PB96-963907
EPA/ROD/R03-96/223
August 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Tobyhanna Army Depot, Operable Unit 3,
Area of Concern (AOC) 37, Bldg 10-C and
Area of Concern (AOC) 38, Bldg S-90,
Tobyhanna, PA
7/12//1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT #3
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
TOBYHANNA, PENNSYLVANIA
JULY 1996
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS iii
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION A-l
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 2-1
3.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 3-1
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4-1
5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT RESPONSE ACTION- 5-1
6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6-1
6.1 Site Topography — 6-1
6.2 Adjacent Land Use 6-1
6.3 Surface Water Hydrology 6-1
6.4 Geology/Hydrogeology 6-1
6.5 Ecology 6-2
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7-1
7. l Exposure Assessment—: 7-1
7.2 Toxicity Assessment 7-1
7.3 Risk Characterization 7-2
7.4 Conclusion 7-3
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE MNO FURTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVE 8-1
9.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 9-1
9.1 Selected Newspaper Notices 9-2
9.2 Comments Raised During the Public Meeting- 9-4
9.3 Public Meeting Attendance Roster 9-6
9.4 Restoration Advisory Board Members 9-7
9.5 Written Comments from EPA 9-8
10.0 REFERENCES 10-1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
Fig. l
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Location of Tobyhanna Army Depot
Location of Buildings S-90 and 10-C-
Surface Drainage Features of TYAD—•
Page
- 2-3
- 2-4
- 6-3
LIST OF TABLES
Air Sampling Data Evaluation for Building S-90—
Air Sampling Data Evaluation for Building 10-C—
Wipe Sampling Data Evaluation for Building S-90-
Wipe Sampling Data Evaluation for Building 10-C-
Outdoor Surface Soil Sampling Data Evaluation—
Page
- 3-3
- 3-3
- 3-4
- 3-4
- 3-5
Estimated Intakes and Potential Health Risks
from COCs in Building S-90 and Surrounding Soil 7-4
Estimated Intakes and Potential Health Risks
from COCs in Building 10-C and Surrounding Soil 7-5
LIST OP ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
AEHA Sample Results and Sample Location Map
Written Comments from EPA
December 8, 1995 PCB Sampling Results
11
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AEHA
AOC
CERCLA
COCs
CSF
DA
DRMO
EPA
FFA
FS
HI
HQ
IRP
mg/kg/day
NCP
NPL
ou
PADEP
PCS
PRAP
QA/QC
RCRA
US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
.Area of Concern
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
Contaminants of Concern
Carcinogenic Slope Factor
Department of the Army
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facilities Agreement
Feasibility Study
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Installation Restoration Program
Milligrams per kilogram per day
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Operable Unit
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Proposed Remedial Action Plan
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
111
-------
RfD
ROD
SARA
SWMU
TYAD
USACHPPM
VOC
ABBREVIATIONS AMD ACRONYMS (cont.l
Reference Dose
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Solid Waste Management Unit
Tobyhanna Army Depot
United States.Army Center for Health Promotion and
Preventive Medicine
Volatile Organic Compound
IV
-------
DECLARATION FOR TEE RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site Name and Location
Operable Unit No. 3
Area of Concern (AOC) 37, Building 10-C
and AOC 38, Building S-90
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tobyhanna, Monroe County, Pennsylvania
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents a determination that no further
action is necessary to protect human health and the environment
for Operable Unit No. 3 (OU3), Building 10-C and Building S-90 at
the Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Monroe County, Pennsylvania
(TYAD). This determination was developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Super fund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R.
Part 300. This document was prepared as a joint effort between
the U.S. Army, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The no further action decision is supported by documents
contained in the Administrative Record.
Description of the Selected Remedy
A no further action alternative is the selected remedy for OU3.
As a condition of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Part B Permit issued by PADEP in January 1993, the following
closure activities were performed in April-May 1993: (l) removal
of hazardous wastes from buildings; (2) inspection of building
interiors; (3) vacuuming of walls and floors; (4) decontamination
of buildings; (5) sampling of building interiors and exteriors;
(6) performance of a risk assessment and (7) certification of
closure in accordance with the RCRA Part B Permit. All results
from closure activities have been documented in the U.S. Army
Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA) Hazardous Waste Management
Study (AEHA, 1993) . A Risk Assessment, conducted as part of
closure activities at OU3, supports the no further action
remedial alternative.
A-1
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OP DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Declaration
The no further action remedy selection is based upon the post-
closure confirmation sampling results which were found to be
within the EPA's acceptable risk range. Therefore the selected
remedy is protective of human health and the environment. A
five-year review will not be necessary for OU3.
fa
I
Date
Greg A. Virgil
Colonel, U.S. Army
Commandin
Date
Thomas C. Voltaggio
Director, Hazardous Waste
Management Division
EPA Region III
A-2
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On July 14, 1989, the Tobyhanna Army Depot (TYAD) was proposed
for inclusion to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) National Priorities List
(NPL) and subsequently added to the final NPL on August 30, 1990.
The Department of the Army (DA) has been granted the authority to
be the lead agency at TYAD under Executive Order 12580 and
CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania have authority at TYAD as support agencies. The EPA
Region III and the DA negotiated a comprehensive Federal Facility
Agreement (FFA), which was signed by EPA on November 19, 1990,
and became effective on January 19, 1991. The primary purpose of
the FFA is to ensure that environmental impacts associated with
past disposal activities at TYAD are thoroughly investigated, and
appropriate CERCLA remedial action alternatives are developed and
implemented to protect human health and the environment. The FFA
has identified sixty-five (65) Areas of Concern (AOCs) within
TYAD.
A CERCLA remedial action is often divided into Operable Units
(OUs). As defined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), an "Operable Unit means a
discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward
comprehensively addressing site problems. This discrete portion
of a remedial response manages migration, or eliminates or
mitigates a release, threat of a release, or pathway of exposure.
The cleanup of a site can be divided into a number of operable
units, depending on the complexity of the problems associated
with the site. Operable units may address geographical portions
of a site, specific site problems, or initial phases of an
action, or may consist of any set of actions performed over time
or any actions that are concurrent but located in different parts
of a site." This Record of Decision (ROD) presents a
determination that no further action is necessary to protect
human health and the environment at Operable Unit No. 3 (OU3),
which consists of AOC #37, Building 10-C, and AOC #38, Building
S-90, both located at TYAD. The no further action decision is
the final action for OU3. Other OUs have been and will be
defined by separate investigations.
The no further action decision is based on the AEHA Hazardous
Waste Management Study (AEHA, 1993) which contains a risk
assessment documenting the risks from residual contamination
1-1
-------
within and surrounding OU3 after RCRA closure. In the risk
assessment, it was determined that OU3 posed no current or future
potential, unacceptable human health risks. Additionally, the
relatively small size of OU3 and its distance from critical
environmental habitats preclude significant effects on the
surrounding ecology. Therefore, the conditions at OU3 do not
require further action to be protective of human health and the
environment,
A feasibility study (FS), which normally develops and examines
remedial action alternatives for a site, was not performed for
OU3 since the results of the risk assessment indicate that no
further remedial action is required at the site.
1-2
-------
2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
TYAD is located in Monroe County, Pennsylvania,
approximately 15 miles southeast of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
adjacent to the Village of Tobyhanna (Figure l). Although the
name and mission have changed since its inception in 1909, TYAD
has always been a Government-Owned and Government-Operated
facility. TYAD was used for field artillery training and
ordnance storage during World War I. After several years of
inactivity, TYAD was used as a training, equipment storage, and
detention center during World War II. TYAD was again deactivated
until construction of the current installation in the early
1950s.
TYAD now encompasses approximately 1,293 acres (2.2 square
miles). As a communications-electronics maintenance and supply
depot, the current function of TYAD is the design, fabrication,
repair, and modification of a wide range of communications and
electronics systems. These systems, which range in size from
handheld radios to satellite communications ground terminals, are
associated with navigation, aircraft survivability, surveillance,
and electronics warfare.
Description of Buildings 10-C and 8-90
Building 10-C is located along Third Street, between Squire
and Gibbs Streets (Figure 2). Building 10-C is a concrete block
structure with concrete floors and curbs that encompasses
approximately 2305 square feet. Building 10-C was constructed in
1953 and modified in 1985 by adding a 1/4-inch thick epoxy floor
surfacing and 5-1/2 inch curbs. From the mid-1950s hazardous
wastes stored in building 10-C, mainly in 55 gallon drums,
included spent plating shop and printed circuit board solutions,
pesticides, solvents, mercury and PCB items. Building 10-C was
operated as an interim status RCRA hazardous waste storage
facility until issuance in January 1993, by PADEP of the RCRA
Part B Permit for Building H-56, the existing hazardous waste
storage facility. Building 10-C was also used for storage of PCB
items and non-hazardous materials prior to January 1993.
Currently, Building 10-C is used only for storage of non-
hazardous materials.
Building S-90 is located adjacent to Building 10-C (Figure
2). Building S-90 is a temporary corrugated metal building that
encompasses approximately 7750 square feet. Building S-90 was
constructed around 1957 and modified in 1983 by adding 5-1/2 inch
curbs. Hazardous wastes stored in Building S-90, mainly in 55
gallon drums, since the mid-1950s included spent plating shop and
printed circuit board solutions, solvents, paints, thinners,
2-1
-------
batteries and cyanide. Building S-90 was also operated as an
interim status RCRA hazardous waste storage facility until
issuance in January 1993, by PADEP of the RCRA Part B Permit for
Building H-56. Currently, Building S-90 is used only for storage
of non-hazardous materials.
Both Buildings 10-C and S-90 were "closed" as hazardous
waste storage facilities in accordance with requirements set
forth in the RCRA Part B Permit pursuant to Section 3005 of RCRA
issued to TYAD for Building H-56. Upon TYAD's receipt of the
RCRA Part B Permit for storage of hazardous waste in Building H-
56, hazardous waste was no longer permitted to be stored in
either Building 10-C or S-90.
2-2
-------
LOCATION MAP
KEY
INSTALLATION BOUNDARY
CZ3 FORMER TOBYHANNA ARMY
DEPOT PROPERTY (STATE LANDS)
1000 METERS
LOCATION AND CURRENT BOUNDARIES
OF TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
Figure 1
2-3
-------
Building 10-C
Building S-90—
Ftcure 2
-------
3.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In April 1987, EPA performed a preliminary review and visual
site inspection to identify potential Solid Waste Management
Units (SWMUs) and other areas of potential concern at TYAD (EPA,
1987) . This study identified 52 SWMUs that were subsequently
included as AOCs under the FFA. Two of these SWMUs, Buildings
10-C and S-90, are now designated as AOCs #37 and #38,
respectively. EPA recommended that potential releases be
addressed as part of site closure activities.
In March 1990, AEHA also conducted an evaluation of SWMUs at
TYAD (AEHA, 1990). This study identified 32 SWMUs which
generally corresponded to those listed in the EPA report of April
1987. AEHA concluded that no additional environmental
investigations were warranted at several sites, including
Buildings 10-C and S-90, due to the low probability that releases
would jeopardize human health and the environment.
PADEP issued the RCRA Part B Permit to TYAD for Building H-
56, the hazardous waste storage facility, on January 21, 1993
(PADEP, 1993a). As a condition of this Permit, PADEP required
the closure as hazardous waste storage facilities of Buildings
10-C and S-90. TYAD developed a closure plan that included
performance standards in accordance with Pennsylvania Code Title
25 Section 264.111 designed to control, eliminate and minimize
releases of hazardous waste and hazardous waste constituents from
Buildings 10-C and S-90. In order to meet these performance
standards, the following closure activities were performed: (1)
removal of hazardous wastes from buildings; (2) inspection of
building interiors; (3) vacuuming of walls and floors; (4)
decontamination of buildings; (5) sampling of building interiors
and exteriors; (6) performance of a risk assessment; and (7)
certification of closure in accordance with the RCRA Part B
Permit.
During the period of April 12, 1993 through May 19, 1993,
samples were collected to determine any residual contamination
that may be present after decontamination of the buildings.
Representative samples were collected from internal structures
and external soils to identify any such contamination. Sampling
media included wipes, ambient air, concrete floors, and both
internal (under the concrete in building S-90) and external
soils.
