United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-92/157
September 1992
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Route 940 Drum Dump, PA
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R03-92/157
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Route 940 Drum Dump, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/28/92
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
to. Projectnask/WorkUnitNo.
11. Contract(C)orGrant(G)No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-963912
16. Abstract (Limit 200 words)
The 2.5-acre Drum Dump site is a grass-covered clearing in the Tobyhanna Township,
Monroe County, Pennsylvania. This site and adjacent land area is presently zoned as a
commercial/light-industrial area. The site is currently inactive with several
stockpiles of soil and some open excavations on the surface. The site is bordered on
all four sides by a pine-oak woodland with few nearby residences; however, based on
aerial surveys, approximately 4,000 people who live within a 3-mile radius of the site
use the aquifer beneath the site as their source of potable water. Between 1974 and
1978, approximately 600 drums of unknown contents from an unknown source were stored in
the southeast corner of the site. In 1978, approximately 2 years after the sale of the
site by the J.E.M. Partnership to LandMark, one of the partners of the J.E.M.
Partnership arranged for the removal of the drums from the site at the request of
LandMark. From 1983 to 1987, several investigations, monitoring events, and interim
measures were completed at the site. It was concluded that some drums may have been
buried onsite and that the contents of some of the drums stored there previously may
have been dumped onto the ground. Current onsite investigations revealed that any
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysts a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Route 940 Drum Dump, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSAT1 Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
Krone"
21. No. of Pages
64
22. Price
(SeeANSI-Z39.1S)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTB-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-92/157
Route 940 Drum Dump, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
previously identified site contaminants now have been reduced to levels that no longer
pose a significant direct health threat or any threat from potential migration in ground
water; and thus, the site does not warrant any further remediation. Therefore, there are
no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no action with future ground water
monitoring. There are no costs provided for this no action remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals: Not applicable.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
ROUTE 940 DRUM DUMP SITE
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Route 940 Drum Dump Site
Tobyhanna Township
Monroe County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Route 940 Drum Dump Site (the "Site) in Tobyhanna Township,
Monroe County, Pennsylvania, developed and chosen in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et
seq. and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R.
Part 300. This decision is based on the Administrative Record
for this Site.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Resources agrees with the Environmental Protection Agency's
(^.- :'±j uhoic-: c~ a ''No \ctior.': c.-ic .s_or; ;.'or this Site, but na.
not concurred with the Record of Decision (ROD), as written,
because of fundamental differences with the EPA interpretation of
the NCP and CERCLA.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The determination has been made that no Remedial Action is
necessary at this Site. Therefore, the Site now qualifies for
inclusion in the "sites awaiting deletion" subcategory of the
Construction Completion category of the National Priorities List.
As specified in Section VI Summary of Site Risks, there are no
site-related risks that warrant a remedial action of any kind.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The selected alternative for the Route 940 Drum Dump Site is No
Action with future ground water monitoring. Under this
alternative, no Remedial Action will be taken at this Site. The
ground water in the vicinity of the Site will be monitored once a
year for at least the next five years.
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine,
pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9606 that the
selected alternative is protective of human health and the
environment. No remedial action will be taken, however, ground
water quality in the vicinity of the Site will be reviewed within
five years in consideration of Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(c) to ensure that human health and the environment
continue to be adequately protected.
SEP 28 1992
Edwin B. Erickson
Regional Administrator
Region III
Date
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SITE NAME, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUMMARY 4
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS RESPONSE ACTION 5
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 41
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 54
VIII. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 56
-------
RECORD 07 DECISION
ROUTE 940 DRUM DUMP SITE
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE MAME. LOCATIOM MID DE8CRIPTIOM
The Route 940 Drum Dump Site is located in Tobyhanna
Township near Pocono Summit, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). Both
Tobyhanna Township and Pocono Summit are located in Monroe
County. The Site is located approximately 20 miles southeast of
the Wilkes Barre-Scranton area.
The Site is a grass-covered open clearing consisting of
approximately 2.5 acres located in Tobyhanna Township. The Site
is approximately 4000 feet east of the intersection of Routes 314
and 940 in the easternmost section of the township.
Adjacent land is used commercially. A machine shop is
located northwest of the Site, and a former automobile transfer
facility (currently utilized by Pocono Limousine) is located
south of the Site. A laminated cabinet shop is located east of
the Site across Township Road 643. A gas station, a restaurant,
a law office and other commercial buildings are located nearby
along Route 940. The Site is presently zoned as a commercial/
light-industrial area. It is possible that the Site's zoning
could be changed in the future, and subsequently be zoned as a
residential area.
The Site is bordered on all four sides by a pine-oak
woodland with few human inhabitants nearby. Based on aerial
surveys, approximately 4,000 people within a 3-mile radius of the
Site utilize the aquifer beneath the Site as their source of
potable water. The Site straddles the ridge which forms the
Pocono Plateau. Currently, no one lives on the eastern slope of
the plateau in the area between the Site and Indian Run Creek,
situated 4000 feet southeast of the Site. The northwestern
slope, 1,200 feet northwest of the Site, is more heavily
populated with the community of Pocono Summit. The community
uses Focono Summit Lake, situated 3,000 feet northwest of the
Site, for recreational activities. Summit Point Subdivision is
located approximately 1,000 feet east of the Site.
The Site is fenced on all four sides by a six-foot-high wire
fence. The Site is accessed from Township Road 643 by an opening
in the woods that is controlled by a locked gate. The land is
currently idle with several stockpiles of soil and several open
excavations on the surface.
-------
POOR QUALiii'
ORIGINAL
1 LOCATION MAP
-------
The history of waste disposal at the Site is summarized
below:
HISTORY OP WASTE DISPOSAL
LandMark International ("LandMark") purchased a 13-acre
tract in 1976 from the J.E.M. Partnership which had owned the
property since 1974.
Between 1974 and 1978, approximately 600 drums of unknown
contents from an unknown source were stored in a clearing
consisting of approximately 2.5 acres. The drums were stored in
the southeast corner of the clearing.
In 1978, approximately 2 years after the sale of the Site by
the J.E.M. Partnership to LandMark, one of the partners of the
J.E.M. Partnership arranged for the removal of the drums from the
Site at the request of LandMark.
RESPONSE ACTIONS
In 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
proposed the Site on the National Priorities List ("NPL") under
the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") as amended by the
Superfund Admendments and reauthorization Act of 1986. The NPL
listing was promulgated in September 1987. From 1983 until it's
final listing on the NPL in 1987, several investigations,
monitoring events, and interim- remedial measures were completed
at the Site by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources ("PADER"), EPA and, subsequently, LandMark.
RESPONSE ACTIONS BY EPA AMD PAPER
In early 1983, PADER learned that some drums may have been
buried on the Site and that the contents of some of the drums
previously stored there may have been dumped on the surface of
the ground on the Site. PADER, with assistance from EPA
initiated an investigation of the Site. The following is a
summary of the events which occurred during the PADER
investigation.
Soil Tranches and Borings
Representatives of EPA and PADER completed trenching and
shallow boring operations in April 1983. The rusted remains of
several crushed 55-gallon drums were found in shallow trenches
along with a very small number of crushed drums. (Excavated
-------
drums were collected in a dumpster and later manifested and
removed from the Site to a secure facility by a licensed waste
hauler). No intact drums, liquid pools or solid masses of
chemical materials were found.
Special Container Investigation
Approximately 125 small containers resembling "lab packs"
were found in a packed drum resting on the surface near the south
corner of the Site. Laboratory analyses, conducted subsequently,
revealed that the containers contained no hazardous materials.
Following EPA and PADER's response actions at the Site,
LandMark hired BCM Consultants in May 1983 to undertake further
investigations and actions at the Site. The following summarizes
the efforts done by Landmark and their consultant:
Excavation and Post-Excavation Sampling cf Pits A. B.and c
Soils, which were previously identified during a soil
sampling program conducted by BCM as being contaminated with
organic solvents were excavated at three locations: Pits A, B,
and C (Figure 2). Each of these areas was excavated until all of
the soil found to be contaminated had been removed. A licensed
hazardous waste hauling contractor handled the disposal of 300
tons of contaminated soil from the Site. The soils were
manifested and disposed of in accordance with PADER and EPA
requirements.
Area H - Test Pit and Excavation
In January 1987, excavation began in Area H (Figure 2} where
chemical contamination had been detected in May 1985. All
material was excavated and stockpiled. The contaminated soil
stockpile contained between 4,000 and 4,500 cubic yards.
While the final portion of Area H was being excavated, six
additional crushed, rusted, drum remnants were encountered. The
drums were stored onsite until proper disposal was arranged.
The soil that was excavated during the drum removal was added to
the soil stockpile.
Soil Shredding Pilot Study and Results
On April 20, 1987, a pilot soil shredding operation was
conducted at the Route 940 Site. The purpose of the operation
was to quantify the reduction of volatile organic compounds
("VOCs") that could be expected. The soil shredding operation,
done in conjunction with applicable Federal and State air
emission laws, was designed to enhance the volatilization of the
VOCs within the soils.
-------
-------
Soil samples were taken at random out of the loader bucket
before the soil was shredded. After the soil had been shredded
and exposed to the air for 24 hours, a set of samples was taken
at random from the material that had been run through the
shredder twice and spread out. Analysis of the soils showed an
average 98-percent reduction in VOCs. Of the five samples taken
before the soil had been shredded, three samples had total
purgeable halocarbons and purgeable aromatics ranging from 203 to
559 mg/kg (parts per million). The post-treatment samples had
low residual concentrations. The purgeable halocarbons and
purgeable aromatics totals ranged from 2.3 mg/kg to 10.6 mg/kg.
RI/PS INVESTIGATION
In 1985, the Site was proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List ("NPL"), 40 CFR Part 300, and was finalized in
July 1987. In November 1987, Landmark entered into a Consent
Order with PADER to undertake a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for the entire Site. In 1990, the
Consent Order ("Order1*) between Landmark and PADER was suspended
by FADER due to non-compliance with the Order by Landmark. PADER
returned the Site back to EPA; EPA then initiated a fund-lead RI
and also performed a Risk Assessment (HRAM) for the Site.
During the course of the RI, EPA undertook a Potentially
Responsible Parties ("PRP") investigation to determine those
parties which would be responsible under CERCLA for undertaking
the Remedial Design/Remedial Action ("RD/RA"). This
investigation included reviewing documents in EPA, State and
local governmental agency files, sending and reviewing CERCLA §
104(e) information request letters, reviewing title search
documents and researching corporate history and status. As of
the issuance date of this ROD, EPA has identified several
parties whom it believes to be PRPs for the Route 940 Drum Dump
Site.
