distribute
information and provide answers to questions.

Goal: Community events provide EPA with the opportunity to build and maintain good
relationships with residents. Community events also allow EPA to understand and
appreciate the daily lives of community members and the events and activities that are
important and enjoyed by them.

Method: EPA will supply and staff an information booth at appropriate events.


10.2 Environmental Justice Activities

Description: Environmental justice activities encourage participation from communities that
may not have direct access to project information due to language and cultural barriers. This
is especially important because members of low-income and non-English speaking
communities near the site  continue to catch and consume fish from the Burnham Canal.

Goal: The primary goal is to increase awareness and information about the project,
especially in communities that may not know how to access information or that may not
have many opportunities or methods to do so.

Method: EPA will seek assistance from agencies who work with immigrant, low-income,
and non-English speaking communities to distribute materials that describe the project and
explain the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services fish consumption advisories.


10.3 Project Site Visits/Tours

Description: Small groups  can be given guided tours to view site activities when such tours
are feasible, appropriate and safe.

Goal: Site visits give the public a better understanding of the project work.

Method: EPA staff will lead tours of the sites and explain what is occurring. Field
demonstrations are based  on interest and safety considerations.


10.4 Public Television / Public Access  Television Shows

Description: EPA will consider using community-oriented public access and public
television shows to disseminate project information.

Goal: The goal of using television shows is similar to the use of other media: to increase
awareness and understanding of the project and project issues.
                                                                            10-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Method: EPA may contact show producers about featuring the Burnham Canal cleanup
project.


10.5 School / Education Outreach Activities

Description: EPA will provide project information to interested schools and will assist them
in developing educational projects related to the Burnham Canal site.

Goal: Educational activities expand awareness and understanding of the project and
strengthen ties to the community.

Method: Educators and students can visit or call the community involvement coordinator
for information, request a visit to their school from an EPA representative, or visit any of
these pages on these EPA Web sites:
www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/sfd/npl/sas_sites/WIN000510222.htm

vyvyyy.epa.gov/kids, www.epa.gov/students

www.epa.gov/teachers
10.6  Workshops / Seminars
Description: Workshops and seminars are classroom-style sessions that provide more
detailed technical information for interested citizens. Workshops can explore project-specific
topics, such as how dredging or capping operations occur, or more general scientific topics,
such as how statistics are used in the project.

Goal: Workshops can be used to educate small groups of citizens on the chosen topics and
address issues identified in the CIP.

Method: If there is sufficient interest, EPA will conduct targeted workshops to educate the
public on the basics of cleanup operations and related project topics.
10-2

-------
11    Involvement Tools and Activities
11.1  Coordination with  Local Government and Agencies

Description: EPA coordinates with local governments and agencies to keep them informed
and to get feedback on their concerns. EPA will continue to communicate with these
representatives and agencies through all project phases.

Goal: EPA's goal is to ensure that local government officials and agencies are informed of
project activities that may occur in their jurisdiction and to help minimize the impacts of
project activities.

Method: EPA will continue to foster relationships with local representatives and agencies
through meetings and dialogue.


11.2  Technical Assistance Provision  (TAP)2

Description: An important element of a Superfund response action is the availability of
technical assistance to the local community. EPA is authorized to provide technical
assistance grants (TAGs) to qualified community groups only at sites listed on the NPL and
sites proposed for listing on the NPL and at which response action has begun (40 C.F.R.
ง 35.4025). TAGs are grants of up to $50,000 issued by EPA to a qualified group that lives
near and is affected by an NPL site. The TAG can be used to hire a technical advisor, an
expert who can explain technical information and help articulate the community's concerns
about it. At Superfund sites that are not proposed for the NPL, such as the Burnham Canal
site, TAPs are available. If a qualified/interested community group comes forward, the
potentially responsible  party, with EPA oversight, would be required to administer and
fund a TAP, under which a qualified community group can receive funds to hire an
independent technical advisor. The TAP ensures that the opportunity for technical
assistance at Superfund sites is comparable to the opportunity at sites listed on the NPL.