Analytical results from exterior soil samples did not
provide evidence of substantial releases from Buildings S-90 and
10-C. Low concentrations of the volatile organic compound (VOC)
1,1,1-trichloroethane and the PCB Aroclor 1260 were detected
along the runoff pathway from the front entrance to Building 10-
3-1
-------
c. Because concentrations were very low and there were no
detections in surface samples, these analytes were not considered
as contributors to risk and as a result vere not included in risk
assessment calculations. Several semi-volatile organic compounds
were detected at levels exceeding the background concentration
and were .factored into the risk assessment. The presence of
these compounds might be attributed to the combined influences of
asphalt paving, movement and storage of equipment, and incidental
releases of motor oil from vehicles. Although elevated levels of
metals were present in several samples, the concentrations
detected onsite did not significantly exceed background
concentrations, with the exceptions of nickel (surface and
subsurface) and barium (subsurface). Detections of cyanide were
isolated and the levels reported were very low. Since it was not
detected in surface soil samples, cyanide was not included in the
risk assessment and was not considered further. Based on the
types and levels of contaminants detected, as well as the
tendency for levels to decrease with depth, additional soil
and/or ground water investigations were determined not to be
warranted. Tables 1 through 5 provide a list of contaminants of
concern (COCs) and average and maximum concentrations detected
for each medium sampled. The sample location maps and complete
set of sampling results are in Attachment 1.
During the course of the sampling event, Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) measures were implemented in
both the field and laboratory to guarantee accuracy, completeness
and compliance with applicable regulations. In the field,
approximately five percent of the samples collected in each
medium were for QA/QC related purposes. The AEHA laboratory QA
program has been designed to meet or exceed accreditation/
certification requirements as specified by federal, state, and
private accrediting agencies. After the laboratory analyses were
completed, AEHA chemists performed a QC review of the data. The
QC guidelines which were followed were associated with each
analytical method used. In general, the data was found to be
acceptable. Data that did not meet the quality control criteria
were denoted by qualifiers. A third- party quality assurance
review of the data was not performed.
All results from closure activities have been documented in
AEHA's Hazardous Waste Management Study (AEHA, 1993). AEHA
recommended that Buildings 10-C and s-90 be certified for
closure. After reviewing AEHA's study and conducting a December
10, 1993 site inspection, PADEP concluded (PADEP, 1993b) that
Buildings 10-C and S-90 were closed in accordance with the
specifications of the PADEP approved closure plan.
3-2
-------
Table 1. Air Sampling Data Evaluation for Building WO, Tobyhama Army Dapot
to
u>
Compound Detection Arithmetic
Halt Naan
(«•/•') (MO/m*)
•emene
Carbon tetrachlorlde
Chloroform
Ethylberuene
3 -ethyl Toluene
1 aopropy 1 beniena
•eta/para Xylene
n- Heptane
n-propyt benseno
ortho Xylene
Styrene
Toluene
Trlchloroethene
1,1.1-Trlchloroethene
Tetrachtoroethena
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.83
0.42
0.58
0.58
0.44
0.4)
0.87
0.46
0.57
0.4S
0.41
1.S
1.7
0.80
0. 0.41
Coefficient
of Variation
0.21
0.19
0.54
0.28
0.059
0.21
0.41
0.21
0.45
0.070
0.50
0.84
1.8
0.25
0.25
NMlaui
Detect Ion
(•o/m*)
1
0.5
1
O.S
0.5
.05
2
0.7
0.1
O.S .
0.05
4
14
1
0.2
Two-elded
Student t Teat
0.042
N/A
0.510
0.985
0.000
H/A
0.419
0.147
0.004
0.001
0.016
0.591
0.000
0.000
0.000
Greater than
•ackgroundT
MO
res
MO
MO
NO
TES
NO
NO
TES
NO
TES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Upper 95X
Confidence llai
(•o/m*)
N/R
0.45
N/R
N/R
N/R
0.47
N/R
N/R
0.44
N/R
0.47
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
Reference
It Doee
(ajpyka/d)
N/R
S.71E-04
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/0
N/R
N/R
N/D
N/R
2.89E-01
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
Slope
Factor
(Mt^o/d)"'
N/R
5.25E-02
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/D
N/R
N/R
N/D
N/R
N/D
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/A - Compound not detected In background and therefore la coneldered a contaminant of concern.
N/R - Not required.
N/D • Not developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at thla time.
Teble 2. Air Sampling Data Evaluation for Sulldlng IOC. Tobyhame Any Depot
Compound Detection Arithmetic
Halt Mean
faoVrnf) da/m')
Beniene
Carbon tetrechlorlde
Chloroform
Ethylbemene
5-ethyl Toluene
Uopropylbenttne
mete/para Xylene
n- Heptane
n-propyl benzene
, ortho Xylene
Styrene
Toluene
Trlchtoroethene
1.1,1-trlehloroethane
Tetrachtoroethene
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.9
0.44
0.25
1.1
2.0
0.59
4.5
1.0
0.47
1.5
0.45
6.1
15
1.6
1.8
Coefficient
of Variation
0.52
0.25
0.64
0.61
0.77
0.40
0.65
0.68
0.55
0.65
0.19
0.46
0.95
0.58
1.2
Maximum
Detect Ion
<«a/m*)
4
0.7
0.2
2
5
0.8
9
2
0.8
5
0.4
11
61
5
6
Two- tided Create*- than
Student t Tact lackgroundf
0.000
N/A
0.028
0.000
0.001
0.979
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.206
0.000
0.400
NO
TES
NO
MO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
Upper 9SX Reference
Confidence Halt DOM
(•0/m*> faa/hn/dt
N/R
0.49
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
5.71E-04
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
Slope
Factor
(mo/ko/d) '
N/R
5.2SE-02
N/R
H/R
H/R
N/R
N/R
H/R
H/R
H/R
H/R
H/R
H/R
N/R
H/R
H/A • Compound not detected In background and therefore la considered • contaminant of concern.
H/R • Hot required.
N/D - Not developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at thle tie*.
-------
Table 3. Uipe Sampling Dote Evaluation for Building WO. Tobyhanna Army Depot
10
Compound
Cyanide
Leed
Detection
Limit
0.0125
1.00
Arithmetic
Mean
0.0071
0.61
Coefficient
of Variation
0.55
0.82
Naxlmus
Detection
0.024
2.8
TMO-sldod
Student t Te*t
N/A
N/A
flreoter than
Background?
VES
VES
Upper 95*
Confidence Limit
(ao/cm*)
0.0086
0.80
Reference
Doe*
ffaVhflY'd)
2.00E-02
••*
Slope
factor
(ma/kg/o}}'1
N/D
•**
Tentatively Identified Compounds >
Phosphoric Acid
2.5-Otmethylfuran
0.6
0.03
1.4
0.034
1.2
0.37
6.3
0.08
N/A
N/A
VES
VES
N/A • Compound not detected In background and therefor* 1* considered • contaminant of concern.
N/0 • Not developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at this time.
••• • Lead 1* known to cause advert* health effects however, toxlclty value* have not been developed (see
2.0
0.038
text).
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/0
Table 4. Wipe Sampling Data Evaluation for Building IOC, Tobyhanna Army Depot
Compound
bls(2-Ethylhexyl)
ph thai ate
•luoronthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Detection
Limit
fao/rV)
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Arithmetic
Mean
Cao/cm*)
0.056
0.051
0.055
0.050
Coefficient
of Variation
0.24
0.04
0.04
0.05 .
NMIBUI
Detection
(•a/cmfi
0.1
0.06
0.06
0.04
TMO-sldod
Student t Test
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Greater then
Background?
VES
VES
VES
VES
Upper 05*
Confidence Limit
(aa/emM
0.061
0.051
0.051
0.050
Reference
Dos*
2.00E-02
4.00E-02
N/D
3.00E-02
Slope
Factor
Cma/ko/dr'
1.40E-02
N/D
N/D
N/D
Tentatively Identified Compound:
4-nonylpheno!
0.02
0.055
1.2
0.22
N/A
VES
0.081
N/D
N/D
N/A - Compound not detected In background and therefore la considered a contaminant of concern.
N/0 • Not developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at this time.
-------
Table S. Outdoor Surface Soli Stapling Dete Evaluation for lultdlno* S90 and IOC. Tobyhamo Ann/ Depot
GJ
Ul
Compound Oatactlon
Halt
^jaa/ka)
Arsenic
RarluB
Cadeiui
ChroaluB
load
Narcury
Nickel
Silver
Ptienanthreno
Anthracene
Fluor anthene
Pyreno
•enioC ^anthracene
Chryeene
Renio(b)fluoronthone
•enio( k ) 1 luor anthene
•enio(a)pyrene
indtnod .2,3-cd)pyreno
Dlbenioh)anthrecene
•*nio(a.h. 1 )perylene
Naphthalene
2-Nethylnophthalene
blt(2-ethy thoxyl )phthelate
0.5
1.0
0.25
O.S
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.5
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
Arithmetic
Mean
(ea/ko)
4.6
77
2.4
19
26
0.077
22
0.42
1.3
0.50
.6
.5
.1
.1
.0
0.77
0.96
0.68
0.37
0.69
0.30
0.30
0.35
Coefficient
of Variation
0.34
0.22
0.45
0.10
0.72
1.1
0.20
0.68
1.1
0.61
.2
.2
.0
.0
.0
0.82
0.98
0.90
0.23
0.85
0.31
0.32
0.16
Naxleua fMo-aldod
Detection Student t feet
ffp'kft
8.8 0.823
100 0.544
3.9 0.215
22 0.274
71 0.482
0.32 0.954
27 0.016
1.
3.
1.
6.
4.
3.
3.
3.
1.
2.
1.
0.852
N/A
N/A
0.124
0.124
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.57 H/A
1.9 H/A
0.032 N/A
.0.027 N/A
0.51 N/A
Greater than Upper 95X Reference
BacfcgroundT Confidence Halt Ooee
(pjg/kfl) (M/koYd)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
TES
NO
YES
TES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
24
N/R
2.1
0.68
N/R
N/R
.7
.7
.6
.1
.5
.0
0.42
1.0
0.36
0.36
0.38
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
2.00E-02
N/R
N/D
3.00E-01
N/R
N/R
N/D
R/D
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/0
N/D
N/D
4.00E-02
N/D
2.00E-02
Slope
Factor
(M/hi/d) '
H/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/D
N/R
N/D
N/D
H/R
N/R
7.30E-01
7.30E-OS
7.30E-01
7.30E-02
7.30E*00
7.30E-01
7.30E*00
H/D
N/D
H/D
1.40E-02
H/A - Coapound not detected In background and therefore IB considered a contaminant of concern.
N/R - Not required.
N/D - Not developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at this tie*.
-------
4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed- Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for OU3 was released to
the public on December 4, 1995. This document is included in the
Administrative Record file and was made available for public
review at the following locations:
Coolbaugh Township Municipal Building
5500 Memorial Boulevard
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania 18466
Phone: (717) 894-8490
Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Public Affairs Office
11 Hap Arnold Boulevard, .Building 11
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania 18466-5076
Phone: (717) 895-6552
Hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The notice of availability of the PRAP document was published in
The Pocono Record on December 4, 1995. A public comment period
was held from December 4, 1995 through January 4, 1996. In
addition, a public meeting was held on December 13, 1995, to
present the PRAP for OU3 and to answer questions and receive
public comments. The public meeting minutes have been
transcribed and a copy of the transcript is available to the
public at the aforementioned locations. A Responsiveness
Summary, included as part of this ROD, has been prepared to
respond to the significant comments, criticisms, and new relevant
information received during the comment period. .Upon signing the
ROD, the Army will publish a notice of availability of this ROD
in The Pocono Record, and place the ROD in the Administrative
Record located in the repositories mentioned above.
4-1
-------
5.0 SCOPE AMD ROLE OF THE OPERABLE UNIT RESPONSE ACTION
To conduct investigation and cleanup activities at large
Superfund sites, it is customary to manage each discrete portion
of an NPL site as an Operable Unit (OU). OU1 corresponds to AOC
#4 and AOC #7, which are termed as Areas A and B, respectively.
OU1 addresses the area of groundwater contamination which has
migrated off-base. OU2 corresponds to AOC #63, the PCB
transformer storage area. This ROD for OU3 corresponds to AOC
#37 and AOC #38. The Proposed Remedial Action Plans for OU1 and
OU2 are in progress and will be issued in the near future. Also,
one or more additional OUs may be defined hereafter.based on an
evaluation of existing data by EPA, PADEP, and the Army.
EPA has reviewed the AEHA risk assessment and has concurred
with the Army's conclusion that the residual contamination found
in Buildings S-90 and 10-C does not pose unacceptable risks to
even the most sensitive individuals who have the potential to be
exposed, the onsite workers. Therefore, OU3 is deemed to be
already protective of human health and the environment.
5-1
-------
6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 SITE TOPOGRAPHY
TYAD lies in the southern New York section (locally termed the
Pocono section) of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic
Province. The section is characterized by mature glaciated
plateaus of moderate relief with broad intervening lowlands.