III.
In accordance with Sections 113 and 117 of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. §§ 9613 (k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 9617, EPA, in conjunction with
PADER, issued a Proposed Plan to present the preferred remedial
alternative. The Proposed Plan and draft RI and draft RA reports
were made available to the public by maintaining copies in the
administrative record. The Administrative Record is kept at the
two locations listed below:
Public Reading Room
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA
and
-------
Tobyhanna Township Municipal Building
State Avenue
Pocono Pines, Pennsylvania
No FS Report was undertaken for the Site based on the findings of
the RI and RA. An announcement of the public meeting, the
comment period, and the availability of the RI/RA was published
in the Pocono Record, on August 10, 1992.
EPA held a public comment period from August 10, 1992 to
September 9, 1992. A public meeting was held on August 20, 1992
to present information, accept oral and written comments and
answer questions from the public regarding the Site and potential
remedial alternatives. A transcript of the meeting was
maintained in accordance with Section 117 (a) (2) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9617 (a) (2). Responses to both the oral and written
comments received during the public comment period are included
in the attached Responsiveness Summary. This decision document
presents the selected remedial action for the Route 940 Drum Dump
Site chosen in accordance with CERCLA, and to the extent
practicable, the NCP.
All documents considered or relied upon in reaching the
remedy selection decisions contained in this Record of Decision
are included in the Administrative Record for the Site and can be
reviewed at the information repositories.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OP THIS RESPONSE ACTION
EPA's goal for the RI/FS was to determine the nature and
extent of contamination, to identify risks posed by che Site; and
to develop remedial alternatives to address those risks. There
were no principal threats identified at this Site. Principal
threats are those source materials considered to be highly toxic
or mobile, generally cannot be contained, or would present a
significant risk -fee human health or the environment should
exposure occur. This Site was not divided into any operable
units, therefore this ROD is the final ROD for the Site.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. surface Water Hydrolocry
Surface water bodies in the vicinity of the Site include
Indian Run Creek and Swiftwater Creek. Both streams are located
a significant distance from the Site and therefore, it is not
expected that they would be adversely affected by any
contaminants which may potentially migrate from the Site. No
other surface water bodies are known to exist within the
-------
potential influence of surface water runoff from the Site.
Onsite Surface Water Drainage
The Site is located on the southeastern flank of a broad
northeast-southwest trending ridge. The Site is approximately
1500 feet south of the ridgeline and is 10 feet lower in
elevation. The ridge forms a surface water divide. The land to
the north of the ridge slopes gently to the northwest, while land
to the south of the ridge slopes gently at first and then steeply
toward the southeast. Surface water north of the ridge flows
westward to the Lehigh river. The surface water south of the
ridge flows eastward into Indian Run Creek and Swiftwater Creek
and ultimately into the Delaware River.
B. Geological Setting
The project Site is situated near the Focono Plateau
escarpment that separates the Pocono Plateau and Glaciated Low
Plateau sections of the Appalachian Plateau's Physiographic
Province. The Pocono Plateau escarpment represents the westward
and northwestward limit of erosion by the Delaware River drainage
and is upheld by rocks significantly more resistant to erosion
than underlying rocks exposed east of the escarpment. Although
somewhat ill-defined in the Site vicinity, the. Pocono escarpment
is expressed locally by steep slopes and low, near cliff faces
that occur immediately south and southeast of the Site.
C. Hvdroge o1ogv
The groundwater in the vicinity of the level portion of the
Site is found at a depth of 20 to 30 feet below ground surface.
The groundwater in this area generally occurs in the fractured
bedrock below the base of the glacial till. However, water
levels may rise above the glacial till/bedrock contact during
seasonally high water level conditions or in areas where the
glacial till is sufficiently thick to intercept the water table
surface. The Site is not located within the floodplain of any
nearby river. Localized areas of perched groundwater, may also
exist within the glacial till where lenses of lower permeability
material impede the downward flow of water. Based on
observations during the RI, the groundwater flow direction in the
Site vicinity is toward the southeast.
Immediately southeast of the Site, where a drop-off in
surface topography occurs at the contact between the Polar Gap
and Packerton Sandstones, the depth to groundwater increases to
65 to 75 feet below ground surface. Five-hundred feet further
southeast of the Site in the vicinity of the former Conrail
automobile transfer facility, the depth to groundwater is
generally 40 feet below the ground surface. No groundwater was
-------
encountered in the glacial till in these areas.
Within the Site vicinity, ground water is used as a source
of potable water for private residences and municipal supply
purposes. The majority of private wells located within the Site
area are located hydraulically upgradient or cross-gradient.
Only three wells were identified as being dowgradient from the
Site.
Because it is currently being used as a source of drinking
water for local residents, the bedrock aquifer system exhibits
the characteristics of a Class II-A aquifer according to the EPA
Groundwater Protection Strategy (USEPA, 1986).
D. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Site Characterization
The nature and extent of chemical contamination at the Route
940 Drum Dump Site was characterized through extensive sampling
of surface and subsurface soils, ground water monitoring wells,
and surface water. In addition, sample data from residential
wells were also reviewed. Samples taken initially were analyzed
for U.S. EPA Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte List
(TAL) constituents. For the organic analyses, this also included
searches for non-target compounds. In later sampling rounds, the
list of constituents tested for were reduced to those which were
previously detected or were suspected to be present. The data,
with required sampling and analysis procedures, underwent a
rigorous quality assurance review to ensure compliance, validity,
and usability of the results. .
All analytical data obtained in the course of the RI was
compiled, sorted by environmental medium, evaluated with respect
to analytical qualifiers (including sample specific minimum
quantification limits), analyzed statistically to generate upper
95 percent confidence limits of the average concentration of each
chemical in each medium; and examined in comparison to naturally
occurring background levels in accordance with U.S. EPA
guidelines. Environmental media evaluated individually include
surface water, surficial and subsurface soils, and ground water.
The following summarizes the results of the investigation and
lists the various chemicals of concern which were identified
during the investigation of the various media.
Surficial Soil Contamination
o A total of 22 surficial soil borings were taken from
various locations both on and off the Site to
characterize the Site surface soil contamination and to
determine the background levels for naturally occurring
-------
compounds in the Site surface soils. The boring
locations were based on: a review of a soil gas survey
which was conducted prior to the soils investigation;
review of historical evidence of previous waste
disposal; information from previous excavations of
contaminated soils; and from locations which were not
considered influenced by any of the previous factors
and would serve as background sampling points. Figure
3 shows the location of the sample points for the soil
samples. Samples were taken from the upper 2 feet of
the soils. All of the samples were analyzed for
complete Target Compound List ("TCL") Volatile Organic
Analysis ("VGA"). Sixteen of the samples were analyzed
for the complete Target Analyte List ("TAL") including
metals, pesticides, PCBs and cyanides.
o Surface soil contaminants and their maximum
concentrations which were detected at the Site and are
considered contaminants of concern are: Chloroform, 4
parts per billion ("ppb11); Toluene, 4 ppb; Phenol, 54
ppb; 4-methylphenol, 45 ppb; Pentachlorophenol, 160
ppb; Endrin aldehyde; 0.28 ppb; Alpha-BHC, 0.24 ppb;
Endrin, 1.7 ppb; Heptachlor, 0.53 ppb; Heptachlor
epoxide, 0.24 ppb; Endosulfan, 0.8 ppb; Dieldrin, 0.51
ppb; DDE, 2.0 ppb; Endosulfan sulfate 0.59 ppb; DDT, 1
ppb; Methoxychlor, 3.4 ppb; Endrin ketone, 0.38 ppb;
and Alpha-chlordane, 0.31 ppb. Inorganic contaminants
of concern detected in the shallow soils include:
Arsenic 8.7 ppb; and Beryllium 0.59 ppb.
A summary of contaminants detected in the surficial soil
samples and their range of concentrations is shown in Table 1.
8
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES(1>
ROUTE 940 DRUM SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
Chemical
Frequency
of Detec-
tion^)
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
Range of
Positive
Detections
Background
Levels <3>
Organios (ug/kg)
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone*6*
Phenol
4 -Me thy Ipheno 1
Pentachlorophenol
4,4' -DDE
Heptachlor epoxide
1/24
4/24
1/24
3/24
1/3
1/16
1/16
1/16
5/16
3/16
6.0 - 14.0
6.0 - 14.0
6.0 - 14.0
6.0 - 14.0
10 - 200
360 - 830
360 - 830
860 - 4000
3.5 - 40
1.8 - 20
l.OJ
U - 4J
0.5J
0.9J - 4.0J
19
54J
45J
160J
0.43J -
2.0J
0.22J -
0.24J
NR«>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA<5>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
chemical
Endosulfan I
Methoxychlor
Alpha-BHC
Endrin
Endrin ketone
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachior
Dieldrin
Endosulfan sulfate
Alpha-chlordane
4,4' -DDT
Aluminum
Arsenic
Frequency
of Detec-
tion*^
2/16
2/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
2/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
1.8 - 20
18 - 200
1.8 - 20
3.5 - 40
3.5 - 40
3.5 - 40
1.8 - 20
3.5 - 40
3.5 - 40
1.8
- 20
3.5 - 40
inorganics
16/16
16/16
4.3 - 5.25
0.23 -
0.50
Range of
Positive
Detections
0.75J -
0.80J
1.9J - 3.4J
0.24J
1.7J
0.38J
0.28J
0.19J -
0.53J
0.51J
0.59J
0.31J
l.OJ
(mg/kg)
9430 -
14100
2.6L - 8.7
Background
Levels <3>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7 - >10 (5.0)
<0.1 - 73
(19.7)
NA
NA
10
-------
Chemical
Barium :
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Frequency
of Detec-
tion^
16/16
12/16
2/16
15/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
5/16
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Linits
0.23 -
0.63
0.23 -
0.25
0.67 -
0.75
2.1 - 6.0
0.71 -
1.25
0.71 -
1.25
0.45 -
0.50
0.95 - 1.5
0.24 -
0.63
5.24 - 6.0
0.23 -
0.25
0.06 -
0.13
Range of
Positive
Detections
15. 9K -
46. 3K
0.25 -
0.59K
0.75K -
0.83K
22.4 - 2470
11.9 - 17.7
4.4 - 15.5
8. IK -
21. 4K
19700 -
25700
10.4 - 28.1
545 - 1150
210 - 1240
0.07 - 0.11
Background
Levels <3>
10 - 1500
(143.1)
<1.0 - 7.0
(1.3)
0.1 - 7.0
0.01 - 28
(0.15)
1 - 1000 (30)
<0.3 - 70 (10)
<1.0 - 700 (15)
0.01 - >10
(1.5)
<10 - 300
(47.1)
0.005 - 5
(0.26)
<2.0 - 7000
(700)
0.01 - 3.4
(0.1)
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
-------
Chemical
Nickel •
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOC
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Frequency
of Detec-
tion^
13/16
16/16
2/16
1/16
16/16
16/16
4/4
1
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
2.26 -
2.50
69.0 - 155
0.45 -
0.50
7.4 - 46.3
0.71 -
1.25
0.90 - 1.0
norganics - '
20.0
10.0
500
5.0
25.0
1.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
6.4 - 25.4
363 - 981
0.62L -
0.80L
452K
13. 1L -
22.1
27.7 - 37.6
0.168 -
1.04
rCLP (ug/L)
622 - 964
151 - 194
614 - 17300
6.5
55.2 - 213
2.2K - 7.3K
Background
Levels <3>
<5.0 - 700 (15)
0.005 - 3.7
(1.1)
<0.01 - 3.9
(0.5)
<0.05 - 5 (0.7)
<7.0 - 300
(40.3)
<5.0 - 2900
(74)
NR
HR
NR
NR •
NR
NR
NR
Regulatory
standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
-------
Chemical
Manganese
Potassium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of Detec-
tion^)
3/3
2/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
2.0
1000
2.0
5.0
10.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
238J -
2690J
1070 - 1700
2.5L - 4.6L
5.2
21.7 - 63.8
Background
Levels (3>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
-------
1 Summary of analytical results for samples RN-GBH-01-2, RN-GBH-02-o, RN-GBH-01-02A,
RN-GBH-03-0, RM-GBH-04-0, RN-GBH-16-0, RN-GBH-15-0, RN-GBH-13-0, RN-GBH-14-0, RN-
GBH-20-0, RN-GBH-21-0, RN-GBH-22-0, RN-GBH-12-0, RN-GBH-06-0, RN-GBH-11-0, RN-GBH-
05-0, RN-GBH-16-0, RN-GBH-17-0, RN-GBH-18-0, RN-GBH-18-2, RN-GBH-19-0, RN-GBH-07-0,
RN-GBH-09-0, RN-GBH-08-0, RN-GBH-10-0. Only results for analytes with at least one
positive detection are reported.
