SI%
s mM \
ussy
% PRO^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Community Involvement Plan
for the
Big John Salvage-Hoult Road Superfund Site
Fairmount, Marion County, West Virginia
Date: August 2015
Prepared by: Cherokee Nation Assurance, LLP
Prepared for: U.S. EPA Region 3
-------
Intentionally blank
2
-------
DID YOU KNOW?
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IS IMPORTANT
TO THE SUCCESS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM!
The law that governs the Superfund program requires EPA to conduct community
involvement activities. More importantly, EPA has learned, through experience, that
involving community members in the Superfund process actually improves the outcome of
program activities.
So, please get involved. Read our fact sheets. Come to meetings. Give us a call. We
want to hear from you. We want you to know what we are doing and why, and we want you
to tell us if there are issues we need to be aware of in your community as we go about our
work. Do you have information about the site? Do you know about community members
who need site information made available in a language other than English? Are there
persistent rumors about site-related risks that EPA should address? What is the best way to
keep you informed? Please let us know.
This Community Involvement Plan (CIP) will:
1. Describe the Superfund program and process;
2. Tell you about opportunities to become informed and involved;
3. Provide a brief overview of the site history;
4. List the issues and concerns community members raised during interviews we
conducted while preparing this plan;
5. Identify some of the resources and tools EPA will use to keep you informed.; and
6. Provide contact information for key EPA staff members working on this site.
Last but not least, this CIP is intended to be a resource for EPA staff. The Superfund
process spans several years, and site team members may change. The CIP will inform new
team members about the community, identify community concerns, and list community re-
sources for planning meetings and communicating with residents and officials.
If you have questions about this document, the site, or the Superfund process, please contact the
Community Involvement Coordinator for the site:
Carrie Deitzel
US EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3HS52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
deitzel.carrie@epa.gov
3
-------
How is this CIP organized?
For ease of use, this document has been arranged in the following
manner:
1. The Superfund Process 06
2. The Site in Your Community: Its Use and Regulatory History 12
3. Issues and Concerns in Your Community 14
4. Community Involvement Opportunities and Resources 16
5. Communication Tools and Techniques 17
6. Appendices
A. Contacts 19
EPA/ATSDR 19
Federal 20
State 20
Local 21
Other 21
B. Media Outlets
Newspapers 22
Television 22
Radio 22
C. Potential Meeting Locations 23
D. Site Files Access
Local Information Repository 24
EPA Office Repository 24
Online 24
4
-------
CIP Organization, continued
E. Fact Sheets 25
F. Community Demographics 30
G. Additional Websites & Resources 32
5
-------
PART 1: Superfund Process Overview:
In order to participate in or follow the Superfund process as it unfolds in your community, it is
important to know what Superfund is and how it works. The following information was taken
from EPA's website. Underlined terms in this CIP provide links to more detailed information.
Open links by clicking on them while holding down the 'Ctrl' button. If you are reading a paper
copy of this CIP, EPA's Superfund website holds the same information, and more. It can be found
by typing the following address into any internet browser: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
Additional web resources are provided in Appendix G.
Basic Information
What is Superfund?
Superfund is the name given to the environmental program established to address abandoned
hazardous waste sites. It is also the name of the fund (now defunct) established by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
(CERCLA). This law was enacted in the wake of the discovery of toxic waste dumps, such as Love
Canal and Times Beach, in the 1970s. It allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel
responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-lead cleanups.
How Superfund Works
The Superfund cleanup process is complex. It involves the steps taken to assess sites, place them
on the National Priorities List, and establish and implement appropriate cleanup plans. This is the
long-term cleanup process. In addition, the Agency has the authority to enforce against
potentially responsible parties; to ensure community involvement; to involve states; to ensure
long-term protectiveness; and to conduct removal actions where immediate action needs to be
taken. The blueprint for these activities is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), a regulation applicable to all federal agencies involved in responding to
hazardous substance releases. Over the past 40+ years, EPA has located and analyzed tens of
thousands of hazardous waste sites, protected people and the environment from contamination
at the worst sites, and involved others in cleanup.
Who Implements Superfund?
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), located in Washington, D.C.,
oversees the Superfund program. The Office of Emergency Management within OSWER is
responsible for short term responses conducted under the authority of Superfund. The Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, and the Federal Facilities Response and
Reuse Office, also within OSWER, have the lead for managing the long-term Superfund
response program and responses involving Federal Facilities, respectively. In addition, OSWER
manages the federal Brownfields program. The Brownfields program assists in the assessment
of properties that do not qualify for the National Priorities List (NPL) but are known or suspected
to be contaminated by hazardous substances. The goal of the Brownfields program is to
encourage the reuse of abandoned or underutilized properties, remove blight from communities,
and stimulate economic and community improvement.
6
-------
Regions
EPA's 10 Regional offices are responsible for implementing many of EPA's programs, including
Superfund. Your community is located in Region 3. Following is a list of the regions and the states
in which they are active.
The following information was taken from EPA's website. Underlined terms in this document are
active links and may be opened by holding down the 'Ctrl' key while clicking on a link. If you are
reading a paper copy of this CIP, you will find the same information by typing the following address
into any internet browser:
While management of the Superfund program lies mainly within the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) within EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), many responsibilities fall within other programs and
agencies.
