United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-88/047
June 1988
Superfund
Record of Decision
Voortman Farm Landfill, PA

-------
50272 -101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i 1. REPORT NO.
PAGE ! EPA/ROD/R03-88/047
12.
3. Recipient's Accession No.
.. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Voortman, PA
First Remedial Action - Final

. Author(s)
50 Report Oate
06/30/88
9. Performing O"anization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
. I
- j
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
- -
--.--
.--
11. Contract(C) Or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsorin. Orlanization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental protection

401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460
--. ---_._._--_._---~
Agency
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
1..
15. Supplementary Notes
I
I
I
i
I
I.
I
i
I
I
I
I
UL Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 43-acreVoortman Farm site is located in Upper Salucon Township, Lehigh County,
pennsylvania. The site consists of a sinkhole that contained empty battery casings
disposed Qf in late 1979 and early 1980. Citizen complaints in 1980 prompted the
prohibition of dumping and subsequent site investigation. In September 1986, the
battery casings in the sinkhole caught on fire. Since the battery casings were burning
underground, attempts to extinguish the fire remained unsuccessful. In October 1986,
access was gained to the burning wastes, which were then excavated and extinguished.
8dditional wastes and residues were excavated from the sink hole and d~sposed of
offsite. The collapse of the sinkhole walls has formed a natural cap. There does not
appear to be any leaching from any residual metals, contaminated soils or battery
casings present.
The selected remedial action for this site is a no further action
ground water monitoring for five years. The estimated present worth
remedial action is $26,000 with annual O&M of $6,860.
with continued
cost for this
(See Attached Sheet)
1~i8!:.'Wnb1!'a~t: i ~ i~rlPtors

Voortman, PA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw, soil
Key Contaminants: metals (chromium,
lead)
b. Identlfiers/Open.Ended Terms
c. CO SAT I Field/Group
",vailability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
21. No. of Pages
31
--..-- --
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
Sea Instructions on Ravarsa
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77\
(Formerly NTI5-35)
Department of Commerce

-------
EPA/ROD/R03-88/047
Voortman, PA
~irst Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes: in-situ biodegradation of
sludges and contaminated soils with aeration of the lagoon waste for degradation
enhancement; stabilization of residues followed by onsite disposal; ground water pump
and treatment; surface water discharge to the San Jacinto River with treatment, as
necessary; backfilling of the lagoon to grade and contour; and ground water monitoring.
The estimated present worth for this remedial action is $47,000,000.

-------
CECLARATION FORmE f?ECORD OF [ECISICN
REMEDIAL ALTER.JATIVE SELECTICN
Site:
Vbo~tman Farm Site, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
Statement of Basis and FUrp:>se:
The p...IqDse of this decision cbcument is to describe the selected
r-emedial action fo~ ground wate~ at the \OOrt'11an Farm Site and the
technical evaluation to 9.Jp~rt this decision. This Reco~d of Cecision
(roO) fulfills the statutory ~equi~ements of Section 113 (k)(2)(B)(v) and
Section 117 of the Comp~ehensive Environmental Res~nse, Compensation and
.Liabili ty kt of 1980 (CEOCI.A) as amended by the 9Jpe~fund lrnendnents and
Reautho~ization kt of 1986 42 U.S.C. ~9601 et. seq. and is consistent
with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40'C.F.R Part ))0.
Documents Reviewed:
The following cbcuments provide the key 9.Jp~~ting information in
the Administ~ative Reco~d which desc~ibe the environmental and p...Iblic
health concerns at the \OOrtman Farm Site.
':'" \bartman Farm Site, Final Ranedial Investigation Rep:>rt,
Jaruary 1988, prepared by Baker/1SA Incorp:>rated.
- \bartman Farm Site,- Draft Feasibility Study Re~rt,
February 1988, prepared by Bake:t"/'ISA Incorp:>ra~ed
- Remedial ktion Master Plan (RN1P), \OOrtrnan Farm Si te,
Cece7ber 1984, prepared by Ecology and Environment
- Notes from CER Reroval ktions, September 1986.
The Agency has presented a complete adninistrative record to the
p.lblic for 30 d3.ys and has placed a newspaper advertisement describing
the ranedial action selected in this decision. The Pqency has al3:>
discussed these reI:X>rts with the Pennsylvania Cepartrnent of Environmental
Resources (CER) which has agreed on the alternative selected.
I have been briefed by my staff on the contents of these cbcuments,
the p.lblic a:mnents and rER's letter of concurrence and they form the
principal basis for my decision.
Description of Selected Remedy:

1. The selected remedy is a "00 PCTIOO ALTER.JATIV'E WI'IH CONTINUED
GroUND WATER ~I'IORIN:;".
2. EPA and rER will !I()ni tor onsi te ground water wells and analyze for
the metals related to the waste source.

-------
3. All monitoring will be done on a yearly basis for the next five years.
After this period, EPA and CER will review the site to deternine any
need for contirued moni toring.
4. This remedial action will not requir-e fu::-ther treatment of grcund
water, 9.lrface water, sediments or soils. The rer.-oval of the burning
battery casings, ashes and soils have effectively eliminated the source
of fubJ.re threats ~ ;rcund water quality.
l)?clarations:
The selected remedy is ~rotective of human health and the environ-
ment and attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate. I have determined that the no action alternative
combined with continued monitori~g of the on site wells is an effective
rE!:1.edy for the grcund water at the \bartrnan Site.
Since some hazardous substances
be conducted within five years after
remedy contimes to ~rovide adequate
environment.
remain. in the sinkhole a review will
this decision to en9.1re that the
protection of human heal th and the
I have also determined that the action being taken is appropriate
when balanced against the availability of Trust EUnd monies for use at
other sites. The no action alternative in conjunction with grcund water
monitoring will adequately protect public health, welfare and the environ-
ment.
Gf30(t6rg;

[ate
~~~

/ ~ional Adnini strator
/ Poro .
, ._~lon III -
-2-

-------
CONTENTS
---
Site I.DCation and r:Escription
P.
4
Site History
P.
4
RI &lcrnary
P. 6
P. 6
P. 7
p. 7
P. 8
Goo logy
Hydrogoology
Sinkoole I::evelopnent
Sinkoole Waste Characte~ization
SOils Waste Characteri zation
P.
9
Ground Wate~ Waste Characterization
P. 10
SUrface Water Waste Characterization
P. 12
Sediments Waste Characterization
P. 12
Air InvestirJation
P. 13
Rlblic
eal th and Environmental Concerns
P. 13
Review of Remedial Alternatives
p. 14
p. 23
Evaluation Criteria for Selection of Remedy
Recommended Alternative
p. 25
p. 25
. r:anpl~ance with ARARs
COmmunity Relations/Responsiveness &lrnmary
Figure 1
tDCation Map
p. 26
p. 27
Figure 2 Si te Map
p. 28
p. 29
Figure 3 &1rface Water Sampling IDeations
Figure 4
Sinkoole illustration
p. 30
p. 31
Figure 5
Advertisa-nent
I:ER Concurrence letter
p. 32

-------
~ITE CESCRIPTlOO FoND SUMHARY OF RE~1EDIAL ALTE~ATli/ES
Site Location and Description

The \bOrtrnan Farm Site is located in Upper Salcon 1bwnship.
This township is si tllated in the scu th-eastern corner of Lehigh Ca.mty,
seven miles from the metro[X)litan areas of Allentown and Bethlehet\.
More specifically, the site is located on a 43-acre farm between vera
Cruz Ibad and Lime[X)rt Pike approximately 3/4 miles scuthwest of Lanark,
Pennsylvania as shown on Figure 1. (Figures are attached at the end bf
the text.) The sinkhole is sitllated adjacent to a oorth to SOlth tree
line on the farm, west of the WedJeY.OOd (Dlf Coorse.
