PB94-963902
EPA/ROD/R03-94/179
July 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Aladdin Plating Site, PA
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
Aladdin Plating Site
Ground Water Remedial Action—Operable Unit 2 (OU2)
Scott and South Abington Townships
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for ground water contamination at the Aladdin Plating Site, in
Scott and South Abington Townships, Lackawanna County,
Pennsylvania. This remedial action was chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for
Operable Unit 2. This decision is based on the administrative
record for this Site.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources does
not concur with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
Chromium contamination at the Aladdin Plating Site resulted
from alleged discharges of liquid electroplating wastes to two
unlined surface impoundments and directly into the ground after
the impoundments were filled in. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) divided the remedial response to contamination at
this Site into two discrete actions, or operable units. The
first operable unit, completed in 1992, included excavation and
disposal of chromium-contaminated soil, which was the principal
threat at the Site. (Prior to that Operable Unit, EPA completed
a removal response action in 1987 to remove and dispose of the
building, which housed electroplating equipment, and the source
of the contamination—electroplating wastes.) This ROD describes
the selection of the remedy for Operable Unit 2.
-------
Chromium contamination in the shallow water-bearing zone,
which was not treated in prior response actions, is the only
problem remaining at the Site. This contamination exists
primarily in the immediate area of the former electroplating
building and impoundments. Although there is currently no threat
to human health or the environment from this contamination in its
undisturbed condition, there is a possibility that significant
physical disturbances of the shallow water-bearing zone could
create new exposure pathways or cause the contamination to
migrate to the aquifer used for drinking water in the area. The
remedial objective of Operable Unit 2 is to prohibit disturbances
of the shallow water-bearing zone that might cause a threat to
human health or the environment.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
• Institutional controls to prohibit excavation or well-
drilling into or through the shallow water-bearing zone
beneath the entire 6-acre parcel on which the
electroplating building and impoundments were formerly
located.
• Collection and analysis of samples from monitoring and
residential wells for thirty years to ensure that
contamination is not migrating to locations where it
might present a threat to human health or the
environment.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. It complies with Federal and State requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, except for the Pennsylvania hazardous waste
management regulation requiring cleanup of contaminated ground
water to background levels. Although this Pennsylvania
requirement is considered "relevant and appropriate," EPA is
waiving this requirement in accordance with section
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. §
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C). This waiver is based on EPA's
determination that treatment of ground water in the shallow
water-bearing zone is technically impracticable for reasons
explained below. Consequently, this remedy does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedy.
EPA evaluated information on the treatment technologies for
this Operable Unit, and has found that these technologies have
not been shown to be effective under the conditions present at
this Site. EPA believes there are significant technical
limitations and uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and/or
permanence of these technologies. Because of these limitations
-------
and uncertainties, EPA has determined that treatment alternatives
to attain background levels of chromium in the shallow water-
bearing zone are technically impracticable.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, EPA will review the
Site within five years after commencement of remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment.
Stanley L. Lasl^awsfer Date
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
Aladdin Plating Site
Ground Water Remedial Action—Operable Unit 2 (OU2)
Scott and South Abington Townships
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for ground water contamination at the Aladdin Plating Site, in
Scott and South Abington Townships, Lackawanna County,
Pennsylvania. This remedial action was chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for
Operable Unit 2. This decision is based on the administrative
record for this Site.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources does
not concur with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
Chromium contamination at the Aladdin Plating Site resulted
from alleged discharges of liquid electroplating wastes to two
unlined surface impoundments and directly into the ground after
the impoundments were filled in. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) divided the remedial response to contamination at
this Site into two discrete actions, or operable units. The
first operable unit, completed in 1992, included excavation and
disposal of chromium-contaminated soil, which was the principal
threat at the Site. (Prior to that Operable Unit, EPA completed
a removal response action in 1987 to remove and dispose of the
building, which housed electroplating equipment, and the source
of the contamination—electroplating wastes.) This ROD describes
the selection of the remedy for Operable Unit 2.
-------
Chromium contamination in the shallow water-bearing zone,
which was not treated in prior response actions, is the only
problem remaining at the Site. This contamination exists
primarily in the immediate area of the former electroplating
building and impoundments. Although there is currently no threat
to human health or the environment from this contamination in its
undisturbed condition, there is a possibility that significant
physical disturbances of the shallow water-bearing zone could
create new exposure pathways or cause the contamination to
migrate to the aquifer used for drinking water in the area. The
remedial objective of Operable Unit 2 is to prohibit disturbances
of the shallow water-bearing zone that might cause a threat to
human health or the environment.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
• Institutional controls to prohibit excavation or well-
drilling into or through the shallow water-bearing zone
beneath the entire 6-acre parcel on which the
electroplating building and impoundments were formerly
located.
• Collection and analysis of samples from monitoring and
residential wells for thirty years to ensure that
contamination is not migrating to locations where it
might present a threat to human health or the
environment.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. It complies with Federal and State requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, except for the Pennsylvania hazardous waste
management regulation requiring cleanup of contaminated ground
water to background levels. Although this Pennsylvania
requirement is considered "relevant and appropriate," EPA is
waiving this requirement in accordance with section
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. §
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C). This waiver is based on EPA's
determination that treatment of ground water in the shallow
water-bearing zone is technically impracticable for reasons
explained below. Consequently, this remedy does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedy.
EPA evaluated information on the treatment technologies for
this Operable Unit, and has found that these technologies have
not been shown to be effective under the conditions present at
this Site. EPA believes there are significant technical
limitations and uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and/or
permanence of these technologies. Because of these limitations
-------
SCALE: 1' - 2000'
CONTOUR INTERVAL: 20'
E LOCATION
Source: USGS. 1946, Scranton. PA7^.quad ylJSS
SITE LOCATION-
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
-------
FORMER SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS-
FORMER ELECTROPLATING
BUILIONC
WOODS
N
FORMER SURFACE
DRAWAGE
LEGEND
- TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS
(5 FOOT INTERVAL)
M
FEET
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
FORMER ELECTROPLATING BUILWNG
AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
FIGURE 2
-------
FORMER SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS•
X^_
, FORMER ELECTROPLATING
M.'OTRW« r-BUILIONG
LIMITS OF RA EXCAVATION
UHOSR*
'*-*.
x
\
\
LEGEND
$ - SHALLOW MONITORING NELL (1967)
O • INTERMEDIATE MONITORING NELL (1987)
0 - BEDROCK MONITORING NELL (1987)
© • SHALLON MONITORING NELL (1991)
9 • BEDROCK MONITORING NELL (19911
A . SOIL BORING (1991)
- ,?<<}
1 ((\^ .
^ NX MH06RH I
MWOIOB (SQ°'"l~"~"i'
V.—g /
N®"—-V'*T
FORMER SURFACE
DRAINAGE
SCALE IN FEET
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
ALL MONITORING WELLS
ON SITE
FIGURE 3
-------
• Table 1
Well Depths and Water .Travel Elevations for Moni-toringr Wells
Wells
MW01OB
MW01RW
MW01AW
MW02OB
MW02RW
MW02SA
MW03OB
MW04OB
MW04DA
MW04SA
MW05OB
MW05DA
MW05SA
MW06OB
MW06RW
MW06AW
MW07RW
MW08RW
MW09OB
MW10RW
MW11OB
MW12RW
MW13OB
MW14OB
Total
Depth
(feet)
18
85
40
20
66
46
25
19
119
52
14
84
64
21
87
60
215
235
25
235
25
184
24
25
TOC Elevation.
(feet)
144631
1448.05
144739
1458.64
0.00
0.00
146832
148432
1483.%
0.00
1466.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
1452.81
0.00
1469.44
149136
1478.18
148L72
146225
145529
1441.17
143233
*TOC Depth to Water
(feet)
January
1992
8.83
67.17
27.13
430
Dry
Dry
10.20
9.93
99.96
Dry
9.45
Dry
Dry
68.76
Dry
149.05
173.15
839
165.17
8.93
136.81
937
6.09
April
1992
6.93
63.05
2322
2.67
Dry
Dry
7.30
7.13
78.45
32.72
2.43
Dry
Dry
337
66.45
Dry
145.04
16928
5.70
162.43
524
134.14
8.88
430
Ground Water Elevation
(feet)
January
1992
1437.48
1380.88
142026
145434
Dry
Dry
1458.32
1471.07
1382.72
Dry
1455.92
Dry
Dry
1384.05
Dry
131539
1313.05
1464.87
1311.75
1448.92
1314.08
1426.40
1477.78
April
1992
143938
1385.00
1424.17
1455.97
Dry
Dry
146122
1473.87
140423
1448.92
1462.94
Dry
Dry
1445.40
138636
Dry
1319.40
1316.92
1467.76
1314.49
1457.01
1316.75
1427.09
1424.07
* TOC = Top of Casing
-------
ALADDIN PLATING SITE: CN-SITE MONITORING WELLS
SELECTED PRIORTIY POltfTANT METALS
OCTOBER 1987 SAMPLING RESULTS
VEIL 1
MV-01-CB
DUPLICATE
MV-01-AW
DUPLICATE
MV-01-KW
DUPLICATE
MW-02-0B
Mtf-02-SA
MV-02-RW
MV-03-CB
DUPLICATE
Mf-04-CB
MV-04-SA
MV-04-DA
MW-05-CB
MV "KrSA
MW-06-CB
HV-06-AW
Mf-06-iW
FEU) BLANK
FULD BLANK
ANTBENY ARSENIC
(ng/1) (nig/1)
— Ma: C.05
C.3 -
0.2 C.W2
C.3 C.CC2
0.2 —
C.2 —
— C.C1
0.2 C.006
— O.W9
— 0.003
— 0.002
— —
— —
— 0.003
CHROMIUM UJtrtR
(03/1) tag/1)
WCL: 0.05 Ma: 1.0
0.067 —
C.053 —
C.C76 —
0.12 —
0.005 —
C.0(M —
0.005 —
0.013 —
0.1 -
0.62 —
0.61 —
0.007 —
•.f75 0.03
c.te 0.02
0.008 0.06
«.tr —
0.009 —
0.038 —
0.006 —
0.004 —
0.008 —
NICKEL SELENIUM ZINC
(no/1) (ng/1) (ag/l)
— Ma: 0.01 " Ma: 5.0
— — 0.03
— — 0.02
— — 0.C2
0.02 — C.02
— — 0.01
— — 0.02
— — 0.03
— — 0.05
— — —
— — 0.03
— — — ,
— — 0.16
'— — 0.02
— — —
— 0.005 —
— — 0.02
— — 0.02
— — 0.02
— — —
__ — —
NOTE: No data for well MW-05-BA due to insufficient water coluau at tine of saapl
-------
FORMER SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS•
FORMER ELECTROPLATING
BUILIONG
UN08RK
LIMITS OF RA EXCAVATION
FORMER SURFACE
DRAINAGE
O
LEGEND
• SHALLOW MONITORING WELL (1991)
• BEDROCK MONITORING WELL (1991)
- SOIL BORING (1991)
IN FEET
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
SOIL EXCAVATION OUTLINE
FIGURE 4
-------
\
Contour InttrvaJ /
Coneontr«tlon Uno« (ppb)
0-10
10 -100 •
too - 1,000
1,000 - 10,000
10,000 - 100,000
up to 174,000
LEGEND
® - SHALLOW MONITORING WELL (1987)
0 - SHALLOW MONITORING WELL <1991>
M - DISSOLVED HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATIONS
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
CONTOUR INTERVAL - LOG OF AVERAGE
DISSOLVED HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATIONS
flLAODJN PLATING RJ/FS
DISSOLVED HEXAVflLENT
CHROMIUM ISOCONCENTRATION LINE
IN THE SHALLON HATER-BEARING ZONE
AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY LINES
FIGURE 5
-------
FORMER SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS•
FORMER ELECTROPLATING
MJOTR«<» r-BUILlDNG
UNOtRW
LIMITS OF RA EXCAVATION
M»02R» / \
/ / V.^
FORMER SURFACE
DRAINAGE
LEGEND
© • SHALLOW MONITORING NELL (1987)
9 • INTERMEDIATE MONITORING WELL (1987)
9 - BEDROCK MONITORING WELL (1987)
O • SHALLOW MONITORING NELL (1991)
9 • BEDROCK MONITORING WELL (1991)
A - SOIL BORING (1991)
SCALE IN FEET
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
ALL MONITORING WELLS
ON SITE
FIGURE 6
-------
NO SCALE
LEGEND
CREEK FLOW DIRECTION
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATION
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 7
-------
Responsiveness summary
Aladdin Plating Site
Scott and South Abington Townships
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
This Responsiveness Summary documents public comments received
by EPA during the public comment period on the Proposed Plan for
the Aladdin Plating Site ("the Site"). It also provides EPA's
responses to those comments. The Responsiveness Summary is
organized as follows:
SECTION I Overview
This section summarizes recent actions at the Site and the
public's response to the remedial alternatives listed in the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan (Proposed Plan). The Proposed Plan
outlines various cleanup alternatives available to address Site
contamination and highlights EPA's preferred alternative.
SECTION II Background on Community Involvement
This section provides a brief history of community interest in
the site and identifies key issues.
SECTION III Summary of Major Comments and Questions Received
During the Public Meeting and EPA's Responses
This section documents comments and questions from the public
that were voiced during the public meeting regarding the Site and
EPA's responses to them.
SECTION IV Summary of Written Comments and Questions Received
During the Comment Period and EPA's Responses
This section documents written comments and questions from the
public regarding the Site and EPA's responses to them.
I. overview
The public comment period on the Proposed Plan for this Site
began on July 21, 1993 and ended on September 5, 1993. This
included a 15-day extension requested by a citizen. EPA held a
public meeting at the Chinchilla Fire House on August 5, 1993.
Copies of the newspaper advertisements announcing the meeting and
comment period are attached.
-------
The following participants were present at the meeting:
EPA
Lisa Brown Community Relations Coordinator
Gregory Ham Remedial Project Manager
Fran Burns Eastern PA Remedial Section Manager
Al Peterson Community Relations Manager
PER
Paul Panek Project Manager
At the meeting, EPA representatives summarized the results of the
Remedial Investigation (RI), Feasibility Study (FS), and the Risk
Assessment performed for the Site. EPA presented the preferred
alternative to address Site contamination. The Proposed Plan
addressed the remaining area of contamination: the shallow water-
bearing zone in the immediate area of the former electroplating
building and surface impoundments. The preferred alternative for
the Site presented to the public was Institutional Controls with
Groundwater Monitoring. Institutional controls identified for the
public included deed restrictions, orders, or other actions
prohibiting any excavation, installation of wells, or other
disturbances to the area of contamination at the Site.
The public was given an opportunity to ask questions or submit
written comments on the alternatives outlined in the Proposed Plan
and the results of the RI/FS for the Site. The comments and EPA's
responses are summarized, and in some cases combined, in Section
III and IV of this document. They are not presented in the order
received at the meeting. The complete transcript of the public
meeting is contained in the Administrative Record file for the
Site.
SECTION II Background on Community Involvement
Throughout the history of EPA's involvement in this site,
there have been opportunities for public involvement in the site
cleanup process. A number of public meetings were held during the
emergency removal action and during the remedial action. There has
been significant public interest in the activities at the Site.
Public comments were noted, and changes were made to the planned
actions where they could be accommodated.
For this Record of Decision, a formal public meeting, as
discussed above, was held. In addition, a public availability
session was held on September 24, 1993 to allow all interested
citizens to ask questions directly to EPA representatives about the
Proposed Plan and the work that has been done at the Site during
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The main concerns
espressed at these meetings were that EPA is proposing to leave the
contamination on-site. Also, the application of deed restrictions
-------
to the property on which the former electroplating plant was
located is seen as having a negative impact on the community.
These actions are seen as having an adverse impact on property
values. There were several comments to the effect that EPA should
"finish the job" of cleaning up the Site, and not leave any
contamination remaining on the Site.
SECTION III Summary of Comments and Questions from the Public
Meeting
Comment #1; The proposed alternative does not remove the
contamination from the Site. One of the four active remediation
measures should be tried, or if these aren't effective, some other
method of cleaning up the Site should be found and implemented.
EPA Response; The proposed alternative was selected based on a
review of the nine criteria established in the National Contingency
Plan for selection of remediation alternatives. EPA has already
performed extensive actions to clean up the principal threats at
the Site, including the remaining plating wastes, the building
itself, and the contaminated soil. The source of contamination has
been removed, and the remaining contamination is limited to a small
pocket of water in the shallow water-bearing zone. The risk
assessment indicated that the current risk level with the Site in
its undisturbed condition is within acceptable levels, since this
contamination is not affecting the drinking water aquifer and there
is no possibility of direct contact with the chromium.
EPA screened all the technologies that were potentially
applicable to this Site. The four active remediation alternatives
that were evaluated in the FS were selected from this screening
process as those that were most likely to be suitable for use at
the Site. EPA is not aware of other methods that would work under
the unusual conditions presented by this Site.
As discussed in the Proposed Plan, the four active remediation
measures considered are not believed to be capable of reducing
chromium to levels equivalent to background. Each has
uncertainties or problems associated with it. Given that current
risk conditions are within acceptable levels for protecting human
health and the environment, and the background ARAR can't be met
with any of the alternatives, EPA has selected Alternative 2,
Institutional Controls with Ground Water Monitoring.
Comment #2; The soil cleanup should have gone further, to find the
source of the contamination in the shallow water-bearing zone.
EPA Response; EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1988 that
determined that a soil cleanup at the Site was necessary. Based on
this ROD, EPA initiated the remedial action to remove the
contaminated soil from the site. At that time it was recognized
that a groundwater study was needed, but that this would be
-------
completed after the soil removal. The soil removal was designed to
meet specific objectives: to excavate contaminated soil to a depth
where chromium levels in soil were below 50 parts per million
(ppm), and to ship this soil offsite for proper disposal.
The soil cleanup proceeded with these objectives, and was
completed. Soil testing conducted as the excavation occurred
indicated that the 50 ppm level was reached. Subsequent sampling
during the RI/FS confirmed that the soil cleanup was effective.
During the excavation, it was noted that water collecting in
the excavated areas did contain chromium. Some of the accumulated
water was rainwater, but some was clearly seeping in from the soils
adjacent to the excavation. The seepage was generally not visible,
but water would accumulate slowly in the bottom of the excavation.
This water was tested, and shipped offsite for proper disposal.
The objectives of this action were to address soil
contamination, so it was decided that the excavated areas would be
backfilled, and the groundwater study would be initiated. Based on
the ROD that had been issued, EPA would have been exceeding its
authority to proceed with efforts to remediate groundwater at that
time.
Comment #3: Couldn't the entire area of contamination be excavated
to remove the contaminated media?
EPA Response; This is probably the only sure way of removing the
contamination. However, excavation of soil to remove ground water
would be impractical because the large volume of soil and ground
water would make this approach very expensive (as costly or more
than the previous cleanup) and disruptive to the environment and
the community. The low risk presented by the Site does not justify
such extraordinary measures or costs. Excavation to this depth
might also open increase the potential for the contamination to
infiltrate to greater depths. Disturbing the conditions of the
sub-surface materials (which have such a low permeability) might
allow the contamination to move deeper prior to completion of the
action.
Comment #4: Could wells be placed throughout the Site to withdraw
the contaminated water?
EPA Response: Installation of wells, which are then pumped to
withdraw contaminated groundwater is the standard treatment for
groundwater contamination. However, at this Site, the soil
permeability is so low that pumping is ineffective. During
sampling at the Site, monitoring wells typically ran dry prior to
yielding three well volumes of water. Many of these wells took
several days to recharge. This makes pump and treat systems
infeasible for this Site.
-------
Comment #5; EPA states that the contamination is limited to a
small area on the former electroplating facility property, and yet
it has already contaminated adjacent properties.
EPA Response; There was contamination on adjacent properties, but
this was soil contamination in the top 1 to 3 feet of soil. This
contamination was deposited there when the surface impoundments
overflowed, or when rainwater washed wastes that were disposed of
on the surface down the slope at the Site. This surface
contamination on adjacent properties did not migrate down into the
groundwater, and was removed during the soil cleanup.
The contamination that remains is chromium contaminated water
that is in the 5 to 20 foot subsurface area underneath the former
facility. This contamination is believed to be the result of
infiltration of water from the surface impoundments, and the direct
disposal of waste liquids into floor drains in the building.
Sampling of monitoring wells and residential wells on and off the
Site have revealed that this contamination is not migrating offsite
at rates that will adversely impact the drinking water wells for a
very long time (estimated at over 2,000 years).
Comment #6: What happens if future monitoring indicates that the
contamination is migrating faster than estimated?
