Chester Environmental Risk Study EPA DER 1995

8/8/2019 Chester Environmental Risk Study EPA DER 1995

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chester-environmental-risk-study-epa-der-1995 1/64

(Summary Report)

Environmental Risk Study

t-or"

City of Chester, Pennsylvania

("-~. \.. . . •.J . ..• .. ~

Conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Re~on ill

in conjunction with the

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

June, 1995



***************

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wishes to

acknowledge the cooperation and support efforts of thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), thePADER Region I Office, the Pennsylvania Department of Health,Bureau of Epidemiology; the Delaware County Commissioners,Chester city Council, Mayor Barbara Bohannon-Shepard, Chestercitizens Concerned for Quality Living, Public Interest Law Centerof Philadelphia, Delaware Valley Toxies Coalition, and PacificEnvironmental Services Inc. .

*************************~*~***********

This report is a condensed version of the Chester Riskstudy, Technical support Document written by staff at the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania and which is currently undergoing ascientific peer review as required by Agency policy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy forreleasing technical studies of the type outlined 'in this summarydocument is that they ttustclear the peer review process prior torel.ease to the public. The interim draft report summary presentedhere is being made available to the public for a dual purpose:

1.) in order to begin the follow up and mitigation processnecessary to better define and subsequently reduce the risks tohuman health in the City of Chester, Pennsylvania.

2.) to provide general g-uidance as a IImodel protocol";r-elatedto methods of performing aggregated risk studies at otherlocations. It is generally accepted that cumulative risk studiesare needed to provide technical information and a framework fordecision-making related to proposed and/or current sources ofpollution.

****************************************





5 - w~ile fugitive dust emissions have not shown to be asignificant component of risk in the city, a program to minimizefugitive emissions from dirt piles and streets should beinstituted to alleviate this nuisance.

6 - While noise and odor levels were not shown to be asignificant component of risk in the city, a noise and odor

monitoring program should be instituted in areas most likely tosuffer from these nuisances. If significant levels are found, anoise and/or odor reduction program should be implemented inthose areas.

study Method and Procedures

Background

The city of Chester is located approximately 15 milessouthwest of Philadelphia along the Delaware River. According tothe 1990 United States Census, 41~856 persons reside in Chester,which has an area of 4.8 square miles. Surrounding communities

also examined in development of this report include Eddystone,Trainer, Marcus Hook, and Linwood. Major surface transportationroutes transect Chester including Interstate 95, and US Route 13,which parallels Interstate 95 to the east. US Route 322 bisectsChester from northwest to southeast.

Drinking water for the city of Chester is supplied by theChester water Authority (CWA) and Philadelphia Suburban WaterCompany (PSWC).

Large sources of surface water in the city of Chesterinclude Chester Creek and the Delaware River. All streams in theChester vicinity ultimately drain into the Delaware River in abranching pattern. The Delaware River is a protected waterway

for the maintenance and propagation of fish species that areindigenous to a warm-water habitat.

The hydrogeologic conditions that exist beneath the studyarea are highly dynamic in nature. Water levels are influencedby tides and high r~tes of infiltration from storms.

Methodology

A key element in the project scope called for environmentalrisks to be quantitated wherever possible, and supplemented withqualitative information.

Che~ical data were gathered from existing sources. Thescope of this project did not include collection of new dataspecifically designed for a Chester risk assessment. Instead the

2



workgroup performed an examination of available data whichyielded the following observations:

• The data had been collected for different programs anddifferent agencies. These data were not originally deSigned tosupport a quantitative risk assessment of the Chester area .

• The databases were of varying quality, and certainchemicals and media had not been tested. However, with thelimited data available, it was possible for many data sets to beused to generate estimated risks.

Modeling of air data from point sources preceded the airrisk assessment, such that point source air risks are based onprojected data rather than data actually collected in the field.The lead (Pb) data, area sources of volatile organic compound(VOC) emissions, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)site information, and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data did notinvolve the types of envirornnental data conducive to quantitativerisk assessment.

In a risk assessment, the hazards poseddetected by chemical analysis are.evaluated.exist when chemicals are present in the air,sensitive receptors(i.e.humans,wildlife, andpresent which have access to the chemicals.complete exposure pathway.

by chemicalsPotential risks may

water and soils andplantlife) areThis constitutes a .'

.-·l:"o

To evaluate risks, several steps are taken. First, the dataare assessed for usability and comparability. Data may thenundergo statistical manipulations for use in the 'quantitativerisk assessment. An initial screening step occurs during dataevaluation for the purpose of narrowing down the list ofchemicals that are quantitatively assessed. Using conservative

assumptions, the chemical concentrations that would correspond tothe lower end of the target screening risk rangel arecalculated. These concentrations are called risk-basedconcentrations(RBCs), and are compared to the site data duringthe data evaluation stage to rule out chemicals that will notcontribute significantly to risks at the site.

Exposure pathways are then determined. The receptors that

1 target screening risk range: within t.he EPA Superfund progrt\Jlldefines

acceptable cancer rinks as those which do not exceed the established range ofIE-06 to 1E-04. This range corresponds to an additional cancer risk of 1 in

one million(lE-06) to 1 in 10,000(1E-04) from exposure to A given·chemical.

The lower, more conservative -- and more protective -- end of this range i8lE-06.

For non-cancer-causing chemicals, the ratio between the calculated potentialdoae and the dose known to be safe should not exceed one.

3



may be exposed are also chosen.

uses must be considered. Using

assumptions, estimated exposure

receptor.

Both current and future land

site-specific or default

doses are calculated for each

Once the amount of exposure each receptor receives has been

calculated, that amount or dose is compared ~ith values designed

to assess the safety or toxicity of a chemical. This step, whichis called risk characterization, helps the risk assessor

determine the likelihood of adverse effects occurring for that

exposure scenario.

Finally, the uncertainty of the risk analysis is described,

either quantitatively, qualitatively, or both. This step helps

give a more complete picture of environmental risks, and helps

risk managers weigh their options in addressing potential

hazards.

The data were examined in order to determine chemicals of

potential concern (COPCs). COPCs are defined as those substances

that are potentially related to the risk source being studied and

whose data are of sufficient quality for use in the riskassessment. It is appropriate to select COPCs for each medium of'

concern.

Data were often screened using RBCs. RBCs were used to

determine whether, if included in the risk assessment, the

chemical would be likely to contribute significantly to the risk.

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

uncertainty associated with the assessment of risk. may be

associated with exposure estimation, toxicity assessment, and in

risk characterization. The policy of the USEPA is to be

protective of human health and the environment. In accordancewith this policy, ex~osure estimates and the parameters used in

the characterization of the exposures are of a conservative

nature whenever possible. These conservative parameters are

designed to ensure' that all estimates are protective and that all

sensitive sUbpopulations are considered. Some of these exposure

parameters may be overestimates of the actual eA~osures

experienced by receptors.

study Findings

Children's Blood Lead Investigation

Historically, inorganic lead has been released to the

environment by many human activities such as mining, smelting,

use-of leaded gasoline, and manufacturing of batteries, plastics,



and chemicals. Lead is not volatile, so it usually moves throughthe air as fine dust which deposits and contaminates soil withina few miles of its source. People can be exposed to lead in air,food, drinking water (and beverages), soil and dust, and acrossthe placenta before birth.

Importa~t toxic 2ffccts of lead includG anemia,

hypertension, and damage to the kidneys, testicles, and nervoussystem. Small children are most sensitive to toxic effects oflead because they suffer significant losses in motor skills andcognitive ability at lead doses which do'not affect adults. EPAconsiders children with blood lead levels of 10 or moremicrograms of lead per deciliter of blood to be at risk ofirreversible damage to the nervous system.

Chester officials provided records of over 10,000 blood leadmeasurements for children, which EPA entered into a computerdatabase. Age and gender were not reported(although all werereported to be seven years or younger at the time of the test),nor was information available about how the children were chosenfor blood lead sampling. Lead concentration data for air, tap

water, soil, dust, and food were not available. This limiteddatabase allowed EPA to compare blood lead levels in Chester withthose in similar Eastern cities, but did not support conclusionsabout sources of lead exposure.

