United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-93/169
September 1993
3 EPA Super-fund
Record of Decision:
Eastern Diversified Metals,
PA
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/ROD/R03-93/169
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Eastern Diversified Metals, PA
Third Remedial Action - Final
7. Authors)
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
.'
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
09/29/93
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10 Project Taskwork Unit No.
11. Contract(C)orGrant(G)No.
(C)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-963913
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 25-acre Eastern Diversified Metals site is a former metal processing facility in
Rush Township, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Land use in the area is predominantly
open land, with mixed residential, commercial, and industrial uses. A small tributary
flows westerly along the southern border of the site in the valley bottom, discharging
to the Little Schuylkill River approximately 250 feet west of the site. From 1966 to
1977, Eastern Diversified Metals (EDM) operated a processing plant onsite that
reclaimed copper and aluminum from wire and cable. An estimated 350 million pounds of
waste insulation material, or fluff, were disposed of onsite in a 7.5-acre pile. The
fluff is composed of primarily polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene insulation chips,
fibrous material, paper, soil, and metals. In 1971, a State inspection revealed
leachate from the waste pile flowing into the Little Schuylkill River, and subsequently
in 1974, a leachate collection and treatment system was installed onsite. In 1979 and
1980, residents complained of odors and expressed health concerns over conditions at
the site. In 1985, a site investigation detected PCBs and lead in the waste pile and
metals in a downgradient monitoring well. In 1987, a security fence was installed
around the property. A 1991 ROD addressed a final remedy for excavating and
incinerating soil and fluff contaminated with dioxins and PCBs, as OU1, and an interim
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Eastern Diversified Metals, PA
Third Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
c. COSATIFMoVGroup
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report) 21. Ma of Pages
None 62
20. Security CUss (This Page) 22. Price
None .
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
£•• Instructions on flsmse
OPTIONAL FOfUl 272(4-77)
YHSaS)
I of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-93/169
Eastern Diversified Metals, PA
Third Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
remedy for enhancing or constructing a ground water collection and treatment system, as
OU2. A 1992 ROD addressed the remainder of the fluff pile using recycling, as OU3. In
1993, all debris piles, which included approximately 6,500 yd^ of soil, unchopped wire,
wood, scrap metal, and fluff were removed offsite for disposal. This ROD addresses a
final remedy for the deep ground water contamination at the site, as OU2. Manganese was
found to be the only site-related ground water contaminant, but was not present at
significant concentrations. EPA has determined that no current or future exposure to
contaminated ground water is likely since the contamination occurs under State game lands;
therefore there are iio primary contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action because previous removal
and remedial actions were adequate to protect human health and the environment. There are
no present worth or O&M costs associated with this no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
DECLARATION
RECORD OF DECISION
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS SITE
Operable Unit Tvet Deep Ground Water
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Eastern Diversified Metals Site
Hometown, SchuylJcill County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OP BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the deep ground water portion of Operable Unit 2 (OU2) of the
Eastern Diversified Metals Site located in Hometown, SchuylJcill
County, Pennsylvania (Site), which was chosen in accordance with
the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA) 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 portion of OU2 and is based on the
Administrative Record for this operable unit. An interim remedy
was selected for the shallow ground water in a previous Record of
Decision of March 1991.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not concur with the selected
remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants in the deep ground water from this Site have not
presented, and do not currently present, an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
-------
DE8CRXPTIOV 07 THB REMBDY
The response action selected consists of no remedial action.
Ground water monitoring will not be performed since the
contamination occurs under State Game Lands and there currently are
no dovngradient wells in this area, nor are any wells liJeely to be
placed there in the future.
This is the third Record of Decision issued for the Eastern
Diversified Metals Site to address the contamination problems
present in the various environmental media. The division of the
operable units (OUs) is as follows:
• OBI: "Hotspot" areas: Those areas of fluff and soils
contaminated with PCBs and dioxin above target
levels
Sediments and soils contaminated with metals
above target levels
Miscellaneous debris
• OU2t Shallow ground water
Deep ground water
• OU3s Remainder of the fluff at the Site
A remedy for the first operable unit and an interim remedy for the
second operable unit were selected in the Record of Decision of
March 1991. The interim remedy, includes enhancement of the
overburden ground water collection system and upgrading the
existing waste water treatment plant for the removal of metals.
These actions will not be affected by this Record of Decision and
will be performed. A remedy for the third operable unit was
selected in the Record of Decision of July 1992. This remedy is
the final remedy for deep ground water of the second operable unit
and calls for no remedial action.
-------
STATUTORY OBTBRMIHATION8
EPA has determined that no remedial action for the deep ground
water is necessary at this Site to ensure protection of human
health and the environment. No Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate apply to this
remedy since no remedial action will be taXen. Because hazardous
substances remain at the Site, a review will be conducted within
five (5) years after this Record of Decision is signed to ensure
continued protection of human health and the environment.
Stanley L LasJcowsJciDate
Acting Regional Administrator
Region III
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS 8UPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2: DEEP GROUND WATER
Decision Summary
Table of Contents
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 4
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 11
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS 11
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 12
Environmental Setting and Climate 12
Regional Geology, Hydrogeology, Hydrology 13
VI. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 17
Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation 17
Summary of SHI Findings 19
Conclusion 29
VII. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 33
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED RESPONSE ACTION 47
No Action Deep Ground Water Alternative ...... 47
IX. BASIS FOR NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 48
X. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 50
Responsiveness Sunary
-------
FIMAL
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS 8UFERFUND SITE
OPERABLE DMIT 2s DEEP GROUND WATER
DECISION SUMMARY
Z. 8ZTE BAKE, LOCATION, AMD DESCRIPTION
The Eastern Diversified Metals Site is a former r als
reclamation facility located in Rush Township, Sc .ylkill County,
Pennsylvania (see Figure l). The Site is located approximately
one mile northwest of the intersection of Routes 54 and 309 in
the town of Hometown. The Site is approximately 1000 feet west
of Lincoln Avenue (SR1021) at the western end of a light
industrial park. The Site is situated in a valley that slopes
down to the west. State Game Lands border the site to the west
and southwest and private forested land borders the Site to the
north and south. The Little Schuylkill River flows in a south-
southeasterly direction approximately 250 feet west of the Site.
A small tributary flows westerly along the southern border of the
Site in the valley bottom, discharging to the Little Schuylkill.
The Site covers approximately 25 acres and contains partially
forested land; a 7.5 acre pile of plastic "fluff;* and areas of
contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, and ground water (see
Figure 2). The fluff pile consists of material from the recycling
of copper and aluminum communication and power wire and cable.
It is composed primarily of polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene
insulation chips, with some fibrous material, paper, soil, and
metal. An estimated 350 million pounds of fluff are present
onsite in a pile approximately 250 feet wide by 1,500 feet long
by 40-60 feet high.
Shallow ground water at the Site occurs in shallow perched zones
and the overburden. Deep ground water occurs in joints,
fractures, and weathered zones in the bedrock. Ground water
flows both laterally and vertically; lateral flow is directed
southwestward across the Site toward the unnamed tributary of the
Little Schuylkill River and the Little Schuylkill River, and
vertical downward water flow occurs in the upslope portion of the
Site with some discharge of the ground water occurring to the
unnamed tributary in the downslope portion of the Site area. All
remaining ground water in the Site area discharges to the Little
Schuylkill Riv;r.
-------
Site Location Map
Eastvm Oiv«rsif1«d
Souiec: USQSTopegnc
-------
Figure 2
IMMMMMMM»MMMMMM<
H
(CarnM)
IIHMIIMIM»M««MM»*>MMMMIMMMIIII
1COEMO
fnncm<^p«oi«niii|
N
••» o ino m
SITE FEATURES
Eastern Diversified Metals Site
-------
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENTORCEMBMT ACTIVITIES.
Prior to 1966, the Site property was owned by a manufacturing
company engaged in the extrusion of aluminum for hospital
furniture. Pre-1966 activities were confined to a single
building on the property, with the remainder of the Site left
vacant. The manufacturing company disposed of wooden wire reels,
wooden pallets, and similar debris and trash onsite.
In or around September 1966, Greater Tamaqua Industrial
Development Enterprises conveyed the Site property to Eastern
Diversified Metals Corporation (EDM). EDM operated at the Site,
reclaiming copper and aluminum from wire and cable in a
processing building on Lincoln Avenue, from approximately 1966
through 1977. The EDM plant received wire from numerous sources.
Plastic insulation surrounding metal cable and wire was
mechanically stripped and separated from the metal using
gravitational separation techniques. This process involved
chopping the wire, stripping the plastic coating from the wire
with steel blades, and separating the wire from the plastic
coverings through the use of air and water clarifiers.
The metal reclaimed by EDM was either sold or returned to the
sources. EDM disposed of the waste insulation material on the
ground in the topographic swale area behind the plant at the
Site. The fluff which currently exists is a direct result of
this disposal practice.
In 1971, EDM submitted an application to the Pennsylvania
Department of Health (DOH) for a permit to operate a 25 acre
industrial landfill. DOH inspected the EDM Site in February
1972, and noted that EDM was in violation of the Pennsylvania
Clean Streams Law because the waste pile was creating leachate
that flowed into the Little SchuylXill River via a small unnamed
tributary running through the EDM Site.
In February 1973, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (PADER) inspected the Site. PADER's inspection report
noted that there were two separate but adjacent disposal areas on
the EDM Site; mixed waste was disposed on the extreme western
portion, while shredded insulation material was dumped in the
north central portion. The "mixed waste" consisted of cardboard,
paper, wooden pallets and reels, steel wire and general waste.
The report also noted that scrap metal and 55-galIon steel drums
were stored onsite.
In December 1973, the Pennsylvania Division of Solid Waste
Management determined that EDM would have to provide a permitted
leachate collection and treatment system and a groundwater
monitoring system before a landfill disposal permit could be
issued.
-------
In 1974, EOM submitted an application for a Water Quality
Management Permit. Theodore Sail, Inc. (Sail) installed a
leachate collection and treatment system onsite in order to
monitor, collect, and treat leachate emanating from the fluff
pile. Due to the high BOD concentrations in the leachate at that
time, Sail designed and installed a secondary treatment system.
The secondary treatment plant used clarification, aeration, and
activated sludge biological treatment to bring the effluent
within the limits allowed by its PADER National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The effluent
discharge enters the unnamed tributary to the Little Schuylkill
River. Daily flows average approximately 3,000 gallons. The
treatment plant is part of a leachate management system which
also includes an equalization lagoon, erosion control measures,
surface water diversion ditches, and two shallow ground water
interceptor trenches which convey shallow ground water and
leachate to the waste water treatment plant.
The equalization lagoon is located approximately 300 feet to the
northeast of the treatment plant, at the base of the main fluff
pile. The lagoon is lined with 30 mil polyvinyl chloride and
feeds leachate influent to the treatment plant.
>
The leachate diversion ditches at the Site parallel the northern
and southern boundaries of the main fluff pile. The southern
diversion ditch conveys leachate to the treatment plant via an
equalization lagoon. The northern (interior) diversion ditch
terminates at the runoff lagoon, where runoff either evaporates
or infiltrates to shallow ground water.
The main shallow ground water interceptor trench is located along
almost the full east-west length of the main fluff pile, between
the southern leachate diversion ditch and the unnamed tributary.
At the southwest end of the main fluff pile, a secondary
collection trench runs approximately north-south to collect
shallow subsurface leachate at the western edge of the pile. The
trenches are approximately six to ten feet deep. The leachate
from the main trench discharges into the wastewater treatment
plant; the leachate from the secondary trench is conveyed to a
sump just southwest of the treatment plant, from which it is
pumped directly to the plant for treatment.
