United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/HOD/R03-85-014
August 1985
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Lansdowne Radiation, PA
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the revene before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R03-85/014
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION August 2, 1985
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Lansdowne Radiation, Pa
7. AUTHORCS) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
401' M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Lansdowne Radiation site consists of a duplex located at 105/107 East
Stratford Avenue Avenue in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. The building is loca ted
on a side street in a residential area, approximately two miles from Philadelphia.
The dwellings are contaminated with radium and other radionuclides as the result
of work done in one of the houses to refine radium and produce medical devices
from 1924 through 1944. Radiation levels in the houses exceed current EPA
guidelines and the Center for Disease Control has issued a Public Health Advisory
which states that, " . .exposure levels are in excess of those considered safe
for human habitation."
The selected remedial action includes permanent relocation of the residents
in 105 and 107 East Stratford Avenue. This will entail purchasing the property
at fair market value under the Uniform Re~ocation Act.
i
I
i
!
;
-;
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YSIS I
17. !
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI l.idJ l;,'''.
a. DESCRIPTORS ,
I
Record of Decision
Lanscm'.'1le. ~aciation, P]l.
Contaminated Media: wood, soil
Key contaminants: radium, radon and other
radionuclides
-,
1B. DISTRI8UTION STATEMENT 19. SECURI TY CL~SS ,TillS Re"",rl 21. NO. OF ?':"GES I
I None 14 !
20. SEC.-,RI T\, C L~SS I r;:l',\' p.1:b.!" 22. PRICE
None '
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EOITION IS OBSOLEiE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
REPORT NUMBER
Insert Ihe EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publkation.
2.
3.
LEAVE BLANK
RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by ~adl r~port recipient.
4.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate dearly and briet1y the subje,.t ,'overage of the r"port, and be di,play,'d promin,'nlly. S,'I slIhlilk.lf USl"t. 111 ,m;llin
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in mor,' Ihan on,' voillme. rqwal Ih,' prim;lry tilk. all" h.lanw
number and mclude subtitle for the specific title. '
5.
REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month OInd year. lndi,'ate Ihe ha,i, un whidl it II a,' ,,",ed,'d (",g.. dal.. "1 i.\.""'. Ja',' "l
appro~al, date of preparation, ete.).
6.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7.
AUTHORISI
Give name(s) in "0nventional order (101111 R. Doc. 1. Roba, Dot'. ('(c./. lisl aUlhur's aftili;lIlun if il dill,'rs from Ih,- per\'urminj: ,.fj:ani.
zation.
8.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wIshes to assign Ihis number,
9.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. list no more Ihan two levels of an urganilaliunal hireardlY.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER .
Use the program element number under whil:h the report was prepared. Suburdmale number' may be indlllkd In pa""lIlh,"e'.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Indude ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGI::NCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as:
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
Prepared ill couperalion wllh, 11;I1I,lalll>1I I>1..I're"'II(.-<1 ;11 nlllh-H'II,,' "I.
16. ABSTRACT
Include'a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the mosl ,i~nlfkant Infurmallon lUlllalnl.d "' II,,' "'1'011. 111/". "'1'1>11 ,,,"1,,",, a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mentIOn II here. .
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Sekct irum Ihe Th,"auru' of I.ngll1eer:r.~ and SUl'IIIIII,' 1 ,'rll1\ Ihe pruper "ulh"rl/,'d kflll' Ilial Id"lIllly Ihl' m'IIor
concept of the research and arc ,uffiClenlly speufi.: and pr~ci,e to be uwd a' IlId,'\ entrle' lur ,atal"~ln~.
(bl IDENTllll RS .\'.;0 OPL'.;-L'.;OFD TER\'IS. Cse Idcntlfi~r> for prOle" na 111 " , "uJe lIarne'. "'tlllplneI11 ,k"~n"lL>r', de. Lse' "l'el1'
~nded tcrms writtcn 111 de,.:rlptor f"rm I,)r tho'c 'ubJects ior which nu JC"flptur C\i,h.