The site is a sinkhole that contained empty battery casings which
were dumped there in late 1979 and early 1980. The battery casings
remained until Septet\ber 1986, when, the casings were rem::wed wring an
effort by Pennsylvania CER to extinguish a fire in the sinkhole.
The sinkhole now appears to contain 00 battery casings. Nearby
3.lrface soils have slumped into the bottom of the sinkrole giving the
visible impression of depth to be only 40 to 45 feet. There have been
rep;:>rts that the sinkhole was ilUch deeper at one time, but this has oot
been 3.lbstantiated by the backgro.md information or the work performed in
the Ranedial Investigation/Feasibility Stlldy (RI/FS). The sinkhole.
at the 3.lrface is slightly eliptical wi th dimensions of 45 feet oorth to
SOlth and 65 feet east to west. For site safety, the sinkhole is
encircled at the 3.lrface by a snow drift fence. The land around the
sinkrole is used primarily for agricultllre.
...
The battery casings dumped into the sinkhole have been 3.lspected of
containing residJal lead, cadnium and zinc. These were identi fied as
the primary [X)llutants associated with the casings in the preliminary
assessnent of the site. EER sampled water from battery cases within the
sinkrole in April, 1980, and found levels in excess of the National Primary
or Secondary Drinking ~vater Standards. Concentrations ranged up ., 24
ug/l for cadirru.m; 49,500 ug/l for lead; and 10, 350 ug/l for zinc. The
overriding concern at the site was that these metals may be entering the
ground water and may [X)se a threat to the p.lblic.
Site History

Empty al taroti ve battery casings were d.imped into the \OOrtman Sinkhole
f~ late 1979 to early 1980 (estimated). In the spring of 1980, citizens
complained to ~per Salcon 1bwnship Officials which resulted in the initial
si te investigation of the \OOrtman sinkhole by the 1bwnship. A preliminary
injunction prohibiting further d.lmping was obtained by Upper Salcon 1bwnship.
Up:m review of the site by EER, an illegal Resc:urce Recovery Operation
Order was iS3.led through the Regional Solid Waste Manager to the property
owners on .J..1ne 27, 1980. This order prohibited any further d.lmping of
wastes in the sinkrole and mandated a prop:>sal for rE!Iroval of 3.lch wastes.
An appeal from the lancbwners was filed on .J..1ly 27, 1980 and withdrawn on
February 4, 1981.
-4-

-------
A 9.lbSEqUent investigation by state and federal agencies re311 ted in
the VbOrtman FaDn Site receiving a ranking via the Hazard Ranking Score.
further review re31lted in the \OOrtman Farm Site being placed on the
first National priorities List published in December 1982.
The Ranedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was prepared for the
\Oortman FaDn Si te by Ecology and Environment, Inc. in December 1984. The
overall objective of the RAMP was to provide organized data to assist in
the develofrnent of the RI/FS rork Plan. In Algust 1985, CER requested
pro~sals to provide remedial investigation and feasibili ty stl.ldy (RI/FS)
services at the \txJrtilan Farm. Baker/TSA, Inc. recei ved ~tice of Award
to perform the YoQrk and initial contract cbcuments in March 1986.
One major event that occurred at the site in the interim before
initiation of the RI was a fire in the sinkhole. On September 10, 1986,
"DER's Site Representative was informed that the battery casings in the
\Oortman Sinkoole were on fire. Repeated attempts by the Upper Soucon
'Ibwnship Fire I:Epartment of extinguish the fire were un31ccessful beca.lse
the battery casings were burning undergrotmd. Air rroni toring by CER's
B..1rea.l of Air Olali ty Control showed that significant quanti ties of lead
were being released f~ the fire. A meeting with underground-fire
experts f~ several I:ER burea.ls was held on Septanber 17, 1986 to
select the best solution to extinguish the fire and dispose of the wastes
properly. Bids from three Elnergency Res~nse contractors were solicited
to carry 00 t the res~nse plan. On Septenber 25, 1986, I:ER fu nds were
appropriated to implement CER's first &lperfund clean~p action. On.
SeptaWer 29, 1986, CER executed an emergency service contract wi th BES
Environmental Specialists, Inc. I:ER Site Representative directed the
rrobilization and the excavation of a ramp cbwn into the sinkhole. This
YoQrk began on October 1, 1986." On October 3, 1986, access was gained to
the burning wastes, which were excavated and extinguished. Additional
wastes/residues were excavated f~ the sinkhole, and for several days
afterwards, they were stored in a tem~rary lined storage area to await
final dis[X>sal. On October 27, 1986, the final phase of the res[X>nse
occurred wi th the loading and trans[X>rtation of the wastes f~ the
tem~rary storage area to a OCRA a.1thorized landfill in New York State.
The reroval was canpleted on October 30, 1986, and the contractor was
darcbili zed. An estimated 230 albic yards of wastes were trans[X>rted
offsite. .
The RI began in April 1987 approximately seven rronths after. the
fire. The t'eSllts show that reroval of the battery casings has helped
remediate the site. The RI/FS was canpleted in February and will be
9.lmnari zed as part of this decision making cbcument.
-5-

-------
Remedial Investigation Summary

The first step in the RI consisted of collecting and reviewing
pertinent data from EPA, LER and various Lehigh Camty h;jencies.
Following these preliminary activities, an extensive field sampling
program was conwcted. The sampling was performed to: 1) determine the
areal extent of contamination, 2) determine gramd water quality in the
vicinity of the sinkhole, 3) provide additional subsurface infonnation,
and 4) evaluate surface water and local water '",ell quality offsite. On-
site activities included air :ronitoring, surface and borehole goophysical
surveys, a 12 hour pump test and sampling of surface waters, local residential
water supplies, subsurface 3Jils, sinkhole soils, and grcundwater from
the newly installed rronitoring wells. The locations of these sampling
roints are soown in Figures 2 and 3.
Once the field investigation was completed, the next step was to
compile and evaluate field investigation analytical results in order to
identify the ma:]nib.1de and extent of contanination associated with site.
Inherent in this evaluation was an assessment of the reliability of the
data through validation procewres. The review process included comparing
the data with applicable standards. Then an evaluation was made as to
the extent of rotential threats to ruman health and the environment.
The RI a.1t1ines the backgro.md information leading up to the remedial
investigation, the field methods employed wring the investigation, and
the discussion of analytical results. Based on the findings of the field
sb.1dies, a risk assessment was condlcted to identify rotential or actual
health risks posed by site conditions..
Goo logy 
The \Oortrnan Farm si te lies wi thin the Salcon Creek Basin which is.
part of the Lehigh River and I:elaware River drainage system. Geologic
formations in the Salcon Creek Basin include Carrbrian and Orcbvician
carbonates, Carrbrian quartzi te, Precarrbrian metarrorphic and igneaJs
rocks, and Triassic sandstone, shale conglomerates, and diabase.
The carbonate rocks, consisting of cblomite and limestone, have been
intensi vely folded, fculted and cut by t\o,O principal joint systems.
These systems intersect each other and the bedding at nearly right angles.
The joint systems are comronly filled with quartz and calcite. The
Scucon valley, which includes the Saloon Creek Basin, lies along Salcon
Creek fran Hellertown to LimeJ;X)rt and alrrost is completely encircled by
hills of granite rocks that are part of the Reading Prong. The \bortrnan
Farm Site bedrock is located in the Beekmantown Gro..ip. From the drilling
program condlcted at. the si te, the bedroc k is' est desc ribed as a medium
gray to light gray cblomite. While drilling, the grcund water that was
discharged fron the boreoole was orange in color when in mids (dJe to
the silt and clay mid fill) and gray in color when in competent cblomite
bedrock. The bedrock in this area is subdivided by fcults, fractures,
joints, and to a lesser extent bedding surfaces. These feab.1res tend to
create large blocks of rock and it is along these strucbJral surfaces
that bedrock weathering is rrost intense. The weathering decreases inward
and away from these feabJres to a 3Jlid unweathered cblomite interior.