In or around 1977, EDM terminated operations at the Site and,
subsequently, transferred ownership of the Site to Theodore Sail,
Inc. ["Sail"]. In June and November, 1979, the Hometown Fire
Company responded to reports of fires at the Site; the fires were
extinguished with fire retardant and water. The area where
smoldering fires ware noted is limited to a portion of the main
fluff pile in the vicinity of the secondary leachate seep
(southeast side of the pile). Sail excavated the burned areas in
an effort to ensure that the fire was extinguished and installed
temperature sensors to detect elevated temperatures within the
-------
pile. Laboratory testing estimated that a critical temperature
of approximately 290° Fahrenheit may cause this material to
smolder. Sail reports that temperature monitoring conducted
since that time has shown that temperatures do not approach those
which would be required for the material to smolder.
In 1979 and 1980, the Rush Township Board of Supervisors wrote
letters to Diversified Industries, Inc., EDM and Sail's parent
company, on behalf of area residents, complaining of odors from
the EOM Site and expressing health concerns. In 1983 and 1984,
PAOER conducted chemical and aquatic biological investigations of
the Little Schuylkill River (LSR) and all of its tributaries and
point source discharges. These studies included sampling of the
unnamed tributary at the EOM Site and the effluent from the
leachate treatment plant. PAOER stated that under the acid-
impacted conditions found in the LSR, "the confirmed complete
absence of any aquatic macrobenthic community is expected." This
report concluded that an evaluation of the effects of the EOM
Site on the LSR could not be made due to the prevailing acid mine
drainage degradation in this section of the LSR.
In 1985, Todd Giddings and Associates, Inc. completed a Site
evaluation report for Sail. This evaluation included sampling
and analysis of surface water, leachate, ground water, fluff, and
sediment. These investigations determined that the fluff failed
the Extraction Procedure Toxicity test for lead and that the
fluff pile contained a polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) hotspot
area. Additionally, various metals were detected in the
downgradient monitoring well.
In 1985, EPA sampled the Site's surface soil, surface water,
stream sediment, leachate, leachate runoff path sediment, and
ground water to provide data in order to further assess the Site.
EPA proposed the Site for inclusion on the CERCLA National
Priorities List (NPL) in June 1986. EPA finalized the Site on
the NPL in October 1989 (as& 54 Zfid. Bfig. 41036 (Oct. 4, 1989)}.
In August 1987, EPA issued an administrative order pursuant to
section 106(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 5 9606(a), to Diversified
Industries, Inc. and Sail directing those entities to install a
security fence around the Site. The fence was subsequently
installed by those parties.
In October 1987, Sail and AT&T Nassau Metals Corporation ("AT&T")
signed an administrative order on consent with EPA for 'the
performance of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
at the Site. The purpose of the RI/FS was to determine the
nature and extent of contamination and to evaluate remedial
alternatives for implementation at the Site. Samples were
collected and analyzed from fluff, air, soils, sediments, ground
water, and sur-.-.ce water. A majority of these samples were taken
in and around cne fluff pile area.
-------
On March 29, 1991, EPA issued a Record of Decision selecting a
final remedy for OU1 and an interim remedy fc_ OU2 (see Section
IV of this ROD for details concerning operable units at this
Site). The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurred on that ROD.
The Remedial Action selected by EPA for OO1 and OU2 calls for.
among other things, the following actions to be undertaken:
OU1 • Excavate and incinerate, either onsite or offsite,
fluff and soils containing dioxins and PCBs in
concentrations exceeding target levels.
• Treat (if necessary) and dispose of incinerator
residuals, miscellaneous debris, and
soils/sediments contaminated with metals above
target levels.
OU2 • Enhance the existing or construct a new shallow
ground water collection and treatment system.
• Study further the practicability of deep ground
water restoration.
In September 1991, AT&T petitioned EPA to reopen the March 1991
ROD, claiming that PCB analytical results reported and relied on
in the RI/FS were inaccurate. Attached to the petition were
recent analytical data shoving that PCBs were present at much
lower concentrations in the hotspot area than indicated by the
original analyses (see AT&T petition in the Administrative Record
for the July 1992 ROD).
In September 1991, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
(Order) to AT&T and Sail to implement portions of the remedy
described in the March 1991 ROD which did not pertain to the
3dy for the hotspot area. The Order directed AT&T and Sail
among other things, remove the miscellaneous debris from the
.;.ze, repair the fence surrounding the Site, and conduct
additional ground water studies.
In December 1991, EPA sampled the fluff material in the PCB
hotspot and, with the aid of analytical techniques which were not
available at the time the original analyses were performed,
determined that the levels of PCBs in this area are lower than
were previously thought. This analyses revealed the presence of
Pol/chlorinated Naphthalenes ("PCNs") in what was formerly
defined as the PCB hotspot area. PCNs are very similar in
chemical structure to PCBs and for this reason may have been
mistaken for PCBs in previous analyses on the hotspot fluff.
PCNs may have been used as a fire retardant to coat the wire or
in the paper insulation in electrical wire and cable processed at
the Site. EPA is evaluating the level of PCNs found in the
hotspot areas and will determine whether the incineration remedy
selected to address the hotspot areas in the March 1991 ROD is
-------
still appropriate.
In July 1992, EPA issued a Record of Decision for the remainder
of the fluff pile (OU3) in which EPA selected recycling of the
fluff into either a final product or a form that will undergo
further processing offsite in order to produce a final product.
The ROD additionally called for, among other things, testing and
appropriate disposal of any recycling residuals and sampling and
analysis of soils underlying the fluff pile.
A Remedial Design Work Plan and a Remedial Action Work Plan and
Design Report for miscellaneous debris removal were reviewed and
approved by EPA in early 1993. All debris piles were removed for
offsite disposal in the summer of 1993. Approximately 6,500
cubic yards of debris consisting of unchopped wire, wood, scrap
metal, soil, and fluff were removed from the Site.
Other action taken in the summer of 1993 included the
containerization of approximately 630 cubic yards of dioxin-
contaminated fluff from several burn areas onsite and
improvements to the leachate diversion ditches and drainage
ditches at the Site. The interior and exterior drainage channels
and runoff lagoon were upgraded to increase their capacity and to
comply with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requirements for
these structures.
EPA has recently accepted a Supplemental Hydrogeologic
Investigation Report on the Site conducted by contractors for
AT&T. The study investigated the presence and movement of ground
water contaminants in the Site area. The study confirmed that
discrete ground water flow in the area bedrock is anisotropic,
occurring along joints, fractures, and permeable bedding planes.
The overall resultant vectors of flow, however, are controlled by
topography; thus ground water flow converges at the stream valley
axis fracture, and proceeds westward toward the Little Schuylkill
River. Thus, the piezometric surfaces shown in Figures 3 and 4
represent the overall flow directions within the bedrock systems,
but not the discrete localized flow pathways along joints,
fractures, and/or bedding planes.
Presently, the Sit* is unused. The property was overseen by a
Sail employee who was responsible for the daily operation and
general maintenance of the wastewater treatment plant, recording
temperatures from the pile sensors, and general security. The
caretaker was present onsite for approximately half of the day
for five days each week. On June 22, 1993, this employee shut
off the electrical power to the waste water treatment plant
(WWTP) and discontinued Site operations due to the pending
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings of Sail. On July 6, 1993, PADER
sampled the effluent from the MPDES discharge for certain metals
and chemical/physical properties. Lead, copper and zinc were
present in the effluent at concentrations in excess of
8
-------
Figure 3
Shadow B«dfock
PI«ionMtrle turfao*
10 Auguit 1902
04»«i«lfWd
JC'?* '^^'l^^vrrv^-s/f
§ § :,,-„.,,.
SCOM IA f««l
-------
Figure 4
B«droct>
Pl«iom«trle Surfae*
1O August 1992
MvwaMte* n*t«u
Hometown,
A /
.,—L./
X «Ttt>U 4r' -£?'^-r=z.
OAK IX PnOIOC«*l',i> Al'llil 19. 1969
-------
Pennsylvania Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Iron and manganese
were present in concentrations in excess of Pennsylvania
Secondary Drinking Water Standards for Surface Water.
On July 30, 1993 EPA sampled the.effluent for a full priority
pollutant scan of organic contaminants. No organic chemicals
were detected in the effluent sample above the detection limit of
the analytical equipment and procedures used.
IZZ. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Remedial Action Plan for OU2 for .the Eastern
Diversified Metals Site was released to the public on July 1,
1993. The plan, together with the documents contained in the
administrative record file, was made available to the public in
both the EPA Docket Room in Region III and the information
repository at the Rush Township municipal building in Hometown,
Pennsylvania. In accordance with Sections 113(k)(2) and 117 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §S 9613(k)(2) and 9617, on July 1, 1993, EPA
placed a 1/4 page advertisement in the Times News newspaper
announcing the availability of the OU2 Proposed Remedial Action
Plan and administrative record file and commencement of a 3O-day
comment period. The public comment period began July l, 1993 and
ended July 31, 1993.
A public meeting was held on July 15, 1993. At this meeting, EPA
representatives summarized the results of the Supplemental
Hydrogeologic Report, explained the rationale for EPA's preferred
alternative for the operable unit and answered questions from
citizens at the meeting about the Site. A response to the
comments received during the public comment period is included in
the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of
Decision.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLB OP OPERABLE UNITS
As set forth above, EPA has divided the Eastern Diversified
Metals Site into operable units, or site components, in order to
effectively address the complex contamination problems present in
the various environmental media. As stated above, the divisions
to date are as follows:
OU1 • "Hotspot" areas (those areas of fluff and soils
contaminated with PCBs and dioxin above target
levels)
• Sediments and Soils contaminated with metals
above target levels
• Miscellaneous Debris
OU2 • Ground Water
11
-------
003 • Remainder of the fluff
In March 1991, EPA signed a Record of Decision which documented
the selection of a final remedy for OU1 and an interim remedy for
OU2, as described above. The actions selected in the March 1991
ROD for OU2, including enhancement of the shallow ground water
collection sytem, upgrading the existing waste water treatment
plant to treat for metals and the removal of metals-contaminated
sediment in the unnamed tributary of the Little Schuylkill River,
are not affected by this ROD and will be performed.
EPA will advise the public if that portion of the OUi remedy
currently being reviewed as a result of AT&T's petition changes
in any significant or fundamental way.
In July 1992, EPA signed a Record of Decision which documented
the selection of a final remedy for OU3. This ROD did not,
however, address remediation of soils underlying the fluff at the
Site. EPA will announce whether, and to what extent, further
response actions are necessary to address any soil contamination
in a subsequent Record of Decision.
This Record of Decision selects a final remedy for the deep
ground water at the Site.
V. SUMMARY 07 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Environmental Setting and Climate
The Site is located in a sparsely populated rural area in
Hometown, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Nearby towns include
Tamaqua, which is approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast. Land
use surrounding the Site includes open and residential lands to
the north, west, and south/southeast, and several business and
industrial facilities to the east. Specifically, the Site is
bordered by a residence and privately-owned forest land to the
north. Adjacent to the eastern border of the Site is the Lincoln
Avenue building which was used to process the EDM fluff. This
building is presently partially occupied by a trailer home
assembly operation. Other commercial operations near the Site
along Lincoln Avenue include a shipping facility (United Parcel
Service), an auto parts/junkyard operation, a heavy freight depot
(Yellow Freight), and a pigments manufacturer (Silberline
Manufacturing Company). State Case Lands are located to the west
along the banks of the Little Schuylkill River.
Land use in Schuylkill County is primarily agricultural (82.7
percent). The remaining area is residential (approximately 5.3
percent); manufacturing, commercial, or mining (approximately 4.5
percent); and other (7.5 percent).