Within EPA
Office of Emergency Management
This OSWER office is responsible for short term responses under Superfund, as well as emergency
responses to and preparedness for releases of hazardous substances.
Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement (OSRE)
This office is responsible for the enforcement component of Superfund. It resides within EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance-
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO)
This office is responsible for ensuring that federal facilities take all necessary actions to prevent,
control and abate environmental pollution.
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse (FFRRO)
This office resides in OSWER and is the interface between EPA and federal agencies, such as the
Department of Energy and Department of Defense, as they conduct cleanups of their own
facilities.
Brownfields
This office resides in OSWER and is responsible for implementing the Brownfields program,
established by an amendment to Superfund's authorizing legislation, CERCLA. This program
promotes the evaluation and development of properties known or suspected to be contaminated,
yet not qualified for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) .
Region 1--ME NH VI MA Rl CT
Region 2--NY NJ PR VI
Region 3-PA DE DC MP VA W¥
Region 4--KY TN NC SC MS AL GA FL
Region 5--MN Wl IL Ml IN OH
Region 6--NMTXOKAR LA
Region 7--NE KS IA MO
Region 8--MT ND WY SD UT CO
Region 9--CAMVAZ HI
Region 10--W A OR ID AK
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/mrtners/index.htm
Superfund Partnerships
-------
Superfund Partnerships, continued
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
This office conducts research on contaminants and technologies to aid in cleanup decisions.
Other Federal Government Agencies
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
ATSDR is responsible for conducting health assessments of Superfund sites. It also maintains
toxicological profiles of many contaminants.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
This agency conducts research on health effects of hazardous substances that aid in Superfund
assessment and cleanup decisions.
US Army Corps of Engineers
This construction-oriented agency conducts much of the construction and oversight of
Superfund cleanups for which EPA is responsible.
States and Tribes
States and Tribes have roles in addressing Superfund sites in their areas, at every stage of the
Superfund cleanup pipeline. However, EPA Region 3 currently has no federally recognized
Tribes.
Office of Regional Operations
This EPA Office's Web site has links to State and Tribal organization sites.
EPA Regional Offices
Regional Web sites carry links to State programs and issues, as well as information on specific
sites. (See page 7.)
8
-------
Superfund Cleanup Process at a Glance
The Superfund Process
Preliminary
Assessment and
te Inspection
Site Evaluation
Record of Decision
(ROD) and
Responsiveness
Summary
Remedy Selection
- 0
.2 a
¦3 w
e c
E on
& o
Remedial
Action (RA)
' Hazard Ranking System
Operation and
Maintenance
9
-------
Significant Components of the Superfund Remedial Process
The following information was taken from EPA's website. Underlined terms provide links to more
detailed information.
Discovery
EPA learns about new sites through reports received from concerned individuals and state and local
agencies, as well as its own routine inspections and field activities.
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
Investigations of site conditions. If the release of hazardous substances requires immediate or
short-term response actions, these are addressed under the Emergency Response program of
Superfund.
Hazard Ranking System
Method that generates a numerical score based on exposure scenarios and contaminant migration
pathways which is used to determine whether potential risks posed by a site merit inclusion on the NPL,
but are not used to compare risks among different sites.
National Priorities List (NPL) Site Listing Process
A list of the most serious sites identified for possible long-term cleanup under EPA's Superfund program.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Determines the nature and extent of contamination/Assesses the treatability of site contamination and
evaluates the potential performance and cost of treatment technologies.
Human Health Risk Assessment
Evaluates whether hazardous contaminants in the environment may cause adverse health effects to
people based on many variables, including but not limited to the nature, toxicity, and concentrations of
hazardous substances; the scenarios under which humans may be exposed (i.e. at work; at play; at
home); the frequency and duration of exposures; how contaminants may enter the body (i.e. inhalation,
ingestion, skin absorption or contact); and the age, health, and other physical characteristics of
potentially exposed individuals.
Environmental Risk Assessment
Similar to a human health risk assessment. Evaluates the effect of hazardous contaminants in the
environment on plants and animals, including microscopic organisms at the bottom of the food chain.
Records of Decision
Explains which cleanup alternatives will be used at NPL sites. When remedies exceed $25 million, they
are reviewed by the National Remedy Review Board.
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Preparation and implementation of plans and specifications for applying site remedies. The bulk of the
cleanup usually occurs during this phase. All new fund-financed remedies are reviewed by the National
Priorities Panel. m
-------
Significant Components, continued
Construction Completion
Identifies completion of physical cleanup construction, although this does not necessarily indi-
cate whether final cleanup levels have been achieved.
Post Construction Completion
Ensures that Superfund response actions provide for the long-term protection of human health
and the environment. Included here are Long-Term Response Actions (LTRA), Operation and
Maintenance, Institutional Controls, Five-Year Reviews, Remedy Optimization.
National Priorities List Deletion
Removes a site from the NPL once all response actions are complete and all cleanup goals have
been achieved.
