Superfund Record of Decision: Industrial Drive, PA


             United States         Office of
             Environmental Protection    Emergency and
             Agency            Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-91/139
March 1991
&EPA    Superfund
             Record of Decision
             Industrial Drive,  PA

-------

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-91/139
4. 1M» «nd SuMMe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Industrial Drive, PA
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. AuOior(s)
». Performing Orgal nbrfon Nsme end Addmu
12. Sponsoring Orgtniution Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient". Accession No.
5. Report Dste
03/29/91
6.
8. Performing OrgsnlaUon Rapt No.
10. Pro|sct/Ts»k/Work Unit No.
11. ContncqC) or Cksnt(G) No.
(C)
(0)
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Holes
16. Abstract (UmH: 200 words)
The 30-acre Industrial Drive site is an active sanitary landfill and industrial
facility in Williams Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Land use in the
area is industrial, residential, and agricultural. The site contains active and
inactive sanitary landfills as well as active, inactive, and abandoned industrial
facilities. The Lehigh River and Lehigh Canal are located northwest of the site, and
a portion of the site rests upon the trace of a thrust plane known as the
Musconetcong Fault. These conditions have created a complex geologic setting in
which ground water flow is governed by topography. Prior to 1961, the site was used
for iron ore mining, industrial activities, and agricultural purposes. In 1961,
sanitary landfill operations began onsite, and the site accepted municipal solid
waste for disposal in an unlined landfill. By 1980, the landfill had expanded to 30
acres. In the late 1970's, local residents alleged that the now inactive unlined
landfill had accepted hazardous wastes that had contaminated local drinking water
wells. Waste disposal in the unlined landfill ceased in 1986, but closure of the
landfill has not been completed. In 1986, the State issued a permit for a 10-acre
expansion of the landfill, which included a liner and leachate collection system.

(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis s. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Industrial Drive, PA
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE), other organics, metals (chromium,
c. COSAT1 Reid/Group
18. AvsiUbiBty SUtement
19. Security Ctsss (This Report)
None
20. Security Clsss (This Psge)
None
21. No. of Pages
83
22. Price
(See ANSf-Z39.18)
See Inatructiont on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORH 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
P6p
-------
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-91/139
Industrial Drive, PA
Second Remedial Action - Final

Abstract (Continued)

This expansion landfill is currently active, but there are no plans to further expand
the landfill area. Contamination in local ground water wells was first detected in
1983. Subsequently, the site has been divided into two operable units (OUs) for
remediation. A 1986 ROD addressed OU1, and provided for an alternate water supply by
connecting numerous private well users to an existing municipal water supply. This ROD
addresses OU2, the contaminated ground water and the low-level threat caused by the
unlined municipal landfill. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, and TCE; other organics; and
metals including chromium and lead.

The selected remedial action for this site includes closing and capping the unlined
landfill area with a clay or synthetic cap; onsite pumping and treatment of contaminated
ground water using an air stripper, followed by carbon adsorption with onsite discharge
of the treated ground water to the Lehigh River; regenerating spent carbon offsite; and
long-term monitoring of the closed landfill and ground water. If the selected remedy
cannot meet the specified remediation goals, a contingency remedy will be implemented to
prevent further migration of the plume, which will include a combination of containment
technologies including ground water extraction and treatment, and institutional
controls. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $12,775,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $536,000 for years 0-1 and $498,000 for years 2-45.
There will be an additional O&M cost of $20,000 every 5 years.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The goal of this remedial action is to remediate ground
water to Background Levels as specified by the State Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations. Chemical-specific goals include benzene 0.2 ug/1, PCE 0.03 ug/1,
TCE 0.03 ug/1, chromium 50 ug/1, and lead 5 ug/1.
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
INDUSTRIAL LANE
DECLARATION
Site Minna and Location

Industrial Lane
Williams Township, Pennsylvania
Operable Unit 2

Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Industrial Lane Site in Williams Township, Pennsylvania, which
was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent practicable,
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision document explains
the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this
site.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs with the selected remedy.
The information supporting this remedial action decision is
contained in the Administrative Record for this site.

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
discussed in the Summary of Site Risks in this document, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

Description of the Selected Remedy

This Operable Unit is the second of two Operable Units for the
site. The remedy for the first Operable Unit consisted of
connecting numerous private well users in Lucy's Crossing and
Glendon Borough to existing water mains belonging to the Easton
City Suburban Water Authority. The first Operable Unit addressed
the principal exposure pathway, and as a result a waterline was
extended to residences. Since no principal threats were
identified at the site, the second Operable Unit addresses the
contaminated ground water and the relatively low-level threat
caused by the unlined municipal landfill. This remedy, which
includes containment, results in hazardous substances being left
onsite and that therefore will require long-term management.

The selected remedy includes the following major components:

Closure of the unlined municipal landfill
-------
Extraction, treatment, and discharge of ground water to
the Lehigh River
Long-term monitoring of the closure and the ground water

Statutory Determinations

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and it satisfies
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
onsite above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action and every
five.years thereafter, as required by Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(c), to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Edwin
Regional Administrator
Region III
Date
-------
Decision Summary for the Record of Decision
I. Site Mane, Location, and Description

The Industrial Lane Site is located in Williams Township,
Northampton County, Pennsylvania, approximately 1 mile southwest
of the center of south Easton (Figure 1). Although the site is
listed as Industrial Lane on the National Priorities List (NPL),
it is located on Industrial Drive. To avoid confusion, the site
will be referred to as the "Industrial Lane site", or simply the
"site". The site, which encompasses approximately 30 acres,
borders on the city limits of Easton, and is located approximately
15 miles east of Allentown. The Lehigh River and Lehigh Canal are
located to the northwest of the site. The communities of Glendon
Borough and Lucy!s Crossing are located west and southwest of the
site, respectively. Morgan Hill is situated to the east and south
of the site. The area population has been estimated at
approximately 550 persons. The study area ,which includes the
site, contains active and inactive sanitary landfills (Chrin
Brothers Landfill) and various active, inactive, and abandoned
industrial facilities. The site received attention during the
late 1970s as a result of allegations by local residents that the
now inactive unlined landfill had accepted hazardous wastes that
were contaminating local drinking water wells. Since that time
the area has been the focus of investigations by both Federal and
state agencies and continues to be an area of concern for local
residents.

The Industrial Lane site is located in an area of highly
weathered and structurally deformed rocks of the
Cambrian/Precambrian era. In addition, a portion of the site
rests upon the trace of a thrust plane known as the Musconetcong
Fault. These conditions have created a very complex geologic
setting. Ground water flow throughout the area is, in general,
governed by the topography. The Lehigh River acts as base level
for this ground water system, which flows primarily under water-
table conditions. Depth to ground water throughout the area
varies from about 18 feet to greater than 200 feet below ground
surface.

The area around the site is currently used for industrial,
residential and limited agricultural purposes. The site is not
located in a floodplain and does not contain wetlands.

The Northampton County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and
corresponding Williams Township zoning ordinance requirements
provide information on the proposed future land use of the area.
The sector along Industrial Drive is currently zoned for light
industry and residential. The Morgan Hill area is currently zoned
residential, and proposed future zoning includes no further
changes.
-------
The most notable future change in land use in the area around
the site may occur along the Interstate 78 (1-78) corridor, which
extends east-west approximately 850 feet north of Industrial Drive
near the Chrin Brothers Landfill. Future land use will most
likely be influenced by proposed zoning changes, including the
development of a commercial district along 1-78.

II. Site History and Enforcement Activities

The 1874 Atlas of Northampton County depicts the area now
known as the Chrin Brothers Landfill as undeveloped, with the
exception of several iron mines. Aerial photographs from 1947
indicate that the area was used for agricultural purposes.
Several small open areas observed in these photos appear to be the
iron mine pits. Some of these areas are located in what is now
the central area of the oldest portion of the unlined landfill.

The 1947 photos also reveal a variety of industrial
activities on the adjoining property to the northeast identified
as the former Pennsalt area, including a railroad spur. An
electric company substation is also identifiable, with the
remainder of the surrounding land used for residential or
agricultural purposes.

Photos from 1958 show the landfill area as undeveloped and
mostly wooded, with the iron ore extraction areas revegetated and
possibly regraded. Industrial activities are continuing on the
Pennsalt property.

Sanitary landfill operations began in 1961 and gradually grew
in size. In 1975, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (PADER) approved a permit for the site as a natural
renovation sanitary landfill to receive municipal solid waste. No
liner was required, and industrial wastes were not to be accepted
without prior PADER approval. By 1980, the landfill had expanded
to 30 acres. Disposal of wastes in this unlined area ceased in
1986, although closure of the site has not been completed. PADER
issued a permit in 1986 for a 10-acre expansion of the Chrin
Brothers Landfill; the expansion area has been developed east of
the unlined landfill and includes a liner and leachate collection
system. This expansion area is currently accepting waste for
disposal, and the Chrin Brothers Landfill has recently applied for
a permit to further expand the landfill area.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
Industrial Lane site for the National Priorities List (NPL) in
1983 after contamination was found in local wells; the site was
placed on the NPL in 1984. A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) was completed in 1986 pursuant to Section 104 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604. EPA issued a ROD in 1986 for the first
operable unit (OU 1) at the site, which addressed the threat to
human health in the area from drinking contaminated ground water.
The remedy under the ROD for OU 1 consisted of connecting numerous
-------
private well users in Lucy's Crossing and Glendon Borough to
existing water mains belonging to the Easton City Suburban Water
Authority. This remedial action was completed in 1988.

In 1988, EPA had further ground water investigation done to
gather additional information about the ground water contamination
in the area. The report for this Ground Water Validation Study
(GV Study) was issued in January 1989.

PADER notified the owner and operator of the Chrin Brothers
Landfill in a letter dated November 23, 1990, that the inactive,
unlined landfill area must be closed according to the Pennsylvania
Municipal Waste Management Regulations (PA Code, Title 25, Chapter
271) and Regulations for Municipal Waste Landfills (PA Code,
Title 25, Chapter 273). In January 1991, a Focused Feasibility
Study (1991 FFS) addressing the contaminated ground water at the
site was completed pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §
9604. The state closure requirement described above was
integrated into the development and evaluation of remedial
alternatives in the 1991 FFS.

III. Highlights of Community Participation

The 1991 FFS Report and the Proposed Plan for the second
operable unit (OU 2) at the Industrial Lane site were released to
the public for comment as part of the administrative record on
February 12, 1991 in accordance with Sections 113(k)(2)(B),
117(a),and 121(f)(1)(G), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9613(k)(2)(B), 9617(a), and
9621(f)(1)(G). These two documents were made available to the
public in the administrative record file maintained at the EPA
Docket Room in Region III and at the Mary Meuser Library, 1803
Northampton Street, Easton. The notice of availability for these
two documents was published in the Easton Express on February 12,
1991. A public comment period on the documents was scheduled to
be held from February 12 to March 13, 1991. An extension request
was received, and the comment period was extended to March 20,
1990. In addition, a public meeting was held on February 25,
1991. At this meeting, representatives from EPA and PADER
answered questions about problems at the site and the remedial
alternatives under consideration. A response to the comments
received during this period is included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this ROD.

IV. Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within
Site Strategy

As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Industrial
Lane site are complex. As a result, EPA has organized the
remedial work at the site into two operable units.

The ROD for OU 1 was signed in September 1986, and addressed
the threat to human health in the area from drinking contaminated
ground water. This remedy consisted of connecting numerous
private well users in Lucy's Crossing and Glendon Borough to
-------
existing water mains belonging to the Easton City Suburban Water
Authority. This remedial action was completed in 1988.

This ROD authorizes the second and final planned remedial
action at the site. The remedial action for OU 2 authorized by
this ROD addresses the relatively low, long term threat posed by
the unlined landfill. It also has the goal of restoring the
ground water to beneficial uses. No principal threats, such as
hot spot areas of highly toxic or highly mobile wastes, were found
in conjunction with the site. The principal exposure pathway,
ingestion and inhalation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
contaminated ground water, was addressed by OU 1.

V. Summary of Site Characteristics

The following data sources were used to characterize the
nature and extent of ground water contamination at the Industrial
Lane Site:

Monitoring well data collected during the RI (1984-
1986).

Monitoring well data collected as a result of the 1989
GV Study.

Monitoring well data collected as a result of sampling
of the Chrin Brothers Landfill monitoring wells during
1989, by AGES, a consultant to the operator of the
landfill.

• Monitoring well data collected as a result of sampling
of the Chrin Brothers Landfill monitoring wells by PADER
during 1988 and 1989.

EPA has concerns about VOC contamination since a number of
contaminants found at the site are known or potential carcinogens.
Similarly, certain inorganic contaminants pose threats to human
health and the environment and must be examined and addressed.

The ground water data (VOC data only) collected during the
GV Study are particularly relevant to characterizing the ground
water contamination because VOCs are the principal site
contaminants. The GV Study data present a recent picture of VOC
concentrations in the ground water and were validated according to
EPA protocols. Isoconcentration contour maps were plotted for
selected VOCs detected during the GV study. These maps are
included in the 1991 FFS. The contours were plotted to illustrate
ground water contamination patterns at the Industrial Lane Site.
The contour plots are not intended to define completely the limits
of the VOC plume. Given the available ground water contamination
information and within the limitations of the graphics used to
plot the contours, many of the contour plots suggest that the
wells immediately downgradient of the Chrin Brothers Landfill are
a focal point for the VOC contamination. This suggests that the
-------
landfill is a primary contaminant source. Several of the contours
(e.g., the chloroform map) further suggest that other contaminant
sources may be contributing to the observed VOC contaminant plume.
It should be noted that firm conclusions regarding contaminant
plume size and contaminant source are difficult, given the
location and limited number of wells sampled during the GV Study.

Data collected by AGES and PADER are also recent. The
results presented in such data packages are not analyzed under the
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) and are not qualified in any
manner to indicate that they have undergone a quality assurance
review by an independent chemist. The AGES and PADER monitoring
results provide the most recent inorganics data.

For purposes of the risk assessment and further discussion,
the Industrial Lane site was divided into five areas around the
unlined landfill (Figure 3):

• Area A - The area located northeast of the Chrin
Brothers Landfill. Monitoring wells that characterize
Area A are C-4, C-8, C-ll, C-12, and N-7.

Area B - The area located south of the Chrin Brothers
Landfill. Monitoring wells that characterize Area B are
C-2, C-6, C-10, and N-4.

• Area C - The area located north-northwest and
immediately downgradient of the Chrin Brothers Landfill.
Monitoring wells that characterize Area C are C-l, C-3,
C-9, C-9A, N-2, N-8, M-12S, and M-15.

• Area D - The area located west-northwest of the Chrin
Brothers Landfill (beyond Area C), including the
community of Glendon. The monitoring wells which
characterize Area D are N-l and N-6. At least five
private wells are located in Area D.

• Area E - The area located southwest of the Chrin
Brothers Landfill including the community of Lucy's
Crossing. Monitoring wells that characterize Area E are
N-3 and N-5. At least nine private wells are located in
Area E.

These five areas are somewhat distinct geographically.
Contaminant levels differ significantly from area to area. The
following paragraphs describe contaminant occurrence and
distribution in each area.

Area A Ground Water Contamination

Table 1 summarizes the available ground water monitoring
results for Area A. VOCs were the principal contaminants detected
in the ground water in Area A. The results do not indicate that
the VOC contamination is diminishing over time. While Area C is
-------
clearly downgradient of the site, water level results indicate
that Area A may also be downgradient.

The GV Study was most sensitive to the VOC contamination
because low analytical detection limits were employed. The
results indicate that 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane,
trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and chloroform were the most
frequently detected VOCs in Area A. Chrin Brothers Landfill
monitoring well Oil, which is not located in the immediate
vicinity of the landfill, was the most heavily contaminated well.
Well C-ll is located on the property previously owned by Pennsalt,
and currently owned by the Chrin Brothers Landfill. With the
following exceptions, the VOC concentrations detected in one or
more Area A ground water monitoring wells do not exceed available
current or proposed Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs): vinyl chloride; methylene chloride;
tetrachloroethene; 1,2-dichloroethane; and benzene.

Semi-volatile organic compounds were detected infrequently in
the ground water samples collected from Area A. Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate, isophorone, and 4-chloro-3-methylphenol were each
identified once at 410, 180, and 11 micrograms per liter (/xg/L) ,
respectively, in samples collected during the 1986 RI.

Recent AGES and PADER data indicates that chromium, iron,
lead, manganese, and mercury concentrations detected in one or
more unfiltered ground water samples exceed current or proposed
Federal primary (health-based) or secondary (aesthetic-based)
MCLs. Only the average concentration of mercury in the unfiltered
samples exceeds a current primary MCL. The elevated iron and
manganese concentrations in the unfiltered samples, as well as the
turbidity levels noted in several samples, suggest that the metals
concentrations noted are probably due, in part, to solids levels
in the unfiltered samples.

Dissolved mercury concentrations reported by AGES for several
filtered ground water samples exceed the current MCL; however,
elevated mercury concentrations detected in the AGES samples were
not noted in PADER samples collected during the same period.
Other metals were not detected in filtered AGES or PADER samples
in excess of current primary MCLs.

Area B Ground Water Contamination

Table 2 summarizes available ground water monitoring results
for Area B. The pattern of ground water contamination noted in
Area B is similar to that noted in Area A. In comparison to
Area A, however, fewer VOCs were identified and the concentrations
detected are generally lower in Area B. Chloroform was the VOC
most frequently detected during the GV Study. However, only the
maximum concentration of 1,2-dichloroethane detected as a result
of AGES monitoring of the Chrin Brothers Landfill wells exceeds a
MCL for VOCs. While Area C is clearly downgradient of the site,
-------
water level results indicate that Area B may also be downgradient.