EPA Response; The monitoring program is designed to determine if
the contamination is migrating, and the two additional wells are
intended to provide an early warning should this occur. If EPA
determines in the future that groundwater is migrating more rapidly
than currently estimated, the levels of contamination and rate of
migration would be reevaluated. If it appears that the migration
would create a threat to human health or the environment, the
remedial alternatives previously reviewed, as well as any newly
developed methods, would be reviewed for possible implementation to
address the problem. A new record of decision, or an explanation
of significant differences, would be issued, and appropriate
notification and public meeting procedures would be followed.
Comment #7; Implementing actions later, if needed, would increase
costs significantly over costs of implementing action today.
EPA Response; It could be more expensive to implement a response
action at a later time. However, it may not be necessary to ever
implement an action if the chromium remains contained in its
present location and/or is naturally attenuated in the soil.
Further, the methods considered in the FS may be more extensively
developed by the time implementation would be necessary, and could
be completed with more certainty, more effectively, and with less
trial and error, which might reduce the cost of some of the
Alternatives.
-------
Comment #B: If the contamination will remain on-site for 2,000
years, the monitoring program should continue for 2,000 years.
EPA Response; The monitoring program will initially establish a
baseline for the Site through the quarterly monitoring period of
the first five years. Comparison of the baseline data with data
collected in later years will indicate whether migration is
occurring, and if so, what the rate of migration is. After 30
years, a comprehensive record of the status of the contamination
will have been developed. If migration is going to occur, evidence
of it will most likely have been seen by that time. On the other
hand, if containment or natural attenuation result in no changes or
a reduction in contamination levels, this will have been clearly
established in thirty years. Therefore, this should be a
sufficient period of time for determining what is occurring at the
Site.
In addition to the thirty year monitoring, EPA is required to
conduct five year reviews on any site where wastes are left onsite.
This includes sampling to determine the level and status of any
remaining contamination. These reviews will be continued
indefinitely as long as contamination remains above health-based
levels.
Comment #9; Is EPA leaving wastes onsite in other cases, and if so
what has happened (i.e.- is the contamination migrating offsite)?
EPA Response; EPA has left wastes in place on other sites. This
is common for landfills, where the volume of wastes is too large to
remove. A cap is placed over the landfill to prevent infiltration
of water, and a monitoring program is typically implemented. It
has also been done at other types of sites.
The record of whether migration has occurred at other sites is
not relevant here, since subsurface conditions at each site are
unique. The fact that migration may have occurred at other sites
does not mean that it will occur here. The limited area of high
level contamination, the lack of a continuing source, the very low
permeability of the soils at this Site, and the possibility of
natural conversion of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium all
contribute to the very low estimated migration rates.
Comment £10; The past several years have been relatively dry in
this area. What happens if several years of wet weather occur?
EPA Response; The contamination has existed at the Site for at
least thirty years. During this period, there have been both dry
periods and wet periods, and the contamination has moved only a
limited distance even with active waste discharging. Therefore,
with the source and surface contamination removed, there is less
contamination available for migration and less likelihood that an
extended wet period would cause offsite contamination.
-------
Comment #11:. The RI/FS refers to fractured bedrock at the Site,
which allows for faster migration of contamination. Also, aren't
the positive results that have been found in several residential
wells an indication that the contamination is moving?
EPA Response; The bedrock under the Site is fractured, and
fractures usually increase the rate of travel of water. However,
the bedrock is at more than 80 feet below the surface of the Site,
and the contamination would have to travel through the glacial till
overburden (which has extremely low permeability) at the Site
before it reaches the fractured bedrock. This overburden material
is what has contained the chromium so far, and what is anticipated
to continue containing the contamination.
There have been a few positive chromium results in residential
well samples. However, all these results have been very low (5
parts per billion or less) . One of these residential wells with a
low concentration of chromium is the furthest from the Site of all
the wells that were tested. Chromium is a naturally occurring
substance, and can be found in groundwater not associated with
human activity. There have been no consistent chromium results in
any wells but the monitoring wells in the shallow water-bearing
zone. The source of the chromium found in the residential wells
cannot be conclusively determined, but EPA believes that the lack
of consistency and the fact that wells in between these wells and
the Site are not contaminated indicate that the contamination is
not steadily migrating offsite.
Comment #12; Is it possible that putting all the monitoring wells
in at the Site, or excavating to remove the contaminated soil, may
have introduced conduits for the contamination to move deeper?
EPA Response; Improperly installed wells can allow contamination
to travel from shallow levels to deeper ones and vice versa.
However, all of the monitoring wells installed by EPA were
constructed using specifications that prevent this from occurring.
The excavation did open up the area of contamination, and
rainwater did collect in the openings. However, all of this water
was pumped out as quickly as possible and disposed of off-site to
prevent its infiltration.
Comment #13; Over how wide an area did EPA test surface water and
wells, and what are the plans for the future?
EPA Response; Surface water samples were collected from Bell
Mountain Creek and Leggetts Creek above and below the area where
runoff from the Site would enter them. Samples were also collected
from Griffin Pond. No Site-related contamination was found in any
of these samples.
-------
Residential well samples were collected from locations as far
as Mt. Bethel Drive, Peaceful Valley Road (on the southeast side of
Bell Mountain Creek), along Scott and Layton Roads, and as far
southwest as Sarah Drive. Results of this sampling are discussed
in the response to Comment #11, and in the Record of Decision.
Comment #14; Alternative 3 appears to be a feasible alternative.
The FS states that the electrokinetic method may be able to remove
70% or more of the chromium contamination, while the Proposed Plan
reports that only 30% can be removed. Why is there a discrepancy?
EPA Response: The FS was based on research papers for projects
that were conducted using trivalent chromium. During EPA's
preparation of the Proposed Plan, this information was reviewed,
along with additional information that was gathered from the
literature, from discussions with vendors, and from discussion with
EPA personnel involved with these methods. From this information,
it was determined that this method is 70-95% effective with
trivalent chromium, but that with hexavalent it may only be as much
as 30% effective. Due to the ionic charge of the compounds that
hexavalent chromium forms in groundwater, it moves in the opposite
direction as trivalent chromium in an electrokinetic extraction
system, thus reducing its effectiveness. Although there are
methods that have been proposed to address this problem, they have
not been extensively tested in the field at a site with conditions
comparable to this Site to see how effective they would be.
Comment #15; Alternative 2 is listed as a "No Action" plan in the
FS. It also doesn't meet the preference for permanent solutions
and use of treatment technologies, and doesn't restore the Site to
productive use.
EPA Response; This Alternative was listed as "No Action with
Institutional Controls" in the FS. The NCP requires that every FS
include the "No Action" option in its evaluation of alternatives as
a baseline to which to compare the other options. There must be
only one "No Action" alternative in each operable unit, so the name
of Alternative 2 was changed to avoid confusion with Alternative 1.
Also, characterizing Alternative 2 as "no action" is misleading
because the use of Institutional Controls is a form of remedial
action.
CERCLA does include a preference for permanent solutions and
treatment as a principal element, where practicable. However,
after evaluating the options available, EPA has concluded that the
treatment methods available are characterized by significant
inefficiencies and uncertainties that can interfere with their
implementation. Treatment would not completely eliminate the
contamination so institutional controls might still be required.
With this uncertainty, and given that the Site under present
conditions is not presenting risks above the normal range, EPA has
8
-------
selected an Alternative that does not meet these preferences
because they are impracticable at this Site.
The Site has been cleaned up to the point where some
productive uses of this property would be acceptable. The controls
to be applied will only limit actions that would disturb the
subsurface. The surface can be used for agriculture, gardening,
recreation, and other activities.
Comment #16: Actual removal of contamination from a site should
carry a higher weight in the ranking of criteria for selection of
remedial alternatives, rather than being of equal weight with the
other eight criteria.
EPA Response; Alternatives involving the removal of contaminated
materials are evaluated along with other alternatives to determine
the comparative benefit of each against the nine criteria specified
in the NCP. The NCP does not assign weights to the criteria, but
directs the lead agency to select the alternative with the best
balance of performance relative to the nine criteria. There may be
some cases where disturbance of a site to remove the contamination
might cause more of a hazard to human health or the environment
than containing the wastes in place. In some cases such as a
landfill, the volume of wastes make it prohibitively expensive to
remove the wastes. A ranking system that gives added weight to
removal of wastes would not take into account those circumstances
where it may not be appropriate.
Comment #17; Deed restrictions will lower property values
throughout the area, and are unacceptable. Can EPA purchase
properties whose values have declined due to proximity to an NPL
site, or reimburse owners for this loss in value?
EPA Response; There currently are no restrictions on land use at
the site. Other types of institutional controls may be considered.
These might include land use controls, permit limitations, or
administrative orders.
CERCLA gives EPA has authority to take action to protect human
health and the environment. EPA has no authority to take actions
to restore property values or to purchase adjacent properties whose
values are adversely affected by an NPL site. EPA does not have
authority to reimburse property owners for any loss in property
value.
Comment #18; What is EPAs authority for implementing deed
restrictions, and what will happen if they cannot be implemented?
EPA Response; EPA will use its legal authorities and recommend the
use of State and local authorities to impose institutional
controls. Pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9606, EPA
is authorized to issue orders to protect public health and welfare
-------
and the environment. EPA has used this authority in the past to
require property owners to place deed restriction on their
properties. As with the exercise of other legal authorities,
affected parties may attempt to challenge these authorities.
Other institutional controls are available to prohibit
disruption of the contaminated area. Local building permits and
land use restrictions, or administrative or judicial orders may be
used where sufficient legal authority exists. If deed restrictions
cannot be implemented, these other options would be considered. If
none of the options were feasible, EPA would revisit its selection
of alternatives, and might issue a new Record of Decision.
Comment #19; What is EPA doing to recover the costs of previous
cleanup actions from the property owner?
EPA Response; EPA has placed a lien on the property subject to the
remedial action and owned by the potentially responsible party in
order to recover costs of cleanup if the property is sold. In all
Superfund cases, EPA evaluates the financial status and assets of
the potentially responsible parties to determine if actions should
be taken to recover costs. This is being done with this Site. The
Agency does not comment on the possibility of future actions to
recover costs.
Comment #20; How will people be notified of EPA's decision on this
matter?
EPA Response; An announcement will be sent out to people on the
mailing list once the Record of Decision is completed. EPA will
also issue press releases, so local media may report the decision.
Comment #21; What options do citizens have if they don't agree
with the decision?
EPA Response; The provisions of CERCLA provide persons certain
rights to seek review of Agency actions under specific
circumstances. The scope of and limitations on these rights are
too extensive to discuss in this summary which is primarily
intended for the discussion of the remedy.
SECTION XV Summary of written comments and Questions Received
During the Comment Period and EPA'a Responses
During the public comment period, EPA received one request for
a 15-day extension (which was granted), 9 comment letters, and a
petition signed by 65 area residents. Many of the comments were
similar to those expressed at the public meeting and answered
above. These are not repeated here, but are listed at the end of
this section.
10
-------
Comment #22: EPA should not look at costs when selecting
alternatives. The sole consideration should be preventing human
exposure to contaminants in ground water and protecting drinking
water supplies.
EPA Response; The NCP requires the lead agency to perform a
detailed and comparative analysis of alternatives in selecting a
remedy. Cost is one of the evaluation criteria that the lead
agency is required to include in its detailed analysis and
comparative analysis of alternatives [see 40 C.F.R. §300.430 (e)
and (f)].
Comment #23; Alternative 2 does not meet the Pennsylvania
requirement for cleanup of contamination to levels equivalent to
background. EPA should not waive this requirement, and all
Pennsylvania standards should be achieved.
EPA Response; Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management regulations
require that ground water contamination be cleaned up to levels
equivalent to background. In this case, background levels would be
in the range from 0 to 5 parts per billion. With the level of
contamination in the immediate area of the former facility, and the
subsurface conditions which make withdrawal of the ground water in
this shallow zone very difficult, EPA believes that achieving
background levels is technically infeasible. If EPA finds an ARAR
to be technically infeasible, it can be waived. The next most
stringent ARAR would then be applied. Maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs), which are standards that set maximum levels of contaminants
that can be in water distributed in public water systems can be
used as relevant and appropriate standards for water from wells,
but would be applied to the drinking water aquifer, which has not
been affected by the Site. Since the shallow water-bearing zone
cannot be used as a drinking water source due to its extremely low
yield, MCLs would not be relevant and appropriate standards for
this zone. The level of cleanup already attained at the site in
its undisturbed condition is protective of human health and the
environment, which is also a threshold criteria for remedy
selection.
Comment #24; Monitoring should be done monthly for the entire
thirty years, rather than quarterly for two years and annually
thereafter.
EPA Response; The rationale for the proposed monitoring program is
explained in the response to comment #8 above. Given the very slow
expected migration rate (less than 1 foot per year), monthly
monitoring would not significantly add to the information available
to evaluate the status of the Site. Because more frequent data are
not required to evaluate ground water quality changes, monthly
monitoring which is significantly more expensive than quarterly or
annual monitoring, is not justified.
11
-------
Comment #25; Any increases in Site-related contamination in
monitoring wells or private wells should trigger a major cleanup
program.
EPA Response; Site-related contamination must present an actual or
potential threat to human health or the environmental in order to
satisfy statutory requirements for EPA to initiate an action.
Contamination in monitoring wells does not necessarily present a
risk unless there is a likelihood that this contamination will
migrate to areas used for drinking water supplies.
Comment #26; A collection pool to collect water from the
contaminated area should be established.
EPA Response; Because of the slow movement of ground water under
the Site, this technique would require leaving the pool open for a
very long period of time (comparable to Alternative 5), and would
be very disruptive to the community to construct and operate.
Frequent removal of the liquid by tanker trucks would be required,
and the potential effectiveness of this method is unknown. The
entire area would have to be fenced off for the entire time, which
means the area would not be usable. In short, this approach offers
no advantage over the alternatives described in the Record of
Decision that would entail increased risk to the environment.
Comment #27; If no action is being taken, Alternative 1 would be
preferable, since not having deed restrictions would have less
impact on adjacent properties.
EPA Response; The institutional controls are designed to prevent
potential increased migration of contamination to adjacent
properties. Without controls, the owner could allow actions on the
Site that could increase migration rates. Therefore, some type of
controls are needed to prevent this. However, some actions other
than deed restrictions (such as restrictions on building permits,
well installations, etc.) may be considered.
Comment # 28; EPA's estimate of 2000 years before the chromium
contamination reaches the drinking water aquifer is based on the
assumption that there are no fractures or other pathways that would
expedite the migration, and that vertical and horizontal movement
will be very slow. Both of these assumptions may not be accurate.
EPA Response; It is true that these assumptions were made to
develop the estimate of how long it would take for migration to the
drinking water aquifer to occur. However, these assumptions were
made based on the extensive testing of the subsurface conditions at
the site. No evidence has been found to date of any fractures in
the overburden material above the bedrock, through which the
contamination would have to migrate. Samples of this material were
tested to determine its permeability, which is extremely low. In
order to be conservative, the modeling used an estimate of vertical
12
-------
migration velocity that was two orders of magnitude higher than the
actual measured value.
The fact that the contamination has not migrated further than
it has to date, even while active disposal of liquid wastes was
occurring over a thirty-year period, is consistent with these
assumptions. In addition, the monitoring that will be conducted
will be a continuing check on the assumptions. The new wells to be
installed at the edge of the contaminated area will also provide an
early warning if the assumptions are incorrect.
Comment #29: EPA has dismissed the remediation technologies as
infeasible too summarily. Why were they in the FS at all if they
are infeasible?
EPA Response; EPA has determined that these methods are
technically impracticable for cleaning up the chromium to
background levels. These methods may be feasible for reducing
chromium levels, but the level of level of reduction possible and
the permanence of the reduction is uncertain.
The FS reviewed technologies that were potentially applicable
to the Site. Because of the unique conditions at this Site, common
ground water contamination treatment technologies (such as pumping
and treating of the ground water) were not feasible. Therefore,
the FS evaluated methods that have been less extensively used, and
some that have only been tested in laboratory experiments for
application to chromium contamination. These methods may have been
used with other metal contaminants, or on sites with more
advantageous conditions, but not on hexavalent chromium
contamination in subsurface conditions such as at this Site. While
these methods have some potential applications for this use, when
evaluated in the context of these site-specific conditions they
have been found to be technically impracticable for meeting the
Pennsylvania cleanup to background requirement. Therefore, EPA is
waiving this requirement.
Comment #30: The validity of the scoring system in the FS is
questionable. Several of the values given to Alternatives 1 and 2
are not justified.
EPA Response: The scoring system presented in the RI/FS is a guide
to be used in the decision-making process. Decisions were not made
solely based on the scoring system. While some of the comments on
specific values in the scoring matrix are valid, some of the values
for the active remediation alternatives would also change
(decrease) based on some of the site-specific problems discussed in
the Proposed Plan, which also includes discussions of information
that supplements the analysis provided in the FS. Some examples
are the information on the efficiency of the electokinetic method
for hexavalent chromium and the estimates of the length of time
13
-------
required for Alternative 5 to achieve reductions in hexavalent
chromium.
Written comments were also received that were similar to the
following comments made at the public meeting on August 5, 1993:
Comment #s 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, and 17. These comments and
responses are not repeated here, as they were discussed in Section
III.
-------
1 ils rating. On Tuesday, thr
rk rose 4'/s after (he company
ported ~uch better-than-ex
crii Pleads
'a Charge:
itn orison sentence of 20 years
d a 'me of $1 million.
\ccording to officials, Pisano dc
crcr' -ctwccn 400 and 500 grams
coc. nc between December 1990
'I A.--i'il 1992.
'isa.irj said he would resell
•igs ;c bought from David Au-
4, the leader of the network.
\uc si is now serving a 14-year
sor sentence on federal drug
irgi .... Pisano said he met August
i gym.
'isano was indicted in May and
• (lie 291 h person arrested as a
ult of the "Operation Bad Influ-
c" investigation.
hat if you
g for sale
id $500 you
ducedrate
Yibune
ed?
TODAY!
1., Mon.-Fri.
accepted.
•••/»
xVt.
..'.>•
S e""'"es
company. ; resignation of James R. Paul.
* Copyright 1993. Merrill Lynch. Pterrt, Fnmn « Smith Inc.
Member SIPC.
t& Merrill Lynch
THE tJNITED STATES El>TmONMENfAt1 PROTECTION AGENCY
^ ,-/.,., INVmS PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE -, i,
i'>:">?\ • ' vr ; ": PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE , . ', u v- i
/$$.$$ ALADDIN PLATING SUPERFUND SITE , .,
,trfT ; J' . • .SCOTT AND SOUTH ABINGTON TOWNSHIPS,LACKA WANNA COUNTY,PA '•,.''. \.,,..
•• J ''?:,'_'' ' "•/'. ' ":\./.;:;:''"' . ' ' .'' r;." "'•'" '.'•'.'."'"•• '_•"'' : •'; .':.'./.: " ;: - v:.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Region III. has completed the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the Aladdin Plating Superfund Site (site), which
occupies 8.5 acres on Layton Road. The Proposed Plan presents alternatives for
addressing ground water contamination, and Is based upon an EPA Remedial Investl-
CSiAchiUi^,J The RI examined the extent and nature of contaminants present at the site. The FS
evaluated six remedial action alternatives forthe site and provides supporting Informa-
< < • tion leading to the alternative selection by EPA.
EPA's preferred alternative forthe sKe Is Alternative 2, Installing monitoring wells, Issuing land-use, restrictions,
and conducting periodic ground water monitoring. This alternative Is preferred because ft is believed to best satisfy
evaluation criteria. The remedial alternatives EPA evaluated are: .