Site Reuse/Redevelopment
Information on how the Superfund program is working with communities and other partners to
return hazardous waste sites to safe and productive use without adversely affecting the remedy.
11
-------
PART 2: The Site in Your Community:
Its Use and Regulatory History
Site History
The Big John Salvage - Hoult Road Superfund Site is located on the east side of the city of Fairmont in
Marion County, West Virginia, approximately 1,320 feet east of the Monongahela River. The 38-acre
site is located in a predominantly rural county in north central West Virginia. The Site is situated within
a mixed industrial/residential area and is surrounded by a deciduous forest to the north and east. The
Sharon Steel/Fairmont Coke Superfund Site is located on the southeastern side of the Site. The
Monongahela River borders the Site to the west and Hoult Road (WV Route 15) borders the Site to the
north.
The Big John Salvage Superfund Site was initially owned and operated by Reilly Tar and Chemical
Corporation. Approximately 12,000 gallons of crude tar, primarily from the nearby Domestic Coke
Corporation (located on the adjacent Fairmont Coke Works property), were processed daily from 1925
until 1973. Crude tar was pumped from tank cars to storage tanks, and later separated by distillation
and condensation processes. The creosote product was removed, stored, and sold as a wood preserving
compound. Acid oil was removed and treated in an extraction unit to remove phenol, and the tar was
sold to the state's road commission for road construction. The oil would then be cooled to remove
naphthalene and other compounds, which were then sold as a product. Any remaining crude acids
were shipped to other Reilly plants for final processing.
Wastes from the tar refining process were retained in "ponds" near the southern property line, or
disposed in various areas on-site. The ponds also received wastes from the three on-site sewers and
several drainage ditches. All cooling waters, acid wastes, and tar wastes were supposed to pass through
the pond. Discharge from the retention pond flowed through a pipe into an unnamed tributary which
emptied into the Monongahela River. Coal tar seeps and constituents of the coal tar refining process
were found to be actively discharging from the Site.
In January 1973, Reilly sold its property on Hoult Road to Big John Salvage. Big John Salvage owned and
operated a metal, glass and oil salvaging operation at the Site until 1984. During its operations at the
Site, Big John Salvage accepted various scrap and salvageable materials from Westinghouse Electric,
including fluorescent light bulbs containing mercury and other hazardous substances, lead dust, and
mercury-tainted waste oil. Since 1984, the property ownership has changed hands many times and has
been reacquired by Vertellus Specialties, the successor to Reilly Tar and Chemical, for the purpose of
site cleanup.
The Site posed a public health hazard in the past and present. Exposures to hazardous chemicals on or
near this Site could have resulted in adverse health effects. A public health hazard exists for children,
trespassers, and adults on the Site from exposures to soil, sediment, water, and waste. Initially, various
types of waste, including oily, tar-like deposits were excavated and removed from the Site. These ac-
tions significantly reduced the release of coal tar-like seeps, heavy metals, and other contaminants to
nearby surface waters, including the Monongahela gjver.
-------
Site History, continued
Additionally, a subsurface collection and treatment system was installed to capture oily,
tar-like contamination moving in onsite tributaries; a sedimentation basin was repaired; surface
water run-off was controlled; and other areas were stabilized so that hazardous materials no
longer leave the site. This work was done to eliminate immediate threats to public health and
the environment. This short-term cleanup work was done primarily between 2000 and 2005.
The oil collection and erosion control efforts at the Site continue today.
Regulatory History
EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation (Rl) in 2005. The Rl included both human health and
ecological risk assessments. The final Rl was completed in April 2009. EPA determined that a
non-time critical removal action was an appropriate course of action for the Site which prompted
the completion of an Engineering and Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) at the Site. The
response actions to be taken at the Site are described in EPA's final Action Memorandum, dated
September 30, 2010. In October 2012, the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) entered into a
Consent Decree with both the EPA and the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection to design and implement the selected response action to address contamination at
the Site.
In accordance with the consent decree entered on October 12, 2012, three companies agreed to
pay about $29.8 million in cleanup costs for the Big John's Salvage Site.
The three companies - ExxonMobil Corp., Vertellus Specialties Inc., and CBS Corp.- are
performing cleanup work and reimbursed the EPA and the state of West Virginia $11 million for
past cleanup costs at the Site. The companies have agreed to do the cleanup at the site at an
estimated cost of $17.8 million. The companies will also reimburse EPA and the state for all
future costs associated with overseeing the cleanup, and these are estimated to be $1 million.
Under the federal Superfund law, landowners, waste generators and waste transporters who are
responsible for the contamination of a Superfund site must either clean up the site or reimburse
the government or other parties for cleanup activities. Within the terminology of the Superfund
Program, such persons/companies are referred to as "Potentially Responsible Parties."
Cleanup actions will include constructing an impermeable cap to contain contaminated soil and
enhancing an existing ground water containment system to help prevent contaminants from
migrating. Additionally, about 5,500 cubic yards of tar wastes coating a one-acre area along the
bottom of the Monongahela River will be removed and sent to a certified disposal facility.