-6-

-------
Hydrogeology
The presence of sinkooles both onsi te and offsi te characteri ze
dissolved carbonate rock terrain, commonly called karst. Development
of sinkholes and the associated significant solution of bedrock are
dependent on climate, solubility, p:>rosity and permeability of the rock;
soil and vegetation covers; grcund water level fluctuations; 3.lrface
drainage and the chemical corrosiveness of ground water. Vertical ground
water rrovement is by channeled flow through vertical shafts or- joints;
oorizontal flow is primarily through SC'lution condJits along fractures
(faults, joints and bedding plane partings) which form a complex
system of tl.1bes or pipes. .2\9 corrosion ,along the fractu r-es enlarge
solution conduits, fUnnel-shaped sinkooles often appear, conduit
roofs collapse and principal flow channels are formed.
Major water bearing fractl.1 res at the \OOrtman si te trend oortheast
to southwest and dip oorthwest, oorth and oortheast. Bedding planes
trend to the oortheast and dip to the g:utheast. The reSllting general
gro..md water- and 3.lrface water flow dtrections are east to oortheast
towards Saucon Creek. Static water levels range from approximately n
feet to 40 feet below gm.md 3.1 rface.
The fracture trace analysis, drilling program and geophysical
investigations all confirm the presence of fracture and void zones within
the cblomite.ReSllts from the cquifer test verif-I the fracturea and
cavernous nature of the cblomite and indicate large transmissivities and
, 3.lbstantial flow rates of gro..md water-.
Sinkoole Development
A solution-tyPe sinkoole is a depression in the 3.lrface of the ground
which uSlally is ca.:sed by the collapse of the solution cavity roof in
carbonate rock. The formation of these sinkholes is dependent up:>n the
presence of limestone or cblomite and their inherent solubility in water.
It stn.lld be roted that oot all areas underlain by carbonate bedrocks are
3.lbject to significant solution and sinkhole development. Hov.ever, the
cblomite bedrock present at this site is 3.lsceptible to sinkhole development.
The gro.lnd water at the site flows through fractures calsed by faulting.
The carbonate bedrock at the si te has been broken into a net\olOrk of joints
and fracb..1res which allow the ItOvement of gramd water. As the ground
water passes thro..1gh these fracb..1 res, it widens the fracb..1 res by slowl y
dissolving the rock. Evenb..1ally, a system of caves or extremely large
fracb..1res !em fIOm the dissolving of the bedrock by the water. The
widening continues until t~p cave ~f is dissolved to a p:>int where the
soil overbJrden may be placed in 3.I.:i~nsion and evenb..1ally flushed cut of
the bottcm of the newly formed sinkhole by'gmmd water flow. The sinkhole
will range in size from less than a foot to a large cave as witnessed
near the \OOrtman Farm Site.
-7-

-------
Sinkhole Waste Characterization
Thep.lqDse of sampling the sinkhole roils was to characterize and
detetrnine the ooncentrations of 9..lspected contaminants renaining in the
sinkrole. A sketch of the sinkhole is shown in Figure 4. Both roil and
water samples were taken in the sinkhole, and these re5.ll ts are shown below
in Tables 1 and 2. These speci fic metals are highl ighted becaJ se of
their potential toxicity and their association with the source of the
battery casings. ...
Table 1
Sinkrole Soil Sampling Re5.l1ts *
(concentration in mg/kg)
Sinkhole Soils
u. S. Soil
Ranges
870251
870252
870253
Cadnium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.01-7
10
6.5
8.7
Chromium
---------------------------------------------------------- --_. ------------
5- 3,000
46
16
26
Copper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-100
59
43
60
Lead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-200 .
45 -
380
690
Nickel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-1,000
35
41
37
. Zinc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-300
130
140
110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pi ">~se rote that these ooncentrations are further qualified in the RI
rePJrt .
These levels d::> rot appear to reflect oontamination from leaching of
any resid.1al oontaminated roils or wried battery casings that may remain
in the bottan of the sinktx>le.
-8-

-------
Table 2
Sinkh::>le Hater Sampling Re3.l.lts *
(concentrations in ug/l)
Sinkh::>le Water Table
Standards
870232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cad'nium
10
<5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrom ium
50
<10
..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper
1,000
<25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead
50
10.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel
180
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc
5,000
17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please rote that t.."lese concentrations are fu rther quali fied in the
RI rep:>rt.
Soils ~Jaste Characteri zation
Soil samples were collected wring the drilling of the overburden g:,ils
at the initial well which was app~ximately 100 feet south east of the
sinkh::>le. Samples were collected at intervals of five feet. Organics
analysis was conducted for the g:,il samples from the 45 to 47 foot depth
but the only comPJunds detected were f~m laboratory int~duced contami-
nation rather than envi~nmental contamination. The metals analysis per-
formed on all the samples sh::>wed low levels of cad'nium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc. tb comPJUnd or metal encountered is at levels that
warrant concern.
As sh:>wn in Table 3, the values from different depths of g:,il boring
VF-4 were within typical ranges for U.S. g:,ils except for one high reading
of oopper at a depth interval of 10 to 12 feet.
-9-

-------
                                 Table 3
                          Soils from Boring VF-1
                        (concentrations in mg/kg)

Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc

Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
U.S. Soil
Ranges
0.01-7
5-3,000
2-100
2-200
10-1,000
10-300
U.S. Soil
Ranges
0.01-7
5-3,000
2-100
2-200
10-1,000
10-300
Depth (ft.)
0-2 5-7 10-12 15-17 20-22
2.4 1.7 3.3 3.1 v 2.5
12 14 14 11 12
65 68 120 75 71
18 9.1 7.4 12 3.7
18 21 25 37 —
100 67 100 99 110
Dspth (ft.)
25-27 30-32 35-37 42-44 45-47 *
1.8 2.3 3.5 2.1 2.7
8.4 76 12 5 12
59 73 " 85 53 85 •
4.9 13 6.3 13 13
24 36 49 24 41
91 130 170 65 130
* These concentrations are further qualified in the RI report.
Ground Water Waste Characterization
     The field activities installed four monitoring wells surrounding  the
sinkhole on the north, east, southeast and south sides.   These monitoring
wells were sampled on two occasions.  The results revealed no presence of
\rolatile, pesticides or PCS constituents.  Some semivolatile constituents
were encountered but were attributed to laboratory contamination.  The
inorganics reveal that some of the compounds were detected below the
National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards.   Table  4  sum-
marizes these results for the inorganics of concern.
                                    -10-

-------
Table 4
Ground Water rbni to ri ng Well Sampli ng Re9..ll ts
(concentrations in ug/1) *
-----------------------------------------------------------------~--------
~.1ay 21, 1987
Standard
VF-1
VF-l
VF-2
VF-3
VF-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
", Cadnium
10
5
5
5
5
5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium
50
10
6
10
10 .
7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper
1000
25
25
25
25
25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead
50
0.75
0.6
9.15
10.95
0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel
210
150 .
150
150 .
130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc
5000
14
35
22
19
16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.:fune 19, 1987
Standard
VF-1
VF-2
VF-3
VF-3
VF-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadn ium
10
8
8
8
8
8
----------------------------------------~---------------------------------
Chromium
50
14
14
14
14
14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper
1000
25
25
25
25
25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead
50
12 .