2 Number of positive detections/total number of samples.
3 Regional background levels and arithmetics mean for northeastern Pennsylvania as
reported in Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the
Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. 1984.
The background levels and arithmetic means for aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium are reported as percentages.
4 NR - Background levels not reported.
5 NA - Regulatory standard/guideline not available for this chemical in this matrix.
6 J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
7 K - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to
be lower.
8 L - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to
be higher.
9 Analyzed by Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Positive results are
given in aqueous units (ug/L).
14
-------
Subsurface Soil Contamination
o A total of 22 subsurface soil borings were taken from
various locations both on and off the site to
characterize any contamination which may exist below
the surface area which could: (1) serve as a
contaminant source; (2) migrate into the groundwater;
or (3) be exposed during any type of Site excavation.
Sample locations were selected on the same criteria as
listed above for the surface soil sampling points. A
total of 47 samples taken from various depths ranging
from 4 to 25 feet below the Site surface were taken for
analysis. All 47 samples taken were analyzed for TCL
VOCs with 30 of the samples analyzed for the complete
TAL including metals, pesticides, PCBs and cyanides.
o Subsurface soil contaminants and their maximum
concentrations which were detected at the Site and are
considered contaminants of concern are: Chloroform, 3
ppb; Toluene, 2 ppb; 4-methylphenol, 58 ppb;
Pentachlorophenol, 290 ppb; Endrin aldehyde, 0.93 ppb;
Beta-BHC, 0.71 ppb; Endrin, 0.19 ppb; Heptachlor, 0.33
ppb; Endosulfan I, 0.69 ppb; DDE, 0.75 ppb; DDT, 2.1
ppb; Methoxychlor, 29 ppb; Carbon disulfate, 2.0 ppb;
Total Xylenes, 2 ppb; Gamma-BHC, 2.6 ppb; and Gamma-
chlordane, 0.28 ppb. Inorganic contaminants of concern
detected in the subsurface soils include: Arsenic 8.9
ppb; and Beryllium 0.75 ppb.
A summary of contaminants detected in the subsurface soil
samples and their range of concentrations is shown in Table 2.
15
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES<1>
ROUTE 940 DRUM SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
Chemical
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Toluene
Total xylenes
4-Methyl-2-
pentanone(4)
4 -Methy Ipheno 1
Pentachlorophenol
Gamma -BHC
Endrin aldehyde
4,4' -DDE
Beta-BHC
Endrin
Frequency
of Detec-
tion]2)
1/47
5/47
5/47
1/47
2/6
1/30
1/30
1/30
1/30
5/30
1/30
2/30
Range of
Quantita-
:flOH-fe
Limits
Organios
5.0 - 14.0
5.0 - 14.0
5.0 - 14.0
5.0 - 14.0
10 - 100
350 - 760
870 - 3700
1.7 - 18
3.4 - 36
3.4 - 36
1.7 - 18
3.4 - 36
Range of
Positive
Detections
(ug/kg)
2J
U - 3J
0.6J - 2J
2J
21 - 23
58J
290J
2 . 6 J
0.93J
0.26J - 0.75J
0.71J
0.17J - 0.19J
Background
Levels <3>
NR<5>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA<6>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16
-------
Chemical
Methoxychlor
Gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan I
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Frequency
of Detec-
tion<2>
2/30
2/30
1/30
2/30
2/30
30/30
26/30
30/30
30/30
4/30
22/30
30/30
30/30
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
17 - 180
1.7 - 180
1.7 - 18
3.4 - 36
1.7 - 18
inorganics
4.0 - 5.3
0.21 -
0.49
0.22 -
0.63
0.21 -
0.25
0.64 -
0.76
2.0 - 6.1
0.67 -
1.27
0.67 -
1.27
Range of
Positive
Detections
4.6J - 29J
0.26J - 0.28J
0.33J
0.47J - 2.1J
0.34J - 0.69J
(mg/xg)
7870 - 23100
0.87L - 8.9
15. 5K - 60. OK
0.28 - 0.75K
0.72K - 0.85K
17.1 - 984
8.7 - 18.2
7.2 - 27.7
Background
Levels<3>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.7 - >10
(5.0)
<0.1 - 73
(19.7)
10 - 1500
(143.1)
<1.0 - 7.0
(1.3)
0.01 - 7.0
0.001 - 28
(0.15)
1.0 - 1000
(30)
<0.3 - 70 (10)
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17
-------
Chemical
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Frequency
of Detec-
tion^)
30/30
30/30
29/30
30/30
30/30
2/30
28/30
30/30
1/30
1/30
30/30
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
0.43 -
0.51
0.89 -
1.52
0.22 -
0.64
4.9 - 6.1
0.21 -
0.25
0.05 -
0.12
2.14 -
2.54
64.7 -
157.5
0.43 -
0.51
6.92 - 47
0.67 -
1.27
Range of
Positive
Detections
2.6K - 21. 4K
17700 - 27800
2.9 - 19.2
539 - 2440
360 - 3390
0.11 - 0.13
7.2 - 26.4
571 - 1070
0.53L
52. 7K
10. 3L - 21.4
Background
Levels <3)
<1.0 - 700
(15)
0.01 - >10
(1.5)
<10 - 300
(47.1)
0.005 - 5
(0.26)
<2.0 - 7000
(700)
0.01 - 3.4
(0.1)
<5.0 - 700
(15)
0.005 - 3.7
(1-1)
<0.01 - 3.9
(0.5)
<0.05 - 5.0
(0.7)
<7.0 - 300
(40.3)
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18
-------
Chemical
Zinc :
TOC
Frequency
of Detec-
tion^
30/30
3/6
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
0.86 -
1.02
Range of
Positive
Detections
21.2 - 62.8
0.071 - 0.347
Background
Levels <3>
<5.0 - 2900
(74)
NR
Regulatory
standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
inorganics - TCLP (ug/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Thallium
Zinc
6/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
1/6
5/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
6/6
5/6
6/6
20.0
10.0
500
5.0
5.0
25.0
1.0
500
2.0
20.0
1000
2.0
10.0
808 - 1040
170 - 236
551 - 35200
11.6
80.8
25.8 - 96.1
1.5K - 8.2K
534 - 838
657J - 3440J
; 35.9
1210 - 3520
2.0 - 3.9L
25.5 - 95.3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
-------
1 Summary of analytical results for samples RN-GBH-02-18, RN-GBH-02-8, RN-GBH-01-16,
RN-GBH-01-8, RN-GBH-03-16, RN-GBH-03-10, RN-GBH-04-8, RN-GBH-16-6, RN-GBH-06-14, RN-
GBH-15-8, RN-GBH-15-12, RN-GBH-13-5, RN-GBH-13-5C, RN-GBH-13-10, RN-GBH-14-5, RN-
GBH-14-10, RN-GBH-20-4, RN-GBH-20-10, RN-GBH-20-20, RN-GBH-21-5, RN-GBH-21-12, RN-
GBH-22-10, RN-GBH-12-4, RN-GBH-12-13, RN-GBH-06-8, RN-GBH-11-8, RN-GBH-11-14, RN-
GBH-05-10, RN-GBH-05-18, RN-GBH-16-8, RN-GBH-16-10, RN-GBH-16-18, RN-GBH-17-10, RN-
GBH-17-10A, RN-GBH-17-18, RN-GBH-18-6, RN-GBH-18-14, RN-GBH-19-15, RN-GBH-19-25, RN-
GBH-07-10, RN-GBH-07-15, RN-GBH-09-11, RN-GBH-09-15, RN-GBH-08-8, RN-GBH-08-8A, RN-
GBH-08-15, RN-GBH-10-6, RN-GH-10-14, RN-GBH-15-8, RN-GBH-15-12. Only results for
analytes with at least one positive detection are reported.
2 Number of positive detections/total number of samples.
3 Regional background levels and arithmetic mean for northeastern Pennsylvania as
reported in Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the
Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. 1984.
The background levels and arithmetic means for aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium are reported as percentages.
4 Analyzed by Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
given in aqueous (ug/L) units.
Positive results are
5 NR - Background levels not reported.
6 NA - Regulatory standard/guideline not available for this chemical in this matrix.
7 J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
8 K - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to
be lower.