Within TYAD, the relief varies over a range of approximately 220
feet (ft); the lowest elevation (1/930 ft) occurs south of
Barney's Lake; whereas, the highest elevation (2,150 ft) occurs
on Powder Smoke Ridge.
6.2 ADJACENT LAUD USE
TYAD is bordered to the north, east, and west, by the Tobyhanna
State Park Reserve (Figure 1). The area south of TYAD is owned
by various residential property owners within the Village of
Tobyhanna.
6.3 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
Figure 3 shows the surface drainage features at TYAD. No
through-flowing drainage ways exist on TYAD. Surface drainage,
originating within TYAD, flows principally into Cross Keys Run,
Barney's Lake, and Hummler Run. Oakes Swamp receives drainage
from the western and northern portions of TYAD and discharges to
the north-northwest.
6.4 GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
The surficial deposits at OU3 consist of fill derived from
glacial and alluvial deposits. The relatively flat topography
was influenced by the construction of the industrial area of the
Depot in the early 1950s. The depth of the fill is approximately
70 feet based on the contour mapping (USAEC-WES, 1996) inferred
from the monitoring well construction logs at OU1, and the
inactive sanitary landfill (AOC #1). The surface water from OU3
is collected by the storm drain system which drains through 48-
inch pipe outlets to the Hummler Run Watershed.
The bedrock at OU3 belongs to the Poplar Gap Member of the
Devonian Age Catskill Formation. The Poplar Gap Member consists
of fine to medium grained sandstones. The contour elevations
inferred by existing monitoring well data indicates that the top
of bedrock would be at the 1930-foot elevation. The structural
geology in the OU3 area is limited. The existing information
(SEVON, 1975) indicates a low amplitude syncline axis located
approximately 500 feet north of the OU3 area. The relatively low
amplitude and limited information on structural features would
6-1
-------
not define groundwater flow as controlled by structure. The
anticipated groundwater flow pattern in the upper bedrock would
have a general south to south-east flow pattern.
6.5 ECOLOGY
With respect to ecology, OU3 has no wetlands, protected or
endangered species, nor any other sensitive environments
identified nearby.
6-2
-------
\
, \
\
US MILITARY RESERVATION \
TOBYHAKNA ARMY DEPOT I
LEGEND
SURFACE DRAINAGE
SWAMPS
400
1.200 2.400 FEET
400
800 METERS
Rflun 3
JJJRFACE DRAINAGE FEATURES
°§SJ8YHANNA ARMY DEPOT
W^^BBr JOA ' •*
IC8E.
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
6-3
-------
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Risk Assessment was conducted for O.U3 as part of the RCRA
closure process for Buildings S-90 and 10-C. The Risk Assessment
can be found in the AEHA Hazardous Waste Management Study (AEHA,
1993) . The Risk Assessment was based on confirmation samples
taken after decontamination of the buildings to determine whether
there was any lingering risk to employees working in and around
these buildings.
7.1 Exposure Assessment
In order for substances from a site to pose a health risk, a
complete exposure pathway must exist which links the contaminants
of concern (COCs) to a human population. A complete exposure
pathway consists of four essential elements: a source and
mechanism of substance release; a receiving or transport medium
(air, ground water, surface water, or soil); a point of potential
human contact with the substances ("exposure point"); and, an
exposure route, such as eating and drinking (ingestion),
breathing (inhalation), and skin (dermal) contact. If one or
more of these elements is absent, the exposure pathway is
incomplete and no risks currently exist.
The current and future use for these buildings is expected to be
by commercial workers. No future residential use is anticipated.
The area is currently zoned for industrial use and, as long as
TYAD occupies the property, is expected to remain industrial. To
estimate the risk to workers from exposure to interior air and
dust and exterior soil, in and around Buildings S-90 and 10-C,
the following exposure pathways were assessed:
• Incidental ingestion of soil and dust
• Skin contact with surface soil and dust
• Inhalation of interior air
Quantitative estimates of exposure to the contaminants detected
at OU3 were calculated for each of the exposure routes. The
intakes are based upon assumptions such as exposure time,
exposure frequency, exposure duration, ingestion/inhalation rate,
and body weight. Calculated exposure concentrations are given in
Tables 6 and 7.
7.2 Toxicitv Assessment
The estimated intakes are then combined with data from the
toxicity assessment of the COCs to quantify potential health
risks. The relationship between the dose of a compound (i.e.
amount to which an individual or population is potentially
7-1
-------
exposed) and the potential for adverse effects resulting from
exposure to that dose, is an important component of the
toxicological assessment. Standard reference doses (RfDs) and/or
carcinogenic- slope factors (CSFs) have been developed for a
variety of chemicals to assess this dose-response relationship.
An RfD is developed for chronic and/or subchronic human exposure
to chemicals and is based solely on the non-carcinogenic effects
.of chemical substances. It is defined as an estimate of the
daily exposure level for the human population, including
sensitive subpopulations (i.e., children and the elderly), at
which no appreciable risk of adverse effects is likely to occur
during a lifetime. Since a chemical can have different effects
depending on the route of entry, reference doses have been
developed for both oral and inhalation exposures. Dermal
absorption values have not been developed for any compound and
therefore, oral values are used to estimate risks for dermal
exposures. Reference doses usually contain safety factors to
compensate for the inherent uncertainties of extrapolating from
animal studies to human exposures and the lack of sufficient
human data. Therefore, reference doses are conservative
estimates of the quantity of a compound required for an adverse
effect.
CSFs are used to estimate an upper-bound lifetime probability of
an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to a
particular level of a potential carcinogen (EPA 1989) . The CSFs
are upper-bound estimates of the probability for a response per
unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime. The factors are
derived through an assumed low-dosage, linear, multi-stage model
and an extrapolation from high to low dose responses determined
from animal studies. The CSF is also accompanied by a weight-of-
evidence classification that designates the strength of the
evidence that a particular chemical is a potential human
carcinogen.
The RfDs and CSFs for all of the COCs are listed in Tables 1
through 5.
7.3 RisX Characterization
There are two types of risk that are evaluated to determine
overall risk to human health - carcinogenic, and noncarcinogenic
risks.
Carcinogenic risks are estimated based on the increased
probability that additional cancers will occur within a
population if exposed to certain contaminants. The EPA has
established a range of 1 X 10"4 (one additional cancer in a
population of ten thousand) to 1 X 10~6 (one additional cancer in
a population of one million) as an acceptable range of risk.
7-2
-------
Remediation is generally not required when contaminant levels are
within or above this range. Carcinogenic risk is calculated by
multiplying the estimated intake for each contaminant by its CSF.
Carcinogenic-risks are considered additive across pathways, and
therefore are summed to provide a single carcinogenic risk for
the entire exposure scenario. The estimated carcinogenic risk
for both Building S-90 and Building 10-C was calculated to be 1 X
10~5, or one additional cancer in a population of one hundred
thousand, which is within the acceptable range specified in the
NCP.
Nohcarcinogenic risks are determined by the use of a hazard index
(HI), which calculates whether the most sensitive individuals in
a population could be negatively affected by chemicals. An HI is
calculated by first determining the hazard quotient (HQ) for each
chemical. The HQ is calculated from the ratio of the COC intake
to its reference dose. The HQs for all of the COCs are then
tabulated to determine the HI. An HI greater than 1.0 means that
there is a possible concern of potential noncarcinogenic or toxic
effects from exposure to these chemicals. The HI for Building S-
90 was calculated to be 0.05, and the HI for Building 10-C was
•0.08, both well below 1.0.
In summary, the residual contamination in and surrounding these
buildings for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects does
not appear to present unacceptable potential for adverse health
effects to the workers. A summary of the COCs and their
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks is presented in Tables 6
and 7.
7.4 Conclusion
Based on the results of the risk assessment, known concentrations
of the COCs in soils and within the buildings do not pose
unacceptable human health risks to even the most potentially
sensitive exposed individuals, which are onsite workers. Based
on current data, neither deeper subsurface soils nor groundwater
are expected to have been impacted by the residual contamination
at OU3. Furthermore, significant ecological effects are not
expected to occur because of the limited size of the site, its
distance from critical habitats, and the relative immobility of
the COCs. Therefore, further response actions at OU3 are deemed
unnecessary to protect human health and the environment.
7-3
-------
Table 6. Eatlaatad Intake* and Potential Health «i*ka fro* COCa In Building S90 «nd Surrounding Surface
Soi I, Tobyhama Ar»y Dapet
Expeeure
•out*
Contaarinanta of
Cm u»ef ii
Noncarcinoganic
intake Haurd Quotiant
Carcinogenic
Intake «<*k
(•o/fca/di
Inhalation
Cartoon tetrachloride
iMprepylbaniane
n-prepyl benzene
tion of Interior Ou*t
Cyanide
Pfioephorie Acid
2,5-Oievthylfuran
Derael Contact Mith Interior Ouat
Cyanide
Lead
Phoephoric Acid
2,5-Oieathylfuren
Inae*tian of Surface Soil
Nickel
Phenenthrene
Anthracene
l*rao
-------
Table 7. Estimated Intakes and Potential Health I1sk« fro* COC* in Building IOC and Surrounding Surface
Soil, Tobyhanno Are* Depot
Exposure
lout*
Contaainants of
Moncsrcinoganic
Intake Hazard Quotient
Carcinogenic
Intake «i«k
(•o/fco/d)
Inhalation
Cartoon totrachlorid*
Inflection of Interior Dust
Bis<2-othylhexyl>phthalate
Fluoranthane
Phenanthrene
4-nonylphenol
Contact Mltti Interior Oust
•is<2-ethylhexyl)phthelete
riuer anthem
Phenanthrene
4-nonylphenol
tion of Surface Soil
nickel
Phenen throne
Anthracene
Seraopyrene
lndeno<1,2.3-cd)pyrene
01berao(e.h)anthrecene
Mnzo<|.h>l)perylene
naphthalene
2-Nethylnephtbatem .
bi«<2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Oerwl Contact
with Surface Soil
Nickel
Phenenthrene
Anthracene
lenxo
-------
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVE"
From an analysis of all pertinent information for OU3f it is
concluded that further actions are not necessary for the
protection of human health or the environment. Therefore, the
selected alternative for OU3 is the No Further Action
Alternative. The alternative will consist of leaving buildings
10-C and S-90 intact. No additional sampling or monitoring will
be necessary because no future potential unacceptable threats to
human health or the environment exist as a result of the prior
RCRA closure action, the current low levels of residual
contamination, and the acceptable levels of risk to both human
health and the environment. Representatives of the EPA, and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were apprised of the No Further
Action Alternative for OU3 and concur with this decision. This
alternative will have no associated costs.
8-1
-------
9.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to provide the
public with a summary of citizen comments, concerns, and
questions about OU 3, Buildings IOC and S-90, at TYAD. A public
meeting was held on December 13, 1995, to present the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) and to answer questions and receive
comments. One written comment was received from the EPA. No
written public comments were received during the December 4, 1995
through January 4, 1996 comment period. At the public meeting,
one citizen had questions regarding the PRAP.
The Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following
sections:
O Selected newspaper notices announcing dates of the
public comment period and location and time of the
public meeting
0 Comments raised during the Public Meeting, December 13,
1995 .
O Public meeting attendance roster
O Restoration Advisory Board Members
O Written Comments from EPA
All comments and concerns summarized in this document have been
considered by EPA in making a decision regarding the selection of
the No Further Action alternative at OU3.
9-1
-------
9.1 SELECTED NEWSPAPER NOTICES
THE POCONO RECORD - Daceaber 4, 1995
PUBLIC NOTICE
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
ANNOUNCES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL
ACTION PLAN FOR A RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECOV-
ERY ACT (RCRA) CLOSURE OF OPERABLE UNIT NUMBER 3.
The U.S. Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announce the availability ol
the Proposed Remedial Action Plan lor the RCRA Closure at Operable Unit No 3 at
lobyhaoiu Army Depot
This RCRA closure is lor two former hazardous wasle storage facilities.- These facilities
are designated as Areas of Concern 37 and 38.
The closure action consisted o) decontamination by washing and raising and sampling lor
hazardous constituents All verification analysis results and Pennsylvania Department ol
Environmental dotation (FADER) Closure Verification are included in Ihe Administrative
Record.