Goal: TAPs enable a representative group of the community to understand technical aspects
of cleanup projects.

Method: Only one TAP  is awarded per Superfund site. So far, no qualified community
group has come forward to request a TAP for the Burnham Canal site.
2 Revised Response Selection and Settlement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites, EPA
Memorandum, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/rev-sas-
04.pdf. June 17, 2004.

-------
12   Community Involvement  Plan  and  Activities
The community action plan (see Figure 11-1) matches the community concerns identified in
Section 5 (Community Issues and Concerns) with the community involvement tools and
activities identified in Sections 6-10. EPA recognizes the public's need for two-way
communication about decisions made regarding the Burnham Canal site and the public's
opportunities to be involved in that process. EPA is currently addressing these issues and
will continue to do so throughout the project.
FIGURE 11-1
Community Involvement Issues and Tools
         Community Involvement Issues
Concerns about the Process
     Community Involvement Tools
The community wants a clear explanation of its role and
responsibilities in EPA's decision-making process.
Project Roadmap
Technical Assistance Provision
The community wants a process that is transparent.
Fact Sheets
Newsletters
Project Roadmap
Public Availability Sessions
Public Forums
Reports/Concept Documents/Work Plans
Technical Assistance Provision
The community wants a process that is meaningful.
Fact Sheets
Project Roadmap
Public Availability Sessions
Public Forums
Public Comment or Input on some Documents
Technical Assistance Provision
Community involvement must be adequately supported,
especially with key information.
EPA's Web Site
Fact Sheets
Infield Notification
Information Repositories
Listserv
Maps, Visual Aids, Displays and Events
Outreach Materials
Media Distribution/Media Events
Newsletters
Project Roadmap
Project Site Visits/Tours
Public Availability Sessions
Public Forums
Public Meetings
Public Notices
Public Television/Public Access Television Shows
Public Service Announcements
Reports/Concept Documents/Work Plans
School/Education Outreach Activities
Toll-free Number
Video Productions
Workshops/Seminars	
                                                                                     12-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
FIGURE 11-1
Community Involvement Issues and Tools
          Community Involvement Issues
The community involvement process must be
responsive to the needs of stakeholders.
          Community Involvement Tools
    Progress Reports/ Newsletters
    Technical Assistance Provision
Community involvement must be broad-based and
representative.
    Community Events
    Community Poster
    Environmental Justice Activities
    Mailing List Expansion
    Public Availability Sessions
    Public Forums
    School/Education
    Outreach Activities
    Technical Assistance Provision
Concerns about the Remedy
Effects on Human Health
•   Fact Sheets
•   Information Repositories
•   Public Availability Sessions
•   Public Input
•   Public Forums
•   Technical Assistance Plan
Effects on Quality of Life
•   Fact Sheets
•   Information Repositories
•   Public Availability Sessions
•   Public Input
•   Public Forums
•   Technical Assistance Plan
Economic Effects
    Coordination with Local Government and Agencies
    Infield Notification
    Information Repositories
    Public Input
    Stakeholder Group Meetings	
Effects on Fish
    Coordination with Local Government and Agencies
    Fact Sheets
    Information Repositories
    Public Availability Sessions
    Public Input
    Public Forums
    Technical Assistance Plan
Effects on River Recreation/Navigation
•   Coordination with Local Government and Agencies
•   Infield Notification
•   Information Repositories
•   Public Input
•   Public Service Announcements
12-2

-------
13  Updates to the Community Involvement
Plan
As additions, changes and improvements to the CIP are identified, EPA will continue to
update it, notify the public of changes via the listserv and other communication tools, and
post the revised version of the document on the Web site and in the information
repositories.
                                                              13-1

-------
Appendix A
                              Burnham Canal
                     Miller Compressing Company
                                Contact List
Federal Elected Officials
Senator Russ Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5323
Fax: 202-224-2725
Russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov

District Office:
517 East Wisconsin Ave, Room 408
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-276-7282
Fax: 414-276-7284

Senator Herb Kohl
330 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5653
Fax: 202-224-9787
senator_kohl@kohl. senate, go v

District Office:
310 W. Wisconsin Ave, Suite 950
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Phone: 414-297-4451
Fax: 414-297-4455

Congresswoman Gwen Moore
219 N. Milwaukee St, Suite 3A
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-297-1140
Fax: 414-297-1086

Congressman Dave Obey
401 5th St, Suite 406A
Wausau, WI 54403
Phone: 715-842-5606
Congressman Steve Kagen, M.D.
700 E. Walnut St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
Phone: 920-437-1954
Fax: 920-437-1978

State Elected Officials
Governor James Doyle
115 E. State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
Phone: 608-266-1212

District Office:
Room 560
819 N. 6* St
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Phone: 414-227-4344

Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton
19 E, State Capitol
P.O. Box 2043
Madison, WI 53702
Phone: 608-266-3516
Fax: 608-267-3571

Senator Tim Carpenter
Room 306 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707
Phone: 608-266-8535
Fax: 608-282-3543
Sen.Carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov
                                                                              A-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Representative David Cullen
Wisconsin State Legislature, District 13
Room 216 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: 608-267-9836
Fax: 608-282-3613
Rep. Cullen@legis .wise onsin. go v

Representative Pedro Colon
Wisconsin State Legislature, District 8
Room 306 East
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: 608-267-7669
Fax: 608-282-3608
Rep.Colon@legis.wisconsin.gov

County and Local Officials
City of Milwaukee

Mayor Tom Barrett
Office of the Mayor
200 E. Wells St.
City Hall Room 201
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-286-2200
Fax: 414-286-3191
mayor@milwaukee. go v

Jim Bohl
5th District Alderman
City Hall, Room 205
200 E. Wells St
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-286-2221
jbohl@milwaukee.gov

Alderman Robert Puente
9th District Alderman
City Hall, Room 205
200 E. Wells St
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-286-2221
rpuent@milwaukee. go v
Alderman Robert Donovan
8th District Alderman
City Hall, Room 205
200 E. Wells St
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-286-2221
rdonov@milwaukee.gov

Alderman Jim Witkowiak
12th District Alderman
City Hall, Room 205
200 E. Wells St
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-286-2221
j witko@milwaukee. go v

Alderman Willie Hines
15th District Alderman
City Hall, Room 205
200 E. Wells St
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-286-2221
whines@milwaukee.gov

Health Department
Disease Control and Environmental Health
Terri Linder, Environmental & Disease
Control Specialist
Frank P. Zeidler Municipal Building
841 N. Broadway, 3rd Floor
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3653
Phone: 414-286-5789
Fax: 414-286-5164
tlinde@milwakee. go v

Department of City Development
Karen C. Dettmer, P.E., Senior
Environmental Project Coordinator
809 N. Broadway
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-286-5642
Fax: 414-286-5778
kdettm@milwaukee.gov
A-2

-------
                                        APPENDIX A - BURNHAM CANAL MILLER COMPRESSING COMPANY CONTACT LIST
Redevelopment Authority
David P. Pisky, Assistant Executive Director-
Secretary
809 N. Broadway
P.O. Box 324
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: 414-286-8682
Fax: 414-286-0395
dmisky@milwaukee.gov

Milwaukee County

Scott Walker
County Executive
901 N. 9th Street
Courthouse, Room 306
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: 414-278-4211
Fax: 414-223-1375
countyexec@milwcnty.com

Peggy West
County Supervisor, District 12
901 N. 9* st
Courthouse, Room 201
Milwaukee, WI 60604
Phone: 278-4269
peggy.west@milwcnty.com

Joseph Czarnezki
County Clerk
901 N. 9* st.
County Courthouse, Room 105
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: 414-278-4067
countyclerk@milwcnty.com