9 L - Analyte present.
be higher.
Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to
20
-------
Pit Surface Water and Soil Contamination
Both soil and water samples were taken from the three pits:
B, C, and H. The results of that sampling is discussed in the
following:
o A total of five surface water samples were taken from
the three pits combined. One from pit C and two each
from pits B and H. The surface water samples were
analyzed for the complete TAL/TCL.
o The laboratory analysis of the five surface water
samples found that there were no VOCs present at any of
the detection limits. One pesticide, Delta-BHC was
found at a level of 0.12 ppb in one sample. All
inorganics, that were detected exist at levels which
would be considered to be within naturally occurring
background levels.
o A total of 21 soil samples were taken from the three
pits. Seven of the 21 samples were analyzed for full
TCL/TAL and the other 14 were analyzed for TCL (VOA).
o The laboratory analysis of the 21 soils samples found
that there were low level volatile compounds contained
in the samples taken from the pits. The following
compounds were found in the samples taken with their
maximum concentration listed: 1,2-Dichloroethane, 4
ppb; 2-wButanone, 31 ppb; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 5 ppb;
Toluene, 4 ppb; Total Xylenes, 83 ppb; Phenol, 190 ppb;
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, 370 ppb; Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, 410 ppb. None of the compounds
detected at their respective quantities exceeded any
regulatory levels for soils or sediment. Some of the
inorganics which were detected were found at levels
which exceed what could be considered naturally
occurring background levels. Those were; Calcium,
1,260 ppm; Copper, 50,300 ppm; Iron, 39,000 ppm;
Magnesium, 1,730 ppm; and Potassium, 1,560 ppm.
A summary of contaminants detected in the surface water and
soils from the pits and their range of concentrations is shown in
Tables 3 and 4.
21
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
TEST PIT SAMPLES (1)
ROUTE 940 DRUM SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
Range of
Positive
Detections
Background
Levels <3>
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
organioa (ug/kg)
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Toluene
Total xylenes
Phenol
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate
1/22
2/22
1/22
1/22
2/22
1/7
1/7
3/7
6.0 - 9.0
12.0 -
17.0
8.0 - 9.0
6.0 - 9.0
6.0 - 9.0
770 - 1100
3700 -
5500
770 - 1100
4J
9J - 31J
5J
4J
9J - 83
190J
370J
200J -
410J
NR<5>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA<4>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inorganics (ng/kg)
Aluminum
8/8
4.3 - 5.85
10400 -
23800
0.7 - 710 (5.0)
NA
22
-------
Chemical
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium.
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Frequency
of
Detection
8/8
8/8
8/8
1/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
Range of
Quantita-
tion
Limits
0.48 -
0.65
0.24 -
0.33
0.24 -
0.33
0.72 -
0.98
2.15 -
2.93
0.72 -
0.98
0.72 -
0.98
0.59 -
0.81
0.96 - 1.3
0.24 -
0.33
5.3 - 7.2
0.24 -
0.33
Range of
Positive
Detections
6.2J -
13. 4 J
32. 5K -
64. OK
0.36 -
0.78
1.1
209 - 1260
14.8 -
31.7
10.2 -
22.5
22. 7K -
50. 3K
20500 -
39000
13.3 -
30.6
733 - 1730
427 - 1090
Background
Levels <3>
<0.1 - 73
(19.7)
10 - 1500
(143.1)
<1.0 - 7.0
(1.3)
0.01 - 7.0
0.01 - 28
(0.15)
1.0 - 1000 (30)
<0.3 - 70 (10)
<1.0 - 700 (15)
0.01 - >10
(1.5)
<10 - 300
(47.1)
0.005 - 5
(0.26)
<2.0 - 7000
(700)
Regulatory
standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23
-------
Cbemioal
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Frequency
of
Detection
3/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
1/8
Range of
Quant ita-
tion
Limits
0.12 -
0.16
2.4 - 3.3
69.4 -
94.3
0.72 -
0.98
0.96 - 1.3
0.59 -
0.81
Range of
Positive
Detections
0.14 -
0.70
9.4 - 20.2
848K -
1560K
15.4 -
31.9
37L -
86. 1L
1.9
Background
Levels<3>
0.01 - 3.4
(0.1)
<5.0 - 700 (15)
0.005 - 3.7
(1.1)
<7.0 - 300
(40.3)
<5.0 - 2900
(74)
MR
Regulatory
Standards
or
Guidelines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
-------
1 Summary of analytical results for samples RN-GEX-01-0, RN-GEX-01-1, RN-GEX-01-2, RN-
GEX-01-3, RN-GEX-01-4, RN-GEX-02-0, RN-GEX-02-1, RN-GEX-02-1A, RN-GEX-02-2, RN-GEX-
02-3, RN-GEX-02-4, RN-GEX-03-2-01, RN-GEX-03-2-02, RN-GEX-03-2-03, RN-GEX-03-2-04,
RN-GEX-03-0-01, RN-GEX-03-0-02, RN-GEX-03-0-03, RN-GEX-03-1-01A, RN-GEX-03-1-02, RN-
GEX-03-1-03, RN-GEX-03-1-04, RN-GEX-03-1-01. Only results for analytes with at
least one positive detection are reported.
2 Number of positive detections/total number of samples.
3 Regional background levels and arithmetic mean for northeastern Pennsylvania as
reported in Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the
Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. 1984.
The background levels and arithmetic means for aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium are reported as percentages.
4 NA - Regulatory standard/guideline not available for this chemical in this matrix.
5 NR - Background levels not reported.
6 J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
7 K - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to
be lower.
8 L - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to
be higher.
25
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SURFACE WATER SAMPLES0'
ROUTE 940 DRUM SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
Cheaical
Frequency of
Detection"'
Range of
Quantitation
Limit*
Range of
Positive
Detections
Background
Levels«>
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines"'
Organic* (ug/L)
Delta-BHC
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganeae
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
1/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
S/5
5/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
1/5
4/5
0.05
Inorganic! •
18.0
l.Q
9.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
22.0
1.0
10.0
290.0
31.0
2.0
3.0
0.12
NR<5>
NA<6>
- Total (ug/L)
555 - 11200
4.6 - 36.9
3190 - 13400
8.8 - 13.8
33.7 - 60.8
1210 - 15200
3.1 - 22.2
250 - 1200
85.3 - 446
15.4 - 81.1
859 - 3040
394J - 2770J
2.1
8.1 - 14.0
<5.0 - 1000
10 - 500
1000 - 150000
<1.0 - 5.0
<1.0 - 30
10 - 10000
<15
1000 - 50000
<1.0 - 1000
<10 - 50
1000 - 10000
500 - 120000
NR
<1.0 - 10
NA
NA
NA
33000/1700
1300/18
NA
50/82
NA
NA
610/1400
NA
NA
1.7/NA
NA
26
-------
Chemical
Zinc
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Frequency of
Detection*2'
5/5
3/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
Range of
Quantitation
Limits
4.0
Inorganic* - 1
18.0
2.0
1.0
9.0
4.0
22.0
1.0
290.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
27.1 - 126
dissolved (ug/L)
133 - 258
2.3
46. OJ - 92. 9 J
3050 - 11900
162 - 450
245 - 609
4.4 - 37.9
555 - 1680
Background
<10 - 2000
<5.0 - 1000
<1.0 - 3.0
10 - 500
1000 - 150000
10 - 10000
1000 - 50000
<1.0 - 1000
1000 - 10000
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines"1
NA/120
NA
0.018/360
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27
-------
l Summary of analytical results for samples RN-GSW-oi, RN-GSW-02, RN-GSW-03-i, RN-GSW-
03-2, and RN-GSW-03-2A. Only results for analytes with at least one positive
detection are reported.
2 Number of positive detections/total number of samples.
3 Regional background levels as reported in The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials.
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. 1988.
4 Regulatory standards and/or guidelines as reported in Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1991. Reported
as Ambient Hater Quality Criteria for: protection of human health/protection of
aquatic organisms.
5 NR - Background levels not reported.
6 NA - Regulatory standard/guideline not available for this chemical in this matrix.
7 J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
28
-------
Ground Water Contamination
The deep and shallow monitoring wells at the Site shown
on Figure 4 were sampled on three different occasions
during the RI. The first sampling event occurred
during a preliminary hazardous substance inventory
("HSI") which was done in order to identify
contaminants of concern prior to installation of
additional wells and a full round of sampling. This
round was completed in December 1990. Three existing
wells MW-1, MW-4, and MW-5 were selected as sampling
wells since they had historically exhibited the highest
concentration of volatile contaminants. The three
samples were all submitted for full TCL/TAL analysis
including total and dissolved metals, pesticides, PCBs,
and cyanides.
A review of the results from the HSI sampling indicated
that there were no VOC's present above a level of
concern, however, due to detection of Vinyl Chloride
during a soil gas investigation a second round of
sampling was done using Method 524 to analyze the
samples. Method 524 has a lower detection limit for
vinyl chloride than Method 601/602, which was used
during the initial sampling round. MW-1, MW-3, MW-4,
and MW-ll were sampled during this second round. These
samples were taken from March 27, 1991 to April 2,
1991.
A final and comprehensive round of groundwater sampling
of both existing and new wells took place between April
29, 1992 and May 7, 1992. A total of 25 samples were
taken from the shallow and deep monitoring wells. The
samples were analyzed for the full TAL/TCL including
total and dissolved metals, pesticides, PCBs, and
cyanide.
The analysis of the monitoring well samples was broken
down into two groupings so as to examine the shallow
bedrock aquifer and the intermediate/deep aquifer. The
laboratory analysis results of the deeper aquifer will
be discussed in the next section. A total of 18
samples including duplicates were taken from the
shallow bedrock wells, numbers MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4,
MW-5, MW-8A, MW-10A, MW-12A, MW-14A, MW-15A, and MW-
16A, and were analyzed for the complete TCL with 14 of
the 18 samples being analyzed for total and dissolved
metals, pesticides, PCB's and cyanide. The results of
the TCL analysis detected 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in 5 of
the 18 samples in concentrations ranging from 0.5 -
2.0 ppb, 1,1-Dichloroethane in 1 sample at a
29
-------
FIGURE 3
Shallow Monitoring Wells
Inorganic Chemicals of Concern
ROUTE 940 SUPERFUND SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PA
-------
FIGURE 4
Deep Monitoring Wells
Inorganic Chemicals of Concern
ROUTE 940 SUPERFUND SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PA
200
100
409
500
-------
FIGURE 5
Private Well
Inorganic Chemicals
of Concern
ROUTE 940
SUPERFUND SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PA
•
I
Wr IN MM INI In* Ml I
" " ' 1*MhH BMH " ~
iMi Nm
-------
concentration of 0.6 ppb, Cis-l,2-dichloroethene in 2
samples at a concentration ranging from 0.5 - 2.0 ppb,
Trichloroethene in 10 samples ranging in concentration
of 0.3 - 4.0 ppb, Total Xylenes in 1 sample at a
concentration of 1.0 ppb and Dimethylphthalate in 2
samples ranging in concentration from 5.0 - 32 ppb.