(l) COSATI IllLD GROL'P - I ietd anJ ~roup as,ignments ar~ Ie be taken Ir'JI11 Ihe 1%5 CO';,\ II 'il'''ll'el CJI",~I>IY Li,t. 'i1l1'" Ille 111'"
jority of document, are mul tidi,clpllnar, In nature, the Primary I ield, (;ruup a"lgnl11eI11 I" W III he '1',', II" d"'II'I; ne'. "rl'J 01 IIUIII" n
cndeavor, or Iype 01' phy'ical object. rh,' apphcallonls) will be eruğ-rl'lerelked with .e, "ndar, II.-Id ,( ,'''lil' a"'~III'Il'IIh 111,11. "dll.dl.."
the primary po,tmgl >I. .
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote r~lcasabilll) tu Ihl' puhill' "r 1,';;II.I[!"n lor rea'un, uther than 'Cdlfll:, lur e,ampk "ILk.,., t ,,1""II,'d." ( I'" al" ."'III..I,d'l\ I"
the publie, "ilh aJdres, Jnd prlc,'
19, S. 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submil clağ,licd repurts tu :",' '",,,,,nll T,'chnlCallnf<.;rl11allun 'er';I,,'
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the (otal nurnbcr 0f p~g..:'. 1Ih.llJ":::~'~ :1\1' I'nl.." Jild unnumbered pJ~~'. i:ut L'\l..iiJ~k jl,tflhutlun Ihl. II "ny.
22. PRICE
Ins~rt th(' prill': ,(,.,( by th~ \alion..il rl.:.;:;~~_.~; !:'1i'r::1.Jtlt'n ~I..r'.h.,..: i.r '~,,- (",,'_"f!lIlh.nt Ilrlnlln~ Otliu.:.11 klll.\...n
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) (Reverse)
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE:
Lansdowne Radiation Site, Lansdowne, Pennsylvania
Documents Reviewed:
I am basing my decision principally on the following documents describing
the analysis of cost effectiveness and feasibility of remedial alternatives.
for the Lansdowne Radiation Site:
- Public H~alth Advisory, Centers for Disease Control, March 5, 1985
- Radiologic Assessments-Interim Reports, Argonne National Laboratory,
February 28, 1985 and March 14, 1985
,
- Remedial Action Plans and Procedures for the Lansdowne Property, .
105-107 East Stratford Avenue, Lansdowne, PA, Argonne National Laboratory,
June 1985
- Staff summaries and recommendations
- Recommendations by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
~
Description of the Selected Remedy:
- Permanent relocation of the residents in 105 and 107 East Stratford Ave.
This will entail purchasing the property at fair market value under the
Uniform Relocation Act.
- There will be no operation and maintenance associated with this action.
-------
Declaration
Consistent ~ith the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. ~9601-9657), including
Section 101(24), and the ~ational Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I
have determined that the remedial action described above, constitutes a
cost-effective remedy ~hich mitip,ates and minimizes damage to public
health, welfare, and the env~ronment. The remedial action provides for
the permanent relocation of the two families affected at the site and
eliminates any further exposure of the occupants to the radiation. The
remedial action does not affect any floodplain or wetland areas. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been consulted and agrees with the
approved remedy. tn addition, the action will require no operation and
maintenance activities.
I have determined that the action being taken is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other
sites.
4, ,.~ +
d-j
191~ S-
James M. Seif
Regional Administrator
EPA Region III
DATE
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SELECTION
LANSDOWNE RADIATION SITE
Site Description (see figures 1 and 2)
The Lansdowne ~diation Site consists of two attached residences
located at 105/107 East Stratford Avenue in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania.
The building is located on a side street in a residential area,
approximately two miles from Philadelphia. The Borough of Lansdowne is
approximately 1.1 square miles and the population is approximately 11,000.
The dwellings are contaminated with radium and other radionuclides as
the result of work done in one of the houses to refine radium and produce
medical devices from 1924 through 1944.
The site in not located in a floodplain and the nearest surface
water is the Darby Creek, located approximately three quarters of a mile"
southeast of the site. The residents in the area are on public water
supplied by the Philadelphia Suburban Water Company from surface water
reservoirs approximately ten miles north of the site.
Radiation levels in the houses exceed current EPA guidelines and
the Centers for Disease Control has issued a Public Health Advisory
which states that, "... exposure levels are in excess of those considered
safe for human habitation. Occupancy of this building for residential or
commercial purposes will constitute a significant health risk."