Bis (2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate was the only semi-volatile
compound detected in ground water samples collected from Area B.
The compound was detected in one monitoring well (N-4) sampled
during the RI at a concentration of 38 M9/L.

Recent AGES and FADER data indicate that barium, chromium,
iron, lead, manganese, and mercury concentrations detected in
unfiltered ground water samples exceed current or proposed
primary (health-based) or secondary (aesthetic-based) MCLs in one
or more Chrin Brothers Landfill monitoring wells. However, the
average concentrations of metals detected in unfiltered ground
water samples do not exceed current primary MCLs. As noted in the
discussion for Area A, elevated concentrations of iron and
manganese, as well as elevated turbidity levels suggest that the
metals concentrations are probably due, in part, to solids levels
in unfiltered samples.

Mercury concentrations in excess of the current MCL were
reported for one filtered ground water sample collected in 1989 by
AGES from Area B. It is important to note that barium, chromium,
and mercury concentrations reported for samples collected during
the RI (1986) or by the PADER (1988-1989) are not in excess of
current primary MCLs.

Area C Ground Water Contamination

Table 3 summarizes the available ground water monitoring
results for Area C, which is immediately downgradient of the Chrin
Brothers Landfill. As noted on the isoconcentration contour maps,
VOC contamination in Area C is more prominent than in Areas A, B,
D and E. In comparison to other areas sampled, Area C is most
affected by VOC contamination potentially migrating from Chrin
Brothers Landfill or other contaminant sources. The following
VOCs were detected in one or more monitoring wells at
concentrations exceeding current or proposed primary MCLs: vinyl
chloride; methylene chloride; trans-l,2-dichloroethene; cis-1,2-
dichloroethene; 1,2-dichloroethane; carbon tetrachloride;
trichloroethene; benzene; tetrachloroethene; chlorobenzene; and
1,1-dichloroethene.

All of the VOCs listed above were also detected in leachate
samples collected from the Chrin Brothers Landfill. The GV Study
results indicate that tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethane were the most frequently
detected VOCs reported for Area C wells. The data reveals that
contaminant concentrations are not diminishing over time and that
the GV Study was most sensitive ( in comparison to the RI, AGES,
and PADER studies) to the VOC contamination present.

With the exception of N-nitrosodiphenylamine, bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, and isophorone,
semivolatile organics were not detected in Area C ground water
-------
samples. These four compounds were infrequently detected during
the Rl at maximum concentrations of 25, 160, 6.0, and 52 M9/L,
respectively. As was the case in Areas A and B, semivolatile
organic contamination is not widespread or prominent in Area C
ground water.

Five metals were detected in unfiltered Area C ground water
samples at concentrations exceeding current primary or secondary
MCLs: chromium, iron, lead, manganese, and mercury.

With the exception of one chromium detection (AGES data) and
one mercury detection (AGES data), metals concentrations in excess
of current primary MCLs were not detected in filtered ground water
samples collected from Area C. A health-based MCL has not been
established for manganese. However, the maximum concentration
detected in unfiltered and filtered ground water collected in
Area C exceeds a concentration predicted to result in adverse
noncarcinogenic health effects for chronic exposure. Manganese
concentrations detected in Area C ground water samples were ten
times the concentrations detected in Area A or Area B ground water
samples. The maximum concentration of manganese in the leachate
samples from the site was 83,170 M9/L.

Area D Ground Water Contamination

Table 4 summarizes the available ground water monitoring
results for Area D, which is west-northwest of the Chrin Brothers
Landfill and includes the community of Glendon. Monitoring wells
and domestic wells within this area are not monitored routinely by
AGES or by PADER.

According to the RI and GV Study results, few VOCs were
detected in the two monitoring wells located within Area D. With
the exception of one benzene detection reported during the Rl, VOC
concentrations detected were not in excess of current MCLs.
Chromium was the only metal detected (unfiltered sample-RI data)
at a concentration exceeding a current primary MCL. Iron and
manganese were detected at concentrations exceeding secondary
MCLs; however, the manganese concentrations observed were tenfold
less than those reported for Area C monitoring wells.

Minimal VOC contamination was noted in Area D.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene, a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon detected
in one domestic well, was not detected in monitoring wells sampled
during the RI and, therefore, is probably not site related.

Area E Ground Water Contamination

Table 5 summarizes the available ground water monitoring
results for Area E, which is southwest of the Chrin Brothers
Landfill and Area C. The community of Lucy's Crossing is located
within Area E. Monitoring wells and domestic wells within this
area are not monitored routinely by AGES or PADER.
-------
Generally, VOC concentrations detected in Area E monitoring
wells during the GV Study are lower than those reported for Area C
wells. However, the maximum concentration of benzene in
monitoring well N-5 (15 /*g/L) exceeds the maximum concentration
detected in Area C wells (9.9 jig/L). Benzene was not detected in
well N-3 (located between well N-5 and the Chrin Brothers
Landfill) during the GV Study which suggests that contaminant
sources other than the landfill are potentially contributing to
the observed VOC contamination. According to the GV Study
results, benzene was the only VOC detected in Area E wells at a
concentration exceeding a current MCL.

The RI provides the most recent inorganics data for the
Area E monitoring wells. Lead and chromium were each detected
once in unfiltered ground water samples at a concentration
marginally exceeding current or proposed primary MCLs. Inorganics
concentrations exceeding MCLs were not reported in unfiltered
ground water samples.

Summary of Occurrence and Distribution of Ground Water
Contamination

The available information on the nature and extent of ground
water contamination at the Industrial Lane Site may be summarized
as follows:

VOC contamination is most prominent in Area C, located
immediately downgradient of the Chrin Brothers Landfill.
In comparison to other areas adjoining or downgradient
of the Chrin Brothers Landfill, Area C is most affected
by VOC contamination potentially migrating from the
landfill and other contaminant sources. All VOCs
detected in Area C monitoring wells at concentrations
exceeding current or proposed MCLs were also detected in
leachate samples collected from the landfill.

• VOC contamination patterns noted in Areas A, B, and E
suggest that contaminant sources in addition to the
landfill are potentially contributing to the observed
VOC contaminant plume. This is suggested by the fact
that some VOCs were detected at higher concentrations in
wells located distant or upgradient of the landfill in
comparison to wells located immediately downgradient of
the landfill.

Based on all available ground water data, inorganics
(metals) are infrequently detected at concentrations
exceeding current primary MCLs. The most recent data
indicate that metals concentrations in excess of current
MCLs (chromium, mercury, lead, iron, manganese) were
most frequently reported in unfiltered ground water
samples. The pattern of contamination observed for the
metals does not strongly implicate the Chrin Brothers
Landfill as a contaminant source.
-------
VI. Summary of site Risks

Baseline Risk Assessment

Introduction

The objective of the risk assessment is to define actual
(current) or potential risks to the public as a result of the
hazardous substances (principally VOCs) in the ground water.

Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern

The chemicals of concern should adequately characterize the
potential for the noncarcinogenic effects and the carcinogenic
risks associated with exposure to contaminated ground water at the
Industrial Lane Site. The contaminant occurrence and distribution
provide a basis for the selection of indicator compounds. The
following factors were considered in selecting these indicator
compounds:

• Occurrence and distribution of the contaminants across
the site.
• Environmental fate and mobility.
• Toxicity.

Additionally, the concentration-toxicity (CT) screening
procedure presented in the "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)11 was used to
identify those VOCs that are most likely to contribute
significantly to risks associated with human exposure to
contaminated ground water. Each VOC detected during the GV Study
was assigned a risk factor (or chemical score), based on the
maximum concentration of the chemical in the ground water and the
toxicity criteria for the chemical.

The ratio of the risk factor for each VOC to the total risk
factor for all VOCs is designated the relative risk for that VOC
in the ground water. The relative risk value as well as the
factors listed above were considered in the selection of volatile
organic indicator chemicals (carcinogens and noncarcinogens were
evaluated separately).

VOC Indicator Selection

The following halogenated alkane and alkene compounds are the
principal VOCs detected as a result of the ground water monitoring
conducted at the Industrial Lane Site:

Vinyl chloride
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethene (cis-/trans-)
chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane

10
-------
carbon tetrachloride
1,2-dichloropropane
trichloroethene
tetrachloroethene
1,1-dichloroethene

These VOCs were detected in five or more monitoring wells
sampled during the GV Study. Vinyl chloride is a Group A (human)
carcinogen. Several others are Group B (probable human)
carcinogens. Based on toxicity and frequency of detection, all of
the VOCs listed above were selected as indicator compounds. Other
halogenated alkane and alkene compounds (e.g., 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane) not selected as indicators were detected
infrequently in the ground water and ranked low in the
concentration-toxicity screening.

Benzene, chlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene were the only
other VOCs selected as chemicals of concern. These aromatic and
chlorinated aromatic compounds were detected less frequently than
halogenated alkane/alkene compounds. Benzene and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene are Group A (human) and Group B (probable human)
carcinogens, respectively. Chlorobenzene scored high in the
concentration-toxicity screening relative to other aromatic
compounds such as toluene and ethyIbenzene.

Carbon disulfide and 2-butanone were infrequently detected in
the ground water samples. Based on frequency of detection and the
result of the CT screening, neither compound was selected as an
indicator.

Semivolatile Indicator Chemical Selection

The two semivolatile compounds most frequently detected
during the^RI bis (2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate and isophorone), were
included as indicators. However, the risk assessment results
subsequently presented for these compounds should be viewed in
light of the following facts:

• The RI data available for these compounds does not
strongly implicate the site as a contaminant source.
The compounds were not detected in Area C wells at
concentrations higher than concentrations detected in
Areas A, B, D, and E wells.

Comprehensive monitoring of the ground water in the
vicinity of the site for semivolatile organics has not
occurred subsequent to the RI.

Inorganic Indicator Chemical Selection

Based on a review of recent data, the following inorganics
were detected in unfiltered ground water samples collected from
one or more Chrin Brothers Landfill monitoring wells at

11
-------
concentrations exceeding proposed or current MCLs or health-based
guidelines:

• Chromium
Lead
Mercury
• Manganese

With a few exceptions, inorganic concentrations in excess of
current MCLs were not reported for ground water samples that were
filtered prior to analysis. In many cases, elevated metals
concentrations were associated with samples containing high
turbidity or Total Dissolved Standards levels. As with the
semivolatile compounds, the data for inorganics do not strongly
implicate the site as a contaminant source. The metals are
included as chemicals of concern in an effort to present a
comprehensive baseline risk assessment for ground water quality in
the vicinity of the Industrial Lane Site.

Exposure Assessment

The purpose of the exposure assessment is to evaluate the
potential for human exposure to the hazardous substances
(principally the VOCs) identified in the ground water associated
with the Industrial Lane Site. This section identifies actual or
potential routes of exposure, characterizes the exposed
populations, and presents the methodology used to estimate the
degree or magnitude of exposure.

To determine whether there is an actual exposure or a
potential for exposure in the future, the most likely pathways of
chemical release and transport and the human and environmental
activity patterns near the site must be considered. A complete
exposure pathway has three components: (1) a source of
contaminants that can be released to the environment; (2) a route
of contaminant transport through an environmental medium; (3) an
exposure or contact point for a human or environmental receptor.
These components are addressed in the following subsections.

Sources of Contamination

Sampling and analysis of ground water over the past 10 years
has detected the presence of VOCs. VOCs were observed in all
monitoring wells at the site. The data indicate that the VOC
contamination is most prominent in the ground water immediately
downgradient of the landfill. The predominant VOCs detected in
the monitoring wells were also detected in landfill leachate
samples. Based on these results, the site is the primary suspected
contributing source of the VOC contamination detected in ground
water. However, the identification of VOCs in monitoring wells
upgradient of the landfill and the pattern of contamination
upgradient and downgradient of the landfill suggests that other
sources may also be present. Although Well C-ll, which showed
some of the highest concentrations of VOCs in Area A, is located

12
-------
on property previously owned by Pennsalt, it is currently owned by
the owners of the Chrin Brothers Landfill. These potential
additional sources may include past and existing commercial,
industrial and/or private facilities as well as the possible past
or present use of degreasing solvents in on-lot septic systems.

Semivolatile organics were infrequently detected in the
ground water. Several metals (chromium, lead, mercury, iron, and
manganese) were occasionally detected in recent unfiltered and
filtered ground water samples at concentrations exceeding proposed
or current standards, criteria, or guidelines. However, the
pattern of contamination for the semivolatile organics and metals
does not strongly implicate the site as a contaminant source.
Generally, semivolatile organics and metals concentrations
detected in Area C monitoring wells are not significantly
different from those observed in Areas A, B, D, or E monitoring
wells which are located upgradient or distant from the landfill.
Additionally, because analytical results reported for filtered
ground water samples only occasionally exceed current primary
MCLs, it is possible that the naturally occurring metals content
of the area soils may be contributing to the metals concentrations
detected in the unfiltered ground water samples.

Receptor Identification and Exposure Routes

The principal public health concern for the Industrial Lane
Site is the potential current or future domestic use of ground
water downgradient of the landfill. Historically, residents in
the three communities in the vicinity of the site (Morgan Hill,
Lucy's Crossing, and Glendon) relied on private wells as a
domestic water supply source. The Morgan Hill community is
located upgradient of the Chrin Brothers Landfill. Monitoring
results indicate that private wells in Morgan Hill have not been
substantially affected by VOC contamination. Monitoring of
private wells in the communities of Glendon and Lucy's Crossing
during the RI detected VOCs. Although a public water system (the
Eastern Area Suburban Water Company) currently services the
communities of Lucy's Crossing and Glendon, not all residents in
these communities are actually connected to the available
community public water supply. Consequently, human receptors
potentially exposed to site-related contaminants are as follows:

Residents of Lucy's Crossing and Glendon who retain the
use of private ground water wells.

People who at some time in the future will rely on
public or private wells drawing water from the
contaminated ground water.

Individuals who may use the ground water in the affected area
are likely to be exposed to contaminants in the ground water via
normal household uses. Ingestion would be the primary route of
exposure. Inhalation of VOCs during showering or bathing is a
secondary route of exposure. Dermal absorption of VOCs could also

13
-------
occur. Although dermal absorption is often considered an
insignificant exposure in contrast to ingestion or inhalation,
there is indication that dermal absorption of VOCs can contribute
significantly to the total contaminant dose received by a receptor
exposed to contaminated ground water.

Exposure Assessment Methods and Assumptions

Exposure estimates for the baseline risk assessment were
developed, based on guidance outlined in the "Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual."

Several routes of exposure are associated with the household
use of contaminated water. Receptors may be exposed via
ingestion; via inhalation of volatiles and semi-volatiles emitted
from showers, toilets, dishwashers, washing machines, and other
turbulent sources; or via dermal contact during bathing. Of the
possible inhalational exposures, showers account for the majority
of an individual's dose.

A dose is defined as the amount of a compound in milligrams
(ing) absorbed daily by a receptor per kilogram (kg) of body
weight. Doses can be calculated for lifetime (for carcinogenic
effects) or less than lifetime exposures (for noncarcinogenic
effects).

Ingestion rates are specified as 2 liters/day for adults and
1 liter/day for children. Since exposures associated with ground
water use could occur on virtually a daily basis, the exposure
frequency is set at 365 days/year. The exposure duration and
lifetime are specified as 70 years for adult receptors. These
terms are used exclusively for characterization of long-term
carcinogenic risks in this and all subsequent exposure routes.
Body weights are specified as 70 kg for adults and 17.4 kg for
children (ages 3 to 6).

Selection of Data for Risk Assessment/
Representative Exposure Concentrations

As discussed previously, ground water monitoring data for the
Industrial Lane Site are available from several sources. The
analytical methods (and associated method detection limits) used
to analyze the samples varied. Data collected during the RI and
GV Study were validated (i.e., evaluated by a chemist working
independently of the analytical laboratory). The validation
status of the FADER and AGES data is unclear.

Ideally, data used in a risk assessment should be recent and
of a known quality. Based on these criteria, the VOC data
collected during the GV Study were used in the risk assessment.
However, the GV Study data are in rough agreement with the RI,
FADER, and AGES data. Consequently, the selection of the GV Study
data instead of other data sources did not significantly alter the
results of the risk assessment.

14
-------
Semivolatile organic and metals data are less critical to an
evaluation of the Industrial Lane Site because VOCs are the
principal contaminants of concern. Semivolatile organic data
presented in the RI will be used in the risk assessment, since it
is the only Semivolatile organic data available for the majority
of the site monitoring wells. Metals data provided by AGES and
FADER will be used, since they are more recent and limited
information (e.g., blank contaminants levels) was included in the
data packages to allow at least a cursory evaluation of the
quality of the data.

The selected exposure concentration (the representative
concentration) is the 95 percent upper confidence limit on the
average calculated in accordance with guidance referenced in the
EPA "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund", Volume I. This is
to provide a reasonable maximum exposure scenario.

Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day) "1,
are multiplied by the estimated exposure dose of a potential
carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of
the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with that exposure
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes
under estimation 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.

Reference doses (RfOs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure
to chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals, that
are likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health
effects. Estimated exposure doses of chemicals from environmental
media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. 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
underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to
occur.

Toxicitv Assessment

The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to identify the
potential health hazards associated with exposure to the site
indicator chemicals. A toxicological evaluation of each indicator
chemical was conducted to characterize its inherent toxicity. The

15
-------
evaluation consisted of the review of scientific data to determine
the nature and extent of the human health and environmental
hazards associated with exposure to the various chemicals. Based
on the scientific data review, a toxicity profile for each
indicator chemical was developed. The toxicity profiles provide
the qualitative weight-of-evidence for contaminants that may pose
an increased cancer risk and/or pose potential non-carcinogenic
hazards to human health and the environment at the site.

