United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-86/027
September 1986
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Lansdowne Radiation, PA
(Second Remedial Action)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleale read Instructions on the revene before completing)
,. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION /1010.
EPA/ROD/R03-86/027
.. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION September 22, 1986
Lansdowne Radiation, PA 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Second Remedial Action
7. AUTHORISI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM EL.EMENT NO.
". CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREO
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Repor t
401 M Street, S.w. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Wash ington, D.C. 20 4 60 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Lansdowne Radiation site cons ists of two attached residences located at 105/107"
East Stratford Avenue, Lansdowne, PA. The building is located in a residential CllEea,
approxima tely two miles from Ph iladelph ia. The dwellings were contaminated with radium
and other radionuclides between 1924 and 1944 as a result of work done in 'one of the
houses. In 1924 Dr. Dicran Kabak j ian, a professor of physics at the University of PA,
opened up what was essentially a family-run business to refine radium and produce
medical devices in his home at 105 E. Stratford Avenue. After Dr. Kabak j ian IS dea th in
1945, from conditions not linked directly to radium exposure, the house twice changed
owner ship; fir s t to the Tallant family, then to the Kir z ir ian family. In 1963, based on
in forma tion gathered from pr ivate individuals, the Sta te Department of Health inspected
the house and found extremely high levels of radiation. A decontamination effort in
1964 consisted of removing as much radium as practical by sanding, scr aping, vacuuming,
and wash ing the house walls, floors and ceilings. Some concrete floor and wooden floor
boar ds were also removed. It is postulated that the acid fumes from the radium
pur ification procedur e used, as well as spills, carried the radium contamination deep
into the wood and plaster of the home. After cleanup, the house received epoxy-based
paint coatings to 11mi t the outward migration of the radium that remained deeply
embedded in the actual str ucture. In December 1964, four mon ths after the completion oj
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANAL.YSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Lansdowne Radiation, PA
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: so il, air
Key contaminants: radium, actinium,
thor ium, protactinium
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (Tllis Reporr) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 18
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tlris page) 22. PRICE
None
EPA 'o,m 2220-1 (R.... .-77)
PREVIOUS EOITION II OBIO~ETE
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-86/027
Lansdowne, PA
Second Remedial Action
16.
ABS~~ACT (continued)
the decontamination, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), basing its
report on a 16 hour-per-day-exposure, concluded the radiation dose rate
received by the occupants, the Kizirian family, was just above the then
existing guidelines of 0.5 remjyr, and that further decontamination of the
house would be impractical. Contamination at the Bashore family home at 107
E. Stratford Avenue was not addressed. The first remedial action at this
site, initiated in August 1985, provided temporary housing for one of the
residents. No further decontamination can currently be performed without
removing the structural members, walls, and floors. FUrniture and
appliances that can not be decontaminated are pending remedial actions. The
primary contaminant of concern is radium with actinium, thorium, and
protactinium as secondary contaminants.
The selected remedial action for this second operable unit includes:
dismantling of the twin house. All radioactive materials above established
permissible levels will be packed and sealed in approved containers, and
disposed of at an approved offsite disposal facility: contaminated soil
located in and around the house will be excavated and removed to established
permissible levels. Some soil in surrounding lots along the property lines
may be removed if sampling or monitoring during excavation shows migration
of the radium beyond the original property: the sewer lateral leading from
the contaminated house to Stratford Avenue will be removed: approximately
two hundred feet of sewer line from in front of the house to Union Avenue
will be replaced: operation and maintenance associated with this action will
include waintenance of the vacant property lot. The capital cost has been
estimated at $4,000,000-$4,500,000 with O&M costs reported to be "minimal".
.- . . "' ~
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE:
Lansdowne Radiation Site, Lansdowne~ Pennsylvania
Documents Reviewed:
I am basing my decision principally on the following documents descrjbing
the analysis of cost effectiveness and feas'ibili ~y of remedial alternatives
for the Lansdowne Radiation Site:
- Public Health Advisory, Centers for Disease Control, March 5, 1985
- Radiologic Assessments-Interim Reports, Argonne National Laboratory,
February 28, 1985 and March 14, 1985
- Radiologic Assessment Report,
Argonne National Laboratory, September, 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:
- The twin house will be dismantled. All radioactive materials above
established permissible levels will be packed and sealed in approved
containers, and disposed of at an approved offsite disp~sa1' facility.