Average blood lead levels in Chester between 1989 and 1993(Figure 4-16) were higher than 1990 averages in Boston,Baltimore, or Cincinnati. However,· blood lead in Chesterdecreased significantly during this five-year period, so that in

~ 1992 and 1993 Chester blood lead levels were similar to those in-Baltimore. With the limited database it was not possible to tellif the decline in blood lead was real or artificial (caused bysampling different groups of children or by medically treatingchildren with high blood lead levels).

EPA compared the Chester blood lead observations withpredictions from a computer model that predicts blood lead.Because lead levels in Chester's air, water, soil, and food werenot available, EPA used national averages to make thepredictions. To match the Chester blood lead data it wasnecessary to add 130 micrograms of lead intake per day to thenational averages.

EPA determined the average blood lead level for eachresidence by combining multiple measurements from the same childand from siblings. A map of blood lead levels in Chester wasprepared. The map showed no noticeable patterns of blood lead;

there appears to be no part of Chester where blood lead is higheror lower than the others.

overall, EPA's analysis of blood lead suggests that:

5



1. Recent measurements of Chester children blood lead levelsare similar to those in similar Eastern U.S. cities.

2. Children in Chester receive lead exposures which aresubstantially higher than the U.S. average.

3. It is not possible with the limited data available to tell

the source of the children's excess lead exposure.

4. The problem of high blood lead appears to be city-widerather than confined to specific neighborhoods.

Modeled Air Concentrations

As was previously noted, no new data was gathered for thisstudy. The recent years air data that existed was often developedfor specific purposes,e.g. compliance monitoring. of permittedemission parameters, or was presented in format which was notcompatible for risk calculation purposes. This presented a

pattern of data gaps in an important medium of concern, air.

It was decided that sufficient information existed regardingthe industry types, geographical locations, and productioncapabilities, and that meteorologic data combined with actual orgeneric emission levels could be utilized in a computer modeledsimulation of speciated ambient air quality.

Estimated air concentrations for 699 chemicals were providedfor approximately 1400 locations in Chester city. Of thepollutants assessed, 640 are gaseous in nature, while 59 exist asparticulate matter2•

Although emission contributions from many sources weremodeled, only the total concentration of each pollutant at eachlocation was considered in risk calculations. Of the 699chemicals evaluated, 122 have toxicity values in the form ofreference dose(RfDs) or cancer slope factors (CSFs)• Five of themodeled chemicals are criteria pollutants, and are regulatedunder the authority of the Clean Air Act via the National AmbientAir Quality standards (NMQS) ',

For chemicals with reference doses (RfDs) or cancer slopefactors (CSFs), modeling results were screened using RBCs asdescribed above to identify chemicals of potential concern(COPCs). Accordingly, inhalation under a standard residentialexposure scenario was considered. In instances where both an RfD

and a CSF exist for a given cOPc, only the most sensitive

2 small solid particles like duet which move with air currents

6



endpoint (cancer or non-cancer) .as evaluated.

Estimated criteria pollutant concentrations were comoared tothe NAAQS. (This approach for evaluating potential threats is

similar to the methodology employed for assessing non-cancerthreats posed by chemicals with RfDs.)

For gasoline and diesel, carcinogenic risks were assessedbased upon respective unit risks for,these compounds, asdetermined by a recent USEPA investigation (USEPA, 1993c).

For the criteria pollutants, predicted concentrations ateach grid location were compared to NAAQSs.

Individual Risks

At various locations in Chester, several chemicals werepredicted to exist in air at concentrations of potential concern.Chromium VI was determined to contribute the most tocarcinogenic3 risk at any given location, while hydrogenchloride presents the greatest non-cancer threat. A summary ofthe highest individual risks in Chester city is presented inTable 4-32 for carcinogenic COPCs, and in Table 4-33 for COPCswith non-cancer endpoints.

None of the predicted concentrations of criteria pollutantsin Chester exceeded NAAQSs, as illustrated in Table 4-34.

CUmulative Risks

CUmulative carcinogenic risks and non-cancer threats arepredicted to exceed levels considered safe at several locationsin Chester city. The range of aggregate carcinogenic risks in

Chester as a result of inhalationis

estimated to be 1.1E-5 to6.6E-54• For non-cancer endpoints, the range of Hazardindices (HI) is predicted to be 1.0 to 3.8. The risks are alsodisplayed on Figures 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, and 4-34.

Cumulative values for the criteria pollutants were~estimated torange from 0.6 to 1.6. This is illustrated on Fig. 4-35.

It is possible to discuss the culpability of various sourcesof air,pollution to these risks. As outlined in the section on

3 cancer causing

4 I.IE-OS is a Bcientiiic notation used in risk characterization to

express an excess cancer risk in the general population of 1.1 pereone out of100,000 would be expected to incur(not die tram cancer but incur a.cancer) a

cancer above and beyond the normal incidence of cancer.

7



air quality modeling, a large number of sources was modeled, thesources vary dramatically in their contribution to bothcarcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazards.

Point sources accounted for roughly 40 percent ofenvironmental carcinogenic risk in Chester and more than half ofthe sub-chronic risk. Delcora and Sun each contribute roughly

one qua.rter of the long-term cancer risk. Delcora and P.Q. Inc.emit chromium and arsenic, Delcora emits those and other heavymetals, and Sun emits many organic species. DuPont andWestinghouse account for approximately 80 percent of the rion-cancer risk.

Area Source Emissions

county-wide estimated emissions were available for areasources of air contaminants. These data were not conducive tothe performance of a quantitative risk assessment because of thedifficulty in identifying individual chemicals and separating theChester area out from the county. However, a qualitative/semi-

quantitative assessment follows.

Sources of toxic air releases which are small when evaluatedindividually, but are significant when combined with otherfacilities of similar type in a given geographic area are termedarea sources. volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are ofparticular concern because some are classitied by USEPA asprobable or possible human carcinogens. Also, theyphotochemically combine with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbonmonoxide (CO) in the presence of sunlight to form ozone, whichcauses respiratory problems and plant damage.

Information about area sources comes from two sources ofdata. Information about the location, industry type, and number

of employees is available through Dun and Bradstreet.Information about the amount of VOCS released per employee peryear is available in USEPA, 1991d. Combining these two databasesgives an estimate of VOC emissions per facility p:= year.

A list of facilities with Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) codes between 4000 and 9999 (which include businesses suchas transportation services, gasoline service stations, automobilerepair shops, and dry cleaners), and within the study area wasretrieved from the Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) data base.(Facilities with SIC codes between 2000 -and 3999 (manufacturing)are reported in the TRI data base and are evaluated in the AirToxics Modeling portion of the study).

A grid system was established for the study area, with eachgrid square approximately one square kilometer (or about 1/2 mileby 1/2 mile), and the swn of the estimated emissions for each

8



,facility within a given grid square was calculated. The valuesfor the grid system were assigned colors from red to green, withgrey indicating no facilities.

Fig. 4-36 shows the estimated emissions for all the gridsquares in the study area. Fig. 4-37 highlights the top 9 (15%)grid squares: which represent estimated annual releases of VCCs

of over 40,000 pounds. Fig. 4-38 shows the minority distributionof the study area with the 9 high s~ares indicated in cross-hatching. This indicates that grid squares 6, 7, and 8 are in anarea with a very high percentage of minority population,indicating that the potential for impact -to the minoritycommunity is greatest in these areas.

There are several limitations to the approach used toestimate the VOC emissions for the area sources. First, the D&Bdata base does not contain every facility in the stUdy area thatreleases VQcs. In addition, the estimates of VOC releases are

_based on studies of "typical" facilities and are not actualmeasures of the releases from the faqilities in the study area.The actual type and amount of VOC releases is not available. The

estimates are not identified for the specific SIC codes that wereidentified in the .D&B database, so that approximate values were·used instead of SIC code-specific ones.

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ISSUES

A study of the existing public health status of thecommunity and a specific epidemiological study to try toestablish cause-and-effect links between environmental risks and

. health effects were beyond the scope of the environmental risk~project. However, the state health department, as a preliminaryexercise, looked at the mortality·rate for certain diseases inthe city as compared to the state and county. This exercise maybe found in Appendix III. This may give useful information

regarding the existing health of the community, although itcannot be used to establish causes of the health conditions.

Surface Water, Sediment, Fish Tissue

Three main data sources were used for surface water,sedjment, and fish tissue data: the STORET database, CERCLISfiles, and the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish.