Toxic effects considered in these profiles include
noncarcinogenic (toxic) and carcinogenic health effects and
environmental effects. Noncarcinogenic health effects are
generally assumed to occur only at doses exceeding a certain
"threshold dose." Toxicological endpoints, routes of exposure,
and doses in human and/or animal studies are discussed in the
profiles.

Carcinogenic health effects are associated with exposure to a
chemical capable of promoting, initiating, or causing a malignant
neoplasm. Routes of exposure and doses in human and/or animal
studies are considered. Another factor is the EPA's weight-of-
evidence for a compound's carcinogenicity (i.e.. Group A, known
auman carcinogens; Group B, probable human carcinogens; Group C,
possible human carcinogens; Group D, not classifiable as to its
carcinogenicity).

An important component of the risk assessment process is the
relationship between the dose of a compound (amount to which an
individual or population is exposed) and the potential for adverse
health effects resulting from exposure to that dose. Dose-
response relationships provide a means by which potential public
health impacts may be evaluated.

Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the
exposure level with the cancer potency factor. These risks are
probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation
(e.g., 1x10 or 1E-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of IxlO"6
indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual has a
one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at a site.

Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient
(HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated exposure dose derived from the
contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's
reference dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a
medium or across all media to which a given population may
reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated.
The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media.
16
-------
Risk Characterization

The objective of risk characterization is to estimate the
potential incidence of adverse human health effects under the
exposure scenarios. EPA guidelines for the use of dose-additive
models are used to combine the risks for individual chemicals to
estimate the cumulative risks for the mixtures found on site,
assuming that the toxicologic end points are the same. This
section characterizes the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
at the Industrial Lane Site.

Carcinogenic Risk

Carcinogenic risks can be estimated by combining information
on the strength or potency of a known or suspected carcinogen
(carcinogenic slope factor) with an estimate of the individual
exposure doses of a chemical.

The resulting number is an expression (risk/lifetime) of the
individual's likelihood of developing cancer as a result of
exposure to a carcinogenic chemical. This likelihood is in
addition to the risks incurred by everyday activities. The risk
(e.g., 1 x 10*6 or a 1 in 1,000,000 chance) can also be applied to
a given population to determine the number of excess cases of
cancer that could be expected to result from exposure (e.g., 1 x
10*6 is one additional case of cancer in 1,000,000 exposed
persons).

The total risk for exposure to multiple compounds is presented
as the summation of the risk for the individual contaminants.
Risks can be calculated in this manner under the following
assumptions:

• There are no antagonist/synergistic effects between
chemicals.

• All chemicals produce the same results, ie. cancer.

• Cancer risks from various exposure routes are additive, if
the exposed populations are the same.

Noncarcinogenic Risk

Potential health risks resulting from exposure to
noncarcinogenic compounds are estimated by comparing the maximum
daily dose calculated for an exposure to an acceptable reference
dose, such as a chronic or subchronic reference dose. A
subchronic reference dose is generally used if the exposure time
is less than 90 days; a chronic reference dose (RfD) is used for
longer time frames. If the ratio between an exposure dose and the
reference dose exceeds unity, there is a potential health risk
associated with exposure to that chemical. The Dose/RfD ratio is
not a mathematical prediction of the severity or probability of
toxic effects; it is simply a numerical indicator of the potential

17
-------
for adverse effects. The ratio of the exposure dose to the
reference dose is sometimes referred to as the Hazard Quotient
(HQ). The summation of HQs for several compounds is frequently
referred to as the Hazard Index (HI).

Conservatively, a total Hazard Index (HI) for any exposure
route is calculated by summing the Dose/RfD ratios (HQs) for the
individual chemicals of concern. To provide a better indication
of risks, Dose/RfD ratios should be summed according to the target
organ affected (e.g., the Dose/RfD ratios for those chemicals
affecting the liver should be summed separately from those
chemicals affecting the nervous system).

Risk Analysis Results

Several contaminants detected in the ground water at the
Industrial Lane Site exceed current or proposed primary MCLs.
Contaminant concentrations are highest in those monitoring wells
located immediately downgradient of the Chrin Brothers Landfill.
VOCs, the principal site contaminants, have been detected in
several private wells in the communities of Glendon and Lucy's
Crossing.

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.

The risk analysis results (Tables 7-11) for Areas A through E
may be summarized as follows:

• Incremental cancer risks associated with the representative
concentrations of VOCs detected in the ground water range
from 3.3 x 10"6 (Area B) to 7.6 x 10"4 (Area C). Risks in
excess of 1 x 10~4 are only predicted for Area C and for the
VOC concentrations reported in Chrin Brothers Landfill
Well c-11, Area A. (Cancer risks associated with VOC
concentrations in Well C-11 were estimated separate from
other Area A wells because C-11 was more highly
contaminated. The excess lifetime cancer risk associated
with the VOC concentrations detected in C-11 is 3.7 x 10"4.)
Vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, benzene, and 1,2-dichloroethane are the
contaminants that individually contribute a cancer risk
level in excess of 1 x 10 for one or more of the five
areas evaluated. The 1 x 10~4 to 1 x 10"6 cancer risk range
is used by EPA in developing cleanup goals for CERCLA sites
and in establishing regulatory standards.

• Estimated cancer risks for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP)
and isophorone concentrations reported in the RI range from
7.9 x 10"5 (Area A) to 5.2 x 10"6 (Area B) . Risk levels
estimated for Area C, located immediately downgradient of
the Chrin Brothers Landfill, are lower than risk levels

18
-------
estimated for Areas A, D, and E. As discussed previously,
the RI results do not strongly implicate the Chrin Brothers
Landfill as a source of semivolatile organic contamination
at the Industrial Lane Site. These risks are within the EPA
protective range of 1 X 10~4 to 1 X 10 .

• Cancer risk levels are not estimated for the metals
evaluated in the risk analysis, as they are not currently
classified as carcinogens via the ingestion route of
exposure. The metals are not sufficiently volatile in
ground water to create an inhalation hazard under the
inhalation-during-showering exposure scenario.

• The noncarcinogenic risk analysis of representative
concentrations of VOCs and semivolatiles indicate that
organic concentrations are not high enough to produce a
hazard quotient (HQ) or Hazard Index (HI) exceeding unity
(1.0) when an adult is the receptor of concern. However,
the HQs and His estimated for the ingestion route of
exposure would increase by a factor of 2.0 if a 17.4 kg
child was evaluated as the receptor of concern and
3.5 (approximately) if a small child (10 kg) is evaluated as
the receptor of concern. Under these conditions the HI
calculated for Area A and Area C would approach or exceed
unity. Tetrachloroethene and carbon tetrachloride are the
principal VOCs contributing to noncarcinogenic risk.
Adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are possible when the
HI (or HQ) exceeds unity.

• The HI values calculated to evaluate noncarcinogenic risk
associated with representative metals concentrations
(unfiltered metals results) range from 0.74 (Area A) to
2 (Area B) when an adult is evaluated as the receptor of
concern. HQs and His do not exceed unity when filtered
metals results are evaluated.

The carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks were calculated for
VOC concentrations detected during the RI in private wells in
Lucy's Crossing and Glendon. The estimated excess cancer risk
levels never exceeded 2 x 10*5 and His never exceeded unity. An
evaluation of VOC concentrations reported for one private well
located between the Chrin Brothers Landfill and Lucy's Crossing
(the Pfister well) resulted in an estimated cancer risk level of
5.1 x 10"5. The VOCs concentrations reported for the Pfister well
were higher than any other reported for private wells sampled
during the RI.

In summary, the risk assessment for the principal site
contaminants (the VOCs) predict cancer risk levels in excess of
1 x 10~4 for a theoretical human receptor using the ground water
immediately downgradient of the Chrin Brothers Landfill as a
domestic water supply source. Cancer risks associated with VOC
contamination observed in other areas downgradient or adjoining
the landfill are generally less than 1 x 10"4. Adverse

19
-------
noncarcinogenic health effects are not predicted for an adult
routinely exposed to the VOC levels in the ground water
immediately downgradient of the site; however, they are possible
if a small child is considered as the receptor of concern.
Although recent monitoring data are not available for private
wells in the communities of Lucy's Crossing and Glendon, an
evaluation of VOC concentrations detected during the RI indicate
that the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with the domestic
use of ground water would not exceed 5.0 x 10 . As discussed
previously, most residents in the communities of Lucy's Crossing
and Glendon have access to or are connected to public water.

Uncertainty in Risk Assessment

Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks are estimated
using various assumptions; therefore, the values presented in this
section contain an inherent amount of uncertainty. The extent to
which health risks can be characterized is primarily dependent
upon the accuracy with which a chemical's toxicity can be
estimated and the accuracy of the exposure estimates. The
toxicological data that form the basis for all risk assessments
contain uncertainty in the following areas:

• The extrapolation of non-threshold (carcinogenic) effects
from the high doses administered to laboratory animals to
the low doses received under more common exposure scenarios.

• The extrapolation of the results of laboratory animal
studies to human or environmental receptors.

• The interspecies variation in toxicological endpoints used
in characterizing potential health effects resulting from
exposure to a chemical.

• The variations in sensitivity among individuals of any
species.

The exposure scenarios and risk assessment methodology used in
this risk assessment also contain uncertainty, for example:

• The exposure scenarios assume chronic exposure to
contaminant levels that do not change with time. In
reality, contaminant levels often change with time in
response to source loading or depletion and
physical/chemical/biological forces such as chemical or
biochemical degradation.

• Two of the organic chemicals of concern (1,1-dichloroethene
and isophorone) are designated as Class C carcinogens.
Although these compounds are evaluated as carcinogens in the
risk assessment, only limited evidence in animal studies
supports their designation as carcinogens. Risk analysis
results based on the evaluation of Class C carcinogens must

20
-------
be viewed with less certainty than analyses based on
Class A, Bl, or B2 carcinogens.

• Although lead, a chemical of concern, has been classified as
a B-2 carcinogen, a carcinogenic slope factor has not been
published by the EPA. This presents a data gap in the risk
assessment. The main conclusions of the risk assessment are
not impacted because lead is not a predominant contaminant
at the site.

In addition to these sources of uncertainty, the chemical
analytical data base has limitations in such areas as sample
locations and sample representativeness. These uncertainties are
present in every baseline risk assessment.

EPA guidelines were followed in the development and evaluation
of exposure scenarios used in this risk assessment to obtain
reasonable maximum exposure scenarios.

Environmental Risks

The number and diversity of terrestrial species present in the
area surrounding the Industrial Lane site has probably been
substantially reduced due to the extensive reduction of suitable
habitats by urbanization and industrialization. The overall
quality of the Lehigh River, however, is improving since the
institution of pollution control regulations in recent years. No
endangered species are known to permanently or seasonally reside
in the site area, although two endangered bird species are known
to migrate through the region. No portions of the site have been
designated as critical habitat for either of these species.

Conclusion of Summary of Site Risks

VII. Description of Alternatives

This section provides an understanding of the remedial
alternatives developed for this site and their components.

Closure of the Unlined Landfill

PADER notified the owner and operator of the Chrin Brothers
Landfill in a letter dated November 23, 1990, that the unlined
landfill area must be closed according to Chapters 271 and 273 of
the Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Management Regulations (25 PA.
Code Chapter 271 and 273). Under Section 273.234 of the Municipal
Waste Management Regulations, 25 PA Code § 273.234, the landfill
must be closed using a cap consisting of a uniform and compacted
1-foot layer of clay, a drainage layer over the cap, and a uniform

21
-------
and compacted layer of soil at least 2 feet in thickness over the
drainage layer. In lieu of the clay cap, PADER may approve a
synthetic material which has a permeability of no more than
1 x 10"7 cm/sec and meets the requirements set forth in
Section 273.256 of the Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Management
Regulations, 25 PA. Code 273.256.

The state closure requirements, estimated to cost $8,000,000,
were integrated into the development and evaluation of the
remedial alternatives for the site. The requirements of each
alternative discussed below are therefore in addition to the
closure requirements.

Alternative 1 No Action

This alternative was developed to provide a baseline to which
the other remedial alternatives can be compared. This alternative
involves taking no action at the Industrial Lane Site to remove,
remediate, or contain the contaminated ground water. In
compliance with the monitoring requirements of Chapter 273 of the
Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Management Regulations (25 PA.
Code Chapter 273), quarterly ground water monitoring of monitoring
wells in the area of potential ground water contamination would be
conducted to prevent contact (primarily ingestion and inhalation)
with contaminated ground water. A number of assumptions were
required regarding the present extent of the contaminated plume
since the current extent of ground water contamination is
uncertain. The assumed horizontal extent of ground water
contamination is shown in Figure 4. For costing purposes, it was
estimated that 11 monitoring wells would be sampled quarterly.
Eight existing NUS monitoring wells would be used, and three
additional monitoring wells would be installed in the downgradient
area, north of the Chrin Brothers Landfill. The exact number and
locations of the monitoring wells will depend on the actual extent
of ground water contamination and will be determined during
Remedial Design. In addition to the eleven monitoring wells,
three residential wells in the Glendon area and three residential
wells in Lucy's Crossing would be sampled on an annual basis.
This alternative would result in hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants remaining on site, therefore 5-year site reviews,
pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), would
be required to monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.

Effectiveness

Since no action would be taken to remediate the ground water
under this alternative, the health risks remaining after
implementation of this alternative would be identical to those
presently posed by household use of contaminated ground water.
For ground water users residing downgradient of the Chrin Brothers
Landfill, ground water monitoring provides a minimal degree of
long-term protection from exposure to contaminated ground water.
With regard to reliability, monitoring is usually less effective
in fractured bedrock (such as that at the site), than in more

22
-------
homogeneous, unconsolidated formations, since contaminants can
potentially remain undetected by migrating beyond the monitoring
wells in fractures.

With respect to environmental risks, the contaminants in the
ground water would continue to migrate over time. The extent of
ground water contamination is not well-defined, therefore the rate
and direction of plume migration cannot be accurately predicted at
this time. A high percentage, possibly all, of the ground water
contamination may discharge into the Lehigh River, which would
help to control plume migration. No impact of contaminated ground
water on the Lehigh River was found during the Rl. On the other
hand, some contaminated ground water may currently, or in the
future, flow beneath the river and into areas west of the site.
The ground water monitoring program would be used to evaluate the
current extent of ground water contamination and to predict the
rate of future contaminant migration. Installation of additional
downgradient monitoring wells could be necessary if it is
predicted that the contaminant plume is potentially spreading
beyond (west of) the Lehigh River.

This alternative would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants in the ground water. Over time,
contaminant levels in the present areas of contamination may
gradually decrease through natural dilution, although the current
extent of ground water contamination may spread into
uncontaminated areas. The low-permeability cap planned for the
Chrin Brothers Landfill should significantly reduce the amount of
leachate emanating from the site. The landfill, however, would
continue to generate small quantities of leachate, which could act
as a continuous source of contamination to the ground water.
Therefore, even with the installation of a low-permeability cap,
contaminant levels in the ground water could remain relatively
constant over a long period.

Implementab i1i ty

Ground water monitoring is widely used at hazardous waste
sites. Monitoring wells could readily be installed and maintained
at the site. As part of the state permit requirements, quarterly
ground water monitoring is being conducted at the existing Chrin
Brothers Landfill wells. This ground water sampling program could
potentially be expanded to include the additional downgradient
wells or a separate downgradient monitoring program could be
implemented, if necessary.

Since the only remedial action involved with this alternative
is the installation of monitoring wells, protection of workers and
the community from exposure to contaminated materials during
remedial actions is not a major consideration. Monitoring wells
could be installed in approximately 1 month, once a field crew and
equipment are mobilized.
23
-------
Cost

Capital costs and periodic monitoring and maintenance costs
associated with this alternative are summarized in Table 13. The
capital cost for this alternative is estimated to be $ 108,000,
plus $ 8,000,000 in capital costs for the closure of the landfill.
The O & M costs in Table 13 do not include costs related to
closure of the landfill. The present-worth cost estimate for this
alternative is $2,027,000, not including closure of the landfill.
The costs for 5-year site reviews are included in the Operation
and Maintenance (O & M) and present-worth costs for this
alternative.

Alternative 2 Access Restrictions with Monitoring

Access restrictions would include such institutional controls
for controlling access to ground water as regulatory prohibitions,
zoning regulations, and local ordinances. In Pennsylvania, the
Borough Code specifically authorizes municipal regulation of water
wells and ground water use, and all local governments have the
power to adopt ordinances and regulations deemed necessary for the
peace, health, safety and welfare of the municipality. In
addition, the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Act sets out a
number of purposes for which zoning regulations may be employed,
indicating that a zoning ordinance that restricts access to
contaminated ground water is most likely authorized by law.

As in Alternative 1, ground water monitoring of monitoring
wells in the area of potential ground water contamination would be
conducted to control contact (primarily ingestion and inhalation)
with contaminated ground water. For costing purposes, it was
estimated that 11 monitoring wells would be sampled quarterly.
Eight existing RI monitoring wells would be used, and three
additional monitoring wells would be installed in the downgradient
area, north of the site. The exact number and locations of the
monitoring wells will depend on the actual extent of ground water
contamination. In addition to the eleven monitoring wells, three
residential wells in the Glendon area and three residential wells
in Lucy's Crossing would be sampled on an annual basis. This
alternative would result in hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants remaining on site, therefore, 5-year reviews pursuant
to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), would be
required to monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.