For total metals, (samples which are unfiltered prior
to analysis) some of the samples had concentrations
which exceeded levels which would normally be
considered maximum background levels. Those metals
with the maximum concentration found in any one sample
were: Aluminum, 64,000 ppb; Arsenic, 9.0 ppb; Barium,
531 ppb; Cadmium, 8.1 ppb; Chromium, 97.5 ppb; Cobalt,
159 ppb; Copper, 449 ppb; Iron, 122,000 ppb; Lead, 366
ppb; Manganese, 24,000 ppb; and Nickel, 150 ppb. For
dissolved metals, (samples that are filtered prior to
analysis) Manganese at 12,100 ppb was found at a level
higher than would be expected for background
conditions.
A total of 7 samples including duplicates from the deep
bedrock wells, numbers MW-6, MW-7, MW-9, MW-11, MW-13,
MW-16B, and MW-16C, were analyzed for the complete TCL
with 6 samples being analyzed for the complete TAL
including total and dissolved metals, pesticides, PCBs
and cyanides. The Volatile 1,1,1-Trichloroethane was
found in all samples with concentrations ranging from
0.65 - 1.0 ppb. Also found were Cis-l,2-dichloroethene
in 5 samples in concentrations ranging from 0.7 -2.0
ppb, Trichloroethene* in six samples ranging from 0.6 -
4 ppb, and Toluene in 1 sample at a concentration of
0.6 ppb. For total metals, (samples which are
unfiltered prior to analysis) some of the samples had
concentrations which exceeded levels which would
normally be considered maximum background levels.
Those metals with the maximum concentration found in
any one sample were: Aluminum, 1,690 ppb; Arsenic, 15.0
ppb; Cadmium, 2.4 ppb; Chromium, 12.1 ppb; Iron, 82,200
ppb; Lead, 21.7 ppb; Manganese, 1,200 ppb; and Nickel,
150 ppb. For dissolved metals, (samples that are
filtered prior to analysis), there were no samples
which exceeded any level which would be considered
above a background level.
A total of 10 residential wells were sampled as part of
the RI. The wells selected were wells which had
previously been sampled by BCM in 1987 in addition to
three additional wells of citizens who reside near the
Site and had requested that sampling be done. The
30
-------
veils selected were located upgradient cross-gradient
and downgradient of the Site. The residential well
locations closest to the Site are shown on Figure 5. A
total of 11 samples were taken from the wells. Both
total and dissolved metal analyses were done on all
samples in addition to full TCL VOC analysis.
o The analysis of the residential wells found that in 7
of the samples 1,1,1 Trichloroethane was present in a
range of 0.8 - 3.0 ppb. This amount is well below the
established Maximum Contaminant Limit of 200 ppb as
established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
§S 300f-300j . The analysis also found that several of
the residential wells have total metals exceeding what
would normally be considered background levels. Those
metals with their maximum concentration are: Copper,
459 ppb; and Manganese, 1110 ppb. Neither of these
metals has any applicable health-based levels which
apply. For dissolved metals, the same two metals
Copper, 488 ppb, and Manganese 1,240 exceeded the
expected maximum background levels. It should be noted
that Thallium, another metal, was found in wells
upgradient and downgradient of the Site at 1.0 ppb in
both the total and dissolved phases analysis and while
there is no background level reported for Thallium for
this region, there is a proposed Federal Maximum
Contaminant Limit ("MCL" of 2 ppb for Thallium under
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
A summary of contaminants detected and their range of
concentrations found in the ground water samples is shown in
Tables 5-7. Figure 3 shows the levels of inorganic chemicals
found in the various shallow monitoring wells. Figure 4 shows
the levels of inorganic chemicals in the deep monitoring wells.
Figure 5 shows the levels of inorganic chemicals found in the
residential wells.
31
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL SAMPLES(1)
ROUTE 940 DRUM SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
Chemical
Frequency of
Detection
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Cis-1 , 2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Total xylenee
oimethylphthalate
5/18
1/18
2/18
10/18
1/18
2/14
Range of
Quantitation
Limits
Range of
Positive
Detections
Organics (ug/L)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.10.0
0.5J - 2.0
0.6J
0.5J - 2.0
0.3J - 4
1.0
5.0J - 32
Background
Levels'3*
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines'4'
NR<5>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
200
NA<6>
70
5
10000
NA
Inorganics - Total (ug/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
cobalt
Copper
iron
14/14
3/14
5/14
14/14
7/14
2/14
14/14
10/14
11/14
6/14
14/14
11.0 - 18.0
6.0 - 22.0
2.0
1.0 - 2.0
1.0
2.0 - 3.0
6.0 - 9.0
3.0
3.0
2.0 - 11.0
4.0 - 7.0
228 - 64000
180K - 205K
2.5 - 9.0
10.1 - 531K
;i.6 - 6.3K
3.4 - 8.1
2350 - 32400
3.1 - 97.5
3.2 - 159
30.4 - 449K
334 - 122000
<5.0 - 1000
NR
<1.0 - 3.0
10 - 500
<10
<1.0
1000 - 150000
<1.0 - 5.0
<10
<1.0 - 30
10 - 10000
NA
10
50
2000
1
5
NA
100
NA
NA
NA
32
-------
Chemical
Lead
Magnesium ;
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
10/14
14/14
14/14
3/14
9/14
11/14
2/14
14/14
11/14
9/14
Range of
Quant it at ion
Limit*
1.0
9.0 - 22.0
1.0
0.2
3.0 - 10.0
60.0 - 290.0
2.0 - 4.0
13.0 - 31.0
2.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 4.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
1.1J - 366J
830 - 24100
61.3 - 24400L
0.23 - 0.44
7.9 - 150K
650 - 7650
2.4L - 3.0
3160 - 19300
2.3 - 90K
14.9 - 383
Background
<15
1000 - 50000
<1.0 - 1000
<1.0
<10 - 50
1000 - 10000
<5.0
500 - 120000
<1.0 - 10
<10 - 2000
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines"'
15
NA
NA
2
100
NA
200
NA
110
9000
Inorganic* - Dissolved (ug/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
2/14
9/14
14/14
3/14
4/14
14/14
13/14
5/14
8/14
14/14
11.0 - 18.0
1.0 - 2.0
6.0 - 9.0
3.0
4.0 - 7.0
9.0 - 22.0
1.0
3.0 - 10.0
60.0 - 290.0
13.0 - 31.0
23.6 - 24.9
37.1 - 124
2580 - 17800
6.3 - 8.6
48.8 - 117
787 - 2400
60. 5 J - 12100
3.0 - 8.6
433 - 1720
3680 - 22000
<5.0 - 1000
10 - 500
1000 - 150000
<10
10 - 10000
1000 - 50000
<1.0 - 1000
<10 - 50
1000 - 10000
500 - 120000
NA
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
33
-------
Chenical
Thallium
zinc
Frequency of
Detection
1/14
9/14
Range of
Quantisation
Limit*
1.0 - 2.0
3.0 - 4.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
2.2
22.6 - 51.0
Background
Levels"'
NR
<10 - 2000
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines*4'
2
9000
1 Summary of analytical results for samples RN-GMW-08A-21, RN-GMW-15A-35, RN-GMW-12A-62, RN-GMW-14A-13,
RN-GMW-10A-62, RN-GMW-01-19, RN-GMW-04-17, RN-GMW-04-17A, RN-GMW-02-18, RN-GMW-05-21, RN-GMW-03-15,
RN^GKW-16A-36, RN-GMW-16A-36A, RN-GMW-16B-11^ RN-GMW-1, RN-GMW-1A, RN-GMW-3, and RN-GMW-4. Only
results for analytes with /it;!least on6 positive detection are reported.
2 Number of positive detections/total number of samples.
3 Regional background levels as reported in The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials.
Materials Control Research Institute. 1988.
Hazardous
4 Regulatory standards and/or guidelines as reported in Drinking Water Regulations and Health
Advisories. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1991.
5 NR - Background levels not reported.
6 NA - Regulatory standard/guideline not available for this chemical in this matrix
7 J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
8 K - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.
9 L - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.
34
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OP ANALYTICAL RESULTS
DEEP MONITORIMO WELLS*1'
ROUTE 940 DRUM SITE
POCOMO SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
ChMical
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Cia-1, 2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Frequency of
Detection*21
Range of
Quantitation
Limits
Range of
Positive
Detections
Background
Levels"'
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines"'
Organic* (ug/L)
7/7
5/7
6/7
1/7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.65J - 1.0
0.7J - 2.0
0.6J - 4
0.6J
NR<5>
NR
NR
NR
200
70
5
1000
Inorganics - Total (ug/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
6/6
1/6
1/6
5/6
1/6
6/6
1/6
2/6
2/6
6/61
4/6
11.0 - 18.0
6.0 - 22.0
2.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 3.0
6.0 - 9.0
3.0
3.0
2.0 - 11.0
4.0 - 7.0
1.0
115 - 1690
23.2
15.0
14.9 - 87.5
2.4
_^270 - 37600
12.1
3.9 - 5.1
12.9 - 14.5
792 - 82200
1.1J - 21. 7 J
<5. 0-1000
NR
<1.0 - 3.0
10 - 500
<1.0
1000 - 150000
<1.0 - 5.0
<10
<1.0 - 30
10 - 10000
<15
NA<6>
10
50
2000
5
NA
100
NA
NA
NA
15
35
-------
Chemical
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection'2'
6/6
6/6
3/6
4/6
6/6
3/6
4/6
Range of
Quantisation
Limits
9.0 - 22.0
1.0
3.0 - 10.0
60.0 - 290.0
13.0 - 31.0
2.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 4.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
1620 - 4350
148L - 1200L
6.9 - 16.3
613 - 1070
4870 - 21300
2.5 - 9.3
19.1 - 194
Background
Levels'3*
1000 - 50000
<1.0 - 1000
<10 - 50
1000 - 10000
500 - 120000
<1.0 - 10
<10 - 2000
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines"*
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
110
9000
Inorganic! - Dissolved (ug/L)
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
3/6
6/6
2/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
3/6
5/6
3/6
1.0 - 2.0
6.0 - 9.0
4.0 - 7.0
9.0 - 22.0
1.0
3.0 - 10.0
60.0 - 290.0
13.0 - 31.0
3.0 - 4.0
19.1 - 126
4220 - 36700
131 - 1090
1380 - 4140
39.5 - 468 J
4.1
497 - 935
7050 - 23000
60.8 - 182
10 - 500
1000 - 150000
10 - 10000
1000 - 50000
<1.0 - 1000
<10 - 50
1000 - 10000
500 - 120000
<10 - 2000
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
NA
NA
9000
36
-------
1 Summary of analytical results for samples RN-GMW-06-47, RN-GMW-li-29, RN-GMW-13-48,
RN-GMW-09-28, RN-GMW-07-51, RN-GMW-16C-187, and RN-GMW-11. Only results for
analytes with at least one positive detection are reported.