- Contaminated soil located in and around the house wi1~ be excavated
and removed to established permissible levels. Some soil in surrounding
lots along the property lines may be removed if sampling or monitoring
during excavation shows migration of the radium beyond the original property.
- The sewer lateral leading from the contam\nated house t~ Stratford Avenue
will be removed.
- Approximately two hundred feet of sewer line from in front of ~he
house to Union Avenue will be replaced.
- Operation and maintenance associated with this action will include
maintenance of the vacant property lot.
-------
Declaration
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. ~9601-9657), including
Section 101(24), and the National Contingency tlan (40 CFR Part 300), I
have determined that the remedial action described above constitutes a
cost-effective remedy which mitigates and minimizes damage to public
health, welfare, and the environment. The remedial action provides for
the removal of a radiologic threat to the people living in the Borough
of Lansdowne. Removal of the house precludes any danger to persons or
the environment as a result of vandalism, burglary, fire or other
catastrophe which could expose nearby residents to radiation. This
remedial action does not affect any floodplain or wetland areas. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been consulted and agrees with the
approved remedy. In addition, the action will requi~~ operation and.
maintenance activities to the vacant lot including grass cutting, snow
removal, and sidewalk repair.
I have determined that the action being taken is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other
sites. .
~~/ gh
DATE
James M. Seif
Regional Administrator
EPA Region III
.
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SELECTION
LANSDOWN~ RADIA~ION SITE
Site Description (see figures 1 and 2)
The Lansdowne Radiation 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, loca~ed 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 consti tute a significant health risk."
FEMA provided temporary housing for one'of the residents under a
temporary relocation measure. This resident died approximately one year
after the temporary relocatioQ was instituted. The resident from the
other half of the twin was marrying at th~ time of the relocation and
moved to another location nearby with her new husband. Planning for
permanent relocation has begun with an i~teragency agreement-between the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who has the responsibility
for relocations, and EPA. This permanent relocation is the result of ' a
previous Record of Decision for this site, signed 00 August 2; 1985.
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 Department
of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. This analysis shows that the
structure of the houses as well as the ground aro~nd them is contaminated.
Although one of the homes was the subject of an intensive decontamination
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 decontaminated or that the residents
did not take to their temporary housing has been left in the house pending
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 10-2~ feet below the surface.
Although no known wells are operating in the area, records from previous
wells located nearby in the aquif~r 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. It is expected that
some of the radium has migrated into the subsoil. of adjacent properties.
SITE HISTORY
In 1910, Dr. Dicran Kabakjian, a professor of physics at the University
of Pennsylvania, developed a proc~~s 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 Kiz1rian family in 1961.
In 1963, based on information gathered fro~ private individuals, 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 portio~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 co..sisted of removing as much radium
as practical by sanding, scraping, vacuuming, and washing the house walls,
flQors and ceilings. Some concrete floor and wooden floorboards were also
removed. It is postulated. that the acid fumes from the radium purification
procedure used, as well as spills, carried the radium contamination deep
into the' 'wood and plaster of the home. After the cleanup, the house received
epoxy-based paint coatings to limit the outward migration of the radium
that remained deeply embedded in the actual structure.
-------
(3)
The decontamination was completed in the summer of 1964 and the
Kizirian family was allo~ed to move back into 105 E. Stratford on
September 6, 1964. Four months later, the Pennsylvania Department of
Health 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, t~e 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 vf 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) wrate that based on the measured
levels, "... 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 O. 17 reml yr 1.6 rem/yr 0.33 rem/yr
Radon 0.03 WL 0.021-0.309 WL 0.023-0.106 WL
To tal .
Soil Activity 5-1.5 pCi/g 2800 pCi/g . 283 pCi/g
NOTES: 1. Permissible gamma levd is the accepted limi t for exposure
to the general public.
2. Radon levels are expressed in Working Levels (WL) originally
developed for uranium miners.
