United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-91/113
June 1991
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Resin Disposal, PA
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R03-91/113
X Recipients Accession No.
Life and Subtitle
JPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
nesin Disposal, PA
First Remedial Action
5. Report Date
06/28/91
?._ Author(e)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Pefforming Organization Kama and Address
10. Proiect/Taak/Work Unit No.
11. •ContracK.C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 worda)
The 26-acre Resin Disposal site is an inactive industrial landfill and former coal
strip mining area in Jefferson Borough, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The site is
bordered to the north and west by residential areas, and to the east and south by
indeveloped land. The site overlies a bedrock aquifer, and is also in contact with the
Pittsburgh Coal Formation, a source of non-potable ground water. Prior to 1950, coal
strip mining operations were conducted on and near the site. From 1950 to 1964, 85,000
tons of process wastes consisting of petroleum and coal-derived chemicals mixed with
clay were disposed of in a previously mined onsite area, and earthen dikes were used to
contain these wastes. Between 1980 and 1984, private investigations identified that
contaminants from the landfill had migrated to the Pittsburgh Coal Formation, and the
soil and perched ground water downslope. Subsequently, the site owners installed a
leachate collection system and an oil/water separator. EPA investigations in 1988
further characterized contaminated media and analyzed potential contaminant pathways.
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses source control, as well as preventing migration
of contaminated ground water in the Pittsburgh Coal Formation. A subsequent ROD will
address any remediation of ground water that may be necessary. The primary
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyaia a. Deacriptora
Record of Decision - Resin Disposal, PA
First Remedial Action
^Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs, phenols)
b. Identifiera/Open-Ended Terma
c. COSATI Reid/Group
Availability Statement
19. Security Claaa (Thia Report)
None
20. Security Clasa (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pagea
48
22. Price
(See ANSI-239.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-91/1I3
Resin Disposal, PA
"'rst Remedial Action
i
.~3tract (Continued)
contaminants of concern affecting soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs including
benze'he, toluene, and xylenes; and other organics including napthalene, PAHs and
phenols.
The selected remedial action for this site includes capping the landfill with a
multi-layer cap, and upgrading the landfill dike; relocating a sanitary sewer located
along the northeast border of the landfill to allow future access without disturbing the
landfill cap; installing a new oil/water separator for leachate treatment, with
discharge of aqueous phases to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and possible
offsite reclamation of NAPLs for use as an energy source; installing a skimmer well
system to remove NAPLs from ground water for use as an energy source; monitoring ground
water and surface water; and implementing institutional controls including deed
restrictions, and site access restrictions such as fencing. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $4,348,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$132,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific goals were not provided.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RESIN DISPOSAL SITE
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Resin Disposal Site
Jefferson Borough
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Resin Disposal Site (site) in Jefferson Borough, Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, developed and chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et sea, and
to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record file for this
site.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Resources has concurred with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine,
pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606, that actual
or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, as
specified in Section II Summary of Site Risks, if not addressed *
by implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The selected remedy is a permanent remedy for containing the
waste material which is the source of soil and ground water
contamination at the site. The selected remedy includes the
following major components:
• Installation of a multi-layer cap and infiltration
control system for the landfill to prevent further
migration of contaminants
• Installation of a skimmer well system downgradient of
the landfill to collect floating product in ground
water that may otherwise migrate offsite via the mine
voids
• Upgrading of the lower landfill dike to increase its
stability
-------
• Relocation of the sanitary sewer along the northeast
border of the landfill to allow future access without
unduly disturbing the landfill cap system
• Installation of an upgraded oil/water separator
downslope of the leachate collection trench
• Construction of a fence around the perimeter of the
site to prevent unauthorized site access
• Instituting deed restrictions
• Monitoring ground and surface water and implementing a
site maintenance program.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine that the
selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
legally are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) to the remedial action, and is cost effective. The
remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedial actions in
which treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume is a
principal element. Finally, it is determined that this remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. See Section
121(b) and (d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9621(b) and (d).
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
onsite above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
every five years after commencement of remedial action in
accordance with Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9621(c) to
ensure that human health and the environment continue to be
adequately protected by the remedy.
Edwin B. EricJcson Date
Regional Administrator
Region III
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I SITE NAME, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION 1
A. Site Name and Location 1
B. Site History and Enforcement Activities 1
C. Highlights of Community Participation 4
D. Scope and Role of Operable Units 6
E. Site Characteristics 7
F. Nature and Extent of Contamination 7
II SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
III DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 25
IV COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 29
V DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 32
VI STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 35
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RESIN DISPOSAL SITE
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION
A. Site Mane and Location
The site is located about one half mile west of the town of
West Elizabeth in Jefferson Borough, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania and comprises approximately 26 acres (Figure 1).
West Elizabeth is a mixed commercial, industrial and residential
area with a stable population. According to U.S. Census Bureau
1990 records, the population within a one-mile radius of the site
is 1,819. The landfill is located in the head of a narrow valley
on the site of a former coal mine and comprises approximately 2
of the 26 acres. The site was operated as a landfill between
1950 and 1964.
The site is surrounded by a surburban residential area to
the north and west and by undeveloped property to the south and
east. A trailer park and several residential homes are located
approximately 1/4-mile southeast and downslope of the site. The
topography of the area is characterized as relatively level
highland, with deeply eroded stream valleys. Coal was strip
mined from the valley prior to 1950 in the area surrounding the
site. Although the site is not totally fenced, there is fencing
with gates at the major access points.
Although quantities of ground water are available for
domestic use, most of the residents in the site area are
connected to the public water supply. However, six residential
wells were also identified in the site area.
B. Site History and Enforcement Activities
Between 1950 and 1964, prior to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. SS 6901 et seq.
the Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corporation (PICCO) Plant
generated and deposited an estimated 85,000 tons of production
wastes into the onsite landfill. As a result of these
activities, the site is also known as the PICCO Resin Landfill.
The wastes consisted mainly of clay poly cakes and dechlor cakes,
which are composed of petroleum and coal derived chemicals mixed
with clay. The waste was deposited in the landfill by dumping it
down a topographic chute above the landfill as a wet viscous
sludge. The waste was contained within the landfill behind
earthern dikes (Figure 2). No records exist of the actual wastes
deposited in the landfill.
-------
Site Location
Longitude 79 54' 39"
Latitude 40 16' 16'
Figure 1 Site Location Map
-------
SoU
Redstone Coai c^J^ffi-
Pittsburgh
Coai iŁ
Ir.terbedded
Sandstone. Shaie
and Limestone
1. Original
Slope
Sod
Redstone Coal
Pittsburgh
Coai
Interb«clded
Sandstone, Shale
and Limestone
2. Stripped
Slope
Waste Material
SoU
Redstone Coal
Pittsburgh
Coal
Interbedded
Sandstone, Shale
and Limestone
3. Landfill
NOT TO SCALE
DATE: 3/91
Figure 2
-------
Prior to 1950, the original coal was strip and deep mined
throughout the valley. The deep mining was done through a
process known as room and pillar mining, which resulted in mine
voids throughout the site. At the location of the landfill,
approximately 20 feet of waste was deposited in place of the
mined coal.
Hercules Incorporated (Hercules) purchased the business and
facilities, which includes the landfill property, from PICCO in
1973. Between 1980 and 1984, a series of field investigations
were conducted to provide information on ground water conditions
in the coal formation, deep bedrock, and soils downslope of the
landfill, and on the extent of contaminated soils downslope of
the landfill. These field investigations were conducted for
Hercules and were performed by Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston) and
Murray Associates. The data from these early investigations
indicated that contaminants had migrated beyond the buried waste
in the landfill and could be found in ground water in the
Pittsburgh Coal Formation and in downslope soils and perched
ground water. As a result of these investigations, Weston
recommended that Hercules install a leachate collection trench
below the lower landfill dike to collect leachate and ground
water (See Figure 3). This trench was installed in 1983.
Liquids collected in the trench are directed to an oil/water
separator. The oil is presently burned at the Hercules Jefferson
Plant boiler, and the water is discharged to the Jefferson
Borough Sanitary Sewer System and then to the West Elizabeth
waste treatment plant.
A Site Investigation was completed in April 1982, and the
site received a Hazard Ranking Score of 37.69 in December 1982.
The site was proposed for the National Priority List (NPL) in
December 1982 and was placed on the NPL in September 1983. On
November 2, 1987, Hercules entered into a Consent Order and
Agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (PADER) to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) at the site. The Remedial Investigation (RI) work
plan was approved by PADER and EPA in February 1988, and work
began on March 17, 1988. The purpose of the RI/FS was to
characterize the site for potential remediation. This included
an extensive study of the extent of contamination of the soils,
ground water, and surface water associated with the landfill and
related activities onsite. A final RI was submitted to PADER and
EPA in March 1991, and the final FS was submitted in May 1991.
C. Highlights of Community Participation
In complying with Sections 113(k) and 117(a) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. S 9613(k) and 9617(e), EPA performed the activities set
forth in this Section. The RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the Resin
Disposal site were released to the public in April 1991. These
documents were made available to the public in the local
information and administrative record repository at the Jefferson
Borough Municipal Building, 925 Old Clairton Road, Jefferson
Borough, Pennsylvania, and at EPA Region III offices. The notice
of avail-ability for these documents was published in the
-------
Hguic 3 bite B**c M*(> ul the
HI t'U Hc*tn l^itJlUI
-------
McKeesport Daily News on April 19, 1991. A public comment period
was held from April 19, 1991, through May 18, 1991.
Additionally, a public meeting was held on May 6, 1991, at the
Jefferson Borough Municipal Building. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA and PADER answered questions about the
site and the remedial alternatives under consideration. Response
to the comments received during this period are included in the
responsiveness summary, which is part of this Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the site chosen in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP. This
decision for this site is based on the Administrative Record
file.
D. Scope and Role of Operable Units
EPA has chosen to categorize the site into two operable
units.
1. Operable Unit One
Operable Unit One (OU-1) authorized by this ROD addresses
remediation of the waste material in the landfill, the adjacent
contaminated soils and non-aqueous floating product present in
the subsurface Pittsburgh Coal mine voids.