The CERCLIS database was described previously. Five CERCLISsites in the Chester study area had surface water andlor sedimentdata. These sites underwent data quality review in accordancewith the Quality Assurance Plans under which the work wasauthorized. .

The National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish was

9



performed by USEPA to study fish tissue contamination nationwide(USEPA, 1992b). This'study began as an outgrowth of the National.-Dioxin Study, which found notable concentrations of dioxins infish tissue .. It involved the collection of fish tissue from over300 stations nationwide.

One station from this study was located within the Chester

study area, and these fish tissue results were used for theChester risk assessment. Analytical. data were obtained inaccordance with the analytical procedures and quality assuranceplans cited in the national study.

Table 4-23 presents the risks associated with direct contactwith surface water at each location. It can be seen that theHazard Indices for each location are less than 1, indicating thatsignificant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact withsurface water at the reported concentrations are not expected.EstiEated cancer risks are at or below lE-6 for all locationsexcept the Delaware County Incinerator Landfill 11 (3.9E-5). Thecancer risk at this site was based on arsenic and beryllium in adrainage ditch water sample taken adjacent to the landfills. The

water sample was reported as "greenish brown" and is likely tohave contained high amounts of suspended·solids. The feasibilityof people actually swimming in a drainage ditch depends upon itsdepth and width,. seasons of flow, and may also depend upon itsaesthetic appeal.

Table 4-24 presents, the risks associated with direct contactwith sediment at each location. It can be seen that the HazardIndices for each location are less than I T indicating thatsignificant adverse non-cancer health effects due to contact withsediment. at the reported concentrations are not expected.Estimated cancer risks were all below lE-5.

It is likely that most of the general population of Chesterdoes not consume locally-caught fish. However, subpopulationsmay exist consisting of occasional fishers or possibly eVensubsistence fishers. Subsistence fishers could have risks higherthan those quantitated herein.

Drinkino viater

This study investigated the drinking water quality of bothprivate and public well users in the City of Chester andsurrounding municipalities including Marcus Hook Borough, TrainerBorough, Chester City, Chester Township, Linwood, Upland Boroughand Eddystone Borough. The potability of the groundwater in the

study area and potential risk to private well users was evaluatedby qualitative assessment of the existing monitoring well datafrom comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiabilities Information System (CERCLIS) and Resource

10



~~ Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites. Environmental equity~ issues that would require further study were identified where

appropriate with respect to the data obtained to date.

Private Well Investigation

The U.S.Departroent of Census data obtaiuad' in 1990 involved

a random door-to-door survey of the housing units (both vacantand occupied) in the study area (see.Table 4-1). An assessmentof the data indicated that less than'l% of the housing units inthe study area may obtain their dri.nknq-' water source from'private wells. The Chester Water Authority and HealthDepartments are not aware of any residential properties usinglocal groundwater for drinking or bathing purposes. The localhealth department indicated that the entire population of Chesteris connected to a public water supply(PWS). However, the healthdepartment did acknowledge that verification that none exdst.adwould be quite difficult. Based on u.s. Census data there are anestimated 61 private wells in the study area, of whichapproximately 31 are believed to be dug wells and approxilnately30 are believed to be drilled wells. The data are

extrapolations, from a smaller sample size, of the actual figuresthat would have been obtained from a complete count (USDOC,1990). Therefore, the exact number of private wells in the studyarea is largely unknown.

Efforts to obtain locational-information for any of the 61private wells identified on the census tract (Figure 4-2) havebeen hampered primarily because of those regulations whichprotect census participants individual rights to privacy. Itshould be noted that information retrieval from the census tract

,,,,-s limited to a scale of census blocks which are a geographic

area of about 200 people.

public Water Supply

Drinking water quality from public water sources in thestudy area was,investigated because greater than 99% of thepopulation is expected to obtain their drinking wate:r from apublic supply. The study area is served by the Chester WaterAuthority except for Eddystone, which is served by thePhiladelphia Suburban Water Company. It should be noted thatPhiladelphia Suburban water Company purchases water for Eddystonefrom the Chester Water Authority. This ,water undergoes noadditional treatment; therefore, the actual source of drinkingwater for Eddystone Is the Chester Water Authority.

Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 summarize risks for the 1-year and30-year exposure scenarios for the PWSs.

TOXIC BELE.~SE INVENTORY (TEll

11



The TRI database contains information about'chemicalreleases from industrial manufacturers and processors (primary 'IIStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39) to theenvironment. since 1987, facilities meeting establishedthresholds have been required to report release data according tosection 313 of the Emergency Planning and community Right-to-Know

Act of 1986 (EPCRA).

Region III has developed a method for evaluating thesereleases in terms of their relative toxicity. This method 'isdocumented in the Chemical Indexing System for the Toxic ChemicalRelease Inventory Part I: Chronic Index (USEPA,1993d). TheChemical Indexing analysis provided in the present reportdisplays the 1992 TRI data in terms of the chronic Index(toxicity-weighted releases) and Residual Mass (non-weightedreleases) for Region III, highlighting TRI facilities in DelawareCounty, Pennsylvania.

The Regional maps (Figures 4-26, 4-27, and 4-28) show TRI

releases in terms of the Chronic Index, including non-

carcinogenic and/or carcinogenic index dose. These releaseswhich do not have an associated toxicity-factor are combinedaccording to the amount of the release and are terlDedResidualMass. The resultant Chronic Indices and Residual Mass values aresummed for each facility and for each 8 x 8 mile geographic gridarea in Region III. combining the facility Chronic Indiceswithin a geographic grid gives an indication o.fthe potential forcumulative hazard from TRI facil·ities within a g1ven geographicarea.

In Delaware County, 28 facilities were subject to TRIreporting under EPCRA for the reporting year (RY) 1992. Asummarized priority listing of these facilities is included inTable 4-27 and a complete listing is provided in Tables 4-28 and

4-29. Table 4-27 shows a quantitative summary of the facilitieswhich ranked in the top 90th percentile - 95% confidence of the28 facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA. Table 4-27 showsthe top six TRI facilities in the Chronic Index and Residual Massranking.

It has not been determined whether these releases werecontinuous for the entire year or if they reflect one-timeaccidental releases or spills. In addition, the proximity ofthese releases relative to potentially exposed popUlations hasnot been established. The determination ·of a potential healththreat of the volumes released depends on the proximity of thestack to residential areas, the surrounding terrain and the

meteorological conditions. Furthermore, should it be determinedthat additional analysis is required at any site listed in thisreport, documentation which identifies these release ascontinuous or intermittent should be obtained prior to the

12



analysis.

OTHER ENVIROm1ENTAL CONCERNS

One of the study objectives was to be responsive to

environmental concerns raised by the citizens in the st\ldv area.

Some of these were issues for which USEPA had no availabl~database and could therefore not assess with quantitative risk

assessment. These issues included odors and noise and are

addressed below.

Odors

Odor is a very difficult sensory phenomenon to describe

objectively. Many attempts and subsequently many descriptors

have been utilized in trying to describe the human olfactory

system and especially its variability, thresholds and the time

duration aspect of the sensation.

It is key to understand that many odors may be pe.rceived at

concentrations as low as 1 part per billion (e.g. ammoniaethylacrylate, isopropylmercaptan), while still others can be

detected as low as 1part per trillion (e.g. n-butyric acid).

The mere ability to sense an odor does ~ot necessarily mean that

it is harmful at threshold levels. On the other hand, some

Chemicals which are potentially harmful at low concentrations may

not be perceived by most h~ans at levels Which are significantly

harmful. This certainly exacerbates individual fears and adds to

stress associated with the perceived odors which people

encounter.

A major source of concern in the Chester neighborhoods are

the odors which seem to emanate from the large industries along

the Delaware River coastline. It may be that individual small

industrial or commercial operations could be sources of theseemissions.

Although the incidence of odor complaints has been one of

the greatest concerns in Chester, the pervasiveness of odor could

not be addressed quantitatively in the environmental risk

assessment. This does not diminish the importance of odors to

residents, nor is it meant to ignore or screen them out of the

assessment. There were virtually no data available at the onset

of the study related to odors.

For purposes of this report, odors are being considered only

as a source of further investigation. They are a nuisance which

may add to the overall stress of residing in an urbanized

environment.