~. 50il 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 EPA 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 th~ 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. Basehore declined
the relocation for personal reasons. She was remarried in November and
moved in with her new husband not far from the site. Mrs. Kizirian
died in early 1986 while living in the apartment provided under the
temporary relocation.
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 dru~s 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 remQve all of the radium. Further work will be done
during this remedial action to determine if it is possible to clean and
then return the furniture. Mrs. Basehore (now Lopderback) w?uld like to
save pieces of the furniture for their value as heirlooms and antiques.
If the decontamin~tion cannot be performed without ruining the pieces,
of for less than the value of the pieces, the furniture will be disposed
of with the other contaminated material.
At the same 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 we~e present on the site. These
tests confirmed the presence of other nuclides including actinium, thorium
and protactinium.
Environmental concer's are minimal at this time. The radon gas
levels outside the structure are at background le~els. 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 offsite
. into the soil of neighboring yards. Further extent-of-contamination
studies will be conducted on these properties during the design of remedial
action for the structure. It is expected that some soil in these yards
will have to be removed at the time of the excavation of the soil around
the house. Measurements taken in the homes on these properties has
shown no elevated levels of radon that would indicate that the radium
contamination is pervasive and extensive, which would necessitate an
e~tens1ve s011 removal program.
-------
(5)
The sampling conducted on the house lateral sewer leading to Stratford
Avenue shows that there is radium -in the line. Samples taken at the
corner of Stratford and Union Avenues where the street sewer connects to
a borough interceptor show no radium at this point. Since it is not
practical to sample along the sewer on Stratford Avenue to determine
where the contamination stops, guidelines require that the entire line
(approximatel y 200 feet) from the last known point of contamination to the
first uncontaminated ~ampling point, be considered contaminated above
permissible levels and replaced.
Further sampling of the borough sewer system will be done during
design of the remedial action. This will ensure that any radium carried
to the interceptor on Union Avenue was not washed down the pipe to another
location. Although this is unlikely since radium is more dense than lead
and would be ~Apected to settle out quickly, the possibility should be examined.
Analysis of Alternatives:
A previc~s Record of Decision examined the remedial alternatives and
allowed for permanent relocation activities to begin as' an operable unit-
in anticipation of future remedial actions. This Record of Decision examines
the alternatives in light of the final report of studies conducted by Argonne
Laboratories. .
Alternative 1 - No Action
This alternative involves no remedial ac~ionand leaves the houses
in their existing state. The permanent relocation operable unit for the
families would result in their receiving permanent relocation allowances.
If the .houses remain vacant, vandalism or fire could spread the radium
contamination and expose the surrounding population to more risk. House
repairs w~uld be dangerous for the persons perfotming the work. Repairing
the walls, porches or doorframes or any similar activity would likely
disturb tl.e 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 w,pat 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 const~ucted. In addition, it is unknown if any radium has
worked its way unler the house and is contributing to the radon gas levels.
Consequently, act~al "decontamination" is not technically possible.
Only through the actual removal of the contaminated structural material
can the decontamination be accomplished. No costs or time estimates
were calculated for this alternative since it is not technically feasible.
".,. .
-------
(6)
Alternative 3 - Removal of the Contaminated Str~cture, SOdl, and Sewer;
Reconstruction the Houses.
This alternative would involve the removal of the contaminated structure
and the surrounding contaminated soil to an approved offsite disposal
facility. The subsurface soil would be monitored during removal and it
is probable that some soil in adjacent yards has subsurface contamination
and would also be removed. The contaminated sewer would also have to be.
excavated for disposal and replaced.
After the structure and contaminated soi1 are r:emoved, the site would be
backfilled with clean fill and new houses would be constructed for the
residents. --
This alternative was ruled out in the previous record of decision and
is li~ted here only for information as to what alternatives were examined.
Alternative 4 - Removal of the Contaminated Structure, Soil, and Sewer;
Pe~anent 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 is necessary
to take a permanent relocation action. Under the previously signed
Record of Decision this was approved as a first operable unit.