The waste material, defined by OU-1, poses a threat to human
health and the environment because of the risks associated with
ingestion of contaminated ground water; dermal contact,
ingestion, and inhalation of wind blown contaminated soils. It
also poses a risk to the environment because of the threat of
contamination migrating to and adversely impacting the unnamed
stream which runs through the site and slightly impacting the
forest community adjacent to the unnamed stream.
The predominant risk to human health was based on the
potential that a future resident might ingest water contaminated
with benzene if the source of water is ground water from a well.
Benzene was detected in some of the ground water wells above the
Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, which is 5 parts per billion.
2. Operable Unit Two
Operable Unit Two (OU-2) will address any ground water
remediation at the site that may be deemed necessary. OU-2 will
be addressed in a subsequent ROD after additional data about the
ground water is collected. In order to coordinate completion of
the remedy for OU-1 with the ground water study for OU-2 in
accordance with the NCP 40 CFR 300.430, it is EPA's intention to
do the following:
A. Complete the OU-2 ground water study prior to
construction of the OU-1 multi-layer cap and
B. upon completion of the OU-2 ground water study, evaluate
the effectiveness of the OU-1 remedy to determine whether it is
-------
inconsistent with the results of the ground water study and
whether it will preclude implementation of the final remedy for
OU-2. Bas.ed on this criteria, EPA will determine, as
appropriate, whether the ROD for OU-1 requires modification.
E. Site Characteristics
The site is located on a 26-acre parcel of land of which the
landfill itself covers approximately 2-acres and is located on a"
former coal strip mine at the head of a narrow valley. The
unnamed stream, which originates onsite, runs through the site
from the northeast and flows downslope to the southeast,
ultimately discharging into the Monangahela River approximately
1/2-mile from the site boundary. No parks, recreation areas,
wildlife refuges, historic and/or archeological sites, or wild
and scenic rivers are located on or adjacent to the site.
Major sources of ground water in the area are alluvial
valley fill aquifers in the large river valleys, however, ground
water within the site area is limited to storage in fractured
bedrock, the Pittsburgh Coal mine voids, and as perched ground
water in the unconsolidated soils downslope of the landfill.
Ground water quantities are low in the bedrock due to the
generally unfractured condition of the deep bedrock. The coal
seam contains ground water, however, it is not considered potable
due to its acidic nature and high concentrations of metals. The
flow of ground water in the unconsolidated soils downslope
generally parallels the surface topography. Although the
communities surrounding the site are connected to a public water
supply, some homes still use wells for their water supply.
The unconsolidated soils located downslope of the landfill,
perched ground water in those unconsolidated soils and ground
water in the Pittsburgh Coal formation, and the unnamed stream
surface waters and sediments are all potential pathways for
migrating contaminants to reach potential receptors.
F. Nature and Extent of Contamination
Previous remedial activities at the site resulted in the
installation of a leachate collection trench downslope of the
lower landfill dike. Although the construction of this trench
(1983) effectively eliminated leachate seepage from the landfill,
early investigations indicated that contamination had migrated
into downslope site soils, ground water, and surface water and
sediments prior to construction of the trench. Further studies
were needed to determine the nature and the extent of the
contamination. The primary contaminants of concern are organic
compounds which comprise approximately 5% of the waste volume and.
include: benzene, toluene, total xylenes, ethylbenzene, styrene,
naphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene. The remainder of the
landfill waste consists mainly of water, clay, lime, zinc salts,
and other solids.
Ground water analyses found volatile organic compounds at
elevated levels in both the perched ground water in the
-------
unconsolidated soils downslope of the landfill and in the ground
water in the Pittsburgh Coal Formation. None of the ground water
samples taken from residential wells during the RI exhibited
elevated levels of site-related compounds. However, there is the
potential for migration of these contaminants into ground water
used by residents, and therefore, the possibility of ingestion of
contaminated ground water by local residents exists. In
addition, there is an adverse impact to the surface water quality
and sediments in the unnamed stream that runs through the site
and to the adjacent forest community.
II. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Potential Contaminants of Concern
Air, soil, surface water, sediment, seeps and shallow ground
water were identified as the media of concern at the site to
which populations may be exposed. Each of these media were
analysed for various organic and inorganic constituents. The
results of these analyses were evaluated with respect to
toxicity, measured concentrations, frequency of detection, and
potential human exposure to determine the potential contaminants
of concern (PCOCs) for each media. The following PCOCs were
identified for each media:
Air.
Benzene 4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Butanone Styrene
Carbon disulfide Tetrachloroethene
Carbon tetrachloride Toluene
Chloroform l,1,l-Trichloroethane
Chloromethane Trichloroethene
Ethylbenzene Xylenes (total)
2-Hexanone
Soil
- Acetone
- Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
- Dibenzofuran
- Di-n-butylphthalate
- Methylene chloride
- 2-Methylnaphthalene
- Naphthalene
- Benzo(a)anthracene
- Benzo(a)pyrene
- Benzo(b)fluoranthene
- Benzo(k)fluoranthene
- Chrysene
- Fluoranthene
- Phenanthrene
- Pyrene
-------
Surface Water
- Benzene
- Benzole acid
- Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
- 2 , 4-Diaethyl-r.enol
- Di-n-butylphthalate
- Ethylbenzene
- 2-Methylnaphthalene
- 4-Methylphenol
- Naphthalene
Sediment
- Acetone
- Benzoic acid
- Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
- Butylbenzyl phthalate
- Dibenzofuran
- Di-n-butylphthalate
- Di-n-octylphthalate
- Methylene chloride
- 2-Methyl naphthalene
- Naphthalene
- Acenaphthene
- Acenaphthylene
- Anthracene
- Benzo(a)anthracene
- Benzo(b)fluoranthene
- Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
- Benzo(k)fluoranthene
- Chrysene
- Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
- Fluoranthene
- Fluorene
- Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
- Pyrene
- Phenanthrene
Seeps
- Acetone
- Benzene
- Chlorobenzene
- Toluene
- Trichloroethene
Ground water
- Acetone
- Benzene
- Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
- 2-Butanone
- Carbon Disulfide
- Di-n-butylphthalate
- Ethylbenzene
- 2-Hexanone
2-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Xylenes (total)
2-methyInaphthalene
2-methyIphenol
4-methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Styrene
Toluene
Xylenes
-------
10
TABLE 1
RISK ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA BY MEDIA, RESIN DISPOSAL SITE
CONSTITUENT
MOST MAXIMUM
PROBABLE PLAUSIBLE
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
AIR fna/m3)
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ch lor ome thane
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
721.6
316.5
115.7
270.9
94.4
870.1
1,023.2
301.4
254.6
344.2
262.3
2,467.4
488.1
102.8
10,996.2
897.4
460.3
140.7
330.3
121.7
1,420.1
2,299.9
389.6
315.8
750.9
286.3
4,473.0
542.4
129.2
27,192.4
SOIL fua/ka)
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
6
1
892.6
595.2
503
499
18.4
1,069.7
4,512.5
576.2
511.8
498.7
497.3
536.7
804.8
1,083.6
664.7
2,046.5
916.1
804.0
778.7
31.4
1,750.9
9,396.8
912.2
775.4
757.4
733.5
808.5
1,556.2
2,113.3
1,176.5
-------
11
TABLE 1
(Continued)
RISK ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA BY MEDIA, RESIN DISPOSAL SITE
CONSTITUENT
MOST
PROBABLE
CONCENTRATION
MAXIMUM
PLAUSIBLE
CONCENTRATION
SURFACE WATER fua/1)
Benzene
Benzole acid
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
3 . 1
44.6
10.1
4.1
2.5
24.6
4.5
4.1
21.6
3.9
4.5
9.5
24.6
4.0
80.6
20.9
5.2
3.6
54.2
5.2
5.2
39.1
5.1
5.7
19.4
47.0
SEDIMENT fua/ka)
Acetone
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Methylene chloride
2-MethyInaphtha1ene
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo()c) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
26.7
1,318.9
372.2
372.6
679.8
355.6
373.3
6.4
1,097.1
4,093.3
440.3
369.4
3,959.4
450.6
413.3
388.9
396.7
553.9
380.0
811.1
45.4
1,601.4
592.9
594.0
1,323.0
590.4
594.3
11.5
'2,158.4
8,539.4
808.3
590.6
8,197.9
664.4
623.7
603.3
609.3
803.4
597.8
1,763.5
-------
12
TABLE 1
(Continued)
RISK ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA BY MEDIA, RESIN DISPOSAL SITE
CONSTITUENT
MOST MAXIMUM
PROBABLE PLAUSIBLE
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
SEDIMENT (uq/kq) (Continued)
Fluorene
Indeno(l, 2 , 3-cd) pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Toluene
1,1, l-Trichloroethane
Xylenes (total)
SEEPS (uq/1)
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
GROUND WATER fuq/D*
Acetone
Benzene
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Ethylbenzene
2-Butanone
Di-n-butylphthalate
2-Hexanone
2 -Methy Inaphthalene
2 -Methy Iphenol
4-Methylphenol
Methylene Chloride
naphthalene
Phenanthrene
phenol
styrene
toluene
xylenes
780.0
378.3
1,932.4
661.7
2,005.6
393.9
6.4
3.0
61.2
195.9
2.7
3.2
3.3
2.6
2,523.4
78.9
587.9
120.5
444.4
9.1
3.3
11.1
2,128.0
1,125.0
635.9
84.1
10,375.0
565.0
585.6
48.3
692.7
1,445.2
1,438.5
596.7
4,083.0
1,096.6
3,070.8
607.7
11.1
3.0
153.0
438.8
3.1
4.2
4.4
3.0
4,914.7
150.5
1,570.1
325.2
1,144.6
14.8
4.6
23.7
5,910.2
3,096.0
1,614.7
176.0
28,430.8
1,550.0
1,567.6
136.3
1,665.1
3,056.2
* Ground water values include both Pittsburgh Coal data and
unconsolidated zone data. The highest overall concentration
for each chemical is listed.
-------
13
The data review is limited to organics only. After
reviewing the Phase I RI sampling results, it was determined by
EPA and PADER that heavy metals, pesticides, and PCBs were not
chemicals of concern at the site. The concentrations of the
PCOCs used for the risk assessment are presented in Table l. The
concentrations represented are average concentrations from the RI
(most probable exposure concentrations) and the 95 percent upper
confidence limit of the arithmetic mean (maximum plausible
exposure concentrations).