Noise



Many residents of Chester have complained that environmentalnoise diminishes the quality of life they experience in a home "setting. They cite numerous sources of the·noise and haverequested help from the industrial community and theenvironmental agencies in reducing noise to acceptable, non-intrusive levels. Some of the sources identified include:

• truck traffic passing through residential areas

• industrial operating equip~ent• aircraft over-flights• music sources, such as car radios, home hi:fi

• train pass-by

As part of the Chester Risk Project, USEPA staff reviewedapplicable environmental noise studies performed in the Chesterarea and perforllleda literature search for any applicablemitigation measures. This limited search found a Pre-operationalNoise Monitoring study (Westinghouse, 1991) and a subsequent.Noise Report Summary (Westinghouse, 1993).

In the study, environmental noise monitoring was performedat seven locations. This was considered to be background noisemonitoring, at facility site locations, prior to finalconstruction and operation of the Delaware County ResourceRecovery facility. A total of three continuous 24-hour timeperiods were saropled including one weekend day and two weekdays.An additional four locations were sampled in the residentialcommunity in February 1991 in areas adjacent to the ResourceRecovery facility.

Although there was some variability in the measured noisedata due to short-duration transient events, the levels measuredin and around the facility and in the residential neighborhoodsare typical of urban residential settings and would be consideredgenerally acceptable.

A noise control ordinance for the-City of Chester,Pennsylvania was passed on January 14, 1993. This ordinanceapplies to vehicles, appliances and equipment, and includes manyof the Ilnuisancell type of unwanted sounds. The ordinanceincludes subjective aspects of noise as well as objectivecriteria limits for motorized vehicles and property line limitsdepending on land use zo~ing.

14



APPENDIX r

TABLES '.

t·



\ "d

" ' "'

u . s . CENSUS o r iOPULATION

CH BS TER R ISK PR OJB CTTAB LB 4-1

AND HOUSI NG - 8TP- 3A BAMPL~ COUNT DATA (1990)*SUMMARY

(0".'I,~

..x' .

' ! : '~ " ! j lm ~ ~ @ : i l l~ i ! ~ ( f$~~~~?~~I;l~;:'~:J ~ ! ~ W 1 f ~ 0: ; ; l i ~ ~ ~ F , ; ;l l i ~ \ H m ~ f : \ ~ ; ~ ; ; L l ! } ': : : : ~ , " ~ , ·: i : ;; j1 ~ ! f t ~ ~ t t } \ ~ : : . i ~ k : / ~ \: JJ.i~U~!P..~!';Bo\i~~;lg,Ir~~~h,t?.~U~!p .f;f~r! ': , ¥ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : C~#~.i~.~~·'''~i,I Dug' ,011,

. l' • ,,',' • ") U it"':"'" nit '''··:l'' :r U it ,,, "',' .....,. '..','",.,~",',' , ..I ('i'-~")'''f'·'·''"'.';· ":, n .~~t.- '\I n . ~ i ..,} ::~ .~e . n "-t;- ;:: ',~ ,:,· ~,;\~--;'.~t ,~~::,~,~ i''i.f'.'i'·~:'~~~;.:t::.:.,;'·~~~U~~·,"' ....• h '. , , •• h ,. ," •., "",," " ,,.,, h •• ...:..-_ ' I I

Marcu s Ho o k B o ro ugh I1055 I 990 I 65 11055 10

Tra in er B or ou gh 1912 I 871 I 41 I902 17

Che ste r City 1 16,512 114,538 11,975 116,445 I18

Ch es te r T ow ns hi p cop 1,879 1,778 101 1,868 15

I.•nwood 1,190 1,123 61 i,190 10

Upl an d B or ou gh 1,224 1,187 37 1,224 I0

1,071 .J 993 178 I 1,065 10• • • • • •

STF JA, F I I Q 29, Ta6ies H22-H3J• •

o

3

()~h~r.~"..:.H. ~.

a

o

:h

6

o

26

o

o

o

o

o

6



CHESTER RISK PROJECT

TABLE 4-3

RISK Sl,JMMAAY

CHESTER WATER AUTHORITY •;. "" _ . ,.- "~".

... - .:: : - . , : :. :.. ' .". .:~~;

.'

1.34E-072.13E-a7

1.86E-071.98E-07

1.78E-iJ7427E-06

TOTAL RISK FROM AU. SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL "RISKFROM AU. SOURCES (1990-EO- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL RlSKWITHOUTFLUORlDE (1991-EO- 1YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1992-EO- 1 YEAR)TOTAL RlSKwtTHOUTFLUORlDE (1993-EO- 1 YEAR)TOTAL AlSK 'MTHOUT FLUORIDE (1993-EO- 3OYEAAS)

3.95E-iJ1

2.29E-iJ12.14E-iJ1

2.27E-{)12.39E-{)1

2.39E-{) 1

• '. ,d ·':·~::!,~r'~:~:.·. . ~•I ••

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1YEAR)TOTAl RSK FROM AU SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR)TOTAL RISK INITHOUTFLUORIDE (1991-EO- 1YEAR) .

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1992-EO- 1YEAR)

TOTAl RISK WITHOUT FLUORIDE (1993-ED- 1YEAR)TOTAL RISK 'NITHOUTFLUOPJDE (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

3.12E~4.96E-07

4.35E-074.62E-{}7

4.1S£-072.49E-Q6

921E-015.33E-{)14.99E--01

5.31E-01

5.57E-015.57E-01

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1989-EO- 1YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1990-EO- 1YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1991-EO- 1YEAR)TOTAL RISK FROM AU. SOURCES (1992-EO- 1YEAR)TOTAL RISK FROM AU. SOURCES (1993-EO- 1YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1993-EO- 30YEAAS)

224E-OO2.9OE-06

3.12E-063.32E-062:64E-06

6.33E-05

o .oos-r- :4.47£

O .ODE · ...

0.00£+00

a .ODE+OO

O .OOE+OO

7.41E-oa1.00E-()7

1.03E-iJ11.10E-071.32E-67

7.95E-07

TOTAL AlSK FROM AU. SOURCES (1989-EO- 1YEAR)TOTAL RISK FROM AU. SOURCES (1990-ED- 1YEAR)

TOTAL RlSK FROM AU. SOURCES (1991-EO- 1YEAR)TOTAl RISK FROM ALl.. SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM AU SOURCES (1993-ED- ., YEAA)

TOTAL RISK FROM AU. SQURCES (1993-EO- 30 YEARS)

TOTALRlSK*

1989 <1YEAR}

1990 (1 YEAR)

1~1 (1 YEAR)

1992 (1 YEAR)1993 (1YE.AA)1999 (1 YE}.R)

.,990 (1 YEAR)1991 (1 YEAR)

1992 {1YEAR}

'993 (1 YEAR)

'993 (30 YEARS)

8.51E-02

1.13E-Ol

1.18E-iJ11.26E-01

1.06E-01

1.06E-iJ1

ADULT

ADULT

ADULT

ADULT

ADULT

CHILD

CHILDCHILD

CHILD

CHILD

2.37E-06

3.11E-06

3.~E-OO

3.51E-06

2.821:-06

3.86E-07

5.96E-iJ75.381:-07

S.72J:-iJ7

5.48E-07

3.95E-{)12.74E-iJ1

?.~4J;-I)12.27E-01

2.39E-iJ1

1.01E+OO

6.46E-{)16.17E-iJ16.57E...(I1.