2 Number of positive detections/total number of samples.
3 Regional background levels as reported in The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials.
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. 1988.
4 Regulatory standards and/or guidelines as reported in Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1991.
5 NR - Background levels not reported.
6 NA - Regulatory standard/guideline not available for this chemical in this matrix.
7 J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
8 K - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to
be lower.
9 L - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to
be higher.
37
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OP ANALYTICAL RESULTS
RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLES"*
ROUTE 940 DRUM SITE
POCONO SUMMIT, PENNSYLVANIA
Cheaieal
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection"*
7/11
1/11
7/11
11/11
1/11
9/11
5/11
8/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
3/11
5/11
Range of
Quantitation
Limits
Range of
Positive
Detections
Background
Levels"*
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines'4*
Organic* (ug/L)
1.0
0.8J-3.0
Inorganics - Total (ug/L)
11.0
2.0
6.0
3.0
11.0
7.0
1.0
9.0
1.0
60.0
13.0
1.0
2.0
330
15.1-83.1
2060-22500
6.5
14.9-459
371K-2230K
2.3-7.5
1350-2320
2.8-1110
378-1800
5310-76200
l.OL
27.4-1390
NR<5>
200
<5.0 - 1000
10 - 500
1000 - 150000
<10
<1.0 - 30
10 - 10000
<15
1000 - 50000
<1.0 - 1000
1000 - 10000
500 - 120000
NR
<10 - 2000
NA<»
2000
NA
HA
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
HA
NA
2.0
9000
Inorganics - Dissolved (ug/L)
38
-------
Cheaical
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection"1
1/11
7/11
11/11
1/11
9/11
3/11
5/11
11/11
11/11
2/11
10/11
11/11
4/11
3/11
Range of
Quantitation
Limits
11.0
2.0
6.0
3.0
11.0
7.0
1.0
9.0
1.0
0.2
60.00
13.0
1.0
2.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
398
29.6-62.6
2090-23200
7.3
14.7-448
271-488
1.6-5.7
1450-2400
2.5-1240
0.29L-0.31L
397-1900
5150-81300
1.0-l.OL
42.6-1340
Background
Levels"'
<5.0 - 1000
10 - 500
1000 - 150000
<10
<1.0-30
10 - 10000
<15
1000 - SOOOO
<1.0 - 1000
<1.0
1000 - 10000
500-120000
NR
<10-2000
Regulatory
Standards or
Guidelines"'
NA
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
NA
2.0
NA
NA
2.0
9000
39
-------
l summary of analytical results for samples RN-GRW-01, RN-GRW-02, RN-GRW-03-i, RN-GRW-
04, RN-GRW-05, RN-GRW-06, RN-GRW-06A, RN-GRW-07, RN-GRW-08, RN-GRW-09, and RN-GRW-
10. Only results for analytes with at least one positive detection are reported.
2 Number of positive detections/total number of samples.
3 Regional background levels as reported in The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials.
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. 1988.
4 Regulatory standards and/or guidelines as reported in Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1991. Reported
as Ambient Water Quality Criteria for: protection of human health/protection of
aquatic organisms.
5 NR - Background levels not reported.
6 NA -, Regulatory standard/guideline not available for this chemical in this matrix.
7 J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
8 K - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to
be lower.
9 L - Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to
be higher.
40
-------
Contamination Migration Paths
Based on the information developed during the RI, it can be
stated that the previously known Site contaminants have been
reduced to levels which do not pose any significant adverse
health effects. Therefore, while the ground water would be a
potential pathway for contamination migration, the level of
residual contaminants remaining within the soils and ground water
media are not considered significant enough that their migration
would pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Estimated Contaminant Quantity
Based on an analysis of historical photographs of the Site,
it was estimated that approximately 600 drums of unknown origin
and content at one time occupied the Site. As the majority of
these drums were removed prior to EPA and PADER involvement at
the Site, their contents and total volume was never determined.
The remaining crushed drums that were found later on the Site by
EPA and PADER did not provide any information as to their
contents. Based on the analysis of the contaminants which were
found in the soils and ground water, it can only be surmised that
the drums housed some type of materials containing various VOCs.
The amount of contaminated soil caused by the leaking and crushed
drums cannot be determined with certainty because a majority of
the soil estimated at 300 tons was removed prior to the RI/RA.
The onsite shredded soil piles, consisting of approximately 4,000
cubic yards, were likely contaminated with the same chemicals as
the soils removed from the Site. Based on the results of the RI,
the remaining soils on the Site are not contaminated to any
significant level.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A. Human Health Effects of Site Contamination
As part of the RI performed for the Route 940 Drum Dump
Site, an RA was conducted to evaluate the potential impacts of
the Site on human health and the environment. In the RA, a set
of chemicals of potential concern were selected for detailed
evaluation based on the RI sampling results. Contaminants of
concern were selected separately for three environmental media;
ground water, surface water, and soil.
The RA then evaluated the potential human health risks
associated with exposure to these chemicals of concern for each
media.
41
-------
Exposure Analysis
Exposure pathways considered for the purpose of evaluating
Site risks include: (1) incidental ingestion and dermal
absorption from direct contact with contaminated surface soils;
and (2) future consumption of contaminated ground water which may
be utilized as a potable supply. Other potential pathways of
exposure such as inhalation of organics during showering or
washing were found to have very low levels of contaminants which
would not pose a threat to human health at any time period.
The next step in the exposure analysis process involved
quantification of the magnitude, frequency and duration of
exposure for the populations, and exposure pathways selected for
evaluation. Generally, exposure point concentrations of
chemicals of concern were based upon the 95 percent upper
confidence limit of the average, so as to produce an estimate of
reasonable maximum exposure (RME). Intake factors (e.g., amount
of soil ingestion, rate of dermal contact, exposure frequency,
and duration) were selected in accordance with EPA risk
assessment guidance so that the combination of all variables
conservatively results in the maximum exposure that can be
reasonably expected to occur at the Site.
Toxicity and Risk Characterization
Projected intakes for each risk scenario and each chemical
were then compared to acceptable intake levels for carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic effects. With respect to projected intake
levels for non-carcinogenic compounds, a comparison was made to
risk reference doses (RfDs). RfDs have been developed by EPA for
chronic (e.g. lifetime) and/or- subchronic (less than lifetime)
exposure to chemicals based on an estimate that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects. The chronic
RfD for a chemical is an estimate of an acceptable lifetime daily
exposure level for the human population, including sensitive
subpopulations, without an appreciable risk of deleterious
effects. The potential for non-cancer health effects is
evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified time
period with the RfD derived by the EPA for a similar exposure
period. This ratio of exposure is called the hazard quotient.
The non-cancer hazard quotient assumes that there is a
threshold level of exposure (i.e. RfD) below which it is unlikely
for even the most sensitive populations to experience adverse
health effects. If the exposure level exceeds the threshold,
(i.e., the hazard quotient exceeds a value greater than 1.0)
there may be concern for potential non-cancer health effects.
The more the value of the hazard quotient exceeds one, the
greater the level of concern for potential health impacts.
To assess the overall potential for non-cancer effects posed
42
-------
by multiple chemicals, a Hazard Index (HI) is derived by summing
•the individual hazard quotients. This approach assumes
additivity of critical effects of multiple chemicals. This is
appropriate for compounds that induce the same effect by the same
mechanism of action. EPA considers any HI exceeding one to be an
unacceptable risk to human health.
For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental
probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as
a result of exposure to a potential human carcinogen. The EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group has developed carcinogen potency
factors (CPFs) for suspected and known human carcinogens which
are used to convert daily intake averaged over a lifetime of
exposure directly to incremental risk. The CPF is generally
expressed in units of risk per milligram chemical per kilogram
body weight per day of exposure (i.e., risk units per mg/kg/day).
The CPF or slope factor is the upper 95th percentile confidence
limit of the extrapolation (slope) from high-dosed animal data to
very much lower doses in humans. The use of the upper limit
produces a risk estimate that has a 95 percent probability of
exceeding the actual risk, which may actually be zero. For
exposure to multiple carcinogens, the upper limits of cancer risk
are summed to derive a total cancer risk. Cancer risks beyond
the generally acceptable risk range of 1 X 10E-4 to 1 X 10E-6
(i.e. a 1.0 X 10E-6 level indicates one additional chance in
1,000,000 that an individual will develop cancer) are considered
an unacceptable risk to human health.
In the baseline RA, the following exposure scenarios were
considered; ingestion of chemicals in drinking water; dermal
contact with chemicals in water during bathing; inhalation of
volatile chemicals while showering or bathing; and ingestion of,
or dermal contact with chemicals in soil.
Contaminants of concern for residential well water include
the following metals: barium; cobalt; copper; manganese;
thallium; and zinc. The only organic contaminant of concern
identified for the residential well water was 1,1,1-
trichloroethane. Contaminants of concern in the monitoring well
water include the same metals as in the residential well water
and the following organics: 1,1,1-trichloroethane; cis-1,2,-
dichloroethene; trichloroethene; toluene; and total xylenes.
Contaminants of concern for the onsite soils at the Site
include the metals: aluminum; arsenic; barium; beryllium;
cadmium; chromium; cobalt; copper; manganese; selenium; vanadium;
and zinc. The following organics and pesticides are contaminants
of concern for onsite soils: chloroform; pentachlorophenol;
toluene; 4-methylphenol; endrin; endrin aldehyde; endosulfan I;
endosulfan sulfate; dieldrin; alpha-BHC; beta-BHC; gamma BHC;
heptachlor; heptachlor epoxide; dieldrin; DDE; DDT; gamma
chlordane; and alpha chlordane.