Exposure Assessment
The Resin Disposal was evaluated with respect to physical
characteristics, current and future land and water uses, and
exposed populations to identify potential exposure pathways. The
most probable and maximum plausible exposure concentrations were
'determined for the PCOCs. The following potential exposure
pathways were identified:
Air Pathway
- Inhalation
Soil Pathway
- Incidental soil ingestion
- Dermal absorption
- Inhalation of airborne soil
- Ingestion of garden vegetables/fruits
Surface Water
- Dermal absorption
- Ingestion
Sediment
- Incidental sediment ingestion
- Dermal absorption
Seeps
- Dermal absorption
Ground water
- Ingestion of drinking water
- Noningestion household water contact
- Dermal absorption through swimming
- Incidental ingestion of water through swimming.
Three exposure scenarios were selected for evaluation: a
current (offsite) resident, a trespasser, and a future (onsite)
resident. These scenarios represented the potential current and
future receptors that are most likely to come into contact with
site-related contaminants. The populations identified include:
(1) Current residents of all age groups with exposure occurring
through household ground water use. Three age groups were
analyzed for each residence, a child aged 1-6, a child aged
6-11 and an adult.
-------
14
(2) A child trespasser, age 6-11 years, and an adult were
examined in the trespasser scenario. The child is assumed
to be onsite for two hours per exposure event for 3 days per
week, 8 months per year. The adult is assumed to trespass
one day per week, and eight months per year.
(3) A child future resident, age 1-6 years, having a body weight
of 16 kg, and assumed to be onsite 7 days per week, 12
months per year.
(4) A child future resident (age 6-11) having a body weight of
27 kg, and assumed to be onsite 7 days per week, 12 months
per .year.
(5) An adult future resident having a body weight of 70 kg, and
assumed to be onsite 7 days per week, 12 months per year.
Toxicity Assessment
The relationship between the extent of exposure to a
contaminant and the potential for adverse effects was evaluated
during the toxicity assessment process. Cancer potency factors
(CPFs) also known as slope factors, were identified for potential
carcinogenic contaminants, and reference doses (RfDs) were
identified for chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. The
CPFs and RfDs used for the toxicity assessment are presented in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
CPFs have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment
Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. EPA assumed,
when developing CPFs, that the risk of cancer is linearly related
to dose. The CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg/day)"1,
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen,
which is expressed in mg/kg/day, to provide an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure at that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects
the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the CPF.
Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer
risk highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors are derived from
the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal
bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty
factors have been applied.
RfDs have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting
noncarcinogenic effects. The RfDs, which are expressed in units
of mg/kg/day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for
humans, including sensitive individuals, at which no adverse
health effects are noted. Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from
contaminated drinking water) are compared to the RfD. The RfDs
are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies
to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account
for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These
uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not
-------
15
TABLE 2. CANCER POTENCY (SLOPE) FACTORS OSED IN RESIN DISPOSAL SITE RISK CHARACTERIZATION
(mg/kg/day)
-1
INHALATION
CHEMICAL
Benzene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phtha late
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Methylene chloride
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a) pyrene
Benzo(b) f luoranthene
Benzo(g,h, i)perylene
Benzo(k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo (a , h) anthracene
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1 Dermal slope factors were
Assessment.
(sv) - Chemical was treated
(v) - Chemical was treated
N/A - Not applicable.
FACTOR
2.
1.
1.
8.
6.
1.
8.
6.
8.
1.
4.
2.
6.
1.
2.
3.
1.
90E-02
40E-02
NC
30E-01
10E-Q2
30E-03
40E-02
84E-01
10E+00
54E-01
34E-01
03E-01
68E-02
77E+00
42E+00
OOE-03
30E-03
70E-02
SOURCE
EPA,
1990e
OSF
ORAL
FACTOR
2.
1.
N/A
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
calculated from the
as a
as a
semi-volatile
volatile
NC - Chemical is not of concern through
NSF - No slope factor was
OSF - Oral slope factor.
EPA, 1990e - Health Effects
1990e
1990e
1990e
1990e
1990h
1990h
1990h
1990h
1990h
1990h
1990h
1990h
1990e
1990e
1990e
oral slope
in deriving
in deriving the
this
7.
1.
1.
1.
.2.
7.
5.
1.
2.
3.
1.
90E-02
40E-02
NSF
NC
NC
NC
50E-03
67E+00
15E+01
61E+00
53E-01
59E-01
06E-02
28E+01
67E+00
OOE-02
NC
10E-02
factors as
the dermal
DERMAL
SOURCE
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
, 1990e
, 1990e
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
, 1990e
, 1990h
, 1990h
, 1990h
, 1990h
, 1990h
, 1990h
, 1990h
, 1990h
, 1990e
N/A
, 1990e
FACTOR8
3.
2.
8.
3.
2.
3.
5.
1.
1.
2.
5.
3.
1.
22E-02
80E-02
NSF
NC
NC
NC
33E-03
34E+00
30E+01
22E+00
06E-01
52E+00
01E-01
56E+01
34E+00
30E-02
NC
22E-02
described in the Baseline
slope
factor.
(v)
(sv)
(v)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(v)
(v)
Risk
dermal slope factor.
exposure route
at the
Resin Disposal
site.
available.
Assessment Summary
Tables. Third
Quarter
FY 1990. Off
ice of
Solid
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC.
EPA, 1990h - Updated Risk-Based Concentration Table. Memo from Roy Smith, EPA Region. Ill, to
Staff. December 7, 1990.
-------
16
TABLE 3.
CHRONIC REFERENCE DOSES (RfDs) USED IN RESIN DISPOSAL SITE RISK CHARACTERIZATION
(mg/kg/day)
CHEMICAL
CHRONIC
INHALATION
RfD
SOURCE
CHRONIC
ORAL
RfD
SOURCE
CHRONIC
DERMAL
RfD8
Acetone
Benzene
Benzole acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Butanone
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibenzofuran
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone
Methylene chloride
2-Methylnapthalene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
4-MethyIphenol
Naphthalene
2-Nitrophenol
3
3
5,
1,
OOE+00
.26E-02
NC
5.10E-03
9.00E-02
NC
2.90E-03*
3.16E-02
NC
OOE-02
05E-01
NTV
NC
5.10E-03
NC
.40E-03
,04E-02
.60E-01
, OOE-01
2.68E-03
2.24E-02
2.24E-02
5.31E-02
NC
4,
2,
8,
5.
EPA, 1990g
ACGIH-TWA
N/A
ACGIH-TWA
EPA, 1990e
N/A
EPA, 1990e
ACGIH-TWA
N/A
ACGIH-TWA
ACGIH-TWA
N/A
N/A
ACGIH-TWA
N/A
ACGIH-TWA
ACGIH-TWA
EPA, 1990e
ORD
ORD
ACGIH-TWA
ACGIH-TWA
ACGIH-TWA
N/A
1.OOE-01
l.OOE-03
4.00E-fOO
2.OOE-02
5.OOE-02
2.OOE-01
1.OOE-01
NC
NCO (2.OOE-02)
NC
NC
NRD
2.OOE-02
1.OOE-01
2.OOE-02
1.OOE-01
1.OOE-01
6.OOE-02
5.OOE-01
NCO (2.68E-03)
5.OOE-02
5.OOE-02
4.00E-03
1.30E-01
EPA, 1990e
Derived
EPA, 1990e
EPA, 19906
EPA, 19906
EPA, 19906
EPA, 19906
N/A
EPA, 1990e
N/A
N/A
N/A
EPA, 1990e
EPA, 1990e
EPA, 19906
EPA, 19906
EPA, 1990g
EPA, 1990e
EPA, 1990g
Derived
EPA, 19906
EPA, 19906
EPA, 19906
EPA, 1990g
9.
9.
2,
1,
1,
9,
OOE-02
OOE-04
, OOE+00
,OOE-02
NC
,OOE-01
,OOE-02
NC
1.80E-02
NC
NC
NRD
1.OOE-02
5.OOE-02
1.OOE-02
9.OOE-02
NC
5.40E-02
2.50E-01
NC
50E-02
50E-02
2.00E-03
6.50E-02
2
2
(v)
(V)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(v)
(v)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(v)
(v)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
-------
17
TABLE 3.
(Continued)
CHRONIC REFERENCE DOSES (RfDs) USED IN RESIN DISPOSAL SITE RISK CHARACTERIZATION
(ing/kg/day)
CHEMICAL
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a) pyrene
Benzo(b) f luoranthene
Benzo(g,h, i) perylene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 , 2 , 3-cd) pyrene
Phenar.threne
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
CHRONIC
INHALATION
RfD
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
1
2
3
2
NC
NC
NC
.OOE-02
.OOE-02
.OOE-02
NC
.OOE-02
.OOE-02
NC
.OOE-02
NC
NC
.OOE-02
.OOE-02
NC
.94E-02
.17E-01
.45E-01
.OOE+00
SOURCE
N/A
N/A
N/A
ORD
ORD
ORD
N/A
ORD
ORD
N/A
ORD
N/A
N/A
ORD
ORD
N/A
ACGIH-TWA
ACGIH-TWA
ACGIH-TWA
EPA, 1990e
CHRONIC
ORAL
RtD
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
6
2
3
.OOE-02
.OOE-02C
.OOE-01
,OOE-02C
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02
.OOE-02
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02C
.OOE-02
.OOE-02
.OOE-01
.OOE-01
NC
.OOE-01
SOURCE
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
El' A
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 1990e
, 19906
, 19906
, 1990e
, 19906
, 1990e
, 19906
, 1990E
N/A
, 19906
CHRONIC
DERMAL
Rtl)a
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
.OOE-02
.50E-02
. 50E-01
.50E-02
.50E-02
.50E-02
. 50E-02
.50E-02
.50E-02
.50E-02
.OOE-02
.OOE-02
.50E-02
. 50E-02
.50E-02
.50E-02
.OOE-01
.80E-02
NC
.70E-01
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(sv)
(v)
(v)
-------
18
TABLE 3.