6.63E'

7.09E-05 9.02E-01

-Tota Risk without Fluoride



CHESTER RISK PROJECTTABLE 4-4

RISK SUMMARY

PHI lADELPHIA SUBURBAN WA TE R C OM PA NY

O " 'R l 'N 'K J N G "W A " . lER:"""'ULT ,':;; -.-' "". .," ',.,' .''',' ". " ~ -;;;;;;." ~:~",~ . '~ .... ~. (" .. "~:.~." . . . •:. NON-CANCER RISK

TOTAL RiSK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-ED- 1 YEAR)TOTAL RISK FROM All. SOURCES (1990-ED- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1991-EO- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM All. SOURCES (1992-ED- 1YEAR)TOTM.. AlSK FROM ALl SOUBCES (1993-EO- 1 YEAR)

TOTM.. RISK FROM ALl SOURCES (1993-EO- 30 YEARS)

1.13E-07

1.s1E-07

9.72E-08

8.69E-082.34£-07

5.62E-{)6

1.30E-01

1.73<:-01

1.12E-01

9.97E-02

2.S8E-{)1

2.68E-01

TOTAL RISK FROM All. SOURCES (1989-ED- 1YEAR)TOTAL RISK FROM AU.. SOURCES (1990-EO- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1991-ED- 1 YEAR)TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1993-ED- 1 r~)TOTAl RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1993-EO- 3OYEAAS)

INHAlAi lON ADULT'-' :--: : : -~ : -'~ :: .>;:::~ ,: :_ :~~' i:" ,·' .:,;': - ,',

, -r-; , TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1989-EO- , YEAR)

-TOTAL RISK FROM A lL SOURCES (H~O-EO- 1YEAR)"

_' TOTAl RISK FROM All SOURCES (l991-ED- 1YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1992-ED- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM All SOURCES (1993-ED- 1 Y EA R)TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

. " : " . ~ ' :"'.~~~~ "". ,, .• , •••• ~ v " ; :_

2.65E-1J7

3.52E-072.27E-07

2.03E-07

5.46E-07 '3.28E-{)6

3.04E-Ol

4.03£-01 '

2.60E-Ol

2.33E-01

6.26E-016.26E-Q1

1.90E-OO

2.52E-06

1.63E-06

1.45E--06

3.92E-069,41E-05

O.OOE+oo

0.00£+00

O.OOE+OO

O.OOE+OOO.ooE+OOO .OOE+OO

TOTAL RJSKFROM A L L SOURCES (1989-EO- 1 YEAR)TOTAL RISK FROM A ll SOURCES (1990-EO- 1 YEAR )TOTAL RISK FROM A L L SOURCES (1991-EO- 1 YEAR)" TOTAL RISK FROM A ll SOURCES (1992-EO- 1 YEAR)

TOTAL.:RJSKFROM All SOURCES (1993-EO- 1YEAR)

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL SOURCES (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

TOTAl RISK"

1989 (1YEAR )

1990 (1YEAR )1991 (1 YEAR)

1992 (1 YEAR)

1!}93 (1 YEAR)

1989 (1 YEAR)1990 (1 YEAR)

1991 (1 YEAR)

1992 (1 YEAR)

19~3 (1 YEAR)

1993 (30YEARS)"N0I6 fluoride is not added to the finished Walef

6.29E..:.o88.35E-08

5.39£:-08

4.82E-08

1.30E-or

7.78E-07

721E-029.58E-02

S.16E-02

5.53E-02

1.49E-011.49E-01

ADULT

ADULTADULT

ADULT

ADULT

CHILDCHILD

CHILD

CHILD

CHILD

2.01E-06

2.67E-06

1.73t-Ofi

1.54E-Q6

4.15E-06

3.28E-074.35E-07

2.81E-07

2.51E-07

6.76E-07

1.30E-01

1.7.3E-Q1

112E-01

9.97E-<J2

2.68E-Ql

3.76E-014.99E-01

3.22E-{)1

2.88E-01

7.75E-01

1.04E+OO



CHESTER RISK PROJECTTABL£.-S,

RISK SUMMARY

PHIlADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT•

'.

Total Risk without Fk.Joride(1989-ED- 1 YEAR)Total Risk without Fk.Jonde(1990-ED- 1 YEAR)

Total Riskwithout Fwride (1991-ED- 1YEAR}

Total Risk without FkJoride (1992-ED- 1 YEAR)

Total Riskwithout FkJonoo (1993-ED- 1YEAR}

Total Riskwithout FUoride (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

1.6:£-07

1.9€£-07

1.97£-07

1.41E-07

2.1.£-07

S.14E-06

1.87E-01

2.15E-01

22CE-01

1.61E-01

2.4(E-01

2.«E-01

':~. :-~~~:',,~

.: ::-~. . . .

Total Risk w1thout FUoride (1989-ED- , YEAR)

Total Risk without Fk.Joride(1990-ED- 1 YEAR)

Total RisKwtthout FUoOOe(1991-ED- 1YEAR)

Total Risk wtthout FkJoride (1992-ED- 1YEAR)Total ~ without Fluoride (19S3-ED- 1YEAR)Total Risk without Fluoride (1993-ED- 30 YEARS)

INHAl.:A 110N 'AbULT :: <::~"~ ::.~~rth ';C :::;': ': :~EX::<~~,

Total RisKfrom AIl SolFCElS (1969-ED- 1 Year)Total Risk from All SoI..rces (1990-ED- 1 Year)

Total RisKfrom All SoLrces (1991-ED- 1 Year)Total Risk from All Sou-ces (1992-ED- 1 Year)

~.Totar Risk from All sooees (1993-ED- 1Year)Total Risk from All Sot..rceS(1993-ED- 30 Year) .

DERMAL CHILD::~>,c- :- ,,- ,: , : ' : i ( : - - ' E { ; : : ' : ; , · ~ ' . / ' ; : > \ " ; ': : ' . : 7 ; / ; '

Total Rlsk from All SolJCeS (1989-ED- 1 Year) .TOIaIRisk from All SolSCeS (HJ90-ED- , Year)

Total Risk from All soirees (1991-ED- 1 Year)Total Risk from All SoLrCeS (1992-ED- 1 Year)Total RiSkfrom All souees (1993":'ED- 1Year)

Total Risk from All souces ('993-ED- 30 Year)

3~8CE-07

•. 58E-07

4.6CE-07

3~-07

S.OCE-07

3.0CE-06

4.37E-01

5.0::£-01

S.1E-01

3.77E-01

5.6CE-015.6CE-01

2.7:£-06

2.87E-06

3.0SE-06

2.35E-063.34E-06

a.CXE-OS

0.00,

2.92;-v'-1.75E-02

O.OCE+OO

1.75E-02

1.15E-02

9.04E-08

9.nE-OB

1.0::£-07

7.8CE-OS

1.13:-076.7:£-07

1.04E-01

1.11E-01

1.11£-01

8.95E-02

1.2BE-01

1..2BE-O'

TOTAl...RISK"

1989 (i YEAR) ADULT

1990 (1YEAR) ADULT

1S91 (1 y~) ADULT

1992 (1 YEAR) ADULT1993 (1 YEAR) ADULT

1989 l 1 YEAR) CHILD1990 (1 YEAR) CHILD1991 (1YEAR) CHILD

1992 (1YEAR) CH1LD

'993 (1YEAR) CHILD

2.B9E-06

3.06iE-06

3.24t:-06

~.49E-063.55E-06

4.71E-075.55E-07

5.63:-074.00::-076:12£-07

, .81£-01

2.45E-01

2.38E-01-«.S1E-01

2.57£-01

5.«£-01.S.lE-016.31E-01

4.66E

6.88E

1993 (30 YEARS) B.a9E-OS· 9.45E-Ol

-Total Risk wrthout Fluoride



CHESTER RISK PROJECTiABLE 4-23

SURFACE WATER RISKS~

f : t "