1. No Action (with ground water monitoring) • ;
2. installation of two monitoring wells, land-use restrictions, and ground
^, water monitoring
3. Enhanced pumplr
g and treatment, with Off-site treatment and disposal :>•-. •• ;••
4. Enhanced pumping and treatment, wttri bn-slte treatment and disposal ;>;.;- \
^^j. ':.» •;•„•••. v .-.i . -. 'f'' • ' 'V'*
5fbhem,ca,barr,e^^p^i,^^
8. Chemical alteratldfi and .Immobilization- • n.: •>:•"• irp .,.,.-; :,:,.^-.:; .... ,M .. -•.-> /•,.'•
.a^.^---^<^.i'/w^^^T^i»r,ri;;«!i,.f .vr,V";,-^/,''•• ^"'^T-?'"- ';'" ^ "•'" " ''''"••- X;-'/-
$,^>:'3-:-^->^$^*.>*$:KA~;;.+^^^^ ^\,-:,._.^.-..i. (•.-/••-• ';•"•..;.•,, ..... .:....-.;...
the preferred alternative li oh Jy a preliminary determlnatiort: EF*A encourages the public to comment on the alternatives
listed in the Proposed Plan1. EPA will choose the final remedy after the Public Comment Period ends and may select
any one of the alternatives after taking the public's comments Into account.. ' •„.;,,.-,-,, .7.' • V
The Public Comme it Period begins July 21,1993 and ends August 19,1993. EPA will hold a public meeting to
discuss the Proposed Plan and the preferred alternative on Thursday, August 5, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. In the
Chinchilla Fire Hoi se,^ Shady Lane, Chinchilla, PA 18410. ' -_t ^^ '•!'.::•:'
The RI/FS, copies oftrie.Proposed Remedial Action Plan, and other site related documents In the Administrative Record
are available at the fecott Township Municipal Building. RR 1. Route 457. Olyphant. PA 18447 (717) 254-6969 and at
the South Ablngton Township Building, 104 Shady Lane. Montdale. PA 18410 (717) 58^21.11. t
,^;': Writteri corhments's'h'b'uid be sent postmarked ho .' '"'"' •-•—?—•.-•-•—•----*—-^-•-*-
;.•;;;[Jaterthan August 19; 1993 to:- ; :'t:
Mr For more Information regarding the site,
please contact: j :.-,;» -.••• ...;;.-;.;
;; (' >:^;^i;-ijs:a"^rowri(3EA21)V^"V'**' ^'<
Community Relations Coordinator.'
. ;.,..T «vU.S. EPA, Region III -. ' >
- • ':•>.-•::• 841 Chestnut Building .:.':•:
• ' ' Philadelphia, PA 19107':
•
-------
Hew York Stock Exchange.
N 1 Y9«R CAP) - SlkttaJ Ml Mk>d C..I IM II Ml Bk BH BH* Rwttl II .. UB IIH lift II * ntau IM II M *
• THE SCRANTON TIMES,.WEDNESDAY, JUI>¥*21? 1993*- -*-
1 Y9«R UP) - SlkttaJ
I»W.. (n; N«« V«rk Stark
CMI IM
CTipi
A/1 AC.
AMM
ASA i.'i I
AblLsl: M
AMI>
A.U.J tn
P4M> •tall-.UaCHV
- A-A -
II IH Mft Mft Mft- H
.. IMI Mft OH M * H
.. IM Mft Uft Mk..
I1M1 B BH Bk* H
HOB ISk Mft B * K
M Ol Mft MH UK- ft
II IMI BH lift B - H
II m 41ft 41k lift-
lift lift lift*
. Ul II
II *
3K
K
SK'
.I4|
itjrurfilt
• i in
«tlP» tM
AA>Cl» I
Alia. IM
AIMCr M
Ak.«n M
AT4T IU
AknrftrllM
Aj»«* M
*W~. SB
AMP |M
M
A4kn IB
-to. i»
H":
4lMU I
UIHMIM
MCIKOB
W«0t> M
l.bHl M
iil»«r
• hCK IM
IfflnlM
WV IM
MlA* 1 M
•ttnni
(UAU IB
S4.IM
tins u.
MPr M
l> I
CNA IM
1.1 Dt|M
€ in
M II
I IU
itw
•»»• I
ST."
•«! M ..Mil
II 4M OH MH OH*
II n BH UK UK
111111 nk Bk MH*
M Ml nH MH MH-
.. Ml BH BH Uk-
III M 41k «H 41k-
I M Uft BH Bk-
II IM M Uk Uft-
14 M nft nk nk-
BIMI ilk nk 1IH-
IIIIO M OK Ok-
n m (Bk IB IB -I
ii a UK,us ok*
nMllrtS MH MH-
u MI nn MK nk
. U 111 IIH UH llft-
II1111 UH Bft Uft
n in oft M MH-
II M IK IH Ik*
M HI B BH Bk*
mm 4ik 41 41 -
• 14 IB Ilk IIH IIH*
Mim uft nk BK*
... in ik i i -
.. m Bk IIH sift-
.. M IIH II IIM
.. 111 nft nH nn-
MUMIMH ink in *
.. I 4k 4k 4k
B I Uk Uk UH
II II lift, UH IIK
II Ml BH BH BH-
II Illl UK lift HH-
II M Ilk MH MH-
14 1 IIH IIK 11k-
- R-t-
.. MI BK Bk Bk
.. Bl IK IK IK
II IM BH BH BK
14 in MH UK M -
II » MH MH U *
II IMI 4IK Mk 44H-
I BI nk nn nu-
ll lot 41H 41 41 -
HIM nk nft nk-
II M nH II H -
II Bl MK MH MH-
ii o nn nn MH-
.. B IK IK III
.. W lift IIH UH*
W Ml IIH Ilk IIK-
.. BI ilk IIH nu-
ll im BK B B -
HUB UK Bk BH*
IMI MH B BH*
.. m nk B a
..IMI ilk4lik iik-
14 B Mft B BH*
u am uk UH BH*
.. IIM Uft U IIK*
u BI nk n nft*
IM M IIK UH IIH*
II M Mk Bk Uft-
B M Ok 41H 41H-
- C-C -
11 n Bik tMk Bik-
u IM nk dft lift
II O IIH UH BH*
., M BH BH BH*
II US 41ft 4IH 4IH*
B n IH IH Ik-
ii m nk tin IIK-
II IM! OH OH O *
41 4B IIH B BH*
B n Mk Mft Ml *l
II Ul IIK IIH IIH-
B II BK BH BH*
MIM II ak UK-
ii nn n nn-i
IS II IIH IIH
OwNoin
CkSM
OUCf I
CH«W in
Cmbf* B
mi iis
nt IM
DuiC»in
DitoGi
D.XH4 IM
DMT. tM
D.IUA1, 14
DMU IM
UUCP MS
tHlP.il
Urn., »
D.k M
DMriMlB
Dim M
IM
II 40 Bk BH BH*
IU M lift Uft IIH-
UU1M MH M 41H*
B H BH BH BH
II 414 Bft Mft Mft*
.. UM lift U IIH*
II4M NH Mft II -
14 M M Bk BH-
B IM OH OH MH
B III Uk UH U -
.. HI UH nH HH*
II Ml Oft Oft O»-
BIB u ak BK-
III4B Ilk BH II *
.. n nk n n *
II Bl Mk MH MH-
II Ml M MH Mft-
u i nn nk nk
.. M HH Mk MH*
II M Mft MH MH-
II II Bk Uft BH*
M M Bft Mk Mft-
.. in • IH IH
II M Mft M MH*
W Bl M B* 45H-
.. IIO Mft Mk MH-
II M BH MH BH-
o u nft nft nn*
.. no nn nk nn
HMO MH Bft BH-
II n BH BH MH
IIM O Ok 45H-
II B 41ft 47ft nft-
MIM nk nk nft-
DnjM .M M m BH BH _..
!»«•» Bk • Ml Bft M Mft*
o>rm i.n si m Mk ok on-
iMir IM u 01 OH o» o»-
DitOTi 44 B m lift U llft-
. - l-l -
nci BIM Bft Mft Bk*
tulb IM II 4H M nft n»-
BMrt I HIM lift MH MH-
tltal . II IIS Uft OH OH*
CtUta .M n M IIH MH Sift
moo M Ml II IH U
bnDIM II IM lift nH nft-
tmnm IM IS 111 41ft Mft MK-
Cwk M n M I4H U U
btarff I.M UI1U - nft Mft nft *
BM M 1 Ml IIH Ilk IIH
bin IM nim Mft Bft Mk
- p-p-
mC M M 41ft 41 41ft*
rTLCpSM II Ml Uft Mk MH-
P«4»n .. 41 IH Ik 4H-
r.4tip n m UH UK UH«-
NltoU U II Ml MH Mk Mk-
P.4NN IM II I4B Uk nk Bk-
PmS> I 14 B Mk MK BH-
rilOklM .. 414 «k Mk MK-
n**ta IM 14 Ml MH MH M *
n.Mt» I M IS Ml IIH lift lift
rlHIM M II M Mft Mft BH-
n*fnt IM II IO MH Mft UH
P1~t M M Bl OH OH OH-
P1WIIO .It 14 U Ilk II IIH*
Plrtll IM ..MM BH Uk UIT
ptpmrin n in IIH UH UH*
- •-•-
OTCM II 4 Ik IH IH
CTt IK IIDM Mft Mft Bft-
Cftmm ..IIM sift Sift SIH-
GilMIIM II in OH Oft BH-
bp M B MS B Bft Bft
Ctitr* M II Ul IIH lift UK
G«.H> IM IM Ilk UH Oft-
biDnlMl II M«4ft MH Mk*
C.IEI lU 11 MB Mft Mft MX-
G.H~ U II 4 Ilk lift lift*
G.MIU IM II M Mft Bft Mft*
Oik* M ..OH O Oft MU-
CH C M M m MK Mk Mk -
cru in u in IIH nft ak-
USIcWlB II a IIH BH BH*
C.Mr* II IM Ik 1ft 1ft-
bPit IM M M Mk MH MH*
C>kP4i U II IB Mk MH Mft*
Cllkta M mill US BH UH-
CI.M .ISl UMM ISH ISH Ilk
CMM .. 411 Ik 4 4k*
GU«P B I 10 Mk M Mk*
C4rirk IM .. II Mft Mk MH*
CM4»|M I1H71 41k 4IH IIH* H
II
•••IIII.M
IIB IIH Ilk II
u oi nft nk nn-
u
IRT M
irrcp IB
M** IM
IIIPMr .M
ITWt
Mran .44
WOO M
as4"
Mlto
IM III
Mn» s
hiru> IM
talk. IM
IntaM .M
Raul M
»«.k
(Oral .B
UbolM
lOTftVIU
IiKP I.M
RMkCttl.n
RMtlRIM
LA Of
UC| .M
UIU
l«UM .M
• \ftfff M
UIU 141
ItalM M
UvMiIJI
LHM
UlCW .0
UOkl IU
Um I
HKSk
ULC. in
ULral I
UPlCI 44
II
n u nk nk n»
HIM ok UK OH-
non UH UK UH-
' n in uft ISH in
41 II lift IIH IIH*
II IB nft Mft MH-I
Illlll SIH SIH HH*
II M MH MH MH
si IB nn n n -
U B4 Bft Bft BH-
.. 41 Bft Bft Mft
n m us UK uft-
., II MH MH BH*
.. O' IK IK IK-
.. IMI Ok O OH*
B U IIIH IIIH IIIH*
M Ml MH MH MH*
II B nn nn nk-
- i-* -
:. Ml Ik IK Ik
M M UK U B -
.. 4B II MH Bft
IS4M lift Mft Bft-
14 I IIH ISH »H-
U Ul Uft lift llft-
II UM MH Bk BH
.. 10 IH IH IH-
B IB BK UK BH*
IS SM Mk 4Mk MH
B M MH MH MH
II Bl MS BK MH
B4M OH OK MK-
M M MH UH BH-
II IIM UH IIH UH
- l-l -
.. H IH IH IH-
.. m • IH IH*
..410 Uft II llft-
u o ik ik lk-
ii u mt ns ITH-
IIM» Ok 41H 41H-
iimi MH Mk Bk-
U M Bft Bft MH*
ii in M aft ak-
IBM BH4IIH Ilft-
» in M nH 4iH-
i M M Bk nk* k
.. 41 IK IH Ift...
ii M nn nn nk...
41 in OH 41 41k..
MIM BH MH MH* k
II II OK' Ok Ok* ft
(MIDRIB
cnra
am M
OfmC
•m iu
PSI III
PnM Ml
PKCK IM
PKTrf IU
P*rW> IM
PMCC M
P»C*>
P|P»UIM
Pmnl I
P.PM .11
PipilC .M
PHtO M
nut IM
PtilpD 10
.. Mft Mk MH- k
IS II MH Mft Mft..
M in aft aft aft..
M M Bft Uft BH* K
Mil I I ..
M M IIH lift llft-
II MM IIH 4IH 4IH-
II M Uft Uft UH-
- p-a-
II in Mft MH Mk*
II M M Bft M -
II IS BH BH Mft
II M Mft M M -
BUB MH MH Oft
O 411 Uft lift Uk
II M Bft Bft Bk-
Bim Uft HH Ilk*
.. Ml Uft IIH II*-
I14V1 OH ak OH-
II IB SM BH BH
41 I4S OH 41ft IIH-
B m si Mft si
UMM MH Bft BH-
n IM BH B n -
HUB OS Ok Uk*
U M Ok Ok Ok-
mf 1
'
ii i i
'
UK..
•uoii n
««R* IM
•iMl. in
•mM IB
•«T| I
•>Lnl44
nttiTt.'
in
•MPtlM'
•IrRirt
•in
guise ••
in
MRM*
Rlkf« IB
UmpO M
Ralkl IM
U M MH Mft MH..
4MB Mft 41ft Mft- H
UMM BH BH Mk- H
IS IB BH OH Bl
B Ml 4TH 4TH 41*
14 in lift lift UH
a m B uft • *
B in nft si HK-
W M B Sift Sift
BIB ISH IIH IIH*
Ullll UH UH UH*
IIBMMH M MH-
M M BH B B -
U W Mft MH MH
is nn BH nk nH-
U 41 BH BH BH-
14 Ml MH MH Mk*
M 411 lift UH lift*
..Ml MH Mk MH
U II MH MH MH-
- R-R -
• nil IH IH IH-
II Ml Mft MH *•*-
B IM 4ft 4H 4H-
U M M MH Mft
B Bl MH BH M *
.. US MH Mft Mft-
II 4M MH 47k 41ft-
U IM M
.ISM IM IU
.on I-M IIB
JIB 1-B U-B
M IM IB
.11 M IB
.III IB II
u MS uk nft sift-
U Ml UH UH Uft*
.. S* Ift IH M-
II IB UH lift MH* ^
.. Ul Ift M IH,. TtCO I*
I4IBS HH HH.HHtJ».%I«» Ul>
fCCrplIB
ir.rc 14.
ImUiiM
KAMA tn
bbPI IM
StMl
tk»rt. M
st/tta. a
IMkfcl M.
Sail *"s
»—J<» .114
4MK.IB
••AMI
IB
I-C. IM
.1
Ml M BK M -
114 aft O ISH*
.IB lift UH lift-
in Ilk IIH Hft-
SIH BH us nn-
IMMtk Ok OH*
Ml MH MH MH-
IM UK UH OH*
M BH UK BH*
Bl Bk B M -
. UM OH OH 41k-
14 II Mk MH MH
IMI an BH MK-
• 14 lift IIH Ilk*
'111 UH Uk IIH*
IIMBft 17K Mft*
a IB OH Uk Uft
II 41 41 r, 41*-
107 Oft OH Ok-
1IM B IIH II*-
JM OH OH Mk*
. in BH BH 11*-
IMI 1 Ik 1 *
•MIMH BH Bk*
.411 Bk nk BH*
IM Ilk II II -
M BH Bft B»-
II U BH US !tk
IS UM lift lift Ilk .
. HI BH BH BH - k
- 1-1 -
IBMM OH IM* H
If I-OH Ok OS* k
Trttru O
Tiw»4lk
lM»n IB
Tom
TIIM. IB
TIIJMI .n
TliUUI IB
Tmna IB
T—.»! B
TMMir IM
rtftm I
l«f. M
THRU
i>«i« i
TIMK. M
Tr»tai I M
TriCvlM.
Tr*m M
T«i[f
TmU M
UAL<*
UCI IM
VNCkw
usirn 114
USPC M
USIHir M
UMUSI I
uciik n
B IM 1
.. a 11
nim i
is MI i
M u uv.
.. uu n1.
n m »H
ni a ii>.
.. a u
4 n i
niSB MS
u in tt**
.. IB UK
.. IIM IIS
.. a n
B Bl MK
O M B%
..M41 I
II 41 II
- •-• -
.. INI IBS
n B M*
U II IS
I44M1 Oli
SM tn IIK
M IM |1».
.. n us
is 01 us
To Increase
Interest Rates
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Federal Re-
serve Chairman Alan Greenspan
let Congress know be is not happy
with the country's "disappointing''
ktflitlon and indicated the central
bank stands ready to raise interest
rates to dampen price pressures.
Delivering his midyear assess-
ment of the economy, Greenspan
on Tuesday appeared to dash any
lingering hopes that the economy'!
poor performance this year would
prompt the Fed to cut interest
rates further.
•
NEW YORK - Several of the
nation's biggest banks reported bttv
tfiT'tnaivcxpe^jeo •amintja as prob-
lem loans declined, capital levels
' strengthened and fee income rose.
The results Tuesday from Citi-
Wpll« ffaTOtl
wein rargo
l
Bane One Corp..
Pn unit Riral Inlor
i/o. ana rirsi imer-
Attention
Merril
has op
Sera
Investment expertise
is now right in;
When you think of Merril
of stocks and bonds. But a.
with all of your financial ne
earned a reputation of trust
largest full-service firm in tl
Quality Personal Servlc
Our professionally traim
-------
I Targets
^roperties
trlhT it intends to hire Harbin
Ihp next board meeting.
n nnother tax matter, the board
'* updated on an attempt by The
w C.lnbe Store to have its assess
•nl reduced.
\brnharfisen said a trial ha.<
nn scheduled Oct. 18 in Lacks
'Una County Court on The New
•>be Store's appeal of its assessed
notion.
\brahamsen said the store is
•king to reduce its assessed val
lion by two thirds - from $12
I linn to $4 million.
ie said the city has agreed to
it the costs of fighting the ap-
il with the district.
, Barons
b Test Vision
)f Teen Athletes
The Northeastern Eye Institute
i\ the Scranlon-Wilkes-Barrr
d Rarons will join forces to
"vide area youngsters with a frer
i>rts vision screening Saturday
>m 9 a.m. to I p.m. at NEI, 20i<
ITIin Ave.
Hoys and girls through the teens
10 participate in school sports
>l other activities are eligible.
•ipace is limited, so appointments
• encouraged and can be made
contacting the institute.
ted Barons pitcher Jeff Patter-
•i will be on hand from 10 a.m.
til noon to greet the youngsters
ry Ann DeSanto will do the
eenings. *+••
tov_i vjui 10, littM-
V
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. EXTENDS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE
! ALADDIN PLATING SUPERFUND SITE
SCOTT AND SOUTH ABINGTON TOWNSHIPS, LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA
. _ \ :
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III, has completed the Proposed Remedial Action Plan for
the Aladdin Plating Superfund Site (site), which occupies 8.5 acres on Layton Road. The Proposed Plan presents
alternatives for addressing ground water contamination, and is based upon an EPA Remedial Investigation (Rl) and
Feasibility Study (FS).
The Rl examined the extent and nature of contaminants present at the site. The FS evaluated six remedial action
alternatives for the site and provides supporting information leading to the alternative selection by EPA.
EPA's preferred alternative for the site is Alternative 2, installing monitoring wells. Issuing land-use restrictions,
and conducting periodic ground water monitoring. This alternative Is preferred because K Is believed to best satisfy
evaluation criteria. The rernedlal alternatives EPA evaluated are: .. ..
1. No Action (with ground water monitoring)
2. Installation of two monitoring wells, land-use restrictions, and ground
water monitoring i • . •
3. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with Off-site treatment and disposal
4. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with On-slte treatment and disposal
5. Chemical banters . '. . . ,. . . ..,\
8. Chemical alteration and Immobilization .
Public Comment Period on
Alternatives In Proposed Ptan
Extended From: •
August 19.1993 to
September 8,1993
The preferred alternative Is only a preliminary determination. EPA encourages the public to comment on the alternatives
listed hi the Proposed Plan.. EPA will choose the. final remedy afterthe Public Comment Period ends and may select
any one of the alternatives after taking the public's comments into account. •; '-.,". - ":;'"'.','.
Hie Comment Period began on July 21,1993. EPA held a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan
preferred alternatve on Thursday, August B, 1993 at 7:OO pjn. at the Chinchilla Fire House, Shady Lane,
lla. EPA has extended the public comment period to run through September 6,1993. • . .
The RI/FS, copies of the Proposed Remedial Action Plan, and other site related documents hi the Administrative Record
are available at the Scott Township Municipal Building. RR 1. Route 457, Olyphant, PA 18447 (717) 254-8989 and at
the South AMngton Township Building. 104 Shady Lane. Montdale. PA 18410(717) 588-2111. ,. ,. "
The Public
andthe
Chlnchll
Written comments should be sent postmarked no
later than September 5.1993 to:
Gregory Ham (3HW22)
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 19107 -
For more Information regarding the site,
please contact:
Lisa Brown (3EA21)
• Community Relations Coordinator
, . • U.S. EPA, Region III .