(Continued)
CHRONIC REFERENCE DOSES (RfDs) USED IN RESIN DISPOSAL SITE RISK CHARACTERIZATION
(mg/kg/day)
CHEMICAL
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
CHRONIC
INHALATION
RfD
3.00E-01
2.74E-01
3.00E-01
SOURCE
EPA, 1990e
ACGIH-TWA
EPA, 1990e
CHRONIC
ORAL
RfD
9.00E-02
7.40E-03
2.00E+00
SOURCE
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
1990e
1987a
1990e
CHRONIC
DERMAL
RfD8
8.10E-03
6.70E-03
1.80E+00
(v)
(V)
a Dermal RfDs were calculated from oral RfDs as described in Subsection 1.4.3.3 of the Baseline Risk
Assessment.
b Calculated from the oral RfD, expressed in mg/m3 assuming an inhalation rate of 20 m /day and a
body weight of 70 kg (EPA, 1990f).
c The RfD for pyrene was used as an approximation.
(sv) - Chemical was treated as a semi-volatile in deriving the dermal RfD.
(v) - Chemical was treated as a volatile in deriving the dermal RfD.
N/A - Not applicable.
ACGIH-TWA - American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists Time-Weighted Average.
NC - Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route at the Resin Disposal site.
NCO - Chemical is not of concern through the oral exposure route; the oral RfD listed in
parentheses was used to calculate the dermal RfD and/or was used as the inhalation RfD.
- No RfD or toxicity data from which to derive an RfD were available.
- Oral RfD.
1987 - Health Advisories for 25 Organics. Office of Drinking Water. Washington, DC.
PB87-235578.
EPA, 1990e - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Third Quarter FY 1990. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. OERR 9200.6-303-(90-3) .
Updated Reference Concentration Table. Memo from Roy Smith, EPA Region III, to Staff.
December 7, 1990.
NRD
ORD
EPA
EPA, 1990g -
-------
19
underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects
to occur.
Risk Characterization
Excess lifetime cancer risks for the site were determined by
multiplying the daily intake of chemicals from environmental
media by the CPFs. These risks are probabilities expressed in
scientific notation (i.e., 1E-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk
of 1E-6 indicates that an individual has a one in a million
chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure.
to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime. The U.S. EPA
recommended upper bound for lifetime cancer risks is between 10E-
4 and 10E-6. The most significant exposure pathway, in terms of
impacting human health, was to a future resident via ingestion of
contaminated ground water.
For the trespasser, the lifetime cancer risk was not
significant. The risk based on the most probable exposure
concentrations is approximately 1 in 1,000,000 (i.e., 1.39E-06).
The risk based on the maximum plausible exposure concentrations
is approximately 2 in 1,000,000 (1.87E-06). For the future
resident, the lifetime cancer risk is approximately 3 in 10,000
(3E-04) based on the most probable exposure concentrations and 7
in 10,000 (7E-04) based on the maximum plausible exposure
concentrations. The total lifetime cancer risks that were
estimated for the future resident is slightly above the risk
range that is generally considered to be acceptable by the U.S.
EPA (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000), and within which risk
is regulated at Superfund sites. To the trespasser and the
future resident scenarios, a small contribution to total cancer
risk, less than one percent each, was made by the remaining
exposure routes. These include sediment ingestion, dermal
absorption from sediment, dermal absorption from surface water,
dermal absorption from seeps, and the inhalation of the airborne
soil. The estimated excess lifetime cancer risks for each of the
exposure pathways are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard
quotient (HQ) (i.e., the ratio of the estimated intake derived
from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the
contaminant's reference dose). The HQs for all contaminants in a
medium are added to obtain the Hazard Index (HI). The HI
provides a reference point for gauging the significance of
multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media. A HI less than or equal to 1 indicates that there is no
significant risk of adverse health effects. The His derived for
each medium are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
There is no apparent risk of noncarcinogenic health effects
posed to the trespasser or the current resident. The total
chronic and short-tern hazard indices that were calculated for
these potential receptors were less than one. However, a HI
above one was found for a future resident using the Pittsburgh
-------
20
TABLE 4.
LIFETIME CARCINOGENIC RISK
MOST PROBABLE EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Inhalation of Vapors
Incidental Soil Ingestion
Dermal Absorption from Soil
Inhalation of Airborne Soil
Vegetable/Fruit Ingestion
Dermal Absorption from
Surface Water
Incidental Sediment Ingestion
Dermal Absorption from
Sediment
Dermal Absorption from Seeps
Ingestion of Surface Water
Drinking Water Ingestion
Noningestion Household Uses
Ingestion while Swimming
Absorption while Swimming
TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISK
EXPOSED
FUTURE RESIDENT3
1.20E-05
1.34E-05
3.86E-06
2.29E-08
1.06E-05
1.59E-10
9.34E-08
4.49E-08
1.40E-11
5.76E-09
3.03E-05
7.43E-05
3.65E-07
7.92E-08
1.45E-04
POPULATION
FUTURE RESIDENT"
1.20E-05
1.34E-05
3.86E-06
2.29E-08
1.06E-05
1.59E-10
9.34E-08
4.49E-08
1.40E-11
5.76E-09
3.03E-05
2.59E-05
5.58E-07
1.40E-07
3.46E-04
8 Based on domestic use of Unconsolidated Zone ground water.
b Based on domestic use of Pittsburgh Coal ground water.
The total carcinogenic risk to a trespasser was 1.39E-06, and was
not significant from any of the exposure routes.
-------
21
TABLE 5.
LIFETIME CARCINOGENIC RISK
MAXIMUM PLAUSIBLE EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS
EXPOSED POPULATION
EXPOSURE ROUTE FUTURE RESIDENT3 FUTURE RESIDENT^
Inhalation of Vapors
Incidental Soil Ingestion
Dermal Absorption from Soil
Inhalation of Airborne Soil
Vegetable/Fruit Ingestion
Dermal Absorption from
Surface Water
Incidental Sediment Ingestion
Dermal Absorption from
Sediment
Dermal Absorption from Seeps
Ingestion of Surface Water
Drinking Water Ingestion
Noningestion Household Uses
Ingestion While Swimming
Absorption While Swimming
TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISK
1.20E-05
2.06E-05
5.93E-06
3.52E-08
1.70E-05
3.02E-10
1.10E-07
5.30E-08
1.40E-11
1.04E-08
8.48E-05
2.04E-04
1.02E-06
2.22E-07
3.46E-04
1.20E-05
2.06E-05
5.93E-06
3'. 52E-08
1.70E-05
3.02E-10
1. 10E-07
5.30E-08
1.40E-11
1.04E-08
9.33E-05
5.11E-04
1.12E-06
2.86E-07
6.61E-04
* Based on domestic use of Unconsolidated Zone ground water.
b Based on domestic use of Pittsburgh Coal ground water
The total carcinogenic risk to a trespasser was 1.87E-06, and was
not significant from any of the exposure routes.
-------
22
TABLE 6.
CHRONIC HAZARD QUOTIENTS AND INDICES MOST PROBABLE EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Inhalation of Vapors
Incidental Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
from Soil
Inhalation of
Airborne Soil
Vegetable/ Fruit
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption -
Surface Water
Ingestion - Surface
Water
Incidental Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption -
Sediment
Dermal Absorption -
Seeps
Drinking Water
Ingestion
Household Water Uses
(Noningestion)
Ingestion while
Swimming
Absorption while
Swimming
TOTAL HAZARD INDEX
FUTURE
RESIDENT
(1-6)'
2.73E-01
1.62E-02
3.46E-03
7.12E-06
9.30E-06
5.28E-05
2.13E-03
2.91E-04
9.93E-05
N/A
1.39E+00
7.15E+00
3.23E-02
4.39E-03
8.96E+00
FUTURE
RESIDENT
(6-11)'
2.42E-01
4.82E-03
2.77E-03
6.33E-06
8.66E-02
4.24E-05
1.26E-03
8.67E-05
8.24E-05
4.28E-06
1.10E+00
6.35E+00
1.91E-02
3.80E-03
7.81E+00
EXPOSED
FUTURE
RESIDENT
(ADULT)8
1.25E-01
1.89E-03
4.98E-04
3.26E-06
5.05E-02
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.35E-06
1.06E+00
„ 3.27E+00
7.38E-03
2.64E-03
4.51E+00
POPULATION
FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
(l-6)b (6-ll)b (ADULT)"
2.73E-01
1.62E-02
3.46E-03
7.12E-06
9.30E-02
5.28E-05
2.13E-03
2.91E-04
9.93E-05
N/A
1.03E+02
3.25E+01
2.38E+00
5.41E-01
1.38E+02
2.42E-01
4.82E-03
2.77E-03
6.33E-06
8.66E-02
4.24E-05
1.26E-03
8.67E-05
8.24E-05
4.28E-06
8.11E+01
2.89E+01
1.41E+00
4.68E-01
1.12E+02
1.25E-01
1.89E-03
4.98E-04
3.26E-06
5.05E-02
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.35E-06
7.82E+01
1.49E+01
5.45E-01
3.25E-01
9.41E+01
8 - Based on domestic use of unconsolidated zone ground water.
b - Based on domestic use of Pittsburgh Coal ground water.