~"TAll0NCHILO ADULT

CHEMICAL OF CONCERN HAZARD HAZARD 'CANCER

INDEX INDEX RISK

VEAMIQJUTE DUMP (DS) iAluminl.A1'l 0.00015 ס.0 ס 0038 N/A

IChromium 0.00038 0.00011 N / A.Barium 0.00027 0.000068 NJA

cadmium 0.00051 0.00023 N / A

Nickel 0.00013 0.00003 N/AManQanese 0.015 0.0038 N / A

Zinc 0.00019 0.000058 N / A

Arsenic 0.0025 0.00065 2.3E-07

Selenium 0.00075 0.0001; N / A

Mercurv 0.0001 0.0023 N/A

10TAl 0.026 0.0075 2.3E-07

\fEFlMIOJUTE DUMP (US) Alumll'lt..m 0.00014 0.000035 N / A

Chromium 0.00044 0.00012 N / A

Barium 0.00025 0.000Q6.4 N/A

cadmium 0.00045 0.0002 N / A

Copper I o . ()()()OQ8 0.000027 N/ANickel I 0.00013 O.OOO()2g N/A

Manganese I '0.014 O.OO3S N/A

Zinc I 0.00013 0.000037 N/A

VaMdiurn 0.00035 O.~~ N/AArsenic 0.0057 0.0015 5.2£-07

Selenium 0.00072 0.00017 N / A

Mercury '0.014 0.0052 NIA

TOTAL 0.036 0.011 S.2E-07

_)YON01e2 Manoanese 0.En7 0.17 N/A.,

TOTAL 0.137 0.17 N/A

. ONROE CHEMICAL Arsemc I 0.014 0.0036 1.3 -06- .' TOTAL 0.0'" 0.0036 1.3 -06

DELAWARE COUNTY ArsenIC 0.044 0.011 4.0 -06

INCINERATOR LANO- Beryllium 0.0061 0.0032 3.SE-05

FIL1.#' Manaanese 0.26 0.0703 N/A

TOIAL 0.33 0.085 3.0E::-OS

422120 Free cyanide 0.0004 0.0001 N/ATotal cyanjde 0.00044 0.00011 N/A

cadmium 0.05 0.023 N/AChromium 0.003a 0.0011 N f A

Copper 0.00036 0.0001 N / A

Zinc ס.0 ס 0071 0.00002 N / A

TOTAL- 0.055 0.024 N / A

422088 cadmium 0.07 0.032 N/A

I Chromium 0.0055 0.0016 N / A

COP~6r 0.00044 0.00012 N / A

I Zinc o .o oo ee 0.OOO1g N/A-------_.-I Mercury . 0.0022 0.00079 N / A

. TO.AL I 0.07g 0.035 N/A

WON0172 Chromium f 0.0002 0.D0006 N J A

~"P"~' O.'Y.I043 ~.{Y.)I)12 N.'A ,

I Manganese 0.0049 0.0012 N / A

Nh;k&1 0.0004:2 0.000095 N/A

IZinc

O.OOQ04.4ס.0 ס 0013 N/AAluminum ס.0 ס 007 ס.0 ס 0017 N/A

,TOTAL 0.0061 0.00'5 N I A

lYVON01SS I Chromium 0.00021 0.00006 N/A

~ Manganese 0.0023 0.00058 N J A

r Nickel 0 .00043 O. (X)()C)gS N f A

rZinc I 0.0028 0.0006 N / A

Aluminum I o .o o co e s ס.0 ס 0016 N / A

TOTAL I 0.0058 0.0014 N/A

·,NCLUDES TOTAL NOI FREJ •C-YANIDE




TABLE 4-24

SEDJMENT RISKS

:STATION •HEMICAL OF CONCERNCHILD ADUlt nHAZARD HAZARD CANCER I IINDEX INDEX RISK J

MONROE CHEMICAL-POND SED

MONROE CHEMJCAl-US SED

MONROECHEM~AL-DSSED

Antimony 0.024 0.0025 N/A

Arsenic 0.0013 0,00014 8.2E -OS

Beryllium 0.000015 0.000001 4.0E-08Cadmium 0.0087 0.0028 N/A

Chromium 0.0022 0.00024 N/ASitver 0.0037 0.0004 N/A

TOTAL 0.040 0.0061 1.2E -07

IBenzo blftuoranthene N/A N/A 4.6E -091

Arsenic 0.01as 0.002. 1.2E-06

Beryllium 0.000046 0.000004 1.2E -07

Vanadium 0.0052 0.00056 N/A

TOTAL 0.024 0.0026 1.3E-061

Arsenic 0.0068 0.00073 4.4E-07

Antimonv 0.014 0.0015 N/A

Bervllium ס.0 ס 0035 0.000003 9.4E-08

Chromium 0.012 0.0013 N/A

ManQanese 0.011 0.0012 N/ANickel 0.0026 0.00028 N/A

Vanadium 0.0032 0.00035 N/A

EAST 10TH STREET

DELAWARE COUNTY

INCINERATOR LAND-

Fill ~1

TOTAL

Benzfalanthracene

0.050 0.0054 5.3E-071

N/A N/A , .3E -07

Banzorblfluoranthane N/A N/A 2.0E -07

BenzofalDvrene N/A N/A 7.8E-07

Indenor1.2,3-c,d)pvrane N/A N/A 8.0E-OB

Dlbenzfa hlanthracene

TOTALArsenic

N iA . N/A 2.SE-07

N/A N/A 1.4E-06

Beryllium

I 0.01 0.001' 6.6E -07I 0.00009 0.000009 2.4E -07

Cadmium I 0.0065 0.0021 N/A

Chromium ! 0.0056 0.0006 NfA

Vanadium ! 0.0024 0.00026 N/ABenz(a1anthracene 1 N/A N/A 3.9E -08

N/A N/A 5.0E -08Benzo(bJlIuoranthene

IBen;zoJalovrene N/A N/A 6.2E -07

Dlbenzla hlanthrecene N/A N/A 5.3E-OB

ABMWADE

TOTAL

Arsenic .-1 TOTAL

0.025 0.0041 1.7E·-06,

0.14 0.015 9.0E-061

4221i5 Annmonv

1 0.14 0.015 9.0E:-06lI 0.0064 0.00068 N/A

!TOTAL I 0.0064 0.00068 NfA j



j

. .

-- CHESTeR RSSlPRO.JECT

TAItlE 4-'2:7

0... •• ~. PA. TAlF•••••

- - - ".- . - - ChronIclnda ~ R~ ~ •• ~I •••• et1"'IIpt_ ••••• ~.""""""""a..;o·),,'· C?&.r~~"""'D··U""""'_'" -I R.M eomp.ny Hane Oty nac.,..y ~ met la:a.ue of Con~

I r

8 fpdon Prods. M.-ca.a A1I~."'- EJf1,...... Propyiene: YObM

Hoo lE ~

5 Boeing o.r • •.•••• Spece . . . . . , ItJTII1Kk V~ nD1I.n: vd&.ne

Group Pad

4 r=o .nu LP. Edd'JUOh Nt Iugtthe ~toxk:ity

•3 Scott~ ~ AII~AJtr CHellofomc to:ddty

~ Adde: ~. ~ to Jdc::tty

2 WIb:o CQf1I. T , . . . . . .AJI~AJI_ 2"'~:"""'.nd~ tnridty-

, Sun RwfIning IiMertedng u..a... A JI fugIttwe. NIl E I h , . . , . ODele:-vm .m .r. . : . Hoc*- • • • • tAIdc t Iy-

hg::.••.net IITSE: YOk. Ime ., tmkojly

". ....,... dI:.e nIICIt-.pi uwd •.•••••••••• n. t-* p'Cl'lllIai • ~ ~ ••••dF-*.••• h=8rd Jar .cl.••••lQ~ and ~ to . , . .~ ~ 1M .,""±rM War..-km QOiIlaiiMiCl In ••• ~



CHEst RISKPRO}ECT

. TABLE 4-28 TRI TRANSFERS: TRI TotAlS:

1 1 11 12T RI F OR R E GI ON ' " POTW POTW 011 . 1 1 _ OUelt. TotalR~ Total I Total ~ •• (). rot.1D ELAWA RE C O., PA Tran,'", Chronic: Y,.,.t.,. C I"onle end T,••.••I••• Chlonlc IIIld T , , , , , , ' e . . (;hronlc: I n < l n

Cb 'mlstl HlIJlt r •TnlDlLOOOETHYLEl iE 11101mOt« . INDUS • 0 ' •• 50 1~ '5 -41 JC40I t••••noAC E.TONE I110D lO f« 'INOUS • 0 ttoOO O U I . . . , 1 1 0 0 1 IUI.:»

ME r Il Y lI SOOUT' r' l K E TONE 'OOI~O~ INOUS • 0 2Ut ~2:Z7 4MOe .~»t42t 1 2 ' 1 1 7 6 0 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 1 2 4

GU l fUA IC AC ID ' 90 ' 3 6C T flI I 60 0 E • 0 • 0 • 0

Ic x .V ENEO I I SOCYAHA l e ( 1A1 :QO.6C I90USClflAI6OOE • 0 7110 0 - 0

O I()jLO~ e THAHE 1Q() I3SCIflAl6OOE • 0 • 0 ~ m u m l 3.•.••• : tG 7Q f) I 1 J

t iYDAOCl l.O fI iC A C ID I go l ~ cnP fRQNT • 0 • 0 hIOI •SU lFUR IC AC ID lOOl3SCnPffO o lT • 0 m 0 1I.rn •BUTYLBEN lY l PHTHA l.A 1E locl I3SCnPfI lONT , . . . •••.•• 7 I . "'