25
12
1.1
0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel
45
41
62
73
47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc
5000
20
20
19
7
20
----------
~---------------------------------------------------
Ten taneowners were a100 contacted for sampling of their residential
wells to detect any possible offsite migration. All residential wells
were within the National primary and Secondary ~inking Water Standards.
It should be noted that these are generally located south and east of
the site which is considered an upgradient and background area for the
\OO.rtrnan si te .
-11-

-------
Surface Water Characterization
9Jrface water and sediment sampling was performed along Sa.lcon Creek
and the We revealed, but were below the detection limits for
analysis.
Table 6 presents a 9..lrrrnary of the sediment sample re9..l1 ts for the
metals of interest for the study.
-12-

-------
Table 6 *
Sediment Sampling ~SJ1ts
(concentrations in mg/kg)
870213
870214
870215
870216
870218
870219
----
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cadnium
.64
1.3
2.9
1.3
1.1
2.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium
14
6.2
16
4.4
5.1
9.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead
5.45
6.7
40
6.5
6.0
21
Nickel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.7
4.0
11
50
4.7
16
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc
15
33
160
47
25
140
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please rot all concentrations are further qualified in the RI
rePJrt .
'~
Though all metals were detected, rone are considered present at
levels indicating contamination f~ the Vbortman FaDTI Site.
Air Investigation
Il1e to the natu re of fXJtential contamination f~ the w)rt..rr.~. Farm
site, it was rot expected that air quality WOlld be affected. However the
RI has dJcumented air quality in order to inSJre that lx>th onsite I,t,Orkers
and local residents were rot exposed to contaminants fVDm this fXJtential
SOJrce. Air sampling was condlcted aroind the perimeter of the sinkrole
before the RI, during the' field activities and after site activities had
been completed. It was detenrnined that air quality conditions at the site
were rot a concern. No organic vaPJr or ioorganic gases were found at
the site, and only trace levels of total metals were detected. There is
00 indication that the site is adversely affecting local air quality
condi tions .
Public E' 3.lth and Environmental Concerns
The p.lrp:>se of this section is to fulfill the p.lblic health evalu-
ation requirements of the National Oil and Hazarcbus 9.lbstances R:>llution
Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Canprehensive Environmental PesPJnse,
Canpensation and Liability Pet of 1980 (CEOCLA) as emended by the 9.lperfund
hnendnents and Real trorization Pet of 1986 (SARA). The standards used as
criteria for jud;Jnent of the project analytical reSJlts CC"1ply with the
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Ra1uirements (ARARs).
-13-

-------
A comprehensive exposure pathway analysis was perfoaTIed f~ data
generated 'for the \OOrtrnan Farm Site to identify and characterize fOtential
adverse health effects related to the site. BeCaJse all visual evidence
of the initial primary SDlrce of oontanination (battery casings) had been
removed f~ the site, the principal release sources identified were
soils in the sinkrole and gro.md water r;x:>tentially oontaninated from the
primary g).,lrce. The pathways examined included air, 9:>i1, gro..md water
and su rface water.
There were no volatile organic compounds detected during the air
quality investigation: therefore, the p:>tential for air releases
associated with volatilization is considered very low. fugitive dust
emissions from the sinkrole that could p:>se a threat to ruman health or
the environment are al9:> judged not to be a concern due to the physical
setting and remot~ location of the site to fOt~ntial receptors.
When considering ARAR's, the soil pathway does present fOssible
health effects celated to ingestion of sinkrole 9:>i1s. One sample
collected from the bottom of the sinkrole did contain a sufficient
concentration of le'ad to p:>tentially Cal5e chronic toxic effects to a
child if ingested ~tinely over a lifetime. However, given the
likelihood that this will OCOlr, the risk r;x:>sed is not a major concern.
The fOtential release of metals to the ground water by leaching of
site 9:>ils and past fOssible releases f~ the waste source was identified
as the !LOst signi ficant and probable exr;x:>su re pathway at the \bortrnan
Farm Site. This pathway was not evident, oowever, based on the results
obtained from the RI field investigations. Neither the nearby monitoring
wells nor the tnlseoold wells that we~ sampled were found to have grrund
water that exhibited parameter ooneentrations above National Primary
Drinking Water Standards. Al9:>, the gro.md water samples did not oontain
;netals at levels that wculd indicate that oontaminants are being released
from the \OOrtman Farm si tee However, due to the heterogenea.Js nabJ.re of
ground water flow at this site, this pathway may not be canpletely
characterized and cate.;prically canoot be assigned as a "no ri.3k" wte.
The results of the surface water/sediment investigation indicate
that there is a low fOtential for adverse effects to ruman heal th or
metals at levels that IO.1ld indicate that contaminants are being released
a:xu atic li fe. I:Bta fmu the RI srow that the recreational or aJriOll bJ ral
use of these surface waters is not adversely affected.
-14-

-------
Remedial Alternatives Review
Remedial Action Alternative No.1 - No Action (RM No.1)
Description
A 00 action alternative means that 00 further mea9..lres are prop::>sed
for implementation at the \OOLb'1\an Farm Site under this alternaL ~.
The only activity that will occur under the 00 action alternative is a
review of the site every five years as r:~ir:ed under SARA Section 121(c)
as long as hazar:deus substances, p::>llutants, or contaminants t~at inay
p::>se a threat to human health or: the environment remain at the site.
Technical Evaluation
Implementation of the 00 action alternative will oot reci1ce the exi-
sting very low risk at the si~~. However, the physical hazards associated
with implementing a remedial action at the sinkhole will be eliminated.
The r:emote location of the site currently restricts access. Therefore,
additional mea9..lres to r:estrict access will oot be implemented. The 00
action alternative is feasible to implement.
Public Health and Environmental Evaluation
There is very low risks currently posed by the site. The lead in
the sinkhole roils cbes oot appear to be rrobile, the gnall volume of
roils and/or residual wastes that could potentially be r:eroved, and the
ability of the ground water systaQ to attenuate the lead leached f~
the sinkhole roils sh::uld leaching occur, 9..1pport the 00 action alternative
as protective of human heal th and the environment. .
Institutional Evaluation
The corrmunity perception of the current status of this site is
PJsitive. The initial concern of the camunity was associated with the
practice of uncontrolled dumping at the site. Since dumping has ceased,
all visible evidence of the disposed waste has been raroved from the sinkh::>le;
therefore, the p.1blic perception is considered p::>sitive. rvbreover, there
will be ro local disruptions to the camunity fran ooise or truck traffic
that cal1d be associated with other RMs.
Cost Evaluation
The only costs associated with implementation of this alternative
include administration costs for conci1cting the five-year review. There
are 00 capital or operation and maintenance costs. All of the remedial
action alternatives will include the five-year review since all of the
alternatives involve leaving some mea9..lre of wastes in place because of
the extreme hazards and uncertainties associated with complete removal.
The re fa re, thi s . : ::. "as aS9..lmed to be ze ro . .
-15-

-------
Ranedial Action AI ternati ve No.2 No Action wi th Contirued Grcundwater
~~=mi toring (AAA No.2)
fescription

This alternative is similar to RAA No. 1 wt this alternative
includes continued sampling of three onsite groundwater monitoring wells
VF-l, VF-2, and VF-4. The t.hree wells will be sampled anrually for
five years and analyzed for the metals related to the waste rource.
As under the 00 action alternative, a review of the site will occur
every five years. The monitoring well analysis rep.Jrts are 9Jbject to the
same five-year review outlined under the 00 action alternative.