The Proposed Remedial Action. Plan is now available at information lepostiories located
at:
Coolbaugh Township Municipal Building lobyhanna Aimy Depot
5500 Memorial Boulevard Building 11
Tobyhama. PA 18466 ' II Hap Arnold Boulevard
Phone: (717) 194-8490 lobyhanna. PA 18466-5076
Hours: S a.m. to 4:30 p.m. • ..Phone. (717) 895-6552
iTours: 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The Army wil hold a pubfe meeting' lo discuss Uw closure ol these buddings immediately
following the meeting ot the Tobyhanw Army Oepol Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
meeting on December 13. The RAB meeting will begin .at 7 p m. in the Coolbaugh Township
Municipal Building. 5500 Memorial Blvd.. Tobyhanna. Pa.
Written comments on the Proposed Remedial Action Plan wiH be accepted for 30 days
(allowing the publication of this notice. Alt public comments wiH be included in the final
legal lecord that details the closure action. These comments should be directed to one of
the following individuate:
Lwie Baker (3HW72)
Remedial Project' Manager
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 19107
Phone: (717) 597-3165
Cr«g H. Coffman (StOTY-RK-f)
1RP Project Manager
Tobyhanna Army Depot
11 Hap Arnold Boulevard
Tobyhama. PA 18466-5086
Phone:' (717) 895-6494
PUBLIC NOTICE
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
7 PM DECEMBER 13, 1995
The next meeting of the Tobyhonno Army -Depot Restoration Advisory
Board (RAB) will be conducted on December 13. 1995. ol 7 p.m. in the
Coolbaugh Township Municipal Building. The purpose of Ihe RAB is to
increase community involvement in Tobyhanno Army Depot's environ-
mental restoration program.
The meeting is open to the public.
Representatives of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Pennsylvania Deportment of Environmental Protection and community
members of Ihe RAB will be present at the meeting to discuss recent
progress in the depot's environmental restoration program.
Immediately following the RAB meeting, there will be a public meeting
lo discuss the Proposed Remedial Action Plan for a Resources Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure of -Tobyhonno Army Depot Operable
Unit No. 3. This RCRA closure is for two former hazardous .waste storage
facilities.
For more information about both meetings, coll Kevin Toolon in the
depot's public affairs office at 717 895-6552.
9-2
-------
THE POCONO RECORD - DECEMBER 13, 1995
T
U)
Mountain area
Wednesday, December 13,1995 B-3
Report gives Depot buildings clean bill of health
BOB KEELER
Pocono Record Writer
TOBYHANNA — No further
cleanup work is needed at two Toby-
hanna Army Depot buildings used to
store hazardous wastes from the 1950s
to 1993.
That's the conclusion of a study by
the Army in consultation with the
federal Environmental Protection
Agency and the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection.
The report is scheduled to be
presented at a public meeting begin-
ning at 7 tonight in the Coolbaugh
Township building.
- Fifty-five gallon drums of chemi-
cals — including mercury, pesticides,
PCBs, cleaning solutions, cyanide,
paints and paint thinners — have been
stored in the buildings, according to
the report.
In January 1993, the depot started
using another building to store hazard-
ous wastes.
The two buildings — a 2,305-
square-foot concrete block structure
built in 1953 and a 7,750-square-foot
corrugated metal building constructed
next to it around 1957 — are referred
to as 10-C and S-90.
"The Army currently intends to
use Buildings 10-C and S-90 only for
storage of nonhazardous materials,"
the report says.
Hazardous wastes have already
been removed from the buildings and
walls, the floors have been vacuumed,
and the buildings have been decontam-
inated and tested, according to the
report.
"The estimated carcinogenic risk
for buildings-S-90 and 10-C each was
calculated to be ... one additional
cancer case in a population of 100,000,
which is well within EPA's acceptable
range," the report says.
There are not expected to be any
significant health risks from noncan-
cerous diseases, the report says.
". . . The residual contamination
found in Buildings S-90 and 10-C does
not pose unacceptable risks to even
the most sensitive individuals who
have the potential to be exposed, the
ohsite workers," the report concludes
Public comment on the report and
its findings may be made at tonight's
meeting or in writing before Thurs
day, Jan. 4, 1996.
Written comments may be mailed
to: Craig H. Coffman (SIOTY-RK-E).
IRP Project Manager, Tobyhanno
Army Depot, 11 Hap Arnold Blvd.,
Tobyhanna, Pa. 18466-5086, or Lorie
Baker (3HW72), Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Region III, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107.
Coffman may also be called at
(717) 895-6494; Baker can be phoned at
(717) 597-3165.
-------
9.2 COMMENTS RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1995
One citizen raised comments during the public meeting. The
citizen asked several questions concerning the use of Buildings
S-90 and 10-C. The questions were regarding the types of
hazardous wastes stored, storage procedures, storage times, and
disposal procedures. In addition, the citizen asked about
building characteristics such as type of floor, floor sealant,
bertns, and how the building cleaning was accomplished. The
citizen's questions and the Army's responses are presented below:
CONCERNED CITIZEN: My question deals with the drums that were in
storage for years. Were they steel drums, fiberglass, or some
other material?
ARMY RESPONSE: The drums were mainly brand new steel drums. The
drums were stored in Buildings S-90 and 10-C which both have
concrete and epoxy-sealed floors and berms. Although the
buildings were used for storage for many years, an individual
drum would not be stored for years, but would be taken off-site
for disposal at regular intervals.
CONCERNED CITIZEN: Did I hear you say that you have a five and
one-half inch berm for retention and an epoxy covering over that?
ARMY RESPONSE: Yes.
CONCERNED CITIZEN: Were the drums removed and taken off-site to a
disposal area?
ARMY RESPONSE: Yes, the drums were removed from Buildings S-90
and 10-C and eventually taken off-site. Those drums that were
not sent off-site immediately were moved to the new hazardous
waste storage facility, Building H-56. Building H-56 is operated
by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office which
administers the contract for the disposal of hazardous wastes.
When hazardous waste drums leave the generation shop, they are
taken to the DRMO facility, processed, and shipped off-site
within 90 days.
CONCERNED CITIZEN: Will any future hazardous materials that you
get be taken into the new facility for temporary storage?
ARMY RESPONSE: Hazardous materials are separate from hazardous
wastes. Hazardous materials are products such as paints,
thinners, or materials which are flammable or could cause harm if
improperly used. Hazardous wastes are spent materials which can
no longer be used for what they were intended. With regard to
hazardous materials, we are working very hard to eliminate or at
9-4
-------
least minimize their use by trying to find substitutes for as
many hazardous materials as possible. Hazardous materials
currently being used are stored in other buildings specifically
designed for-hazardous materials storage. With regard to
hazardous wastes, all future hazardous wastes will be taken to
Building H-56 for temporary storage.
CONCERNED CITIZEN: After you did the cleaning of the walls and
floors, did you find everything in compliance with regulations?
ARMY RESPONSE: After the double wash rinse of the walls and
floors, confirmation samples showed that we were in compliance
with the closure requirements.
CONCERNED CITIZEN: What happened to the materials used for
cleaning?
ARMY RESPONSE: The materials used for cleaning and the wastewater
generated from the cleaning were drummed, sampled, and disposed
of properly off-site.
CONCERNED CITIZEN: I think that answers my concerns.
ARMY RESPONSE: We appreciate your participation.
9-5
-------
9.3 Public Meeting Attendance Roster
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
OPERABLE UNIT 3
Building 10-C and 8-90
December 13, 1995
Coolbaugh Township Building
1. Bob Gregory, ERM Inc.
2. Joe Bannon, ERM Inc.
3. Julia Oakey, Local Resident
4. Theresa Puluka, Local Resident
5. John Nidoh, TYAD
6. Joseph Maciejewski, TYAD
7. Joseph Phalen, Army Corps of Engineers
8. Ed King, Roy F. Weston, Inc
9. Jeff Armstrong/ Army Environmental Center
10. Mike Parrent, TYAD
11. MAJ Steve Hart, TYAD
12. Bill Hudson, USEPA
13. Lorie Baker, USEPA
14. Ed Elliott, RAB Member
15. Francis Regan, RAB Member
16. Cullie Willis, Local Resident
17. C.W. Dennis, RAB Co-Chairman
18. Robert Ferri, RAB Member
19. Walter Burkhart, RAB Member
20. COL Greg Virgil, TYAD Commander
21. Kevin Toolan, TYAD
22. Craig Coffman, TYAD
9-6
-------
9.4 RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
l. C.W. Dennis, Community Co-Chair
2. Frank Zardecki, DoD Co-Chair
3. Robert Ferri
4. Walter Burkhart
5. Ed Elliott
6. Francis Regan
9-7
-------
9.5 COMMENT FROM EPA
Attachment 2 is the EPA comment letter.
In summary, issues identified by EPA included assumptions made in
the risk assessment, data quality, and a "PCS hot spot" that may
need further evaluation. The resolution of these issues is
.summarized below:
Risk Assessment: Upon review of the AEHA risk assessment, EPA
concluded that it would not support the exact risk numbers
calculated by the Army. However, recalculation of the risk
numbers using corrected values and certain conservative
assumptions, would still provide results within the EPA target
risk ranges for an adult worker. Consequently, EPA did not
recommend recalculating the numbers for the purpose of this ROD.
The Army acknowledges EPA's comments on the risk assessment
methodology and will incorporate EPA's suggested changes to the
methodology in future risk assessments.
Data Quality: EPA commented on the need to document the quality
of the data used for the risk assessment, further information on
the quality assurance/quality control methods used by the Army
are presented in Section 3.0 of the ROD.
PCS Hot Spot: EPA commented that one area, referred to as the
"PCB hot spot", may require further investigation. An elevated
level of PCBs within the building was noted in the AEHA report.
The level was above established cleanup guidelines for PCBs.
The Army informed EPA that further decontamination was completed
in that area and that confirmation samples showed levels below
the cleanup level. However, this documentation could not be
located. As a result, the "PCB hot spot" was resampled on
December 8, 1995. The wipe sample analysis results and sampling
plan are located in Attachment 3. The analysis indicated that
PCB's were at non-detectable levels in the area previously
considered the "hot spot". This result indicated that the PCB
clean up was successful. Both attachments are part of the
Administrative Record.
9-8
-------
10.0 REFERENCES
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1993. Hazardous Waste
Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93. Sampling, Evaluation, and
Closure Certification for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Closure Buildings S-90 and 10-C, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna,
Pennsylvania, 12 April - 19 May 1993 (Volumes I and II).
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1990. Ground-Water
Quality Survey No. 38-26-K914-90. Evaluation of Solid Waste
Management Units, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania,
26 - 30 March 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. 1987. Phase II
RCRA Facility Assessment for the Tobyhanna Army Depot, May 1987.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources. 1993a. Permit for Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and/or Disposal Facility for Tobyhanna Army Depot,
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, January 21, 1993.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. 1993b. Correspondence from Robert K. Lewis,
Regional Facilities Supervisor, Waste Management Program,
December 14, 1993.
10-1
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93, 12 Apr - 19 May 93
.LEGEND
X SOIL SAMPLE
S10X
SI1 X
sia x
RAIL ROAD
X S9
BLOC
S-90
X S8
X S7
S13X
X S4 S3
BLOC
IOC
3RD STREET
. US ASMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE *GEMCY
V WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
' N PROVING GROUND. MARYLAND
LQCATIONS or EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES
SL3GS S-90 AND IOC
.••OJCCT
37-26-J74Q
iritc TOAD
Al-1
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93, 12 Apr - 19 May 93
3RD STREET
•
•
AWC-9 ^
® AWC-14 MM
a Aw-16 AW-W
AW-I9
^ AW-13
^ AW-12
_ AWC-7 ®
a AW-17
^ AW-U
AWC-3 ^
« M
AVC*5
V AWC-4
e AVSl
AWC™2 ^^
AWC-6
AW-15
nor
1 2 ) 4 5
t 7 1 * 10
LCGCW ^^^^^^Ml " "* 'J " —
5 So^fTJiJS?«D,t «• rSj£|uSjw?'iHlTCTtn«)
C^iMLh US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY IOILDINC WC *£"*-* POtNT
Co»g«S WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
V^fiKjr ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND. MARYLAND
^&f9f*' »M«M *T MOJCCT •« TIL!