John Chrisholm
District Attorney
Safety Building
821 W. State Street, Room 405
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: 414-278-4646
Fax: 414-223-1955
da.milwaukee@da.wi.gov
EPA
Virginia (Ginny) Narsete
Community Involvement Coordinator
EPA Region 5 (SI-7J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: 312-886-4359 or
(800) 621-8431 x 64359
narsete.virginia@epa.gov

Nefertiti Simmons
Remedial Project Manager
Office of Superfund (SR-6J)
EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Phone: 312-886-6148
simmons.nefertiti@epa.gov

Peter  Felitti
EPA Region 5 (C-14J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: 312-886-5114
felitti.peter@epa.gov

Information Repository
Forest Home Library
1432 W Forest Home Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53204-3228
Phone: 414-286-3083

16th Street Community Center
Fernando Campos
Neighborhood Development Coordinator
1028 S. 9th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-384-3100
Fax: 414-649-4411

EPA Region 5
Record Center
Ralph Metcalfe Building,
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Room 711
Chicago, IL
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday - Friday
                                                                                 A-3

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Stakeholders and Interested Parties
Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Cheryl Nenn, M.S.
1845 N. Farwell Ave., #100
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-287-0207 x29
Fax: 414-273-7293
Cheryl_nenn@milwaukeeriverkeeper.org

Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
Peter McAvoy, Vice President,
Environmental Health
1337 S. Cesar Chavez Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-385-3746
Fax: 414-385-3790
peter.mcavoy@sschc.org

Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
Ben Gramling, Director of Environmental
Health Programs
1337 S. Cesar Chavez Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-385-3577
Fax: 414-385-3790
ben.gramling@sschc.org

Menomonee Valley Partners, Inc.
Corey Zetts, Program Director
301 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 400B
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Phone: 414-274-4655
Coreyฎ RenewTheValley. org

Menomonee Valley Business Association
Robert F. Peschel, P.E., Chairman
1300 West Canal Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: 414-643-4150
Fax: 414-643-4210
rpechel@thesigmagroup.com

Journey House
Manni Marquez, Director
1900 W. Washington Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-647-0548 Ext. 2226
Fax: 414-647-0266
mmarquez@journeyhouse. org
Journey House
Gina Gomez, Community Organizer
1900 W. Washington Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-647-0548 Ext. 2232
Fax: 414-647-0266
ggomez@journeyhouse.org

Walker Square Neighborhood Association
Jason T. Cleereman, President
1039 South 5rh Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204-1734
Phone: 414-276-3345
Fax: 414-383-3933
Jason.Cleerman@gmail.com

Southside Organizing Committee
Steve Fendt, Executive Director/Lead
Community Organizer
1300 South Layton Boulevard
Milwaukee, WI 53215
Phone: 414-672-8090
Fax: 414-672-8358
sfendt@socmilwaukee.org

Layton Boulevard West Neighbors
Charlotte John-Gomez, Executive Director
Sacred Heart Center
1545 S. Layton Blvd., Suite 506
Milwaukee, WI 53215
Phone: 414-383-9038, ext 2513
Fax: 414-647-4886
charlotte@lb wn. org

Public Meeting Locations
Forest Home Library
1432 W Forest Home Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53204-3228
Phone: 414-286-3083

16th Street Community Center
Fernando Campos
Neighborhood Development Coordinator
1028 S. 9th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-384-3100
Fax: 414-649-4411
A-4

-------
                                        APPENDIX A - BURNHAM CANAL MILLER COMPRESSING COMPANY CONTACT LIST
Media -Newspapers
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
P.O. Box 371
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: 414-224-2000

CM Newspapers
1741 Dolphin Court, Suite A
Waukesha, WI 53186
Phone: 414-224-2100
Fax: 262-446-6646

Wisconsin State Journal
P.O. Box 8058
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: 608-252-6200

Milwaukee Magazine Inc.
417 E. Chicago St.
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 404-273-1101
Fax: 414-273-0016