Technical Evaluation
Implementation of this alternative at the \OOrtman Farm Site will
prevent an increase in the current risk p::>sed by the site. Groundwater
monitoring and analysis are easy to implement technologies utilizing
established field sampling and laboratory analysis procedures with
vigorous quality aS9..lrance and quality control requirements. There is
00 risk p::>sed to field personnel SInce the wells are located a minimum
of 120 feet from the sinkoole. Sampling and analysis are reliable on
a long-teen basis and will provide a historical data base on water
quali ty at the \OOrtman Farm Site.
Public Health and Environmental Evaluation
Continued moni toring will provide a mechanism to deteenine the trends,
if any, or future contaminant cbncentrations 'and migration from the site.
The prevention of increase in risk goal will be achieved through continued
groundwater monitoring of the site. The only Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARAR,s) lNhich this alternative cbes oot ccmply
wi th is the Chronic D3.ily Intake for sinkoole roils. The groundwater,
based on re9..llts of the RI, currently complies with the National Primary
and Secondary Drinking Water Standards for the contaminants of concern at
the \OOrtman Farm Site. ~ location-speci fic or action-speci fic ARARs
are applicable to this alternative. Since contaminants remain in place,
there will be 00 red1ction .in existing toxicity, mobility, or ~lume.
However, the conservatively estimated groundwater velocities calculated
during the RI indicated that a contaminant plume frc:m the sinkoole v.o..lld
have migrated at least 2,450 feet. This plume v.o..lld have been intercepted
by the monitoring wells located less than 500 feet away frc:m the sinkoole.
Therefore, the re9..l1ts of the RI most likely are representative of the
level of any impact on c3:IUifer quality re9..l1tin'1 frc:m contaminant 3:Urces
located in the sinkoole. The analytI-.:al data showed that any impact to
the groundwater frc:m the contaminants trcught to exist in the sinkoole
had been minimal. Continued ItOni toring will provide the mechanism to
detect any contaminant plume migration from the si te the si te. In addi ton,
in the unlikely event that a contaminant plume srculd be detected by the
monitoring wells, additional remedial actions, including removal of sinkoole
roils, could be implemented.
-16-

-------
OVerall, the ro action al ternati ve wi th contil'1Jed m:mi toring is considered
protective of ruman health and the environment.
Insti tu tional Evaluation
Contil'1Jed monitoring at the site should ~e positively perceived by the
local oormuni ty. The benefi ts of oontirued rroni toring include active periodic
review of the si te, and provision of a historical water quali ty data base.
.l\s wi th FAA No.1, there wi 11 be 00 di sru ptions to the local cormuni ty by
ooise or truck traffic.
Cost Evaluation
There are 00 capital costs associated with this alternative. However,
there will be anrual costs incurred for sampling and analysis. Implementation
of FAA No. 2 will re9..llt in a present YtDrth cost of $26,010.
Renedial Action AI ternati ve No.3 - Excavation and Off-Si te Treatment and
Qisposal at a .R:RA-Approved Facility, and Contil'1Jed r-t:>nitoring (AAA No.3)
~scription
, Several site preparation activities will be perfoDTIed before initiation
of excava~ion in the sinkhole. The site preparation activities include:
*
Geophysical investigation;
*
Construction of an access/hall road;
*
Construction of a ramp and EqUip1l.ent staging area for access to the
sinkhole;
*
Construction of a dewatering discharge pipeline and sediment trap; and
*
Construction of segregated soils and waste stockpile areas.
BecaJse of the hazard posed by the sinkhole and the Slrrounding area,
oonstruction of a ramp and EqUipnent ledge, similar to that used for the
Emergency Ratoval Operation, is necessary. Construction of a ramp and
EqUipnent ledJe, ho'lllever, will rot ccrnplete1y guard against a sinkhole
collapse. '1be hazards assxiated with implenentation of a remedial action
alternative will be greater than the hazards posed d.1ring the Emergency
Raroval Operation becalse of the increased depth of excavation.
It is highly probable that the water table will be encoontered d.1ring
sinkhole excavation. Therefore, a contirucus dewatering operation will
be required d.1ring sinkhole excavation.
-17-

-------
Assuming that the sinkhole dimensions are approximately the same as
during the RI (65 feet east to west, 45 feet oorth to scu th, and 40 to 45
feet deep), approximately ])0 albic yards of S'Jil can be reroved from the
sinkhole before bedrock is encountered. This estimate includes approximately
100 albic yards of uncontaminated 9:>il from overburden slumping. Therefore,
it is estimated that approximately ~O albic yards of contaminated 9:>il/ ashes
will re::JUire dis~sal and/or treatment.
All wastes that are transp:>rted off-si te ITUst canply with I{:RA mani fest
and other re::JUirements ,-moor 40 CFR Parts J52 and 263. The facility selected
to recei ve the waste IT1.lst be in compliance with all applicable federal
and state environmental and public health statutes.
The trans~rtation of hazarcbus wastes is regulated by the cepactment
of Transp:>rtation (roT), t.l1e EPA, the State, and, in s:rne instances, by
local ordinances and codes. The EPA regulations in 40 CFR Parts J52 and
263 adopt DOT regulations pertaining to labeling, placarding, packaging,
spill re!;X)rting, manifest systen, and record keeping.
r-bni toring of the three on-site gromdwater wells will contirue on an
anrual basis for five years as ~tlined in RAA No.2. At that time,
a review of the site will be conducted to deteanine if additional monitoring
is necessary.
Technical Evaluation
Excavation and off-site disp:>sal will provide immediate benefits by
reducing and virtually eliminatingthe.!;X)tential risks"associated with the
site. However, during implementation of the alternative, which is estimated
to take approximately six months~ soort-tean risks will be ~sed to field
personnel and the community. The risks include:
*
Physical hazards to field personnel associated with the instability
of the sinkhole during excavation;
*
RvYitive dust and field personnel eXIDSlre to contaminants; and
*
Possible eXIDsure to the community from accidents or spillage during
transp:>rtation.
This alternative provides a high degree of long-tean effectiveness by
virtue of the fact that the contaminants are reroved. tb operation and
maintenance or 8:lUipnent replacenent are r8:1Uired in implenenting this
alternative.
The physical hazard associated wi th excavation in an area prone to
sinkrole developnent and Slbsidence makes implenentation of this altern-
ative extremely difficult. An excavation operation within the sinkrole
will increase the p:>tential for further collapse, which could reSllt in
catastrophic loss of construction equipnent and probable injury or death
for the operators. However, reroval and off-site disp:>sal are reliable
as long as an acceptable disp:>sal site is identified.
-18-

-------
Public Health and Environmental Evaluation
This RAA is capable of achieving all contaminant-specific AAARs.
Canpliance wi th action-speci fic ARARs includes: OSHA Regulations for
protection of worker health and safety and Regulations governing transpor-
tation.
Insti tu tional Evaluation
It is likely that implementation of this RAA would receive a positive
response f~ thecomrnunity, although residents in the immediate vicinity
cculd be inconvenienced by disruption of oormal traffic patterns we to
truck rrovanents. In addition, the cormunity probably will be concerned
wi th the safety of an excavation operation and possible exp:>3.1re to fugi-
tive anissions. AlSJ, 3:rne resistance to haJling the waste raroved
through the local neighx>rhood may be evident becaJse of the potential
for spills or accidents that v.Q.1ld p:>tentially threaten the local
citizens.
Cost Evaluation
A present worth analysis for this alternative is estimated to be
$407,040. The anrual operation and maintenance costs for contirued
groundwater rronitoring were presented previcusly in RAA No.2.