^^-r^ BCD 37-86-J740 T°*° '
Al-2
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93, 12 Apr - 19 May 93
e> co
I* SB
*• v» utru. xiwr
w VPC
run amx
QD •»•«•
1
II
tt
t
u
(t
I
19
n
•
14
««
s
13
n
4
M
It
7
17
f7
1
II
If
»
11
It
II
H
•
TACtS &J& LBIUUUi>
US M(HT CNVIROWCNTAL MYGICK AGENCY
WASTE DISTOSAL CNGINCEKING DIVISION
AKRDCCN PRCNIMG GROUND. MA8TLANO
BUILDING S-90 SAMFLt POINT LOCATIONS
RCB
TOAD,
Al-3
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93, 12 Apr - 19 May 93
LOCATIONS OF BACKGROUND AIR, WIPE,
AND SOIL SAMPLES,
BLDGS S-90 AND IOC CLOSURE
Al-4
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93, 12 Apr - 19 May 93
IM KKKT
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY
WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
EN PROVING GROUND. MARYLAND
LOCATION OF BACKGROUND
CONCRETE SAMPLES,
BLOG 703
Ai-5
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93, 12 Apr - 19 May 93
MAIN »ItU
kCSEM
9 n.0 &M*l£ *• MB «M*IC PCWT
c* coKKCTt s*t»u natr
X *4-L I**Lt
0 »w-t
0 10
SCALE IN FEET
£jjlMte> us ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY BUILDING 7 BAY 6
Sr^Sclrir WASTC DISPOSAL ENGINEERING DIVISION BACKGROUND -SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Tf%U0Br ASrRUEEN PROVING GROUND MARYLAND FOR BUILDING IOC
'-&{&>
"— ' *TRCD f""61 * 37-36-J740 "" TQADl
Al-6
-------
Hazardous Waste Management Study No. 37-26-J740-93, 12 Apr - 19 May 93
citn STRUT
»
SAVIX "00(1 rm
»» 1 WIK &HVUS
10-
SCALE
US ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE AGENCY
WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND. MARYLAND
BUILDING 88
BACKGROUND SAMPLE LOCAT1DNS
rnR BUILDtNG s.90
RCD
P«OJCCT
37-26-J740
nut
TOAO
Al-7
-------
TABLE 9. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN AIR SAMPLES BUILDINGS S-90. 88, AND OUTDOOR SAMPLES.
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
Analyle
A9001 A9002 A9003 A90Q3 A9004 A9005 A9006 A9007
_DgD
i
CD
benzene
n-bepune
toluene
etbylbenzene
meU/pua xyleoe
ortboiylene
•tyrene
3-«tbyl toluene
chloroform
l.i.l-toichlorocdune
Irichloroetheae
letnchloroethene
iiopropylbenzene
n-propylbenzene
caiboa tetncUoride
B?
1.0
-
1.0
0.2
0.7
-
-
-
1.0
-
1.0
-
-
-
"
0.8
-
1.0 3.0
0.2 0.4
0.6 1.0
0.4
-
0.5
O.I
1.0 0.6
3.0
0.2
-
O.I
" "
0.8
0.8
3.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
-
0.4
O.I
-
3.0
-
0.2
-
"
1.0
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
0.7
0.9
0.8
-
-
-
"
1.0 1.0
0.7
3.0 1.0
0.4 0.2
I.O O.S
0.4
. 0.05
0.4
O.I
0.5 1.0
1.0
O.I
- .
0.09
™ "
0.8
-
.
O.S
-
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
m
DC
0*
N
o
e
at
(A
ft
n>
3
Pi
m
to
rt
55
o
I
K>
Oi
o
I
10
to
Kl
•O
I
3:
Pi
VO
-------
TABLE 3. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN AIR SAMPLES BUILDINGS S-90. 88, AND OUTDOOR SAMPLES, (?
TOBYH ANN A ARM Y DEPOT (Cool) £
>i
O.
o
Auftlyto SflMnjcNjinibeil • h|
A9008 A9008 A9009 A90IO A90II A90I2 AMIS A90I4 f
DUD su
. ^ w
r*
»
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 3
o-bepUoe ........ »
toluene .. 2.0 ----- g
etbylbeozeoe .. 0.2 ----- n
maU/puB xylene - - 0.6 0.4 0.3 - - £
oftboxylene - - 0.4
•lyrene - - ....... {J
3-«(hyl toluene ........ C^
chlorofonn ........ i<
I.I.HrichloroothMO 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 z
tricbloroethene 0.3 0.6 1.0 - 0.7 - 0.4 ?
teincUoroelheno - - - - . .
CJ
itopropylbeniene ........ ^,
n-propylbenzene ........ ^
O
I
to
u»
K)
>
•O
n
i
t-*
u>
ac
o>
-------
TABLE 3. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN AIR SAMPLES BUILDINGS S-90. 88. AND OUTDOOR SAMPLES.
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Coot.)
Aulyle
A90IS
A90I6
A90I7 A90I8
A90I9
A9020
A902I
• rnmnnundi
benzene
n-bepune
toluene
ethylbenzene
meu/pva xylene
ortbo xylene
tfyicne
3-«thyl toluene
chlorofonn
l.l.l-trichloroethane
Irichloroelbene
lelrachloroettMne
iaoprapylbenzene
n-prapylbenzene
cubon letnchloride
f
0.6 0.8
-
3.0
0.2
1.0
0.5
.
-
.
0.7 0.9
14.0
, T -
-
-
• * . •
0.9
0.7
3.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
-
0.5
0.1
0.9
5.0
-
-
-
0.3
0.7
0.4
3.0
0.4
1.0
0.4.
-
0.5
0.3
0.8
2.0
-
0.03
0.1
~
0.8
0.2
3.0
0.4
1.0
0.4
-
0.4
. O.I
0.7
1.0
-
-
0.08
0.2
0.8
0.4
4.0
0.5
2.0
0.5
0.04
0.5
-
0.8
1.0
0.2
-
O.I
0.2
as
o»
N
a
o
c
(n
(0
rt
0>
3
ft
(A
f*
z
o
i
tVJ
at
i
c,
O
I
Ul
to
•O
I
t—
VO
0>
-------
DC
TABLE 3. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN AIR SAMPLES BUILDINGS S-90, 88. AND OUTDOOR SAMPLES. g|
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.) • P*
a
o
c
u
(>»
W
ft
(0
sc
3
0)
1
(D
ft
ft
C
S
z
o
ui
I
10
a\
I
4^
o
i
VO
K)
•O
2C
0*
vo
ui
Aiulyle
Volililc Ofsmic ^fTnwnnMli Mtfur
beozeoe
o-hepUna
toluene
etitylbenieoe
oteU/pan xyleoe
ortho xybiie
•tyrene
3-«lhyl lolucoo
chlorofbnn
l.l.l-tfichloroethuie
(richkxoetbeiM
U4rachk>roe(beoe9.0
iMpropylbenzene
n-propylbenzcne
cuboo letrachlofide
AU-01
1.0
O.S
2.0
0.4
t.O
O.S
0.08
O.I
0.4
5.0
22.0
9.0
-
0.1
"
A88-02
1.0
0.5
2.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.09
O.I
0.3
3.0
13.0
5.0
-
0.1
•
Sjinlftlii
AB8-O3
1.0
-
2.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
•
1.0
0.2
1.0
7.0
6.0
-
0.2
"
UBbfia
A88-04
1.0
0.7
2.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
O.I
0.8
0.4
5.0
7.0
6.0
-
0.2
•
A88-OS
1.0
0.5
2.0
0.3
1.0
0.5
-
O.I
0.3
4.0
9.0
6.0
-
0.1
"
Mean
1.0
0.530
2.0
0.380
1.0
0.50
0.234
0.840
0.320
3.60
11.60
6.40
0.450
0.140
0.450
A out 1
2.0
1.0
3.0
0.5
1.0
0.6
-
0.7
0.2
2.0
14.0
0.5
O.I
0.2
"
A out 2
•
1.0
0.7
2.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.05
0.7
0.3
1.0
5.0
0.5
0.08
-
*
-------
TABLE 4. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN WIPE SAMPLES PROM BUILDINGS S-90 AND 88, TOBYHANNA P>
ARMY DEPOT £
CL
O
Sllllffrl1 N^mberi n
W-WHH W-90-01 W-9042 W-9CHB W-9(HM W-90-05 W-90-06 W-9047 W-KHM ,,
DUD , PI
-- • ^™ in
rt
I|A Onunic ComMiunAt uft/flunfilA '
No Target Analyte* Delected At Or Above
Detectkn LimiU (See Appendix O, TAB B)
PCB Analviii u
>
I
rr
(A
rt
C
Z
2.4 - ?
: (
K>
TmlM^.uu./H^c I
o
vo
—___^__________________________^_^___^__^__________^_^__ ^
t-"
K)
•o
M
-------
TABLE 4. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN WIPE SAMPLES FROM BUILDINGS S 90 AND 88, TOBYHANNA
ARMY DEPOT (Coot.)
X
0*
N
o
c
at
pt
u
rt
n>
3C
Pi
tu
-------
TABLE 4. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP. TARGET ANALYTES IN WIPE SAMPLES PROM BUILDINGS S 90 AND 88, TOBYHANNA
ARMY DEPOT (Coal.)
Amlyle
W-90-1B W-90-19 W-90-20 WP4O-2I W-SB-OI W-8842 W-88-03 W-88-04 W-8845
No Target Analytaa Detected At Or Above Ertabliihed
Detection LuniU (See Appendix O, TAB B)
EC
Pi
N
(U
n
a
o
c
(0
s:
0>
in
ft
(D
(X
a
o*
•4
(D
3
m
PCB Analviii uc/umnJe
13.7 17.9 S.M 5.91 5.65
C
a
Pb
I
ro
a\
I
o
I
K)
•o
I
-------
TABLE 5. DETECTED CONCENTRATION OP TARGET ANALYTES IN CONCRETE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDINGS S-90. j?
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
Analyla
C-9MI C-904M C-90-03 C40-O4 C-9O-O5 C-90-06 C-90-07 C-9O-OB C-9O-O9
Vnlftliln Or«uiic
O.
O
C
(0
ft-
methylene chloride - 1.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 1 1.0 6.0 2C
toluene - 14.0 9.0 6.0 16.0 .... fi}
flfg No AwdylM Wen Delected At Or Above Ertabluhed Detection Limit.
(See Appendix O TAB C).
A
g
A
n-
c
D4
J- PCB« mf /Ky No AuJytM Were Delected At Or Above EiUMuhed Detection limit! of 0.
(See Appendix G TAB Q.
CNmg/Kf No Cyanide WM Detected At Or Above ErtaMHiml Patactioa Umiu Of 0.25 jtg/g
o\
i
Total DBUlf mc/Kf °
ITOM iianr r T ,
so
u>
I-1
Kl
•O
I
t—
\D
3E
Ag
A*
Ba
Cd
Cr
Ni
Pb
-
2.7
34.0
0.25
10.0
4.6
3.9
0.83
3.3
44.0
0.26
20.0
7.4
6.9
-
3.3
33.0
8.4
13.0
32.0
4.2
-
3.4
32.0
.
9.9
5.2
3.5
2.0
3.2
34.0
0.59
15
6.3
6.2
-
2.3
65.0
-
20.0
5.9
5.7
-
3.4
50.0
-
20.0
7.2
9.1
2.9
2.7
35.0
0.79
19.0
5.7
5.7
-
3.1
36.0
-
19.0
6.6
6.8
-------
TABLE S. DETECTED CONCENTRATION OF TARGET ANALYTES IN CONCRETE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDINGS S-90.
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Coot).
Antlyte
C-90-10
C-90-11
C-90-I2
C-90-13 C-90-14 C-90-21 RAIU
methylene chloride
toluene
7.0 7.0 10.0 7.0 9.0 7.0 I.O-II.O 10.3
9.0 - - - 5.0 - 1.0-16.0 6.8
Semivolafile Orauiic dMnnotimift
No AnalytM Wen Detected At Or Above EaUbtiahed Detection Limit*
(See Appendix O TAB C).
NA* NA
i
M
cr>
PCBamg/Kf
No Analytee Wen Detected At Or Above EetebHatmd Detection LimiU of 0.10 pg/g
NA NA
CNrng/Kg
No Cyanide Wu Detected At Or Above BrtihliaVd Detection LimiU Of 0.2S
NA NA
NA - not applicable.
3!
ta
N
a
o
c
u
pi
0)
rt
m
Pi
Total meteli rag/Kg
Ag
Aa
Ba
Cd
Cr
Ni
Pb
_
3.0
54.0
-
18.0
6.7
5.7
_
2.9
45.0
0.34
26.0
8.7
12.0
0.90
3.1
44.0
0.32
22.0
6.7
6.6
_
3.1
42.0
-
24.0
8.1
6.6
1.2
3.0
42.0
0.31
16.0
6.2
5.2
.