FEMA has provided temporary housing for one of the residents-under
a temporary relocation measure. The resident from the other half of the
twin was marrying at the time of the relocation and moved to another
location nearby with her new husband. Fire and intrusion alarms were
installed by EPA during an Immediate Removal action in January, 1985.
A one-thousand-gallon water bladder was also installed in the basement
and attached to an automatic sprinkler system.
Analysis of the radon and radon progeny on the site, along with
a thorough analysis of other radionuclides, was performed by the Depart-
ment of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. This analysis shows that
the structure of the houses as well as the ground around them is contami-
nated. Although one of the homes was the subject of an intensive deconta-
mination effort in 1964, the contamination persists in the walls, floors
and ceiling. No further decontamination can be performed without removing
the structural members, walls and floors. Furniture and-appliances that
are uncontaminated have been turned over to the residents at their new
locations. Furniture that cannot be- Qecontaminated or that the residents
did not take to their temporary housing has been left in the house pending
later remedial actions.
...,:~
-------
(2)
SITE GEOLOGY
The Lansdowne area lies in the Wissahickon Formation which consists
of mica shists and gneiss. Borings on the property showed shists and
gneiss at depths between eight and twelve feet. Groundwater in this
low-yield aquifer is expected to be 10-20 feet below the surface. Although
no known wells are operating in the areat records from previous wells
located nearby in the aquifer of concern show water at an average depth
of 18 feet below the surface. Soil samples show radium contamination
has penetrated at least three feet into the soil.
SITE HISTORY
In 1910t Dr. Dicran Kabakjiant a professor of physics at the University
of Pennsylvania, developed a process for the purification of radium.
This process was used from 1913 to 1922 by a local company that employed
Kabakjian "as a consultant.
Two years after the company closed down in 1922, the professor opened
what was essentially a family-run business in his house at 105 E. Stratford
Avenue. He continued to produce radium implant needles used by physicians
in the treatment of cancer. He also repaired broken ones and worked with
other medical devices for twenty years.
In 1945, Dr. Kabakjian died at the age of 70. Although he suffered
from emphysema and a fibrous tissue buildup in his lungs, these conditions
were not linked directly to radium exposure.
In 1949, four years after Dr. Kabakjian's death, 105 E. Stratford
(the Kabakjian side of the twin) was sold to the Tallant family, who
later sold the house to the Kizirian family in 1961.
In 1963t based on information gathered from private individualst
the State Department of Health inspected the house and found extremely
high levels of radiation. State officials began to look for a way to
clean up the site. Unable to address the problem and cleanup through
state or federal regulations, the Pennsylvania Department of Health
ordered the Kizirian family to decontaminate their own home. The
Kizirian family was able to enlist the help of a local congressman and
eventually the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Pennsylvania
Department of Health decontaminated the 105 E. Stratford portion of the
twin as a demonstration project in 1964. The U.S. Air Force also
contributed to the decontamination effort by supplying a mobile radiation
laboratory to monitor the cleanup.
The actual decontamination effort consisted of removing as much
radium as practical by sanding, scraping, vacuumingt and washing the
house walls, floors and ceilings. Some concrete floor and wooden
floorboards were also removed. After the cleanup, the house received
epoxy-based paint coatings to limit the migration of the radium that
remained deeply embedded in the actual structure. It is postulated that
the acid fumes from the radium purification procedure used and spills
carried the radium contamination deep into the wood and plaster of the
home.
-------
(3)
The decontamination was completed in the summer of 1964 and the
Kizirian family was allowed to move back into 105 E. Stratford on
September 6, 1964. Four months later, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources questioned the level of contamination remaining
and was told by the USPHS that based on a 16 hour-per-day exposure, the
radiation dose rate received by the occupants was just above the then
existing guidelines of 0.5 rem/yr, and that further decontamination of
the house would be impractical. The Kizirian family continued to live
in the house.
Just on the other side of the common party wall of the twin home,
at 107 E. Stratford Avenue, the Bashore family was still in the home
they occupied since 1919, the same year the Kabakjians moved into 105.
No action was taken at 107 in 1964, when the contamination in 105 was
addressed.
CURRENT STATUS
In 1983 the EPA was requesting information from all states concerning
radioactive sites that may be eligible for Superfund cleanup monies.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) notified
EPA of the Lansdowne site and its previous contamination.