Effectiveness

Since no action would be taken to remediate the ground water
under this alternative, the health risks remaining after
implementation of this alternative are identical to those
presently posed by household use of contaminated ground water.
Although the individual health risks associated with exposure to
contaminated ground water would remain the same under this
alternative, access restrictions would lower the potential or
probability of a resident using contaminated ground water. The

24
-------
long-term effectiveness of this alternative is dependent on the
ability of the state or local government to enforce regulations
that prevent private well owners from using contaminated ground
water.

For ground water users residing downgradient of the site,
ground water monitoring would also decrease the likelihood of a
resident's using contaminated ground water. With regard to
reliability, monitoring is usually less effective in fractured
bedrock (such as that present at the site), than in more
homogeneous, unconsolidated formations, since contaminants can
potentially remain undetected by migrating beyond the monitoring
wells in discrete fractures.

With respect to environmental risks, the contaminants in the
ground water would continue to migrate over time. The extent of
ground water contamination is not well-defined, therefore the rate
and direction of plume migration cannot be accurately predicted at
this time. A high percentage, possibly all, of the ground water
contamination may discharge into the Lehigh River, which would
help to control plume migration. No impact of contaminated ground
water on the Lehigh River was found during the RI. On the other
hand, some contaminated ground water may currently, or in the
future, flow beneath the river and into areas west of the site.
The ground water monitoring program would be used to evaluate the
current extent of ground water contamination and to predict the
rate of future contaminant migration. Installation of additional
downgradient monitoring wells could be necessary if it is
predicted that the contaminant plume is potentially spreading
beyond (west of) the Lehigh River.

This alternative does not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants in the ground water. Over time,
contaminant levels in the present areas of contamination may
gradually decrease through natural dilution, although the current
extent of ground water contamination may spread into
uncontaminated areas. The low-permeability cap planned for the
Chrin Brothers Landfill should significantly reduce the amount of
leachate emanating from the facility. The landfill, however,
would continue to generate small quantities of leachate, which
could potentially act as a continuous source of contamination to
the ground water. Therefore, even with installation of the low-
permeability cap, contaminant levels in the ground water could
remain relatively constant over a long period.

Implementability

Implementation concerns associated with access restrictions
involve assessing the administrative and legal feasibility of
imposing state or local restrictions on ground water use.
Although the Pennsylvania Borough Code and Pennsylvania Municipal
Planning Act suggest that zoning ordinances which restrict access
to a polluted aquifer are authorized by law, few municipal
entities within Pennsylvania have adopted such a zoning ordinance

25
-------
to date. An ordinance that restricts ground water use may be
unpopular with local residents; and therefore, passing such an
ordinance may be difficult. Establishment of access restrictions
would most likely require coordination between EPA, PADER, and the
local government.

Monitoring wells could be readily installed and maintained at
the site. As part of the state permit requirements, quarterly
ground water monitoring is being conducted for the existing Chrin
Brothers Landfill wells. This ground water sampling program could
potentially be expanded to include the additional downgradient
wells, or a separate downgradient monitoring program could be
implemented, if necessary.

Cost

Capital costs and periodic monitoring and maintenance costs
associated with this alternative are summarized in Table 13. The
capital cost for this alternative is estimated to be $ 108,000,
plus $ 8,000,000 in capital costs for the closure of the landfill.
The O & M costs in Table 13 do not include costs related to
closure of the landfill. The present-worth cost estimate for this
alternative is $2,027,000, not including closure of the landfill.
The costs for 5-year site reviews are included in the O & M and
present-worth costs for this alternative. Administrative and
legal costs for implementing access restrictions are not included
in the cost estimate because of the difficulty of estimating such
costs.

Alternative 3 Aquifer Restoration and Discharge

The intent of this alternative is to remediate the ground
water in compliance with the Pennsylvania Municipal Waste
Management and Hazardous Waste Management Regulations,
particularly those sections pertaining to ground water. The
Municipal Waste Management Regulations, 25 PA. Code § 273.287,
require that a ground water abatement plan be developed and
implemented if ground water pollution is detected in one or more
monitoring wells. The abatement plan must include specific
methods to be used to abate ground water pollution from the
facility and to prevent further ground water pollution from the
facility.

The Pennsylvania Waste Hazardous Management Regulations, 25
PA. Code §§264.90 - 264.100, and in particular, §§264.97(i) and
(j), and 264.100(a)(9), require that ground water containing
hazardous substances be remediated to "background" quality. This

26
-------
requirement is further defined in a PADER policy memorandum
concerning ground water remediation, dated December 20, 1990 from
Arthur A. Davis, Secretary of PADER. This memorandum, which is a
To Be Considered (TBC), specifies that in the absence of
background quality data, the quality goal should be established at
detection limits. Background cleanup levels for the extraction
alternatives are listed in Table 12.

This alternative includes two sub-alternatives: Alternative 3A
and Alternative 3B. These two sub-alternatives are for two
different discharge options: 3A is extraction, treatment and
discharge of ground water to the Lehigh River and 3B is extraction
and discharge of ground water to the Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW).

The conceptual design of the extraction system, which could be
used for either 3A or 3B, is shown in Figure 7. The total ground
water extraction rate of these wells is estimated to be 772
gallons per minute. The actual pumping rate and number of wells
are dependent on the results of a pre-design study, which will be
required under Alternatives 3A and 3B. The actual extent of the
contamination and hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer will be
more clearly defined during the pre-design study. Any necessary
treatability testing will also be done during the pre-design
study. The actual location of these wells will be determined in
the design phase. Therefore, a number of assumptions are included
in these estimates of implementation times and costs.

The remediation time required to achieve the background levels
is dependent on the extent of ground water contamination, aquifer
properties (i.e., hydraulic conductivity), and source
characteristics which are uncertain at this time. The
implementation time frame for Alternatives 3A or 3B is estimated
to be 45 years. An analytical mass balance model was used to
predict the times required to restore the ground water to
background. These treatment times were used for costing and
alternative comparison purposes only. They are not intended to
represent accurately the actual times required to restore the
aquifer to the cleanup levels.

At the completion of remediation activities, there may be some
residual contamination remaining in the ground water. Some of the
ground water, most of which flows in fractured bedrock, may not be
intercepted by the extraction well system. In addition,
contaminants may migrate into fractures that are not
interconnected (i.e., dead-end fractures), and, as a result, may
not be readily extractable. At the completion of remediation,
contaminants may reappear with time. For this reason, periodic
ground water monitoring would be required, as discussed in
Alternatives l and 2, to ensure protection of public health from
exposure (primarily inhalation and ingestion) to contaminated
ground water. This alternative would result in hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining on site (in the
capped, unlined landfill), therefore, 5-year reviews pursuant to

27
-------
Section 12l(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 962l(c), would be required
to monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.

Alternative 3A Extraction. Treatment and Discharge to the Lehiah
River

This sub-alternative includes extracting contaminated ground
water, treating the ground water on-site using an air stripper
followed by carbon adsorption, and then discharging the treated
ground water to the Lehigh River.

The air stripping column would consist of a packed column with
forced draft air. The column height and diameter are dependent on
the influent contaminant concentrations and flow rate as well as
the required effluent concentrations, which would be determined by
FADER during the design phase. Based on preliminary design
calculations, the estimated column height required for treatment
of the ground water is 15 feet and the column diameter is 6 feet.
Preceding the air stripper, an equalization tank with a caustic
feed and aeration system, followed by a sand filter, has been
included for iron oxidation/removal as well as for the removal of
suspended solids. These pretreatment steps would control clogging
of both the air stripper packing and carbon adsorption units.

Under this alternative, a carbon adsorption unit is included
as a final polishing step to achieve the required effluent limits
for all contaminants. The estimated carbon usage rate is based on
a number of assumptions concerning the amount of background, or
naturally occurring, organic carbon material contained in the air
stripper effluent. Verification of the assumptions is required
prior to, or as part of, a remedial design. Should the actual
concentration of organic carbon in the air stripper effluent
exceed the assumed value, the use of carbon adsorption as a final
polishing step may be cost-prohibitive. If necessary, a larger
size air stripping unit could be used alone and in place of the
air stripper/carbon adsorption system at a comparable cost.

Remedial actions used to remove VOCs from the ground water at
the Industrial Lane Site are subject to plan approval review under
the Pennsylvania Air Control Regulations, 25 PA. Code Chapter 127
(Construction, Modification, Reactivation and Operation of
Sources). The various air quality permitting criteria are site-
specific. Depending on site conditions, air pollution controls
may be required for an air stripper at the Industrial Lane Site.
EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-28 requires offgas controls for air
strippers with an emission rate in excess of 15 pounds of total
VOCs per day. The anticipated VOC emission rate of the air
stripper is less than 1 pound per day, so it is assumed that off-
gas treatment would not be required. For this reason, an off-gas
treatment unit was not included under this alternative. Should
treatment of the air stripper off-gas be required to address any
human health or environmental risks identified as a result of the
design calculations, three general types of air pollution controls
are available: vapor phase carbon adsorption, catalytic oxidation,

28
-------
and thermal oxidation. Of these three technologies, non-
regenerable carbon adsorption would probably be the most
economical option for the anticipated air flow rate and VOC
concentrations.

Installation of a discharge pipe would be required to
implement Alternative 3A. This alternative would consist of a 10-
inch-diameter pipe, which would run from the ground water
treatment system, under Interstate 78, and then to the Lehigh
River (approximately 3,900 feet).

Effectiveness

Ground water extraction wells, pumps, conveyance systems, and
ground water monitoring are widely used at hazardous waste sites
and are highly reliable if periodic inspections and maintenance
are performed. There would be minimal risk to workers and the
community associated with implementation of Alternative 3A. Air
strippers and carbon adsorption vessels are commonly used for
water and wastewater treatment and are highly reliable if periodic
inspections and maintenance are performed.

Ground water extraction, followed by air stripping, is an
irreversible treatment process that would reduce the toxicity of
the contaminated ground water by removing approximately 98 percent
of the VOCs from the extracted ground water and then concentrating
them in the off-gas. The remaining contaminants in the effluent
from the air stripper would be almost completely removed
(>99 percent) by the carbon adsorption unit. The contaminants
collected on the carbon would be thermally destroyed when the
carbon is regenerated off-site.

This alternative, over the long-term, could potentially
restore ground water in the zone of contamination to background
action levels. A low-permeability cap is planned for the Chrin
Brothers Landfill, which should significantly reduce the amount of
leachate emanating from the facility. The landfill, however,
would continue to generate small quantities of leachate, which
could potentially act as a continuous source of contamination to
the ground water. Therefore, even with installation of the low-
permeability cap, contaminant levels in the ground water could
remain relatively constant over a long period.

Implementability

The components of the air stripping and carbon adsorption
system are readily implementable using existing technologies. No
special materials or equipment would be required. Air stripping
units and carbon adsorption and regeneration systems are reliable,
frequently-used technologies. 0 & M considerations include
cleaning and replacement of wells and well pumps; maintenance of
blower units and pumps; cleaning of fouled packing; regeneration
of the carbon; and periodic disposal of sludge accumulated from
daily backwashing of the sand filter. Also, monitoring of the

29
-------
effluent water and exhaust gas would be required to ensure
compliance and reliability of the systems.

For discharge of stripper off-gas, a state air emission permit
for new sources may also be required. For discharge of ground
water into the Lehigh River, a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be required, depending on
whether the discharge is considered to be on-site or off-site.
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has requirements
governing the extraction of ground water in the Delaware Basin
which would have to be met.

Cost

The capital cost of this alternative is estimated to be
$ 4,326,000, plus $ 8,000,000 in capital costs for the closure of
the landfill. The O & M costs, other than the closure of the
landfill, are estimated to be: $ 536,000 in year one, $ 498,000
per year in years two through forty-five; and an additional $
20,000 every five years. The Present Worth of this alternative is
estimated to be $ 12,775,000, not including costs associated with
closure of the landfill (Table 13).

Alternative 3B Extraction and Discharge to the POTW

Under Alternative 3B, ground water extraction, followed by
treatment at the POTW, is an irreversible treatment process that
would reduce the toxicity of the contaminated ground water through
aeration of the VOCs as well as through biodegradation to some
extent. The extent of VOC removal at POTWs is not well documented
and is dependent on the size and type of treatment facility.
Volatilization of the contaminants would also occur during pumping
and in the sewer line. No estimation of the degree of contaminant
removal from the extracted ground water can be made at this time.

Effectiveness

Groundwater extraction, followed by treatment at the POTW, is
an irreversible treatment process that would reduce the toxicity
of the contaminated groundwater through aeration of the volatile
contaminants as well as through biodegradation to some extent.
The extent of VOC removal at POTWs is not well documented and is
dependent on the size and type of treatment facility.
Volatilization of the contaminants would also occur during pumping
and in the sewer line.

Implementability

For Alternative 3B, the components of the extraction well
system and discharge pipeline are implementable using existing
technologies. No special materials or equipment would be
required. Ground water extraction wells are reliable and
relatively easy to construct. Since no new treatment system would
be constructed or operated under this alternative, O & M

30
-------
considerations would mainly include periodic cleaning and
replacement of wells and well pumps. The most difficult part of
this alternative to implement would be the installation of
approximately 2.5 miles of discharge pipe from the extraction well
system to the POTW or possibly to an existing main sewer line in
the South Easton area. Installation of the pipe would involve
substantial excavation and road repair as well as tunneling under
Interstate 78 and appropriate Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation and Federal permits.

A major implementability consideration of Alternative 3B is
the available hydraulic capacity of the Easton Area POTW. The
POTW is currently rated as a 7.3 mgd (million gallon per day)
facility and is presently operating at approximately 5.5 mgd. At
this capacity, the POTW may have difficulty accepting the
extracted ground water at the proposed rate of 1.1 mgd
(772 gallons per minute). The POTW is to upgrade to a 10 mgd
capacity, which would have a better chance of accommodating the
proposed flow rate.

The administrative implementability of Alternative 3B must
also be considered. Discharge of ground water to the POTW roust
comply with any POTW pretreatment ordinances and may also require
a permit from the POTW. The DRBC has requirements governing the
extraction of ground water in the Delaware Basin which would have
to be met.

Cost

The capital cost of this alternative is estimated to be
$ 3,093,000, plus $ 8,000,000 in capital costs for closure of the
landfill. The O & M costs, other than closure of the landfill,
are estimated to be: $ 2,475,000 in year one, $ 2,453,000 per year
in years two through forty-five; and an additional $ 20,000 every
five years. The Present Worth of this alternative, other than
closure of the landfill, is estimated to be $ 44,318,000 (Table
13).

Alternative 4 Extraction. Treatment. Reinfection

This alternative was developed to achieve the same background
action levels as Alternative 3, and is similar to Alternative 3A.
The difference is that Alternative 4 has 16 proposed extraction
wells which would be used for ground water extraction, and the
treated ground water would be reinjected into injection wells
rather than discharged to a surface water receptor. Under
Alternative 4, six injection wells would be installed between the
two lines of extraction wells as shown in Figure 8. The
implementation time frame for this alternative is estimated to be
22 years. As described in Alternative 3A, air stripping and
carbon adsorption are the selected treatment technologies.

As with the previous alternatives, quarterly monitoring of 11
monitoring wells in the area of potential ground water

31
-------
contamination would be conducted to prevent contact, primarily
ingestion and inhalation, with contaminated ground water. In
addition, 3 residential monitoring wells in the Glendon area and 3
residential wells in Lucy's Crossing would be sampled on an annual
basis. This alternative would result in hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remaining on site (in the capped,
unlined landfill), therefore, 5-year reviews pursuant to Section
121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), would be required to
monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.

Effectiveness

Ground water extraction, followed by air stripping, is an
irreversible treatment process that would reduce the toxicity of
the ground water by removing approximately 98 percent of the VOCs
from the extracted ground water, and then concentrating them in
the off-gas. The contaminants in the effluent from the air
stripper would be almost completely removed (>99 percent), by the
carbon adsorption unit. The contaminants collected on the carbon
would be thermally destroyed when the carbon is regenerated off-
site.

The required remediation time to achieve the remedial action
levels is dependent on the extent of ground water contamination
and aquifer properties. As in Alternative 3, a pre-design study
will be needed to gather further information.

The ground water injection wells establish a hydraulic
gradient, which reduces dilution of the contaminant plume by
controlling the influx of adjacent waters. This action of the
injection wells serves to shorten the ground water remediation
time.

Implementability

As described in Alternative 3A, the components of the
treatment system are readily implementable technologies.

At the Industrial Lane Site, where different areas of ground
water contamination surround the Chrin Brothers Landfill, it would
be desirable to create a closed system, using the ground water
extraction and injection wells, in which all reinjected water is
controlled and eventually captured by the extraction wells.
Establishment of a closed system in fractured bedrock may be
difficult, however. Reinjected water that is transported in
discrete fractures may not be captured by the extraction wells and
could potentially force contaminated ground water into lesser
contaminated areas.

For reinjection of treated ground water, a State permit may be
required. Permits may also be required if the treatment system is
located off-site. DRBC requirements will have to be addressed.
32
-------
Cost

The capital cost of this alternative is estimated to be
$ 4,834,000, plus $ 8,000,000 in capital costs for closure of the
landfill. The O & M costs, other than closure of the landfill,
are estimated to be: $ 551,000 in year one, $ 512,000 per year in
years two through twenty-two; $ 121,000 in years twenty-three
through thirty; and an additional $ 20,000 every five years. The
Present Worth of this alternative, not including closure of the
landfill, is estimated to be $ 11,937,000 (Table 13).

VIII. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

A detailed analysis was performed on all of the alternatives
using the nine criteria specified in the NCP in order to select a
remedy for OU 2. The following is a summary of the comparison of
each of the alternative's strengths and weaknesses with respect to
the nine criteria. The nine criteria are summarized in Table 14.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternatives 1 and 2, which do not include any type of ground
water cleanup activities, would not provide any additional
reduction in the risks associated with household use of
contaminated ground water other than that offered by natural
attenuation and dilution. For ground water users residing outside
of the current extent of contamination, however, Alternatives 1
and 2 would help to reduce the potential or likelihood of future
exposure to contaminated ground water. Thus, these two
alternatives would achieve this criterion to a minimal degree.