Milwaukee Community Journal
Mikel Holt, Editor-in-Chief
3612 N Martin Luther King Dr.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Phone: 414-265-5300

The Daily Reporter
225 E. Michigan St., Ste 540
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-225-1821

South Milwaukee Voice Journal
723 Milwaukee Ave.
South Milwaukee, WI 53172

Milwaukee Times Newspaper
1936 N. Dr Martin Luther King
Milwaukee, WI 53212

On Milwaukee
1930 E. North Ave, 2"d  Floor
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-272-0557

El Concjistador Latino Newspaper
Victor Huyke, Editor
3206 W National Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53215
Phone: 414-383-1000
editor@SpanishElConquistador.com

AQUI Milwaukee
4101 W. Burnham
W. Milwaukee, WI 53215
Phone: 414-647-4721
Fax: 414-467-4723

Spanish Journal
Robert F. Miranda, Editor-in-Chief
611 W. National Ave. Ste. 316
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-643-5683
Fax: 414-643-8025

Spanish Times
Tony Kalil, Editor and Publisher
425 West National Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Phone: 414-672-0929
Fax: 414-672-9900

Media - Television
WITI - FOX
9001 N. Green Bay Rd.
Brown Deer, WI 53209
Phone: 414-355-6666

WMVS - PBS
700 W. State St.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: 414-271-1036
Fax: 414-297-7536

WISN - ABC
759 N. 19th St.
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: 414-342-8812

WVTV - CW 18
4041 N. 35* St.
Milwaukee, WI 53216
Phone: 414-442-7050
Fax: 414-203-2300
                                                                                A-5

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
WDJT - CBS                               WNOV Radio, 860 AM
809 S. 60* St.                               2003 W. Capitol Dr.
Milwaukee, WI 53214                       Milwaukee, WI 53206
Phone: 414-777-5800                        Phone: 414-449-9668
Fax:414-777-5802                           WKT, Rad.o, 94.5-FM
WCGV - My 24                            720 E Capitol Dr
4041 N. 35th St.                             Milwaukee, WI
Milwaukee, WI 53216                       Phone: 414-332-9611
Phone: 414-442-7050                        Fax: 414-967-5266
Fax: 414-203-2300

Media - Radio
WUWM Radio, 89.7 FM (NPR)
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: 414-227-3355
Fax: 414-270-1297

WYMS Radio, 88.9 FM
5312 W. Vliet St.
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: 414-475-8979
Fax: 414-475-8413

WHQG Radio, 102.9 FM
5407 W. McKinley Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53208
Phone: 414-978-9000
Fax: 414-978-9001

WKLH Radio, 96.5 FM
5407 W McKinley Ave
Milwaukee, WI
Phone: 414-978-9000
Fax: 414-978-9001

WEMP Radio, 1250 AM
11800 W. Grange Ave.
Hales Corner, WI 53130
Phone: 414-529-1250

WLUM Radio, 10 2.1 FM
N72 W12922 Good Hope Rd.
Menomonee Falls, WI 53051
Phone: 414-771-1021
Fax: 414-771-3036
A-6

-------
Appendix B
                 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
CERCLA    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
            of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
            (SARA) of 1986

CIP         Community Involvement Plan

EPA        (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency

FS          Feasibility Study

NPL        National Priorities List

PAHs       Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (motor oil compounds)

PCB        polychlorinated biphenyl

RI/FS       Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD        Record of Decision

TAG        Technical Assistance Grant

TAP        Technical Advisory Provision

-------
Appendix C
Administrative Order on Consent
Administrative Record
Advisory
Air Quality Standards
Cleanup
Community
Community Involvement
                                    Glossary
A legal agreement signed by the EPA and an
individual, business or other entity through which
the entity agrees to take an action, refrain from an
activity, or pay certain costs. It describes the actions
to be taken, applies to civil actions, and can be
enforced in court. In limited instances it may be
subject to a public comment period.