12
-------
B. Regional Geology* HYdroqeoloav* Hydrology
1. Soils
Soils on the site have formed in colluvium, along drainage ways
and in depressed areas. The soils are deep, poor to moderately
well-drained with slow to moderately slow permeability and medium
runoff. The lower part of the subsoil layer (which begins
approximately 20 to 4O inches from ground level) contains a firm
and brittle fragipan that restricts vertical water flow and
facilitates lateral flow of shallow subsurface waters. Depth to
bedrock may be 6O to 96 inches or more from the ground surface.
2. Geology
Bedrock beneath the Site is the middle member of the
ssissippian Age Mauch ThunJc Formation. The Mauch Chunk is
nerally described as predominantly composed of gray is- -red
..Itstones and shales, and grayish-red-purple -andstonej. The
Mauch Chunk Formation is overlain by the Pott? Llle Formation,
and underlain by the Pocono Formation. Both . itacts are
considered to be transitional, and both the PC -sville and Pocono
Formations are characterized by coarse-grained yellow and gray
sandstone and conglomerate lithologies. Topographically, the
Mauch Chunk tends to be a valley-former due to the greater
resistance to erosion which typifies the more massive Pottsville
and Pocono formations.
3. Hydroqeoloov
Water is transmitted through the Mauch Chunk primarily through
fractures, joints and along permeable bedding zones. The
formation has low to moderate infiltration capacity and probably
low to moderate aquifer potential. In general, the Mauch Chunk
is described as yielding small to moderate supplies of good
quality water. Mauch Chunk ground water in the Schuylkill River
Basin a.aa is reported to have a median pH value of 7.7 and a
median specific conductance value of 12O micro mhos/cm.
Shallow ground water occurs in limited quantities under both
perched and water table conditions in the overburden. Dynamics
of ground water flow in the overburden are basically those of
porous media flow, where primary permeability dominates and th-?
system is assumed to be essentially homogeneous (despite the
obvious presence of certain inhomogeneities). Perched water in
the main fluff pile was encountered in the eastern pile
piezometer. Perched flow occurs in some areas due to the
presence of fragipans in the colluvial soil. This flow component
carries leachate from the pile, some of which is intercepted by
the existing shallow ground water interceptor trench system and
conveyed to the waste water treatment plant.
13
-------
Underlying the perched flow zone, a local ground water system is
present in the overburden. The overburden is dry in some areas
and saturated in others/ with classical porous media flow
possible only in the southwest section of the Site, near the
headwaters of the unnamed tributary. The ground water quality
data collected in the RI indicates that the overburden flow
system recharges the upper bedrock; thus vertical downward flow
occurs, as well as lateral flow.
Horizontally, flow in the overburden is directed southwestward
across the Site at approximately O.11-O.13 feet per foot (see
Figure 3). However, it should be noted that much of the ground
water which enters the overburden likely recharges the bedrock
rather than flowing laterally, as evidenced by the extensive dry
seasonal conditions above the bedrock. It appears that the only
substantial lateral flow in the Site overburden may occur in the
southwestern portion of the site, where wells MW-3/0 and MW-6/0
contain water year-around. Based on constructed piezometric
surfaces, the overburden flow system recharges the unnamed
tributary along its lower length. Since the lower reach of the
stream is known to flow year-round, it is evident that this flow
is sustained by the shallow system in the southwest portion of
the Site. This is consistent with the saturated conditions at
MW-3/O and MW-6/O, verifying sustained lateral flow through the
overburden in the southwest corner of the Site.
Most of the deep ground water at the Site occurs in joints,
fractures, permeable interbeds, and weathered zones in the
bedrock. Water was present in multiple thin zones separated by
two to several tens of feet during the monitoring well
installations. Commonly, ground water conditions in bedrock of
this type are complex due to intricate localized lithological and
structural controls. Thus, ground water may be under confined
permeability, and possibly unconfined conditions in permeable
vertical fractures or extensive near-surface weathered zones.
The vertical head conditions (varying from strong downward to
slight upward) at the Site verify the complexity of ground water
conditions. However, it can be observed that the water levels
measured reflect the potential for hydraulic connection among the
three aquifer zones monitored.
Flow in the shallow bedrock zone is similar in direction and
gradient to the overburden. Water level elevation contours
indicate that flow occurs below the elevation of the unnamed
tributary stream bed, in a direction towards the Little
Schuylkill River (see Figure 4). Thus the direct discharge point
for the shallow bedrock ground water flow appears to be the
Little Schuylkill River, which is the only regional discharge
point in the area. The lateral hydraulic gradient in the
intermediate bedrock aquifer also indicates flow toward the
Little Schuylkill River.
14
-------
An inventory of ground water usage was completed for the Site
vicinity. Figure 5 shows the locations of water wells identified
during the RI and the Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation.
All of the wells identified are topographically upgradient of the
Site. Well depths range from 9O feet to 6OO feet. A number of
residents have reported flowing artesian conditions, indicating a
possible recharge area to the north, i.e., the Still Creek
Reservoir Area. Water quality was reported to be good in most
cases, although some wells had taste, odor, and sediment problems
unrelated to the Site.
4. Hydrology
This part of the Schuylkill River Basin receives an annual
average rainfall of 45 inches. Basin maxima for runoff (30
inches) and rainfall (49 inches) occur near Tamaqua and decrease
from north to south. Peak runoff occurs during the period from
February to April. The runoff low point is generally during
August to October, although at Tamaqua, low runoff typically
occurs in July.
Surface runoff from the Site flows predominantly in a west-
southwesterly direction, to the small unnamed stream which flows
west along the southern border of the Site and drains into the
Little Schuylkill River.
15
-------
Figure
- Ground ater Weils Map
1 Mile Radius
Eastern Diversified Metals Site
Remedial Investigation
7-
(508)13^ «
% »1-22 Door 4o-0oof Survey
0 tOOO 2COO .t34-787 USGS A PA W«f 0«a 8l
16
-------
VI. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
The Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation (SHI) was called for
in the March 1991 OU2 ROD. The purpose of the SHI was to provide
additional information on the need for, and the practicability
of, deep ground water restoration at the Site. The investigation
was designed to define the extent of any ground water degradation
in the watershed as a whole, evaluate the direction of ground
water flow, and determine the location of discharge areas for the
bedrock flow systems. The scope of the SHI included installation
of new ground water monitoring wells and wetlands piezometers.
Surface water, stream sediments and ground water were sampled in
this investigation to assess the distribution of volatile
organics (VOCs) and manganese in the ground water/surface water
system, and to help identify the ground water discharge zones.
VOCs and manganese were contaminants of concern identified during
the Remedial Investigation.
Figure 6 shows the sampling point locations for the samples
collected during the SHI.
in February 1992, surface water and sediment samples were
obtained from the unnamed tributary to the Little Schuylkill
River, the Little Schuylkill River and the three wetland
piezometers.
Three sampling points were located in the unnamed tributary; one
upstream of the Site WWTP discharge, where the stream begins to
flow perennially, (SW-4/SED-2); one downgradient of the Site WWTP
discharge (SW-6/SED-4), where shallow bedrock and overburden
discharges may occur; and one just upgradient of the confluence
of the unnamed tributary with the Little Schuylkill River
(SW-7/SED-5), in a ground water: discharge zone.
The SHI additionally included the installation of a total of nine
additional monitoring wells in the Site area. At each location,
one or two bedrock wells were installed (corresponding to the
shallow and intermediate depth wells installed during the RI/FS).
one overburden well was installed, at well cluster location 9.
Four of the wells were installed in an area downgradient of the
Site across, and to the south of, the unnamed tributary to the
Little Schuylkill River. These wells, installed in two locations
(Clusters 9 and 10), were intended to provide data to assess the
extent of contaminant migration from the Site, if any, beneath
the unnamed tributary. A third cluster (Cluster 11) of. two wells
was installed downgradient of the Site in the vicinity of the
Little Schuylkill River to provide an indication of the ground
water quality and hydraulic gradient in that area. One
17
-------
Figure 6
Sampling Point Location*
Hydrog«oloalc
Ea.t.rn W»«.UI.d H.l*l. til.
P««Mfl«MU
-------
additional cluster (Cluster 12) of two bedrock wells was
installed northeast of the site to monitor background ground
water quality. A single shallow bedrock well (M>- L3/S) was
installed east of the Site to provide information on flow
direction and ground water quality adjacent to other upgradient
off-site potential contamination sources.
Following the installation and surveying of these veils, five
rounds of water level measurements were collected over a
three-month period. This data enabled EPA to determine ground
water flow directions and the vertical head relationships between
adjacent wells of different depths in the bedrock flow system.
In August 1992, a total of 14 monitoring wells in the Site area
were sampled. Eight of the newly installed wells and six wells
installed during the RI were sampled at that time. Newly
installed monitoring well MW-9/0 was not sampled because it did
not contain water on the sampling date.
The surface water and sediment analysis results are summarized in
Table l, and plotted on Figure 7. Field parameter measurements
for surface water are presented on Table 2.
Ground water sampling results are summarized in Table 3 and
plotted on Figure 8. Field parameter measurements on ground
water are presented on Table 4.
Surface Water and Piezometer Results
Trichloroethene (TCE) was detected in four of the six surface
water samples, and one of the three wetland piezometer samples.
The detection of 12 nq/L of TCE in the sample furthest upstream
of trie Site in the unnamed tributary (SW-4) was the highest
concentration of tie three samples taken from the stream. A low
concentration of 2/*9/L was reported for the sample downstream of
the WWTP (SW-6). The most elevated concentration was detected in
the sample from the Little Schuyllcill River at the confluence
with the unnamed tributary (SW-ll), where 120 Mg/L of TCE was
reported. The sample was taken close to the shore of the LSR
from the mixing zone of the unnamed tributary with the LSR. Just
upstream of the confluence on the unnamed tributary a spring may
be discharging ground water contaminated with TCE to the unnamed
tributary. The mid stream sample (SW-7) had a concentration of 5
Mg/L of TCE detected. There were no VOCs detected in surface
water samples in the Little Schuylkill River upstream (SW-10) or
downstream of this sampling point (SW-9). The water sample from
the wetland piezometer closest to the unnamed tributary (WP-2)
had a low level concentration of TCE (estimated 3 ng/L); the
other piezometers had no volatile organics detected. The
detection limit is the lowest concentration of an analyte that
19
-------
Table 1
Summary ol Surface Water and Sediment Sample Results
Eastern Diversified Metals
Hydrogeoloalc investigation
to
O
SAMPLING
POINT
DESIGNATION
Surface Wattr 6i0
SW-4
SW-6
SW7
8W0
SW 10
SW-11
Stream Sediment
SE02
8E04
SED6
SE07
SE08
SEOft
Total
VolalU* Offlanlc
Compound*
*l
12
2
ND
28 f
ND
40
tV«l/and* PiuomtMt fag/I)
WP-I
MTP-2
WP3
M>
3
ND
280*
Tilchloioathana
12
2(J>
6(J)
120
2(J)
60
40
3(Jl
Carbon
Tairachloilde
8
-------
Figure 7
Swfac* W«Ur, Stream
•nd WotUnd* 8*4tai«nl
Analytical lUauHft
E..UIB m«w*in*d Melrt* •»•
Hometown.