7UII f7f4toe

OJLOAOfORt , I 1 1 I 0138CI IPFRQN ' - 114MOt • D I••••• , . • • • 1 2 4 1 254NO 4 : 1 7 : 2 8 5 8 : 1

Sl JI . Fl I~ IC .- .CIO 1!jQI3WTCCR • 0 • D • D

1 .4ElH AN Ct . 1go 13WTCCl ' I 17M 1)7110. • 0 aaeM .n1ft

2 -I .I E n1 0 XY I: n •.vo,. UIOl3WTCCR 2 1 1ft ~ &t T2 S-t" • a Itl'TTt _,1e31 n , " O 008&,4101132

Ct «..OO INE HIOOISNRfNOREE • 0 • II • 0

CRESOl. (M I X eO I s a .A EA S ) .1100ISNl l fN(lAEE~ • 0 • 0 • 0

ETHYLENEOLY<XX . •11 0016NRFNOA E • 0 • 0 • 0

PtIl,NOl . 1 IOO16NRFNOREE • • • • .)00,•• • 0 • • • • • n o D • ••

&ULfUA ICACID .QOG I6NAFNOREE t • Q • 0 • 0

I .:H JU IADI (NE 'G06, f iNRfNOREE • 0 • 0 t~ II

CYClOti t:XAH!O .G0616NAFNORE • 0 • 0 tUG •'.2 .~ · TRI ' -AET' ,YI .OENZENE 100 I I 16NAFNGnEE • 0 • 0 • • • • 0

AMMONIA 10000 I SNAfNOnE e ~ 0 • a UNOO 0

JlOOf 'YlEJ,E 11 IOO . 6NRfNOneE • 0 • 0 .•a- 0

El I tnENE 1 I IOO16NRFNGAEe .1 0 • 0 ..000 0

liNC CQt .APOl INOB 100616NAFNGREE not HI42t 1)e U,U IPOO on:rt

" 'E IHANQ liOCI6NAfNOREE 11000 :rt•.•", • a ~ nuor.XY lENE ( ' -A I I<EOSOf , IEROI l iOC.I iNRfNOIIEE.

-2STON • 0 ••100 am,.

E1HY \.8ENZENE liOCltiNflfliOREnot

~MU' •II 10M 1(47) .42

IO lUENI : 1 1 j ( ) 6 16NAfNOREe

. -aSt~'l% 0 0 .01 1OG 10241 '>40

O J~ IU '-A C OM PO UN DS IQ06 I6 t 1AFNGREE t400 )'~"m . " '71Te.~ HI 1 0 lK1toot

AH J II .4QNY.CO M pO-mos 11106 '6NAFNGREE 460 to"•.•.2 I"" 4U•• ,U2 1 17 10 D 'Z OI II 7I 12 5

ME IHVL TEA l·B U TY l E T HE R • 0 0 6 1 SNR fNOAE . l e o O 2.48"U • 0 2 1 1 0 0 . 1.1lOJ'~

a eN2 liNE I_ I G i o iA FNOREE J IQO t 1COI0 4'~ 1 • 0 ntoO . , IM'' 'I

EHlYl£Nr: OX IDE 1110 001t4RFNORj:_ • 0 • D I lI HOO "TTO I I ~U I ee~2t 17863002183

, ~ ?f"'04IU



CHESTER RISK PROJECT.-

TR I TRANSFERS; T R I T O TA I.S:

POTW POTW Olt.t•• 0 1 1 . 1 • • ToLWR~ •.•• TOlnl Tollol Rei••••• Tot.1T•.n.I.,. Chronic Tr.n.'.fe Chronic " , d T'II1.IIf' Chronla I Ind T,.n.t.,. Chronic Inc>.~.~ II Itv no. II!W,\ Inllow 11• • • • • • •1 Inl l •• IIb.1vtl Ind•• A. - . o . Gum.

XYl,t:NE (UIXEQ ISOMERS) IOOI4LN1HP200c0 • 0 tOO H)l 2tlM unos10lUENE IOOl4LNtl-lP2OOCO • 0 100 441,. : l I lT • • Ill ••" 47000 2072181

EH'YlENE Ol.VCQl III032 ••.•ZRCH l8 .3OC • 0 , . . In)O : a o o . ' InlOOIf;nIANOLAMINE IOOl2MlRCl-l18lOC 7 D 171 0 111 0OIETHvt SULFATE 1 0032UlACl-l I a30Q • a • 0 m 0a LYCCt. nHERS "IO~UlACU la:lOC 1T1t1~"12n em 1:tO'.,Z72 tSMe 2407nI6l

CHLOAOOETI~A.NE lII032UZRCl-l18lOC •0

• 0 ~ tMeItBENIYL CHlORIDE IOO!l2'UlACH 18lOC • 0 0 0 211 . " " O ~ 1731H1 245500;20

OECA900M00If'H~Nvt O)(JDE IOOl3TASCOOOOHF • 0 • • • UlIW2 toOt 10$l7H' 1000 1 0 6 3 1 1 1 6 5

XYLE ~E ( ••.•XEO ISOt.lERS) 1\IOtiOJl hfl SJOOEB I 0 .000 ,k6C , . , . .2l~7

TOLUENE IQ()5(Ut,NOSJOO!!O • 0 t :n:zl 10nlQ • • • • • • ,7f4:1n 121130 Ben 112

HYT>AOC'l.ORIC ACIO IOOl2'UeU 1&«0 • 0 • 0 7 1 1 0 0HYOflOOEN flUORIOE IOO~ tl49Ll1 &4(l() • 0 0 0 7M 0"'~OsP1-l0f\IC ACIO IOO~rllau IfI .4CO • 0 • 0 1M 0

01 . Y C « . fwens \OOl2TH91Ll~ 2M ~:U4'S • 0 Itoo lTnttlAI 3250 177208 "

1.1.1- tRIC! ~ 0"01:1 t lANE IOOlflll0VN4JHtO • 0 • 0 111m 21117112 111265 21et1182

OIETHANOlAMINE 1~'BPto.tPOSH • 0 • 0 t 0NICKEL liI06lB1'lOolP06l f • ~ • 0 • 0

f'IIO$PHonIC ACID liI06lBPlOolPOSl F • 0 ,0 • 0

SUL,UOIC ACIO IQ061B1'I.OoIP051P • Q • 0 • 0

1 2.~ -lRIME nIVUlEN2:!i.NE 1II0611IPlOolPOSTF • 0 0 0 • 0CYCl~.EXHIE 190018PlCMPOSTF • 0 0 0 • • • • 0

HYDROGEN F\.VORIDE 19 06 HlPlOAPOSTF • 0

•0 f4t 0

E1HvtENE 10001BPLD.lf'OST f 0 0 0 0 1m 0PnoPYlEHE 111061BPLD.I POSTf • 0 • 0 4.ta D.AMMO!'/IA .D06IB1'lCMPOIiTf • 0 • 0 14SlI 0~ElIImOl tD06IBPlOAPOBIF 0 0 • U 29CI Ion,XYLENE ('-41)(1;0 ISOMERS I 'D06IB1'lOolPOSTf • 0 0 0

I

• • • • Cll41ElIIvt£lEHZENF. ID06IB1'lOolPO&H • 0 0 0 In 10$1"TETRACHLOf'IOCTHYL!!NE 1006 IGI'lCMPOlilF • 0 0 0 '45 211114lOUIEI'lE 19061 OPLCMPOSlF • 0 • 0 ~ .••to.1.2·DICHLOROE THAJ>lE 10061 oPlCMPOSl F • 0 • 0 JU IUTn2NAPH;TH,lLENE 1006IDPLCUPOSlF • Q 0 0 W. ?96O'JOO

METHYL TEnT-BUTYl ETHEn IOOOlBPLCMP08Tf 0 D • 0 2tIC 105'41)1O€NI,€NE 1(l()dIBPlCMP06Tf • °

0 Q ~ IU2'l261 10B!03 315706115

SULFURIC ACIO 1001~ml.tNDtJS 0 0 710 0 1000 0

METHYL ETHYL t(ETONE IOOllBNO~INOU6 • 0 IIUO 4HOSI 4OtOO 1:1'054)1

TOlUENE HlOl3llNGHlIHOUS • 0 t2MO 1\l2U4 10660 .2H227

l~\.:3

p A Q <1 II



. CIIES~ .RISK PROJECT --_.-TR I TRANSFERS: TR ITOTAL 6:

POTW POTW Oft,l. OIl.H. 10Ul AeIM ••• Tolal Tola! R•••••••• Tot.1T , • . •• ' ., . Chronic Tr • .•• ' ••• C hro nic ~d T , ." , r. " Chlonle andT,en.'", Chronic Index

Y",JIIIY'I Im"a "IK:llltv 10 1 l lb lw r l I n rl • • • /lbJlir) Ind •• IIblwrl In~.Y Sum. Sum.