The body of documents that forms the basis for the
selection of a particular response at a site. For
example, the Administrative Record  for remedy
selection includes all documents that were
considered or relied upon to select the remedy
through the record of decision.

State-generated health warning regarding the
consumption of contaminated animals (e.g., fish,
waterfowl). These advisories include advice on how
to reduce exposures to chemical contaminants in fish
and game by avoiding or reducing consumption and
by the use of filleting/trimming and  cooking
techniques to further reduce contaminant levels. In
Wisconsin, these advisories are issued by the
Wisconsin Division of Public Health.

The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that
are not to be exceeded during  a given time in  a
defined area.

Actions taken to deal with a release or threat of
release of a hazardous substance that could affect
humans and/or the environment. The term
"cleanup" is sometimes used interchangeably with
the terms "remedial action," "remediation,"
"removal action," "response action," or "corrective
action."

An interacting population of various types of
individuals (or species) in a common location; a
neighborhood or specific area  where people live.

The term used by the EPA to identify its process for
engaging in dialogue and collaboration with
communities affected by Superfund sites. EPA
community involvement is founded in the belief that
                                                                                  C-1

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
                                   people have a right to know what the Agency is
                                   doing in their community and to have a say in it. Its
                                   purpose is to give people the opportunity to become
                                   involved in the Agency's activities and to help shape
                                   the decisions that are made.
Community Involvement
Coordinator
                                   The EPA official whose lead responsibility is to
                                   involve and inform the public about the Superfund
                                   process and response actions in accordance with the
                                   interactive community involvement requirements set
                                   forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
                                   Pollution Contingency Plan.

Community Involvement Plan (CIP)  A management and planning tool outlining the
                                   specific community involvement activities to be
                                   undertaken during the course of a site investigation
                                   and cleanup. It is designed to: 1) provide for two-
                                   way communication between the affected
                                   community and the EPA; and 2) ensure public input
                                   into the decision-making process related to the
                                   affected communities.

Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986                         Commonly known as Superfund, CERCLA is
                                   intended to protect human health and the
                                   environment by investigating and cleaning up
                                   abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
                                   Under the program, the EPA either can pay for a site
                                   cleanup when parties responsible for the
                                   contamination cannot be located or are unwilling or
                                   unable to perform the work, or take legal action to
                                   force parties responsible for site contamination to
                                   clean up the site or repay the federal government for
                                   the cleanup cost.
Consent Decree
                                   A legal document, approved by a judge, that
                                   formalizes an agreement reached between the EPA
                                   and potentially responsible parties through which
                                   the potentially responsible parties will conduct all or
                                   part of a cleanup action at a Superfund site; cease or
                                   correct actions or processes that are polluting the
                                   environment; or otherwise comply with the EPA-
                                   initiated regulatory enforcement actions to resolve
                                   the contamination at the Superfund site involved.
C-2

-------
                                                                               GLOSSARY
Contaminant
Contamination
Drinking Water Supply
Ecosystem


Emission
Endangered Species

Environment
Environmental/Ecological
Risk
Environmental Justice
The consent decree describes the actions the
potentially responsible parties will take, is subject to
a public comment period prior to its approval by a
judge, and is enforceable as a final judgment by a
court.

Any physical, chemical, biological or radiological
substance or matter that has an adverse effect on  air,
water, or soil.

Introduction into water, air,  and soil of
microorganisms, chemicals, toxic substances, wastes
or wastewater in a concentration that makes the
medium unfit for its next intended use. Also applies
to surfaces of objects, buildings and various
household use products.

Any raw or unfinished water source that is or may be
used by a public water system, as defined by the  Safe
Drinking Water Act or as drinking water by one or
more individuals.

The complex of a community and its environment
functioning as an ecological unit in nature.

Pollution discharged into the atmosphere from
smokestacks, other vents, and surface areas of
commercial or industrial facilities, from residential
chimneys, and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or
aircraft exhausts.

Any native species in imminent danger of extinction.