Between 1932 and 1973, the site was owned by a predecessor of Vertellus Specialities, including
the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp., which operated a tar processing and refining facility. Domestic
Coke, a predecessor of ExxonMobil, operated a coke production plant adjacent to the Big John
site and sold and delivered crude coal tar to the Reilly facility for refining. From 1973 to 1984, Big
John Salvage owned the property, and operated a metal, glass, and oil salvaging operation.
During this period, Big John Salvage accepted hazardous waste materials from Westinghouse
Electric Co., a predecessor of CBS Corp., including mercury-containing fluorescent light bulbs,
13
lead dust, and mercury-tainted waste oil.
-------
PART 3: Community Issues and Concerns
In order to gather updated information for Community Involvement Plans, EPA interviews residents
and local officials who live and work near Superfund sites. The interviews are conducted to
determine residents' understanding of Site activities and history and how residents may have been
involved with the Site in the past.
In October 2008 and August 2015, EPA and its contractors conducted a number of interviews with
stakeholders in Fairmont and Marion County. Over the course of the interviews, some residents and
other stakeholders expressed a range of issues and concerns. Other community members
contacted were either not aware of the Site or uninterested in being interviewed. Responses given
have been grouped into four categories, although some responses cross category boundaries:
1) Cleanup Timetable Concerns,
2) Communication Concerns,
3) Redevelopment Concerns, and,
4) Environmental Concerns.
Cleanup Timetable Concerns
Some residents expressed concern about the length of time it is taking for actions to be taken at the
Site. They are aware that Removal and Remediation take time, but they would like to see things
move much faster. While several interviewees held this opinion, others were neutral on the issue,
and some were indifferent. One interviewee noted that residents are aware that something is being
done to address the problems at the site, and said this contributes to lessening concern among some
community members.
Communication Concerns
Residents who were interviewed expressed the desire to be kept better informed about the cleanup
process and progress. They would like to have meetings with EPA representatives on a regular basis.
They would like to see more frequent Fact Sheets and newspaper announcements with updates. A
few residents stated they did receive the most recent Fact Sheet announcing upcoming plans at the
Site, and noted that they would like to see similar updates in the future.
Redevelopment Concerns
Most residents, especially those who live on Hoult Road, are pleased that the Site will be cleaned up.
In 2008 , when a hotel complex and recreational park were proposed, some residents were con-
cerned about the possible impacts that the proposed development might have on their neighbor-
hood. Some worried they might have to move and noted that older residents might have a difficult
time relocating due to the economy. Others worried that the proposed redevelopment would in-
crease traffic and possibly raise the cost of living. Although the 2008 redevelopment proposal was
abandoned, many residents remain positive regarding redevelopment opportunities and hope that
redevelopment will occur and will boost the local ^onomy.
-------
Redevelopment Concerns cont'd
Currently, the state and local governments are continuing to explore redevelopment opportuni-
ties for the site and adjacent properties. Community members who were contacted, in 2015, re-
iterated earlier concerns, in general, but many residents noted they hope that whatever redevel-
opment plans are made will be for the benefit of the community . Many residents said they
would like to be provided opportunities for input into whatever redevelopment decisions are
made for the Site.
Environmental Concerns
The level of concern regarding the environment ranged from very concerned to disinterested.
Among those who are concerned about environmental issues, residents were concerned that the
Monongahela River is polluted and that hazardous waste and toxic materials contaminated the
ground. Most interviewees were encouraged that progress has been made to clean-up the waste
sites in Fairmont. However, for some residents, economic issues seem to outweigh environmen-
tal concerns.
15
-------
4. Community Involvement Opportunities and Resources
EPA offers many opportunities and resources to facilitate the community's involvement in
EPA's activities and decisions. Which tools are used and how many activities occur usually
reflects the level of interest expressed by the community. For a comprehensive description of
available resources and opportunities, go to:
h ttp:ZZwww.epa.gov/super fund/communi tyZindex, h tm
Some of the most frequently used opportunities and resources include:
Community Advisory Group (CAG)
A CAG is a self-forming, self-governing, stakeholder group that meets regularly to learn about
EPA's cleanup process, discuss their issues and concerns, and provide feedback to EPA. EPA is
able to provide support to the CAG by attending meetings, making presentations, procuring
meeting rooms, advertising the meetings and providing copies of site-related documents. A CAG
has not been formed at this site. Interested members may notify the CIC, Carrie Deitzel, at
215-814-5525, to request assistance.
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
A TAG is a competitive federal grant awarded to an incorporated nonprofit organization of
community members affected by the Site. Recipients contract with independent technical
advisors who review and evaluate site-related documents. For more information, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/communitv/tag/.
Technical Assistance for Communities (TASC)
TASC is a program that provides independent educational and technical assistance to
communities affected by hazardous waste sites regulated by the Superfund and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs. Such assistance helps communities to better
understand the hazardous waste issues confronting them and to be well-informed while
participating in the decision-making process. For more details, visit the TASC website:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/tasc or contact TASC Coordinator Carrie Deitzel at
215-814-5525 for more information .