If access restriction regulations can be implemented and
enforced, then Alternative 2 would provide a higher degree of
overall protection of human health than Alternative 1, No Action.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not actively help to protect
uncontaminated ground water for current and future use.

These two alternatives would not actively restore the
contaminated ground water to acceptable drinking water levels.

Alternatives 3 (3A or 3B) and 4 could potentially restore
contaminated ground water to the background levels. A low-
permeability cap is planned for the Chrin Brothers Landfill, which
should significantly reduce the amount of leachate emanating from
the facility. The landfill, however, would continue to generate
small quantities of leachate, which could potentially act as a
continuous source of contamination to the ground water.
Therefore, even with installation of a low-permeability cap,
contaminant levels in the ground water could remain relatively
constant over a long period.

33
-------
Following startup of the ground water extraction system in
Alternatives 3 and 4, a hydraulic gradient or barrier would be
established by the pumping system. This hydraulic barrier would
help to contain the contaminant plume and therefore reduce the
potential for migration of contaminants into uncontaminated ground
water. Upon completion of ground water remediation, Alternatives
3 and 4 would achieve protection of human health from future
exposure (ingestion and inhalation) to contaminated ground water.
Until the aquifer is restored to the background levels, only
ground water users residing outside of the area of contamination
would be protected by the extraction and treatment system. Any
ground water users residing within the current extent of
contamination would continue to be at risk
(approximately 7.8 x 10 cancer risk for Area C) until the
background levels are achieved. Alternatives 3 and 4 would
achieve a greater degree of overall protection of human health and
the environment than Alternatives 1 and 2.

The primary remedy and the contingency measures afforded by
closure of the unlined landfill and by Alternatives 3A, 3B or 4
provide overall protection of human health and the environment,
either by reducing contaminants to background or other remediation
goals, or through a combination of mass reduction, institutional
and/or engineering controls.

Compliance with ARARs

CERCLA requires that remedial actions meet applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other federal and
state environmental laws. These laws may include: the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

A "legally applicable" requirement is one which would legally
apply to the response action if that action were not taken
pursuant to Sections 104, 106, or 122 of CERCLA. A "relevant and
appropriate" requirement is one that, while hot "applicable", is
designed to apply to problems sufficiently similar that their
application is appropriate.

For the chemicals of concern (Table 6), Alternatives l and 2
would not meet the MCLs and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs), nor the risk-based levels (Tables 7 - 11), all of which
are referenced by the NCP (40 C.F.R. Part 300) as acceptable
ground water cleanup criteria, depending on the circumstances of
the site. These alternatives would also not comply with the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations (25 PA. Code Chapter 264), which require contaminated
ground water to be remediated to background levels.

With respect to location-specific ARARs, Alternatives 1 and 2
would not comply with the EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy
policy for an aquifer that is a current source of drinking water,
a "To Be Considered" (TBC) type requirement.

34
-------
Alternatives l and 2 would comply with the ground water
monitoring requirements of Chapters 271 and 273 of the
Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Management Regulations (25 PA. Code
Chapters 271 and 273). However, these alternatives would not
comply with the water quality monitoring regulations that require
a ground water abatement plan to be developed and implemented if
ground water pollution is detected in one or more monitoring
wells.

Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4 require remediating the ground
water to the Pennsylvania ARAR background levels.

With respect to location-specific ARARs, Alternatives 3 and 4
comply with the EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy policy for
an aquifer that is a current source of drinking water, a TBC, by
protecting current and potential sources of drinking water and
waters having other beneficial uses.

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, OSHA standards (29 C.F.R.
Parts 1910, 1926, and 1904), especially standards governing worker
safety during hazardous waste operations (29 C.F.R.
Part 1910.120), would be followed during all site work.

On-site treatment (Alternatives 3A and 4) and transportation
of any treatment residuals off-site would comply with the various
RCRA regulations as well the Department of Transportation (DOT)
Rules for Hazardous Materials Transport (49 C.F.R. Parts 107
and 171-179).

Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4 would fully comply with the ground
water monitoring requirements of Sections 264.90 - 264.100 of the
Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (25 PA. Code
§§ 264.90 - 264.100), which require contaminated ground water to
be remediated to background levels.

For Alternative 4, subsurface reinjection should not require
compliance with the LDR requirements, since the alternative is a
CERCLA remedial response action.

Operation of the onsite treatment system (Alternatives 3A and
4), would comply with EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-28, as well as
with the various air quality permitting criteria of Chapter 127
(Construction, Modification, Reactivation and Operation of
Sources) of the Pennsylvania Air Quality Control Act, 25 PA Code
Chapter 127).

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, discharge of treated ground water
would comply with all state and Federal NPDES discharge
regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 122) and DRBC requirements.
35
-------
Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Since no actions would be taken to remediate the ground water
under Alternatives 1 and 2, the health risks remaining after
implementation of this alternative would be identical to those
presently posed by household use of contaminated ground water.
For ground water users residing downgradient of the Chrin Brothers
Landfill, ground water monitoring provides a minimal degree of
long-term protection from exposure to contaminated ground water.

The long-term effectiveness of Alternative 2 is dependent on
the ability of state or local government to enforce regulations
that prevent private well owners from using contaminated ground
water. If adequate enforcement can be implemented, Alternative 2
would achieve a higher degree of long-term effectiveness than
Alternative 1, No Action.

Alternatives 3 and 4, through ground water extraction and
treatment, would achieve a higher degree of long-term
effectiveness than Alternatives 1 and 2. At the completion of
remediation activities, the cancer risks associated with the
residual contaminant concentrations is 1 x 10"7 for Alternatives 3
and 4.

Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of contaminants in the ground water. Over time,
contaminant levels in the present areas of contamination may
gradually decrease through natural dilution, although the current
extent of ground water contamination may.spread into
uncontaminated areas.

Alternatives 3 and 4, over the long-term, could potentially
restore ground water in the area of contamination to the
background action levels, assuming all sources of contamination
are controlled. Unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternatives 3 and 4
would provide an irreversible treatment process that would
significantly reduce the toxicity of the contaminated ground
water.

Short-Term Effectiveness

Since the only remedial action involved with Alternative 1
and 2 is the installation of monitoring wells, protection of
workers and the community from exposure to contaminated materials
during remedial actions is not a major consideration for these two
alternatives. Monitoring wells could be installed in
approximately 1 month, once a field crew and equipment are
mobilized.

With respect to Alternatives 3A and 4, air strippers, carbon
adsorption vessels, ground water extraction wells, and ground
water monitoring are widely used at hazardous waste sites and are

36
-------
highly reliable if periodic inspections and maintenance are
performed. There may be some degree of inhalation risk to workers
and the community associated with failure of the off-gas
collection and treatment system. Perimeter air monitoring and
breathing zone monitoring in work areas would be performed during
operation of the air stripper to determine whether steps are
needed to protect the community and workers from adverse air
emissions during implementation and operation of this alternative.
Careful monitoring and maintenance of the process controls would
minimize exposure risks associated with failures of the treatment
system.

Implementability

Implementation concerns associated with Alternative 2, Access
Restrictions, involve assessing the administrative and legal
feasibility of imposing state or local restrictions on ground
water use. Establishment of access restrictions would most likely
require coordination between EPA, PADER, and the local government.
Any ordinance that restricts ground water use may be unpopular
with local residents; therefore, passing such an ordinance may be
difficult. For these reasons, implementation of Alternative 2
would be significantly more difficult than implementation of
Alternative 1.

Based on modeling analysis, the estimated remediation time is
approximately 45 years for Alternatives 3A and 3B and 22 years for
Alternative 4 assuming the unlined landfill undergoes closure.

Because Alternatives 3 and 4 involve the extraction and
treatment of ground water, there are more implementability and
operation considerations associated with these two alternatives
than with Alternatives 1 and 2. A major implementability
consideration of Alternative 3B is the available hydraulic
capacity of the Easton Area POTW, which may not be sufficient
enough to accept the extracted ground water. With respect to
administrative implementability, discharge of ground water to the
POTW must comply with any pretreatment ordinances and may require
a permit from the POTW.

The components of the air stripping and carbon adsorption
system (Alternatives 3A and 4) are readily implementable using
existing technologies. No special materials or equipment would be
required. O & M considerations include cleaning and replacement
of wells and well pumps; maintenance of blower units; cleaning of
fouled packing; and regeneration of the liquid and vapor phase
carbon units. Also, monitoring of the effluent water and exhaust
gas would be required to ensure compliance and reliability of the
systems.

With respect to Alternative 4, it would be desirable to create
a closed system using the ground water extraction and injection
wells in which all reinjected water is controlled and eventually
captured by the extraction wells. Establishment of a closed

37
-------
system in fractured bedrock may be difficult, however. Reinjected
water that is transported in fractures may not be captured by the
extraction wells and could potentially force contaminated ground
water into lesser contaminated areas. Therefore, ground water
reinjection could potentially interfere with any future ground
water remedial actions taken in the vicinity of the Industrial
Lane Site. This factor is the major detraction from the
advantages of Alternative 4.

Implementation of Alternatives 3A, 3B and 4 should not
interfere with any future source control actions or any additional
ground water remedial actions taken in the vicinity of the
Industrial Lane Site.

With respect to permits, no permits would be required to
implement Alternatives 1 and 2, whereas state and local permits
may be needed for Alternatives 3 and 4 to discharge treated water
to either the POTW, the Lehigh River or the subsurface, as well as
to discharge air stripper off-gas.

Cost

Present-worth costs for the four alternatives and associated
subalternatives are summarized in Table 13.

State Acceptance

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has concurred with the
selected remedy. The Commonwealth has also stated: "PADER agrees
with the proposed remediation which provides that "background"
quality is the objective of the ground water remediation plan. In
the event that EPA modifies its position on the cleanup standard,
and deviates from background quality as a remediation goal, DER
will withdraw its concurrence. At that time, EPA must demonstrate
the impracticability of achieving background quality, and give DER
a meaningful opportunity to reconcur by way of an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) or a ROD amendment."

Community Acceptance

Community acceptance is assessed in the attached
Responsiveness Summary. In general, the community is in agreement
with the selected remedy. Concerns, such as the effect of the
extraction of ground water on local wells, will be addressed in
the pre-design study. The Responsiveness Summary provides a
thorough review of the comments received on the 1991 FFS and the
Proposed Plan.

IX. Selected Remedy

The ground water portion of the remedy selected by EPA is
Alternative 3A, extraction, treatment and discharge to the Lehigh
River. The containment portion of the selected remedy is closure
of the unlined landfill.

38
-------
Containment

PADER has notified the owner and operator of the Chrin
Brothers Landfill in a letter dated November 23, 1990, that the
unlined landfill area must be closed according to Chapters 271 and
273 of the Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Management Regulations (25
PA. Code Chapters 271 and 273). The containment portion of the
selected remedy requires compliance with these state closure
regulations, estimated to cost $8,000,000, as described in Section
X of this ROD, in the subsection entitled Compliance with
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.

Ground Water

Alternative 3A requires extraction, treatment and discharge of
ground water to the Lehigh River, as described in Section VII of
this ROD.

The goal of this remedial action is to restore the ground
water to background levels in the area of attainment. The area of
attainment is at and beyond the boundary of the unlined landfill
and throughout the contaminant plume. Based on the information
obtained during the RI, and the analysis of the remedial
alternatives, EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania believe
that the selected remedy may be able to achieve this goal. Ground
water contamination may be especially persistent in the immediate
vicinity of the contaminants1 source, where concentrations are
relatively high. The ability to achieve cleanup goals at all
points throughout the area of attainment, or plume, cannot be
determined until the extraction system has been implemented,
modified as necessary, and plume response monitored over time. If
the selected remedy cannot meet the specified remediation goals,
at any or all of the monitoring points during implementation, the
contingency measures and goals described in this section may
replace the selected remedy and goals for these portions of the
plume. Such contingency measures will, at a minimum, prevent
further migration of the plume and include a combination of
containment technologies typically ground water extraction and
treatment, and institutional controls. These measures are
considered to be protective of human health and the environment,
and are technically practicable under the corresponding
circumstances.

The selected remedy requires ground water extraction,
treatment and discharge to the Lehigh River for an estimated
period of 45 years, during which time the system's performance
will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as
warranted by the performance data collected during operation.
Modifications may include but are not limited to the following:

a) at individual wells where cleanup goals have been
attained, pumping may be discontinued;
39
-------
b) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points:

c) pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and
encourage adsorbed contaminants to partition into ground
water; and

d) installation of additional extraction wells to facilitate
or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant plume.

To ensure that cleanup levels continue to be maintained, the
aquifer will be monitored at those wells where pumping has ceased
yearly following discontinuation of ground water extraction.

If it is determined, by EPA in consultation with FADER that on
the basis of the preceding modifications and the system
performance data, that certain portions of the aquifer cannot be
restored to background levels, attempts would be made to remediate
the ground water to its beneficial use, which would be use as a
drinking water source. If the aquifer can not be restored to its
beneficial use, all of the following measures involving long-term
management may occur, as determined by EPA in consultation with
PADER, for an indefinite period of time, as a modification of the
existing system:

a) engineering controls such as physical barriers, or long-
term gradient control provided by low level pumping, as
containment measures;

b) chemical-specific ARARs will be waived for the cleanup of
those portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further contaminant
reduction;

c) institutional controls will be provided/maintained to
restrict access to those portions of the aquifer which
remain above remediation goals;

d) continued monitoring of specified wells; and

e) periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for ground
water restoration.

The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be
made by EPA in consultation with PADER, during a periodic review
of the remedial action, which occurs at least every five years, in
accordance with Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (c).

The goal of the selected remedy is to achieve the background
levels (Table 12) for the Chemicals of Concern (Table 6) in the
ground water, which is a relevant and appropriate requirement
under the PA Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. The
Pennsylvania ARAR for ground water for hazardous substances is
that all ground water must be remediated to "background" quality

40
-------

INDUSTRIAL LANE
SCAUC IN TOST
soimeti usos
LOCATION MAP
INDUSTRIAL LANE STUDY AREA
NORTHAMPTON CO., PA
FIGURE i
IMUS
CORFORATQM
POOR cu^ir
-------
SITE STUDY AREA
INDUSTRIAL LANE STUDY AREA.NORTHAMPTON CO . PA
*eovc>
-------
TJ
O
oo
OO

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AREAS Of CONCERN

INDUSTRIAL LAN^STUDY-AREA. NORTHAMPTON CO .PA

(SCAit ABOVt |
FIGURE
-------
ASSUMED EXTENT Of CONTAMINANT CROUMDMATER PLUME
INDUSTRIAL LAME STUDY ARE A. NORTHAMPTON CO., PA
Figure 4
vcr
-------
PRELIMINARY GROUWHIATER MONITORING SYSTEM
INOUSTRUL LANE STUDY ARE A. NORTHAMPTON CO . PA
ISC'K »«Ovl|
Figure 5
-------
o8
~U 'J3.
go
22: £F
•> 3>
r~ EZ
PR£LIMIKARY EXTRACTION WELL LOCATIONS

INDUSTRIAL LAME STUDY AREA.MORTMAMPTON CO . PA

ISCAU
Figure 6
-------
tf n» «f n
10 AIUOSMtfftC
GflRACIGD.
T3
O
oo
OO
CflUIUZJklflM

(MWOHDAWM)
CROUMDWA1ER TR/TiJFMT
PROCESS FLOW OIAGRAU
Figure 7
-------
PHCIIM*
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARISON UP AVAILABLE DATA K»H AREA A (M9/I-)
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Pafeaeter
Vinyl chloride
NelhrUm chlorld*
1.1-OicMorMtlMM
t f ••• - 1 . l-Dichlere«th«»e
cli-1.2 Oichl«ceetheiut
Chief •foi«
1 . 2-Oichlo(e«llMM
1 . 1 . 1 -T« ichleteetlMM
C*fbo* telrechleclde
1 . 2-lKchloi oprop*»e
Ti Ichleroetheee
OemeM
r«ti •chletoethene
r«tue*e
T*t*l efleiM» f
l.2-Olchle(ebeeiene
l.«-Olchleieb«aie»e?
O»
0-t.
!•
%
s
»
s
9
• »
%
9 '
»
»
»
»
ft
S
I*
It
»
9
I*
9
ML
10
•••QC
DBiM!t»d

«.•

l.t-3.»

i.»

a.o

&««f«f«

i.»

j.i

i.»