The trespaser scenario was not significant from any of the exposure
routes
-------
23
a
TABLE 7
CHRONIC HAZARD QUOTIENTS AND INDICES MAXIMUM PLAUSIBLE EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS
EXPOSURE ROUTE
Inhalation of Vapors
Incidental Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
from Soil
Inhalation of
Airborne Soil
Vegetable /Fruit
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption -
Surface Water
Incidental Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption -
Sediment
Dermal Absorption -
Seeps
Ingestion Surface
Water
Drinking Water
Ingestion
Household Water Uses
(Noningestion)
Ingestion while
Swimming
Absorption while
Swimming
TOTAL HAZARD INDEX
FUTURE
RESIDENT
(1-6)'
2.73E-01
3.28E-02
7.00E-03
1.22E-05
2.01E-01
8.95E-05
5.77E-04
1.97E-04
N/A
3.52E-03
3.79E+00
1.90E+01
8.80E-02
1.08E-02
2.34E+01
EXPOSED POPULATION
FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE
RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT
(6-11)' "(ADULT)8 (l~6)b (6-ll)b (ADULT)b
2.42E-01
9.74E-03
5.60E-03
1.08E-05
1.87E-01
7.20E-05
1.72E-04
1.63E-04
6.25E-06
2.08E-03
2.99E+00
1.69E+01
5.21E-02
1.04E-02
2.04E+01
1.25E-01
3.83E-03
1.01E-03
5.57E-06
1 .09E-01
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.98E-06
N/A
2.89E+00
8.70E+00
2.01E-02
7.21E-03
1.19E+01
2.73E-01
3.28E-02
7.00E-03
1.22E-05
2 .01E-01
8.53E-08
5.77E-04
3.22E-09
N/A
3.52E-03
2.78E+02
8.20E+01
6.45E+00
1.47E-00
3.68E+02
2.42E-01
9.74E-03
5.60E-03
1.08E-06
1.87E-01
7.20E-05
1.72E-04
1.63E-04
6.25E-06
2.08E-03
2.20E+01
7.29E+01
3.82E+00
1.27E-00
2.98E+02
1.25E-01
3.83E-03
1.01E-03
5.57E-06
1.09E-01
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.98E-06
N/A
2.12E+01
3.75E+01
1.47E-01
8.85E-01
2.52E+02
8 - Based on domestic use of unconsolidated zone ground water.
b - Based on domestic use of Pittsburgh Coal ground water.
The trespasser scenario was not significant from anv of the exposure routes,
-------
24
Coal or unconsolidated zone aquifers as their water supply. The
chemicals of greatest concern, in terms of their noncarcinogenic
effects, are benzene, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene, 2-
methylnaphthalene, 2-methylphenol, naphthalene and xylenes.
There is no apparent noncarcinogenic health risks posed to
individuals, such as trespassers, that may currently be exposed
to site-related chemicals. The exposure route which made the
greatest contribution to all of the trespasser His was the
inhalation of vapors. Ethylbenzene and 4-methyl-2-pentanone were
the chemicals which made the largest contribution.
In terms of ecological risk, the media of primary concern
were surface water and soil. No threatened or endangered plant
or animal species were identified at the site. Potential risks
to the aquatic ecosystem were evaluated by comparing most
probable and maximum plausible surface water concentrations to
EPA and PADER ambient water quality criteria. These criteria
were developed to provide protection of ninety-five percent of
all freshwater aquatic life. Results of this evaluation
indicated that aquatic life is at minimal risk of chronic adverse
effects, and at no apparent risk of acute effects. The most
probable and maximum plausible His for chronic risk were 1.20 and
1.85 respectively.
Potential adverse impacts to terrestrial organisms were
evaluated by selecting a target species that may be significantly
exposed to chemicals found at the site. The white-tailed deer
was selected as an appropriate target species because it may be
exposed to chemicals via several environmental pathways; its
dietary habits and behavioral characteristics are well-
documented; and it is a species of both economic and recreational
importance. Exposure concentrations for the white-tailed deer
were determined for plant, soil, and surface-water ingestion
pathways. Cumulative exposure concentrations were calculated for
all chemicals by summing exposures through all proposed pathways.
Potential risk of adverse effects to white-tailed deer were
determined by comparing exposure concentrations with appropriate
critical toxicity values. The results of these comparisons
indicate that there is no apparent potential for adverse effects
to white-tailed deer inhabiting this site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or, the environment.
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A number of remedial alternatives were developed with the
goal of significantly reducing the risk to human health and the
environment from ingestion of contaminated ground water as well
as dermal contact and accidental ingestion of contaminated soils.
The following sections briefly summarize each of these
alternatives. The time to implement that is described for each.
alternative is the time of actual remediation, it does not
include the time required to design the remedy.
Alternative l - No Action
Evaluation of the No Action alternative is required by the
NCP. This alternative serves as a point of reference for
comparing all other alternatives. If other alternatives offer no
substantial advantages over the no action alternative, no action
may be considered feasible. EPA would review the site every five
years to assure continued protection of human health and the
environment. Capital cost for this alternative is $0 with an
annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of $103,000 which
covers the sampling costs for the existing wells. This
alternative has a present worth of $2,452,000 and would require
no.time to implement.
Alternative 2 - Limited Action
This alternative includes an environmental monitoring
program, access restrictions, and provisions for institutional
controls. The monitoring locations would include existing
monitoring and residential wells, seeps, and the unnamed stream.
Also two additional deep bedrock wells would be drilled
downgradient of the site as additional monitoring points. The
data from this program would aid in the evaluation of contaminant
migration and health and environmental risk variations. The lower
landfill dike would also be upgraded to increase its stability.
Leachate would continue to be collected via the existing
oil/water separator. The water from this separation would be
treated in the West Elizabeth Treatment Plant. The oil from this
separation may be RCRA Hazardous Waste under the Toxicity
Characteristic Rule for benzene. Thus, the oil collected in this
manner may have to be transported and disposed of as a RCRA
characteristic waste.
Institutional controls would prohibit future development
onsite and would limit unauthorized access to the site.
Institutional controls would include filing deed restrictions
which would alert prospective buyers as to the presence of
hazardous substances onsite. A fence with locked access gates
would be constructed around the entire perimeter of the property
to provide a physical barrier to limit unauthorized site access.
This fencing would provide an upgrade to the fence system
currently existing at the site. The capital cost for this
alternative is $289,000 with an annual O&M cost of $108,000. The
present worth of this alternative is calculated to be $2,860,000
and would require three months to implement.
-------
26
Alternative 3A - Closure - Option A
Alternative 3A includes a fence around the entire perimeter
of the site and deed restrictions on the property. The landfill
and the area extending from the lower landfill dike downslope to
the existing interceptor trench will be capped utilizing a
multilayer cap system. The sanitary sewer running along the
northeast border of the landfill will be relocated to allow
future access without disturbing the new cap system, and grading
and infiltration controls would be employed to minimize
infiltration and reduce leachate production. The lower landfill
dike would also be upgraded.
The existing oil/water separator for treating leachate would
be replaced with an upgraded enclosed system to prevent
uncontrolled air releases. Separated aqueous phase would
continue to be discharged to the West Elizabeth Waste Treatment
Plant, and the oil could be reclaimed as fuel in an offsite
industrial boiler. Capital costs for this alternative are
$937,000 with annual O&M costs of $92,000. The present worth is
calculated at $3,127,000, and it is estimated that six to twelve
months would be required to implement the alternative.
Alternative 3B - Closure - Option B
Alternative 3B includes a fence around the entire perimeter
of the site and deed restrictions on the property. The landfill
and the area extending from the lower landfill dike downslope to
the existing interceptor trench will be capped utilizing a
multilayer cap system. The sanitary sewer running along the
northeast border of the landfill will be relocated to allow
future access without disturbing the new cap system, and grading
and infiltration controls would be employed to minimize
infiltration and reduce leachate production. The lower landfill
dike would also be upgraded.
The existing oil/water separator for treating leachate would
be replaced with an upgraded enclosed system to prevent
uncontrolled air releases. Separated aqueous phase would
continue to be discharged to the West Elizabeth Waste Treatment
Plant, and the oil could be reclaimed as fuel in an offsite
industrial boiler. This alternative also includes the
installation of a skimmer well system for non-aqueous product
recovery in the Pittsburgh Coal mine voids. The skimmer well
system shall be installed as follows:
Approximately twenty test borings shall be installed into
the Pittsburgh Coal water table at 30 feet intervals along the
western perimeter of the landfill. If free product is
encountered at these locations, the borings shall be converted to
skimmer wells. Floating product in the wells shall be collected
intermittently by using a sensor device to detect the presence of
oil, and skimmer pumps for collection.
Monitoring wells shall be installed downgradient to insure
that the skimmer well network is working properly. The oil
collected by this system could possibly be reclaimed as fuel in a
-------
27
an offsite industrial boiler. Capital costs for this alternative
are $1,206,000 with annual O&M costs of $132,000. The present
worth is estimated at $4,348,000 and would require approximately
nine to twelve months to implement.
Alternative 4 - Excavation/Offsite Disposal
Alternative 4 includes1 a fence around the entire perimeter .
of the site and deed restrictions on the property. The existing
oil/water separator for treating leachate would be replaced with
an upgraded enclosed system to prevent uncontrolled air releases.
The ground and surface water monitoring program shall be scaled
down to a five-year program because this alternative involves
removal rather than containment. Site access roads shall be
improved to allow for additional heavy truck traffic. A skimmer
well network shall be installed to allow collection of the non-
aqueous phase product recovery from the mine voids.
In addition, approximately 137,000 tons of landfill waste
materials, including soils underlying the waste and downslope of
the landfill with detectable levels of contaimination, shall be
excavated and disposed offsite. The excavation of the soil/waste
materials shall involve the following:
(1) Excavation of soil cover, waste material, and targeted
soils.
(2) Dewatering of material as required.
(3) Perched ground water encountered during excavation will
be removed and placed in the existing leachate
collection/treatment system for disposal, or disposed
of offsite.
(4) Staged excavation of the landfill under a flexible
containment structure for air emission controls.
(5) Site restoration involving backfill, grading, and
seeding.
(6) Disposal offsite of contaminated soils, and waste.
(7) Any required pretreatment of the removed materials will
be arranged and handled by the appropriate permitted
disposal facility.
Capital costs for this alternative range between $23,824,000
and $298,525,000 with annual O&M at $72,000. Present worth
ranges between $25,538,000 and $300,239,000, and approximately 24
months will be required for implementation. The reason for the
tremendous range in cost is that the waste may require
pretreatment prior to its being transported offsite.
-------
28
Alternative 5 - Excavation/Thermal Treatment
Alternative 5 includes a fence around the entire perimeter
of the site and deed restrictions on the property. The existing
oil/water separator for treating leachate would be replaced with
an upgraded enclosed system to prevent uncontrolled air releases
This alternative also includes the installation of a skimmer well
system for non-aqueous product recovery in the Pittsburgh Coal
mine voids.
This alternative also involves the excavation of landfill
materials (including the soil cover, waste, and targeted soils).