Once this relocation is accomplished, EPA will be able to proceed
with the remedial actions. The capital cost of this alternative has
been estimated at $4,000,000 - $4,500,000 for the dismantling and disposal
of the existing structure and contaminated sewers. The time to accomplish
this work has been estimated at six months to design the remedial action
and twelve months to perform the cleanup. Disposal of the material
will be in a licensed disposal facility to be identified by the State
of Pennsylvania.
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 lower cost alternative that is technologically
feasible and reliable) and which effectively ~itigates 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, anc. of information received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmen~al Resources, we recommend the following:
-------
(7)
Alternative 4 - Removal of the Contaminated Structure, Soil, and Sewer;
Permanent Relocation of the Residents
This alternative consists of at least two operable units. A previous
Record of Decision has been prepared to accomplish the actual purchase of
the properties as a first operable unit in order that further remedial
actions could be undertaken as second or later operational units.
Based on the information gathered through our'investigations and the
work done in 1964 to decontaminate 105, it is clear that the existing
structure is too contaminated for decontamination procedures to be
practical. Remedial actions involving the actual cleanup are expected
to be accomplished as this second operable unit following the completion of
the permanent relocation efforts.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance of the vacant lot'will be minimal and will
include the maintenance of the lawn, sidewalk repair and snow removal.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
The remedial action proposed will be
the Department of Energy to ensure that
regulations relating to the disposal of
are followed. .
coordinated with the State and
all provisions of the laws and
s~lid and radioactive wastes
SCHEDULE
Choose Remedial Alternative, Sign Second ROD
Amend Cooperative Agreement with COE for Design
Start Design
Complete Design
Amend Interagency Agreement for Construction
Start Contruction
Complete Construction
September 1986
September 1986
December 1986
. April 1987
April 1987
June 1987
June 1988
.
-------
(8)
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 tne environment.
Alternative 2, which is the decontamination alternative, was not chosen
because the current Argonne studies show that surface decontamination of
the property during the action in 1964 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.
Alternative 3, which is the removal of the structure and contaminated
s011 followed by reconstruction of similar houses on the-site, was
ruled out in the previous Record of Decision for two reasons. First,
neither property owner wanted 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 would
also include the cost of temporary housing for the period of dtsmantling
and reconstruction. Therefore, based on the difficulty anticipated in
moving the residents back onto the site, as w~l 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
eliminating exposure to radiation at the site. Purchase of the properries
and removal of contaminated material, 80il and sewers would eliminate
the exposure of the occupants or neighbors to radiation resulting from
the contamination of the house structure and soil with radium, radon,
radon progeny and other radionuclides. This operable unit is consistent
with the remedial action of permanent relocation described in the previous
Record of Decision. .
-------
'ViM^^P
liooptr
^-,
vl
'{»>
F«rt
(Plymouth
\MMiini
^
ft UK tl.
AM* Art
/Conthohocki
s \
y
t^Onlind
Xn)
Mhnum
Tpiavt
«/JT •«¥» *ll«¥<
/ •Vatse^»o^
/• vatK^e I..
/ ^^W011
gallon ifly
GlidwyiwC
^ •
4 ^•1|«^>,
W
/
i f\
\» >,
M
±r»--
«^i
EttrX
—.
PHII>DE|.PHIA
^na
M
^r.l-
^^^^ .y J,—^^_^ ^ mi *mvt a
^^^^"Mtf-\ ****££?*&>
^•riiiql' *^\.SS#!S^--'MWW"'^
-J \
JwV
iwn
nt
^
\*o RWKOCM0
-------
J^ XH**-*^
' ft V^k ^X. -
P B R
_ _ St \aifnn
- Earfsdowne J
105-107 E. Stratford
Radiation Sit
/ \ DARBY
P'a
, VAldair-
*
Collingdale
DA R9 T '\
, .