- .
In early 1984, EPA and DER sampling and monitoring of the structure
showed high radon and gamma radiation levels in 105 (the Kizirians) and
high radon levels along with lower gamma levels in 107 (the Bashores).
Additionally, very high levels of radiation have been measured in the
soil around the properties. In March 1984, the Chronic Disease Division
of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wrote that based on the measured
~evels, "... the entire duplex structure should be considered to pose a
significant health risk to longterm occupants." .
-
The various levels of radiation measured are summarized below:
TYPE PERMISSIBLE LEVEL 105 E. Stratford 107 E. Stratford
Gamma 0.17 rem/yr 1.6 rem/yr 0.33 rem/yr
Radon 0.03 WL 0.021-0.309 WL 0.023-0.106 WL
Total
Soil Activity 5-15 pCi/g 2800 pCi/g 283 pCi/g
NOTES: 1. Permissible gamma level is the accepted limit for exposure
to the general public.
2~ Radon levels are express~d in Working Levels (WL) originally
developed for uranium miners.
3. Soil activity limits are action levels for uranium mill tailing
sites.
-------
(4)
Although immediate relocation of the occupants was not deemed necessary
at that time, additional sampling was conducted to define the nature and
the extent of the contamination. Argonne National Laboratory's assistance
was requested by £PA for this effort. Argonne took samples in and around the
twin home and levels of alpha and gamma radiation were found to exceed
the EPA standards in both dwellings.
In September 1984, EPA in coordination with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) began a temporary relocation effort for both
families in the house. These actions were taken as part of a larger
effort to minimize the threat to the local community and the environment.
Mrs. Kizirian was moved to an apartment in the area. Mrs Bashore declined
the relocation for personal reasons. She was remarried in November and
moved in with her new husband not far from the site.
Other actions taken at the time included the installation of a
burglar alarm and fire alarm system along with a full sprinkler system
throughout the structure. The insides of all the windows were sealed
with plastic to minimize the chances of any radioactive particles leaving
the house and other security measures were taken to minimize the danger
of vandalism.
Some of the furniture in the homes was-found to be free of contamination
and was removed for the residents' use. Contaminated furniture and
household belongings were left in the home. A number of small items
like tools were found contaminated in 105 and were placed in drums which
have been stored in the basement. Several pieces of wood furniture in
107 had been found to have slight contamination and initial decontamination
efforts failed to remove all of the radium. Further work will be done
to determine if it is possible to clean and then return the furniture.
Mrs Bashore (now Louderback) would like to save pieces of the furniture
for their value as heirlooms and antiques. If the decontamination cannot
be performed without ruining the pieces, the furniture will be disposed
of with the other contaminated material.
At the sa~e time these actions were being taken, Argonne was conducting
a detailed laboratory analysis of their samples taken earlier, to determine
if other species of radioactive materials were present on the site. These
tests confirmed the presence of other nuclides including actinium, thorium
and protactinium.
Environmental concerns are minimal at this time. The radon gas
levels outside the structure are at background levels. The gamma levels
measured do not pose an immediate danger to the residents in the area or
to wildlife. Some migration of the contamination is expected off-site
and will be addressed in a future operable unit of any remedial action
at the site. Further extent-of-contamination studies will be conducted
during the design of remedial actions for the structure itself.
-------
(5)
Analysis of Alternatives:
Alternative 1 - No Action
This alternative involves no remedial action and leaves the houses
in their existing state. The temporary relocation conducted under the
Removal program would cease in October 1985. If the residents moved
back into the homes they would be exposed to high levels of radiation
that present a known health hazard. If the houses remain vacant, vandalism
or fire could spread the radium contamination and expose the surrounding
population to more risk. House repairs would be dangerous for the persons
performing the work. Repairing the walls, porches or doorframes or any
similar activity would likely disturb the radium contamination imbedded
in the structure and cause it to be released. There are no capital
costs associated with this alternative.
Alternative 2 -Decontamination
The 1964 decontamination effort removed what was practical without
dismantling the structure and rebuilding it. The contamination that
remains is primarily deeply embedded in the actual materials with which
the house is constructed. It is also unknown if any radium has worked
its way under the house and is contributing to the radon gas levels.