16
-------
5. Community Involvement Tools and Techniques:
Suggestions for Working with This Community
Throughout the work at the site, the community was updated, primarily, by reports
presented during Community Liaison Panel meetings for the Fairmont Coke Work Sites, as
many community members had an interest in both properties and the Fairmont Coke Works
panel met regularly over a long period of time. Two fact sheets and a postcard about
progress at the Big John Salvage Site were also mailed to area residents, and a website is
maintained for the site to provide interested residents access to information and documents
pertaining to the site.
Going forward, the following tools and techniques are suggested to inform residents of
ongoing and upcoming cleanup activities:
• Hold an availability session to explain ongoing/upcoming work;
• Develop and mail fact sheets, as needed, to update and inform residents of site status
and upcoming work;
• Provide brief status updates/announcements via postcards, as appropriate;
• Base additional outreach activities, if any, on the input received from community
members during the availability session or on individual comments and requests
provided via direct contact.
Below is a link to EPA's Community Involvement Toolkit which provides additional information
about the tools & techniques EPA may use during the cleanup process.
http://www.epa.gov/syperfynd/commynity/toolkit.htm
To make suggestions or requests to help us keep your community informed,
contact the CIC assigned to this site:
Carrie Deitzel
deitzel.carrie@epa.gov
or at
215-814-5525 or 1-800-553-2509 x45525
or at
US EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street (3HS52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
17
-------
Part 6: Appendices
Appendix A: Contacts 19
Appendix B: Media Contacts 22
Appendix C: Potential Meeting Locations 23
Appendix D: Site Files Access 24
Appendix E: Fact Sheets 25
Appendix F: Community Demographics 30
Appendix G: Additional Websites & Resources 32
18
-------
Appendix A
Contacts:
EPA
Eric Newman
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street-3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-3237
Email: newman.eric@epa.gov
Mark Ferrell
State and Congressional Liaison
U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 304-542-0231
Email: ferrell.markffiepa.qoi/
Carrie Deitzel
Community Involvement Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street-3HS52
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-5525
Email: deitzei.carrie@epa.Qov
Gina Soscia
TAG Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street-3HS52
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-5538
Email: soscia.gina@epa.gov
ATS PR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR)
Christine Lloyd
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3142
Email: Hoyd.christine@epg.gov
www.atsdr. cdc. gov
Carrie Deitzel
TASC Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 3-3HS52
1650 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-5525
Email: deitzel.carrie@epa.gov
19
-------
Appendix A
Contacts:
Federal
Senator Joe Manchin, III
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3954
http://manchin.senate.Qov/
Senator Shelly Moore Capito
172 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-6472
http://capito.senate.Qov
Congressman David McKinley- 1st District
412 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-7564
http://mckiniey.house.Qov
State
Governor Earl Tomblin
Office of the Governor
State Capitol Building
Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: 304-558-2000
http://www.Qovernor.wv.Qov
State Senator Robert Beach - 13th District
West Virginia Senate
State Capitol - Building 1
Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: 304-357-7919
http://www.legis. state, wv. us/senatet/
lawmaker. cfm?member=Senator%20Beach
State Senator Roman Prezioso - 13th District
West Virginia Senate
State Capitol - Building 1
Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: 304-357-7961
h tip://www, leg is. state, wv. us/senatet/
lawmaker. cfm?member=Senator%20Prezioso
State House of Representatives - 43rd
District - Mike Caputo
Room 246M, Bldg. 1
1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: 304-340-3249
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/house/
lawmaker.cfm?member=Delegate%20Caputo
West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
601 57th Street SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Phone: 304-926-0440
http://www. dep. wv. gov
20
-------
Appendix A
Contacts:
Local
City of Fairmont
Other
Sierra Club—West Virginia Chapter
PO Box 4142
Morgantown, WV 26504
https://westvirginia.sierraclub.org/
200 Jackson Street
Fairmont, WV 26554
Phone: 304-366-6211
http://www.fairniontwv.gov/
City Council
City Manager
Phone: 304-366-6212x315
Mon River Trails Conservancy
P.O. Box 282
Morgantown, WV 26507
http://www.montrails.org/
304-692-6782
1st District- Marianne Moran
2nd District- Frank Yann
3rd District- Robert Linger
4th District- William (Bill) Burdick
5th District- Fran Warner
6th District- Daniel Weber
7th District- Philip Mason
8th District-Thomas Mainella
9th District- Ronald J. (Ron) Straight (Mayor)
Marion County
200 Jackson Street, Room 403
Fairmont, WV 26554
http://www.marioncountywv.com
Marion County Commission
Randy Elliott, West Augusta District
Rick Garcia, Middletown District
Ernie VanGilder, Palatine District
21
-------
Appendix B: Media Contacts
Newspapers
The Times West Virginian
300 Quincy Street
Fairmont, WV 26555
Phone: 304-367-2569
Television Stations
WBOY-12
904 West Pike Street
Clarks burg, WV 26301
Phone: 304-623-3311
WDTV-5
5 Television Drive
Bridgeport, WV 26330
Phone: 304-848-5000
WVPBS
600 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-556-4900
Radio Stations
WAJR
1251 Earl L Core Road
Morgantown, WV 26505
Phone: 304-296-0029
22
-------
Appendix C: Potential Meeting Locations
Central United Methodist Church
301 Fairmont Avenue,
Fairmont, WV 26554
Phone (304)366-3351
Everlasting Covenant Church
17 Everlasting Dr
Fairmont, WV 26554
(304) 367-9613
Victory Baptist Church
1875 Morgantown Ave
Fairmont, WV 26554
(304) 366-5264
Holiday Inn
930 E Grafton Rd
Fairmont, WV 26554
(304) 366-5500
23
-------
Appendix D: Site Files Access
Marion County Public Library
321 Monroe Street
Fairmont, WV 26554
Phone: 304-366-1210
Hours of operation: Monday-Tuesday 9:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Wednesday-Friday 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Saturday 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Closed Sunday
U.S. EPA Region 3
Administrative Records Room
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-814-3157, by appointment
Online (hold down "Control key" and click on website)
www.epa.gc
Select state
Select site name
Identify type of information you seek (for instance: Removal; Remdial; EE/CA, etc.)