.841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 191O7
!
rfft
-------
ih'IV Til llCIIISCWIVr*. *
.•I ; cirl sils down in my I
- rvery tirl is diffcrenl,"
iiitr >r'!,itllc Rock, Ark. "I
ink. '.hem up lo look all
said Ihc changes represent
•ressure for Ihc conlcslanls,
f whom don'l know how lo ,
nnkc up (hal works under v
c of television lights. 'i
iv.V it's going (o hurt (the
•Vskcsaid. "•••-•
>lis, vho has produced five
ny Awards shows and other
cials, said the pageant musi- .
nbcrs will compete with the
Ihc Oscars.
v'rc really going lo have a
diffcrenl flavor and slylc,"
I
mlhcr new twist, each con-
must shoot a 3 lo 5 minute
video describing her life.
lies will be edited to about
onds and broadcast while
•f Ihc 10 finalists parades
lie stage.
rrs also will sec footage
C Ihc daily experiences of
anls during their two weeks
mlic City leading up lo Ihc
tallation
warns of
screw holes drilled into the
hat spans the highway didn't
the holes on (he sign.
ausc of these complications,
oration that we know from
xpcricncc should have only
20 minutes, look much
." said Leo Lconctti, assist-
ojccl engineer for PcnnDOT.
• a.m., the beginning of the
ng rush hour, the sign was
it affixed to the 156-foot long
according police. Workers at
nlockcd both the north and
iound lanes as they conlin-
try.
'isands of motorists were dc-
bcforc the sign was finally in
a little after 6 a.m. ,
11 DOT apologized for the mls-
I Smllh Inc. Mrmbrr SITC.
mci • •»»
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INVITES PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ... ., .
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE ' ., . .
ALADDIN PLATING SUPERFUND SITE ^
SCOTT AND SOUTH ABINGTON TOWNSHIPS, LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III, hai completed the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the Aladdin Plating Superfund Site (site), which
occupies 8.5 acres on Layton Road. -The Proposed Plan presents alternatives for
7-00 p.m. (o ithOft p.m. j addressing ground water contamination, and Is based ubon an EPA Remedial Investt-
; CWnchtila Fire House | gation (RO and Feasibility Study (FS). ' • ... , ;^ . .. •
Shady Lane, Chiathilto ' The Rl examined the extent and nature of contaminants present at the site.' The FS
\ . evaluated six remedial action alternatives for the site and provides supporting Informa-
tion leading to the alternative selection by EPA.
EPA's preferred alternative for the site Is Alternative 2, installing monitoring wells, Issuing land-use restrictions,
and conducting periodic ground water monitoring. Iftls alternative Is preferred because it Is believed to best satisfy
evaluation criteria. The remedial alternatives EPA evaluated are:
1. No Action (with ground water monitoring)
2. Installation of two monitoring wells, land-use restrictions, and ground
water monitoring
3. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with Off-site treatment and disposal
4. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with On-site treatment and disposal
5. Chemical barriers : '* .
6. Chemical alteration and Immobilization
, July 21,1993 to
;
-------
Hew York Stock Exchang*
N 'VOflllUP)-whrlMIMIiMUlMl OnE IM II M Bft Bft Bft* H Itarite .. IIB Ilk Ilk II * k au,U IU II
- THE SCRANTON TIMES, WEDNESDAY, JUL¥»21f 1993*.
( VOKK IAP) - Mete* . .
l» Ywt Itevl EwhMI* IMVM:
A/I AC ..
ABU
AS* ••'' I
Alavli M
A]>IM>'
r«.'« M
. > EM
«M»»I I M
Vrm IM
"<"=
A] re'
Alb;
Uituii'n
AOM i.n
i IM
AIMCr M
Akjln M
AT4T In
\Mftrtll
AfnUt M
Ah*** IM
UWHI I
MJUAIM
tapf
MtBCOO
•net IK
KfOM IM
WY IM
ulABlM
•bit III
HlAU IB
•ns» sn
:3'"
•IhSU
tnl»
ItaO M
IrlHI I
loctt .U
S3 J
+4** I*
-IE. in
pn it**
CN* IM
rscoiM
IS E»f
- A-A-
II in BK Bft BH- ft
..IMI Mk Oft M * ft
.. IM Oft Mft Mft-.
IIMil B Bft Bft* ft
IIBB Bft Mft B * ft
M at Mft Mk Mft- ft
. II IMI Bft lift M - ft
II BI lift 41K 41ft- ft
.. M lift lift lift* K
.. IB II II II * ft
It 4M «k MK Ok* K
n n Bk Uk Uft..
, u nil nk BK Bk * ft
M M nft MK Mft- K
.. BI BK BK Uft- k
ill MI 4ik 4ik nk- k
• IB uk nk nk- k
HIM M -Uft . Uk- k
14 M nft nk nk- k
' a IMI lift lift UK- ft
lino M ak aft- ft
n nt iBk IB IB -I
u M ak.uk aft* H
BMn«n Mft Mk- k
i ii HI nk ilk nk...
.u IB uk uk nk- k
n nu nk Bk uft...
n in uft B Bk- H
u M ik IK ik* k
M m B BK Bk* k
II im 41k 41 41 - K
• 14 IB lift lift lift* ft
HUB nft nft Bk* »
.. m ift t i - ft
.. m nft UK iik- ft
.. B ilk ii. iik..
.. m nn nft nk- ft
II IM IHk Illk III * ft
.. I Ift 4ft 4k...
B I Ilk IIK UK..
n II uk UK ilk..
II M4 Bft BK BK- k
It IMI Uk lift Ilk- ft
II M Ilk Mk Mft- ft
H 1 Ilk lift lift- ft
".. M~Bft Uk Bk..
.. BI ik ik ift...
II BI Bft Bk ttk...
14 UI Mk Ilk M - k
II IM Hk Hk M * k
II IHI Mk 41k MK- k
i» nk nn nk-H
u IMI 4ik n 41 - k
n IM nk nft nk- k
n M nft 11 11 - k
u HI Hft Mk Mk- K
u a nk lift nk- k
.. B ik ik m..
.. M lift UK lift* k
in Mi iik nk nk- k
.. BI ilk nk nk- k
it nn nk B a - k
niai ak ak BH* ft
• an uft M Bk* k
.. at nk a a ..
..iM4 nk4iik nk- ft
14 B Bk B Bk* k
I4BM Uk Uk Hh* ft
.. IIM Uk U Ilk* ft
u BI nk n nn* ft
m M uk UK uk* k
II BI Mk Uft Uk- k
B M ak 41ft 41k- ft
- e-c -
n n Bift nik Bik- k
u IM iik nn ilk..
14 41 Uft Uk BK* k
.. BI Bk Bk Bk* k
u as 4ik 4ift 4ik* k
B n ik Ik Ik- k
u » nk iik iik- ft
u IMI ak ok a * ft
II 4M Ilk B Bk* k
B O MK Mk Ml *l
II UI Ilk IIK HK- k
B II Bk BK Bk* k
14 IM U Bk Uk- k
..Ml 7Ik n HK-lft
II n II lift lift..
11* w*. w»t «••» "
Q»»E IM II M'Mk Bft Bft* ft
CPirr III IU U lift lift lift- H
UU1M Mft M «»*Ift
B M Bk nk aft..
II III Mft Mk Mk* k
CMrpr .. im ilk n Hk* k
CnratllB U4H IIK Bft II - ft
d»E4 IM II M M B« BK- H
C**NO IJ« B IM Oft OH Oft-.
CUUf B M Ilk IM U - ft
OUK* I .. IM lift lift Uft* ft
CMMT IB It Ml 4M Oft Mft- K
CH»k«l« M BIB U BK Bft- ft
C»ICH*4Hj IIMBUk BK II * k
citriu .. u nk n n * ft
II BI BK Mft MK- H
II IO M Mft Mft- ft
u I nft nft nk..
.. M Hk Uk Hft* ft
2.3
.sr
DPI,
ME
II II M Bk BK BK- H
M II II Mk Mk HK* ft
IM M B4 Mk MK Mk- ft
.. in i ift IH..
W1UUIM II M Mk U OH* K
Pxr* IM HI m M BK »K- H
DilUAtrM ..110 Mft Mft 41k- ft
PME4 IM II M Hft Bk Bft- ft
OUK* 111 o u nk nft nk* ft
wend .. no nft nft nft...
PbM> a BMM Mft Mft Hft- ft
(Kb M U n Bft Hk Bft..
IO - HMO Oft 41ft- ft
M II M 4Ift 41ft 41k- ft
Pna IM M'IM nk nk nk- ft
M m Bk BK BK- ft
.
i.n
D«taf IM
Dnral M
bub 141
EM* 1
CU»I
(rU> .M
uoo
tonDIM
II m Bft Oft OK- ft
ii 4»i aft ak a»- »
a m nft u lift- k
. -1-1 -
BUB nk Mft ak* ft
n 4B n aft nft- ft
HIM lift UK MK- ft
» ui UK aft aft* H
n M nft BK «k_.
H m ii M n ..
HIM lift nk nft- ft
n in nft uk ak- ft
n M UK B u ...
uiiu nk Mk nk* K
t m IM lift IM...
n IIM Mft aft Mk..
M O 41ft 4t 41k» k
14 M Mk NK MK- ft
r*4»ra .. 4t IK Ik Ik- k
r«4Cn n HI iik uk nftjrft
P«lh>i«M II Ml MH Mft Mft- H
P.JNM |M It 1441 Uk Uk Uk- ft
PIMSy I 14 M HK Mft MK- k
FiH*klU> .. Ill MH Mk Mk- k
PI«IU IM 14 M Bk Mk O » ft
PMblM II Ml IM Ilk lift..
P1IMH M It M Mft Hft Bk- k
u ia MK Mk Mk..
M BI ak ak aft- ft
nuiB .11 ii u iik u uk* H
r>H> IM ..MM aft UK uic.
rtnucin 11 in IM uk UK* k
IU
UKP IM
- '—tin
Kmw
LAG*
LAC | M
UIU
UUM .M
LnEM .M
U» IU
Umltt M
LbrNUi IB
LHM
UlCtot .41
Urn I
l)UJ»
itu* i.n
LAUid I
UPUI 44
WCM
CTE IB
C*b»
II
1 Ik M
C.DT>IM<
CMEI in
n
CUE •
GPU l.lt
USIlWl B
Cvwr*
bPM IU
GtkPJi U
CIIWI* M
GMwr B
C4rt>t IB
HUB Mk Mk Bft- ft
..HM IIK nft iik- ft
ii in oft oft o«- ft
a o> a ak aft..
n ni lift uk uk...
IB 10 uk aft aft- ft
II M«Mft MK Bk* ft
IIBB Mk Uk MK- ft
II i IM uk uk* k
II M Bk Ok OH* ft
.. an o oft Mft- ft
M IU Mft Mk BK- k
u in UK uk Bft- ft
ii a IIK aft UK* ft
II IM Ift 1ft Ik- ft
M M Mk MK Mk* k
14 IM Mk Mk Mk* k
nun uft UK Uk- k
U4M UK IIK IIK..
.. IB 4H 4 4H* H
I IB 4M M Ok* H
.. II «k MK Mk* k
I1I4T1 41k 41k 4IK* k
•MriblM
•APCO I
•mw n
•wIM IM
• HC> M
•u«
•woi i n
••XXB
Mctxrt ,1
MrDaM'O
HrlMOlM
•rtj.ll IM
MrKM IM
••»•> IB
••MM i a
«n« IB
I
NklTt B>
•I4VIU> III
Mm in
HIM PL IB'
lltt
UmT* IU
ItarfMtO
HMWlll M
IIB Ilk Ilk II * k
U BI nft nk nH- ft
H in n n - k
.. B ik ik ik- k
n u nk nk nk..
HUB 4» Oft Oh- k
HOB ilk ilk uk- k
- 1-1 -
' It m Uft IM IM..
M II Ilk UK UK* K
u m nk ok BK-ift
IIIUI UK «k UK* H
II O Mk Mk MK...
u IH nt » n - K
U M Bk Bk BK- K
.. II Bft Bft Bft..
n m UK nk ntt- H
., U Bk Bft Bft* H
.. a- ift ik ik- k
..mi 4ik 41 an* ft
a UUM mk IIIK* ft
M Ml Mk MK MK* K
II M nft nk nk- k
.. M> Ift Ift Ik..
• M ak a a -k
.. 01 II IM Bft-.
HIM Uk Hk Hft- ft
U I IIK UK IM- K
M HI lift Uk IH- k
II IMI MK MK Bft..
.. IO Ift 1ft Ik- ft
a a> a« nft HK* H
U IM UkMM MH-.
a B MK MK HK..
. II Ml BK Bk Mk..
D4M Mk Oft Mft- ft
M M uk Bk nk- k
II IIM Uk Uk Ilk..
- l-l -
.. H M M M- ft
..mi ift ift* ft
..4141 IM H Hft- ft
U O Ift Ik Ik- ft
n u nft nH m- K
IIMH OH 41K nH- K
linn aft aft BH- K
H M Bft Bft UK* ft
U in M aft ak- ft
IBM a* ai* iik- ft
it ia o nH nk- ft
• MM Uk Bk* k
.. 41 Ik tft IV
u B nk nk nk...
41 m ok o 4ik...
HIM! aft BH BH* H
II 11 Oft- «« OH* H
~U~I~IIH UH Ilk..
II 111 1ft 1ft IK.
II II Bft B M ..
M 10 IIK nft nk..
II 141 II Mft MK...
a Ml ak Bk aft- k
u M Ik I M..
H M HK Bft Bft- K
in IIM u IM lift- ft
a ii a BK Bk- k
U Ml Ok UK 4M..
HM*tk ak UK* ft
II BI Ilk Mft 41ft- K
u Bt aft aft aft- K
M IB IIK 41k UK- ft
I n Bft Bft Uk- ft
II 441 MK M Mk* ft
II II lift lift Uft- k
HIM nk Bk Bk* k
• BI aft an an* k
Mini aft ak ok* ft
BU Ilk Ilk lift
U 4M IIM IMK IMft- ft
H I Bk BK BH-ft
41 m O M Mft* ft
mm nn OK BK- ft
u in MH nft nft-ift
M in nft nft nft- ft
linn IM OK os-ik
BUB nk Mk Mk- k
HM.U IH II EH Mk Mk Mk- k
OfehCE IM II II Mk MH MH..
«to IM a in aft uft uft-.
ONEOKIM u M nft nft aft* ft
onio oil I • ..
urn M M M IM Uft Ilk-
On>C II MM lift 41k 41k-
0
PkllPO III
n»«
•m in
PSI III
Pn EM B>
PicCE IM
PxM III
PMK»IM
PMEC M
P»fCW M
PtlCiki
P»M«T • 141
PaPvU IU
PlMfol I
P.H-T II
P»plC .M
PttlD B
Pltar 10
II in Oft OH OH*
II EM M aft M -
» n Mft Mk Mk
II M Mk M M -
HIM Mk Mk Oft
a 111 ilk iik uk
II M 8ft Bft BK.
BI41I Bft lift lift*
.. IB Uft UK IIK-
II«1 «k UK •ax-
il IU IM BH Bft
n iu nft aft itft-
B IN II Wft II
BUM Bk Bk Bk-
a IM Bk a n -
II ISM BH UK UK*
Dividend
NIPSCO IB U M Bk B Bft...
NtM .. a ik ik ik* k
Hair* M 11 14 Bk B B - k
NairUlM . 11 II Mk Mk Mk...
Nil .. B II lift lift- ft
Utalil Uml Iff*
OilOtnt tan
bUMiUtll .
,
Cm*
• a
Ml II II
a in in
.U IB III
a in in
.U M HI
IB M
IB Ml
IB HI
IH t|l
IM III
IB Ml
»ll HI
M Ml
111 Ml
IB M*
Ml Ml
Ml IM
IB IH
IB IB
M M
in MI
« ii
Q M
s:
??'
.»
S B
9 S
M
ftaraO M
P*HEC IB
Pro* • B
FitocoM
Pnrlte III
Plied I
P1EC til
RC"3
OMiiOin
qutx M
«raurlll
Mil Nik
MfcPo IB
UWO M
IKXhl 10
*•*•» B
n-jmi I
«m M
MUAU M
••rtwl I
MHO 4Ui
H Ml Mft IM B»
• OB Oft 47ft 41k-
UI4M Bft BK Bft-
11 IB ak Bft aft*
B Ml OK 4M 4IK*
H IU lift IM Uft
a IB B in B *
B in nft n nu-
ll H n lift lift
NIB IM IM IM*
nun UK Uk Uk*
UBMHk M Mft-
H M Bk B B -
U B4 Mft HK MK
Illlll Bft nk Wi-
tt 41 Bft Bk Bft-
II Ml Mk Bk Bk*
B 411 Ilk IIK lift*
.. Ml MH BK MK
II II Mft Hft Mft-
- •-•-
• mi ik M IK-
II M Mk MK MK-
B IB Ik 4k 4K-
U Ml B Mft Uft
B UB BK BK M »
.. IB Hk Mk 41ft-
II 4H Ok 41K 41k-
U in II Ilk Hk*
II Ml UK UK llft-
U M Uk UK Uk*
..BMM M-
II IB Uk Uk IM*
.. UI M >H M-.
HIM MH Hft.Hk*.*
1 Ml B HK UK- ft. Tdtn
i.\m
B
- 4-4 -
IIM H ak H -
• IH ok tt Uk*
..IBilk IIK llk-
> m UK UK nk-
nnuaft nk nk-
.4 M«ok ak aft*
.4 BI OK MH OH-
IIM Uk UK Oft*
I B Bk Bk BK*
• at BH B n -
. IM Ok Ok ok-
II II Hk Hk Bk
IBI nk Bk Bk-
• 14 ilk UK nk*
'in HK nH ilk*
IIMMK nk Mk*
a IM ak uk uk
n a nft «ft-
IMI ak ak ak-
;IM B Uk lik-
3M OK Ok Mk*
. in ak Bk uk-
IM 1 Ik 1 *
MdM BH BK*
.411 BK nft BK*
IM Ilk II II -
m Bk ak nk-
II B BK BK BK
II HM IIK lift lift
til BH Bk Uft-
- T-f -
i in MM ok OK*
I IM^ik OK OK*
TiMr O
MM O
TaUf* B
taiM IB
Tnlwl .H
T.iUUl IB
Tf «n» I M
T«UM
T«c« M
TBIRU
n*»» I
Triun O
TravlwIM
TriCM IM»
TwiEP
T>nU O
UALCf
UCI IH
UNChtt
USWH IH
USPC B
USXUw O
USIU1I I
ucu* n
.. 14 TV.
II III I*1*
41 111 .
M II I
B M I
.. B II
.. M HS
.. n sh
M 10 Bh
tuni 1
it MI t
H U U*.
.. IMI IV.
n M BH
ni M ah
.. B 11
I n i
II IBI MS
II III MH
.. IB Ilk
.. IMI IIS
.. n 14
B M M»
O M B%
..4441 4
II « 41
- •-•-
.. IBI IB**
tt B MS
II II IS
II4MI HI.
BI m II'.
« TM IIS
.. n us
u at us
• »•
VS t"
To Increase
Interest Rates
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Federal Re-
serve Chairman Alan Greenspan
let Congress know he is not happy
with the country's "
-------
- The Tribune, Scranton, Pa. — Thursday. July 22, 1993 — C-»
lights to sf idy OBE reforms once new board is seated
rhe Ab
;t William Spady, a nationally
cognized OBE proponent, is an
•h'.ervable demonstration of
mwledge, combined with compel-
in , combined with orientations."
The major domains or OBE are
mi the student shall know, what
o sdident shill be able to do and
lat the student shall be like.
cni'ling to information provided
f. >ady.
Tlv_- current educational system
Uised on *ich student earning
ninny Carnegie Unit credits in
•cific areas of study, such as
.thematics, science, social
lulies and Eaflish.
While Thompson said he would
ke to have proponents and oppo-
cnts alike at a meeting, Assistant
uperintendent Leonard Vender
lid the debate is over because
hapter 5 has been mandated.
"How it's defined is the choice of
'ie community," he said: "That's
hat the strategic planning com-
ijttee and the board will have to
ecide."
The strategic planning commit-
•e, which includes three board
icmbers, five teachers, adminis-
ators and members of the busi-
css community last met in
inuary, but put its meetings on
ing cutter i of as good
ty for hear' disease
;s maior drtwback
: i the larferof the latest studies,
netted by Ik. Eric J. Topol of the
!• vpiand Clhk Foundation, doc-
> randomk assigned 1,012 pa-
•nU at 39 Mpitals in the United
»te$ and Btfope to have atherec-
ntly of the pharmaceutical firm.