All excavated materials would be thermally treated via rotary
kiln incineration to achieve remedial action objectives. An
estimated 137,000 tons of material would have to be treated in
this manner. Excavation and thermal treatment of materials will
include the following:
(1) Landfill materials shall be excavated, dewatered as
required, and transported to an offsite incinerator.
Steep terrain prevents incineration onsite.
(2) Thermal treatment via rotary kiln incineration.
(3) Testing of treated material for its suitability as a
backfill source.
(4) Site restoration including backfill, soil cover,
grading, and seeding will be performed onsite.
Capital costs for this alternative will be $90,883,000 to
173,083,000 with annual O&M costs of $72,000. Present worth of
this alternative is estimated at $92,597,000 to $174,797,000 and
approximately 24 to 36 months will be required for
implementation.
Alternative 6 - In Situ Biodegradation
Alternative 6 includes a fence around the entire perimeter
of the site and deed restrictions on the property. The existing
oil/water separator for treating leachate would be replaced with
an upgraded enclosed system to prevent uncontrolled air releases.
This alternative also includes the installation of a skimmer well
system for non-aqueous product recovery in the Pittsburgh Coal
mine voids.
Alternative 6 also includes in situ biodegradation of the
landfill waste materials. This method incorporates an aqueous
mixture of microbes, nutrients, and an oxygen source that would
be injected into the landfill area to biodegrade an estimated
137,000 tons of waste material and contaminated soils. In situ
biodegradation involves the following:
(1) Installation of a network of injection points into the
landfill and targeted soils into which the aqueous
mixture would be injected.
-------
29
(2) Ground water recovery may be used to utilize existing
ground water as a liquid medium for supplying the
aqueous mixture to the soils.
(3) Partial degradation or transformation may be achieved
with some residual organics remaining in the waste
which, in most cases, the residuals have significantly
lower toxicity than the original contaminant.
The level of treatment achievable under this method is
unknown at this time, and therefore, treatability testing would
have to be conducted to accurately define achievable treatment
levels. Capital costs for in situ biodegradation would range
between $3,861,000 and $17,031,000 with annual O&M costs of
$122,000. Present worth for this alternative ranges between
$11,765,000 and $19,985,000, and approximately 36 to 60 months
would be required for implementation.
IV. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The EPA evaluated each of the remedial alternatives
developed for the site with respect to the nine criteria set
forth in the NCP. The following sections present a brief
discussion of each of the evaluation criteria and a comparative
analysis of each of the remedial alternatives based on the nine
evaluation criteria.
1) Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses whether a remedial alternative will
adequately protect human health and the environment. The
evaluation criteria should consider: the reduction of risk? any
unacceptable impacts; control of hazards (i.e., toxicity,
mobility); and minimization of short-term impacts.
The primary human health risk associated with the site is to
a future resident from ingestion of contaminated ground water.
Under CERCLA, a cancer risk higher than l.OE-4 is considered
unacceptable. The risk at the Resin Disposal site is estimated
to be 7E-4. Therefore, the primary goal of the remedial
alternatives is to prevent contaminated ground water from
migrating from the site.
Alternative 3B provides a high degree of overall protection
both to human health and the environment by addressing the
potential contaminant pathways and the containment and/or
recovery of those contaminants. Alternative 4 would simply move
the entire waste pile to another location where it could still
threaten human health or the environment. Alternative 5 offers a
high degree of protection because no waste will remain onsite.
However, short-term effectiveness is compromised due to the large
amount of intrusive activities on the landfill (e.g., traffic
impacts, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions, safety).
Alternative 6 also offers a high degree of protection provided
the technology required in this alternative would be effective on
the substantial quantity of waste at this site. Alternative 3A
-------
30
presents a lower degree of protection than Alternative 3B because
it does not address the non-aqueous product present in the mine
voids. Alternatives 1 and 2 offer the lowest degree of
protection because remediation via containment and/or treatment
is not proposed.
2) Compliance with ARARs
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet
all' of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) set forth by State and Federal environmental laws and/or
provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
All of the alternatives with the exception of Alternatives 1
and 2 meet ARARs, and no waivers will be required. Three
categories of ARARs are considered: chemical specific, action
specific and location specific. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not meet
ARARs because no provisions are provided under either alternative
for continued compliance with chemical specific requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, chemical and action specific
requirements of the PA Clean Streams Law, and neither alternative
meets RCRA Closure and Post-Closure ARARs. Alternatives 3A and
3B would meet RCRA and PADER Closure and Post-Closure ARARs for
hazardous waste landfills provided the cap is constructed in the
appropriate fashion. Additionally, preventive measures for
continued compliance are provided for the chemical-specific ARARs
and recycling/reclamation and container management standards and
pretreatment requirements for action-specific ARARs are met.
Alternative 4 would have to meet regulations regarding
transportation and disposal of hazardous waste (40 CFR Part 263 &
264). Alternative 5 would have to meet regulations concerning
incineration of hazardous waste (40 CFR Part 264 Subpart 0).
Alternatives 1 and 2 are no longer considered because they do not
meet the threshold criteria of meeting ARARs.
3) Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the ability of a remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment
over time once the cleanup goals have been met.
Alternatives 5, and 6 have the best long-term
effectiveness because they result in minimal waste remaining
onsite, which in turn minimizes monitoring, maintenance, and
institutional control requirements. Alternatives 3A and 3B also
have good long-term effectiveness as long as the engineering
controls such as the multi-layer cap, infiltration controls, and
the dike remain functional.
4) Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
This criterion addresses the statutory preference for
selecting a remedial alternative that permanently reduces the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous waste through
treatment.
-------
31
Alternatives 5 and 6 have the highest degree of achieving
these reductions through thermal destruction, and in-situ
biodegradation of all waste materials and contaminated soils.
The ability to reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume for in-situ
biodegradation is uncertain due to limitations of the technology.
Alternative 4 would simply move the waste to another location, it
would not involve any treatment. Alternative 3B would achieve
gradual reductions in toxicity, mobility, and volume through the
use of the skimmer well network and the oil/water separator.
Alternative 3A would do so to a lesser degree because of the
absence of the skimmer wells.
5) Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion refers to the length of time required to
achieve protection of human health and the environment, and to
any adverse impacts posed during the implementation of the
remedial alternative.
Alternatives 3A and 38 have the best short-term
effectiveness due primarily to the fact that they can be
implemented in less than 12 months and the alternatives do not
entail any intrusive impacts to the landfill itself.
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 provide less short-term effectiveness
due primarily to the intrusive landfill activities and the
required time for implementation, particularly for Alternative 6,
which requires several years for implementation.
6. Implementability
This criterion describes the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedial alternative, including the availability
of materials and services needed to implement the selected
solution.
Alternatives 3A and 3B can be easily implemented because
they use limited remedial actions and existing technology.
Alternatives 4, 5, are more difficult to implement because they
involve excavation and transportation activities. Alternative 6
would be the most difficult alternative to implement and it is
not certain if this technology could work on such a large
quantity and depth of waste.
7) Cost
This criterion addresses the capital cost for materials,
equipment, etc. and the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Assuming a net present worth (NPW) including 30 years of O&M
costs, Alternative 3B, would be the most cost-effective remedy to
implement, with a NPW of $4,348,000, because it eliminates the
primary exposure pathway at a relatively low cost. Alternatives
4, 5, and 6 are significantly more expensive with NPW of
$25,538,000 to $300,239,000, $92,597,000 to 174,797,000, and
$11,765,000 to $19,985,000, respectively.
Alternative 3A is comparable to Alternative 3B with capital
costs of $937,000, and NPW of $3,127,000. Both alternatives also
have the similar annual O&M costs, however, the higher NPW for
-------
32
Alternative 3B is justified because this alternative presents a
more effective solution to the contamination problem because the
addition of the skimmer well network provides better protection
of human health and the environment.
8) State Acceptance
This criterion indicates whether, based on its review of the
Remedial Investigation (RI), Feasibility Study (FS), and the
.Proposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment
on the preferred alternative.
PADER has concurred with the selected remedial action.
9) Community Acceptance
This criterion assesses the public comments received on the
RI, FS, and the Proposed Plan.
Community interest is moderate at this site. A public
meeting was held on May 6, 1991, at the Jefferson Borough
Municipal Building. This meeting lasted approximately two hours,
and public involvement was good. The Responsiveness Summary
addresses specific comments received during the public comment
period.
V. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon the requirements.of CERCLA and on the detailed
evaluation of the alternatives, the EPA has determined that
Alternative 3B - Closure with Skimmer Well Network, is the most
appropriate remedy for the Resin Disposal Site in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
This alternative shall include capping the existing landfill
utilizing a multilayer cap system, lower landfill dike upgrade,
relocation of the sanitary sewer, infiltration controls to reduce
leachate generation, upgrading of the downslope oil/water
separator, installation of a skimmer well network to intercept
non-aqueous phase product in the Pittsburgh Coal mine voids, and
the implementation of a 30-year monitoring program.
The construction of the multilayer cap shall meet relevant
and appropriate requirements in 40 C.F.R Section 264.310 which
are the RCRA Closure and Post-Closure regulations. This
construction must also meet the equivalent state regulations in
25 PA Code Section 264.310. Erosion and sedimentation control
must be done in accordance with 25 PA Code Chapter 102. Dust
control must also be done during grading and cover placement in
compliance with 25 PA Code Section 123.1. Institutional controls
shall focus on access restrictions, which shall help reduce
potential exposure. The restrictions employed shall consist of .
deed restrictions for potential future land use which would
include any development, excavation, or drilling onsite that
could disturb covered or reconstructed areas; and upgrading of
the existing security system including the construction of a
-------
33
fence around the perimeter of the site containing a locked gate
system which would restrict access to the site. (Additional
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are set forth
in Section VI, Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements).