Choose "Add Search Conditions" and select type of materials (Documents, Letters, etc.)
24
-------
Appendix E: Fact Sheets
•September 2006 - "Cleanup and Site Investigation Continues at Superfund Site", page 25.
•October 2009 - "Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Completed.; Removal Action
Alternative Recommended by EPA; Public Meeting Announced", page 26.
•April 2015—"Community Update", page 28.
hi •>,, US. Environmental Protectinn Agency - Region III
• A Bi« John Salvage * Iloiilt Road
Superfund Site
FairmiHit, West Virgfnia
( leanup and Site Investigation Continue at Superfund Site September 2006
1650 A/ck tea
Phibdd^t Pl.. 19109
Brief Site Inscription
Big Join Salvage Moult Road Site » located on the out
ade of Farmom, Sfarwo County, on the east hank of the
Moaongahda River. It s approjumately 38 aero in sue
The lite wis initially owned by Rally Tar and Chemical
Corporation from 1932 in 1973. Raff received crude ttr
primarily from the adjacent Fanmuni Coke Worb
Shiran Steel (icily The crude w ww processed mo
mowte and tar product »d sold In January 1973,
Roily Hid its Houl Road progeny to Big John Salvage
Big John Salvage operated a salvage facility n the «te
until 1997. Dving Ks operation, Big John Salvage
accepted various Knp and salvageable tool crab, as well
as waste imtenais Including broken glut culfci) « the
nle In 1997, the lad was purchased by Steel
Fabricators, Inc., and used only for timber operations.
Specific contaminants detected in the surface water,
tdimenu. and sods resulted from histort site adivties
and include volatile organic compounds (VOCl) sudh as
ben/tne, and naphdvikne; inorganic OMnpouncfa juch a$
mercury, lead, cadmum and arsenic; wno-volnde
compounds such m potyrajefear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHl): and other coal tar and c rawote-type com pounds
What is Happening al the Big John Sahage*
lloult Road Superfund Site?
The L^nted States BnvinOttMll Protection Agency
(EPA), with the support of the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), is
currently conduc ting an mves&gaiian of (he Big John
Salvage-Hoult Road Superfund tie in Faimuit, Wei
Virgins (see site map). EPA will decide the level of
cleanup needed and how i can best be achieved by
completing a detailed Remedial Imeatgaiion and
Feasibility Study (Rl'FS) at the site
The RI will identify the type and attm of
omammattoo present and describe the potential rets
from those contanmanii The FS will evaluate
engmeomg technologies that can be used to addres die
conditions identified by the Rl This (act dxct will
provide > brief overview of iNc cleanup activities
conducted to due, and desoibe the on-going R1FS
project
Who ts Doing the V\ork?
The Big John Salvage-Moult Read Site was placed on
die National Priorities Usi (NPL) n My 2000 Tha
made die properly eligible foe mve$BgHian Bid ckanup
under the Federal Superfund program The Superfund
lav. authorize* EPA to pay for and conduct
nvcstigabons and cleanups or to require companies that
may have contributed to contamination al a site to pay
for or conduct clean i^ps.
The Big iota Salvage site is being addressed through
•short-term removal actons and long-term remedy
fludies. The removal actions completed to date were
conducted ether by the potentially re^wnsiric parties
(PRPs) or by the EPA. These actions were conducted
in reduce immediate risks presented by hazardous
substances at tie Site
Initially, various types of waste, including oily, lar-l&e
deposits were excavated and removed from die sie. and
these actions significantly reduced the release of coal
tar-lie seep, heavy metafe and other contaminants to
nearby ajrfacc waters, mcludmg (he Mooongaheb
River.
Additionally, a subsurface collection aid treatment
system was retailed to capture ody, tar-hie
cootamaubon moving m onste tributaries. a
sedanentM ion basin was repaired, surface wrier run-off
was controlled; and other areas were stabilized so that
hazardous materials no taogar leave the site. This work
was done to ebmeate immediate threats to public
beaiii and the environment.
This short-term cleanup weak was done pnmanlv
between 2000 and 2005; furtier, toe oil eolectkn and
erosion control efforts at the site continue today.