43
-------
The following summarizes the risk evaluation for the various
exposure pathways that were done. It was determined that
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with groundwater, and
ingestion and dermal contact with Site soils are the only
pathways where significant exposure could occur. These tables
show, for the groundwater and soils media, population targeted,
and the chemicals of concern (chemicals which posed an increased
cancer risk of 10E-6 or greater or an individual hazard index
greater than 1) , their RME which is the upper 95th percentile
confidence interval (CI) of their average concentration, the base
risk posed by the chemicals of concern, a clean-up level (based
on a health-based standard) and the residual risk level remaining
after attaining that clean-up level.
Media/Population: Suxfieial Soils/Adults
Concentration i
Chemical Units/Basis*
mg/kg
Arsenic RME 6.54
Beryllium RME 0.42
n Base Risk/ Clean-up <
HI Level
8.41E-6 N/A1
1.34E-6 N/A1
Slean-up Risk/
HI
N/A2
N/A2
a/ RME - 95% CI of the mean unknown.
I/ No clean level exists for this contaminant in soils.
2/ No clean-up level residual risk determined as no clean-up
level designated.
Media/Population: Surficial soils/Children
Concentration in Base Risk/
Chemical Units/Basis* HI
mg/kg
Arsenic
Beryllium
RME 6.54
RME 0.42
1.35E-5
2.15E-6
Clean-up Clean-up .Risk/
Level HI
N/A1
N/A1
N/A2
N/A2
a/ RME = 95% CI of the mean unknown.
I/ No clean level exists for this contaminant in soils.
2/ No clean-up level residual risk determined as no clean-up
level designated.
Media/Population: Subsurface Soils/Adults
Concentration in Base Risk/ Clean-up Clean-up Risk/
Chemical Units/Basis' HI Level HI
mg/kg mg/kg
Arsenic RME 7.93 1.06E-5 N/A1 N/A2
Berylium RME 0.59 1.88E-6 N/A1 N/A2
44
-------
a/ RME = 95% CI of the mean unknown.
I/ No clean level exists for this contaminant in soils.
2/ No clean-up level residual risk determined as no clean-up
level designated.
Media/Population: Subsurface Soils/Children
Chemical
Arsenic
Beryl ium
Concentration in
Units/Basis*
mg/kg
RME 7.93
RME 0.59
Base Risk/
HI
1.70E-5
3.01E-6
Clean-up <
Level
*g/*g
N/A1
N/A1
3 lean-up Risk/
HI
N/A*
N/A2
a/ RME = 95% CI of the mean unknown.
I/ No clean level exists for this contaminant in soils.
2/ No clean-up level residual risk determined as no clean-up
level designated.
Media/Population: Groundvater /Monitor ing Wells/ Adults
Chemical
Manganese
Concentration in
Units/Basis*
ug/kg
RME^i2 , 100
Base Risk/
HI
3.32
Clean-up
Level"
N/A1
Clean-up Risk/
HI
N/A2
a/ RME = 95% CI of the mean unknown.
I/ No clean level exists for this contaminant in groundwater.
2/ No clean-up level residual risk determined as no clean-up
level designated.
Media/Population: Groundvater/Monitoring Wells/Children
Concentration in Base Risk/ Clean-up Clean-up Risk/
Chemical Units/Basis' HI Level HI
ug/kg
Manganese RME 12,100 15.5 N/A1
Thallium RME 2.2 3.52 2.03
N/A2
N/A4
a/ RME = 95% CI of the mean unknown.
I/ No clean level exists for this contaminant in groundwater.
2/ No clean-up level residual risk determined as no clean-up
level designated.
3/ Proposed MCL
4/ No clean-up level determined as RME less than clean-up level.
45
-------
Media/Population: Groundvater/Residential Wells/children
Concentration in Base Risk/ Clean-up Clean-up Risk/
Chemical
Copper
Manganese
Thallium
Units/Basis*
ug/kg
RME 218.94
RME 419.09
RME 0.75
HI
1.2
Level
»g/*g
N/A*
N/Aj
2.03
HI
N/A*
N/A*
N/A4
a/ RME = 95% CI of the mean unknown.
I/ No clean level exists for this contaminant in groundwater.
2/ No clean-up level residual risk determined as no clean-up
level designated.
3/ Proposed MCL
4/ No clean-up level determined as RME less than clean-up level.
It was found during the RA that the HI exceeded 1.0 for
several exposure scenarios. The majority of these occurrences
were for ingestion of groundwater either from a Site monitoring
well or residential wells. The reason for the HI exceeding 1.0
in all of the exposure scenarios was caused by the naturally
occurring elements: copper, manganese and thallium which were
found in the groundwater from wells located on the Site,
upgradient, crossgradient and downgradient from the Site. Even
wells which were located a minimum of one-half mile upgradient
from the Site show the same levels of these compounds existing in
the groundwater. The review of the available data indicates that
the background levels for these compounds are normal for this
geographical region.
In calculating the risks at the Site, the exposures
evaluated assume more extensive contact with the Site
contaminants than is currently occurring, or is likely to occur
in the future, and as such are conservative.
The following tables, numbers 8-11, summarize the various
risk scenarios and the total risk number associated with each
exposure scenario. Based on the baseline risk assessment, there
is no exposure scenario which would pose an increased cancer risk
above a 1 X 10E-4 risk factor. (This is the level of increased
cancer risk which EPA considers to be unacceptable and would
therefore warrant some type of remediation to lower or eliminate
the risk posed). The total increased risk for cancer for an
adult exposed to surface soils and groundwater from the
monitoring wells is 1.18 X 10E-5, which is an acceptable risk
level. For children the same exposure scenario poses a risk of
1.69 x 10E-5. The total lifetime exposure cancer risk is 2.44 X
10E-5. For non-carcinogenic risks, there are no health hazard
indices above 1.0 for any exposure scenarios involving Site
soils. For groundwater however, the health hazard index exceeds
46
-------
TABLE 8
Risk Summaiy Tabta
TOTAL RISKS AT THE ROUTE 940 DRUM DUMP SITE
FUTURE USE SCENARIO
NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
ADULTS CHILDREN LIFETIME SEGMENT
INORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 7.02E-02 5.63E-01 6.19E-01
ORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 3J9E-03 Z87E-02 3.16E-02
SURFACE SOILS TOTAL 738E-02 5.92E-01 6J1E-01
MW INORGANIC TOTAL 4.17E+00 1.95E+01 N/A
MW ORGANIC TOTAL 1.15E-02 Z57E-02 N/A
MONITORING WELLS 4.18E+00 1.95E+01 N/A
TOTAL 4.26E+00 2.01E+01 6.51E-01
CURRENT USE SCENARIO
NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
ADULTS CHILDREN LIFETIME SEGMENT
INORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 2.40E-03 1.93E-02 2.12E-02
ORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 1.23E-04 9.84E-04 1.08E-03
SURFACE SOILS TOTAL Z52E-03 2.03E-02 Z23E-02
MW INORGANIC TOTAL 4.17E+00 1.95E+01 N/A
MW ORGANIC TOTAL 1.15E-02 157E-02 N/A
MONITORING WELLS 4.18E+00 1.95E+01 N/A
TOTAL 4.18E+00 1.9SE+01 i23E-02
FUTURE USE SCENARIO
CARCINOGENIC RISK
ADULTS CHILDREN LIFETIME SEGMENT
INORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 9.75E-06 1-S7E-OS 135E-05
ORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 374E-07 5.97E-07 8.97E-07
SURFACE SOO^ TOTAL 1.01E4B 1.63E-05 2.44E-05
MW INORGANIC TOTAL 1.66E-06 6J2E-07 N/A
MW ORGANIC TOTAL N/A N/A N/A
MONITORING WELLS 1.66E-06 6J2E-07 N/A
TOTAL 1.18E-05 1.WE-OS 2.44E-05
CURRENT USE SCENARIO
CARCINOGENIC RISK
ADULTS CHILDREN LIFETIME SEGMENT
INORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 335E-07 535E-07 8.03E-07
ORGANIC SOILS TOTAL 1.28E-08 105E-06 3.07E-08
SURFACE SOILS TOTAL 3.48EXT7 5J6E-07 834E4T7
MW INORGANIC TOTAL 1.66E-06 6.52E-07 N/A
MW ORGANIC TOTAL N/A N/A N/A
MONITORING WELLS 1.66E-06 6J2E4T7 N/A
TOTAL 2.01E-06 1^1E-06 834EX»7
47
-------
PATHWAY SUMMARY TABLES
RESIDENTIAL WELLS
CURRENT AND FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
1NCIDENTIAL INOESTION
GRW-1
GRW-2
TABLE 9
GRW-3
ORW4
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
ADULTS
9.52E-01
1.52E-05
CHILDREN ADULTS
CHILDREN ADULTS
CHILDREN ADULTS
4.46E+00
7.10E-03
TOTAL 9.52E-01 4.46E+00
INHALATION DURING SHOWERING AND BATHING
GRW-1
2.67E-01
3.04E-04
2.67E-01
GRW-2
1.25E+00
1.42E-03
1.25B+00
3.03E-01
3.04E-04
3.05E-01
GRW-3
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
TOTAL
ADULTS
N/A
Z81E-OS
2.81E-05
CHILDREN
N/A
187B-OS
2.87E-05
ADULTS CHILDREN ADULTS
N/A N/A N/A
5.62E-04 5.7SE-04 S.62E-04
DERMAL CONTACT DURING BATIiING (CHILDREN)
GRW-1
5.62E-04
GRW-2
5.75E-04
5.62E-04
1.43E+00
1.42E-03
1.43E+00
CHILDREN
N/A
5.7SE-04
5.75E-04
GRW-3
2.89E-01
9.13E-04
2.90E-01
GRW-4
ADULTS
N/A
1.68E-03
1.68E-03
GRW-4
CHILDREN
1.35E+00
4.26E-03
1.35E+00
CHILDREN
N/A
1.72E-03
1.72E-03
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
ADULTS CHILDREN ADULTS CHILDREN ADULTS
TOTAL
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.85E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.97E-03
N/A
N/A
O.OOE+00 9.85E-05 O.OOE+00 1.97E-03 . O.OOE+00
COMBINED NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR RESIDENTIAL WELLS
GRW-1 GRW-2
ADULTS CHILDREN ADULTS CHILDREN ADULTS
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 9.S2E-01 4.46E-KK) 2.67E-01
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 4.33E-05 1.98E-M 8.66E-04
TOTAL 9.52E-01 4.46E+00 2.68E-01
1.25E+00
3.97E-03
1.25+00
48
3.05E-01
8.66E-04
3.06E-01
CHILDREN ADULTS
N/A
1.97E-03
1.97E-03
GRW-3
N/A
N/A
O.OOE+00
CHILDREN
N/A
5.91E-03
5.91E-03
GRW-4
CHILDREN ADULTS
1.43E+00
3.97E-03
1.43E+00
2.89E-01
2.59E-03
2.92E-01
CHILDREN
1.3SE+00
1.19E-02
1.36E+00
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
GRW-5
ADULTS
4.48E-01
3.04E-04
4.48E-01
GRW-5
ADULTS
N/A
5.62E-04
5.62E-04
GRW-5
ADULTS
N/A
N/A
O.OOE+00
GRW-5
ADULTS
4.48B-01
8.66E-W
GRW-6
CHILDREN
2.10E+00
1.42E-03
2.10+00
CHILDREN
N/A
5.75E-03
5.75E-03
CHILDREN
N/A
\.91E-03
1.97E-03
CHILDREN
2.10E+00
9.14E-03