Ranedial Action Alternative No.4 - Excavation, On-Site Treatment by
Solidification, Off-Site Disposal, and Contirued Monitoring (RAA No.4)
Description

The excavation portion of this RAA is similar in scope to the descri;;r
tion in RAA No.3. In addition, an on-site treatment area will be designated
to accorrm:>date process equipnent. A p::>zzolanic cement, 3.lch as R:>rtland Type
I, or lime based treatment metrod is crosen for the \Oortman Faro Si te
becaJse these metrods are well 9..lited for treatment of heavy me':--_5. The
contaminated SJil/ ashes will be sealed in a matrix of canent to minimize
the p::>tential for leaching.
Standard earth rroving equipnent can be used to rrove the waste to the
staging area and spread into thin layers~ follo\loled by mixing of the canent
or lime (by spraying or plowing). - Following treatment, the oolidified
material will be 9..lbjected to the OCRA EP 'Ibxici ty Test to determine the
leachability of lead. If the material passes, it can be "delisted" as
hazarcbus waste and placed in a oon-OCRA landfill. HO\lolever, p..1blic percep-
tion of the hazards p::>sed by the treated material may necessitate disposal
at the OCRA-approved landfill.
Groundwater rronitoring will contirue for five years as cutlined in RAA
No.2 if this alternative is implemented. The time required for implementa-
tion is estimated to be nine to twelve months, depending on the testing
required to determine the proper additive and mixing requirements.
-19-

-------
Technical Evaluation
On a short-tenn basis, this RAA will provide immediate benefits since
the p::>tential contaminant source is reroved. The existing risks at the
site are theoretically reduced to no risk. Although the process is
commercially available and readily implementable, its waste treatment
capability and long-tenn reliability with respect to leachability and
structural integrity have ~t been demonstrated. Extensive site specific
testing is required before technology implementation.
This alternative is potentially capable of achieving the contaminant speci:ic
ARARs .
The entire 200 Olbic yards of rontaminated &>il/ ashes can be treated
by this metrod.
Institutional Evaluation
Alth::A.1gh this RA.A may be £:Ositively pirceived becalse of the treatment
and raroval, there may be s:rne resistance to halling the waste through the
cormunity for disp::>sal. Truck rrovanents will disrupt normal traffic
patterns inconveniencing local citizens. As mentioned under previOl..ls
alternatives, the dangers posed by the sinkhole may be a concern
to the local residents.
Cost Evaluation
The capital costs associated with, implementation of this alternative
are estimated to be $645,600. The'costs for rontinued groundwater
rronitoring were presented previously in RAA No.2.
Remedial Action Alternative No.5 - Excavation, On-Site Treatment by
litrification, Off-Site Disposal, and Continued Monitoring (RAA No.5)
Description

For implementation of this alternative, excavation will proceed as
cutlined in RAA No.3. In addition, a treatment area will be designated
for on-site vitrification.
vitrification is capable of providing a high degree of rontairment.
Electrodes which provide heating energy are placed into the waste to be
treated. Graphite is then placed between the electrodes in a pattern.
As energy is applied, convection OJrrents distribute rontaminants uni-
formly thralgh the vitrecus mass by fusion or vap::>rization. The material
&>lidifies after the p::>wer is turned off.
-20-

-------
Gaseous emissions are collected in a cover or ventilation hood placed
over the area being vitrified. Site preparation for vitrification involves
placement of the waste in an area, drilling the electrodes into place and
setting up a ventilation hood for air fOllution control. New electrodes
are installed and the hood roved until the enti re contaminated area has
been vitrified. Sane settling may occur as a reSllt of densification.
After removal of the vitrified mass fOr disfOsal, the treatment area may
required backfilling and regrading with clean soil.
~bile units are available for vitrification.
fO~r source rrust be available.
An electric utility
Lrnplementation of this al ternati ve also includes five years of anrual
gramdwater roni toring. Time for implementation likely will be in the
range of 12 to 15 months, depending on equipment availability and
Technical Evaluation
Of all solidification technologies, vi~rification is capable of pro-
viding the greatest degree of contairment. However, this technology is
extremely energy intensive and requires sophisticated machinery and
specially trained personnel to operate.
Vitrification has been demonstrated as a successfUl treatment tech-
nology. However, its long-term reliability is still unknown at this
time.
Public Health and Envirormental EvaluatiDn
Vitrification is capdble of" achieving all the identified contaminant
ARARs associated with this site. Assuming that contaminants
can not be leached f~ the glass matrix, the mobility of contaminants is
greatly reduced, if not eliminated.
speci fic
" Implementation of such a technology also will required compliance with
action-specific ARARs, principally relating to air fOllution control and
wastewater treatment.
Insti t:u tional Evaluation
Al tlnJgh implementation of this al ternati ve may achieve ail speci fied
ARARs, p.1blic perception is uncertain. It is quite fOssible that
the community will have a negative perception of the vitrification
technology. The use of required air fOllution control devices and the
appearance of the process equipment also may cr~ate a negative perception.
Cost Evaluation
A present ~rth analysis for this alternative is estimated to
be $656,760. The anrual operation and maintainance costs for contirued
groundwater monitoring were previously presented.
-21-

-------
Ranedial Action Alternative No.6 - Sinkmle Excavation, Onsite Treatment
by _~il Washing, Offsi te ill SfX)sal, and Contirued t-bni toring (AAA No.6)
Qescri ption

Excavation will proceed as al tlined in AAA No.3.
contaminated soil involves five operational phases:
~vashing lead
* Soil size sorting and classification;
* Stockpiling of unSlitable waste (battery casings and fragments);
* Using a chealating agent (2DTA) to extract lead fvom the soil:
* Separation of liquids fvam solids; and
* Removing lead f~ the extraction liquid.
The soil sorting step involves classifying the soil into size fractions
that mayor may rot r~ire treatment based on their lead content. Previals
experience with lead contaminated soil f~m SUperfUnd sites has indicated
that lead contamination is concentrated in the smaller size fractions.
The,soil is then washed with a chelating agent to mld the metal ions
in solution.
Technical Evaluation
Treatment p~cesses using soil washing are still in the develop-
mental stage. The ability to treat lead-a:mtaminated soil at the \Cortman
Farm Site will be dependent on the soil- and waste chanistry, permeability,
and other factors. The long-term reliability of this treatment metood
is uncertain at this time.
Public Health and Envi~ranental Evaluation
Lead rem:>val efficiencies using soil washing technologies range f~ .
70 percent to 90 percent. If a 90 percent rencval efficiency is achieved,
lead concentrations in soil could be red..1ced to backgramd levels. 9lch
a red..1ction will ensure compliance with contaminant-specific ARARs.
Canpliance with action-specific ARARs will re::}Uire treatment of the
process residJals to drinking water standards.
Institutional Evaluation
Residents in the Uumediate vicinity may be inconvenienced by roise
and disruption of local traffic patterns wring the implementation of
this alternative. Some resistance to haJling the raroved waste thrcugh
the local neigl'i::>orhood and concern with creation of an::>ther hazarcbus
waste stream (p~cess wastewater) may be evident. The cx:.mruni ty' s
perception of this inoovative technology is uncertain at this time.
-22-

-------
Cost 'Evaluation
The capital costs for implementation of this alternative are $562,462.
The anrual operation and maintenance costs for contirued groundwater
monitoring were presented previously.
A cost comparison 9..mmary of the Ranedial ktion Alternatives is presented
in Table 7.