EPA's Update on (he Big John Salvage-Moult Road Superfund Site
25
-------
Big John Salvage - Hoult Road
Superfund Site
Fairmont, Marion County, West Virginia
UPDATE October 2009
CPA has Completed an Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
recently completed an Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysts (EE/CA) for the Big John Salvage - Hoult
Road Superfund Site. The srte is located in Fairmont.
Marion County, West Virginia.
The EE/CA established cleanup objectives and
identified the combination of removal technologies
that EPA believes will best achieve them.
The EE/CA evaluated seven alternatives for
contaminated soil, six for contaminated groundwater,
four for contaminated on-site sediments, and four for
contaminated Monongahela River sediments.
The alternatives were evaluated for effectiveness,
ease of implementation, and cost. Then, EPA
compared the technologies to each other to identify
the most appropriate removal action alternative for
each contaminated medium
Removal Action Alternative
Recommended by EPA
The EE/CA determined that a non-timc-crrtical
removal action is the best way to address
contaminated groundwater, soils, on-site surface
water, on-site sediment, and an approximately
one-acre patch of tarry wastes lying along the
bottom of the adjacent Monongahela River.
The recommended alternative for cleanup
includes:
• Upgrading the Existing Groundwater
Containment and Treatment System
¦ Excavating Contaminated Sediments and
Wastes from River Bottom and
Consolidating them beneath the Cap
• Constructing a Multi-layered Cap to
Contain Contaminated Soil and Sediment
On-site
To see the full description of these removal
actions, as well as the other alternatives
evaluated by EPA, go to; v\~.s VN ctK! i'<'V .uv* t-b
and follow the steps listed at the end of this fact
sheet.
What did the EE/CA Find?
Surface and subsurface solh at the Site are widely
contaminated by polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
such as beiwcKaJpyrene and naphthalene Coal tar,
historically refined on the property, is comprised of a
mixture of PAHs. Seams and pockets of black waste
materials containing high levels of PAHs are buried
at various locations throughout the site. Elevated
concentrations of heavy metals, such as mercury,
were also identified sporadically.
Groundwater In the shallow aquifer contains
elevated concentrations of organic compounds such
as naphthalene, and a few inorganics such as thallium
and manganese. Low levels of organic compounds
were detected, infrequently, in bedrock monitoring
well samples. Yet, in general, the bedrock aquifer
is not severely impacted by site-related contaminants.
On-site surface waters of Sharon Steel Run
exhibited relatively low levels of PAHs that
nevertheless present unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment. The contaminants in
Sharon Steel Run surface water are likely due to
naturaI discharge from the contaminated shallow
groundwater aquifer on-site at Big John Salvage with
some contribution from the neighboring Sharon Steel
— Fairmont Coke Works Site.
Past clean-up actions completed in Sharon Steel Run
have improved conditions in the stream bottom;
however, some residual contaminants remain in On-
site sediments at concentrations presenting
unacceptable risk. In addition, the Unnamed
Tributary #2 sediments are contaminated with PAHs
and inorganic substances, including mercury.
The Monongahela River sediments contain a wide
variety of PAHs. and very low levels of pesticides
and PCBs throughout the teach between Fairmont
and Morgan town due to significant industrial use
during the 20^ century. Along the east bank of the
river, below its confluence with Sharon Steel Run,
there is an area of black tar coaling the river bottom
about 75 feet wide and 400 feet long. Tissue
samples collected from claim in the river near its
confluence with Sharon Steel Run were fount! to be
affected by PAHs. The surface water quality in the
river is not significantly affected by the site.
PUBLIC MEETING
EPA Wants Your Input
EPA representatives will be available to discuss the EE/CA and answer questions. Comment* made at the
meeting will be part of the official record and will be considered before EPA's decision is finalized.
Meeting Location: Everlasting Covenant Church
17 Everlasting Drive, Fairmont WV 26554
Date: Thursday, October 22. 2009
Time: 6:30 pin- 8:30 pm
26
-------
What Are the Objectives of
the Proposed Removal Action?