HI>L .^
FIGURE 2
\'-
-------
Lansdcwne Responsivene.ss SUI'I1Itary
June, 1985
The history of radiation contamination at 105 East Stratford Avenue
in LansdoWT1e, Pennsylvania (I:elaware County) dates back to 1924. The
residence was the site of a physics professor's basement laboratory, used
for processi~ radium sources for hospitals, doctors and institutions for
radiation therapy. In the early 1960's, the hate 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, vacuumi~ and washing. The walls, ceilings
and floors were painted wi th epoxy paint to prevent further release of the
remaini~ 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 l:¥ the SUperfund
Program. As a result of the survey, the State of, Pennsylvania's Radiation
Progrcm brought the site to EPA's attention. !he state and EPA took
measurements in June and July which revealed levels of gamma radiation and
radon decay products above the recanmended general [x)pulation 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
[x)pulation exposure. !he Centers for Disease Control (COC) recanmended
that action be taken to remove the residents of, both homes fram exposure
to the contamination.' " '
The residents of 105 East Stratford Avenue were temporarily relocated
in September, 1984. !he residents of 107 East Stratford Avenue were
temporarily relocated in November, 1984. Curren~ly, the health threat
exists only for long teen continuous residents of the house:
On September 12, 1984 EPA met with the Lansdowne Borou;;Jh Council to
discuss the results of the testing. O1e week later, EPA ~ttended 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 fram the house might have on families that live in
the sane neighborhood. Concerns about property values were also discussed..
Sane of the fomer cwners '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 maeting. 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. Iesults of the radiation testing
showed no levels of concern at those properties. EPA and Argonne National
Labo~atory began an intensive radiological assessment of the 105-107 East
Stratford properties in September, 1984. AI though the assessment report
-------
- 2 -
is not yet complete, interbn data has been used to take actions at the
site. A f ire alarm and sprinkler system were installed in the V=icant
houses by April, 1985, to e1irndnate the tnreat of vandals entering the
building and to prevent a potential fire fram occurring at the site. Fire
could cause a release of radioactive material throughout the neig~~hood
around the properties.
In March, 1985, the COC issued a public health advisory for the long-
teen residents of the homes, and the next month the twin house at
105-107 East Stratford Avenue was placed on the proposed National Priorities
List. This is the first such residential dwelli~ nationwide that has been
proposed for inclusion on the NPL. The carment period following the
proposal was shortened fram 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. ~tice
of the public rreeting was made throtgh 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. UP! and AP'
carried the advisory on its daybook for the Philadelphia media. EPA staff
at the rreeting included, the site On-Scene Coordinator, Remedial Project
Manager, and Cannunity Relations Coordinator. Before the rreeting, the EPA
officials met with both owners of the houses individually.
, The first rreeting was with the owner of 10.7 East Stratford Avenue and
her attorney. She wanted sane of her furniture sent to relatives after it
was decontaminated, and she requested that she be reimbursed for the iterrs 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 qe obtaining a private
appraisal of her hCAJSe. EPA explained that the hcose shoul"d be a~sessed at
fair market value, as if the haJse were not contaminated. Her primary concern,
however, was that she does not want to have a new structure l:uilt on the land,
and that she ~uld not feel canfortable living on that property. She wants to
be reimbursed for her house, and not have another one tuilt on the sane lot.
Later that sane day, EPA met with the son of the owner of 105 East
Stratford Avenue. He informed EPA that he feels the hcose should have been
dismantled in 1964, and he ~uld like to go through the court system to find
cot if there are any responsible parties. He also wanted to know if his
rrother will be reimbursed for her hone before the dismantling begins. EPP.
explained the procedure for appraising the heme, and the process for
reimbursanent. The owners will be reimbursed before the dismantling begins.
He was also interested in future use,- such as who will own the land after the
work is c~lete, and whether a house coold be rebuilt on the lot. He was
told that EPA works through the Federal Errergency ~lanagenent Agency (FEMA) to
relocate and/or to l:uy hones. EPA also explained that the lot could possibly
be, repurchased through 'FEMA and the State after the cleanup' is cooplete.
-------
- 3 -
The public meeting was held that evening at the Borough Council Building.
About 100 residents attended. [)Je to the limited space :it the Hall, future
meetings will be held at a larger facHi ty. The concerns of the residents
centered on health issues and property values. They asked if an evacuation
plan was available during the cleanup. EPA told the resider.i..s that staying
indoors with the windows closed would be the safest action in the event of
a problem arising during the dismantling ~t 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.
nie biggest concern was fran the local firemen, who said they Y.Quld not
fight a fire at the house, should one occur. They said they were never
trained in firefighting at a radiation contaminated struct~e, 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 asc,
Remedial Project Manager, Conm,mity Relations Coordinator, and Region III'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
thraJgh the house, showed them the sprinkler system, and rroni tored each one
of them as they left the property. The Radiation !epresentative displayed
instruments to measure contamination and he explained how each one is: used.