The research "basically shows
lat they are both viable alterna-
ves.
"They provide the doctor with
nother choice in treating pa-
ients," said David Pomfret, an Eli
.illy spokesman.
The new findings do not neces-
arily mean the device has been
•ised inappropriately in individual
s .believe ather-
rtxttev for some
KtftU toresfond
M.anpoplasty, such as oddly
ild-ups. ,.,"'•
Hit an editorial in the journal, Dr.
'Obn* A>.'Bittl 'of Brigham and
rn'.TflHUlftli^aBflopI
• imMBahospltall
itb 'Ooi^aiBHiU wtr>
•lociorrsnouicrcnoose , _..
joplasty in m6st cases "because it
i the safer and more cost effective
>f the two procedures."
hiatus because of the teachers'
strike, said Director Bonnie Peru-
Eini, who serves on the committee.
She also said the committee also
sought to bring in more segments
of the community. It will continue
to discuss the changes by the state,
she said, but it is nowhere near
making any decisions on what
changes may occur within the dis-
trict.
"As far as I'm concerned, that
committee is in place. That com-
mittee knows what we want as a
community," she said.
Vender also said the committee
stopped meeting until the final
step was taken in approval of the
Chapter 5 regulations. Last week,
the attorney general also looked at
the regulations to see if any were
in violation of the state constitu-
tion and did not find any viola-
tions, he said.
Thompson said he believed the
taxpayers have a right to know as
much as possible about the
changes and how they will affect
the educational system.
But Vender said bringing in pro-
ponents and opponents of OBE
from outside the district may only
cause friction because they may be
pushing their own agendas with no
concern for the district.
"We could be in compliance with
those regulations pretty much with
what we're doing right now," he
said. "What we want to do is build
on the good things we're doing
now."
While the strategic planning com-
mittee will reconvene to discuss
the matter in public, Thompson
suggested the committee wait until
after December, when the new
board members take office. The
three board members — Perugini,
>Terry Singer and Steuart Bailey —
who serve on the committee now
will be out of office in December.
resigned about two weeks
•••••••---•••
ent Elvin C. LaCoe said damage
from a fire Monday evening at the
Abington Heights Middle School is
estimated at $500,000.
The fire caused a considerable
amount of damage to the heart of
the school's electrical system. The
reason for the cost being so high is
because of the damage to the
school's communications network,
including video equipment, he
said.
The fire is still under investiga-
tion, LaCoe said, but he thanked
the three volunteer fire companies
who helped contain the fire —
Newton-Ransom, Clark's Summit
and Chinchilla.
The school will be ready for
operation in September, he said.
In another matter, Superintend-
Clipboard
LAS VEGAS OCT. 3.7
DIRECT CHARTER FROM AVOCA
LAST C/IMJ
ONLY 30 SEATS LEFT
FROM $439
PRINCESS CRUISES^
BUY 1 GET 1 FREE
PLUS AIRFARE
FALL CARIBBEAN CRUISE
C/tLL NOW!
IRELAND OCT. ia-23
*1429PP
TRdVELWRLD
10 Green Ridge St., Scranlon
342-5790 - 655-4003
SCRANTON
CRAFTSMEN
930 Dunmore St., Throop. PA
CUSTOM MADE
IRON RAILINGS
There I* A D/rVer»nc»
In Custom Mode
Iron A Aluminum Railing*
WCASt
CONCRETE
STEPS
SCRANTON 347-5125
WILKES BARRE 824-0389
MT. POCONO 839-8095
CftRBONDAtE 489-8462
REWARD!
UNCLAIMED SCHOOL SEWING MACHINES
SINGER'S Educaton Department placed orders in anticipation of torpe school
sales. Due to budget cuts, these sates were unclaimed. These machines must
be soldi Al machines offered are the most modem machines In (he SINGER '
LINE. These rnachines are MADE OF METAL and sew on aR fabric*: Levi's. '
canvas, upholstery, nylon, sketch vinyl. Ok. EVEN SEW ON LEATHER!
Jhesemachinesarenewwitha10-yearwafTanty.Wilhtf>enew1993SINGER '
youJusI set the dial and sea magic happen. Straight sewing, zigzag, button-
holds (any size), hem. monogram, satin stitch, embroidery, applique, sew on
buttons and snaps; topstitch, straight stJtch...aR this and more. Without the
need ol old-fashioned cams or programmers. Your price with this ad $139.00,
wilhoulaH«/«K> r-.«-h «-K«H, ««/~AI:-,
-------
Responsiveness Summary
Aladdin Plating Site
Scott and South Abington Townships
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
This Responsiveness Summary documents public comments received
by EPA during the public comment period on the Proposed Plan for
the Aladdin Plating Site ("the Site"). It also provides EPA's
responses to those comments. The Responsiveness Summary is
organized as follows:
SECTION I Overview
This section summarizes recent actions at the Site and the
public's response to the remedial alternatives listed in the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan (Proposed Plan) . The Proposed Plan
outlines various cleanup alternatives available to address Site
contamination and highlights EPA's preferred alternative.
SECTION II Background on Community Involvement
This section provides a brief history of community interest in
the site and identifies key issues.
SECTION III Summary of Major Comments and Questions Received
During the Public Meeting and EPA's Responses
This section documents comments and questions from the public
that were voiced during the public meeting regarding the Site and
EPA's responses to them.
SECTION IV Summary of Written Comments and Questions Received
During the Comment Period and EPA's Responses
This section documents written comments and questions from the
public regarding the Site and EPA's responses to them.
I. Overview
The public comment period on the Proposed Plan for this Site
began on July 21, 1993 and ended on September 5, 1993. This
included a 15-day extension requested by a citizen. EPA held a
public meeting at the Chinchilla Fire House on August 5, 1993.
Copies of the newspaper advertisements announcing the meeting and
comment period are attached.
-------
The following participants were present at the meeting:
EPA
Lisa Brown Community Relations Coordinator
Gregory Ham Remedial Project Manager
Fran Burns Eastern PA Remedial Section Manager
Al Peterson Community Relations Manager
PER
Paul Panek Project Manager
At the meeting, EPA representatives summarized the results of the
Remedial Investigation (RI), Feasibility Study (FS), and the Risk
Assessment performed for the Site. EPA presented the preferred
alternative to address Site contamination. The Proposed Plan
addressed the remaining area of contamination: the shallow water-
bearing zone in the immediate area of the former electroplating
building and surface impoundments. The preferred alternative for
the Site presented to the public was Institutional Controls with
Groundwater Monitoring. Institutional controls identified for the
public included deed restrictions, orders, or other actions
prohibiting any excavation, installation of wells, or other
disturbances to the area of contamination at the Site.
The public was given an opportunity to ask questions or submit
written comments on the alternatives outlined in the Proposed Plan
and the results of the RI/FS for the Site. The comments and EPA's
responses are summarized, and in some cases combined, in Section
III and IV of this document. They are not presented in the order
received at the meeting. The complete transcript of the public
meeting is contained in the Administrative Record file for the
Site.
SECTION II Background on Community Involvement
Throughout the history of EPA's involvement in this site,
there have been opportunities for public involvement in the site
cleanup process. A number of public meetings were held during the
emergency removal action and during the remedial action. There has
been significant public interest in the activities at the Site.
Public comments were noted, and changes were made to the planned
actions where they could be accommodated.
For this Record of Decision, a formal public meeting, as
discussed above, was held. In addition, a public availability
session was held on September 24, 1993 to allow all interested
citizens to ask questions directly to EPA representatives about the
Proposed Plan and the work that has been done at the Site during
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The main concerns
espressed at these meetings were that EPA is proposing to leave the
contamination on-site. Also, the application of deed restrictions
-------
to the property on which the former electroplating plant was
located is seen as having a negative impact on the community.
These actions are seen as having an adverse impact on property
values. There were several comments to the effect that EPA should
"finish the job" of cleaning up the Site, and not leave any
contamination remaining on the Site.
SECTION III Summary of Comments and Questions from the Public
Meeting
Comment #1; The proposed alternative does not remove the
contamination from the Site. One of the four active remediation
measures should be tried, or if these aren't effective, some other
method of cleaning up the Site should be found and implemented.
EPA Response; The proposed alternative was selected based on a
review of the nine criteria established in the National Contingency
Plan for selection of remediation alternatives. EPA has already
performed extensive actions to clean up the principal threats at
the Site, including the remaining plating wastes, the building
itself, and the contaminated soil. The source of contamination has
been removed, and the remaining contamination is limited to a small
pocket of water in the shallow water-bearing zone. The risk
assessment indicated that the current risk level with the Site in
its undisturbed condition is within acceptable levels, since this
contamination is not affecting the drinking water aquifer and there
is no possibility of direct contact with the chromium.
EPA screened all the technologies that were potentially
applicable to this Site. The four active remediation alternatives
that were evaluated in the FS were selected from this screening
process as those that were most likely to be suitable for use at
the Site. EPA is not aware of other methods that would work under
the unusual conditions presented by this Site.
As discussed in the Proposed Plan, the four active remediation
measures considered are not believed to be capable of reducing
chromium to levels equivalent to background. Each has
uncertainties or problems associated with it. Given that current
risk conditions are within acceptable levels for protecting human
health and the environment, and the background ARAR can't be met
with any of the alternatives, EPA has selected Alternative 2,
Institutional Controls with Ground Water Monitoring.
Comment #2; The soil cleanup should have gone further, to find the
source of the contamination in the shallow water-bearing zone.
EPA Response: EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1988 that
determined that a soil cleanup at the Site was necessary. Based on
this ROD, EPA initiated the remedial action to remove the
contaminated soil from the site. At that time it was recognized
that a groundwater study was needed, but that this would be
-------
completed after the soil removal. The soil removal was designed to
meet specific objectives: to excavate contaminated soil to a depth
where chromium levels in soil were below 50 parts per million
(ppm), and to ship this soil offsite for proper disposal.
The soil cleanup proceeded with these objectives, and was
completed. Soil testing conducted as the excavation occurred
indicated that the 50 ppm level was reached. Subsequent sampling
during the RI/FS confirmed that the soil cleanup was effective.
During the excavation, it was noted that water collecting in
the excavated areas did contain chromium. Some of the accumulated
water was rainwater, but some was clearly seeping in from the soils
adjacent to the excavation. The seepage was generally not visible,
but water would accumulate slowly in the bottom of the excavation.
This water was tested, and shipped offsite for proper disposal.
The objectives of this action were to address soil
contamination, so it was decided that the excavated areas would be
backfilled, and the groundwater study would be initiated. Based on
the ROD that had been issued, EPA would have been exceeding its
authority to proceed with efforts to remediate groundwater at that
time.
Comment #3; Couldn't the entire area of contamination be excavated
to remove the contaminated media?
EPA Response: This is probably the only sure way of removing the
contamination. However, excavation of soil to remove ground water
would be impractical because the large volume of soil and ground
water would make this approach very expensive (as costly or more
than the previous cleanup) and disruptive to the environment and
the community. The low risk presented by the Site does not justify
such extraordinary measures or costs. Excavation to this depth
might also open increase the potential for the contamination to
infiltrate to greater depths. Disturbing the conditions of the
sub-surface materials (which have such a low permeability) might
allow the contamination to move deeper prior to completion of the
action.
Comment #4; Could wells be placed throughout the Site to withdraw
the contaminated water?
EPA Response; Installation of wells, which are then pumped to
withdraw contaminated groundwater is the standard treatment for
groundwater contamination. However, at this Site, the soil
permeability is so low that pumping is ineffective. During
sampling at the Site, monitoring wells typically ran dry prior to
yielding three well volumes of water. Many of these wells took
several days to recharge. This makes pump and treat systems
infeasible for this Site.
-------
ALADDIN HATING SITE: Of-SITE MONITORING WELLS
SELirnZ) PRIORITY PCXIXTTRNT METRLS
OCTOBER 1987 SAMPLING RESULTS
WELL 1
Mtf-01-ce
DUPLICATE
MV-01-AV
DUPLICATE
MW-01-RW
DUPLICATE
MW-C2-CB
W-02-SA
MW-C2HW
Mf-03-CB
DUPLICATE
Mf-04-CB
MV-C4-SA
Mf-W-DA
nw C5 OB
HW-C5-SA
Hw-ee-cB
HW-d6-AV
HW-06-RW
nnj) BLANK
FELD BLANK
ANTDCNY' ARSHtrC
(ngA) (ag/1)
— Ma: C.C5
C.3 —
~ "
C.2 0.002
0.3 0.002
0.2 —
C.2 —
••M
— C.01
C.2 C.CC6
— C.CC9
— C.W3
— C.CC2
— —
— —
— C.CC3
CHRCKnM OQPPSl
(no/I) (ng/1)
Ma: C.C5 Ma: 1.0
C.067 —
0.053 —
0.076 —
0.12 —
0.005 —
C.004 —
0.005 —
0.013 —
C.I —
€.62 —
C.61 —
C.C07 —
«.C7S 0.03
0.« C.C2
0.008 0.06
«.u? —
C.CC9 —
C.C3S —
C.M6 —
C.CC4 —
C.CC8 —
NICKEL SELENIUM ZINC
(ng/1) (no/1) (ng/1)
— Ma: C.01 " Ma: 5.0
— — 0.03
— — 0.02
— — 0.02
0.02 — C.02
— — 0.01
— — 0.02
— — 0.03
— — 0.C5
— — —
— — C.03
— — — .
— — C.16
— — C.C2
— — —
— C.CC5 —
— — C.C2
— — C.C2
— — C.C2
— — —
_ — —
N0IE: No data for well MW-C5-DA due to insufficient water colun> at taae of sanpliag.
-------
FORMER SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
FORMER ELECTROPLATING
BUILIDNG
LIMITS OF RA EXCAVATION
FORMER SURFACE
DRAINAGE
SHALLOW MONITORING NELL (19911
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL (1991)
SOIL BORING (19911
SOIL EXCAVATION OUTLINE
FIGURE 4
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
-------
//
Contour X t»rv«l /
Concentration Mng« (ppbi
0 - 10
10 -100 •
100 - 1,000
1,000 - 10,000
10,000 - 100,000
up to 174,000
.LIMITS Or RA EXCAVATION
LEGEND
© - SHALLOW MONITORING WELL <1987)
© - SHALLOW MONITORING WELL <1991>
M - DISSOLVED HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATIONS
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
CONTOUR INTERVAL • LOG OF AVERAGE
DISSOLVED HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATIONS
SCM.C IN rCCT
ALflDDJN PLflTING RJ/FS
DISSOLVED HEX/WflLENT
CHROMIUM ISOCONCENTRATION LINE
IN THE SHALLOH HATER-BEARING ZONE
AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY LINES
FIGURE 5
-------
LIMITS OF RA EXCAVATION
FORMER SURFACE
> IMPOUNDMENTS •
^-^
FORMER ELECTROPLATING
BUILIDNO
>
UKOSRW
\
Q
0
o
*
A
LEGEND
• SHALLOW MONITORING WELL (1987)
- INTERMEDIATE MONITORING WELL (1987)
• BEDROCK MONITORING WELL 0987)
• SHALLOW MONITORING WELL (1991)
• BEDROCK MONITORING WELL (1991)
- SOIL BORING (1991)
FORMER SURFACE
DRAINAGE
0UWHOBXX
IN FEET
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
ALL MONITORING WELLS
ON SITE
FIGURE 6
-------
NO SCALE
LEGEND
CREEK FLOW DIRECTION
TOWNSHIP BOUNDARY
SURFACE WATER AN.D SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATION
ALADDIN PLATING RI/FS
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 7
-------
Comment #5; EPA states that the contamination is limited to a
small area on the former electroplating facility property, and yet
it has already contaminated adjacent properties.
EPA Response: There was contamination on adjacent properties, but
this was soil contamination in the top 1 to 3 feet of soil. This
contamination was deposited there when the surface impoundments
overflowed, or when rainwater washed wastes that were disposed of
on the surface down the slope at the Site. This surface
contamination on adjacent properties did not migrate down into the
groundwater, and was removed during the soil cleanup.
The contamination that remains is chromium contaminated water
that is in the 5 to 20 foot subsurface area underneath the former
facility. This contamination is believed to be the result of
infiltration of water from the surface impoundments, and the direct
disposal of waste liquids into floor drains in the building.
Sampling of monitoring wells and residential wells on and off the
Site have revealed that this contamination is not migrating off site
at rates that will adversely impact the drinking water wells for a
very long time (estimated at over 2,000 years).
Comment #6; What happens if future monitoring indicates that the
contamination is migrating faster than estimated?
EPA Response: The monitoring program is designed to determine if
the contamination is migrating, and the two additional wells are
intended to provide an early warning should this occur. If EPA
determines in the future that groundwater is migrating more rapidly
than currently estimated, the levels of contamination and rate of
migration would be reevaluated. If it appears that the migration
would create a threat to human health or the environment, the
remedial alternatives previously reviewed, as well as any newly
developed methods, would be reviewed for possible implementation to
address the problem. A new record of decision, or an explanation
of significant differences, would be issued, and appropriate
notification and public meeting procedures would be followed.
Comment if; Implementing actions later, if needed, would increase
costs significantly over costs of implementing action today.
EPA Response; It could be more expensive to implement a response
action at a later time. However, it may not be necessary to ever
implement an action if the chromium remains contained in its
present location and/or is naturally attenuated in the soil.
Further, the methods considered in the FS may be more extensively
developed by the time implementation would be necessary, and could
be completed with more certainty, more effectively, and with less
trial and error, which might reduce the cost of some of the
Alternatives.
-------
Comment #8; If the contamination will remain on-site for 2,000
years, the monitoring program should continue for 2,000 years.
EPA Response; The monitoring program will initially establish a
baseline for the Site through the quarterly monitoring period of
the first five years. Comparison of the baseline data with data
collected in later years will indicate whether migration is
occurring, and if so, what the rate of migration is. After 30
years, a comprehensive record of the status of the contamination
will have been developed. If migration is going to occur, evidence
of it will most likely have been seen by that time. On the other
hand, if containment or natural attenuation result in no changes or
a reduction in contamination levels, this will have been clearly
established in thirty years. Therefore, this should be a
sufficient period of time for determining what is occurring at the
Site.
In addition to the thirty year monitoring, EPA is required to
conduct five year reviews on any site where wastes are left onsite.
This includes sampling to determine the level and status of any
remaining contamination. These reviews will be continued
indefinitely as long as contamination remains above health-based
levels.
Comment #9; Is EPA leaving wastes onsite in other cases, and if so
what has happened (i.e.- is the contamination migrating offsite)?
EPA Response; EPA has left wastes in place on other sites. This
is common for landfills, where the volume of wastes is too large to
remove. A cap is placed over the landfill to prevent infiltration
of water, and a monitoring program is typically implemented. It
has also been done at other types of sites.
The record of whether migration has occurred at other sites is
not relevant here, since subsurface conditions at each site are
unique. The fact that migration may have occurred at other sites
does not mean that it will occur here. The limited area of high
level contamination, the lack of a continuing source, the very low
permeability of the soils at this Site, and the possibility of
natural conversion of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium all
contribute to the very low estimated migration rates.
Comment £10; The past several years have been relatively dry in
this area. What happens if several years of wet weather occur?
EPA Response; The contamination has existed at the Site for at
least thirty years. During this period, there have been both dry
periods and wet periods, and the contamination has moved only a
limited distance even with active waste discharging. Therefore,
with the source and surface contamination removed, there is less
contamination available for migration and less likelihood that an
extended wet period would cause offsite contamination.
-------
Comment #11: The RI/FS refers to fractured bedrock at the Site,
which allows for faster migration of contamination. Also, aren't
the positive results that have been found in several residential
wells an indication that the contamination is moving?
EPA Response: The bedrock under the Site is fractured, and
fractures usually increase the rate of travel of water. However,
the bedrock is at more than 80 feet below the surface of the Site,
and the contamination would have to travel through the glacial till
overburden (which has extremely low permeability) at the Site
before it reaches the fractured bedrock. This overburden material
is what has contained the chromium so far, and what is anticipated
to continue containing the contamination.
There have been a few positive chromium results in residential
well samples. However, all these results have been very low (5
parts per billion or less) . One of these residential wells with a
low concentration of chromium is the furthest from the Site of all
the wells that were tested. Chromium is a naturally occurring
substance, and can be found in groundwater not associated with
human activity. There have been no consistent chromium results in
any wells but the monitoring wells in the shallow water-bearing
zone. The source of the chromium found in the residential wells
cannot be conclusively determined, but EPA believes that the lack
of consistency and the fact that wells in between these wells and
the Site are not contaminated indicate that the contamination is
not steadily migrating offsite.