The sum of all external conditions affecting the life,
development and survival of an organism.


The potential for adverse effects on living organisms
associated with pollution of the environment by
effluents, emissions, wastes or accidental chemical
releases; by energy use; or by the depletion of natural
resources.

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin,
culture, education or income with respect to the
development, implementation and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and policies. Implies
that no population of people should be forced to
shoulder a disproportionate share of negative
environmental impacts of pollution or environmental
                                                                                   C-3

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Feasibility Study
Habitat


Hazardous Substance
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste Landfill
Health Assessment
Information Repository
Lead Agency
hazard due to a lack of political or economic strength
levels.

Analysis of the practicality of a proposal (such as a
description and analysis of potential cleanup
alternatives for a site such as one on the National
Priorities List). The feasibility study usually
recommends selection of a cost-effective alternative.
It usually starts as soon as the remedial investigation
is under way; together, they are commonly referred
to as the  remedial investigation/feasibility study.

A place where a plant or animal species naturally
exists.

Any material that poses a threat to human health
and/or the environment. Typical hazardous
substances are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive or
chemically reactive. 2. Any substance designated by
the EPA to be reported if a designated quantity of the
substance is spilled in the waters of the United States
or is otherwise released into the environment.

Byproducts that can pose a substantial or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when
improperly managed. Hazardous wastes usually
possess at least one of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity) or
appear on special EPA lists.

An excavated or engineered site where hazardous
waste is deposited and covered.

An evaluation of available data on existing or
potential risks to human health posed  by a
Superfund site. The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry of the Department of Health and
Human Services is required to perform such an
assessment at every site on the National Priorities
List.

A file containing current information, technical
reports and reference documents regarding a site.
The information repository usually is located in a
public building convenient for local residents such as
a public school, town hall or library.

An agency such as the EPA or other federal agencies
and state agencies that plan and implement response
actions (for example, the agency that has the primary
C-4

-------
                                                                               GLOSSARY
Listserv
Mitigation


Monitoring
National Priorities List (NPL)
Natural Resources
Pollutant
Potentially Responsible Party
responsibility for coordinating a CERCLA response
action).

The EPA-Burnham Canal listserv is a free,
subscription-based electronic news distribution
system used by the EPA to distribute updates,
notifications, and progress reports via email and is
the fastest way to get the latest information. Listserv
cannot be used to transmit graphics and photos. All
information conveyed via Listserv will be text only.
The EPA will make graphics-rich documents
available on the Agency's Burnham Canal Web site
in .pdf format.

Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the
environment.

Periodic or continuous surveillance or testing to
determine the level of compliance with statutory
requirements and/or pollutant levels in various
media or in humans, plants, and animals.

The EPA's list of serious uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-
term cleanup under Superfund. The list is based
primarily on the score a site receives from the Hazard
Ranking System. The EPA is required to update the
NPL at least once a year.

Land, fish, wildlife, air, water, groundwater,
drinking water supplies  and other such resources
belonging to, managed by, or controlled by the
United States, a state or local government, any
foreign government, any Indian tribe or any member
of an Indian tribe.

Generally, any substance introduced into the
environment that adversely affects the usefulness of
a resource or the health of humans, animals or
ecosystems.

An individual, company, or other entity (such as
owners, operators, transporters or generators of
hazardous waste) potentially responsible for, or
contributing to, the contamination problems at a
Superfund site. When possible, the EPA requires a
potentially responsible party, through administrative
and legal actions, to clean up hazardous waste sites
that it has contaminated.
                                                                                   C-5

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Proposed Plan


Public



Public Availability Session
Public Comment Period
Public Forum
Public Meeting
Record of Decision
Remedial Investigation
A plan for a site cleanup that is available to the
public for comment.

The community or people in general or a part or
section of the community grouped because of a
common interest or activity.