•en oct«<2|
|l«*t|
fl.L.
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
«••«•
Do 1. acted

>.•-!«
11. 0-0
4.0
J.O
2.0
1.0-29

1.0-20

*«•!•••

2.1
I.I
o.»
0.0
0.0
2.»

2.1

MUMOI OalaMI
(!••*. !*••!
O.L.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
••no,*
Detected

J. 1-1. •

9.0
1-1. 1
1.1-4. «

*«•!•••

l.t

!.•
1.1
l.t

C* Studf DelaH)
(1*001
O.L.
0.10
0.29
• ••I
0.10
•L
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.0«
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.2
•L

• .1
• .Ot
• .29
0.00
0.11
•L
O.S2
•a life
Petected
2.«
9.«
0.4-7*
!.•-«. 2
•.•J.O
1.2 2.4
O.I
0.1-M

0.7-1.0
•.9-9.0
2.9
O.l-ll
4.0-19
0.1

1.2-1.4
2.0

1.4
4.0
2.1-2.1
• .9
Avefef*
• .12
0.«9
11. J
1
0.41
0.10
0.02
12.0

1.4
1.0
• .14
2.»
1.1
0.05
• .99
• .90
• .11

• .10
O.I
o.»
1.2
Stendeid/
Crltecle
2 VNCL |ri
9 MCL |T|
Mvatl
IOO MCt |T)
?0 MCL (*>)
100 MIMM
9 MCL in ,
2M MCL |P|
9 MCL |f|
9 MCL (•)
9 MCL |r|
9 MCt |P)
S MCL <»|
2.0OO VMCL l»>
IO.OM MCL in
MO MCL |»!
19 MCL |P»
IOO HIMM
too MCL in
Mvatl I
i MCL m
••••II
M.*ll j,
TS
. o
oo

-------
TABLE l
COMPARISON OP AVAILABLE DATA POR AHKA A (|ig/L)
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
faraaaiac
l.l.2.2-f*t(AcMoi«-
alhaM
l-O«laaoiia
Catbaa dUulfida
c 1 •- 1 . 1-DicMaiapr open*
t (•••-!. }-Otcblo«a-
pfOfMaa
• coa»f»(«
•i«ii-s«M»M*rii
pfetfcalat*
1 topfcotan*
<-Ctilaia-l-Mtl»>lpl»aaol
Alualnu*
I"
Aiiaaic
•«ll«M
Cadatuai
Calciu*
rhf OBIIM
•I total* >
(lOOi-lOOt)
i.i..
»
10
S
9
S
ft
I*
!•
!•
200
10
1M
S
S.OOO
10
HMfj«
tat«ct«d

410
IM
•11
S2«.MO-
•S4.SM
IS11.QM
k».lM|
«!•-», 20S
(•••I
II- JT
U2-«>l
S.i-12
(•.S-I2I
!.«!•
Itl.MO
|I.»M-
IM.OMI
2t-12
(M0|
&••(•§•

»$.»
It.t
>.•
I4I.C1I
(I««.T«H
2M
|«S.4|
44
|4t.S|
4.1
14.41
».»*!
|4«.»4*|
II
MIS O*t*<2)
!>•••!
O.L.
1
1
1
1
1
1
•A
M
W
M
1
4-3*
1-2*
I*
• -20
•••4J4I
O»t«ct*d

I-I
(1-21
11-tO
|I4 114)
HO
1.010-
11.100
I2.TOO-
71.0001
M -00
(10-101
*••!•(•

1.1
(0.0)
2». 1
(22.4)
HO
JO. 161
(2I.IMI
IS
|t M
»MNOI total H
(ItOO. 1M9)
B.L.
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
•A
U
•A
4-10
10
0.2
•L
4
*••«•
O*t«cl«d

....

•D
IO-2T
MO-ll)
I.H-1.02
|0.«l)
1.100-
TO.OOO
o.ioo
01.100)
4.1 ».»
•••i«f«

HO
I*
M2.1)
0.1
(0.1)
11. m
(IS. !!»>
i.»
6V Study total*)
(ItOO)
O.L.
0.01
•t
HL
0.14
0.20
0.20
M
M*
HA
MA
M
M
•A
HA
HA
RM9*
Dnt*cl«tl
0.2-1.2
0.1
0.4 0.*
2.S
1.1
0.2-2.4

Av«f«g«
0.1S
2
0.00
0.4
0.2k
0.14

Standard/
Ciltarla
NAvail
HAvail
NAwail
MA«all
HAvail
HA vail
HA vail
M*vail
•Avail
SO MCL IF)
SO HirOHH
1.000 HIMMH
s.ooo MCL iri
10 HirUMR
s MCI. (ri
•Avail
»O HirOMO
oo met in
T3
ob
-------
TABLE
COMPARISON OP AVAII.ABUE DATA FOR AHEA A (M9/1-I
INDUSTRIAL LAMB SITE
NOMTHAMPTON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PACE THREE
t
P*c *•*•!••*
W
lion
u-
•••«••• !»•
I
1
M»ICU(f
•ick*l
Foi.ctitMi
, 4
..,..,«.
•il~.
Sodiua
•1 Dctadl
(1M4-IM4I
....
as
100
s
S.OOO
"
o.a
40
S.OOO
s
10
4.000
JT^L
ao-i7i
14.000-
IIS.OOO
(007-
7S.OOO)
7.4-171
IO.I-II1)
2.SOO-
71.700
12.240-
72.200)
2*1-1.212
1*2-1.040)
(MOI
21-114
(11-114)
2.000-
17.400
(1.140-
S4
(101
4.4-12
(•0)
17.200-
114.10-
14.100)
Av«t«g*
71.0
(14.1)
114.904)
40.4
|IO|
2S.S17
(as.aso)
i.ais
U.OS4)
0.14
(41. S)
9.221
(0.00»)
0.0
(4.*)
S.7
I1.S2I
(14.202)
ACKS MtaCD
(1900)
O.L.
4
20
1
10
2
0.4-0. 4
M
10
2-00
1-7
200
•••ga
Uatactad
40 IS4
(S2 112)
S90-
27.000
(140-
9.100)
1 10 |W|
100-
S4.000
44.000)
Vs-V,1.?
0.4-11.0
(0.7-0.4)

140
14.000
(120-
12.740)
15-40
(MO)
IS-40
110)
•.400-
19.700
(7.000-
11.100)
A......
27. S
(24.1)
0.420
1.1
0,240
(4,11*)
199
(124)
1.0
(I.S|

4.010
d.aoo)

ii
li.il
11.44*
PAMW tetaOl
(1*00. 1909)
O.L.
10
HL
4
HL
IO
1
M
•t
4 10
10
•t
O.V.«".d
IS. 0-104
(IS 104)
49-19.700
114-4.140)
S.4-41.S
1.900-
S4.000
(1.040
42,2001
90-002
(lkl-722)

1.400-
14.000
11,440
IS. 400)

7.220-
15,000
(7,220-
14.000)
.......
41.4
115.5)
0.044
ii, mi
11.4
21.114
(21.200)
412
(145)

7.4SO
(4.04S)

11.1*0
(11.4101
GV Study ItattH)
(19001
O.L.
M
M
«
M
M
•A
M
M
HA
HA
HA
o.?.«V,
- --
—
—

...
—
—
—

—
Avaiaqa

....

-- -
....

Sl.nd.,d/
Cllt.iU
1.000 SMCL |r|
1.100 NCL (»)
JOO SMCL |f)
40 HIM1MO
S H4CL m .t
lOUfCH
«...,
50 SMCL m
2 HIVIMM
2 MCL m
100 tMCL m
M*
10 MIMM
50 OMCL m
SO HI MM*
MAV.tl
OO
ITj
-------
TABI.K 1
CUNPAHISON Of AVAILABLE DATA FOR AMBA A ||i9/L)
INDUSTRIAL LANB SITt
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PBNMSVLVANIA
HAGB PUUM .
•acaamtai
Vanadium
line
Baiylliua
Cuba It
Tin
•1 BatalM
UM«-ltMI
o.t.
S«
IB
s
SB
•L
BatMtcd
$.•-11
(ft. 11
1M-I.B1*
|S»-I.B1B|
••-»>. a
111 SI. II
M-M.B
«.»-•«!
S*
Avacag*
11. 1
IM.S)
)SB
|2M|
11.*
!•••»
U.«
1111

«CU tatal'l
IIMtl
o.t.
M
1
M
Wk
•a
••»«•
B*l«ct*4
—
Ill-Ill
(ISI-2M)

*»•(•§•

?S
(••••I

P*OM ltot«MI
(ltd. Iflli)
<|.l>.
U
10
•A
M*
Wk
•••4*
Mt*cia4

>•-!••
(»-U2|

*¥•!•)•

ftl
l«t.i|

8V Study Octal « 1
!!•••!
o.t.
U
•A
HA
MA
MA
•«•!•
tet«ct«d

A««(*^«

....

iit«ml«cil/
ClilXiA
MAvall
».«oo CMCI. in
20« MML
MAvall
MAv«il
rtll«|«l •*!•!• f*«ultt
pareatba*e*. Arithmetic
O
CO
r
T
OL
ML
ISMCL
Tentative.
Quaatitatioo Unit.
OL not luted.
radaial Safe Blinking Mater Act (
| Primary Maaii
oleul«t«l u»ln« 1/2 d«t*c«iea
aaioaiil L«v«l«.
Blinking. Halal
not
t*v*l.
**(y B« ink lit*
M«wUtien.
t
, at — • Indicataa" aaaplaa «ata not analyaad.
blank *paca ar W indicate! I bat tba cbaaical xa« nat datactad.
Ill Bata callactad duilag I••«-!••« MMadial ln«a»ti«alion conductad by Mini Corporation. Contract required detection limit* (Cum.I
ill) Bata eallactad quarletly lor. tb* ovnara of Cbrla Brother* Sanitary Landfill by Applied Gootachnical and environmental iieivlce Corporation |AGU|.
! Ovantltntlan Halt* are tboaa obaarvad In data package.
Bata eel lee ted by tba r*an*yl«aala BapattMnt of BavlroiMMntal Bavource* frABBB). Quant! tat ion limit* are those ab*at**d in data package.
-------
TABLE
COMPARISON OK AVAIUtBLB DATA FOR AREA B (M9/L)
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNT*, PENNSYLVANIA

Tj
O
30
0 3D
a.o
£ r.'2
"' '' i

I . l-Dlchloco«tha*a
c i •- 1 . 1 Dichlof o«tl»«na
Cklarafoo
1 . 2-OichloioathaM
1 , 1 . 1 -T» IcblVf oalhaiM
••••••a
T«tiacl»l»raaHiaa«
«•!«•••
CM*f *•*(•«••
Ti lcAIOf«ll«ariMMlhaa«
2 -Bui ••OB*
Oi«(2-atl>rihaByl)
pltlfcalala
ftliMUu*
Afsaaic
••flu* i
CadBluai
Caicluai
Chfuatu*

O-l*.
s
ft
s •
s
9
S
4
S
10 .
•L
10
10
MO
10
200
ft
ft. 000
10
•1 •»!•
11004-IOOt
•»•$•
Mt«et«4

4.0

10
101 -OM
|1««|

io- i a*
(It IIII

0.212-
0».2ftO
10. Oil-
It. kOOl
«. 4-24.0
1
*••!•)•

a.*

0.1
2S1

02.1
t
11.044
I.I

O.L.
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
•A
M
1
4 20
1-20
10
I 20
•COS D*t«
|l»0«|
•aitq*
OatactMl
a.o

1-4

1-2
n-2»
11-4. MO
110-1401

0.120-
$2.000
(0.400-
40, MO)
»0- 120
110-101

Avf>f«9«
O.tl

1.0

0.01

0.0
(0. •)
422
(M)

22.220
(21. III|
2J
(t.»»

0 L.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•A
•A
4-10
10
0.2
•L
4
fADCO Bet*
11*00. ItOI
R«ni|«
Micciad

1.0

22-2ft4
(2! I74|
0.21
».SIO-
40. 100
(10.100
10. 1001
4. 1
i
II
*v«(«9«

0.1

• 4.t
•tt.l|
0.1
21.114
(2l.ltt|
2.i
C
O.L.
0.01
•L
0.0ft
0.01
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.00
•L
•L
MA
•A
•A
HA
HA
MA
HA
« siu«r >*•
MtOOl
•*•!•
Mt«Ct«4

0.4
•.1-1.4
0.4
O.I
0.4
O.I
O.t
I.S
0.4

t*
A*oi«9«

0.00
• .44
o.ot
0.00
0.14
0.01
1.2
0.41
0.14

C!«n4*«l/
Ciitatu
Mv«U
70 MCL (P|
100 UIMM
ft MCL |V|
200 MCL (r»
ft MCL |r|
ft MCL |'l>|
2.000 MCL |»|
•Avail
MA««il
•Avail
•Avail
4O MKL (»)
SO HIMMM
1.000 •IMMR
S.OOO MCL m
I* MltfltM
ft MCI. m
•Avail
ftO NirMN
100 MCI. m
-------
TAbLK
COMPARISON Of AVAIIABLK DATA FOB AREA B
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE '
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PACE TWO

far AMeter

Capper
tree

f
MM«»>>»

M..M....
Mercury '
Mlckel J

Petaaciuai

Set HIM

Silver

Sudlu*

o.t.
24
100

ft. 000

IS
0.2
40

4.000

•1 BOtA
11004-100*

Detected
ia-io
10.410

a.400-
1.*04
!>.««•-
1.001)
33-314
10 100)

}.*-!*. 0
1.000-
i?:'"
2.120)

1.12*
.l!«l
*.4»0)

)

A......
to. a
4.«04

4.S13

111

11.4

a. 044

4,20*

O.L.
*
ao

a
0.4-0.4
MA

a oo

1-1

200

A68S Data
0000)

Detected
41-222
i4»-aia>
•10-*. 400
(110-

40-
4.4OO
«30-
3.000)
11-431
(14-1*2)
0.4-0.*
|I.O-».4)

120-
1.040
(to
l.»10)

0.0
4.100-
10.000
14.400-
O.*00)

Average
*)
(42.1)
1.102
• •111

1,122
1*04}

OS.I
1.3
(0.*)

1.040
(1.021)

I.I

2.200
(1.401)

Q.t.
10
•L

10
1
MA

• •10

•AOU OaU
11*00. 1001

Detected
a. o-oo
(14-10)
110-1.0*0
«4t 214)
1.0-20.4
(4.4)

2,110-
1.010
(2,4iO-
1,**0)
12-224
110 224)

1.400-
I.OfcO
(1.420-
1.000)

4. no
4.000
(4.140
4.120)
1
»

Average
40
(11)
041

40 MIMMM

•Avail

•n
O
CO
go
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OK AVAILABLE DATA KW AMfcA B (ug/L)
INDUSTRIAL LAMB S1TB
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE THREE
•aiaa»taf
Vaaadiu*
llac
Ti»
aarylliMi
•1 Oata
|lM«-IMt)
«.«..
M
M
M.
%
•ataMeY
aaaiaw^BW
Mtactee
«.»
«•-!•»
1 »•-!••!
>•
l.«
a*«c«t«
31
«•

>.«
•CU Oat*
!>••!)
o.t.
MA
I
M
•A
•aaga
Mtactml

(119-111)

*«•!•«•

l«l

MMW Dala
(I*M, KM)
0-t..
M
!•
M
U
•a*9«
D«t«ct«d

tt 12
U«-»J)

*»«i«9O

!».»
|1«)

CV Study Itola
II9MI
O.L.
U
u
•A
M
•••«•
tatactad

•••••9«

SlamUcd/
Criteria
•avail
SM SHCt in
Hawaii
!•• OMKL
CO
oo
aMtals leaulta presented in parantheaea. AritOuMtlc aean calculated using 1/2 detection liait.
P l|opoa«d.
9 Pliul.
T Tentative.
OL Quant 1 tat ion liMit.
HL QL not listed.
PNCL Pederal Safe Drinking Hater Act (SOHAI Primary Maniania Contaainant Levels.
SNCL Pederal SDWA Secondary Naiimiai Contaainant Level.
DUEL Drlnkino Hater Equivalent level.
NIPDHR MaJtional Interl* Priaary Drinking Hater Regulation.
NAvail Indicates not available.
MA or Indicates saaplea were not analysed.
A blank space ftr MO Indicates that the cheaical was not detected.
(1) Data collected during 1984-1986 Remedial Inveatigation conducted by NUS Corporation. Contract required detection Hails (CBOL)
presented.
|2| Data collected quarterly for the owners of Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill by Applied Geotechnical and Envlronaental Service
Corporation (ACES). Quantitatlon Halts are those observed in data package.
|3| Data collected/ by the Pennsylvania Department of Bnvlronaental Resources (PADBR). Quantitation llaits are those observed in
data package. *
(4) Data collected as a result of Groundwater Validation Study conducted by ICP Technology, Inc. (1988). BPA 601/602 quantitation
liaita presented.
-------
TABLE
COMPARISON OP AVAILABLE DATA PON AHKA C (M9/M
INDUSTRIAL LANB SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNT*, PENNSYLVANIA
•ataMtat
VUyl cMeeide
Nethyl«M chlarida
1.1-DIChUfMtfeaM
t f •••- 1 , a-DtcMeiMthaa*
cla-l.a-BlchletMtlWM
ChUiofeta
l.2-tichlara«tfeaa*
I.l.l-Trlchletaethaaa
Catlya latfacblerlda
1 . a-Michl«co|MOA*JM
Tt 4cM»i *•(»•••
*••>•••
TatiaCfclatoethaM
T*I*MthaM
CM •!••)••••••
CfclacMatfcaa*
1 . 1 -Oiektcf MIIMM
TricMei*! luocoa*lhaM
Chlara«tha«a
•1 total »
|19I4-19I»>
Q.I.
1C
ft
»
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
ft
s
s
•
It
!•
ft
ft
It
S
•L
!•
••t«ct«tf

•1
«.•-»!
!.•-»•

4.C-II
•.••in

!.•-»»
».•-!•
>.•-»•

!.•-!•.•
•••-«*•

S.I

l.ft-»
t.ft-ftl
a.t-u

S.I
ftv«i*9»

I.*
!•••
!•••

4.4
14.4

J.I
S.I
!•

>.•
14. •

• .1
•
1.1

S.OI
•CU tek«l>l
U»H|
O.L.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
•••4*
Mt«ct«d
19
!•
!•-!!•
a-m

!.•-?.•
a.«-4i

>.•-!«•
J.t-17
l.«-«4

a.*
».•-!•.•

?.•-!!
I1T

•••(•s*
I.I
a.i
41.4
U.S

a
it.t

14.*
4.S
IS.l

•.*
1.4

l.t
11.*

rum D«t«OI
.t
l.t-4t

S.T-IM
a.a-it
«.t 10*

la
4. 1
u

l.t-llS

i.t-it
• .*
I.l-S.k
ft««i«f«
t.4
at.t
M.4
I.S
11. t

1.9
It. 4

ftl.ft
».»
11. •

a.t
1.1
i.t

>•

t.9
2.1
I.I
CV Study O*t*l*l
IIMtl
• «-.
t.ll
t.as
t.ti
t.it
•L
t.tft
t.tl
t.tl
t.ia
t.t«
«.ti
t.a
t.ti
't.a
t.a
•L
t.4
t.l
t.9
t.aft
t.tt
t.ii
•L
t.*l
•m>9>
Detected

t.l-IJt
I.1-II9

3.2-19
t. 4-14.1
1.1 1.1
a-si

t.t-lt?
I.I 9.9
t.«-tt
1.4
t.t
t.l-*. I
t.ft
t.l-li

t.9-2.9
19
t.t-l.«
t.t It
1.1
•»«f*f«

24
J».l

14. ft
1.9
t.l
11. •

20
1.1
II
9.21
t.14
4. a
9.21
1.1

a«-a*
*-!••
!.•-•-•
IT-SI

2J 2J»
(1« 1111
•••!•!•

1.1
II. 1
ft
11. •

U*
III2I
Mitt U«l«l>l
1 IM*I
8-L.
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
Ml
HA
M
M
1
1
1
1
1
HA
1
«-2«
*••¥•
OBl«Ct«4

o.«

• .1
•.«-•. 5
• .1
• .S

*. •-!•.•
•.?-!.•
•.a
e.t-i.o
•.•

(1 0-2.01
10-lbO
lit 110)
A««l *f •

o.»