2.7
42.0
0.67
18.0
6.3
5.1
0.025-2.9
2.3-3.4
32.0-54.0
0.125-8.4
10.0-26.0
4.6-32.0
3.9-12.0
0.53
3.01
42.13
0.81
17.99
8.24
6.21
rr
C
a
5S
O
ui
a\
I
*>.
o
I
VO
u>
Kl
T)
M
3:
PI
VO
UJ
-------
TABLE 6. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES FOR INTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, BUILDING S 90. TOBYHANNA ARMY
DEPOT
Aoalyte
1-01 1-02 1-03 1-04 1-05 1-06 1-07 1-08 1-09 MO
Ml
I-12 1-13
1-2 1
DC
fU
N
PI
H
a
o
c
w
u
ft
ID
U)
§
A
3
ft
in
ft
c
a
Total
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Ni
Pb
7.3
6*
-
12
12
6.8
7.1
64
1.0
13
7.1
II
20
ISO
0.31
13
IS
14
4.9
77.15
0.93
13.23
13.63
9.75
12
110
0.74
16
16
25
2.9
66
-
20
II
6.8
2.4
57
-
20
14
12
7.1
85
1.6
21
16
13
13
94
0.59
20
14
16
7.9
290
0.40
18
17
8.1
6.1
64
0.36
13
II
12
6.3
74
I.I
13
12
II
4.5
62
0.67
21
15
II
8.3
77.53
6.2
17.01
15.28
10.56
No aaalytea wan delected at or above aatabliahed detection limila (Sea APPENDIX G. TAB D).
SAfnivnlffilfl Orovtic i
aa
dibeuofiinn
fluotcne
anthracene
fluoranthene
pyrene
beozo(a)aiiUu*ceoe
chiysene
bu(2-«lhylhexyl)pbthabte
benzo(b)fluoraolheoe
beiuo(k)fliioraatheae
bctuo(a)pyraae
indeoo( 1.2,3-cd)pyraae
dibenzo(a,h)aothnc«ne
bawHg.b.Operykoo
Ph
1000
710
820
10.7 11.9 8.3 12.3 11.4 12.5 12.5 10.0 12.2 12.2 9.7
- 1100
400
720
- 5100
• 1400
• 7500
- 5100
- 3000
• 3200
- 2500
- 2100
- 2600
- 1700
390
- 1400
9.7 12.5
10.1
Ok
I
O
I
VO
10
•o
n
VO
3C
P>
vO
U>
-------
TABLE 6. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES FOR INTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, BUILDING S 90. TOBYHANNA ARMY
DEPOT (Cool.)
Aiulyle JUt^yla
No ualylM were detected at or above 0. 10 me/Kg
I
!-•
CD
N
H
1-01 I-O2 1-03 I-O4 1-05 I-O6 1-07 1-08 1-09 I-IQ 111 1-12 1-13 1-21
UU - UM - - Ud - UBC - - - UOC - - l_Ut - - I_U - 1-U - t-fcl - Q
c
• _ , _ in
rt
(D
No cyanide waa detected at or above 0.25 jif/g.
p>
a
_______ _^ _____ _^ _ __ ___^_________ pt
«Q
10
a>
a
rr
tn
rr
C
a
I
K>
o
I
V0
u>
»-•
10
>
•D
M
I
t—
UJ
ȣ>
U>
-------
TABLE 7. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDINGS IOC AND 7 &>
N
o.
o
e
n
*
Pi
(0
ft
(D
ac
o>
PI
Analyle
VoUlile Organic Comx
benzene
D-neptane
toluene
ethylbeniene
meU/pan xylene
ortboxykno
•lyrene
3-«lhyltolucne
cblorofonn
l.l.l-lrichloroelhuM
Irichloroedune
tatrachloroetbene
iMmfmnii 1 oi>jt Tjnm
^r^in^Tj IT^IHftBBV
n-propylbenzene
caibon tatrachloride
1 -heptane
AIOOI
«M*Mtl*
1.3
0.6
5.0
0.9
3.0
1.0
-
2.0
0.2
1.0
9.0
0.6
0.4
-
•
AIOOI
RM
3.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
9.0
3.0
-
4.0
O.I
2.0
26.0
6.0
0.80
-
-
AI002
2.0
0.9
6.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
-
3.0
0.1
2.0
10.0
0.8
02
»A
0.6
-
-
A 1003
1.0
0.6
5.0
0.9
4.0
1.0
-
3.0
0.1
2.0
7.0
0.9
02
•*
0.6
0.03
"
AI004
0.7
0.3
3.0
0.5
2.0
0.7
-
1.0
0.2
3.0
9.0
0.8
01
. •
0.3
-
•
f Nurahn
AI004
RM
3.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
8.0
3.0
-
4.0
-
2.0
12.0
6.0
O4O
V*^Rr
0.80
-
•
AI005
0.7
0.4
3.0
0.5
2.0
0.7
-
1.0
-
3.0
4.0
0.7
0.3
-
-
AI006
0.7
0.4
3.0
0.5
2.0
0.7
-
1.0
O.I
2.0
5.0
0.7
01
• I
0.3
-
-
AIO07
0.65
0.3
2.0
0.4
2.0
0.6
-
0.8
0.08
2.0
5.07
0.6
OO9
l»»*»y
0.2
-
•
A 1007
Dup
2.0
-
3.0
0.9
3.0
1.0
-
2.0
-
4.0
16.0
.
0.50
-
•
A 1008
0.60
0.2
2.0
0.4
1.0
0.5
-
0.6
O.I
1.0
6.0
0.4
0.2
-
•
in
rt
M_ ___ '* ~_~ "_"* . . . . . ~. - '. *-~ ss
•
Ul
-J
I
o
i
Nl
•a
VO
PI
*£>
-------
SB
TABLE 7. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDINGS IOC AND 7 (Cool.) %
0)
>i
a
o
c
to
«
0>
U)
r»
tt>
X
0»
Pi
«Q
§
(D
3
n-
w
n-
O.
^
z
o
•
CJ
-o
I
to
o
I
Kl
•o
n
3:
o*
Aulyle
V Ink Or ' Coma
benzene
n-acpUne
toluene
elhylbenzene
meta/para xyleae
ortho xyleae
stymie
3-cthyltoluene
chlorofonn
1.1.1-lricbJoroeUuuie
Irichloroetheae
tetrachkmediene
uopropylbenxene
n-propylbenzene
1 -heptane
AI009
,«Ai ../.
0.9
0.4
4.0
0.5
2.0
0.7
-
0.6
0.2
1.0
61
0.4
-
-
-
A 1009
Dup
>i
0.8
0.3
3.0
0.4
2.0
0.6
-
0.5
0.07
1.0
7.0
0.3
-
0.09
-
AIOIO
0.9
0.3
4.0
0.4
2.0
0.6
-
0.5
0.2
1.0
10
0.8
-
0.09
-
A10II
2.0
0.9
7.0
0.8
3.0
1.0
-
1.0
0.2
1.0
12
-
-
0.2
-
AI012
2.0
0.9
7.0
0.8
3.0
1.0
0.09
0.8
-
1.0
17
-
-
0.2
-
AIOI3
2.0
0.7
6.0
0.8
3.0
1.0
-
0.9
0.1
1.0
13.0
-
-
0.2
-
. Nuinben
A 101 4
2.0
1.0
6.0
0.8
3.0
1.0
-
0.9
0.2
2.0
7.0
-
-
-
•
AIOIS
2.0
0.8
5.0
0.8
3.0
1.0
-
0.9
0.2
0.8
16.0
0.3
-
-
-
AIOI6
2.0
0.7
4.0
0.7
3.0
1.0
-
0.8
-
1.0
9.0
-
-
-
•
AIOI7
4.0
2.0
11.0
2.0
9.0
3.0
-
5.0
-
2.0
14.0
6.0
0.4
1.0
-
AIOIS
3.0
2.0
9.0
2.0
8.0
3.0
-
4.0
O.I
1.0
16.0
3.0
0.8
0.7
*
AIOI8
Dup
3.0
2.0
9.0
2.0
7.0
3.0
-
4.0
-
2.0
9.0
3.0
O.30
0.70
"
-------
TABLE 7. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED PROM BUILDINGS IOC AND 7 (Cool.)
>
I-1
Aoilyte
Volitik Omnk CflnmruiKfa ««/^
benzene
a-oepUae
toluene
ethylbanzeae
meU/pan xylene
ofthoxyleoe
•lyrane
3-etbyllolueae
colorofbno
1,1,1-trichkmMlliuie
IricUoroedMuie
Idncotoroetheoe
itopropylbenzBDB
a-propylbenzene
cubon letnchloride
1-bepUsne
AIOI9
3.0
2.0
9.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
-
4.0
-
2.0
6.0
4.0
0.4
0.1
-
A 1020
2.0
2.0
B.O
2.0
6.0
2.0
-
3.0
-
2.0
11.0
3.0
0.3
0.6
0.7
Samplo t^imlw.r.
A07O1 AO702
6.0
6.0
16.0
3.0
12.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
0.4
16.0
28.0
1.0
0.2
O.I
-
5.0
5.0
15.0
3.0
12.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
0.3
16.0
21.0
0.9
-
0.7
-
A07O3
6.0
5.0
17.0
3.0
14.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.5
17.0
20.0
1.0
0.4
0.9
-
A0704
7.0
5.0
18.0
4.0
14.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.5
17.0
20.0
1.0
-'
0.9
-
2.0
A0705
7.0
6.0
17.0
4.0
14.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
0.4
19.0
15.0
1.0
-
0.9
-
2.0
33
n»
N
0>
N
0.
o
c
Ul
ID
a:
Oi
3
ft
O)
(D
(D
tfl
rt
C
se
o
I
to
O\
O
I
VD
K)
•O
I
vO
3C
-------
TABLE 8. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN WIPE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDING IOC, TOBYHANNA
ARMY DEPOT
Analyto
Scmivolalifc Oramie f!«i
fluonolhcoe
Pyraw
PCBi pc/Minple
Aloclor 1260
CN pg/unq>le
le - - 7.0-5.0 - - - - 6.0 10.0
... . - - - 5.0
1.76 12.60
re
PI
N
o.
o
e
W
33
(U
(/>
rt
(D
3
0>
«O
ro
3
(ft
3
(/l
rt
C
a
z
o
-J
I
ro
cr»
I
c,
o
I
VO
OJ
10
-------
a:
TABLE 8. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN WIPE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDING IOC. TOBYHANNA £
ARMY DEPOT (Cool). »
a
o
_ ,^_____ - c
rt
n>
Aulyle
W-IO-II W-IO-II W-IO-12 W-10-13 W-IQ-14 W-10-15 W-IO-16 W-IO-17 W-10-18 W-10-19
bii(2-«ihylhrayl)pbllMUl0 - - ... . .... jj>
fluoranlhene - - ... . --6.0- «Q
phenulhraw - • ...... ^.0 - g
pyrane - - ... . .. 4.0 - ™
rt
; w
rt
c
l__l fc^
I
w Aloclor 1260 - - ... ..... 2
Ul
No cyanide detected at 1.25 pf/sunpto detection limita. 7*
K)
Total metals No taryt analylee detected d or above «ie>ihlieh«l detection liiniu. (See AppeadiE O, Tab B for detection limiu.)
I
C,
K>
>
•o
M
I
I—
VO
3C
-------
TABLE 8. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN WIPE SAMPLES COLLECTED PROM BUILDING IOC. TOBYHANNA »
ARMY DEPOT (Cool). £
n
o.
_ o
Analyle frfffr ^Hf** w
W-IO-20 W-07-01 W-07-02 W-07-03 W-0744 W-07-05 *
en
- ; - ft
0)
ScfliiVOlati^* Organic CpfflPQUpdj MB/MBMJft 3*
a
bii(2-(XhyUiBxyl)plilluble - - - £
fluoranthene - - - ... . g
PCBi fig/Millie . *<
z
Aloclor 1260 • - ' - - - - - ?
No cyanide detected at or above the oeUhliahtti detection limit of 1.25 ng/Minple. <*
, *•
o
Total molala No target analytei detected at or above eetabiiabed detection limitt. (See Appendix G, Tab B for detection limiu.)