Informal public sessions that often use poster
displays and fact sheets and that include EPA
personnel and contractors who are available to
discuss issues and answer questions. Public
availability sessions offer the public the opportunity
to learn about project-related issues and to interact
with the EPA on a one-to-one basis. Public
availability sessions do not require the use of court
reporters and transcripts, although meeting
summaries may be issued through newsletters and
progress reports.

A formal opportunity for community members to
review and contribute written comments on various
EPA documents or actions.

Semi-formal public sessions that are characterized by
a presentation, question-and-answer session and a
less formal poster/display session. This format
allows members of the public to participate in both
large and small group settings. Public forums do not
require the use of court reporters and transcripts,
although meeting summaries may be issued through
newsletters and progress reports.

Formal public sessions that  are characterized by a
presentation to the public followed by a question-
and-answer session. Formal public meetings may
involve the use of a court reporter and the issuance of
transcripts. Formal public meetings are required only
for the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision
amendments.

A public document that explains the cleanup method
that will be used at a Superfund site based on EPA
studies, public comments and community concerns.

An in-depth study designed to gather data needed to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at
a Superfund site, establish site cleanup criteria,
identify preliminary alternatives for remedial action,
and support technical and cost analyses of
alternatives. The remedial investigation is usually
C-6

-------
                                                                              GLOSSARY
Remediation
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)
Stakeholder
Standards
Superfund
Superfund Alternative Approach
Superfund Alternative Site
concurrent with the feasibility study. Together they
are usually referred to as the remedial
investigation/feasibility study.

Cleanup or other methods used to remove or contain
a toxic spill or hazardous materials from a Superfund
site.
The law that ensures that water that comes from the
tap in the United States is fit to drink (according to
EPA national drinking water standards); this law also
addresses the contamination of groundwater.

Any organization, governmental entity or individual
that has a stake in or may be affected by the
Superfund program.

Norms that impose limits on the amount of
pollutants or emissions produced. The EPA
establishes minimum standards, but states are
allowed to promulgate more stringent standards.

The program operated under the legislative authority
of CERCLA that funds and carries out EPA solid
waste emergency and long-term removal and
remedial activities. These activities include
establishing the National Priorities List, investigating
sites for inclusion on the list, determining  their
priority, and conducting and/or supervising cleanup
and other remedial actions.

The Superfund alternative approach uses the same
investigation and cleanup process and standards that
are used for sites listed on the NPL. The approach is
really an alternative to listing a site on the NPL; it is
not an alternative Superfund process. The approach
can save the time and resources associated with
listing a site on the NPL. As long as a PRP enters into
a Superfund alternative approach agreement with
EPA, there is no need for EPA to list the site on the
NPL (although the site qualifies for listing on the
NPL).

A site that qualifies for listing on the NPL  but that is
being cleaned up under the  Superfund alternative
approach.
                                                                                  C-7

-------
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN
Technical Assistance Grant
(TAG)
Technical Assistance Provision
(TAP)
Treatment
Water Quality Standards
Work Plan
A TAG provides money for activities that help
communities participate in decision-making at
eligible Superfund sites. An initial grant up to
$50,000 is available for any Superfund site that is on
the EPA's NPL or proposed for listing on the NPL
and where a response action has begun. An
additional $50,000 may be provided by the EPA at
complex sites.


In Superfund approach agreements at sites not
proposed to be listed on the NPL, EPA negotiates a
TAP for the potentially responsible party to provide
funds should a qualified community group apply.
(1) Any method, technique, or process designed to
remove solids and/or pollutants from solid waste,
waste-streams, effluents and air emissions. (2)
Methods used to change the biological character or
composition of any regulated medical waste so as to
substantially reduce or eliminate its potential for
causing disease.

State-adopted  and EPA-approved ambient standards
for water bodies. The standards prescribe the use of
the water body and establish the water quality
criteria that must be met to protect designated uses.

Defines both data needs and the methods needed for
the analysis phase. It includes project objectives, data
requirements,  assessment and measurement
endpoints, sampling and analysis procedures, quality
assurance objectives and procedures, and a work
schedule.

-------