Comment #12; Is it possible that putting all the monitoring wells
in at the Site, or excavating to remove the contaminated soil, may
have introduced conduits for the contamination to move deeper?
EPA Response: Improperly installed wells can allow contamination
to travel from shallow levels to deeper ones and vice versa.
However, all of the monitoring wells installed by EPA were
constructed using specifications that prevent this from occurring.
The excavation did open up the area of contamination, and
rainwater did collect in the openings. However, all of this water
was pumped out as quickly as possible and disposed of off-site to
prevent its infiltration.
Comment #13; Over how wide an area did EPA test surface water and
wells, and what are the plans for the future?
EPA Response; Surface water samples were collected from Bell
Mountain Creek and Leggetts Creek above and below the area where
runoff from the Site would enter them. Samples were also collected
from Griffin Pond. No Site-related contamination was found in any
of these samples.
-------
Residential well samples were collected from locations as far
as Mt. Bethel Drive, Peaceful Valley Road (on the southeast side of
Bell Mountain Creek), along Scott and Layton Roads, and as far
southwest as Sarah Drive. Results of this sampling are discussed
in the response to Comment #11, and in the Record of Decision.
Comment #14; Alternative 3 appears to be a feasible alternative.
The FS states that the electrokinetic method may be able to remove
70% or more of the chromium contamination, while the Proposed Plan
reports that only 30% can be removed. Why is there a discrepancy?
EPA Response; The FS was based on research papers for projects
that were conducted using trivalent chromium. During EPA's
preparation of the Proposed Plan, this information was reviewed,
along with additional information that was gathered from the
literature, from discussions with vendors, and from discussion with
EPA personnel involved with these methods. From this information,
it was determined that this method is 70-95% effective with
trivalent chromium, but that with hexavalent it may only be as much
as 30% effective. Due to the ionic charge of the compounds that
hexavalent chromium forms in groundwater, it moves in the opposite
direction as trivalent chromium in an electrokinetic extraction
system, thus reducing its effectiveness. Although there are
methods that have been proposed to address this problem, they have
not been extensively tested in the field at a site with conditions
comparable to this Site to see how effective they would be.
Comment #15; Alternative 2 is listed as a "No Action" plan in the
FS. It also doesn't meet the preference for permanent solutions
and use of treatment technologies, and doesn't restore the Site to
productive use.
EPA Response; This Alternative was listed as "No Action with
Institutional Controls" in the FS. The NCP requires that every FS
include the "No Action" option in its evaluation of alternatives as
a baseline to which to compare the other options. There must be
only one "No Action" alternative in each operable unit, so the name
of Alternative 2 was changed to avoid confusion with Alternative i.
Also, characterizing Alternative 2 as "no action" is misleading
because the use of Institutional Controls is a form of remedial
action.
CERCLA does include a preference for permanent solutions and
treatment as a principal element, where practicable. However,
after evaluating the options available, EPA has concluded that the
treatment methods available are characterized by significant
inefficiencies and uncertainties that can interfere with their
implementation. Treatment would not completely eliminate the
contamination so institutional controls might still be required.
With this uncertainty, and given that the Site under present
conditions is not presenting risks above the normal range, EPA has
8
-------
selected an Alternative that does not meet these preferences
because they are impracticable at this Site.
The Site has been cleaned up to the point where some
productive uses of this property would be acceptable. The controls
to be applied will only limit actions that would disturb the
subsurface. The surface can be used for agriculture, gardening,
recreation, and other activities.
Comment #16; Actual removal of contamination from a site should
carry a higher weight in the ranking of criteria for selection of
remedial alternatives, rather than being of equal weight with the
other eight criteria.
EPA Response; Alternatives involving the removal of contaminated
materials are evaluated along with other alternatives to determine
the comparative benefit of each against the nine criteria specified
in the NCP. The NCP does not assign weights to the criteria, but
directs the lead agency to select the alternative with the best
balance of performance relative to the nine criteria. There may be
some cases where disturbance of a site to remove the contamination
might cause more of a hazard to human health or the environment
than containing the wastes in place. In some cases such as a
landfill, the volume of wastes make it prohibitively expensive to
remove the wastes. A ranking system that gives added weight to
removal of wastes would not take into account those circumstances
where it may not be appropriate.
Comment #17: Deed restrictions will lower property values
throughout the area, and are unacceptable. Can EPA purchase
properties whose values have declined due to proximity to an NPL
site, or reimburse owners for this loss in value?
EPA Response; There currently are no restrictions on land use at
the site. Other types of institutional controls may be considered.
These might include land use controls, permit limitations, or
administrative orders.
CERCLA gives EPA has authority to take action to protect human
health and the environment. EPA has no authority to take actions
to restore property values or to purchase adjacent properties whose
values are adversely affected by an NPL site. EPA does not have
authority to reimburse property owners for any loss in property
value.
Comment #18; What is EPAs authority for implementing deed
restrictions, and what will happen if they cannot be implemented?
EPA Response; EPA will use its legal authorities and recommend the
use of State and local authorities to impose institutional
controls. Pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9606, EPA
is authorized to issue orders to protect public health and welfare
-------
and the environment. EPA has used this authority in the past to
require property owners to place deed restriction on their
properties. As with the exercise of other legal authorities,
affected parties may attempt to challenge these authorities.
Other institutional controls are available to prohibit
disruption of the contaminated area. Local building permits and
land use restrictions, or administrative or judicial orders may be
used where sufficient legal authority exists. If deed restrictions
cannot be implemented, these other options would be considered. If
none of the options were feasible, EPA would revisit its selection
of alternatives, and might issue a new Record of Decision.
Comment #19; What is EPA doing to recover the costs of previous
cleanup actions from the property owner?
EPA Response: EPA has placed a lien on the property subject to the
remedial action and owned by the potentially responsible party in
order to recover costs of cleanup if the property is sold. In all
Superfund cases, EPA evaluates the financial status and assets of
the potentially responsible parties to determine if actions should
be taken to recover costs. This is being done with this Site. The
Agency does not comment on the possibility of future actions to
recover costs.
Comment #20; How will people be notified of EPA's decision on this
matter?
EPA Response; An announcement will be sent out to people on the
mailing list once the Record of Decision is completed. EPA will
also issue press releases, so local media may report the decision.
Comment #21; What options do citizens have if they don't agree
with the decision?
EPA Response; The provisions of CERCLA provide persons certain
rights to seek review of Agency actions under specific
circumstances. The scope of and limitations on these rights are
too extensive to discuss in this summary which is primarily
intended for the discussion of the remedy.
SECTION IV Summary of written Comments and Questions Received
During the Comment Period and EPA's Responses
During the public comment period, EPA received one request for
a 15-day extension (which was granted), 9 comment letters, and a
petition signed by 65 area residents. Many of the comments were
similar to those expressed at the public meeting and answered
above. These are not repeated here, but are listed at the end of
this section.
10
-------
Comment #22: EPA should not look at costs when selecting
alternatives. The sole consideration should be preventing human
exposure to contaminants in ground water and protecting drinking
water supplies.
EPA Response; The NCP requires the lead agency to perform a
detailed and comparative analysis of alternatives in selecting a
remedy. Cost is one of the evaluation criteria that the lead
agency is required to include in its detailed analysis and
comparative analysis of alternatives [see 40 C.F.R. §300.430 (e)
and (f)].
Comment #23: Alternative 2 does not meet the Pennsylvania
requirement for cleanup of contamination to levels equivalent to
background. EPA should not waive this requirement, and all
Pennsylvania standards should be achieved.
EPA Response; Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management regulations
require that ground water contamination be cleaned up to levels
equivalent to background. In this case, background levels would be
in the range from 0 to 5 parts per billion. With the level of
contamination in the immediate area of the former facility, and the
subsurface conditions which make withdrawal of the ground water in
this shallow zone very difficult, EPA believes that achieving
background levels is technically infeasible. If EPA finds an ARAR
to be technically infeasible, it can be waived. The next most
stringent ARAR would then be applied. Maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs), which are standards that set maximum levels of contaminants
that can be in water distributed in public water systems can be
used as relevant and appropriate standards for water from wells,
but would be applied to the drinking water aquifer, which has not
been affected by the Site. Since the shallow water-bearing zone
cannot be used as a drinking water source due to its extremely low
yield, MCLs would not be relevant and appropriate standards for
this zone. The level of cleanup already attained at the site in
its undisturbed condition is protective of human health and the
environment, which is also a threshold criteria for remedy
selection.
Comment #24; Monitoring should be done monthly for the entire
thirty years, rather than quarterly for two years and annually
thereafter.
EPA Response; The rationale for the proposed monitoring program is
explained in the response to comment #8 above. Given the very slow
expected migration rate (less than 1 foot per year), monthly
monitoring would not significantly add to the information available
to evaluate the status of the Site. Because more frequent data are
not required to evaluate ground water quality changes, monthly
monitoring which is significantly more expensive than quarterly or
annual monitoring, is not justified.
11
-------
Comment #25: Any increases in Site-related contamination in
monitoring wells or private wells should trigger a major cleanup
program.
EPA Response; Site-related contamination must present an actual or
potential threat to human health or the environmental in order to
satisfy statutory requirements for EPA to initiate an action.
Contamination in monitoring wells does not necessarily present a
risk unless there is a likelihood that this contamination will
migrate to areas used for drinking water supplies.
Comment #26: A collection pool to collect water from the
contaminated area should be established.
EPA Response; Because of the slow movement of ground water under
the Site, this technique would require leaving the pool open for a
very long period of time (comparable to Alternative 5), and would
be very disruptive to the community to construct and operate.
Frequent removal of the liquid by tanker trucks would be required,
and the potential effectiveness of this method is unknown. The
entire area would have to be fenced off for the entire time, which
means the area would not be usable. In short, this approach offers
no advantage over the alternatives described in the Record of
Decision that would entail increased risk to the environment.
Comment #27: If no action is being taken, Alternative l would be
preferable, since not having deed restrictions would have less
impact on adjacent properties.
EPA Response; The institutional controls are designed to prevent
potential increased migration of contamination to adjacent
properties. Without controls, the owner could allow actions on the
Site that could increase migration rates. Therefore, some type of
controls are needed to prevent this. However, some actions other
than deed restrictions (such as restrictions on building permits,
well installations, etc.) may be considered.
Comment # 28; EPA's estimate of 2000 years before the chromium
contamination reaches the drinking water aquifer is based on the
assumption that there are no fractures or other pathways that would
expedite the migration, and that vertical and horizontal movement
will be very slow. Both of these assumptions may not be accurate.
EPA Response; It is true that these assumptions were made to
develop the estimate of how long it would take for migration to the
drinking water aquifer to occur. However, these assumptions were
made based on the extensive testing of the subsurface conditions at
the site. No evidence has been found to date of any fractures in
the overburden material above the bedrock, through which the
contamination would have to migrate. Samples of this material were
tested to determine its permeability, which is extremely low. In
order to be conservative, the modeling used an estimate of vertical
12
-------
migration velocity that was two orders of magnitude higher than the
actual measured value.
The fact that the contamination has not migrated further than
it has to date, even while active disposal of liquid wastes was
occurring over a thirty-year period, is consistent with these
assumptions. In addition, the monitoring that will be conducted
will be a continuing check on the assumptions. The new wells to be
installed at the edge of the contaminated area will also provide an
early warning if the assumptions are incorrect.
Comment #29; EPA has dismissed the remediation technologies as
infeasible too summarily. Why were they in the FS at all if they
are infeasible?
EPA Response; EPA has determined that these methods are
technically impracticable for cleaning up the chromium to
background levels. These methods may be feasible for reducing
chromium levels, but the level of level of reduction possible and
the permanence of the reduction is uncertain.
The FS reviewed technologies that were potentially applicable
to the Site. Because of the unique conditions at this Site, common
ground water contamination treatment technologies (such as pumping
and treating of the ground water) were not feasible. Therefore,
the FS evaluated methods that have been less extensively used, and
some that have only been tested in laboratory experiments for
application to chromium contamination. These methods may have been
used with other metal contaminants, or on sites with more
advantageous conditions, but not on hexavalent chromium
contamination in subsurface conditions such as at this Site. While
these methods have some potential applications for this use, when
evaluated in the context of these site-specific conditions they
have been found to be technically impracticable for meeting the
Pennsylvania cleanup to background requirement. Therefore, EPA is
waiving this requirement.
Comment #30: The validity of the scoring system in the FS is
questionable. Several of the values given to Alternatives 1 and 2
are not justified.
EPA Response; The scoring system presented in the RI/FS is a guide
to be used in the decision-making process. Decisions were not made
solely based on the scoring system. While some of the comments on
specific values in the scoring matrix are valid, some of the values
for the active remediation alternatives would also change
(decrease) based on some of the site-specific problems discussed in
the Proposed Plan, which also includes discussions of information
that supplements the analysis provided in the FS. Some examples
are the information on the efficiency of the electokinetic method
for hexavalent chromium and the estimates of the length of time
13
-------
required for Alternative 5 to achieve reductions in hexavalent
chromium.
Written comments were also received that were similar to the
following comments made at the public meeting on August 5, 1993:
Comment #s 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, and 17. These comments and
responses are not repeated here, as they were discussed in Section
III.
-------
' its rating. On Tuesday, the
rk rose 4'/» aflor (he company
ported -iich better-than-ex
on Pleads
^Charge:
im nnson sentence of 20 years
d a 'me of $1 million.
\ccorciing to officials, Pisano dc-
crc:' '.ctwecn 400 and 500 grams
coc ;ic between December 1990
• I Af-i-il 1992.
'isa.io said he would resell
igs ,c bought from David Au-
~l, the leader of the network.
Vuc si is now serving a 14-year
sor sentence on federal drup
irgc... Pisano said he met August
.
isano was indicted in May and
• the 29th person arrested as a
nit of the "Operation Bad Influ
c" investigation.
hat if you
g for sale
id $500 you
ducedrate
Yibune
ed?
TODAY!
1., Mon.-Fri.
accepted.
• .••••/*
*•.•'*••>•
:ut its earnings
company. . , : resignation of James R Pau|
k&£ Merrill Lynch
,. THEt/NITED STATES ENVmONMENTAlU PROTECTION AGENCY
\', -:l •.::'-. •••-,••'•.;•:. INVTTES PUBLIC COMMENT ON TEDE. -, : i.
&:"'?\ •'. -'• '•.'; 7 '•'••:•...."': PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE., .'.-.. ',C •: • i
V ALADDIN PLATING SUPERFUND SITE
.. . . . . ... .
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III, has completed the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the Aladdin Plating Superfund Site (site), which
occupies 8.5 acres on Layton Road. The Proposed Plan presents alternatives for
addressing ground water contamination, and Is based upon an EPA Remedial Investl-
gation (Rl) and Feasibility Study (FS). ,
'Shady Lane, CBinchillA^ * The Rl examined the extent and nature of contaminants present at the stte. TheFS
~>»:. „ ,J evaluated six remedial action alternatives for the site and provides supporting infonma-
< i tlon leading to the alternative selection by EPA.. ' .
EPA's preferred alternative for the stte Is Alternative 2, Installing monitoring wells, Issuing land-use,restrictions,
and conducting periodic ground water monitoring. This alternative Is preferred because it is believed to best satisfy
evaluation criteria. The remedial alternatives EPA evaluated are: • ••
1. No Action (with ground water monitoring) • ; . .
2. installation of two monitoring wells, land-use restrictions, and ground ,
£:. water monitoring V - ; . ;/- •/ V::;:.:; ..;':
3. Enhanced pumpli g and treatment, with Off-site treatment and disposal
The preferred alternative li ohiy a preliminary determlnattor). EF^A encourages the public to comment on the alternatives
listed In the Proposed Plan1. EPA will choose the final remedy after the Public Comment Period ends and may select
any one of the atterr atrves after taking the public's comments Into account.
The Public Comme n Period begins July 21,1993 and ends August 19,1993. EPA will hold a public meeting to
discuss the Proposed Plan and the preferred alternative on Thursday, August 5,1993 at 7:00 p.m. In the
Chinchilla Fire Hoi se,( Shady Lane, Chinchilla, PA 18410. '
The RI/FS, copies oftfie Proposed Remedial Action Plan, and other site related documents in the Administrative Record
are available at the ~"" —"~ ' '
the South Ablngton
•••' .•> '.-••. '-' !.'f>...:-.L»:
icott Township Municipal Building. RR 1, Route 457, Olyphant, PA 18447 (717) 254-6969 and at
ownshlp Building, 104 Shady Lane. Montdale. PA 1841 fT(717) 586^211.1. ,
.-,-..,. VVIIUOM uuiiiriients should be sent postmarked ho '. ' *" '"*—~~" -"— "---•*- ••••'••'
'•••£•• later than August 19; 1993 to:; . . • c: ;.\ ;
'Ir'-- p. •• - :t--< •• - • '-.; y/ ...'.-t.. •.-.••„• % ,:•-.• (,.-••• l.v.'*-. . ..-•: '-'.•. •
>.-W;-»',r^';'''-./^-*>m1l>t^-:-.V- '•'.••'•-•i'- •• .-< •»• •••''*,' .•'.-.••:•'
•^'•;^»'7'.;:' • Gireft&ry Ham (3'HW22)':'I ,^.;^ >•;,'/;>
''••£.*•'•;^i/;''•'• ''•'' Remedial Project Manager :>•'•*;, -' .i- ;• '•;C?'''
. US. EPA,.Reglon III <;.r.:;v
.-.>. •, 841«hestnut Building•'•;-•
:--? Philadelphia.PA19107- V'
'-'--'-
For more Information regarding the site,
please contact:i :.-;•< -.-•;, ..O:--v"'.:''V
Community Relations Coordinator:
..,.. .y. -..-./U.S. EPA, Region m<* ,
. :• ; 841 Chestnut Building '': •:
''Philadelphia, PA 19107
;.v:,,. ' (215)597-2129
...
£••:
-------
Hew York Stock Exchange.
-THE SCRANTON TIMES,.WEDNESDAY, JUL¥*21? 1993*- _=».
1 VOKK UP) - l>k»UJ I
>: N«w y«rft Stork CMH
A/l AI: ..
AH*
JA L'j |
AblLv*
AMU
A.U-J in
lifcM M
Aid.1** IM
Wi.1.1111 .
tin* IM
Aku .IH
JOfn
new in
Atlrv IM
*>j(i» l '
All... IM
AlBtGv M
Afe-flr, M
AT»T IU
AOTkrklB
A_X* M
Ah*. |M
AHP IM
AjttiV III
VrtDl.Uk
UbOU I
MJNfcMM
VftHCO.M
V(~ I
•nci i«
IXMIM
wy IM
tllAU tf»
(11!. IH
rs
frj • l*. .. IIM
MP> M » Bl
1.1 .M IM Ml
Iim IB II Bl
CNA IM
PSCO IM
n
IU
- A-A -
ll in Bk Mk Bk- k
.. UB Mk ak M * k
.. IM Mk Mk Mk..
nun a Bk Bk* k
II4SB Bk Mk B * k
M IM Mk Mk Uk- k
II IMI Bk Ilk » - k
11 m iik nk ilk- k
.. IM iik uk uk* k
.. IB u u u * k
II Ml Mk Mk 4lk* k
u n Bk Mk uk..
linn nk Mk Mk* k
u m nk Mk Mk- k
.. BI Bk nk uk- k
III Mi nk 4Ik flk- k
i m uk nk nk- k
II IIM M Uk UK- k
ii Bl nk nk nk- k
BIUI Ilk Ilk »l»- k
llna M ak ak- k
n m mk IB w -i
u n uk 4is ak * k
nun** Mk Mk- k
»ui nk nk nk...
, u in iik nk uk- k
ItllU Uk Bk Uk..
B in Mk M Mk- k
ti MI ik ik ik* k
M IM M Mk Mk* k
Him 4ik n n - k
II IB Ilk Uk Ilk* k
Misn uk nk nk* k
... in ik i i - k
.. Bl Bk IIH Uk- k
.. M Ilk II Ilk...
.. ill nk nk nk- k
UUMlUk Illk III * k
.. I 4k • Ik Ik...
M I ilk IM Ilk...
ii » uk IIH uk..
II Ml Bk Bk B*- k
I1IIII Uk Ilk Uk- k
II Ml Ilk Mk Mk- k
H I Ilk Ilk Ilk- k
.. M~Bk Bk Bk..
.. Bl Ik Ik Ik..
U Bl Bk Bk Bk-.
ii in Mk uk M - k
ii ni Mk Bk M * k
II IMI Mk Mk Ilk- k
• m nk nk nk- k
u IMI iik n n - k
n IM nk nk nk-k
n M» nk 11 11 - k
11 Ml Mk Mk Mk- k
n a nk nk nk- k
.. M ik ik ik..