Consequently, actual "decontamination" is not technically possible.
Only through the actual removal of the contaminated structural material
can the d~contamination be accomplished. No cost& or time estimates
were calculated for this alternative since it is not technically feasible.
Alternative 3 - Removal of the Contaminated Structure and Soil;
Rebuild the Houses.
This alternative would involve the removal of the contaminated structure
and the surrounding contaminated soil to an approved offsite disposal
facility.
After the structure and contaminated soil are removed, the site would. be
backfilled with clean fill and new houses would be constructed for the
residents. During the cleanup phase and the construction period, the two
families would continue to be provided temporary housing.
The costs of this alternative have been calculated to be: $3,400,000 -
$3,800,000 for the dismantling and disposal of the existing structure;
$265,000 for the reconstruction, and $15,000 for temporary relocation
expenses. The time to accomplish the work has been estimated to be
four months for the design, ten months for the clean-up and six months
for the construction of the new homes.
-------
(6)
Alternative 4 - Removal of the House, Permanent Relocation of the
Residents
This alternative is the same as Alternative 3 except the lot will be
left vacant. In order to accomplish this alternative, it will be necessary
to take a permanent relocation action. This will require an interagency
agreement with FEMA to acquire the properties from the two families at
fair market value. Once this .is accomplished, EPA wiil be able to proceed
with the remedial actions. The capital cost of this alternative has been
estimated at $3,400,000 - $3,800,000 for the dismantling and disposal of
the existing structure, and $150,000 for the permanent relocation costs.
The time to accomplish this work has been estimated at four months to
design the remedial action and ten months to perform the clean-up.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Section 300.68(j) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) states that
the appropriate extent of remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's
selection of the remedial alternative which the agency determines is .
cost effective (i.e., the lowe.r cost alternative that is technologically
feasible and reliable) and which effectively mitigates and minimizes
damage to, and provides adequate protection of, public health, welfare,
or the environment. Based on our evaluation of the cost-effectiveness
of each of the proposed alternatives, of the comments received from the
public, and of information received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, we recommend:
Alternative 4 - Removal of the House, Permanent Relocation of the
Residents
This alternative will consist of at least two operable units. This
Record of Decision has been prepared to acco~plish the actual purchase of
the properties in order that further remedial actions could .be undertaken
as second or later operational units.
This decision will allow EPA to enter into an interagency agreement
with FEMA to purchase the contaminated properties. At the same time,
further studies and recommendations will be completed by EPA which will
detail the methodology of dismantling the structure and its ultimate
disposal.
Based on the information gathered through our investigations and the
work done in 1964 to decontaminate 105, it is clear that the existing
structure 1.s too contaminated for decontamination procedures to be
practical. Remedial actions involving the actual cleanup are expected
to be accomplished as the second operable unit following the implementation
of this unit.
-------
(7)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
There will be no operation and maintenance associated with the actual
purchase of the properties. Further Records of Decision will be prepared
for later operable units that will deal with the actual removal of the
structure. Capital as well as operation and maintenance costs will be
addressed in these documents.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
The remedial action proposed will be coordinated with the State and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to insure that- the .
provisions of the Comprehensive Relocation Act are followed.
SCHEDULE
Approve First Remedial Action Operable Unit (sign ROD)
Sign Interagency Agreement with FEMA for Relocation
Complete Permanant Relocation Actions (FEMA)
Complete Ongoing Studies and Approve Cleanup
Operable. Unit (sign second ROD)
Amend Cooperative Agreement with COE for Design
Start Design
Complete Design
Amend Interagency Agreement for Construction
Start Contruction
Complete Construction
8/01/85
8/09/85
10/15/85
9/30/85
October 1985
November 1985
January 1986
January 1986
April 1986
December 1986
. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED
Alternative 1, which is the "no action" alternative, was not chosen
due to the inability of this option to remedy the existing contamination
at the site. If the residents moved back into the homes, they would be
exposed to high levels of radiation that present a known hazard. If they
decided not to return to their homes, the property would be left vacant.
Through vandalism, fire, malicious mischief, or even routine maintenance
of the property, radium contamination could be spread on the site or
throughout the neighborhood. Therefore, this alternative does not adequately
mitigate or minimize damage to public health and the environment.