DA If Ol 3i-0'OCN*PH» - APR*. 19. 1989
Motor SI'ron M*m««l and .•110041
Suriact Mitf «M Milan* attlamatM im<»m an «
M » •* M r*k>y«* IM]
VOC 1 «cly«o ac
>M «aAt 'w
-------
RELD PARAMETER MEASUREMENTS
SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
SAMPLING
POINT
DESIGNATION
Surface Water
SW-4
SW-6
SW-7
SW-9
SW-10
SW-11
PH
(Standard Units)
6.65
4.85
6.45
4.85
4.45
5.85
Wetlands Piezometers
WP-1
WP-2
WP-3
•5.15
5.45
5.20 -
Overburden Monitoring Wells
MW - 3/O
MW • 6/O
4.40
4.90
Shallow Bedrock Monitoring Wells
MW - 2/S
MW • 5/S
MW - 9/S
MW • 10/S
MW - 11/S
MW - 12/S
MW • 13/S
4.40
4.80
3.40
10*
5.10
5.60
4.80
Specific
Conductance
(jimhos)
70
105
95
75
75
90
90
45
40
74
109
89
115
75
355
75
70
SO
Intermediate Bedrock Monitoring Wells
MW • 2/1
MW - 5/1
MW - 10/1
MW - 1 1/1
MW • 12/1
5.40
5.70
5.50
5.70
5.20
105
88
220
130
65
Temperature
(° C)
6
7
7
6
6
8
8
3
3
15
16
12
14
12
14
13
16
12
13
14
13
12.5
15.5
Surface Water Sampling: 25 and 26 February 1992
Ground Water Sampling: 11 and 12 August 1992
'Elevated pH believed to be due to presence of cement grout in
screened interval of well.
22
-------
Table 3
SUMMARY OF GROUND WA1ER RESULTS
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS
HVOROOEOLOOIC INVESTIGATION
all lasulis in
SAMPLINQ
POINT
DESIGNATION
Btoctiotound AtoM o
MW- 12/S
MW - 12/1
MW- 13/8
Total
Volaiila Otganic
ComuouMb
ing WMt
17
16
160
On COM fiofuif fiaaVoc* MaMarinj
MW- 2/S
MW 2/1
MW-S/S
MW • M
40
46.0
240
OS (J)
ISO
MM*
43
36
23
Off £OM Piopeny 0*aYocJi Uoauumg W«M
MW - 0/S '
MW- 10/8
MW • 10/1
MW • II/S
MW • ll/l
21
78 (J)
33
340
616
OvwDunton Mo/MMMg Mtett
MW 30
MW • 6/O
04
224
20
ft 1 Jl
S(J)
290
64
76
6U)
Tanachloio
•than*
2(J)
3 (J)
2(J)
1.2 Dichloio
10
2(J)
4(4
00 M)
0.0 (J)
14 (J)
S(J)
3|J)
I.I- Dichloio
elhana
1 (J)
2 (J)
I.I.I Tnchloio
•ihana
2(J)
2 (J)
1 IJI
1 (J)
06 |J)
10 (J)
3(J>
7«J)
Caibon
Taifachloiidtt
6|J)
2 (J|
00 (J)
16
04 (J»
fclliyl
Bunteiiu
JJJ|
2 (J)
1 !•)>
< (J)
2 Ul
Xylana
14
12
1 (J)
3 |J)
Oi (J)
24
1 (J)
12
DissoUad
Manganasa
(Fiald liliaiad)
256
SBI
2S2
160
202
760
334
330
12
4040
65 1
473
236
7420
U
Sampto DaiM II and 12 August 1092
(J): This IMUH ihoutd te con«dM«4 a nuamnauva auimaia
NO: NM Oaiaciad abowa daucthm kmii*.
Not* AiyMout taov»u ««• taU Uiaiad lot di»«olii«d manga
-------
Figure 8
Ground Water
Analytical R*»ult*
mon-lotinq •«• Mmpltft Oft M wfA
jompHi .etc I..KJ lutoitd to diMOhM
.«r« lotto on II o.d IJ
-------
Table 4
COMPARISON OF FIELD PARAMETER MEASUREMENTS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS GROUND WATER
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS
SAMPLING
POINT
DESIGNATION
Overburden M
MW- 3/O
MW-6/O
(
Nov-88
jnitoring Wells
3.60
4.50
Shallow Bedrock Monitoring
MW • 2/S
MW - 5/S
5.20
5.40
PH
Standard Units
Apr-89
5.25
5.60
Walls
5.30
5.70
Intermediate Bedrock Monitoring Wells
MW • 2/1
MW • 5/1
6.55
6.10
6.10
6.55
)
Aug92
'
440
4.90
4.40
4.80
5.40
5.70
(S
Nuv 88
62
158
61
88
82
62
Specilic
Conductance
landard Uni
Apr 89
63
135
85
100
89
105
s)
Ann 92
74
109
89
115
105
88
Nnv 88
10
12
10
12
12
13
Temperature
(degrees C)
Apr Hi)
10
10
10
10
12
12
Aiig-92
IS
16
12
14
13
14
in
-------
can be positively identified and quantified in a sample using an
analytical instrument and an EPA specified method of analysis.
Even though no hazardous substances were detected in a sample
they may be present in an amount that is below the detection
limit.
Trichloroethene was the only VOC detected in surface water
samples except in the case of SW-li (at confluence). Low
concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (3 ug/L), carbon
tetrachloride (8 ug/L) and 1,2 dichloroethene (4 ug/L) were also
reported for this sample.
The upgradient stream sample on the LSR (SW-10) had a dissolved
manganese concentration of 286 ug/L. Dissolved manganese results
ranged from 1510 ug/L to 2860 ug/L in the lower reach of the
unnamed tributary and in the Little Schuylkill River at the
confluence. The sample from wetland piezometer WP-l also had a
higher dissolved manganese concentration (4740 fig/L). The
remaining surface water samples, including the downstream sample
on the LSR (SW-9), had 305 ng/L or less of dissolved manganese.
Sediment Results
Sediment sample results were similar in pattern to those reported
for the corresponding surface water samples. Trichloroethene was
detected at low concentrations (estimated 2 Mg/Kg) in the sample
furthest upstream in the unnamed tributary (SED-2). No VOCs were
detected in the two downstream unnamed tributary sediment
samples. The sediment sample from the LSR at the confluence
with the unnamed tributary (SED-9) had a TCE concentration of 40
Mg/Kg. The downstream sediment sample on the LSR (SED-7) had 50
Mg/Kg of TCE reported; the upstream sample (SED-8) had no
volatile organics detected. No TCE was detected in any of the
three wetland sediment samples.
Two of the three sediment samples found to contain TCE contained
no other VOCs. The sample from the LSR downstream of the
confluence (SED-7) had 230 Mg/Kg of acetone and l ng/Kg of
ttoluene in addition to the TCE. The wetland sediment sample
closest to the LSR on the fracture trace (WS-3) had a
concentration of 280 Mg/Kg of acetone. This was the only VOC
detected in this sample. The acetone detections, although not
invalidated in the quality assurance review, are still suspect.
Acetone is a common laboratory contaminant and has not been
detected in the surface water or ground water in the rest of the
sample analyses.
Total manganese results somewhat paralleled those for dissolved
manganese in surface waters. The upstream sediment sample in the
LSR had a manganese concentration of 168 M9/Kg while the
downstream sar..e was 295 ug/Kg. Sediment samples from the
unnamed tributary and confluence were higher, ranging from a high
26
-------
of 2890 Mg/Kg in SED-5 just upstream of the confluence to a low
of 913 Mg/Kg in SED-2, the furthest upstream sample. Of all the
wetland sediment samples, WS-3 had the highest total manganese
with a concentration of 1,620 Mg/Kg • WS-1 and WS-2 had lower
concentrations of 826 Mg/Kg and 299 jig/Kg, respectively.
Ground Water Analytical Results
Background Wells
The two upgradient background wells to the northeast of the
valley bottom fracture (MW-12/S and MW-12/I) had no concentration
of TCE detected. No chlorinated volatile organics were present
in the MW-12 cluster, but xylene (14 and 12 ug/L) and ethyl
benzene (3 and 2 ug/L) were detected in both wells, while toluene
was detected in MW-12 /I (2 ug/L) . However, the upgradient
background well to the southeast of the fracture (MW-13/S) had a
reported 150 ug/L of TCE. MW-13/S displayed a different suite of
contaminants than that observed in the MW-12 cluster. Besides
the substantial concentration of trichloroethene,
1,2-dichloroethene (10 ug/L), carbon tetrachloride (6 ug/L) and
tetrachloroethene (2 ug/L) were present, and 1 Mg/L of xylene was
reported.
Dissolved manganese concentrations in the background wells were
fairly similar, with 256 Mg/L observed in MW-12 /S and 252 ug/L in
MW-13/S. MW-12 /I had a somewhat higher concentration of 581
Bedrock Wells
Three of the four wells on the Site property (MW-2/S, MW-2/I and
MW-5/S) had similar results, with concentrations of
trichloroethene (at 43, 36 and 23 ug/L, respectively),
1,2-dichloroethene (estimated at 2, 4 and 0.9 Mg/L/
respectively), and 1 , 1 , 1-tr ichloroethane (estimated at 2, 2 and 1
Mg/L, respectively); the MW-2 wells also had. concentrations of
carbon tetrachloride (estimated at 2 and 0.9 Mg/L, respectively).
The only VOC detected in the sample from MW-5/I was a trace level
(estimated 0.5 Mg/L) of xylene, which was also detected in MW-2/I
(estimated at 3 Mg/L) . Concentrations of these contaminants were
estimated due to their low level presence in the samples below
the required detection limit.
The results of the 1992 sampling and analysis are similar to
those observed in the 1989 sampling event for the RX.
Trichloroethene concentrations are approximately one-half of
those observed in the three wells in 1989; trichloroethene was
not detected in MW-5/I in 1989 or 1992. Most of the same
compounds were detected in the four wells in these sampling
events. The list of detections differs only in the presence or
absence of compounds at trace levels.
27
-------
Results in the five off-property bedrock wells installed for the
SHI (MW-9/S, MW-io/S, MW-IO/I, MW-ll/S and MW-ii/i) varied
somewhat. Trichloroethene was detected in each of the wells (20,
5, 5, 290 and 64 jig/L, respectively). Besides trichloroethene, l
Mg/L of 1,1,1-trichloroethane was the only other compound
detected in MW-9/S.
In addition to trichloroethene, MW-IO/S had trace level
concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethene (.9 ug/L),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (.6 ug/L) and ethyl benzene (1 ug/L).
Xylene (24 ug/L) and ethylbenzene (4 ug/L) were detected at
MW-io/I. MW-ll/S had the highest VOC concentrations of all wells
sampled, with 290 ug/L of trichloroethene, and lower levels of
carbon tetrachloride (16 ug/L), 1,2-dichloroethene (14 ug/L),
l,l,l-trichloroethane (10 ug/L), tetrachloroethene (3 UG/L) and
toluene (1 ug/L). Well MW-ll/I contained the same compounds at
similar or lower concentrations, and also contained xylene (l
ug/L), l,1-dichloroethane (1 ug/L) and benzene (.6 ug/L).
The concentrations of dissolved manganese in the onsite wells
were similar to those observed in the background wells.
Concentrations of 169, 292, 334 and 760 Mg/L were reported for
MW-2/S, MW-2/I, MW-5/S and MW-5/I, respectively. These
concentrations are higher (by a factor of four) than those
reported in the RI, except at MW-5/S, which exhibited a decrease.
Dissolved manganese concentrations ranged widely in the
off-property wells. The lowest concentrations were in MW-io/S
and MW-ll/S (1.2 and 55.1 Mg/L, respectively). MW-9/S and
MW-ll/I had concentrations similar to background (330 and 473
Mg/L, respectively). MW-io/I had the highest concentration of
dissolved manganese, at 4840 pg/L. The low manganese at MW-lO/S
is probably a result of the high pH at that well, thought to be
caused by cement grout that may have entered the well screen.
The cause of the high manganese concentration in the adjacent
well MW-io/I is unknown at this time.
Overburden Wells
Trichloroethene was detected in both MW-3/0 and MW-6/0 (78 and
estimated 8 Mg/L, respectively). Other volatile organics
detected included 1,2-dichloroethene (3 ug/L), 1,1-dichloroethene
(2 ug/L), 1,1,1 trichloroethane (7 ug/L) and carbon tetrachloride
(4 ug/L) in MW-3/O and xylene (12 ug/L), ethyl benzene (2 ug/L),
and toluene (.4 ug/L) in MW-6/0. The results for the 1992
sampling were very similar to those for the 1989 RI sampling,
except for the recent detections of xylene, ethylbenzene and
toluene in MW-6/0.