The landfill and soils between the lower landfill dike and
the leachate interception trench shall be capped utilizing a
multilayer system. The existing oil/water separator located
downslope of the leachate collection trench shall be replaced
with an upgraded system that allows for the collection of
uncontrolled air releases by utilizing an enclosed system. After
separation, aqueous phase product is discharged to the West
Elizabeth Sanitary Authority, and the non-aqueous product, if
possible, is reclaimed as fuel. A series of approximately twenty
test borings shall be installed into the Pittsburgh Coal along
the western perimeter of the landfill. These borings shall reach
a depth of approximately 30 feet and shall be converted into
skimmer wells as a free product layer is encountered. This
network of skimmer wells shall collect non-aqueous phase product
in the Pittsburgh Coal mine voids, and thus, shall slowly reduce
the toxicity, mobility, and volume of waste. Non-aqueous product
shall be collected from the wells intermittently through the use
of pumps, and, if possible, reclaimed as fuel. Monitoring wells
shall be installed downgradient to insure that the skimmer well
network is working properly.
Cost Estimate for Alternative 3B Alternative 3B
-------
34
Cost Estimate for Alternative 3B Alternative 3B
Capital Costs
Access Controls 93,000
Site Preparation 105,000
Site Capping and Infiltration Controls 300,000
Field Evaluation Program/Skimmer Well System 160,000
New Oil/Water Separator 30,000
Deep Bedrock Boreholes 25,000
Abandonement of TW-5 & TW-6 4.OOP
SUBTOTAL 717,000
Engineering/Construction Management (15%) 108,000
Mobilization/Demobilization/Site Services (10%) 72,000
Overhead & Profit (15%) 108,000
Contingency (20%) 201,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST 1.206.000
Operation and Maintenance
Leachate Collection/Treatment 50,000
for Interception Trench
Leachate Collection/Treatment 40,000
for Potential Skimmer Well System
Site Monitoring 27,200
Fence Maintenance 4,500
Cap/Infiltration Controls Maintenance 10.000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COST 132,000
PRESENT WORTH OF ANNUAL O&M COST 3,142,000
(30 years at 5% interest)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 4,348,000
-------
35
VI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to
implement remedial actions that are protective of human health
and the environment. Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621,
also establishes several other statutory requirements and
preferences. The selected remedy must be cost effective and
utilize a permanent solution to the maximum extent practicable.
The selected remedial action must comply with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements set forth by State and
Federal environmental statutes and regulations, unless a waiver
is justified. Finally, CERCLA sets forth a statutory preference
for remedial actions that permanently reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the site-related wastes. The following
sections discuss .how the selected remedy meets the statutory
requirements and preferences set forth in Section 121 of CERCLA.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The risk assessment identified future exposure to
contaminated ground water as the most significant exposure
pathway in terms of its potential impact on human health. The
risk assessment also showed that the site has a relatively high
volume (85,000 tons) of low toxicity waste. The remedial
measures included in the preferred remedy shall impede further
migration of waste or contaminated soils from the landfill. The
selected remedy would also protect human health by eliminating
direct contact with the site soils through access restrictions
and placement of a multilayer cap system. The selected remedy
also protects the environment by reducing contaminant migration
into the unnamed stream. Additionally, implementation of this
alternative is not expected to result in any adverse short-term
risks or cross-media impacts.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The selected remedial action will comply with all ARARs.
The ARARs specific to the selected remedy are presented below.
Except where specifically noted, the site-specific limitation to
the following ARARs will be identified in the remedial design
phase.
• Chemical-specific ARARs:
Safe Drinking Water Act - National Primary Drinking Water
Standards (40 CFR Part 141). Federal Standards for several
chemicals including the MCLs, adopted to protect public
drinking water systems. Standards will be considered and used in
characterizing human health risks associated with possible
contaminated ground water for public consumption.
PA Safe Drinking Water Act (35 PS 722.1-721.17 & 25 PA Code
Chapter 109) - State act which established drinking water
standards at least as stringent as Federal Standards. Standards
will be considered and used in characterizing human health risks
-------
36
associated with possible contaminated ground water for public
consumption.
RCRA - Toxicity Characteristic Rule (40 CFR § 261.3 (a)(2))
The non-aqueous leachate collected in the oil/water separator may
contain benzene at levels above 0.50 mg/liter which would make it
a RCRA characteristic waste. Further testing of the non-aqueous
leachate would have to be done to determine whether this
regulation is applicable to the selected remedy. If the non-
aqueous leachate is determined to be a RCRA waste, then it will
have to be manifested as a hazardous waste.
PA Solid Waste Management Act - Identification and Listing
of Hazardous Waste (25 PA Code Chapter 75.261) - This regulation
is consistent with corresponding federal standards and defines
those solid wastes which are subject to state regulation as a
hazardous waste. This regulation may be applicable to the non-
aqueous leachate collected from the oil/water separator. Further
testing of the level of benzene in the non-aqueous leachate is
required to determine whether the regulation is applicable. If
the non-aqueous leachate is determined to be a RCRA waste, then
it will have to be manifested as a hazardous waste.
• Location-specific ARARs:
Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands - (Executive
Order No. 11,990 40 CFR 6.302(a) and Appendix A) If there are
any wetlands onsite, these regulations are potentially applicable
if the selected remedy would require the filling of any of the
wetlands.
Dredge or Fill Requirements - (40 CFR Parts 230-231).
Requires permits for discharge of dredge or fill material into
surface waters, including filling of wetlands.
• Action-specific ARARs:
RCRA - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
(40 CFR Part 262) - This regulation establishes standards for
generators of hazardous waste. If the oil from the oil/water
separator is determined, upon further testing, to be a RCRA
characteristic waste, the oil will have to manifested as a
hazardous waste.
Standard Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (40
CFR Part 263) - Establishes standards which apply to transporters
of hazardous waste within the United States. Potentially
applicable to remedial actions involving removal of waste which
qualifies as hazardous under RCRA. If the oil from the oil/water
separator is determined, upon further testing, to be a RCRA
waste, it will have to transported as a hazardous waste.
Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Waste and
Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (40 CFR
Part 266) - Establishes requirements which apply to recyclable
hazardous waste materials that are reclaimed. May apply to the
reclamation of the non-aqueous product from the oil/water
separator.
-------
37
Burning of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces (56 FR 7134, February 21, 1991) - Establishes standards
for the burning of hazardous wastes in boilers and industrial
furnaces. May apply to the burning of the non-aqueous product
collected from the oil/water separator, and presently burned in
the Hercules Jefferson plant.
Surface Impoundments (40 CFR Part 264.221, 264.226, 264.227,
264.223) - These regulations are relevant and appropriate to the
stabilization of the lower landfill dike. Specific standards
must be met with regard to construction and maintenance of the
dike.
Use and Management of Containers (40 CFR Part 264 -Subpart
I) Establishes regulations for owners and operators of hazardous
waste facilities that store or treat waste in containers. The
selected remedy will meet recycling/reclamation and container
management standards as the leachate is collected, and then
reclaimed as fuel.
Cap Construction (25 PA Code Sections 264.111, 264.117, and
264.310(b), (i), (iv) and (v)) contain relevant and appropriate
requirements with respect to maintenance and construction of the
cap. These regulations also will require proper repair of the
landfill cap after it is constructed.
Closure and Post-Closure (40 CFR Part 264.310) - This
federal regulation describes the proper closure and post-closure
activities necessary at a hazardous waste landfill. This
regulation would be relevant and appropriate for this site,
because the waste was placed prior to the enactment of RCRA, so
RCRA is not applicable.
Dust Control Measures (25 PA Code Sections 123.1 and 123.2)
are applicable to the selected remedy and require that dusts
generated by earthmoving activities be controlled with water or
other appropriate dust suppressants when building the cap.
Erosion Control Measures - (25 PA Code Sections 102.1
through 102.24) contain relevant and appropriate standards
requiring the development, implementation, and maintenance of
erosion and sedimentation control measures and facilities which
effectively minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
Clean Water Act - National Pretreatment Standard (40 CFR
Part 401) - Indirect discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) is governed by pretreatment regulations. This
regulation is applicable to the discharge of the aqueous fraction
of the treated leachate to the West Elizabeth Treatment Plant.
West Elizabeth Sanitary Authority Pretreatment Effluent
Standards - (West Elizabeth Sanitary Authority & Hercules
Effluent Limitations Agreement) Establishes acceptable levels on
discharge to the West Elizabeth Treatment Plant. The aqueous
portion of the leachate is currently being discharged in
accordance with the effluent limitations agreement.
-------
38
Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 &
29 CFR 1910.120). Regulates workers health and safety.
Applicable to activities at hazardous waste sites.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. §§ 1801-
1813, Parts 107, 171-177). Regulates transportation of DOT-
defined hazardous materials. This regulation will be applicable
to the selected remedy if the collected oil is a RCRA
characteristic waste.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective because it has been
determined to be the best balance between cost and protection of
human health, welfare and the environment. The selected remedy
has excellent short-term effectiveness proportional to its cost.
The estimated capital cost for this alternative is $1,206,000,
with a net present worth cost including 30 years of operation and
maintenance of $4,348,000. The selected remedy provides a level
of protection of human health comparable to that provided by the
other remedies, but at a significantly reduced cost. Although
other remedies may be more effective in the long-term, the site-
related risks do not justify the additional capital expenditure.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent
Practicable
The EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent treatment technologies can
be utilized in a cost effective manner for the site. Of those
alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, the EPA has determined that
the selected remedy provides the best balance in terms of short-
term effectiveness; implementability; cost; reduction in
toxicity, mobility, and volume; and long-term effectiveness.
The selected remedy does not offer as high a degree of long-
term effectiveness as the off-site disposal, thermal treatment,
or in-situ biodegradation alternatives, however; it will
significantly reduce the risks to human health posed by the site
soils. The excess human cancer risk at the site has been
estimated to be approximately 7 in 10,000 (based on maximum
plausible exposure concentrations) for a future resident, and the
risk to a trespasser is 2 in 1,000,000 (based on maximum
plausible exposure concentration). Current residents are not at
risk of exposure to carcinogenic substances. The site has a
relatively high volume (85,000 tons) of low toxicity waste. Due
to the relatively low risk associated with the site, EPA has
determined that the use of more costly treatment technologies at
the site are not justifiable. Because all the remedial
alternatives, with the exception of Alternatives 1 and 2, offer a
comparable level of protection of human health and the
environment, the EPA has selected Alternative 3B, which can be
implemented quickly; will have little or no adverse effects on
the surrounding community; and will cost considerably less than
the other alternatives.