.. MI ilk ilk uk* k
m m iik uk iik- k
.. Bl Ilk nk Ilk- k
ll tin Bk B B - k
nun ns nk Bk* k
i mm Mk M Bk* k
.. m nk a a .
..IMI ilk ink ilk- k
ll B nk B Bk* k
linn uk Mk Mk* k
.. IIM Uk u uk* k
n BI nk n nk* k
Ilk Ilk uk* k
14 Bl Mk Bk Uk- k
M m Mk nk nk- k
- c-c -
n n Bik MM Bik- k
is IN nk nk sik...
ii a nk uk Bk* k
.. Bl Bk Bk Bk* k
» m iik iik «k* k
B n M IU ik- k
ii sn nk iik tid- k
n IMI ak Mk a * k
II IM Ilk M Mk* k
M B Mk Mik Ml *l
ii ui ilk iik ilk- k
M It Mk Mk Mk* k
HIM u Bk uk- k
..MII nk n nk-ik
ii is u nk uk..
•nm UK i»«* w* '•
Cfe»K IN 14 Ml'Mk Mk Mk* k
On* Ill |U M Ilk Uk Ilk- k
IIUIM Mk M nk*ik
i.ti B n Bk nk nk..
.a ii in Mk Bk Mk* k
cmpt .. IIM IM » iik* k
C*mlltlU It•• Mk Mk II - k
14 Ml M Bk Bk- k
casw a HI uk IM u -
ciucf i .. IM nk uk nk* k
CMIW IB II MS Mk Mk Mk-k
bnik«h M BIM U Bk Bk- k
CMCMfMt HUM Ilk Mk II * k
u«rtu . .. u nk n n * k
OlUt U SH Mk Mk Mk- k
Ctat* .M II Ml M Mk Mk- k
CM*r I B I nk nk nk..
.. MI iik Hk uk* k
DPtl III
D«t IM
D.UC.
t»XII« IM
DMT. IM
IklUAItM
DHU IN
uac, lit
D.I.
DnCt IM
Dr«J>Mk
IM
nc,
b«C« III
Irtlta .n
nco
bnOlM
Em* IM
tMtrh M
rac
P.« i
nwu IM
nwm .11
PtHII IM
Ptrufin
CTI m
CiMl
bwmM
c.» M
GcaCip. Jl
GraMr
toon I Ml
G«CI IU
bwn IM
II M Mk Mk Bk- k
u ii Bk Uk Bk* k
M IM Bk Mk Mk- k
.. in i ik ik..
u m Mk M Mk* ti
m BI M B« csk- k
.. IIM Mk Mk Uk- k
U Ml Mk Bk Bk- k
M u nk nk nk* k
..IIM nk nk nk...
BMM Mk -uk Bk- k
u n Bk Bk uk...
»BI M 4Sk Mk- k
ii M nk nk ilk- k
HIM nk nk nk-k
Mm Mk Bk Bk- k
M nl Mk M Mk* k
ll tn Mk Mk Mk- k
ii ai ak ak ak- k
B us nk u iik- k
•tinTiM Mk Bk* k
ii Ik Ik Ik-
..tni ak a ak*
B 41111k Illk Illk*
M Ml Mk Mk Mk*
u B nk nk nk-
... IM ik ik i»
• M nk n n -
.. at n nk Bk
iiaa nk MK mi-
ll • »k »k isk-
u ut iik iik iik-
ii UM nk nk M*
.. ta ik ik ik-
M BS Mk nk Mk*
U HI Mk AM Mk
B M Mk Mk Mk
. II MI Mk Mk Mk
BIB Mk Mk Mk-
M M Uk Bk Uk-
ii im uk IM IM
-i-i -
.. M M Ik M-
.. m I Ik Ik*
..4IM Ilk U Ilk-
It M Ik Ik IH-
II u nn nn ira-
ittm Mk nk nk-
IIBU Bk Bk Bk-
U M Bk Bk Bk*
ll in M ak Bk-
IBU nkttk ni-
il m a nk n»-
• M M Hk Bk*
.. n Ik Ik Ik
ii M nk nk nk
41 m «k u iik
H IMI Mk Mk Mk *
II 11 4Sk- «k «k*
-•-•-
ii i uk nk nk
n in ik ik ik
n n Mk M u
M IM nk nk nk
II Ml II Mk Mk
B Ml Mk Mk Bk-
II Ml Ik I Ik
II Ml Mk Mk Bk-
inint u iik iik-
B 14 B Bk Bk-
U Ml Mk Mk IM
IIM .m nk uk*
u BI ilk ak «k-
ll m ak ak Uk-
n IB 4ik 4ik iik-
I n Bk Bk «sk-
U Ml Mk M Mk*
ii ii nk uk nk-
IIIBI nk Bk Bk*
l BI ak Mk ak*
Mint ak ak ak*
MO »k ilk Uk
u MI ink IIM iMk-
II I Bk Bk Bk-
' a m M M Mk*
mm nk Mk Mk-
II m Mk nk nk-i
u in nk nk nk-
ii im nk Mk Mk-i
BUB nk Mk Mk-
NIPSOOIB II M Bk B Bk
NLIM .. « Ik Ik Ik*
Nllr. M II II Bk B B -
NtfPttlM . II II Mk Mk Mk..
Nil ..a ii iik ilk- k
OtMtlM
Ml. IB
ON Cdll M
OtlfC.
om M
•m in
ni ui
ism M.
PKCI IM
PKTd III
PHM»IM
PBIC M
PwC*>
PIP»UI0
PUtO M
Pllm IM
Pt).lpD IM
II Bl Mk Mk Mk- k
II II Mk Mk Mk..
B IU Uk Mk Mk..
M M uk uk nk* k
Mil I I ..
n M IM ilk iik-
II MM Ilk 41k IIH-
II H Uk Uk Uk-
- P-Cj-
n in Mk Mk Mk*
ii m M Bk M -
ii n Mk uk Mk
II IM Mk M M -
HIM Uk Mk Mk
B ill ilk ilk uk
II Ml Bk Bk Uk-
Mim uk nk ilk*
.. HI Uk Ilk Ilk-
ii MI Mk uk an-
il m nk nk Bk
41 IM ak nk iik-
B m n nk u
nun ak Bk Bk-
n m Bk n n -
HUB ak ak uk*
H m Mk Mk M»-
Dividend
"~T"*
II Ml IB
.IB 111 II U
.U Ml Ml
.11 IB Ml
M if *n
.11 H Ml
8 » Im
*
Utaklt
C.b.1.1 tal h
DilCrpDh bn
KKMIMI
nikniri
P.4N.I1 BK
«
• .Ml
• M
• .Ml
• .M
~ n
it
« n M
SJ! tf
PMT«
BKHtWtC.
IbffttacvC.
?»'
q BS
• n
~ IB
M
III
Ml
IB
« m •
s M t?
PMUD IU
PhUMr IM
P»UP« III
»•••(
Pllvt» Jl
nwt. ji
Plvtrtl Jl
PMOC IB
P>u* . B
Illl
pirc in
PklMP IM
P>k> .M
«u>ioin
4.MJC H
««A>i.n
KJKNlkl
KlkPV IM
IM
.M
lUr*u I
KPI M
KkiAU M
KMrf I
IB
ii JB Mk nk Bk.
IMM Mk 41k Mk-
UHM Bk Bk Uk-
II 10 nk Bk nk*
B Ml Mk Mk Ml
ii m iik IM uk
a ut B iik n
a in nk n nk-
H M B Ilk Ilk
HIM Ilk IM IM*
linn uk uk uk*
IIBMMk B Mk-
U M Bk B B
ii m Mk Mk Mk
ll 1111 Mk Bk nk-
U II Mk Mk Mk-
II at Mk Mk Mk*
M tn iik uk uk*
.. mi Mk Bk nk
U II Mk Mk Mk-
-•-•'
I IMI Ik Ik ik-
U Bt Mk Mk 44k-
M IM Ik Ik 4k
U Ml M Mk I
B IB Mk Bk M
.. US Mk Mk Mk-
ii M Mk nk nu-
ll in u nk itk*
u us uk nk nk-
u MI uk ak uk*
.. B Ik tk f
II IM Uk Ilk IM*
.. Bl M Ik M..
IIIMl Ilk «k.HktJ».'
J Mt B Ilk Uk- k.
- «-J -
is Ml M nk B - k
• in ak a uk* k
.muk uk in- k
i m itk iik iik- k
I11UI Bk Uk UK- k
4 IUI4M Mk Mk* k
.4 Ml Mk Mk Mk- k
iitB ak uk ak* k
i M Bk nk Bk* k
I Bt Bk B B - k
. nM Mk Mk Mk- k
II II Uk Uk Bk .
IMI Mk Bk Mk- k
• ll ilk nk nk* k
an nk Uk iik* k
iiNtMknk Hk* k
a IM ak ak nk .
n a iik iik- k
IMI ak ak ak- k
JIM B IIK Ilk- k
OM Mk Mk Mk* k
. in Bk Bk Uk- k
IMI l ik l * k
M«Bk Bk Bk* k
.m Bk nk Bk* k
IB Uk u it - k
M Bk Bk »k- k
It It Bk Bk IM .
HUB Itk Ilk Ilk .
.. HI Bk Bk Bk- k
-1-1 -
I IBlMk Mk Mk* k
i ill -Mk ak ak* k
*• M Ml
Iff Ml Ml
I . II II
I I kc I *Kt
MCMAIf*
OCIPWI « B 111 l»l '
h4lM.U.N.I Q .11 til IB
PutnlH IUKJ 9 IB III til
R»Mf»4wt q M Ml IMI
vm>T«t q u IB til
Fed Expected
To Increase
Interest Rates
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Federal Re-
serve Chairman Alan Greenspan
let Congress know he is not happy
with the country's "dlMppdnUng^
Milton and indicated the central
bank stands ready to raise interest
rates to dampen price pressures.
Delivering his midyear assess-
ment of the economy, Greenspan
on Tuesday appeared to dash any
lingering hopes that the economy's
poor performance this year would
prompt the Fed to cut interest
rates further.
•
NEW YORK - Several of the
nation's biggest banks reported bit-
ter-tnin-cxpet^ed earnings as prob-
lem loans declined, capital levels
strengthened and fee income rose.
The results Tuesday from Citi-
corp, Chemical Banking Corp.,
NalionsBank, Bane One Corp.,
Wells Fargo & Co. and First Inter-
Ti«O M
TrtMi M
TwIIIMi
TM»« IM
T«K> IB
Ttiinil IM
Tntm IM
TM.VI B
Tmll* IM
TMM I
TlttM
Ton M
TV*!!
?»•«. M
Tnvkr I M
TriCM ISM
Tram M
tmttr
TmU M
UALCp
UCI IM
VNCbc
OJW« IH
UIPC n
USIIbr M
USXVS1 I
ucw* n
U III !•••
41 111 i
M II 1
B IM 1
.. a ti
.. MS MS
.. n st.
H IM «>•
mm i
II Ml 4
M u u*.
.. IM ir.
n no MK
ni M u>.
.. B II
I B t
IIIW MS
II III M't
.. IM IIK
.. ISM US
.. B U
B B4 UH
M U B%
II
- •-• -
.. IBI IB1*
n M MS
M II IS
insu MII
BI m UK
ii IM m*
.. n us
is at its
II
Attention
Merril
has op
Sera
Investment expertise
is now right in;
When you think of Merril
of stocks and bonds. Buta>
with all of your financial ne
earned a reputation of trust
largest full-service firm in tl
Quality Personal Servlc
Our professionally traim
-------
1 Tar gets
^roperties
icthT it intends to hire Barbin
the next board meeting.
n Another tax matter, the board
'S updated on an attempt by The
w r.lobe Store to have its assess
•nt reduced.
\brnhartisen said a trial ha;
on scheduled Oct. 18 in Lacka-
"ina County Court on The New
''be Store's appeal or its assessed
ma(ion.
\brahamsen said the store Is
king to reduce its assessed val-
linn by two-thirds - from $12
Hinn to $4 million.
le said the city has agreed to
it the costs or fighting the ap-
il with the district.
N|EI, Barons
blest Vision
)f Teen Athletes
The Northeastern Eye Institute
d the Scranton-Wilkes-Barrr
(1 Rarons will join forces to
•wide area youngsters with a free
i>rts vision screening Saturda1
>m 9 a.m. to I p.m. at NEI, 20*.
•(TlinAve.
Hoys and girls through the teens
10 participate in school sports
il other activities are eligible.
ipace is limited, so appointments
• encouraged and can be made
contacting the institute.
ted Barons pitcher Jeff Patter-
•i will be on hand from 10 a.m.
til noon to greet the youngsters
'I sign autographs. The first 100
'mips will receive tickets to a
d Barons game.
Eyesight is not the same as
ion," said Dr. Arthur J. Jordan.
ision is the ability to interpret
at is being seen and that's what
're going to be looking at.'
'ordan, Or. John Boyle and Dr.
>ry Ann DeSanto will do the
eenings. •»-*•
/VJOk>l 10, i»»J-
3 V
* -
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
k, EXTENDS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE
g PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE
f • ALADDIN PLATING SUPERFUND SITE
SCOTT AND SOUTH ABINGTON TOWNSHIPS, LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Region III, has completed the Proposed Remedial Action Plan for
the Aladdin Plating Superfund Site (site), which occupies 8.5 acres on Layton Road. The Proposed Plan presents
alternatives for addressing ground water contamination, and is based upon an EPA Remedial Investigation (Rl) and
Feasibility Study (FS).
The Rl examined the extent and nature of contaminants present at the site. The FS evaluated six remedial action
alternatives for the site and provides supporting information leading to the alternative selection by EPA.
EPA
and cohductln
evaluation crtlena. The rernedial alternatives EPA evaluated
\'m preferred alternative for the site Is Alternative 2. installing monitoring welto, issuing land-use restrictions.
I conducting periodic ground water monitoring. This alternative Is preferred because It is believed to best satisfy
luatlon criteria. The rernedial alternatives EPA evaluated are: . .. ..
1. No Action (with ground water monitoring)
2. Installation of two monitoring wells, land-use restrictions, and ground
water monitoring i
3. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with Off-site treatment and disposal
4. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with On-sMe treatment and disposal
5. Chemical barriers . '. .. . .. , ;. •..'.',
6. Chemical alteration and Immobilization
:««*Jvf. I ' ' '• ' ' •
Public Comment Period on
Alternatives In Proposed Ptan
;: ' Extended From
August 19,1993 to :
September 6,1993
.. , EPA encourages the public to comment on the alternatives
listed hi the Proposed Plan.. EPA will choose the. final remedy after.the Ptibllo Comment Period ends and may select
any one of the alternatives after taking the public's comments Into account. •• '•.,". - " .'.
andthei
The Public Comment Period began on July 21,1993. EPA held • public meeting to discuss the Proposed Ptan
preferred attematve on Thursday, August 6,1993 at 7:00 p jm. at the Chinchilla Fire House, Study Lane,
Chinchilla. EPA has extended the public comment period to run through September B, 19*3. . .
The RI/FS, copies of the Proposed Remedial Action Plan, and other site related documents hi the Administrative Record
are available at the Scott Township Municipal Building, RR 1, Route 457, Otyphant. PA 18447 (717) 254-6989 and at
the South AMngton Township Building, 104 Shady Lane. Montdale. PA 18410 (717) 588-2111. , ,
Written comments should be sent postmarked no
later than September 5,1993 to:
Gregory Ham (3HW22)
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 191O7 •
For more Information regarding the site,.
please contact:
Usa Brown (3EA21)
Community Relations Coordinator
, . U.S. EPA, Region III .
.841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 19107
i
I
I
-------
ih'ir"in niiiisL'wivcs.
:i :. eirl sits down in my
- rvory fcirl is difTcrcnl,"
'ilk >f I.illlc Rock. Ark. "I
ink- '.hem up (o look all
r..iid (he changes represent
>rrssurc for the conlcslants,
f whom don't know how to
nnkc-un that works under,
c of television lights. "^
ink it's going (o hurt (the
•)." sic said.
ill's, who has produced five
.\y Awards shows and other
cials, said (he pageant musi-
nhcrs will compete with the
Ihe Oscars.
y'rc really going (o have a
different flavor and style,"
I.
lolhcr new twist, each con-
must shoot a 3 to 5 minute
video describing her life.
PCS will be edited to about
onds and broadcast while
f Ihc 10 finalists parades
he stare.
rrs also will sec footage
q Ihc daily experiences of
ants during their two weeks
mlic City leading up to the
tallation
warns of
screw holes drilled into the
hat spans the highway didn't
the holes on the sign.
ause of these complications,
oration that we know from
xpcricncc should have only
20 minutes, took much
." said Leo Lconclti, assist-
ojccl engineer for PcnnDOT. .
• a.m., the beginning of the
ound lanes as they contin-
Iry.
'isands of motorists were de-
bcforc the sign was finally in
a little after 6 a.m. ,
nPOT apologized for the mis'-
r
I Smith Inc. Mrmbrr SITC.
meat411 Mjp••«••• •
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| INVITES PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ,,
, PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE ' .•, ;
ALADDIN PLATING SUPERFUND SITE '
SCOTT AND SOUTH AB1NGTON TOWNSHIPS, LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Region III. hai completed the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the Aladdin Plating Superfund SRe (site), which
,Xiran4ay,Augiut$1993 <: occupies 8.5 acres on Layton Road. -The Proposed Plan presents alternatives for
' 7:00 p.m. (o 10:00 p.m. 'J addressing ground water contamination, and Is based upon an EPA Remedial Investl-
|, Cttfocbu1aFlreHon>e j gation (Rl) and Feasibility Study (FS). ' . ; ;. . ;. .
Shady Lwte, ChinthilLi | Tne R) examined the extent and nature of contaminants present at the sHei' The FS
\ « evaluated six remedial action alternatives for the site and provides supporting Informa-
tion leading to the alternative selection by EPA.
EPA's preferred alternative for the site Is Alternative 2, installing monitoring wells, Issuing land-use restrictions,
and conducting periodic ground water monitoring. Ihls alternative Is preferred because it Is believed to best satisfy
evaluation criteria. The remedial alternatives EPA evaluated are:
1. No Action (with ground water monitoring)
2. Installation of two monitoring wells, land-use restrictions, and ground
water monitoring
3. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with Off-site treatment and disposal
4. Enhanced pumping and treatment, with On-site treatment and disposal
5. Chemical barriers ::' •
6. Chemical alteration and Immobilization
*' Juiyii.i
i Public CornmenVPen^d^n ,
Mtemattvesui Proposed Plariil
The preferred alternative Is only a preliminary determination. EPA encourages the public to comment on the alternatives
listed In the Proposed Plan. EPA will choose Ihe final remedy after the Public Comment Period ends and may select
any one of the alternatives after taking the public's comments Into account.
The Public Comment Period begins Jury 21,1993 and ends August 19,1993. EPA will hold a public meeting to
discuss the Proposed Plan and the preferred alternative on Thursday. August 5, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. In the
Chinchilla Fire House, Shady Lane, Chinchilla, PA 18410.
The R"l/FS, copies of the Proposed Remedial Action Plan, and other site related documents In the Administrative Record
are available at the Scott Township Municipal Building. RR1. Route 457, Otyphant, PA 18447 (717) 254-6969 and at
the South Ablngton Township Building. 104 Shady Lane, Montdale. PA 18410 (717) 586-2111.
Written comments should be sent postmarked no
later than August 19.1993 to:
Gregory Ham (3HW22)
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA,.Region III
841 Chestnut Building
>: Philadelphia, PA 19107
For more Information regarding the site.
please contact:
Lisa Brown (3EA21)
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-.,•••• (215)597-2129 , ;
-------
Hew York Stock Exchange.
- THE SCRANTON TIMES,.WEDNESDAY, JULY*21? 1993*- _=*.
N T Vim (An - bbrM
fffk.. In; N.* Yvt Ikirk Ii
CMC IM
III
AJA L'i I
AVlLMi M
AlaAk1
Alii .M
AbcM M
AJMwII.U
2tu .ID
tf "• *
Ura< in
ACM in
Atir. IM
AtjlM I
AlhM IM
Al>» M
AMT i n
AfMMt M
AWc III
AMP 141
ft?,,.
UMU I
MjRMtM
vineo.a
won M
ij«* IM
Uktlffk M
ill* UT
•KGB 141
•rOMl4ff
Utt IM
utABlM
•MTIIII
Ji
HIAU IM
«)!$• IN
I«IO U
IrtHK I
licit .It
MM! I
*»C M
*4ra IB
•K4 in
•KjIOM
JIM III.