Table 7
Remedial Action Alternative Costs
RAA #l
R~ *2
RAA #3
RAA #4
RAA #5
RAA ~6
----------------------------------------------------------.----------------
Capital
Costs
o
o
381,030
619,590
630, 750
562,460
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present
~brth
o
260.. 10
407 , 040--
645,600
656,760
588,470
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anrual Cost
per year
o
6,860
6, 860
6 , 860
6,860
6,860
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation Cri teria for SUperfund Selection of Remedy
The six alternatives described in the text can be grouped L1to t"-O
basic alternatives for this evaluation~ The first t"-O are no action
alternatives, but RAA No. 2 has rronitoring. The other four are for
excavation with same kind of treatment for the lead in the sinkhole soils.
This section will evaluate the t"-O types of alternatives by the nine
fX)int cri teria recorrmended in EPA guidance. .
1.
Compliance with AAAR's
P.~A #l & 2:
ktual lead levels in sinkhole soils cculd fX)se a health
threat if ingested over a lifetime.
Excavation would hope to remove contaminated sinkhole
soils to canply but there are physical limitations to
excavation.
RAA *3 - 6:
2.
Red.Jction of 'Ibxici ty, r-bbi li ty and \Olume
RAA tl & 2:
RAA t3 - 6:
These will not recilce toxicity, rrobi ~i:r 0': \Olume.
These alternatives will rem:>ve soils thereby recilcing
\Olume. Treatments will also recilce rrobility.
-23-
J

-------
3.
Short TeDn Effectiveness
RAA #1 & 2:
RAA #3 - 6:
4.
The site remains unchanged.
Excavation and treabments could take up to one
construction season.
Long TeDn Effectiveness
RAA in & 2:
RAA #3 - 6:
5.
There is a p:>ssibility for lead and the other metals
to enter the water table.
There is a p:>ssibility that the excavation will actually
remove all contaminated soils and p:>ssible battery
casings.
TImplementability
RAA #1 & 2:
RAA #3 - 6:
6.
Cost
RAA #l & 2:
RAA #3 - 6:
7.
The monitoring wells are already in place. .
Construction of access roads to the base of the sinkhole
will be difficult and any further excavation may Ca.lse
further slumping of 3..Irface ooils into the role.
M::>nitoring is an effective use of funds.
Excavation may not provide a cost effective reduction
of p::>ssible releases to groundwater.
Community Reaction
RAA #1 & 2: Community reaction is acceptable.
RAA #3 - 6: The cormunity may have Sane resistance to increased
traffic and ha.1ling of "hazarcbus wastes".
8.
State Acceptance
RAA #l & 2:
RAA #3 - 6:
9.
The State has agreed wi th the prop:>sed plan.
I:ER has expressed that the risks of excavation are
high for the safety of the workers in...ulved in the sinkhole.
Overall protection of Human Health and the Envirorrnent.
RAA tl & 2:
RAA #3 - 6:
r-t:>ni toring will protect both the residents on gramdwater
wells and the 3..Irface waters.
Excavation will Calse sane risks for the workers and air
releases will have to be monitored. If excavation can
aS9..lre complete rercoval of any p:>ssible remaining
battery casings, the excavation remedies ~ld be rrore
protective of the enviroranent but rronitoring YOlld still
be necessary.
-24-

-------
Reccmnended Alternative
---
The previous descriptions of the six alternatives have been reviewed
to assess the protectiveness of ruman health and the envirorrnent and if
they can attain the ARARs for the site specific contaminants.
This R:>D has selected the second al ternati ve described in RAA No.2:
1. The selected remedy is a "NJ PCTION ALTE~ATIVE WI'IH mNTINUED
GIDUND WATER ~ITORING".
2. EPA and rER will rronitor on site ground water wells and analyze for
the metals related to the waste source.
3. lul rronitoring will be cbne on a yearly basis for the next five years.
Atter this period, EPA and rER will review the si te to determine if
contirued rronitoring is necessary.
4. This remedial action will rot rEqI.1 ire fu rther treatment of ground water,
3.lrface water, sediments or ooils. The reroval of the burning battery
casings, ashes and ooils have effectively eliminated the source of future
threats to gro.md water qu al i ty.
Compliance Hith ARARs (Applicable Relevant or Appropriate R8:IUiranents)

The only speci fic risk identi fied in the RI/FS is cronic daily intake
levels for ingestion of the sink hole soils which contain elevated levels
of lead. This reccrrmended action wi1l rot rerove the sinkhole soils so
the ris~ may still be present when EPA and rER review the site in five
years. However, we must take into consideration the site characteristics
and .the real risks associated with the contaminated sink hole soils.
Basically, the I,Dssibility for a child to ccme into contact with the
sinkhole ooils is rerote and the biggest risk is from the fall into the
sink hole: not f~ eating the sinkhole soils. At any rate a child
would not be expected to ingest the contaminated ooils on a routine basis
over a lifetime. In addition to the unlikelih:Jod of the eX[D3.lre, the
3.lrface soils have contirued to slump into the hole and have already
covered the contaminated ooils which cculd I,Dse a threat. There-
fore concern is with the I;X)tential risks I,Dsed to ground water. quali ty.
Olrrently the gt:O.1nd water quali ty cbes not violate the drinking water
standards. RAA NO.2 includes the yearly resampling and analysis
of the gt:O.1nd water to aSSJre the hJency that no further contamination
will g:> undetected and I,Dssibly threaten the envirorment or local residents.
OCRA regulations have been reviev.ed and are not ARARs for the si te.
-25-

-------
Community Relations/Responsiveness Summary
This site has had rrost of the cor:mmi ty in~l vanent and parti-
cipation in the earlier years of the &1perfund investigations. As ment-
ioned in the site history section, in~lvanent began with the ill"'1al
dumping and continued with the National Priority listing of the Sl~e.
As expected, the fire in 1986 also raised community interest and
a ;;:ublic meeting was held to describe I:ER's prop:>sed actions. The
p..lblic clearly aJpp:>rted rER's anergency rEm:)val actions to p..lt cut
the fire and rerrove and disp:>se of the battery casings. DJring the
RI/FS the p..lblic was in contact with I:ER's representative and trose
who i~ired were kept informed. In May 1988, CER placed the Adninis-
trati ve Record in the 'Ibwnship office and a newspaper advertisanent was
. placed in the Allentown Newspaper a few days after cur ad, a local
representive wrote an editorial which aJpp:>rted oor decisions. A copy
of the ad is attached. No requests for a formal p..lblic meeting were
recei ved.
-26-

-------
.~.,-
r
-~
,
"
.
~
~
N
~
- ~.
~
~~
\
\
\
\
!
~E~~5"_.'~ .
.
-
:i..:.&C':"'CI..£ -:.~.&.
~
LEGEND
.

* - Voortmon Slnk.hol.
VOORTMAN FARM
SITE
RI/ FS
BAKER/TSA, INC.
F I GU RE I
PROJECT LOCATION
-27-
MAP
Scale: I" a 2000'
Allentown East Qua -

-------
.
-----
- }
LEGEND
* - Voortman Sinkhole
8- Surface Water/Sediment
Sampling Location
.- Monitorio~ Well Location
II . "ENNSYL VANIA.
.,
>
, .-
QUAORANGLE LOCATION
VOORTMAN FARM SITE R I / FS

FI GURE 2
SAMPLI NG AND
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
-28-
BA~nFlf!ct! I NC'

Scale: ," . 1500.
Allentown Eost Quod

-------
~ --.

N .-,
.& i
V i
. I

~1/j
=E"'~S". ..i.-t J.
---
~UACQ.~G..E .X" :',
*- Voortman Sinkhole
@- Residential We" L..oc:atlon
VOORTMAN FARM SITE R I / FS 'BAKER/TSA, INC.
FIGURE 3
RESIDENTIAL WELL LOCATIONS
-29-
Scole: III = 1000'
Allentown East Quad

-------
AREA OF SAMPLE COLLECTIONS
FOR SAMPLES 870,29.870,30.