Alternative 2, which is the decontamination alternative, was not chosen
because the action in 1964 showed that surface decontamination of the -
property was inadequate to address all the radium contamination within
the structure. Only through dismantling and removal of the actual
structural portions of the house could significant decontamination be
accomplished. Therefore, this alternative was not selected because it
is not technically feasible.
-------
(8)
Alternative 3. which is the removal of the structure and contaminated
soil followed by reconstruction of similar houses on the site, was not
chosen for two reasons. First. neither property owner wants to move
back to the site. even into a new home. Second, it would cost more than
the fair market value of the properties to construct new, equivalent
homes. This alternative wou14 also include the cost of temporary housing
for the period of dismantling and reconstruction. Therefore, based on
the difficulty anticipated in moving the residents back onto the site,
as well as the additional costs incurred in implementing this alternative,
it was determined not to be cost effective or institutionally feasible.
SUMMARy EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The chosen alternative meets the major objective of mitigating and/or
el!minating exposure to radiation at the site. Purchase of the properties
and later removal would eliminate the exposure of the occupants to radiation
resulting from the contamination of the house structure with radium,
radon, radon progeny and other radionuclides. A permanent relocatfon
would compensate the property owners for the fair market value of their
properties and would allow them to find permanent living quarters of
their own choosing. This operable unit is consistent with the further
remedial actions contemplated, including the dismantling of the structure
and removal of the contaminated soil around it.
-------
Lansdowne Responsiveness Summary
June, 1985
The history of radiation contamination at 105 East Stratford Avenue
in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania (Delaware County) dates back to 1924. The
residence was the site of a physics professor's basement laboratory, used
for processing radium sources for hospitals, doctors and institutions for
radiation therapy. In the early 1960's, the home was the, subject of an
intensive decontamination project conducted by the State and the U.S.
Public Health Service that used state-of-the-art methods for that time,
including sanding, scraping, vacuuming and washing. The walls, ceilings
and floors were painted with epoxy paint to prevent further release of the
remaining radium particles which were deeply entrained in the structure
itself. .
In late 1983, EPA began a survey of states to determine the existence
of any radiation problems which might be addressed by the Superfund
Program. As a result of the survey, the State of Pennsylvania's Radiation
Program brought the site to EPA's attention. The state and EPA took
measurements in June and July which revealed levels of gamma radiation and
radon decay products above the recommended general population exposure
levels in the 105 East Stratford Avenue home. The attached home at 107
East Stratford Avenue was determined to contain lower levels of radon
decay products but these also exceed the levels recommended for general
population exposure. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended
that action be taken to remove the residents of both homes from exposure
to the contamination. .
The residents of 105 East Stratford Avenue were temporarily relocated'
in September, 1984. The residents of 107 East Stratford Avenue were
temporarily relocated in November, 1984. Currently, the health threat
exists only for'long term continuous residents of the house.
On September 12, 1984 EPA met with the Lansdowne Borough Council to
discuss the results of the testing. One week later, EPA attended a public
Borough Council meeting. Five residents asked questions about the Lansdowne
house. Their concerns were primarily health-related; they questioned the
effect that radiation from the house might have on families that live in
the same neighborhood. Concerns about property values were also discussed.
Some of the former owners of the house attended the meeting and they asked
to have their furniture tested. EPA's Region III radiation representative
tested the furniture in the weeks that followed the meeting. Any furniture
that showed radiation contamination was either decontaminated, or stored
at the now vacant Stratford Avenue property. At the requests of several
residents who owned and lived in homes close to 105-107 ,East Stratford
Avenue, EPA's radiation representative tested their properties. A followup
letter was sent to each property owner. Results of the radiation testing
showed no levels of concern at those properties. EPA and Argonne National
Laboratory began an intensive radiological assessment of the 105-107 East'
Stratford properties in September, 1984. Although the assessment report
-------
- 2 -
is not yet complete, interim data has been used to take actions at the
site. A fire alarm and sprinkler system were installed in the vacant.
houses by April, 1985, to eliminate the threat of vandals entering the
building and to prevent a potential fire from occurring at the site. Fire
could cause a release of radioactive material throughout the neighborhood
around the properties.