CNA IM
ruDiM
1.1 r*cM
f: in
u ii
X III
»*.r
«•»»• I
*«• n
- A-A -
II in Uk Bk Uk- K
.. IB* Mk Uk M * k
.. IM Mk Mk Mk..
nun B Bk Bk*
itau nk Mk B *
M 4M Uk Mk MK-
. I4IUT UK UK U -
IT Bl 4IK 41k 41k-
.. JJt Ilk Ilk IIK*
.. IU Iff Iff Iff *
II 4M UK Uk Uk*
U Tff UK UK UK..
. UIIU Uk Uk Mk* k
M W Ttk IM Mk- k
.. Bl Bk Bk UK- k
III Ml 4Tk 4Tk 41k- k
' • ut Uk nK UK- k
II IMI M Uk UK- K
ii ut nK nk nk- k
nitn nk nk Iik- k
iiua M ak uk- k
n nt ink IB IB -I
u M ak.uk ak* k
UMT1*M MK MK- K
I llttl Uk TIK flK..
U U* Uk UK IIK- k
IT IIU UK Uk Ilk..
a in UK M MK- K
II Ml IK Ik Ik* k
M m u uk UK*
II IIM Ilk 41 41 -
< u IB ilk ilk ilk*
uiiu nk uk ak*
... in TK i T -
.. ut Bk ilk tik-
.. U IIK II. IIK
.. 111 nK nk »K-
14 IM IHK Illk III *
.. I IK • 4k 4K
u i IIK uk ilk
n u UK IM ilk
ll >u uk IM uk-
II IMI Uk IIK Ilk-
II Ml ITH Uk Mk-
H i UK iik iik-
".. u)~Bk nk nk
.. nt ik ik ik
It IM Bk Bk UK
14 in Mk ilk N -
II HI MK Mk M *
II IHI MK 44k 44k-
• nt uk UK T4k-
II1411 41k 41 41 -
ii iua nk nK nk-
11 MI nk IT IT -
IT Ml MK Mk Mk-
II a TIK TIK Ttk- k
.. B IK IK IK..
.. m UK ilk ilk* k
in MI uk ilk nk- k
.. ni iik nk ilk- K
II IIU UK B B - k
irnn UK ak nh* k
tun uk n UK* K
.. nt UK a n _.
..IIM itk 4iik nk- «
14 U Mk U Uk* k
I4UU Uk UK UK* k
..IIM Uk U IIK* K
n BI nk n n*» K
IM Ml IIK IM Ilk* K
II Bl MK Uk Uk- K
M Ml Uk nk 41K- K
- c-e -
u n eik ntk WK- k
II IM ITK HK ITK..
14 a uk nk ak* k
.. UI BK Bk Bk* k
II ID ilk 4lk 4ik* k
B n Ik ik Ik- k
it trt TIK Tik IIK- K
u IMI ak UK a * k
41 4U MK B BK* K
B B MM MtK Ml *l
II UI IIK Ilk Ilk- K
U II UK l*k MK* K
HIM U Uk UK- k
..Ml IIK U US-IK
ii n u ITk UK .
'HIM WK T»S *••» '•
•*>.TI
SK -
CMral I I.B
IM
C.UC, I
in
DM.1 III
09*
Of fiu i m
DMT* IM
D>IUAI>B
DMC4 IM
MdCp III
SJ-, Jt
II 40 Uk Bk BK* K
111 M Uk Uk UK- k
UUTM IM 41 4Tk*lk
B M Bk nk nk..
II III UK UK UK* K
.. IM IIK M UK* K
U4M Ilk Mk ffl - k
ii tn M uk uk- k
a IM ak OK MK..
n fit uk IM H - K
.. IM iik iik uk* k
n ui ak ak Mk- k
n in u nk BK- k
II MU Ilk Uk II * k
.. u nk n n * K
u at uk uk Mk-K
IT IU M Mk MK- K
it i nk nk nk..
.. •> HK I4K 14k* k
- f-t -
II M Uk Uk Bk- k
II IT Bk Uk Uk* K
M B4 Uk Mk MK- H
.. in t IK IK..
II Uff MK M Mk* k
m m M 0k OK- K
.. ITU Mk Mk Uk- k
II Ml UK Bk BK- k
• 41 nK nK nk* k
.. iiu nk nk nk..
BUM Mk -Bk BK- k
ii n BK Bk Bk..
II at U «k 4JK- K
It M 41k 4Tk 4Tk- K
HIM nk nk nk- k
Mm uk.Bk uk- k'
a nl UK M MR* k
ll m ak ak ak- k
it ai ak ak o»- H
n ui IIK n IIK- K
. - l-l -
nuu nk MK UK* k
n a u nk nk- k
n IMI UK Mk Mk- k
» iu ak ak ak* k
n ui nk uk, nk..
H Ml U M U ..
itiiu iik nk nK- k
nin nk Mk MK-k
n M uk u u ...
UITU nk MK nk* K
1 T4T Iffk Iffk Iffk...
II IIU Mk OK MK..
- ff-» -
M M 4TK IT 4Tk* K
14 Ml MK Mk Mk-
.. 44 tk tk IK-
n m tik UK
II Ml Mk Mk Mk-
ii Ha Uk nk ak-
H M Mk Mk UK-
.. Ill Mk Mk 44K-
II Mt Uk Mk M *
II UT IM Ilk Ilk
IT M Mk Mk UK-
It ia uk MK Mk
M UT OK ak ok-
ll ii ilk u uk*
.. MM nk nk utr
II IK Ilk Uk Uk*
WCNI II I Ik M M
etc i a ii nu MK UK uk-
C«IM* ,.nu ilk nk IIK-
CunHIM It IU 4M IM 4M-
C.* M U Ml U UK UK
C**Cft> M II UI Uk Uk UK
bMMt IU IB IIK Ok aK-
ODnlMk It MttMK tM MK*
Ontl III HUM MK MK Mk-
c*itMi a ii i ilk uk iik*
Cmm» IM II Bl Uk Mk Bk*
cut M
cru lit
OSIMIIM
D»Ck IM
I.M
DOlP IM
nci
(ultl IM
CM* 1
lnco
bnOIN
fen* IM
bunk B
Uurtr IM
tlkrt It
bu* IM
••«•» n HI
Vital* tt II M*
F.4NM IM
ritmk in
nxiu IM
riME*i.M
must M
mrrMiM
•IMF u
nun .11
CrtMi a
aiww M
a.i. n.
u iu nk nk BK-
11 a nk uk uk*
it IM tk ik ik-
M Bt Uk Bk Uk*
14 IU Mk UK Mk*
mm UK uk UK-
ilk uk itk...
Ear,
. Mff 4K 4
4K*
I la Mk M UK* k
.. II UK «k MS* k
lllin 4lk 4lk 4ik* k
.. tut itk UK it * K
u ui nK nk nk- k
u in n n - k
.. u ik ik IK- k
II M IM TIK Ttk..
M IUI 4M «K «K- k
ITKU Ilk Ilk Uk- k
- l-l -
IT in UK IM IM..
M ll iik uk ilk* k
it at nk UK uk-iK
linn nk nk nk* H
IT a Mk Mk Uk...
u IM nk n n - k
u B4 Bk ak nk- k
.. u uk uk uk..
n m nk nk uk-k
., H MK Mk Mk* k
.. 41 IK IK IK- H
..CHI 41k U ak* k
B 41111k Illk Illk* k
M M4 Mk Mk Mk* k
ii u nk nk nk- K
- J-H -
.. MI ik Ik ik..
M M nk n n -k
. 4U II Mk UK..
U4M nk nk nk- K
u • uk uk »k-k
u UT itk UK itk- K
II IMI Mk Mk BK..
.. ia ik ik IK- k
u m UK nK UK* K
U Ml MK4Mk Mk..
a u Mk uk M*..
. ii MI nk nk nk..
am uk uk uk- k
M U Ilk UK UK- k
IIITM UK UK UK..
- l-l -
.. M M M M- K
.. m • IK IK* K
..IM IIK II HK- K
U a Ik Ik Ik- k
ii U ITH n* ira-«
IIKit Uk 4Tk 41S- k
linn uk UK uk- k
II in M UK UK- k
IBM BkAlk IIK- K
ll ui M nK nk- k
• MM BK Bk* k
.. 41 IK IK IK..
u M nk nK nk..
41 HI 4tK 41 41K..
H IMI Uk Uk UK * k
II II «K • «k «K * K
U I IIK MK IIK..
n in TK Tk T»...
IT Tt Uk U M ...
M IU ITk nk ITK...
II 141 II Mk Uk...
B Ml BK BH Bk- k
II IM IK I Ik..
M Mt Uk Uk Uk- k
in int u uk uk- k
a 14 a ak ak- K
U Ml IIK 4M 4M-.
utOMik ilk nk* K
II UT IIK IIK IIK- K
ii m UK uk UK- k
• ia «k iik 41*- k
I n UK uk WK- k
u tn Mk M Mk* k
u n iik nk nk- k
uT*I UK UK uk* k
t BI UK uk uk* k
4tin* UK ak ak* k
ua UK UK uk..
iff M Illk IIM mk- k
M I UK Uk Bk-K
• ii nt a M MK* K
it mi uk 4M Mk- k
u m MK nK nk-ik
u tu nk nk nk- k
nun TM Mk Mk-ik
uim nK Mk MK- k
II M UK U UK..
.. a IK tk IK* K
IT 14 UK U U - K
IT II UK MK MK..
.. a II IM Ilk- k
It Bl Mk Uk Mk- k
OtbCtlM II II Mk Mk Mk..
oil* IM M iu UK ak ak..
ONIMIM u M nk nk ak* k
cm«c> uii t t -
Orn M M Ml IM UK IM-
II MM Ilk Ilk 4IK-
M II U Uk Uk UK-
nikoia
Ptjllkk IM
MUM in
n*w«
-pre in
ni ui
mc*i u.
met IM
KcTri III
IMKflM
Prate M
me**
nnuin
r.Mr.1 I
Pn»IC M
mtn M
II UT UK Mk Mk*
II M M UK U -
U TI MK MK MK
II UI MK M M -
ana MK MK UK
B 411 IIK IM Uk
ii BI ak ak ak-
UHTt Uk Mk Ilk*
.. IU Uk IM IIK-
ii 4n 4ik ak ak-
II ID Wk UK Bk
IT ia «k UK 4iK-
n m ii UK n
nun uk uk uk-
n IM uk n u -
uitu ak ak UK*
U IM 4tk 4tk 4M-
rfanrtl »
P*knU .M
IMCC in
P>ta<»M
mm i n
PSBC III
.M
9ukioin
UIKlk
••kf. IU
H M IM Wk IM-.
I4M» Uk ITk Mk-
UI4M Bk Bk Mk-
ii in ak ak uk*
B Ut 4M IM If
14 ITT Itk IM Uk
a at a IM n *
B tit nk n nK-
u u n UK iik
un* itk IM itk*
unit uk Uk UK*
nnuuK M M
14 41 OK B U
U 04 MK Mk Mk
Him uk nk nk-
n ii uk Bk UK-
II UT Uk Uk Uk*
U 4TT UK Uk Ilk*
..TUT Bk Bk nk
u tl uk Mk uk-
- •-» -
i mi IK M l
U Ml MK 44k 44K-
U IU 4k 4k 4k-
u m B uk
B u> uk Bk n
.. IU Mk 4tk 4tK-
ii BI UK 4ik 4ik-
u in ii ITk itk*
u MI ilk nk IIK-
U Mt UK Uk UK*
.. M M IK *K-
u IM uk ilk IM*
.. 01 M ffk
HIM MK Hk.llKtJk.'
MM .•
.1 Ml a nk uk- k.
- t-t -
it m a ak M - K
* 4tt ak U 4IK* K
ill IIK iik tik- k
.1 m UK iik iik-
ti IIM nk nk iik-
4 Mff*ak ak ak*
.» ni uk Mk Mk-
MM UK Ilk OK*
I M UK UK Uk*
• at UK n u -
.rat uk MK uk-
II II Uft MK MK
tut Uk Uk Uk-
. ii ITk ITk ITk*
• in Uk nk tik*
iiniMk nk nk*
a IM uk UK uk
II a 41K 41K-
tui ak aK ak-
nm a MK IIK-
3M tM UK MK*
. in BK UK UK-
IU> T IK T *
•MdtK BK Bk*
.411 ak nk Bk*
IM itk u it -
« Bk Bk BK-
ii u B» Bk nk .
it MM ilk ilk nk .
. HI UK BK UK- K
. T-T -
< IUMM Uk ak* k
iM4ik uk ak* k
TM4M1
TrtMI M
T«UM M
TM*ltl4k
T«u» IU
TuUlU IU
TiitfM IM
ThMVi U
ruw IM
TkMM I
T»u a
UALCf
UCI IH
UNCkK
V»« IU
UIPC M
UIKktaiU
UIIUII I
VCok II
. 14 II.
II III If.
41 III ;
U It 1
U 4U 1
.. U II
.. Mt MS
.. n si.
H Ml Uh
ii mi i
It W 4
M 41 UV.
.. IMI n1..
u m us
ni n uv>
.. U II
I n i
tutu MS
II III MS
.. IB IIK
.. lt« IIS
.. n u
a m »H
a M UK
..4441 4
II 44 41
- •-• -
.. IUI IBS
n » MS
n u is
114141 U>.
m nt in.
M TM 11'.
.. Tt US
u ai its
IK
IK ti IB
III til >U
. ti ti
I I to I i*IK
MCMAtlt
OH FM q .U tU W-l >
fMVwIm Vwf • Q U-'M- 4*
MUMWM 0 II tit tB
rMfeMtbMrNr 4 in tu til
RmMul Q M til III!
VmTM* « U IU til
Y""T"*
" '" *"
n tu in
.IU III IIII
To Increase
Interest Rates
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Federal Re-
serve Chairman Alan Greenspan
let Congress know be is not happy
with the country's "disappointing*'
Inflation and indicated the central
bank stands ready to raise interest
rates to dampen price pressures.
Delivering his midyear assess-
ment of the economv, Greenspan
on Tuesday appeared to dash any
lingering hopes that the economy's
poor performance this year would
prompt the Fed to cut interest
rates further.
NEW YORK - Several of the
nation's biggest banks reported btt-
ter-tfian-Mpe^ed earnings as prob-
lem loans declined, capital levels
strengthened and fee income rose.
The results Tuesday from Citi-
corp, Chemical Banking Corp.,
NalionsBank, Bane One Corp.,
Wells Fargo & Co. and First Inter-
Attention
Merril
has op
Sera
Investment expertlst
is now right in;
When you think of Merril
of stocks and bonds. But a.
with all of your financial ne
earned a reputation of trust
largest full-service firm in tl
Quality Personal Servlc
Our professionally traim
-------
. The Tribune, Scranton, Pa. — Thursday. July 22, 1993 — C-fl
ights to sf idy OBE reforms once new board is seated
,( William Spady, a nationally
cognized OBE proponent, is an
• bscrvable demonstration of
in-.vlcdge, combined with compet-
ici. combined with orientations."
l'\.e major domains or OBE are
ml the student shall know, what
c siiident shill be able to do and
'iat the student shall be like.
muling to information provided
r. .ady.
Th-j current educational system
t.ised on ttch student earning
ninny Carntgie Unit credits in
.•ciHc a real of study, such as
..thematic*, science, social
i>riies and English.
While Thompson said he would
ke to have proponents and oppo-
onts alike at a meeting. Assistant
uperintendent Leonard Vender
lid the debate is over because
hapter 5 has been mandated.
"How it's defined is the choice or
'ie community," he said. "That's
hat the strategic planning com-
'ittee and the board will have to
ccide."
The strategic planning commit-
' 'e, which includes three board
'embers, five teachers, adminis-
ators and members of the busi-
ess community last met in
•muary, but put its meetings on
ing cutter i of as good
ly for hear' disease
.s maior dmbsck.
:.i Ihe latter of Ihe latest studies,
iirrtcd by Dr. Eric J. Topol of the
I' vcland ClUc Foundation, doc-
« randomk assigned 1,012 pa-
• -nts at 35 bvpitals in the United
• ales and Scope to have atherec-
"^^™"^^^^^^"™" hiatus because of the teachers'
n^rV" 4* xv m<% f*t strike, said Director Bonnie Peru-
IB I II || ^hT gini, who serves on the committee.
C^ M/VF M.M. ^J Sne also sa.lo> Mie committee also
•^^ w ^^ ***^ sought to bring in more segments
of the community. It will continue
to discuss the changes by the state,
she said, but it is nowhere near
making any decisions on what
changes may occur within the dis-
trict.
"As far as I'm concerned, that
committee is in place. That com-
mittee knows what we want as a
community," she said.
Vender also said the committee
stopped meeting until the final
step was taken in approval of the
Chapter 5 regulations. Last week,
the attorney general also looked at
the regulations to see if any were
in violation of the state constitu-
tion and did not find any viola-
tions, he said.
Thompson said he believed the
taxpayers have a right to know as
much as possible about the
changes and how they will affect
the educational system.
But Vender said bringing in pro-
ponents and opponents of OBE
from outside the district may only
cause friction because they may be
pushing their own agendas with no
concern for the district.
"We could be in compliance with
those regulations pretty much with
what we're doing right now," he
said. "What we want to do is build
on the good things we're doing
now."
While the strategic planning com-
mittee will reconvene to discuss
the matter in public, Thompson
suggested the committee wait until
after December, when the new
board members take office. The
Perugini,
Bailey —
who "serve on the committee now
*'" be out of office in December.
nn Mid £a'y resign
nouitrcnoose ordinary an-^BK". . •
loplasty in m6st cases "because it I" another matter, Superintend-
ent Elvin C. LaCoe said damage
from a fire Monday evening at the
Abington Heights Middle School is
estimated at $500.000.
The fire caused a considerable
amount of damage to the heart of
the school's electrical system. The
reason for the cost being so high is
because of the damage to the
school's communications network,
including video equipment, he
said.
The fire is still under investiga-
tion, LaCoe said, but he thanked
ntly of the pharmaceutical firm.
The research "basically shows
iat they are both viable alterna-
ves.
"They provide the doctor with
nother choice in treating pa-
lents," said David Pom fret, an Eli
.illy spokesman.
The new findings do not neces-
sarily mean the device has been
•ised inappropriately in individual
s .believe ather-
fcbetttv tor tome
HOIWIUUIIM-Ural hit UVres&nd board members tafce on
well M.anjioplasty. such as odiHj" three board members —
shaped bnlldups.,/ ' --Terry Singer and Steuart
, Iran editorial in the Journal, Dr.
'Ohn» Aj.rBittl 'of Brigham and
the three volunteer fire companies
who helped contain the fire —
Newton-Ransom, Clark's Summit
and Chinchilla.
The school will be ready for
operation in September, he said.
4 the lifer and more cost effective
if the two procedures." ••
fJnivavar fir rtnn*iM P-»*m r*f
LAS VEGAS OCT. 3.7
DIRECT CHARTER FROM AVOCA
LAST CALM
ONLY 30 SEATS LEFT
FROM $439
PRINCESS CRUISES'
BUY 1 GET 1 FREE
PLUS AIRFARE
FALL CARIBBEAN CRUISE
CALL
IRELAND OCT. 18 23
*1429PP
10 Green Ridge Si., Scranton
342-5790 - 655-4003
SCRANTON
CRAFTSMEN
930 Dunmore St., Throop, PA
CUSTOM MADE
IRON RAILINGS
Then* I* A Difference
In Custom Made
Iron A Aluminum Railing*
WECAST
CONCRETE
STEPS
SCRANTON 347-5125
WILKES BARRE 824-0389
MT. POCONO 839-8095
CARBONDALE 489-8462
Clipboard
REWARD!
UNCLAIMED SCHOOL SEWING MACHINES
SINGER'S Educafcm Department placedorders in anticipation of large school
sales. Due to budget cuts, these sates were unclaimed These machines must
be soldi All machines offered are the most modem machines In (he SINGER I
LINE. These raachines are MADE Of METAL and sew on aR fabrics: Lew's. I
canvas, upholstery, nylon, stretch vinyl, s*, EVEN SEW ON LEATHER)
These machines are new with • tO-ye*r warranty. WHhftensw 1993SINGER
youJust set the dial and sea magic happen. Straight sewing, zigzng, button-
hoWfi (any sixe). hem, monogram, satin stitch, embroidery, applique, sew on
b-jttons and snaps, topstitch. straight stitch ..aB Ms and more. Without the
need of old-fashioned cams or programmers. Your price with this ad $ 199.00,
Without art *3OO f.'jrh y-K*»^t »l^n/:«,
------- |