MW-3/O had 236 Mg/L of dissolved manganese, which is similar to
the concentrations reported for the bedrock wells. MW-6/O had
the highest concentration of manganese of all monitoring points,
28
-------
at 7420 M9/L- The concentrations at these two veils were
significantly lower than the 1620 and 14500 Mg/L reported during
the RI. .
Ground Water Level Surveys
A total of five rounds of water level measurements were collected
during this investigation. These measurements are presented in
Table 5. The water level elevations from one of these events
have been plotted on Site maps, and the potentiometric surfaces
plotted for the shallow and intermediate bedrock systems.
Figures 3 and 4 present the August 1992 data for the shallow and
intermediate flow systems, respectively. These data are
consistent with the patterns displayed in the other 1992
monitoring events.
c. conclusion
The SHI confirmed the presence of VOCs, including TCE, and
manganese in the ground water in the Site area. The direction of
ground water flow and distribution of the VOCs in the ground
water, both on and off the Site, indicate that the VOCs in the
ground water beneath the Site have emanated from an upgradient
source. Figures 9 and 10 depict the TCE plume that is partially
under the Site.
Manganese was detected in the ground water and surface water both
upgradient and downgradient of the Site. However, two wells
downgradient of the Site, and the sediment and the surface water
in the unnamed tributary, had significantly higher concentrations
of manganese than was found in upgradient samples.
29
-------
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER LEVELS
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS
HYOROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
MCNTORING
POINT
DESIGNATION
ELEVATION OF •
MEASURE POINT
(FEET MSU
Overouraen Monitoring Wells
MW - 1/O
MW - 2/O
MW - 3/0
MW - 4/Q
MW - 6/'O
MW - 7/O
MW - 8/O
MW - 9/O
1-67.36
1 152.20
1095.68
1120.80
1047 62
1095.15
1133.85
1057.61
24 JUL 1992
ELEVATION
(FEETMSL)
ABANDONED
* *
1089.46
1098.78
1035.84
• *
1124.45
• •
Shallow Bedrock Monitoring Wells
MW - 1/S
MW - 2/S
MW - 5/S
MW - 7/S
MW • 8/S
MW • 9/S
MW - 10/S
MW • 11/S
MW - 12/S
MW - 13/S
1167.78
1151.74
1116.21
1095.01
1133.37
1056.49
1024.51
1023.35
1183.55
1190.16
Intermediate Bedrock Monitoring
MW - 1/1
MW • 2/1
MW • 5/1
MW - 7/1
MW - 10/1
MW • 11/1
MW • 12/1
1166.84
1150.10
1114.70
1095.41
1023.56
1023.80
1183.57
Pile Boring Piezometers
P8 - 1
PB - 2
1 1 62.54
1164.13
ABANDONED
1110.38
1098.46
1059.72
1118.04
1037.02
1015.46
1003.82
1162.44
1122.34
Wells
ABANDONS)
1103.32
1098.81
1042.54
1013.11
1003.83
1149.33
Not Measured
Not Measured
Wetlands Piezometers (Temporary)
WP - 1
WP - 2
WP - 3
1014.83
1014.08
1013.46
1014.06
1013.46
1011.16
10 AUG 1992
ELEVATION
(FEET MSL)
• *
1089.27
1097.90
1035.09
• •
1124.57
• •
1109.73
1097.53
1058.86
1117.79
1038.12
1015.60
1004.21
1160.50
1121.37
1102.51
1097.91
1042.39
1013.19
1003.97
1147.73
1135.15
• •
1013.89
1013.35
1010.93
20 AUG 1992
ELEVATION
(FEET MSL)
• «
1088.82
1096.77
1034.58
• •
1123.70
• •
1108.93
1096.44
1059.61
1116.81
1037.93
1015.17
1003.62
1159.30
1120.27
1101.57
1096.68
1041.57
1012.45
1003.66
1146.58
1134.69
• •
1013.29
1013.18
1010.72
22 SEPT 1992
ELEVATION
(FEETMSL)
« •
1088.07
• •
1034.64
• •
1123.62
• •
1107.81
1094.41
1058.68
1116.79
1037.65
1015.10
1003.78
1160.50
1118.54
1100.06
1094.85
1041.60
1012.36
1003.65
1147.62
1134.58
• •
1013.44
1013.01
.1010.68
23 OCT 1992
ELEVATION
(FEETMSL)
• •
1088.81 i
1096.88
1035. 24
• •
1123.72 [
• • ;
i
I
1109.91
1096.53
1059.85. 1
1117.96
1038.06
1015.27
1004.37
1163.71
1122.41
1102.14
1097.01
1042.29
1012.66
1003.90
1150.93
1135.06
• •
1013.98
1013.30
1011.34
Note : MW-1/O..MW-1/S and MW-1/1 abandonment completed on 24 July 1992
Vertical Datum: NGVO 1929
Monitoring point was 'DRY* or insignificant water during the monitoring event
30
-------
Figure 9
Ov«rburd«n tnd Shallow B«d»
TCE teocoMMitf cUon*
10-12 Auau.i i»»2
0»lt Of PMOIOC«*P«» ». ..,, 19. 1989
•••
Sixmo. Bxhock Mon,lof."9 «•
ol TCC (u«A)
i.l.i.«i
ol Ml«i«« ICf C*nc«nlt.
fe* j . 100 uf/l
'""
o< Id
-------
Figure 10
InUrmcdUU Bedrock
TCE l»oconc«ntr«t»on«
10-12 Auguat 1002
•( ICt (ufl/l)
Ouonl.lgl...
0»TC OF PMOIOCOAPnv . APR* 19 1989
MM D.l.cl.4
Hotononlrol on cl ICC (j«/l)
-------
VII. SUMMARY or 8ZTB RISKS
This section of the Record of Decision summarizes the risk, if
any, posed by the contaminated ground water at the Site. This
summary is based on the Endangerment Assessment (or Baseline Risk
Assessment (BRA)) done as part of the Remedial Investigation and
completed in January 1990. Since that time there have been some
changes in the toxicological information on hazardous substances,
including manganese, and more Site-specific information on
contaminant fate and transport. EPA has updated the risk
calculations for the Site to reflect the new toxicological
information. In addition, EPA has calculated a current risk
posed by Site conditions, and a hypothetical future risk that
assumes a dovngradient drinking water well and consumption of
fish from the Little Schuylkill River. It is important to point
out that there is no current risk associated with exposure to the
deep ground water at the Site since there is no receptor - no
dovngradient well where exposure could occur. Additionally, as
discussed below, it is highly unlikely that a dovngradient well
(receptor) will be installed.
The majority of the hypothetical future noncarcinogenic risk
associated with deep ground water at the Site is presented by
manganese which may not be solely related to the waste at the
Site but which may be due to naturally occurring conditions. The
concentration of manganese in the background wells upgradient of,
and unaffected by, the Site exceeded the Draft Lifetime Adult
Health Advisory (HA) of 200 ppb. The concentration of manganese
in surface water upgradient and dovngradient of the site on the
Little Schuylkill River also exceeded the HA. The EPA Office of
Water provides the HA as technical guidance on the concentrations
of manganese in drinking water estimated to have negligible
deleterious effects in humans over a lifetime.
The majority of the hypothetical future carcinogenic risk
associated with the deep ground water at the Site is due to the
presence of TCE. However, based on the influence of topography,
faults and fractures in the aquifer and the resultant ground
water flow direction, as well as the results of sampling to date,
EPA believes that the source of the TCB is upgradient of the
Site, and not from the Site itself. TCE has not been found in
samples of the fluff or leachate emanating from the fluff.
Rather, EPA believes the TCB may have entered the ground water
upgradient of the Site through activities unrelated to operations
at the Sits. For this reason, this summary does not present
information on any carcinogenic risk, either current or future,
posed by the TCB in the deep ground water.
33
-------
A. Exposure Assessment
The potential for completion of exposure pathways to the
contaminants present at the Site is described in the following
sections.
1. Exposure Points
The potential points of exposure to compounds associated with
Site ground water are described below:
Ground water exposure from a hypothetical potable well
near the Site boundary;
Surface water exposure at the leachate seeps onsite, the
unnamed stream, and/or the Little Schuylkill River;
. Exposure to contaminants in edible fish tissue.
2. Potentially Exposed Human Populations
The potential population categories evaluated were children ages
2-6; children ages 6-12; and adults, including onsite maintenance
workers, offsite residents, offsite workers, and hunters and
fishermen. A summary of the potential Site-related exposures to
affected populations analyzed in this assessment is shown in
Table 6.
3. Exposure Point Concentrations
Exposures were estimated for the maximum and average
concentrations for each of the indicator chemicals found in the
ground water and surface water at the Site during the RI. When
calculating the average concentration, half of the detection
1imit was used as the concentration in a given sample for
indicators which were not detected in that sample. For ground
water, only downgradient wells were used for the calculations.
The measured and calculated values are presented in Table 7. The
major assumptions concerning exposure frequency and duration that
were included in the exposure assessment are shown on Table 8.
Receptors for the surface water and sediment contact pathways
were either expected to be present, although infrequently, in the
area in which samples were taken or the concentrations found
during the RI were used as a deliberately conservative estimate
of potential concentrations downstream. Thus, all exposures
were expected to be represented by the concentrations found in
the samples taken at the Site.
34
-------
Table 6
of KiporaiM U**l to Calculate Potaadal
of tacpo*
Adutta Surfine Water Contact Incidental Surface Water
BfoaccuoBilaJlon (Flah ^"if"^?!!)