8702'2 a 8702'3
~
~ CROPLAND ~
I

}
-;
/
/
/"
./
EXTREMELY WET
CLAY a SILT
1ST SAMPLING EVENT
DRY WITH MUD CRACKS
AT SURFACE
2ND SAMPLING EVENT
TOP OF.SINKHOLE
BOTTOM OF SINKHOLE
o
I
10'
I
TREE LINE
FIGURE Lf
SINKHOLE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
( ; f' ,I .. I
#I . . ~
-30-

-------
....... -",-,_.,""'.
:"\_-':".1 - ,-'f..
"~--.._,.,- -.-..
.._:"_j';"..~ -...--
:'!~':" ~.
~ j3-~
E'I GliRE 5
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Seeks Comments on
The Voortman Farm Superfund Site
Tn'! Pal'1nsylvllnla Dopartment of Environmental Relourcee (DER) and the U.S. Envtronmentll Protec-
~'on Agency (EPA) Ir. Meklng comm!)ntl on I report which outllnel cl..nup altematlvel for the
Voortman Fsrm Superfund SUe In Uppe" Saucon Townlhlp, Lehigh County, Pennlvlvlnla.
The Voortman Farm SIte II I Iinkholelocated on farm property betw.." Vertl Cruz Rced and Umeport
Pike In UppQr Saucon Townlhlp. In la.. 1979 and earlV 1980. battery callngl, empty druml, mlacell..
neoUI debris and trash wertl dumped Into the Iinkhole. In 1980, cltlzene complained lbout the dllpoul
practice to TO'Nnl~lp offlcla'i. Sublequent Investlgatlonl r..ulted In It'Ie lite recelvt~ I rlnklng vii the
Hazardous Rank/ng SV8fem (HRS), TtM lite wel placed on the Nattonal Priortttea U8f (NPL) In 1982.
A tire It the "cortman FlrT!'I Site In September 19M trtgg8t8d In Emergency Relpo"" ActIon by OER
",hlch r.lulted In the r.moval of all vtllble ligna of the empty battery ceal"ia, which W8f"8 the prtmary
lource of contamination. . .
Extenllve umpflng Ind InllVIII of Ilr. lurte~ wlter Ind Mdlmen.., houMhold wena. Ind On-lite
('reunctwat.r monitOring wella conducted durIng DER'I Remedllllnv..tlgatton (RI) In 1987 r8¥Mled
tho rollowlng:

. Some Iinkhole lolla cont8lned 1"""1 of leed In Ixcell tttI b8clrg~nd concehb.tlona;
. Thl lead contained In thl Iinkholl IOlla IPPMra to be Immobile la IYIcMnced by the quality of the on-
and off.I,t, groundwater; and
. No otr.llte contamination (air, groundw8ter, ~rtace watlf, Mdlmenta) W88 evtd8ftt..
A a:..llbility Study (FS) waa prepared und« CC;R'I dl~lon to d8¥8/op Ind INllyu the following R..
medial Action Ailomatlv.. (RM) to evalualelhe .Ite problem of contaminated 1011 and rHldualalh..1n
the Iinkhole:

#1 - No Ictlon, The exJatln; contlmlnan.. will be left In pla~ and no further rllfMdlll'lCtfons will be
taken;
#2 - No ec:tfon wIttI continued on-Ifte groundw8fer well monitoring.
#3 - Excavation of aolVaah.. and Off-Iltelr.ltment Ind dlapoaa'. .
#4 - ExcaV8tlon of 101l/88h..., on-tlte trNtment by cement.btlled IOlIdl"catfon, and otr-8l1e dlapol81
#5 - ExcaYatlon of .oll/alhea. o"",fte treatment by ~rtlcatlon Ind off..llte dlapoaal. VItrtfIcatJon la .
proceaa which would attempt to convert the w.ltel Into I gla..-lIke mlterlll by hMtI"i.
#& - Excavation of loli/iahu, On-altl treatment bV 1011 walhlng Ind off.llte cSIapoaal, A chemlc:.a1
would be added 10 the loll to extract lead, which would reduce con"mlnlnt concentration.,

W~fle the ~upertund Imendment. Ind Roauthorlzatlon Act (SARA) of 1988 promotel the pl'818f"8nc.
'or a!1ernatlvc:s providinG alte remediation uling inno\fathfe technologies, the VoortI'Mn Farm Sit. h...
the fOI!owl,'g ilmltltlona:

. Completa romoval of contaminated loll, ..,..., banery c8l1"i' Ind f(llgmenta .. not fel.,ble due to
Iholr !OCQ~jon dup wlthl:'l fracture. or caverns In 'he b~rock underlying the Iltl,
. Imp'ementing a,..y treatment lec:hnolOgIOI (loUdlffcation, vitrification. and loll waahlng) would be dIm-
C...it because 01 the Irr~ular dlatribu1fon of cor-tlmlnantl in the Ilnkh'.)le 10111; and
. E,~rerr.<) ~!73~d~ would be aleoclat,r1 with any further exc:avatlon due to the potentia' for COlilpa
aroun': the &In~h"'e. Such hazard. will Increaa. al anV lIItUV8tfon prOCMda d-.per.
cr.:n and EPA rave determined from the Remedlallnveatlgltlon/F..llbl1lty Study an Ipporpriate R..
mod!al Action Altematlve for the Voortman Farm 51te,
CE~ and EPA are propoalng to adopt a minimum action approac:h to thll site which II detailed In the
FusIbility S:udy IFS) Report. After extanllve technical review a"d co8f evaluations, DER and EPA are
propo""i tnat Almedlal Actton Altematlve -2 - continued groundwater monitoring wltIT no further
/!Clton, la the moat appropriate rtlmedlalectlon for ttM Voortman Farm Site. The balla for recommending
thll anernaUve la:
e Th.,. I. no evt~e of off-alt. mfgra1lon of contemlNlma from the lite, Ind the aft8 currentty doe8 not
po.. a tJ'Ir..t to human health or the envtronment.
. Th. hazarda and C08ta auoclat8d with InV deeper I'8fftOY8I of any 1OlIl/lahe. or banery caalngl tar..
ceedl any benema dertved from It'Ila type of 8ctfon.
. rlrtodlc: monttor'ng of groundw8t.r quality at ,.,e lite Ihould provtde .uft!clent Information In It'Ie un&-
kely event that ant' contamlnanta are rel.aaed prior to Ic:tveraely affecting public: health Ind the envtron-
rr: ent.
OER la leekln9 commenta on the RifFS Reportl which Irtl .".lIlble for review. .Iong with the
Voortmlln Farm Superfund "'e, It the Upper Saucon Town.hlp Bulldl"i. P.O, Box 278, Camp Meeting
Road, Center Valley. PA 18034

If requests lor I public meeting en tha reporta ar. rKalved. I mHHng wll' be hald 8f It'Ie Upper Saucon
Townahlp BUildIng. Requetllta for a m..tlng should be mlde by Jun. 10 Ind Ihould b. directed to Frink.
J. Ko/!.r. DER Community Relallonl Coordln!!tor, phon. (717) 783-7815. Genera' In10rm8flon lbout th.
Voortman Farm file can b. obtained Irom Frank KolI.r.
Comm.nta on the RifFS reportl I"ould b. ,.,ad. In writIng on or before June 29.1988 to: Joeeph A.
Kozt08ky. Project OWcer, PA Department of Envlronmenta' Rnourcea. Bureau of Wilt a Mangemenf.
Olvilion c! EmorgoJncV' Aemedlal Allponse. P.O. Box 2063. 7th Floor Fulton Building, Harrlaburg, PA
1712:).
- .-
-31-
-

-------