The overall object* ves of the proposed removal action are
the protection of human health and the environment and
the restoration of contaminated media (soil, water,
sediment). Specifically, the removal action will:
• Protect current and future workers, and ecological
receptors from exposure to contaminated media;
• Minimize precipit ation infiltrating soils to reduce
contamination seeping into groundwater;
• Prevent tar-dcrived material in soils from rising to the
sis-face;
• P revail erosion to reduce migration of soil
contain inan tv;
• Restore stream sediment quality to Kcqilable human
and ecological risk levels to improve ecological
function in the waterways;
• Remove industrial wastes from the river bottom;
• Restore surface water quality to acceptable human and
ecological risk levels to improve ecological (unctions in
and along waterways leading to the Monongahcla Riv er;
¦ Prevent rmgratkin of the groundwat
-------
. Big John's S4vag« Hoolt
. Ro*d
3 SupwfundSM
) Farmer*, M-anon Coun(y,
V\te iVigm
Update April 2015
rn|MilyLaiim
The fog Wi Safnge - Hod! Road SupertondSI*
a locatij in thf rorftraat ponton af fie p«l tie dsipt d pmfxatd
Pjwn»ig>i»a»et»*ig drafted and hIwmI tot IS)?'A and
WVPKP approval outliningthe framework of tiefioponed rempdle*
Sptttically. the deagnt wit
Pro*ei3 ami fa
IIIEHUailflfdl
wuina, ani «ojfcftal raaffen Irw
ip«|M ¦! to pvai oakiHto
beng curwd ¦> i
hmUkr^mdiMknlHiabftiaiiiaftofa Mkg
ft«n»«aMitiiAaai(iaim
o Bin ol and
o L^>tonda fernowl acton tfcstg) - tae 2014
o Upland* pflMHnov*l«leprar«tton4atKlc(MtNr ik ton-eartylDH
4 ptiaiel of tie Up tenia ranovaldeantnimfl omental**! - mat 2n»
o MitoetloftieUptandiiwiuavJ dalpi impteownlaiioti - wi
-------
On Octets 10, MIX thr Srtkng Mendam
(Vertdhu Sfwoaltr* Inc. (VSI), Euan MaM
Corpora* on (nm|, ml ih*OK>Cop«anan)
emered n» t Ctnwfii Draw wtti tie B'A
*rU WVDEP to dea%n and tapfcuumt tir
wfcvted rwpawr atfun to addre*
oontaounMicai *t the IMS 5«e with VS serving
«thr P«r*»rung IVtrndant
I ll||
5 1
14
& » _
8 I g
IhU S
i- £3 fvj
fg
li
w A Si* Cpda* for *<¦ Mg John", Saba**-Hodl Ko«d Mir
US Environmental IVotvticn
Agtncy Regions
AS«I Cw>» IXl#*l
1480 Arch Street (3HEB2)
Pt»WA'«
(Ml Acton Meawmtdaai dated
3012010. TheSmcof We* Virginia conurrel
witi tieanun»«ele»*\l
29
-------
Appendix F. Community Demographics
City of Fairmount Demographics
As of the census of 2010, there were 18,704
people, 8,133 households, and 4,424 families
residing in the city. The population density was
2,169.8 inhabitants per square mile. There were
9,200 housing units at an average density of
1,067.3 per square mile .
The racial makeup of the city was :
•88.9% White
•7.5% African American
•1.4% Hispanic or Latino of any race
•0.2% Native American
•0.6% Asian
•0.4% from other races
There were 8,133 households out of which
24.1% had children under the age of 18 living
with them, 37.7% were married couples living
together, 12.5% had a female householder with
no husband present, 4.2% had a male
householder with no wife present, and 45.6%
were non-families. 36.0% of all households
were made up of individuals and 14.1% had
someone living alone who was 65 years of age
or older. The average household size was 2.16
and the average family size was 2.83.
In the borough the population was spread out
with:
•18% under the age of 18
•16.2% from 18 to 24
•25% from 25 to 44
•and 16.5% who were 65 years of age or older
The median age was 39 years. For every 100
females there were 87.0 males. For every 100
females age 18 and over, there were 83.3
males.
The median income for a household in the city
was $34,643, and the median income for a
family was $55,008.
•24.4% from 45 to 64
30
-------
Appendix F. Community Demographics
Marion County, West Virginia
Demographics
As of the census of 2010, there were 56,598
people, 23,652 households, and 15,515
families residing in the county. The
population density was 183 people per square
mile. There were 26,660 housing units at an
average density of 86 per square mile .
The racial makeup of the county was:
• 95.10%- White
•3.22% - Black or African American
•0.70% - Hispanic or Latino or any race
•0.20% - Native American
•0.41% - Asian
•0.01% - Pacific Islander
•0.13% - from other races,
•0.93% - from two or more races.
There were 23,652 households out of which
26.00% had children under the age of 18 living
with them, 51.40% were married couples
living together, 10.70% had a female
householder with no husband present, and
34.40% were non-families. 28.90% of all
households were made up of individuals and
13.90% had someone living alone who was 65
years of age or older. The average household
size was 2.34 and the average family size was
2.88.
In the county, the population was spread out
with:
•20.60% under the age of 18
•10.50% from 18 to 24
•26.40% from 25 to 44
•24.70% from 45 to 64,
•and 17.80% who were 65 years of age or older.
The median age was 40 years. For every 100
females there were 90.60 males. For every 100
females age 18 and over, there were 87.30
males.
The median income for a household in the
county was $28,626, and the median income
for a family was $37,182. Males had a median
income of $29,005 versus $21,100 for
females. The per capita income for the county
was $16,246. About 11.70% of families and
16.30% of the population were below the
poverty line, including 21.30% of those under
age 18 and 8.70% of those age 65 or over.
31
-------
Appendix G: Additional Websites & Resources
EPA NPL Pad for the Big John Salvage - Hoult Road Site:
http://www.epa.aov/rea3hwmd/npl/WVD054827944.html
ATSDR ToxFAQS page:
http://www. atsdr. cdc. gov/toxfaas/index. asp
Information related to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
http://www. atsdr. cdc. aov/substances/toxsubstance. asp ?toxid=25
A Citizen's Guide to the Superfund Program:
http://www.epa.aov/rea3hwmd/super/guide.htm
32
-------
|