0.»J
• .S
0.4*
o.»

—
—
—
—
1.0
1.11
• .40-
o.so
0.41

|0.»l
TO.l
M»l
rMNCM IMta(l)
|IMO. !•••!
O.I..
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
•A
•A
•A
1
1
1
1
1
MA
«-IO
10
M*B^«
0«lacl«4

24 III
121 I14|
Av«f Ay*

...

44
144)
VV Kludf Itetal*!
|l»i»l .
«.L.
0.01
ML
ML

0.20
o.ao

MA
MA
•A
MA

•A
MA
MA
•••f*
O«t acted
l.»

0.2

a. i

•»«f«9»
0.21

0.06

0.21

....
SlMd««d/
CiitatU
MA«atl
MAwall
MAwail
IM MIMM
MAvall
MAvall
MAoail
MAvall
MAvall
MA««II
•Avail
•Avail
•Avail
•Avail
•Avail
MAvall
•Avail
MAvall
MAvall
SO Sari |r|
4O MIVIMM
1.000 MINIMI
i.ooo met in
o
po
CDQ
ip
r- L-
..., I
-------
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OP AVAILABLE DATA POM AREA C (M9/L)
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PACK THM8B

"T!
_o
o o
IXTj:
O C
•££ C
>^
p— {__,
-<

i
CeeVeiiM
CelciuB

CfcteeUiMi
Coppef
Itee
Leed
1
IUfM«i«M
!!•••••)••• •
4
NeiCUff :
Mlckel
retetelitfi

Q.I.

S.OOO

10
as
lot
s
».tOt
IS

40
S.OOO
•1 toted
I1M4-IM*
AAI^BM
••»••)•
0*to«t«4
l».l»
s.soo-
U3.000
t«.«M-
l«t,*M|
• -•4
«4.4|
•-»»!
I1.4M-
!4t.M*
«»J-
•«.4M|
ll.S-IOt
I*. 1M-
IIS.OM
I14,«M-
IIS.VMI
M-II.91*
Illl-
!•.!•• 1

ti-ias
|IS-I*T|
1.4 Ji-
lt, 310
ll.kM-
ll.»3»)
1
*¥•(•)•
l».»l
s«.«»
(•>.*aii
ai
(SI
»i.t
St.MI
(U.tMl
ai.4
J4.m
I !».?•» I
I.TM
l
AMII«9«

11.413
(••.•MI
ai.i
(ii. *•

• .•21
(3.«J3|
a.i
It.M*
(ii.tsai
a.Tts
(a.4iti

—
Z.*»4
(».34»)
1
0 L.
•.a
ML

10
•L
4
ML
10
1
M
ML
Mm o*t«(
IIMt. 1*11
IUi>9«
Detected
0.4-4. a
io.a-2.ai
*3.»tt-
101.000
(•S.tM-
• I.OMI

11.0-30.0
Ill-Ill
»»•-
41.100
ISSI
2.0MI
IO.S-10I.I
3S.«00-
1S.200
I3S.MO-
41.2MI
IS-«.YSO
|44«-
•.*30|

1.ISO-
l.ktO
(3.040-
4. MO)
3)
II
Aveiege
!.•
(1.21
10.133
(>».IOO|

li.l
«».•!
ll.iilt
(1.2301
31.0
44.411
IM.SSO)
4.1M
!».•»»»

4.2tt
(3. 13»l
C*
a L.
MA
M

MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
M
M
Study Oeu
(!•••!
Me a^e
Detected

• (41
Aveiage
....

....

i
Sleedeie/
Ciltefte
10 MINM
S MCL |»|
Mveil
SO MirOMM
100 mCL |r|
I.OOO KMCL in
1.300 tCHL |V|
300 MCL |r|
SO MieflMM
S MCL |l>|
el eeuice
MA«eit
M 8NCL |r|
a MCL m
100 f«JCL
-------
TABLE
COMPAMISOM OP AVAILABLE DATA FOR AHKA C 1H9/L)
INDUSTRIAL LAMB SITB
NOHTHAMPTOM COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PAUB POUR
1
rataajetei.
Selaalue)
Silve*
Sutfiuai
•anadiua
Sine
rim
•etflllW*
Cobalt
•1 Beta! > I
|I0M -!••«)
••I.
•
IB
S.OM
»•
]•
•1
S
»•
•Aa^B^ft
••VBVTJV
•ataotad

S.4-M.B
(S.1-4.t|
ai.BIB-
14. MB
(».«M-
It.aMI
4.V-11.0
(».•-».«!
•1-1. tf*
(41-1*11
n
n-i. •
«.i-as
111-1*1
A*ei age

ft
It. 21
44.14B
|««.M1)
a».4
«aa.»i
»••
(!•«)

a. 4
ai.i
iai.il
•CKS IVM«t*»
|IM*I
O.L.
a ••
IT
ae«
M
a
••
M
•ft
•••9«
talaclcd

•.•-11
(?.ft|
».fO«-
Ta.oM
I«.«M-
II. Mil

iM-oas
iiai-Ttfi

Av«f«9*

s.»
(l.t|
11. >M
lia.«Mi
,
1M
«1!»J|

MMJI tot«nt
|I*M. ltt»|
g.t.
4-»
10
HI.
•ft
It
•ft
•A
•ft
IUai|«
Detected
4.9

t.lM-
It.TM
!•.!»•
M.TMI

14-1. at*
ItIO 411)
—
—
—
•••r«9«
l.«

39. Ill
lai.tan
—
»•»
•iiii

—
—
GV Kt«4r O*tal*>
(!•••)
0 L.
•ft
M
•ft
•ft
•ft
•ft
M
•ft
•^•f*
ttetectad

*••!•••

...
»l«M«fd/
Cl licit*
I* HIMM
M fMCL IP)
M HIMMM
•Avail
•Avail
S.MO SMCL (ft
•Avail
1*0 DMCL
•Avail
a»taU f«tylt*
Arithmetic average calculated uilag I/a detectida Hail.
o
O
tentative.
Ouaatltatloa lle.it.
QL not Hated.
radar a I Sale Or Inking Meter Act (SBMAI Primary Maiiauei Coataaiinant Laval*.
rodaial mm Secaadary MaairMr* Cantaaioant Level.
BfInkiag IMtei Equivalent level.
G.JUMMB •allonal later let Primary Drinking Meter Bagulatloo.
^aaftvall Indicate* not available.
t--«A 01
Indicate* aaaple* vere aet *
!—a. blank tpec* or BB Indlcetei that tbe chemical «•• not detected.
— |l| Bate collected during I9M-1M4 neawdial lavactigatiaa conducted by mis Corporation. Contract requited detection liail* (CHDt|
-'ijJI Bate collected quarterly lor tbe owner* ol Cbrin •rotnere Sanitary Landfill by Applied Ceotochalcal and Invironnwntal Service Corporetiun (ACKSI.
Otiaatltation I tail* are tho»e obteived In data ttackage.
Ml »aia collected by the reaaaylvaaia Bapartawnt el BaviroraeMal keiourca* IPADIMI. Queotitation lloio are those obiterved in d«ta rMckege.
|4| Bate collected a* a result el Crouodvater Validatioa Study conducted by ICf Technology. Inc. (!•••). IPA 401/401 quantitation linii* praeented.
-------
TABLE
COMPARISON OP AVAILABLE DATA FOR AREA D (|ig/L)

INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
t
Nethylene chloride
Chloroform
Tc ichloroethene
•eazene
TollMIM
• is( 2-ethy lhe«y 1 )phthalate
Isophorone
Aluoinua)
Arsenic
••tiua
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium '
^
Copper '
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
III Data(l)
(1914-1916)
0-L.
5
5
9
S
S
10
10
200
10
200
S
5,000
10
25
100
5
5,000
Range Detected

2.0-9.0

•3-67
12
467-699

33-41
120-34)

43.100-101.000
(39,000-97.300)
3t-64
12-41
1,429-51.500
(153)
6.9-15.4
It. 200-50. 500
I16.720-4t.400)
Average

35
6.0
439

35.1
(21. •)

62,332
(54.923)
51
20
31.767
(76)
6. a
37,370
135. 7S8)
CV Study Oata(2)
(1901)
Q.L.
0.25
0.05
0.03
0.2
0.2
•A
HA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
NA
MA
Range Detected
11.2
11.9
3.9

1.2

Average
5.7
6.9
2

0.65

Standard/

S fUCt (T)
100 NIPOW
5 HtCL (?)
5 PNCL (P)
2.000 mCL if)
MAva i 1
MAvail
50 SNCL (P)
50 MIPDWM
1.000 NIPDMR
5.000 VNCL (P)
10 NIPOMB
5 PNCL (P)
NAvail
50 MIPOMI
100 PMCL (P)
1.000 SNCL (*)
1.300 PMCL (P)
300 SNCL (r)
50 MIPDHR
S PMCL (P)
at source
MAvail
-n
c:>
oo
d.
-------
ABLE * • '
COMPARISON OP AVAILABLE DATA FOR AREA D (M9/M
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
Parameter
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
•PotaaailM
SelenliM
Silver
Sodiua)
Vanadltm
Zinc
Cobalt

Q.L.
IS
0.2
40
5.000
s
10
5.000
50
20
SO
•I Da tad)
(1904-1916)
Range Detected
71-744
(14-14*)

93-42
19.420-39.440
(10.050-40.1701
21
|27-3i)
3.3
34,470-47,690
(36.240-49.440)
6.0-6.5
72-1.130
(345|
5.4
Average
396
(711

20. •
2ft. 390
(26.505)
7.1
(17)
4.6
39.715
(40.695)
15.6
466
(94)
20.1
GV Study Data! 2)
(1999)
O.L.
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
MA
HA
Range Detected

Average

Standard/
Criteria
50 SMCL m
2 HIPDUR
2 PNCL (P)
100 PNCL (P)
MAvail
10 HIPDHfl
50 PNCL (P)
50 HIPDHR
HAvail
HAvail
5.000 SMCL (P)
MAvail
o
CO
2J '33
Q
Arithmetic average calculated using 1/2 detection Units.
P Proposed.
P , Final.
T Tentative.
Filtered Metals results presented in parentheses.
PMCL i Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWAI Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels.
SMCL Federal SDMA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
QL Quantitat ion limit.
NIPDUR National Interim Primary Drinking Mater Regulation.
NAvail Indicates not available.
NA or Indicates samples were not analyzed.
A blank space or ND indicates that the chemical was not detected.
(D Data collected during 1984-1986 Remedial Investigation conducted by NUS Corporation. CROL
quantitation limits presented.
(2) Data collected quarterly for the owners of Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill by Applied
Geotechnical and Environmental Service Corporation (AGES). Quantitation limits observed in data
package.
-------
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OP AVAILABLE DATA FOR AREA E
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
1 . 1 -Dichlocoethane
t cans- 1 . 2-Dichloroathene
cU-1.2-Dichloroethene
ChlocoCotB
1 , i , 1-Tc ichloroethane
i , 2-Oichloropropana
Tr ichloroethene
•ensene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Dibroawchloroaethane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
1,1,2, 2-Vetrachloroethane
• i »< 2-ethy Ihevy 1 Iphthalate
Isophorone
Aluainiui
•ariim
Calciua)
Chroaliw
Copper
Iron

O.L.
S
*
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
s •
S
S
S
10
10
200
200
s.ooo
10
25
100
HI DatafU
I19M-1966)
tans* Detected
2.7-3.0

S.O
3.0-7.0

1.0
4.2-2S
10

73-M
»»-l«0
•73-3.200
22-32
O*-"|
24.2SO-40.600
(15, 700-31. 100)
34-104
17-34
2,002-16.100
Aver«9e
2.0

3.1
4.2

2.1
o.«
4.4

44
S4
1.303
46
120)
3S.340
(22,795)
52
21
8.204
6V Study D«ta(2)
I19M)
O.L.
0.7
0.10
ML
O.OS
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.2
0.03
0.2
•L
0.13
0.03
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
Range Detected
0.3-6.0
0.7-1.3
2.0
1.0-3.0
0.6-4.7
1.1
2.4-4.2
IS
1.6-3.0
2.2
1.1
0.7-0.9
S.O

--^-

Average
3.1
O.S3
0.54
1.9
2.0
0.29
2.5
4.O
1.0
0.63
0.31
0.43
l.S

Standard/

MAwail
100 rMCL
-------
TABLE U

the evaluation of remedial alternatives are

Overall Prottction of Human Health and th. »*Ylmnitnf whether
each alternative provides adequate protection of human health and
the environment and describes how risks posed through each
exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.

compliance vith ABA»ei whether each alternative will meet all of
the Applicable or ftelovaat and Appropriate Bequlremeats (APAJU)
of Federal and State environmental laws and/or justifies invoking
a waiver; whether a remedy complies with advisories, criteria and
guidance that KPA and PADER have agreed to follow.

and Permanence? the ability of a remedy
to maintain reliable protection of human health and*the
environment over time, once clean-up goals have been met.
addresses the statutory preference for selecting remedial actions
that employ treatment technologies that permanently and
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of
hazardous substances.
gff«
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Office of Environmental Protection
90 East Union Street - 2nd Floor
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701-3296
(717) 826-2511

March 29, 1991
Mr. Edwin B. Erfckson
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 19107

Dear Mr. Erfckson:

The Record of Decision received March 28, 1991 for the second operable unit,
which addresses groundwater contamination at the Industrial Lane Site, 1n
Williams Township, Northampton County, has been reviewed by the Department.

The major components of the selected remedy Include:

* Closure and capping of the unllned area of the Chrin Landfill according
to PA DER Municipal Waste Management Regulations*

* Groundwater extraction, treatment, and discharge to the Lehlgh River.
The clean-up goal for the groundwater Is "background* concentrations
as defined by the detection limits of EPA Methods 601 and 602 for
volatile organlcs.

* Long-term monitoring of the closure and the ground water.

I hereby concur with the EPA's proposed remedy with the following conditions:

* The Department will be given the opportunity to concur with decisions
related to the design of the Remedial Action for the Groundwater
Operable Unit, to assure compliance with DER cleanup ARARs and design
specific ARARs*

* The Department will be given the opportunity to concur with decisions
related to subsequent operable units (if Identified), and evaluate
appropriate remedial alternatives to assure compliance with DER
cleanup ARARs and design specific ARARs.

* EPA will assure that the Department 1s provided an opportunity
to fully participate in any negotiations with responsible
parties.
-------
Mr. Edwin B. Erlckson
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency -2- March 29, 1991
* The Department will reserve our right and responsibility to
take Independent enforcement actions pursuant to state law.

* This concurrence with the selected remedial action 1s not
Intended to provide any assurances pursuant to SARA
Section 104(c)(3).

* The Department agrees with the proposed remediation which provides
that "background" quality 1s the objective of the groundwater
remediation plan. In the event that EPA modifies Us position on
the cleanup standard, and deviates from background quality as the
remediation goal, OER will withdraw Its concurrence. At that time,
EPA must demonstrate the Impracticability of achieving background
quality, and give DER a meaningful opportunity to reconcur by way of
an Explanation of Significant Differences or a Record of Decision
Amendment.