The firemen told EPA that the workshq;> was helpful and very informative, and
it alleviated many of their fears about the house. r-bst 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 Assessrrent !eport being
prepared by Argonne National Laboratory. When EPA receives and review..1S the
report, it will be placed in the repositories at Lansdowne Public Library, .
and Lansdowne Borough Hall, for all interested c.itizens 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 nethods will be used to dismantle the structure, another public rreeting
will be held to discuss the reports and answer questions. The residents of
Lansdowne are very interested in knowing how and when the hoose will be dis-
mantled, and what the property will be used for once EPA' s work is caft)lete.
,
-------
Lansdcwne Res~nsiveness Summary (Addendum)
August, 1986
In August, 1985 the Lansdcwne Radiation Site was finalized on the
National Priorities List (NFL), a list of abandoned toxic waste sites
across the nation.
The site was proposed in April, 1985 and after a
public ccrnaent period which was shortened from 60 to 30 days, the
site officially became part of the NPL.
However, a few days after the
finalization was announced, EPA was infocOed that the 9.lperfund Bill
would not be reauthorized by September 30, 1985, the expiration date
of the bill.
EPA notified all parties involved with the site, and explained
that the cleanup project would have to be delayed until reauthorization
of the Superfund Bill, and untilEPA had funds to tJroceed with the \toOrk.
The agency received inquiries fram local officials, residents and
the media fram August, 1985, through August, 1986. The concerns have
centered on the reauthorization issue. All parties requested that EPA
not have another public meeting until their questions can be answered
regarding how and when the ~rk will take place.
In an effort to be
responsive, EPA has agreed to only hold public meetings when we
.
have new infoncation to disseminate, particularly a date when the
work will begin, and how the \toOrk will be conducted~
EPA met with the Borough of Lansdowne local officials, Delaware
County officials, and representatives fram the Pennsylvania Department
of Envirornental Pesources, and the Federal Eltergency r-Bnagerrent Agency
-------
2.
to.resolve any issues that could possibly delay site work after the Superfund
Bill is reauthorized.
In July, 1986, a list of four alternatives for cleaning up the contaminated
property was developed and either mailed or hand delivered to residents of
Lansdowne.
The alternatives I,o,IIBre also sent to the local media, and to the
site repositories, which are the borough wi l.dirq and the local library.
The list included EPA's preferred alternative, which is:
Alternative 4 - Raroval of the Contaminated Structure, Soil and Se'oNeri
PeI11\anent Relocation of the Residents.
Along with the list, a letter was sent to the residents, asking for their
caments.
The public cOmment period ended August 22, 1986.
. .
In early August, the EPA community relations coordinator and
the project manager went door to door, distribJting the . letter and
the list of alternatives.
Residents 'oNere again asked when they would
prefer that a public rreetil'YJ be held and they re:;ponded th~t a
public neeting should be held when EPA could discuss the trethod for
dismantling the harne, if the preferred alternative is selected, and a
date that the work will begin.
At the close of the carment period, EP, received nine letters with .
cCJ'l'lI1'ents.
Q'te letter was fran u.S. Col'YJressman zobert W. Edgar, who
agreed with EPA's preferred alternative.
Seven le::ters were fran residents
of Lansdowne, who also agreed with EPA's alternative 4.
c:ne letter was
fran a Philadelphia attorney, who is representing the Borough of Lansdcwne
as Special Council in connection to the Superfund Site.
That letter
-------
3.
contained comments about the property, however, no statement was made as
to whether or not he agreed with EPA's preferred alternative.
EPA will continue toinfor.m all interested parties regarding the
Lansdowne Radiation Superfund Site.
Onc~ the \<,Ork begins, all catltlmity
relations activities will continue to be coordinated with the Borough of
Lansdowne, as wi~l all technical as~cts of the site.
------- |