Children age 6-12 Surfw Water Contact Inddental Surface Water
BloaocunulaQoa (Flab Indcsoon)
Chfldicn age 2-4 BtaMOcuiouJadon (Flab Ingesoon]
•aiatad to HryuCbatkal Wag
Adults TT^lhlrf Batfatng Oitnkfng Water
Chlldma«e«-12 Batttof Batttng Ortoldng Water
ChlldRnagi2-6 Bathtaf Bttfataf Drtoldng Water
35
-------
Table 7
(ppm)
Oo-tltc DCIVM! OQOIACI
MADAMCM
FCte
Trtcfcloralhcnc
Copper
Zinc
DENP
«.23E«00
O\
DcfflMl OOQlACt
InddcolAl InfMUoa
UOp^Jlf
Zinc
HypaUwltaalwttt
OtnMlcoaMd
Inhalaltaa Whlk
Zinc
MUlgMttM
Copper
Zinc
Man^ancM
Conner
»!_7
Zinc
MuifancM
Copper
Zinc
Mutfoneoe
lYtcMoroelhent
Copper
Zinc
MUlfMMM
Irtchloroclhcne
Capper
Zinc
Mftngpncae
Trlchloroelhcnc
Copper
Zinc
i.ase-oa
I.70E*OO
4.I5E*00
I.40K-OI
0.65E-OI
i.eoB-oa
I.ME-OI
0.65B-OI
l.60E-Oa
I.ME-OI
i.ao&oa
I.66&OI
A.66&OI
I.MK-Oa
I.06K-OI
i.«o£-oa
i.aafi-oi
4.I8K*00
a.4iB-oa
aoo&os
4 I6£«00
a.4i&oa
•.00&03
4.iaic«oo
a4iEoa
aooeoi
1.246*01
440E02
6.30E«OO
a.06E*OO
I.40E-OI
a.78E*OO
3.80B09
3.A0E-OI
a.78E«00
3.aoEoa
360EOI
a.78E*OO
3.aoEoa
3.60E-OI
a.78E*OO
3»OEOa
3.60E-OI
a.78E*OO
3.ao£oa
3.60EOI
I.07E*OI
oioBoa
4.00BOa
i.eae-oi
i.07E«Ot
o.ioEoa
4 OOE oa
I.00E4I
I.07E«OI
ERM. 1080
EMM. 1080
EHM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
EHM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
EHM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
EHM. 1080
EHM. 1080
ERM. 1080
EHM. 1080
EMM. 1080
EHM. 1080
EMM. 1080
1080
4OOEOa
I.A8EOI
EMM. 1080
EHM. 1080
EHM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
ERM. 1080
EHM. 1089
EMM. 1080
EHM. 1080
EHM. 1080
-------
Table 8
1C KABAXZTXU FOii CAfcCCTJttTOW OF DOCACZ AND WTAXX
Avenge Body waght
Avenge Skin Surtee Area
Average LUeame
Avenge Number of Yean Exposure tn Uleame
ACTTVITT CRAHACTERISTIC*
Amount of Water Ingested Dairy
Percent of Drtnldng Water From Hoae Source
Length of Time Spent Showertng/Batmng
. Percentage - <-n Surface Area
Immersed * .lowering/ Bathing
Volume of Wate -sed White
Showering/ Bauuag
Volume of Sbowentafl
Length of Time Spent la Bathreea After
Showerng/Batnng
Volume of Bathroom
Amount of Flab Canjumed Dairy
Amount of Water Ingeated 'r^f— «>«"y
• Hunten and Ftahermaa
ChJUwuPUyu*
• Hunten and FUhcnnan
• Children Haying
Dunaon of Surface Water Contact
• HuntSV ttM iMflaQDm
• Children P!aymg
Percentage of SMn Surface Area
MATERIAL CHAXACTTItlTTTCS
Ma« Flu* Rat* twater-baaedl
ItOCONCdnHAITON FACTOBS
Lead
ManganeM
Copper
Zinc
(at
(at
<0
(d)
(0
(d)
(M
(0
M
(W
M
M
.<*
2
(0
«fl
(4
(d)
Ml
I jfc
Ml
<0
(0
(W
(0
(0
JBuB
70 kg
IS.lSOcma
70 yn
58 yn
2Uten
7S%
20 mas.
100%
200Uten
303
to mm.
10 a3
8Jg/day
O^Bten
~"
Udaya/yr
—
4hn/day
18%
OSng/eaa/br
49U«g
lOOL/ki
200 Ukg
47L/kg
29kg 16W4
10.470 ema 6980 em2
8yn 4 yn
2 liten 2 luen
7S«» 75**
20 am. 20 nnn.
too** 1004*
200 ;. 200 luen
3a3 3m3
10 am. 10 mm.
10 a3 10 m3
6.5g/day &5g/day
_
0.09 Btan —
•• •••
28day»/yr
.
_ ~
Ihr/day —
_ ~
*
^S..Wa^LT..
/AS.USKPA,
of the
of Health and Cavmnoental
tovoladle
or Range* of Standard Faeten Uaed m
1984.
with
e-JJCKawtay. VJiuaavnioffieSh
d - tRM Staff Pnfeattonal Judgemtflt
i. auperfund Pubtte HeaJtb Etntuattaa
at the syapaatua of the
SoiT. ftek
__> 13 No^CBber 1969*
. No. 4.1989
Eft 8dO/8-8»Ol3r. 198*:
l-H
Manual. Jury IS
37
-------
B. Toxicity Assessment
A toxicity evaluation of the indicator chemicals selected during
the BRA was conducted to identify relevant chronic reference
doses against which exposure point intakes could be compared in
the risk characterization of the Site. Indicator compounds are
those which are the most toxic, prevalent, persistent and mobile,
and which contribute the major potential risks at the Site.
Indicator compounds selected for the Site's ground water and
surface water that are classified as noncarcinogens include lead,
copper, zinc, and manganese.
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 ing/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 intakes of chemicals from environmental media
(e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) can be compared to the RfD.
1. Noncarcinocrenic Risk
The Hazard Index (HI) Method is used for assessing the overall
potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed by the indicator
compounds. 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 intake 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 HI can be calculated.
The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the
potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a
single medium or across media.
The HQ calculation is made by dividing the "worst case" human
exposure estimates associated with a site by exposure levels that
are determined by EPA to be acceptable. The ratios are added to
represent exposures to multiple contaminants. Any result of this
calculation which is greater than 1.0 is considered to present an
unacceptable risk and indicate the potential for adverse health
impacts.
Tables 9-11 present the calculated hazard indices associated with
each of the exposure points, exposed populations (for each age
group evaluated), and routes of exposure identified previously.
Exposures to multiple sources of contamination through several
routes of exposure may occur. Therefore, the sum of all hazard
38
-------
Table 9
MMI
H..M4U4.1
Hypothetic*!
••««
-------
Table 10
IOM Ml* Rato«f«nB»l *••*•••••!
M4*Bl« tfaut* Indlt**
tatok*
UUk*
l^pMhcdnl
btfeattan MuigMeM
ItlcMamiliuw
DumlcanlM
IBM** IMdrfaracUwm
ai7EOI
I.26EO3
4I8E04
a.aaE-03
a.BIE04
I46E08
480E07
a ME o«
IO2E«OO
4.73E-O)
a.oaE03
• TOE 03
I.I8E03
646E08
a.40E-08
IOIE08
5. OOE-03
.OOE-03
.70E-02
.OOE-01
.OOE-03
.OOE-03
.708-02
.OOE-01
4.34E-f01
2.08E-01
1.12E-02
7.40E-03
S.02E-02
2.42E-04
1.30E-09
8.93E-06
2.04E+02
7.88E-01
9.62B-02
2.93B-02
2.36B-01
9. 108-04
6.49B-09
3.37E-09
falMUltanWItfb
B^Mng IMcMvocOicm
6.64E03
aoocoi
HA
NA
On-cttt
Omnrf *Ctmtftrt MM^MIMM
IMdifamlhcM
°3?
onv
I.18E06
a57Eoa
388E08
8 ME 08
aaaEO?
•fglMM«lMlUlt
a.fi&EO& 9. OOE-03
006EOA
I.3IEOS
I06EOS
188607
6. OOE-03
3.70E-02
3. OOE-01
2.00E-02
!*/«•'
I.ME-M
s.aacot
1 I7E04
I.07E08
a04E06
ft HE 08
7UE08
7.6AE07
34IE04
487E08
4UEOS
>l«t. Ikl*
5.OOE-03
3.70E-02
3.OOE-01
9.OOE-03
3.70E-02
3.00B-01
DtHMlMOlMl
IA8E08
I.I7EO4
IA7E08
T««UI
672EOB
781E08
7.60E07
34IE-04
487E08
4.63EOA
>tat.«M««i
a.MEoa
T.I1K04
I.76C03
•.asE-oa
I.70C03
3 ME 03
9.OOE-03
3.70E-02
3.OOE-01
9.003-03
3.70E-02
3.OOE-01
•m^UO
9.OOE-03
3.703-02
3.OOE-01
NA
NA
4.37E+01
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.09E+02
2.S6E-03 5.VOE-03
4.28E-06
9.95E-05
2.89E-09
1.44E-OS
2.70E-03
3.92E-04
8.90E-07
1.14B-06
2.34B-02
9.31E-09
6.80B-09
2.39E-02
3.92E-04
8.90E-07
1.14E-06
2.34E-02
9.31E-09
6.80E-03
2.38B-02
4.28E+00
1.94E-02
9.83E-03
4.30E+00
.91E-09
.95E-04
.53E-05
.44E-05
,54E-03
.14E-03
.11E-06
.93E-06
.82E-02
.26E-04
.91B-04
.96E-02
. 14E-03
.11E-06
.53B-06
.82B-02
.26B-04
.91K-04
.96E-02
,236+01
•60B-02
,308-02
1.26E+01
T»UI k«ui4. *tt
2.18E+02
-------
Table 11
•*(•>••••
S.MB-OI
S.OIK-04
I.74IM
I.BMM
I.42E-03
S.07K 0*
I.2M06
a OOB oa
nu
luqrl
I.MC4U
1. !•> 0»
i lac-oi
3.00BA1
5.00E-03 7.66E+01
6.00E-01 3.78E-01
3.70E-02 2.0IE-02
3.00E-01 1.J3E-02
.07E+02
.02E-01
. 30E-02
3.00E-03 6.02E-02 .84E-01
6.00E-03 2.90E-04 .09E-03
3.703-02 1.56E-06 7.78B-OS
3.00E-01 1.02E-OS 4.07E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.91E+01
NA
NA
3.72B+02
S.OOE-OI
3.70E-02
3 . OOE- 0 1
7.76E+00 2.26E+01
3.51E-02 8.79E-02
1.06E-02 2.35E-02
7.81E+00 2.27Et01
8.69E*01 3.95E+02
-------
indices for each single age group and exposed population is
given.
Most probable and maximum hazard indices have been calculated,
using the most probable and maximum intakes calculated
previously. The most probable intake is calculated using the
average exposure point concentration of the indicator chemical;
the maximum intake is calculated using the maximum exposure point
concentration.
Current maximum hazard indices calculated for adults and children
are .06 and .15, respectively. Current risk assumes a "fence
down" scenario,dermal contact with the Site leachate and dermal
contact with, and incidental ingestion of, surface water from the
unnamed tributary of the Little Schuylkill River and the Little
Schuylkill River. Hypothetical future maximum hazard indices
calculated for adults and children (ages 6-12 and 2-6) are 89.00,
218.00, and 395.00, respectively. Hypothetical future risk
assumes ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with
contaminated ground water and ingestion of fish from the Little
Schuylkill River. This risk is hypothetical since there is no
well on the State Game Lands and there are no fish in the Little
Schuylkill River. Table 12 presents the most probable and
maximum current and hypothetical future noncarcinogenic hazard
indices for all the age groups evaluated.
2. Carcinogenic Risk
The sole indicator chemical identified as a potential carcinogen
in the Site ground water during the BRA was TCE. Manganese and
the other metals found in ground water and surface water are not
carcinogenic. Since TCE is not a Site-related contaminant,
information on the risk associated with TCE is not presented in
this ROD. Based on current information, there is no carcinogenic
risk, either current or hypothetical future, associated with the
deep ground water contamination attributable to the Site.
3. Environmental Risk
The major ecosystem of the Site and surrounding ridges is the
eastern deciduous forest. The wetland community is limited to
the small flood plain of the unnamed stream and the LSR and
several small emergent wetlands. All of these wetland areas,
except one small emergent wetland, are located offsite. Although
an intensive ecological risk assessment was not conducted, some
indication of potential risk to wildlife and the environment can
be assessed from the toxicity testing (bioassays), field
assessment and human health risk analysis and Site conditions.
The lack of suitable habitat on the Site, as well as the
security fence, results in minimal wildlife presence at the Site.
42
-------
Table 12
Eastern Diversified Metals site
Noncaroinogenio Hazard Indices
Most Probable
Adult, off site
resident
Children, age
6-12
Children, age
2-6
Current *
.02
.05
None ***
Hypothetical
Future **
19.70
46.00
86.90
Maximum
Current *
.06
.15
Hone ***
Hypothetical
Future**
89. BO
218.00
395.00
u
* current risk assumes a "fence down" dermal contact with the Site leachate and dermal
contact with, and incidental ingestion of, surface water from the unnamed tributary of the
Little Schuylkill River and the Little Schuylkill River.
** Hypothetical Future risk assumes ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with
contaminated ground water and ingestion of fish from the Lit* iichuylkill River. This
risk is hypothetical since there is no well on the State Gaj.. . unds and there are no fish
in the Little Schuylkill River.
*** Children age 6 and under were considered by the Baseline Risk Assessment to be
unlikely to play in the Little Schuylkill River and the unnamed tributary to the river.