Thank you for the opportunity to concur with this EPA Record of Decision. If
you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely. •-
loener
Regional Environmental
Protection Director
-------
TABLE "12
GROUND WATER CLEANUP LEVELS (ug/1)

. INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Contaminant
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
cis-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Background
ScenarioU)
0.18
0.25
0.07
0.10
0.12(2)
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.12
0.04
0.2
0.03
0.3
0.2
0.13
0.03
U) Method 601/602 Detection Limits (40
CFR Part 136) used except where
noted.
<2) Method 524.2 Detection Limit (40 CFR
Part 141).
-------
TABLE 13

INDUSTRIAL LANE

ESTIMATED REMEDIAL ACTION COSTS

(IN DOLLARS)
Alternative
"Capital
*0 i N
"Present Worth
1. No Aetioa
2. Access
Restriction*
3A. Extraction/
Traataaat/
Discharge to
Lehigh River
3B. Extraction/
Treataent/
Discharge to
POTW
Extraction/
Treatment/
Reinjection
108,000
108,000
4,326,000
3,093,000
4,834,000
121,000 annual 2,027,000
20,000 every 5 yrs.
121,000 annual 2,027,000
20,000 every 5 yrs.
53«,ooo(yr.l)
498,000 (yr.2-45)
20,000 every 5 yrs.
12,775,000
2,475,000 (yr.l) 44,318,000
2,453,000 (yr.2-45)
20,000 every 5 yrs.
551,000 (yr. 1)
512,000 (yr.2-22)
121,000 (yr.23-30)
20,000 every 5 yrs,
11,937,000
Municipal Landfill Cap (Clay) - $8,000,000 (Capital Costs only)
* Exclusive of landfill closure costs.
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OP RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AREA E»
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
Bansene
1 , 1 . 1 -Tr ichloroethaoe
1 . 1 -Dlchloroethano
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1 , 2~Dichloropropane
TOTAL POM VOC»
aU(2-ethjrlheayl Iphthalate
Isophorone
TOTAL FOR SBUVOLATILRS
Baiard Quotients
Route of Exposure
Inge* t ion/Mr mm 1
•Contact Our i 09
••thing
-
1.5 * 10-3
1.9 * 10-3
•.6 « 10-3
-
2.* « 10-3
9.5 • 10-3 lj
1.1 . 10-* G
-

1.3 • 10-1
1. • 10-3

Inhalation
During Showering
-
l.t B 10-4
9.t • 10-*
-
-
-
.'
-
-

-
-

Total
-
1.7 * 10-3
2.1 • 10-3
•.6 • 10-3
-
2.9 « 10-3
9.S « 10-3
1.1 « 10-2
-
0.04
1.3 • 10-1
1.9 « 10-3
0.13
••ceis LifetiM Cancer Risk
Route of Rvposure
Inge«tion/Der»al
Contact During
Bathing
1.3 • 10-'
-
—
4.4 • 10~*
1.9 • 10-'
l.t « 10-'
-
6.t • 10-'
2.1 • 10-*

3.0 « 10-5
1.5 • 10-5

Inhalation
During Showering
6.2 • 10'*
-
—
1.0' • 10-'
0.2 • 10-7
1.4 • 10-5
-
3.6 • 10-*
•

-
-

Total
1.9 • 10-5

—
4.5 • 10-*
2.1 • 10-*
3.0 1 10-9
-
4.2 « 10-*
2.1 « 10-*
6.2 « 10-5
3.0 « 10-5
1.5 • 10-5
5.3 • 10-5
I t
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OP RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AREA El
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
Parameter
ChcoaiiM
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
TOTAL KM URALS
TOTAL fOU ALL OUNICALS Of
COHCRRN
Hazard Quotients
.. Rout* of Kaposure
Ingeation/DerMl
Contact During
••thing
S.I a 10-1
(•0}
9.* a 10-1
(«D»
(•D)
1.9 a 10-2
(»D)

Inhalation
During Showering
-
-
-
-

Hazard Indaa

Total
S.I a 10-1
9.9 a 10-1
-
1.9 a 10->
1.6
1.77 (0.171
Kacaaa Li Cat law Cancar Riak
Route oC Kapoeure
Ingaat ion/Derawl
Contact During
Bathing
-
-
-
-

Inhalation
During Showering
-
-
-
-

Cancar Riak
Total
-
-
-
-

1.1 a 10~*
CO
l Refer to footnotes presented on Table 1-21
-------
TABLE 9
ss
"""TV. PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
Bia(2~athrlhe«jrl)phthaUte
Isophorona
TOTAL FOB SRMIVOLATILBS
ChroaiiuB)
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
TOTAL FOR NRALS
TOTAL TOR ALL CHEMICALS Of
COMCKRN
Hazard Quotient a
Route of
lnq*»t ion/0* tm»l
Contact Our 109
Bathing
S.S « 10-2
2.9 * 10-4

l.S « 10-1
(1.0 • 10-1)
s.s » 10-1
(NO)
4.1 • 10-1
(1.3 • 10-1)
6.1 • 10"1
(S.I « 10-1)

BMpocura
Inhalation
During Showering
-
-

-
-
-
-

Hazard Indea

Total
5.5 • 10-2
2.9 * 10-«
S.S • 10-2
l.S « 10-1
(1.0 • 10-1)
S.S * 10-1
4.1 • 10-1
(1.3 » 10-1)
6.1 • 10-1
(5.0 • 10-1)
1.72 (0.11)
2.3 (1.4)
fmceft Lifatiae Cancer Mick
Route of Eiposure
Ingest ion/Cereal
Contact During
Bathing
1.6 « 10-5
2.3 • 10-6

-
-
-
. -
TOTAL CANTOR
RISK

Inhalation
During Showering
-
-

-
-
-
-

Cancer Rick

Total
1.6 • 10-5
2.3 « 10-'
!.• • 10-5
-
-
-
-

7.9 • ID'4

i Refer to footnotes presented on Table 1-21
-------
TABLE it)

SUMMARY OP RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AREA D»
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
Trichloroethane
Chlorofor*
Methylene Chloride
TOTAL KM VOCa
Bia(2ethylheirl)phthalate
laophorono
TOTAL rO« SCMIVOLATILBS
Chroaiua
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
TOTAL rOK NBTALS
TOTAL rOH ALL CHEMICALS OF
COMCBRN
Haaard Quotient*
' tout* of Kipoaure
Ingest ion/DerMl
COB tact Due i 09
••thing
-
3.4 • 10-2
S.3 » 10-3

9.6 a 10-'
1.7 • 10~«

3.7 a 10-»
110)
2.f a 10-1
imi
-
1.1 • lO'l
(2.4 • 10-2)

Inhalation
During Showering
-
-
1.7 a 10-«'

-
-

-
-
-
-

Total
-
3.4 a 10-2
5.5 a 10-3
4 a 10-2-
9.6 a 10-2
1.7 a 10-4
0.1
3.7 a 10-1
2.9 a 10-1
-
1.1 • 10-1
(2.4 a 10-2)
0.77
(2.4 a 10-2)
O.i7 (0.16)
Baeaaa Li fat law Cancer Biak
Routa of Bapoaure
Ingeation/DarMl
Contact During
Bathing
1.2 a 10-*
2.1 a 10-*
2.4 a 10-6

2.7 a 10-'
1.4 a 10-*

-
-
-
-

Inhalation
During Showering
7.0 a 10-'
1.1 a 10-5
2.0 a 10-6

-
-

-
-
-
-

Cancer RUk

Total
2.0 a 10-*
1.3 a 10-5
4.5 a 10-*
1.9 a ID"5
2.7 a 10-5
1.4 a 10-*
2.0 a 10-5
-
-
-
-

4.7 a 10"5
Op

fgQ

}> r.-
i Refer to footnotes presented on Table 1-21
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OP RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AREA

INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
Benzene
1.1,1 -Tr ichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Chlorofoc*
TOTAL FOR VOC«
Bis(2ethylheayl)phthalate
TOTAL FOR SEMIVOLATILBS
Chiomium
Lead
Met cuff
Manganese
TOTAL rOR NBTALS
TOTAL FOR ALL CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN
Hazard Quotients
Route of Exposure
Ingest ion/Dereial
Contact Due ing
Bathing
-
2.9 • 10-5
-
2.C • 10-4
9.7 • 10-«
4.0 a 10-3

1.9 a 10-2

1.6 • 10->
(5.5 • 10-2)
1.6
(•D)
2.4 • 10-1 •
(!.• • lO'1)
2.1 • 10-2
(!.• a 10-2)

Inhalation
During Showering
-
3.5 a 10-6
-
-
-
-

~
-
-
—

Hazard Indea

Total
-
3.2 a 10-5
-
2.6 a 10-4
9.7 a 10-4
4.0 • 10-3
5.3 a 10-)
1.9 a 10->
1.9 a 10-2
1.6 a 10-1
(5.5 a 10-2)
1.6
2.4 a 10-1
(1.1 a 10-*)
2.0 a 10-2
(1.8 • 10-2)
2 (0.25)
2.0 (0.27)
Kacesa Lifetime Cancer Riaa
Route of Exposure
Ingest ion/Dermal
Contact During
Bathing
2.9 a 10-7
-
•.9 a 10~7
1.3 a 10-'
-
2.5 a 10-'

5.2 a 10-6

—
-
-
~

Inhalation
During Showering
1.4 a 10-'
-
3.4 a 10~7
3.2 a 10-*
-
1.3 a 10-&

-
-
-
~

Cancer Risk

Total
4.3 a 10-'
-
1.2 a 10-6
1.4 a 10-'
-
1.5 a 10-6
3.3 a 10-6
5.2 a 10-6
5.2 a 10-6
-
-
-
"

•.5 a 10-6
O
oo
?:r&

OQ
-2?' C—«
Refer to footnotes presented on Table 1-21,
-------
TABLE 9-
SUMMARY OP RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AREA

INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 , 4 -Di chlor obensene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
1, 1-Dichlocoethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tr ichlocoethena
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichlairoethene
Vinyl chloride
Carbon tetrachlor ide
Chloroforsi
Methylene chloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
TOTAL FOR VOCs
Baaard Quotients
Route of Exposure
Ingest ion/DerMl
Contact During
Bathing
-
3.4 * 10-3
.
1.1 • 10-2
2.5 « 10-2
-
1.2 > 10-1
-
8.0 * 10-3
1.9 • 10-1
-
1.2 • 10-1
2.0 • ID"2
3.2 1 10-2
-

Inhalation
During Shower ing
-
5.7 • 10-3
7.6 H 10-4
1.3 • ID"3
1.1 * 10-2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8 K 10-4
-

Total
-
9.1 x 10-3
7.6 • 10-4
1.2 • 10-2
3.5 X 10-2
-
1.2 • 10-1
-
8.0 K 10-3
1.9 • 10-1
-
1.2 > 10-1
2.0 x 10-2
3.3 X 10-2
-
0.55
••cess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Route of RBposure
Ingestion/Derstal
Contact During
Bathing
6.5 x 10-6
-
9.9 x 10-6
-

5.5 « 10-6
5.8 • 10-5
1.6 • 10-5
4.3 x 10-5
-
4.8 • ID'*
1.0 • 10-5
1.2 • 10-6
1.4 * 10-5
5.5 • 10-*

Inhalation
During Showering
3.1 • 10-*
-
• -
-
-
2.1 • 10-*
1.4 x 10-*
1.0 • 10-5
4.0 • 10-5
-
3.3 x 10-5
4.0 • 10-*
6.6 • 10-*
1.2 X 10-5
-

Total
9.6 x 10-*

9.9 x 10-*
-

7.6 x 10-*
6.0 x 10-5
2.6 • 10-5
8.2 x 10-5
-
5.1 x 10-4
1.4 x 10-5
7.8 x 10-6
2.6 x 10-5
5.5 x 10-6
7.6 x 10-4
> .
oo
?:rja

OO
~£ e:
5£>
£- r~
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AREA Adi
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Parameter
1.1,1-Trichloroe thane
1,1-Dichloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
Tetrachloroethene
Tc ichlot oethene
1.2-Dichloroethene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorofora
1,2-Dichloropropane
TOTAL KM VOC«
BU( 2ethy IheByl Iphthalate
faophorone
TOTAL FOR SEMIVOLATILBS
Hazard Quotient*
Rout* of Eipoiure
Ingest ion/Dermal
.Contact Ducio9
Bathing
1.9 B 10-1
S.I * 10-4
-
2.e a 10-*
-
1.1 • 10-2
7.0 « ID"2
7.4 • 10-3
-

2.3 B 10-1
1.1 • 10-3

Inhalation
During Showering
2.2 a 10-4
2.5 K 10-4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-

Total
2.0 • 10-3
•.3 B 10-4
-
2.6 * 10-«

1.1 • 10-2
7.0 » 10->
7.4 a 10-3
-
0.09
2.5 B 10-1
1.1 B 10-3
0.25
Races* Lifatlaw Cancer Risk
Route of BBpoaure
Ingestion/DerMl
Contact During
Bathing
-
-
2.3 B 10- »
1.3 B 10-'
2.1 B 10-?
-
6.4 B 10'6
4.5 B 10-7
5.1 B 10-6

7.0 B 10-5
•.• B 10~C

Inhalation
During Showering
-
-
9.0 • 10-*
3.2 a 10-*
1.8 B 10-?
-
2.4 B 10-'
2.4 B 10-6
-

-
-

Total
-
-
3.2 B 10-7
1.4 B 10-7
4.6 B 10-7
-
a. a B ID-'
2.9 B 10-6
5.1 a 10-6
I. 8 • 10-5
7.0 B 10-5
a. a B 10-6
7.9 I 10-5
06
-------
ot
o
TABLE 7

SUMMARY OP RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR AREA Ad)
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
Parameter
Chroatius)
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
TOTAL nut METALS
TOTAL roll ALL CHEMICALS Of
COMCBKII
Hazard Quotients
Route of Exposure
Ingest ion/Dot Ml
•Contact During
Bathing
1.1 • 10-1
(«.* x 10-2)
2.4 » 10-1
{•D)
3.2 • 10-1
(2.1 • 10-1|
6.9 m 10->
|6. 5 • 10-2)

Inhalation
During Shove ring
-
-
-
-

Uasard Index

Total
1.1 • 10-1
(4.9 • 10-2)
2.4 » 10-1
3.2 • 10-1
(2.1 « 10-1)
6.0 « 10-2
(6.5 • 10-2)
0.74 (0.32)
1.0* (0.66)
Races* Lifetime Cancer Risk
Route of Exposure
Ingest ion/Deroal
Contact During
Bathing
-
-
—
-

Inhalation
During Showering
-
-
-
-

Cancer Riak
Total
-
—
-
- * •
-
1.0 H 10*
Risk analysis calculations presented in Appendix C. The exposure doses for the ingestion and dermal
contact route of exposure were calculated as presented in Appendix C, sunned, and then evaluated using
the RfD Cor the oral route of exposure.
Risk analysis results for filtered metals presented in parentheses.
• ' indicates toxicity criteria not available.
(IT Cancer risks associated with VOC concentrations in C-ll were estimated separate from other Area A
wells because C-ll was more contaminated with VOCs than other Area A wells. The cancer risk
associated with the VOC concentrations detected in C-ll is 3.7 x 10~
-------
TABLE 6
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Contaminants That Are Known
Probable Carcinogens*
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride **
1,1-Dichloroethane **
Chloroform **
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
Carbon tetrachloride **
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene **
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethene **
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Isophorone
Chromium (VI)***
Lead **
or
A
B2
C
82
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
B2
C
B2
C
A
B2
Noncarcinogenic Contaminants
1,2-Dichloroethene (cis-/trans-)
1 , 1 , 1-Tr ichloroe thane
Chlorobenzene
Mercury
Manganese

**
Carcinogens are classified by the EPA according to the
following weight-of-evidence categories:
A Human Carcinogen:
Sufficient evidence from epidemiologic studies
to support a causal association between exposure
and cancer.
Bl Probable Human Carcinogen:
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity of humans
from epidemiologic studies.
B2 Probable Human Carcinogen:
Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals; inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity
in humans.
C Possible Human Carcinogen:
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals.
These compounds also have EPA established reference
doses that allow evaluation of potential adverse
noncarcinogenic effects.
*** Chromium (VI) is not carcinogenic
route of exposure.
via the ingestion
POOR GUALI i Y
ORIGINAL
-------
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OP AVAILABLE DATA FOR AREA E
INDUSTRIAL LANE SITE
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PAGE TWO
ri>
oo
Parameter
Lead
tUffteBiue)
Ma*faae>e
Nickel
•tttaaeilM
Sodiue)
VaaadluB
• lac
Cobalt
TfcaUtwa
•1 Detail)
O.t.
S
s.ooo
IS
«•
S.ftM
S.OOO
M
at
SO
10
Maaee Detected
1.3-51
t. 911-33. 100
(•.311-1S.400)
S4-134
<•.«>
a*-«t
S.2tO-e.lOO
(2(400-«.*e2|
4.oi2-n.2to
(4(*03-14.320)
4.1-0.1
47-«7
S. 7-7.0
!•
fl*l
average
11.3
20. 300
m.s*«)
M.3
n.2i
34
4,»St
14. 3M)
$.17*
(•••MI
1S.«
33. S
IS.S
2.S
6V Study Oat«(2>
O.L.
Ma
Ha
Ha
•a
Ma
MA
Ma
Ma
Ma .
Ma
Mange Detected

average

Stendetd/
Criteria
SO Ml MM«
5 VMCL t»)
et eeurce.
Mavall
SO 8MCL |r)
100 MCt (»|
Mavail
Mavail
Hawaii
S.OOO SMCL |t|
Hawaii
Mavail
I— I
-
AritluMtlc average calculated using 1/2 detection liait.
p Piopoaed.
P Final.
T Tentative.
QL Qu^ntitation linit.
Filtered Mtetals results presented in parentheses.
PMCL Federal Safe Drinking Mater Act (SDUA) Primary Max!MUM Contaaiinant Levels.
SMCL Federal SDWA Secondary Naxiauai Contamnant Level.
OWEL Drinking Hater Equivalent level.
NIPDHR National Interia PriMtary Drinking Mater Regulation.
NAvail Indicates not available.
MA or Indicates samples were not analyzed.
A blank space or ND indicates that the chenical was not detected.
(I) Data collected during 1984-1986 Reawdial Investigation conducted by NUS Corporation. CR. •
quantitat ion limits presented.
»2» Data collected quarterly for the owners of Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill by Applied
Geotechnical and Environmental Service Corporation (AGES). Quantitat ion limits are those
observed in data package.
-------