In March, 1985, the COC issued a public health advisory for the long-
term residents of the homes, and later that same month the twin house at
105-107 East Stratford Avenue was placed on the proposed National Priorities -
List. This is the first such residential dwelling nationwide that has been
proposed for inclusion on the NPL. The comment period following the
proposal was shortened from 60 days to 30 days in an effort to expedite
the process of finalizing the list and beginning the subsequent remedial
actions. A public meeting was held on May 7, 1985, to inform the public
of the actions which were already taken at the house, and to answer any
questions that they had regarding EPA's future work at the site. Notice
of the public meeting was made through a press release and an advisory on
the UP! and AP newswires. The release was sent to all Philadelphia and
Lansdowne newspapers, radio stations and television stations. UPI and AP
carried the advisory on its daybook for the Philadelphia media. EPA staff
at the meeting included the site On-Scene Coordinator, Remedial Project
Manager, and Community Relations Coordinator. Before the meeting, the EPA
officials met with both owners of the houses individually.
The first meeting was with the owner of 107 East Stratford Avenue and
her attorney. She wanted some of her furniture sent to relatives after it
was decontaminated, and she requested that she be reimbursed for the items if
they could not be decontaminated. EPA explained that the cost-effectiveness
of decontamination over replacement will be considered for each item. The
property owner also informed EPA that she will be obtaining a private
appraisal of her house. EPA explained that the house should be assessed at
fair market value, as if the house were not contaminated. Her primary concern,
however, was that she does not want to have a new structure built on the land,
and that she would not feel comfortable living on that property. She wants to
be reimbursed for her house, and not have another one built on the same lot.
Later that same day, EPA met with the son of the owner of 105 East
$tratford Avenue. He informed EPA that he feels the house should have been
dismantled in 1964, and he would like to go through the court system to find
out if there are any responsible parties. He also wanted to know if his
mother will be reimbursed for her home before the dismantling begins. EPA
explained the procedure for appraising the home, and the process for
reimbursement. The owners will be reimbursed before the dismantling begins.
He was also interested in future use, such as who will own the lanq after the
work is complete, and whether a house could be rebuilt on the lot. He was
told that EPA works through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
relocate and/or to buy homes. EPA also explained that the lot could possibly
be repurchased through FEMA and the State after the cleanup is complete.
-------
- 3 -
The public meeting was held that evening at the Borough Council Building~
About 100 residents attended. Due to the lirnit~d space at the Hall, future
meetings will be held at a larger facility. The concerns of the residencs
centered on health issues and property values. They asked if an evacuation
plan was available during the cleanup. EPA told the residents that staying
indoors with the windows closed would be the safest action in the event of
a problem arising during the dismantling but that continuous monitoring
and security would be provided during the cleanup. A site specific safety
plan would be coordinated with local officials as cleanup begins.
The biggest concern was from the local firemen, who said they would not
fight a fire at the house, should one occur. They said they were never
trained in firefighting at a radiation .contaminated structure, and they felt
that specific training was necessary. In response to their concern, EPA set
up a training program for the firemen. On Sunday, June 9, 1985, the OSG,
Remedial Project Manager, Community Relations Coordinator, and Region Ill's
Radiation Representative spent the day with the firemen teaching them basics
of radiation safety and decontamination procedures, and answering their
questions about radiation contamination. EPA officials walked the firemen
through the house, showed them the sprinkler system, and monitored each one
of them as they left the property. The Radiation Representative displayed
instruments to measure contamination and he explained how each one is used.
The firemen told EPA that the workshop was helpful and very informative, and
it alleviated many of their fears about the house. Most importantly, they said
they would now fight any fire at the house and understood the hazards better.
All of the residents of Lansdowne, local officials, and the media are
very interested in seeing the final Radiological Assessment Report being
prepared by Argonne .National Laboratory. WOen EPA receives and reviews the
report, it will be placed in the repositories at Lansdowne Public Library,
and Lansdowne Borough Hall, for all interested citizens to review. This
report will detail the contamination found and procedures for dismantling and
removing the house. Also, When the site appears on the NPL, and EPA knows
what methods will be used to dismantle the structure, another public meeting
will be held to discuss the reports and answer questions. The residents of
Lansdowne are very interested in knowing how and when the house will be dis-
mantled, and what the property will be used for once EPA's work is complete.
------- |