-------
TABLE 9. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN CONCRETE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDING IOC »
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT £
AiuJyto Sninrffl Nmir'TTnT
C-IO-OIR* C-KMHR C-KMBR C-1Q-04R C-IO-05R C-10-06R C-IO-07R C-1Q-09R C-IOrlOR
gflti > rt
(0
dbylbouem 1900 6200 6800 1300 - - 7700 - - 3
iMprapylbeazeoe 310 300 310 310 290 420 360 3
p-infirapyllolueae MO 450 600 790 710 120 730 . 1100 900 £
o-xyleoe 19000 9900 12000 18000 18000 18000 16000 21000 20000 2}
m&p-xylcae 12000 22000 23000 20000 16000 29000 13000 15000 1 1000 n
n-propylbenzeoe - ........ 3
Toluene - ........
rr
di-a-butylphlluLde 16.000 15000 6500 9800 7000 8100 13000 6800 16000
PCBung/Kt
Amclor 1260 - ------- 1.85
CO
-J
I
o
i
KJ
>
•o
-------
>
I-1
I
en
TABLE 9. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN CONCRETE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDING IOC f»
TOBYH ANN A ARMY DEPOT (Cool). a,
h
Q.
o
— — — — — — — ^— .^ _^__^_ .^ _ ^_— _ _____^_ _ _____ _____ ______ _____ __________ j-
AiuJyto Simple Nuiabefi u
_ C.I94HR* C-IO-02R C-IQ-03R C-IO-04R C-HMMR C-1(M)6R C-IO-07R C-IQ-09R C-IQ-IOR 3.
o>
CNmg/Kf - ..... 0.37 - - £
a:
DI
Too] meUli nog/Kg 3
«Q
(0
3
n>
D
rt
en
rr
c
a
*<
z
o
u>
~»
I
K)
cn
I
c<
•^1
4>.
O
I
M
i
»—
k£>
Ag
A*
B«
Cd
Cr
Ni
Pb
-
6.6
60.0
.
12.0
14.0
4.2
-
6.2
67.0
0.21
12.0
14.0
6.4
-
5.1
56.0
0.61
12.0
14.0
3.0
-.
6.1
68.0
.
12.0
14.0
4.0
.
5.5
66.0
O.S4
13.0
22.0
5.2
0.5S
6.0
57.89
0.97
11.86
13.37
3.0
O.S6
4.2
56.0
0.21
12.0
13.0
5.0
-
10.0
55.0
0.65
11.0
17.0
3.7
0.72
5.0
63.0
1.1
11.0
13.0
4.5
-------
TABLE 9. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN CONCRETE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDING IOC
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Coat).
i
NJ
Analyle
Voltlilfi OfffaUiic OnfnfHnittnni t
ethylbcnxeoe
p-itopropyltolucoe
o-xylene
m&p-xylene
n-prapylbenzane
Toluene
S* ' 1. l«rW loT moon
di-Q-butylpblhalale
C-IO-I4R
taJKf
700
1900
14000
11000
460
rifffffTKf
17000
C-IO-Background
790
1200
3300
1800
:
Range
C-20-01R - 14R
1.0-8900
1.0-700
450-1900
9900-21000
11000-29000
1.0-460
1.0- 1.0
6500- 17000
Mean
3869.5
300.2
891
16590
17200
46.9
1.0
11520
ac
f»
N
o
c
u
se
01
w
ft
(0
3:
PI
P>
U)
6
(D
3
ft
C/l
s.
O.
z
o
I
to
a\
Aroclar 1260
1.14
NA
0.05 - 1.85
0.34
K>
•O
I
3:
Dl
-------
TABLE 9. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN CONCRETE SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM BUILDING IOC
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool).
I
tsj
oo
Analyto
CNmg/Kg
Total metals mg/Kg
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Ni
Pb
C10-I4R
-
.
5.3
54.0
0.57
11.0
16.0
4.9
C-IO-Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Range
C-20-O2R - I4R
0.125-0.37
0.25 - 0.56
4.2 - 6.6
54.0 - 68.0
0.125-0.97
II. 0-13.0
13.0 - 17.0
3.0 - 6.4
Mean
0.15
0.28
6.07
60.29
0.525
11.79
15.04
4.4
* R = Recollected unites - Sample* were recollected for VOC and SVOC analyses • all other analyses were performed on the original samples.
** VOC concentrations for lylenes should be considered low estimates - Due to high concentrations the MS momentarily shut off.
NA - Anaiyte not analyzed for
OB
(to
N
PI
n
a
o
c
(n
f.
P>
(a
ac
a»
P>
03
§
cn
rr
P
I
ro
O
I
K>
•o
M
\o
3C
P>
-------
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
Analyle
BBBBBBBBB
S1A SIB SIC S2A S2B S2C S3A S3B S3C S4A S4B S4C S5A S5B S5C
Su
N
(U
o
c
>
I-1
I
Methyleae Chloride
U.I-TrichloroelluiM
PTRt iaafKt)
Aroclor 1260
35. 99. 140. 17. 110. S3. 39. 20. 16.
29.
29. 30.
SO. 21. 13.
10.*
0.17 -
"
(0
ft
n
0*
X)
§
A
ft
C
a
z
o
Acenaphlheoe
Pluoraoe
rhonmltuene
Anthracene
Fluonnlhene
Pynoe
Beozo(a)anUinceoe
ChryMao
bi«(2-Elhylbexyl)phtluUte
Benio(b)fluonuilheoe
240. 2400. 350. 570. 3900.
610.
1200.
230.
170.
210. 260. 3700. 720. 910. 6300.
200. 240. 2900. 490. 600. 4600.
- 2000.
- 1900.
- SIO.
1800.
250. 350. 3400.
320. 410. 3300.
240.
350. 400. 3200.
340.
600.
490.
310.
320.
340.
I
ro
en
O
I
KJ
•O
I
VO
3C
Pi
-------
X
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.) £
I
OJ
O
O.
°
SamgiU Miimtiar. °
BBBBBBBBB
SIA SIB SIC S2A S2B S2C S3A S3B S3C S4A S4B S4C SSA SSB S5C
in
rt
Beaio(k)fluoniillMM 1600. 220. 320. 1800. - 280. £
Bouo(a)pyraM 1800. 250. 330. 2800. - 300. g
lod(no(l,2,3-cd)pynae 1200. - • 1900. - - «a
Dibmxo(>,h)aniliraca>e 490. ..... §
Beiuo(i,h.i)peiylcoe - 1200. - - 1900. - 180. g
Naphthalene rr
2-MothyliupliUuJcae m
' rr
O.
z
p
I
K»
CTV
I
O
I
VO
OJ
H-1
Kl
T)
I
»—
M>
3C
-------
33
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.) N
o>
a
o
Aoalyte Simifk Mvmb"» C
S6A S6B S6C S7A S7B S7C StA S8B S8C S9A S9B S9C SIOA SIOB SIOC w
rV"
to
Methykne Chloride 21. 10. II. 23. 6. 6. 23. IS. 5. 7. - 6. II. 4. 3. 2
UJ-Trichiofoetluwe ... ...... ...... pi
9
IX
•«
- . - . - g
PCBi (my/K^ 3
ft
Aroclor 1260 ............... w
rt
C
. a
bu(2-ElhyllMUiyl)plillMbia 310. - 210.
B«m>(b)nuormmhene, 2100. 580. 250. 930.
BcazoOOfluonnltMM 1600. 500. 270. 670.
Z
O
Aceaapbtheoe uj
Pluonoe .---........... |
PhouuHhraM 3400. 1300. 470. 1300. 190. - 170. £
Anlhncone 880. 360. - 320. '
Fluonndiana 4700. 1600. 680. 1700. 250. - 280. 240. 170. - 320. -3
PynoA 4000. 1100. 470. 1400. 240. - 270. 220. - 170. • 260. o
BcnzoOOaolfcnccae 2400. 660. - 900. - - - '
2400. 660. 300. 920. 160. oj
210.
>
-O
n
PI
-------
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.)
a:
PI
N
61
Aulyle
S6A S6B S6C S7A STB S7C S8A S8B S8C S9A S9B S9C SIOA SIOB S10C
C
ut
Beaio(a)pyreiie
lodeoo(l.2.3-€d)pyraie
DibcniD(a.h)«ilhnceQe
Benzo(g.h.i)pefyl«ie
Niphthakne
2-MethylMphlhaleoe
2200. 570. 260. 820.
1500. 290. - 390.
570. -
1400. 260. - 370.
32.
27.
(to
(A
rr
(6
PI
«Q
§
(0
D
in
rr
c
>
^-•
10
"Z
o
I
to
CM
I
vp
UI
K)
•O
I
h-
VO
vO
UI
-------
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Coal.)
Analyle
Smiplo Nimbcfi
SI IA SUB SIIC SI ID SI2A SI2B SI2C SI3A SI3B SI3C S13D
a:
PI
N
fU
n
a
o
c
u
Volatile ftrvuiic
t mm/If m\
Meihylene Chlotide
1.1,1-TrichloroeUune
12. 4.
10.
7.
14.
(0
it
0>
a:
(U
PI
I
U)
OJ
Aroclor 1260
3
a
en
ft
c
a
25
O
Acenaphlheoe
Pluoreae
Aolhncene
Fluonnlhcne
Pyicae
Benao(«)Milfaficcno
220.
180.
bu(2-Etbylhciyl)phtlukle
Beozo(b)fluoranlbeoe
330.
640.
520.
340.
360.
350.
270.
360.
200. 700.
170. 610.
390.
400.
360.
o
VO
N>
•O
I
-------
X
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES. TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.) g
Pi
^
a
Analyle Singh NumfrCTI c
SI IA SUB SI1C SI ID SI2A SI2B SI2C SI3A SI3B SI3C SI3D m
; 35
- - pi
(n
Sf aiYMiulg Organic GaautufaiMiuUb n
BefuoOOfluoranihcae .... ... 330. ... ^
BenxoWpynoe .... - - - 320. - - 350. g
lndo»(l.2,3-cd)pyreoe .... - - - 170. - - 230. *4
Dibenu>(a,h)uithrac«nB .... ... .... g
Benzo(g.h.i)peryleoe - - - - - - - - - 220. §
Naphthalene .... ... .... ft
2-Mc*hyluphtluJeae ....... .... w
ft
; C
£ »•
V ^
w ~
js. 25
o
•
Ul
^i
K)
O>
I
Jk
O
VO
l-»
N)
•O
n
-------
i
to
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OP TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.)
Analyle
Total M*ta|i fiDi/Kf)
Silver
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Nkkel
Lead
Selenium
B
S1A
4.9
160.
.42
9.1
14.
62.
B
S|B
3.
63.
.29
17.
10.
16.
B
SIC
5.7
54.
24.
10.
9.3
B
S2A
.9
5.4
58.
19.
26.
0.12
15.
34.
.58
B
S2B
4.9
49.7
3.38
17.
15.07
27.
Suwk
B
S2C
S.I
25.
1.8
13.
7.3
15.
.58
Nungmn
B
S3A
4.2
51.
11.
14.
II.
B
S3B
12.
64.
14.
13.
13.
B
S3C
6.3
48.
26.
18.
8.9
S4A
0.9
3.9
59.
2.0
18.
22.
25.
S4B
0.9
4.2
65.
0.86
21.
18.
II.
S4C
6.7
70.
0.77
34.
24.
16.
S5A
1.3
3.2
91.
3.9
19.
0.32
22.
42.
Hazardous Waste Man
iQ
A
3
tn
z
o
Mn""nm'T w
Cyanide (mg/Kf) - --------- ^
i
pH 8.6 5.8 + 7.3 8.2 7.4 7.4 7.9 + 9.4 + 8.11 8.6
K)
at
o*
-------
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.) *
CD
11
a
o
c
to
f.
0»
in
rt
(D
2
PI
a
o>
iQ
§
(B
3
rr
in
_ Selenium .... ......... ,-r
> c
Aoalyle
Total Metola
-------
TABLE 10. DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS OF TARGET ANALYTES IN EXTERIOR SOIL SAMPLES, TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT (Cool.)
01
Analyle
S9C
SIOA S10B
S10C
SIIA
SUB
SsnBsnfflC NUiPfrWl
S11C SI ID SI2A
S12B
S12C
S13A
S13B
S13C
SI3D
Total Metals (aa/Ka\
>
t— <
i
i
OJ
~j
Silver
Arsenic
Barium
padfnjum
Chromium
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
NonMcUh
Cyanide (mg/Kg)
pH
-
3.90
210.
0.27
22.
-
20.
7.3
.
- '
8.4
*
4.2
83.
3.9
18.
-
27.
15.
.
-
8.5
-
6.5
150.
.
26.
-
23.
II.
-
-
6.0
-
5.7
180.
0.27
38.
-
25.
9.8
.-
-
6.1
-
4.6
86.
1.9
17.
-
24.
10.
-
-
8.4
-
5.1
240.
0.36
32.
-
19.
14.
-
0.27
6.8
-
6.6
220.
.
35.
-
21.
8.3
.
-
7.02
-
5.0
81.
1.2
16.
-
24.
9.4
-
.
8.0
-
4.48
76.81
2.25
17.
-
25.28
9.2
-
-
8.5
-
1.7
360.
1.6
12.
-
30.
6.2
-
-
6.4
-
2.2
310.
1.1
25.
-
31.
5.7
-
-
6.5
-
4.7
92.
1.9
20.
-
25.
17.
-
-
9.3
-
6.9
110.
0.30
35.
-
24.
12.