-------
39
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedial alternatives that
employ treatment as the principal element has been met by the
treatment of waste from both the oil/water separator and the
skimmer wells employed in the selected remedy. Treatment of the
waste is via incineration as a fuel. Although several of the
other remedies, such as Alternative 5, employ even more treatment
of waste, due to the relatively low risk to human health, the
unproductive nature of the aquifers, and the nature and extent of
contamination, the EPA has determined that Alternative 3B,
including monitoring, access restrictions, institutional
controls, and installation of a skimmer well system for non-
aqueous product recovery in the Pittsburgh coal mine voids, can
be implemented more quickly and cost effectively than the other
alternatives while still providing an adequate level of
protection to human health and the environment.
Documentation of Significant Changes
The preferred alternative originally identified in the
Proposed Plan is also the preferred alternative selected in the
ROD. There have been no significant changes made to the selected
remedy in the tine period between the issuance of the Proposed
Plan on April 19, 1991 and the signing of the ROD approximately
ten weeks later.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RESIN DISPOSAL SITE
JEFFERSON BOROUGH
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
June, 1990
The EPA established a public comment period from April 19,
1991 to May 18, 1991 on the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS), the Proposed Plan which described
EPA's preferred Remedial Alternative and other site-related
information for the Resin Disposal Site in Jefferson Borough,
Pennsylvania. The RI/FS and other site related documents
utilized by the EPA to select a preferred Remedial Alternative
are included in the site's administrative record file and have
been available to the public since the beginning of the public
comment period. A public meeting was held on May 6, 1991 and
approximately 30 people were in attendance. A total of two
written comments were also received during the public comment
period.
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to summarize
significant comments, criticisms and new data received during the
public meeting or in writing, and to provide EPA's responses to
the comments.
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided
into the following sections:
Section I Overview: A discussion of the public's response
to the preferred Remedial Alternative.
e>
Section II Background of Community Involvement and Concerns:
A discussion of the history of community interest
and concerns raised during remedial planning
activities at the Resin Disposal Site.
Section III Summary of Significant Comments Received during
the Public Comment Period and Agency Responses. A
summary of comments and responses categorized by
topic.
I. Overview;
Comments received from the public suggest that area
residents do not object to the preferred alternative. In
general, the residents were concerned that having a Superfund
site in their neighborhood may have a negative impact on their
property values. In addition, there is concern that hazardous
substances are being left in place, and may pose a health threat
at some time in the future. EPA has included monitoring of
residential wells in the preferred alternative to address this
concern.
-------
II. Background of Community Involvement and Concerns;
A public meeting to discuss the draft RI/FS Work Plan was
held on August 5, 1987 in the Jefferson Borough Municipal
Building. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(PADER) and EPA were both present at the meeting but public
interest was moderate. The citizens did express some concerns
about the possible human health impacts of the site. The RI/FS
began in November, 1987 after Hercules signed a Consent Order
with PADER to do the work.
Ill Surmary of Manor Comments received during the Public Comment
Period and Agency Responses.
1. Responsible Party Involvement
Several questions were asked about Hercules, and its
role in the RI/FS and the future remediation of the site.
EPA RESPONSE: Hercules performed the RI/FS under the
direction and supervision of the EPA and PADER. Future
remediation, if performed by the responsible party, would
also be performed under the same supervision.
2. Residential Well Sampling
A question was asked about the human health threat
present at the site, and whether any contamination had been
detected in residential wells.
EPA RESPONSE: No site-related contaminants were detected in
any residential well. However, there were contaminants,
such as benzene, detected in monitoring wells located
onsite. As indicated in the Risk Assessment, there is some
risk in the future to residents consuming contaminated
ground water if the onsite waste material contaminated a
nearby residential well.
3. The Oil/Water Separator
There were several questions about the oil/water
separator, and what happens to the oil and water after their
separation and treatment.
EPA RESPONSE; The oil/water separator is used to collect
leachate from the landfill. The oil, after its separation
from the water, is currently transported to the Hercules
plant in Jefferson and burned as fuel in one of its boilers.
The water, which is slightly contaminated with organic
compounds after the separation, goes to the West Elizabeth
-------
Sanitary Authority where it is treated. The oil/water
separator will be replaced with an upgraded system as part
of the selected remedy.
4. Length of Remediation
i
A question was asked about the length of the various
stages of remediation, and the length of time before the
site is completely remediated.
EPA RESPONSE: The Record of Decision (ROD) is expected to
be signed in late June, 1991. Following that, a period of
negotiation will occur between EPA, PADER and the
potentially responsible party (PRP) to determine if the
PRP is willing to perform the remedy described in the ROD.
If the negotiations are not successful, Superfund monies
may be expended to complete the remedy. After the
negotiations are completed, a remedial design, which
involves designing the specifics of the remedy, will take 6-
12 months. After the design is completed, the remedial
action itself will take an additional 9-12 months. Thus,
completing the entire process will take between 2 and 3
years.
5. The Second Operable Unit
A question was asked about the second operable unit
regarding groundwater remediation, and whether the operable
unit was necessary.
EPA RESPONSE: Additional information needs to be collected
about the groundwater (both on and offsite) before a remedy
can be selected for that unit. The extent of the ground
water contamination is not accurately known at this time.
More wells need to be installed, and sampled before a remedy
for the groundwater can be selected. The remedy for
operable unit one addresses the waste material and the
adjacent contaminated soils, and the second operable unit
will address any groundwater remediation that may be
necessary.
6. PADER Groundwater Remediation ARAR
A question was asked about whether the PADER regulation
concerning remediation of ground water to background quality
(25 Pa. Code $$264.90 - 264.100) was an ARAR for this
operable unit.
EPA RESPONSE: The first operable unit addresses source
control remediation and the PADER's ground water regulation
would not be an ARAR for that operable unit. The second
operable unit addresses any ground water remediation that
-------
may be necessary, and the PADER groundwater regulation may
be an A3AR for that unit.
7. Sources of Onsite Ground Water
A comment was received concerning the sources of the
ground water which may contact the waste material onsite.
The concern was that the preferred remedial alternative
would only address water from surface infiltration and not
water flowing towards the waste from offsite mine voids.
EPA RESPONSE:
It is true that ground water can come from infiltration
and via the mine voids. However, an estimate in the
Feasibility Study on page 1-23 indicates that the vast
majority, approximately 99%, of the water in this area would
be from surface infiltration. Thus, the capping, and
infiltration controls, which are part of the preferred
remedy would significantly reduce the quantity of ground
water coming in contact with the waste material.
8. The Unnamed Stream
There were several questions about the unnamed stream
and whether it contained high levels of site-related
contaminants.
EPA RESPONSE:
There are levels of site-related contaminants present
in the unnamed stream, but the levels approach non-detection
at the point where the stream reaches the site gate
dovmgradient of the oil/water separator. The unnamed stream
flows down to the Monongahela River approximately 5/8th of a
mile from the site boundary. The unnamed stream and other
streams in the site area generally appear to be discolored,
probably due to runoff from the areas coal mines.
9. The Mine Voids
A question was asked about the onsite mine voids, and
whether the Bureau of Mines could be of some assistance in
determining the exact location of all the mine voids.
EPA RESPONSE;
There are no maps available indicating exactly where
the onsite mining was done. However, the EPA will consider
using the Bureau of Mines for technical assistance in the
future regarding this matter.
-------
Office of the
Regional Director
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
SOUTHWEST REGION - FIELD OPERATIONS
Highland Building
121 South Highland Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206-3988
(412) 645-7100 (answers 24 hours)
June 28, 1991
I
Mr. Edwin B. Erickson
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 19107
RE: Resin Disposal Site
Allegheny County
Record of Decision
Dear Mr. Erickson:
The Department has reviewed the Record of Decision received June 25,
1991 and amended June 27 and June 28, 1991 for the Resin Disposal Site located
1n Jefferson Borough, Allegheny County.
The selected remedy 1n this ROD addresses the containment of the waste
materials and is referred to as Operable Unit 1 (OU-1). Additionally, EPA will
be addressing the groundwater in a second Record of Decision. The groundwater
1s referred to as Operable Unit 2 (OU-2).
OU-1 Includes:
1. Installation of a multi-layer cap and Infiltration controls.
2. Installation of a skimmer well system to collect floating product.
3. Installation of monitoring wells to measure the effectiveness of the
skimmer well system.
4. Upgrading of the lower landfill dike to Increase Its stability.
5. Relocation of the sanitary sewer system.
6. Replacement of the existing oil/water separator with an upgraded
enclosed system.
7. Installation of fence around the site perimeter.
8. Instituting deed restrictions.
9. Monitoring ground and surface water and Implementing an Operation and
Maintenance Program. moyotod hptr
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency -2-
June 28, 1991
EPA states in the ROD that it is EPA's intention to do the following: '
1. Complete the Oil- 2 groundwater study prior to construction of the OU-1
multi-layer cap and
2. Upon completion of the OU-2 groundwater study, evaluate the effective
ness of the OU-1 remedy to determine whether it is inconsistent with
the results of the groundwater study and whether it will preclude
implementation of the final remedy and whether it will preclude imple-
••nentation of the final remedy for OU-2. Based on this criteria, EPA
will determine, as appropriate, whether the ROD for OU-1 requires
i fication.
I concur with the EPA's proposed Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1
(OU-1) with the following conditions:
1. Tables 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and narrative be corrected to reflect revi-
sion to the Risk Assessment.
2. The Department will be given the opportunity to concur with decisions
related to the design and implementation of OU-1, to insure compliance
with State ARARs.
3. This concurrence with the selected remedial action Is not intended to
provide any assurance pursuant to SARA Section 104(c)(3).
4. The Department will be given the opportunity to concur with decisions
related to subsequent operable units.
0
The Department, as always, reserves its right and responsibility to
take independent enforcement actions pursuant to state law.
Additionally, the Department continues to assert that our ARAR for
groundwater for hazardous substances is that all groundwater must be remediated
to "background" quality as specified by 25 Pa. Code §264.90-264.100.
If you have any question regarding this matter, please do not hesltatt
to contact me.
Sine/rely ,
CAD:JRS:ld
cc: Region
Central
Chron
Garth Connors/U.S. EPA
farles A. Durltsa
Regional Environmental Protection
Director - Field Operations
Southwest Region
------- |