ADULTS
2.66E-01
1.52B-04
2.66E-01
GRW-6
ADULTS
N/A
2.81 E-04
2.81E-04
GRW-6
ADULTS
N/A
N/A
O.OOE+00
ADULTS
2.66E-01
4.33E-04
CHILDREN
1.25E+00
7.10E-04
1.25E-I-00
CHILDREN
N/A
2.87E-04
2.87E-04
CHILDREN
N/A
9.85E-04
985E-04
GRW-6
CHILDREN
1.25E+00
1.98B-03
GRW-7
ADULTS
7.91E-01
3.04E-04
7.91E-01
GRW-7
ADULTS
N/A
5.62E-04
5.62E-04
GRW-7
ADULTS
N/A
N/A
O.OOE+00
ADULTS
7.91E-01
8.66B-04
CHILDREN
3.70E+00
1.42E-03
3.70E+00
CHILDREN
N/A
5.75E-03
5.75E-03
CHILDREN
N/A
1.97B-03
1.97E-03
GRW-7
CHILDREN
3.70E+00
9.14E»03
GRW-8
ADULTS
3.47E-01
3.04E-04
3.47E-01
GRW-8
ADULTS
N/A
S.62E-04
5.62E-04
GRW-8
ADULTS
N/A
N/A
OOE+00
CHILDREN
1.62B-00
1.42E-03
1.62E-4-00
CHILDREN
N/A
5.75E-03
5.75E-03
CHILDREN
N/A
1.97E-03
1.97E-03
GRW-9
ADULTS
4.27E-01
2.44E-04
4.27E-01
GRW-9
ADULTS
N/A
4.49E-04
4.49E-04
ORW-9
ADULTS
N/A
N/A
O.OOE+00
GRW-8
ADULTS
3.47E-01
8.66E-04
CHILDREN
1.62E400
9.14E-03
ADULTS
4.27E-01
6.93E-04
CHILDREN
2.00B+00
1.14E-03
2.00E+00
CHILDREN
N/A
4.60E-04
4.60B-04
CHILDREN
N/A
1.58E-03
1J8E-03
GRW-9
CHILDREN
2.00B+00
3.18E-03
4.49E-01
2.11E+00
2.66E-01 1.2SB+00
7.92E-01
3.71E+00
3.48E-01
1.63E+00
4.28E-01
2.00E+00
49
-------
TABLE 9 (continued)
ORW-10
ADULTS CHILDREN
2.45E-01 U5B+00
1J2E-04 ?!lOE-04
2.45E-01 1.15E+00
GRW-10
ADULTS CHILDREN '' '
N/A N/A
2.81E-04 2.87E-04
2.81E-04 2.87E-04
ORW-10
ADULTS CHILDREN
N/A N/A
N/A 9.85E-04
O.OOE+00 9^5E-04
OR3-10
ADULTS CHILDREN
2.4SE-01 1.15-1-00
4.33E-04 1.98E-03
2.4SE-01 1.15E+00
50
-------
TABLE 10
PATHWAY SUMMARY TABLES
MONITORING WELLS
CURRENT AND FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
INCIDENTIAL INGESTION
ADULTS CHILDREN
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 4.17E+00 1.95E+01
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 3.76E-03 1.75E-02
TOTAL 4.17E-00 1.95E+01
INHALATION DURING SHOWERING AND BATHING
ADULTS CHILDREN
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS N/A N/A
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 7.74E-03 &12E-03
TOTAL 7.74E-03 8.12E-03
DERMAL CONTACT DURING BATHING (CHILDREN)
ADULTS CHILDREN
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS N/A N/A
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS N/A 156E-05
TOTAL O.OOE+00 2^6E-05
COMBINED NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR MONITORING WELLS
ADULTS CHILDREN
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 4.17E+00 1.95E+01
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 1.15E-02 2J6E-02
TOTAL 4.18E+00 1.95E+01
51
-------
TABLE 11
PATHWAY SUMMARY TABLES
MONITORING WELL CARCINOGENIC RISK SUMMARY TABLE
CURRENT AND FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER
ADULTS CHILDREN
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS N/A N/A
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 4.26E-07 3.98E-07
TOTAL RISK 4.26E-O7 3.98E-07
INHALATION OF VOLATILES DURING BATHING AND SHOWERING
ADULTS CHILDREN
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS N/A N/A
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS 1.23E-O6 Z53E-07
TOTAL RISK 1.23E-06 i53E-07
DERMAL INTAKE DURING BATHING
ADULTS CHILDREN
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS N/A N/A
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS N/A 7.28E-10
TOTAL RISK O.OOE+00 - 7.28E-10
TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISK 1.66E-06 «2E-07
52
-------
1.0 for incidental ingestion from several of the onsite
monitoring wells and all of the residential wells that were
sampled. The health hazard index for use of groundwater from the
monitoring wells selected in the RA ranged from 4.18 for adults
to 19.5 for children. For the residential wells, the health
hazard indices ranged from 1.15 to 4.46 for children dependent
upon which well was utilized as a source. Based upon review of
the sampling data for all wells during the RI, it was found that
the concentrations all the natural occurrence of the metals:
maganese, copper, and thallium are the basis for the health
hazard indices exceeding 1.0. These compounds were found in
wells that were located upgradient, crossgradient and
downgradient. In addition these compounds have been previously
found at similar background levels at other Superfund Sites
within the same geographical region. Tobyhanna Army Depot, for
example, is a nearby Superfund site which has high levels of
these same inorganic compounds in onsite monitoring wells. It
was therefore concluded that these metals are occurring on a
regional basis and are not Site related contaminants.
It should be noted that while the HI for the ingestion of
the groundwater from either the monitoring wells onsite or
residential wells offsite does exceed 1.0, the potential health
risks posed by the ingestion are based on conservative
estimations. EPA's policy is to be protective-of human health
and the environment and therefore, EPA is very conservative when
calculating risk analysis. For example, while the assumed
concentration of manganese used in the RA to determine the HI
could cause potential adverse health effects, the potential
receptors near the Site would most likely not consume any water
with such concentrations of manganese as used in the risk
calculation; this level of manganese would discolor the water and
cause a distasteful flavor. Therefore while the HI for the
various wells sampled exceeds 1.0, due to the conservative nature
of EPA's assumptions which were used in doing the RA, the
potential for adverse health risks would likely be several
magnitudes less than indicated by the HI. A more detailed
discussion of the risk analysis conducted for the Site is
contained in the RA and is part of the Administrative record.
Upon review of the baseline RA, it has been determined that
under the various risk scenarios evaluated for contaminants of
concern for the Site, the Site contaminants do not pose any risks
or threat to human health or the environment which would warrant
EPA undertaking a remedial action. It should be noted that while
there are naturally occurring background levels of metals, which
at the concentrations detected in the groundwater samples could
potentially pose a health threat to those who use it as a
drinking water source, EPA can take no action. Pursuant to
CERCLA, and particularly the NCP at 40 CFR S 300.400(b)(1), EPA
is unable to address any risks that are posed by naturally
occurring elements within an area except in conjunction with the
53
-------
remediation of Site-related contamination that is not naturally
occurring.
B. Environmental Impact of Site Contamination
An ecological assessment of the Site was done in conjunction
with the Remedial Investigation. No significant adverse impacts
to any environmental receptor were found on or near the Site and
based on the results of the RI, it was determined that the
remaining levels of contaminants in the soils and groundwater
should not pose any type of threat to any environmental receptor.
There are no endangered species in the immediate vicinity of the
Site.
C. Uncertainty in the Risk Characterization
In order to quantitatively estimate the potential risks to
human health which may occur as a result of exposure to
contaminants in ground water at the Site, numerous assumptions
regarding exposure parameters were required. Within each
exposure parameter there is an inherent uncertainty.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THB "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
The "No Action" Alternative selected for implementation at
the Route 940 Drum Dump Site is described in the following:
Under the "No Action Alternative, EPA will not undertake any
type of remedial action since there are no Site related risks
which would warrant EPA to implement a remedial action. It has
been determined through the RI that previous removal actions
which were completed by EPA, PADER, and LandHark have
sufficiently remediated the Site so that the residual risk posed
by the Site is below health-based standards. Therefore the Site
does not warrant any further remedial action. However, as there
is evidence of low-level concentrations of organic contaminants
remaining in the Site soils and monitoring wells, EPA will still
review the Site within five years in accordance with CERCLA § 121
(d) to assure that changes have not occurred which would pose a
risk to human health or the environment. In order to facilitate
this review, a groundwater monitoring program will be implemented
to enable EPA to meet this requirement and to ensure Site
conditions do not change so as to pose an unacceptable risk.
O&M REQUIREMENTS
Ground Water Monitoring
Ground water monitoring shall be conducted for at least five
54
-------
(5) years. During the first five years, sampling shall be
conducted annually. This data will be evaluated by EPA, in
consultation with PADER, to determine the monitoring needs for
future if needed. Parameters to be monitored include but are not
limited to the following: volatile organic compounds, semi-
volatile organic compounds, and TAL inorganics (metals). The
number of the existing monitoring wells which will be used will
be determined by EPA during the O&M workplan development to
maximize the monitoring of the ground water migration from the
Site.
Documentation of Significant Changes
The alternative originally identified in the Proposed Plan
is also the alternative selected in the ROD. There were no
significant changes made to the selected alternative in the time
period between the issuance of the Proposed Plan on August 10,
1992 and the signing of the ROD approximately eight weeks later.
55
------- |