-
-
8.3
-
7.4
120.
0.36
48.
-
26.
7.7
-
-
8.2
-
4.7
100.
0.84
16.
-
23.
20.
-
-
9.4
a
o
Pi
ft
(D
Pi
2
vQ
ID
3
5
rt
en
£
a
^
z
o
•
Ul
vj
1
K)
0\
-J
£
1
OJ
Refer to Appendix O, Tab E for compound* tnilynd and detection limit*.
* Sample wu originally analyzed with a mull of 6pg/Kg.
B - Background sample.
-f- ReaulU for SVOC anaryses repretent tamplea recollecled in May 1993.
4= pH reaulla were not reported due to insufficient sample. .
10
at
PI
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431
December 28,1995
Mr. Craig Coffman (SIOTY-RK-E)
IRP Project Manager
Tobyhanna Army Depot
11 Hap Arnold Boulevard
Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania 18466-5086
Dear Mr. Coffman:
The purpose of this letter is to forward to you EPA's
comments on the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit (OU) #3,
Buildings S-90 and 10-C. The Proposed Plan was reviewed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Project Manager and
Attorney as a draft document/ and our comments were incorporated
into the final Plan. However, due .to resource constraints, an
EPA toxicologist was not available to review the Proposed Plan at
the draft stage. Consequently, the Army and EPA agreed that the
Proposed Plan could be made public and that the comment period
could begin prior to the Army's receipt of EPA's toxicological
review of the Plan.
Since that time, Jennifer Hubbard, an EPA toxicologist, has
been assigned to the Tobyhanna Army Depot and she has completed
her review of the Plan. EPA is submitting the review comments
(enclosed) to the Army to be addressed in accordance with the
public notification requirements under Section 113(k)(2)(B)(iv)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) as part of the Responsiveness Summary in
the ROD.
To summarize her comments, Ms. Hubbard expressed concerns
regarding data quality and some of the assumptions used in the
risk assessment contained in the 1993 USAEHA report, which was
the basis for the "Summary of Site Risks'* found in the Proposed
Plan. However, her conclusion was that, if the data are correct
as reported, while EPA may not agree with the exact numbers the
Army developed in the risk assessment, the risks for indoor air,
indoor and outdoor soil, and concrete would be within the target
risk ranges (HI <1 and cancer risk IxlO"6 to IxlO"4) with the
possible exception of a PCB "hit" of 12.6 ug/100 cm2in Building
10-C.
Earlier this month I notified you of our concern regarding
the PCB results, and you had informed me that the PCB "hot spot"
had been further remediated during the time of the closure of
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
A2-1
-------
Building 10-C. Wipe samples were taken after the remediation to
verify that the PCB levels had substantially decreased.
Furthermore, you offered to resample the "hot spot11 to verify
that the PCB contamination had been adequately remediated. It is
my understanding that the results of this recent sampling event
showed no residual PCB contamination. This information should be
included in the administrative record.
I do not expect the Army to revise the risk assessment based
on these comments, but only to address and/or acknowledge them in
the Responsiveness Summary of the ROD. Furthermore, as long as
the PCB remediation can be verified, I do not foresee any change
in the proposed selected remedy of "No Further Action" as a
result of our comments.
I commend the Army for . its prompt action in addressing our
concern regarding the PCBs, and I look forward to working with
you and the State in the preparation of the ROD for OU #3.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this letter
or the enclosure, please call me at (215) 597-3165.
Sincerely,
Lorie Baker
Remedial Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: J. Mellow (PADEP)
J. Armstrong (AEC)
File
Celebrating 25 Yean of Environmental Progress
A2-2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Bufloing
Phiadetphia, Pennsylvania 19107
SUBJECT: Review of AEHA Risk Assessment to DATE: 12-1-95
Support Proposed Plan: Tobyhanna Army
Depot, OU-3 (Buildings IOC and S-90)
FROM: Jennifer Hubbard, Toxicologist
Technical Support Section (3HW41)
TO: Lorie Baker, RPM
Federal Facilities Branch (3HW50).
The above document has been reviewed as historical
background to support the Proposed Plan for OU-3. The following
comments are offered.
The report implies that all soil samples were composites and
does not mention an exception for VOCs. Samples for VOC analysis
should not be homogenized or composited; this may result in
underestimation of soil concentrations.
The report states that VOCs found in the concrete samples
were attributed to the epoxy .floor coating. The reported
background sample did contain toluene, ethyIbenzenes, and
xylenes; references were found stating that xylenes are used in
epoxy resins. In any case, the VOCs in the concrete were below
soil RBCs and, as part of a concrete matrix, would not expect to
be readily mobile or available for contact anyway.
The data that appear in Appendix G were validated by the
laboratory. No third-party review in accordance with EPA
guidelines was evident. The report includes discussions of
holding times and blanks, which are often part of third-party
data review, but it is not clear whether a full review was ever
undertaken. The data summary in the report appears without
qualifiers. It would probably be possible to. perform at least an
M2 review from the information shown in Appendix 6. At this
site, because virtually all risks are within the target range and
no further action is a likely result, the concern would be for
false negatives rather than false positives.
The equation shown on page F-3 has not been verified or
accepted. The reported layer thickness and particle density were
not found in the cited reference. The assumption for this
equation is that material on a surface would be equivalent to
soil. It fails to reconcile the amount of contact with the
surface that would be needed to achieve this skin loading (a 1:1
ratio of contaminated surface area and skin area does not
necessarily hold), and the difference between oral/dermal
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
A2-3
-------
partitioning from skin loading and soil contact, if one assumes
that a 70-kg worker has 2000 cm2 of exposed skin, contacts a
contaminated surface 8 times per day, 50% of the material on the
wall is transferred to the skin, about 10% of the hand surface
area of the material on the skin is transferred to the mouth, 6%
of PCBs, 10% of VOCs, 3% of arsenic, and 1% of other metals are
absorbed through the skin and 100% of the compounds ingested are
absorbed orally, and the worker works 250 days/year for 25 years,
exposure to concentrations reported for the wipe samples in
buildings IOC and S-90 would be expected to be within the 1E-4 to
1E-6 cancer risk range and below a Hazard Index of 1. The
possible exception would be for PCBs in building IOC. This is
based primarily on the detection from sample W-10-10 (12.6 ug/100
cm2) and the assumption that PCBs in the 23 non-detect samples
from this building would be present at 1/2 the detection limit (l
ug/100 cm2) . The 95% UCL for the building wipes (assuming
lognormal distribution) would be approximately 1 ug/100 cm2; the
1E-4 cancer risk for this receptor corresponds to approximately
0.6 ug/100 cm2. Sample W-10-10 does not appear to be
characteristic of the building; there may have been a "hot spot"
where the two positive detections occurred: W-10-9 (1.76 ug/100
cm2) and W-10-10. The assumptions cited in this paragraph are
expected to be conservative.
It is usually more advantageous to estimate risks first and
then perform calculations of attribution to background.
Page F-7: Region III usually uses the upper end of the AF
range (1.0 mg/cm2) instead of 0.6 mg/cm2, but 0.6 is within the
reported range and is not an unreasonable assumption.
Page F-7: The cited ABS factors are from the middle of the
ranges given in the cited reference. Region III typically uses
the upper ends of these ranges where chemical-specific values are
not available: 0.1 for SVOCs and pesticides, 0.03 for arsenic,
0.01 for most other metals.
HEAST and provisional dose-response parameters are available
for cumene, n-propylbenzene, and other chemicals listed as "not
developed."
No evidence was presented that oral dose-response parameters
were adjusted for oral absorption when used to estimate dermal
absorption risks (which should be performed, as stated in RAGS,
Appendix A). This could result in underestimation of dermal
risks.
The above iasues would affect the risk calculations such
that EPA may not support the exact risk numbers shown in th*
report (especially for wipe samples). However, if the above
assumptions were used and if the data are correct as reported,
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
A2-4
-------
the risks for indoor air, indoor and outdoor soil/ and concrete
would be within the target risk ranges (HZ < l and oanoer risk
1B-6 to 1B-4) for an adult worker, regardless of attribution of
some chemicals to background. As stated above, wipe samples are
more difficult to interpret. PCBs in building IOC appear to be
on the border of the upper end of the target risk range, using
conservative assumptions. If necessary, more detailed analysis
of the wipe samples from this building can be undertaken.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please
contact me at x!309.
cc: Eric Johnson (3HW41)
.REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1993. lexicological Profile Update for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls. United States Public Health Service, ATSDR, Atlanta,
GA.
Christian!, D.C., D. Kriebel, N.J. Fox, and E.L. Baker. 1986.
Persistently elevated polychlorinated biphenyl levels form
residual contamination of workplace surfaces. American Journal
of Industrial Medicine 10:143-151.
Environmental Criteria and Assesssment Office (ECAO). 1992.
Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Evaluation of Feasibility of
Oral-to-Dermal Extrapolation for PCBs. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, ECAO, Cincinnati, OH. July 31.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental
Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Kim, N.K. and J. Hawley. 1984. Re-Entry Guidelines: Binghamton
State Office Building. Draft. New York State Dept. of Health,
Bureau of Toxic Substances Assessment, Division of Health Risk
Control. Albany, NY. August. Document 0549P.
Lees, P.S.J., M. Corn, and P.N. Breysse. 1987. Evidence for
dermal absorption as the major route of body entry during
exposure of transformer maintenance and repairmen to PCBs.
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 48(3):257-264.
Michaud, J.M., S.L. Huntley, R.A. Sherer, M.N. Gray, and D.J.
Paustenbach. 1994. PCB and dioxin re-entry criteria for
building surfaces and air. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology 4(2):197-227.
New York State Department of Health. 1985. PCB Re-Entry
Guidelines. New York State Dept. of Health, Bureau of Toxic
Substances Assessment, Division of Environmental Health
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
A2-5
-------
Assessment. Albany, NY. July 17. Document 133OP.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)—
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Surface to
Skin/Suit Transfer Studies; Transferability of Malathion Surface
Residues Studies. USEPA-EMSL, Analytical Sciences Division, Las
Vegas, NV.
USEPA. 1987. Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Spill Cleanup Policy.
Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 52, Number 63. April 2.
USEPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume
I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
December.
USEPA. 1989b. Exposure Factors Handbook. Exposure Assessment
Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington,
D.C. May. EPA/600/8-89/043.
USEPA. 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental
Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive
9285.6-03. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, D.C. March 25.
USEPA. 1992a. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the
Concentration Term. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, D.C. May. Publication 9285.7-081.
USEPA. 1992b. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and
Applications. Interim Report. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. January. EPA/600/8-
91/011/B.
USEPA. 1994. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables; Annual
FY94. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
D.C.
USEPA. 1995. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Celebrating 25 Years of Environmental Progress
A2-6
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
;AT7A
to • Qetrwr
Environment Sine* 1962
BATTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES. INC.
industrial HygMn* • 0*6 environmental • Analytical laboratory
Delaware Industrie! Ptrtt*;*QarfltW Way »Ne!wvk, 06 19713-3640
Project Name:
Date Sample Collected: J2/MS
Date Sample Received:
Analysis Requerted:
Proj«et Numhert M1995P
« Colteeted By:_flIaoL___
. Sampto Type: Wipe*
Date Sample Analvredi 12/12/M
Anahati GL.A.
Method of Analyib: EPA ttMO
IAMPIX/31WJ4
. nm>ro*H4t
. firt*A«E^WIPHRlbOa»? . .
PCBType
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
• "V-' 'PCB •
•:-,>££ .(4WptVv.-,--. -
.•;:£: ND •'.'•
;:,;>^: ; .:--ND .•;•:..;. -..
.V •:••: v ND
:..-.'i ND =
. •'>':£ ?-"HD' .;"
. ;R;v . :;ND • .;
J':Ai '.:.:•** ..:^ .
PCB
(M/100 cm1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Note: Sample! reported M ND
Laborator
^ERTIPICATIONS AND APFIUIATION9
A CERTIFIED MBE COMPANY
rCUSTBAL
Mtoac
ASSCX3AICN
EPA LAB. ID# DE004
&RANCH Of PICS, GEORGETOWN. Of.
••'^&. A3-1 ••':- ; -:'''
-------
Gm i I ti C.J < V
a a Conor
EATTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC
mistrial Hygiene « G«fc . iflvirenwenral • Analytical Lafcoratoiy
ineustritTPtt* 3arf!tid Way ^f CS i97;:-2S.*
7i23TS • ?ax (2025 ,^.-1,
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
-------
5'8"
s
10'0"
Sample No. 96-58 Date sampled: 12/8/95
PCB Wipe Result:: Non detect
N
Building 10C
-------
|