-------
The Site is located near a migratory route and a variety of song
birds and raptors may periodically visit the area.
No rare or endangered species have been reported or observed on
or near the Site. Several species that are not currently
endangered or threathened but may become so in the future may be
present in the forest habitat near the Site. These include the
red-headed wood pecker, bluebird, snowshoe hare, bobcat, timber
rattlesnake and rock vole. The river otter may also be present
in wetland habitat in the Site area.
Several species that may be of special concern and may be present
near the Site include the coyote (in the forest habitat); the
forked clubtail dragonfly, Canadian white-faced skimmer dragonfly
and the water shrew (in the wetland habitat); and the eastern
pearlshell (in the aquatic habitat).
The unnamed tributary of the Little Schuylkill River currently
supports little aquatic life, most likely due to elevated
contaminant levels. Direct discharge of contaminated overburden
ground water and contaminated seeps into the unnamed stream have
resulted in contaminated sediments and surface water in the
stream. Federal and state surface water standards are exceeded
for copper, lead, zinc, manganese, and iron in this stream. The
results of the bioassay testing of the unnamed tributary water
performed during the RI concluded that the toxicity to the test
organisms was most probably due to the concentration of heavy
metals in the stream.
The Little Schuylkill River does not support resident aquatic
life for approximately 5 miles downstream due to its acid mine
degraded condition. Transport of sediment does not seem to have
a significant effect on metals concentrations because sediment
samples collected from the Little Schuylkill River both upstream
and downstream of the tributary did not significantly differ for
metals.
Discussion of general limitations inherent in the risk assessment
process as well as some of the major assumptions made in this
assessment are included below.
l. The Baseline Risk Assessment was performed using sampling
data collected during the RI and predictive modeling to represent
environmental concentrations over large areas. Extrapolation of
data inherently introduces variability to risk assessment
calculations and results.
2. The BRA assumed the transport of compounds associated with
the site under steady-state conditions (i.e., continuous release
of contaminants into the environment at concentrations detected
44
-------
during the RI sampling). Steady-state conditions may not be
occuring since the maximum concentration of TCE in onsite bedrock
wells and manganese in the ground water during the RI was
approximately two times that found during the SHI.
3. There is no current risk associated with exposure to the
ground water at the Site since there is no downgradient well
where exposure could occur. The potential for future human
exposure to deep ground water is highly unlikely since the small
area of land downgradient of the Site between the Site and the
regional discharge point for ground water (the Little Schuylkill
River) is State Game Lands and largely comprised of wetland and
floodplain for the LSR. In addition, a public water supply
exists in the Site area and is utilized by upgradient facilities
in the industrial park to the east of the Site. No downstream
use of the Little Schuylkill River water (which is the discharge
point for deep ground water from the Site) for residential water
supplies has been identified in the vicinity of the Site at this
time. There is also no aquatic life in the LSR in the Site
vicinity; however, aquatic life in the unnamed tributary is
exposed to contaminated sediments and shallow ground water via
direct discharge and seepage from the Site.
4. With respect to the leachate, the dermal contact and
ingestion exposures for children are calculated according to a
"fence down" scenario which assumes that there is no impediment
preventing access to the Site. It is also important to point out
that risk estimates were based on continuous (or chronic)
lifetime exposure to the Site. The calculated risk for each
population was based on contact with the exposure point
concentrations in the various media during the entire time an
individual within an age group falls within that age range (i.e.
4 years for age 2-6; 6 years for age 6-12; and 58 years for
adults, assuming a total lifetime of 70 years). However, it is
unlikely that any one individual will be exposed to this Site in
all of the ways that are assumed here for his or her entire
lifetime.
5. 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. The RfOs contain uncertainties resulting from
extrapolating from high to low doses and from animals to humans.
6. Due to the limitations of the risk assessment process itself
and to conservative assumptions made specific to the Site, the
risk levels calculated are considered to be estimates of worst-
case risk.
45
-------
E. Risk Assessment Conclusions
l. Based upon the current conditions at the Site there is no
unacceptable noncarcinogenic risk to human health associated with
dermal contact with the Site leachate and dermal contact with,
and incidental ingestion of, surface water from the unnamed
tributary to the Little Schuylkill River and the Little
Schuylkill River, based on contaminants from the Site.
2. Under a hypothetical scenario that includes a dovngradient
drinking water well and consumption of fish from the Little
Schuylkill River (in addition to the current Site risk
assumptions made above) there would be an unacceptable
noncarcinogenic risk to human health presented by the deep ground
water at the Site. However, as discussed above, a hypothetical
downgradient drinking water well is highly unlikely, and for the
purposes of this ROD it is assumed that there will be no such
wells.
3. The results of the unnamed tributary water bioassay performed
during the RI indicated probable Site-related toxicity to aquatic
life in the stream due to metals. The unnamed tributary currently
supports little aquatic life, most likely due to elevated levels
of metals in the surface water and sediment. Federal and state
surface water standards are exceeded for copper, lead, zinc,
manganese, and iron. Direct discharge from the WWTP and
overburden ground water discharge through leachate seeps into the
unnamed tributary have resulted in the contamination of sediments
and surface water in the stream with metals. The March 1991 ROD
called for, among other things, upgrading the WWTP to remove
metals, cleanup of the unnamed tributary stream sediments, and
enhancement of the shallow ground water/leachate collection
system. Actions specified in the March 1991 ROD will be
implemented to cleanup the unnamed tributary and reduce any Site-
related impact to the Little Schuylkill River.
Based on a review of all the information set forth above and in
the Administrative Record, EPA has determined that actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants in the deep ground water from this Site have not
presented, and do not currently present, an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
46
-------
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED RESPONSE ACTION
No Action Deep Ground Water Alternative
The NCP requires that EPA consider a "No Action" Alternative for
every site to establish a baseline for comparison to alternatives
that do require action. Under this Alternative, no action would
be taken at the Site to remove, remediate, contain, or otherwise
address the deep ground water contamination. There would be no
capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with this
alternative. There are no ARARs associated with.this
alternative.
Where the Risk Assessment provides the basis for concluding that
a Site, or portion of a Site, poses no current or potential
threat to human health or the environment, EPA may determine that
its authority to undertake remedial action to ensure protection
need not be invoked. Under such circumstances, cleanup standards
and remedy selection protocols established under CERCLA and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
(such as compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements and evaluation of alternatives) are not triggered.
A determination that "No Action1* is required takes into account
both current and reasonable maximum exposure scenarios using
appropriate health and environmental criteria and standards that
relate directly to the media and hazardous substances being
considered. A "No Action" decision with regard to a particular
media or operable unit is made with the understanding that no
unacceptable exposures to site-related contaminants will occur.
Under the "No Action" alternative, no further remedial action for
the deep ground water will be taken at the Site. However,
response actions selected in the March 1991 ROD, including
enhancement of the shallow ground water/leachate collection and
treatment system at the Site, will still be implemented. These
actions will reduce the Site's impact on the environment and
reduce further the current risk to human health presented by the
sediment and surface water in the unnamed tributary.
EPA will investigate-the TCE ground water contamination in the
Site area under a separate site investigation that will focus on
identifying the source of such contamination.
47
-------
ZZ. BASIS FOR NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The primary basis for selecting the no action alternative for
deep ground water is that there is no exposure to such ground
water at present nor is any exposure likely in the future. No
drinking water well is currently located in the area where the
ground water contamination occurs nor is any well likely to be
placed there in the future. The area downgradient of the Site
between the Site and the regional discharge point for the area
deep ground water (the Little Schuylkill River) is State Game
Lands.
Furthermore, the contaminant predominantly responsible for the
noncarcinogenic risk at this operable unit (manganese) is present
at background levels that exceed the HA, while the contaminant
responsible for the carcinogenic risk (TCE) is not Site-related.
The majority of the noncarcinogenic risk associated with the
Site's ground water and surface water pathways is attributable to
manganese. Manganese is a naturally occurring element found in
area soils, surface water, sediment and ground water. Manganese
was also found in fluff at the Site.
The HA for manganese in drinking water (200 ppb) was exceeded in
background surface water samples from the LSR taken upstream of
the site with a detection of 286 ppb. The concentration of
manganese downstream of the Site in the surface water of the LSR
was detected at 305 ppb - not significantly different from the
upgradient sample. Upgradient and downgradient sediment samples
on the LSR also had similar concentrations of manganese.
Upgradient background ground water samples taken to determine
natural conditions of the aquifer during the RI and SHI revealed
manganese concentrations in the range of 252 to 655 ppb. With
the exception of two veils, the concentration of manganese in the
ground water upgradient and downgradient of the Site was not
significantly different. The two wells with high levels of
manganese (7,420 ppb and 4,840 ppb) were located at the bottom of
the watershed where saturated conditions exist in the materials
overlying the bedrock. The SHI revealed that the four veils in
closest proximity to the fluff pile had manganese concentrations
similar to those found in the background veil.
The presence of the manganese in ground water downgradient of the
Site may be related to natural conditions in the bedrock aquifer,
release of manganese from native soils underlying the fluff pile
due to geochemical conditions caused by the fluff pile, from
leaching of manganese from the fluff and migration in solution in
the ground water or a combination of all three of these reasons.
If the fluff pile is the source of the above-background
concentrations of manganese, the removal of the fluff pile
through recycling, as specified in the OU3 ROD, will remove this
48
-------
potential source of manganese and eventually allow the
geochemical conditions to return to their natural state.
Elimination of the fluff pile will not, however, by itself lead
to a reduction of manganese in area ground water below the HA.
The Little Schuylkill River is the regional discharge point for
deep ground water in the Site area. Bioaccumulation and fish
ingestion was shown by the risk assessment to present an
unacceptable noncarcinogenic risk due to the presence of
manganese. However, as stated above, the levels of manganese
upstream and downstream of the Site were not significantly
different. In addition, the LSR is an acid-mine degraded stream
that is reportedly devoid of macrobenthic organisms from its
headwaters upstream of the Site and for several miles downstream
of the Site.
The unnamed tributary of the Little Schuylkill River currently
supports little aquatic life, due to elevated metals levels from
the direct discharge from the WWTP and overburden ground water
and contaminated seeps. This discharge has resulted in
contaminated sediments and surface water in the stream. Federal
and state surface water standards were exceeded for copper, lead,
zinc, manganese and iron during the RI. The SHI confirmed that
manganese in excess of background conditions and the HA
concentration was present in the sediment and surface water. The
remedy specified in the March 1991 ROD called for remedial action
including, among other things, upgrading the WWTP for the removal
of metals, cleanup of the unnamed tributary stream sediments, and
enhancement of the shallow overburden ground water/leachate
collection system. Actions specified in the March 1991 ROD will
be implemented to cleanup the unnamed tributary and reduce any
Site-related impact to the Little Schuylkill River.
T 2 majority of the carcinogenic risk associated with the ground
w-cer and surface water pathways is attributable to TCE.
However, the TCE in the ground water cannot be linked to the Site
based on current information. Since 1984, EPA has been
investigating the contaminants associated with the Site by
collecting samples of soil, sediment, surface water, ground
water, leachate and fluff. EPA has determined that the fluff
pile at the Site consists of hazardous substances including
metals, most notably lead, and organics compounds including
phthalates and phenols. In all the analyses of fluff samples at
the Site, TCE has never been detected. Additionally, historical
records and interviews do not reflect the use of TCE during
operations at the Site.
The Site is located on the northern fringe of the TCE plume (see
Figures 9 and 10). The source of the TCE is upgradient and
southeast of the fluff pile at the Site. TCE is therefore not a
Site-related contaminant. TCE was detected in ground water at
the Site but was found at higher levels in wells upgradient of
49
-------
the Site than in veils under the Site. EPA has determined that
the TCE has likely originated from an upgradient source and not
the fluff at the Site. EPA believes that TCE detected
sporadically and at low levels in some onsite leachate seep
samples from the unnamed tributary stream bank originates from
upgradient ground water emerging under pressure from the
saturated zone of the aquifer under the Site. EPA intends to
address TCE ground water contamination in a separate
investigation.
TCE was not found in the surface water sample from the LSR
downstream of the Site and thus would not be available for
bioaccumulation assuming fish were present in the LSR.
Since manganese is a naturally occurring element that already
exceeds the HA in background surface water and ground water in
the Site area, and TCE contamination in ground water is not
related to the Site, EPA concludes that this Site poses no
current or potential threat to human health or the environment
through the deep ground water pathway. Accordingly, EPA has
determined that no action be taken to remediate the deep ground
water in connection with the Site.
EPA has the authority to revisit the No-Action decision with
respect to the deep ground water even if the Site is removed from
the NPL. This action could occur if deep ground water associated
with the Site is found to pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment.
X. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for OU2 of the Eastern Diversified Metals Site
was released for public comment on July 1, 1993. The Proposed
Plan identified "No Action" as EPA's preferred alternative for
deep ground water remediation. EPA reviewed all written and
verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. Upon
review of these comments, EPA determined that no significant
changes to the remedies, as originally identified in the Proposed
Plan, were necessary.
50
-------
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS SITE
Hometown, Schuvlkill County, Pennsylvania
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
September 1993
This Responsiveness Summary documents public comments received by
EPA during the public comment period on the Proposed Plan for OU2
of the Eastern Diversified Metals Site ("the Site") and provides
EPA's responses to those comments. The Responsiveness Summary is
organized as follows:
• Overview
• Summary of Citizens' Comments Received During
the Public Meeting and EPA's Responses
• Summary of Written Comments Received
and EPA's Responses
A. OVERVIEW
The public comment period on the Proposed Plan for OU2 of the
Eastern Diversified Metals site began on July 1, 1993 and ended
on July 31, 1993. EPA held a public meeting at the Marian High
School in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania on July 15, 1993.
At the meeting, EPA representatives summarized the results of the
Supplemental Hydrogeologic Investigation ("SHI") performed for
the site. They then presented EPA's preferred remedial
alternative for the Site. EPA explained that the Proposed Plan
called for no action to be taken in response to the contaminants
in the deep ground water in the vicinity of the Site and
explained the rationale supporting EPA's preference for this
alternative.
Local residents offered comments on the Proposed Plan. Most
comments related to concerns about the effects of the discharge
of TCE to the Little Schuylkill River. The transcript of the
public meeting is contained in the Administrative Record for this
operable unit of the Site.
B.. SUMMARY OF CITIZENS' COMMBHTS RECEIVED BORING
THE PUBLIC MEETING AND EPA*8 RESPONSES
Comments made during the public meeting and EPA's responses are
summarized below:
Public Comment *1; Is the wastewater treatment plant at the Site
operating now? .
-------
EPA Response: Electrical power to the aerators in the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) was shut off on June 22, 1993. Without
aeration, the microorganisms in the activated sludge have
probably died, thus it is unlikely that treatment is occurring.
However, effluent does continue to flow through the plant and is
discharged to the tributary to the Little Schuylkill River (LSR) .
Samples of the effluent were obtained by PADER on July 6, 1993
and analyzed for metals. EPA sampled the effluent on July 3C,
1993 and analyzed for organic compounds. Results of the analysis
showed no organic compounds were present in the effluent above
the EPA required detection limit. Metals including zinc, lead.
copper, iron, manganese, and aluminum were present in the
effluent. It should be noted that the WWTP has never treated the
effluent for metals. The interim ROD for OU2, signed in March
1991, selected remedial action including the upgrading of the
WWTP at the Site to include treatment for metals. The remedial
actions selected in the March 1991 ROD will be implemented
notwithstanding EPA's remedy selection for deep ground water at
the Site.
Public gammanfc # ^ • can failure to treat the shallow ground w^-er
ultimately complicate the deep ground water problem?
EPA Response; Since all of the water bearing zones at the Site
are interconnected, it is possible that failure to treat the
shallow ground water could affect the deep ground water at the
Site. A system is in place to collect the shallow ground water
in the overburden at the Site and pump it to the wastewater
treatment plant. However, this system is currently not
operating. The manganese in the ground water under the Site is
the primary contaminant of concern along with iron, aluminum,
copper, lead and zinc in the leachate. The current WWTP at the
site does not treat for metals. The March 1991 ROD called for
the enhancement of the shallow ground water collection and
treatment system at the Site. This upgrade will provide for the
collection and treatment of the leachate and shallow ground water
in the overburden for metals.
Public pamiiifp* jfs? What happens to the contaminated ground water
if it is left untreated? Does it go deeper? Does it go away?
Does it go into the LSR?
EPA Response; All ground water in the Site vicinity ultimately
discharges to the LSR. Ground water in the overburden and
shallow and intermediate bedrock at the Site are interconnected.
Ground water in the overburden at the top of the watershed has
been shown to recharge the shallow bedrock. At the bottom of the
watershed, and in particular the vicinity of the fault at the
western end of the Site where the unnamed tributary of the LSR
becomes perennial, the bedrock aquifer flows up into the
overburden. The levels of manganese upstream and downstream of
the site ?n the LSR were not significantly different. TCE was
-------
not found in surface water samples downstream of the Site and
thus would not be available for bioaccumulation assuming fish
were present in the LSR. Unfortunately, the LSR is an acid mine
degraded stream that is reportedly currently devoid of
macrobenthic organisms from its headwaters upstream of the Site
and for several miles downstream of the Site.
Public r»"""««fc $*•- What effect would the contaminated ground
water have on the LSR and hunters and other people using the LSR?
EPA Response; The Endangerment Assessment performed on the site
analyzed the risk to hunters and fishermen exposed to
contaminated surface water from the Site (via dermal contact,
incidental ingestion and bioaccumulation through fish ingestion) .
Current dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of the
contaminated surface water would not present an unacceptable
noncarcinogenic risk. Bioaccumulation through fish ingestion
could present an unacceptable noncarcinogenic risk if fish were
present in the LSR, due in large part to the presence of
manganese in the surface water. However, it is important to note
that the SHI showed no significant difference in the
concentration of manganese in samples taken from upstream and
downstream of the Site on the LSR.
There is no current or future carcinogenic risk associated with
dermal contact, incidental ingestion or bioaccumulation through
fish ingestion of the surface water in the LSR since there were
no carcinogenic compounds (organic chemicals including TCE)
detected in samples of the LSR. The TCE present in the ground
water volatilizes or is dissipated when it reaches the LSR and
therefore it would not be available to present an exposure threat
to hunters, fishermen and other utilizing the LSR.
Public QMMMnfc fy? What effect would the contaminants have on
downstream use of the water as a water supply? Do the
contaminants dissipate?
EPA Response; There is no use of the LSR for drinking water in
the Site vicinity. TCE and other volatile organics were detected
in the intermittent stream just prior to its discharge to the
LSR; however, no volatile organics were detected in the
downstream sample- taken from the LSR. The contaminants in the
LSR are either volatilizing or are diluted to the point of being
below the EPA required, detection limit.
Public Comment f«; What effect docs the ground water have on
fish life in the stream? Do the contaminants get into the food
chain? If the Little Schuylkill group succeeds and there are
fish brought back to the upper region of the stream, will this
(ground water discharge) constitute a continuing threat?
•
EPA Response: As stated above there currently is no aquatic life
-------
in the LSR in the vicinity of the Site. No organic contaminants
were detected in the surface water downstream of the Site and the
levels of manganese upstream and downstream were not
significantly different, so it is difficult to assess what, if
any, impact the Site has on the quality of the LSR. If the
Little Schuylkill group succeeds in reducing the acid conditions
and metal levels in the LSR, it will then be possible to
determine the Site's impact on the stream. EPA will be reviewing
the selected remedy at least every five years to determine
whether the remedy remains protective. EPA recognizes the Site's
impact to the unnamed tributary of the LSR that drains the Site.
The March 1991 Record of Decision called for the remediation of
sediments in the unnamed tributary and enhancements to the
shallow ground water collection and treatment at the Site.
Public ff?"""**^ f7* A commenter requested to see a comparison of
samples of the effluent from the WWTF before and after the WWTP
was shut down.
BPA Response; EPA and PAOER recently sampled the effluent from
the inoperable WWTP for organic compounds and metals. No organic
compounds were detected in the sample. The WWTP has never
treated the effluent for metals and, as expected, some metals
were present in the latest sampling of the effluent. A
comparison of the metals results of the most recent sampling of
the effluent and samples taken on September 4, 1990 indicated no
clear trend in the results. The July 6, 1993 sample contained
copper (27 ppb) , lead (50 ppb) , and zinc (684 ppb) at lower
concentrations than the 1990 sample but iron (4,810 ppb),
manganese (2,270), and aluminum (135 ppb) at higher
concentrations than the September 1990 sample.
Public Comment *8: What can EPA do if they find the source of
the TCE in the ground water?
BPA Response: Under CERCLA, EPA has the authority to cleanup or
to require that responsible parties cleanup hazardous substances
that have been released to the environment.
Public comment *•; In the no action plan, how long does the Site
continue to be monitored? By whom?
BPA Response; There are no plans to continue monitoring the
ground water at the Site. Under CERCLA, the no action decision
must be reviewed at least every five years.
Public comment *10; Is it safe to say that until you prove
positively where the TCE is coming from, to say that it's not
coming from the here [the Site] im going to be difficult?
Response; Based on the influence of topography, faults and
fractures in the aquifer and the resultant ground water flow
-------
direction, as well as the results of sampling to date, EPA
believes that the source of the TCE is upgradient of the Site,
and not from the Site itself.
Public Comment flit Can you postpone the no action decision
until the source of the TCE is found?
EPA Response: Since the TCE is not a Site-related contaminant
but is being released into the environment from an upgradient
source, there is no reason to postpone the no action decision for
the operable unit of the Site.
B. SUMMARY OP WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED AND BPA'8 RESPONSES
Copies of all written comments received are contained in the
Administrative Record for this operable unit. The written
comments and EPA's responses are summarized below:
"1 <7*""^«'«' In a letter dated July 29, 1993, Environmental
Resources Management, Inc. ("ERM") commented on the Proposed Plan
for the Site on behalf of AT&T. ERM stated that it "...strongly
agrees that the No Action finding for deep ground water in the
Plan is appropriate to the conditions at the Site." ERM makes
several comments not related to the Plan but to the previous
interim remedy for OU2 selected in the March 1991 ROD.
EPA Response; No response is necessary.
RflStM Comments: In a letter dated July 29, 1993, Harley N. Trice
II of the law firm of Reed Smith Shav & McClay ("RSS&M")
commented on behalf of Alabama Power Company, Duke Power Company,
Duquesne Light Company and Prestolite Wire. RSS&M stated n[w]e
believe EPA's selection of the "No Action" alternative regarding
ground water remediation is sound and reasonable in light of the
scientific evidence that no unacceptable exposures to site-
related contaminants from ground water will occur."
EPA Response; No response is necessary.
R88&M comments: In a letter dated July 30, 1993, Franklin L.
Kury of the lav firm of Reed Smith Shaw & McClay ("RSS&M")
commented on behalf of East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc.
RRS&M stated "East Penn supports EPA's "No Action" decision
regarding ground water remediation at the Site," and that the
alternative "...is sound and reasonable in light of the evidence
that no unacceptable exposure to site-related contaminants from
ground water will occur."
EPA Response; No response is necessary.
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
Sprliigflalrf. V
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
or riciAL nusiNESs
Pnnnlly for I'rlvetn IJSfl. S3OO
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
COM-211
FIRST CLASS
------- |