OlI 04 IW IQO ,JPNNSYlOOCE • 0 1 1 1M 0 11150 0

NI CKE L IQ ()I JP~SYIOOBE • 0 IIUG 1 0231 1 04 ' 1 1 1M '023t041 2 i 1 ( ' ( ) I02JQO~t

GU lF U J1 , C A C ID I Q O I.l I~ A r HU l 'l O CN r • Q • 0 • 0

M.WONIA 100 1 :I N A 1 H I.4 I :x JOW • 0 • 0 tUo 0 1700 0

P fl OG PH O AI C A CI O IO :U1CNCRD~CI • 0 • 0 • c

,\LIMONIA IV:UICNCROCQto lO • 0 • 0 Ii040 0 604& c

El 1 1 '11 .EN E 11105PI lLNP81UEB • 0 a 0 1100 0

PAQPYLENE I 1105P8lNP61UEB, 0 • 0 . . ,. . 0 1 0 2 0 0 0

CHR OM II JM O OMP OU NO S 19013TliPOCfflClt, ll C I 0 U7»t ~111H41 UTfM U1U717. 1471535 513167378

FORMAlDEHVOE loo iDi·YORl&2OCO • 0 • 0 In JU14 81 1 6487.

NM'HTH. r t.EN E l0061~LUAIOOE • 0 7' - l~" Ht 3~11'

BUTYL o .eN lYL PIHHAlA1E 1006ICNGLuROOE • ~, UIOt . , , " S Q mil 4MlM' t0020 31508577

FREON 113 I I lO 14 1 .4CONOQCAO • 0 • 0 7M . . .,1 .I .I .JnICtt. .OooElI ~E IQ( )I . ~L»/OQCAO • 0 • • • • 12011" 11. I 2N6U 7860 I:)QIII:U

cOPpeA COMPOJNOS ,g ol~ IRC8T86IEO • 0 • 0 ,~ , . , . " , 1 '0 3 3$5231

l.l.I . lA ICHLor .oEH1mE I \ lOI WlBtc szAACE • Q • 0 1100 21""

ACETONE 1 g o l 6 A BNO S2A A Cf • 0 I•••• ~80n l In•• I1I12OeO 2241. <loo87n

.X Y LE M : ( MI X ED I&O f.I ERS J I I lO13&HlR~31U1 • 0 1&.4)6 IMoll! lK.U 11l1n

l~UENE I I /02)SNTRY23710 11 • 0 ~J7 1.,,2:1 ,. .., 1)02M~ ~m 1476061

" 'ETHANe.. I O t I l.CS IUcaCAO • 0 • 0 11421 '-1 115211 686D3'

O te uT Yl P HT H-'llltE lilON6·SCHI.44SPQ', ' • 0 t4t I o t , J aQ toO lon . o

" , ETHYL t . 4E l I I" 'CRn ,AT E IlIO 'lI I SS01M.aPC l \ ' • 0 JlOO 7011" • • • • • ')64)14 8715 14726111

TOlUENE tgol4NTRNlI ICOO • 0 U' lTl6t1 I,", ,'MI04 16170 1300004

I ,I .I ·HlICHl.OF lOETtWlE I \ lO Ia,TTNSMAAPL • Q 10M 161$445 1*0 2Ts.21t l ,~ 2 7 U 1 2 D l

NIQ(El 1 0 0 1 I ! 6CHNNPENN • «n • 0 • «12TOlUENE I 0 0 I I SCHNN I >ENN • 0 0 0 10Ga na27

I . I . I · ' R ICI4 l0 OO E' um e I \ lOI t eCHNNPE, ..., • 0 Ult flnto II~ 22451U 12407 233Q05l

N-8U1Yl- ' lCOHOl 1O Ot 4ZNTt iP '2OOCO • 0 • 0 • •

peQtlO



CHES1'ER RISK PROJECT

TABLE 4-28 TRJRELEASES:

lQ Q2 T Al F OR R EG IO N 1 11 .\All Hoopolnl A i '; NonPolnl Air Point AI, Polnl W. t • • W.lItr t.n~ l . n d On,lI . Tolll i 00,11. Toi.1 On.ll, To•.•• On, il. TolalD EL AW A RE CO., P A R • • • • • •• Chronic n• • • • • • • . Chronic R •• •• •• • C hrQ oic R •• •• •• • C hr on lo R • • • •• • • Chronic RI I • • • • • Chronic Indu

F'ellltvlOt IlbIII,1 Inder IIb1w,\ I nd • • IIb1w,1 Ind,. Ilbhrl I nd . _ IIbIII,\ Ind••. Sum. Sum.TR ICHl OROE T lm .ENE 1 1 I0 1 3lHOH l,INDOS 2 I I C I 24.H2 MO O 'l~ • 0 ,

C > tuO tfOHHl iCE lONE. 1 1 1 0 1 3& #GH l.INOUS 12 ' 000 212 r S ' ~ . - l09ll1n • 0 • 0 12000 '~It~HMEl 1 fV l.. I SOOUTYLKETOt~E 19013ONOHLINOU: ; 2 I I C I • • s o .,010 Un'S$2 • 0 • 0 .'2$0 I.tvm 1•.•.• 00 3 9 3 0 8 7 5 5

SV l FUA 1C AC ID 19013SCTflAl6a )E • 0 ,0 • 0 • , G • (I

TO l lJENEOI iGOCYAN •• •E (MIXEO I SCIQQ13SCT f lA , 6 a )E • 0 111 0 • 0 • 0 1M 0PIO ~ lO ~E 1 f{mE 1 0 0 I l S CT FM 1 t .o o E um 3Wl3Ot II II~ I 0

•

0 »$4Z ) t , gSln ) 36118 3Q711517l

HYl JAOCI-A .ORICACID 1 1 1 0 1 SCTT I 'f 'RQN I • 0 UOOO 0 • 0 • 0 13000 (I

6ULF 'l IR I C AC ID l 1 I0 1 3 $C1 f P FRONT • 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 • 0 • 0 HOOOO 0BUTYL 8EN l YL PHTH.t.L•••TE I 1 1 01 3 SCT t P FAON l not .41IU JOOOO 52lOm • 0 1 II IUOO S¥T74111CH l.OOOFOIUA . l l IOl )6CIlPFIlOtI I

'*TI~Tt2 7~ 1 t71212 J • • ~ 0 14 ) 00 U715 t 1~ 243S00 '-1503381

S Ul~ RIC A CID II lO13WTCCR)JOO'o 'I • 0 , 0 • 0 • 0 0 0METHma . I 1 I 013WrCCRl l 0 (M N7&tt 7MI.)4 U7W7 t f2HtI . . . 0 1 0 2~ _un2 -~ ~ETHOXYETHNKl l 1 9 0 I JW l CCA l3OO 'w ' I l4:OH n42CO$U' U e a .U 24»1(9)1$ • 0 0 0 OO&~ t&IHIHS~ 7<H0-46 9708446682

CHlOl \ INt:: 1 000 l SNRFNOREH • • • 0 • 0 0 0 • 0

CR l!5Qlll .lI X EO I GC ». IE R S) 100616NRFNOnEH ,0 • D 0 0 • 0 1 I>

E1HYL£NE OL '(COt. l 0 06 I SNAF l-lOI \EH • 0 • 0 • ° • 0 0 0PI ·I"NO l. 1 I lOO16NnFNOnEE t • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0SULFUR IC ACI~ 1 0 0 0 1 S NRF l- lQnEH • 0 ,

0 0 • Q D 01 .:J .&JT. . .o IENE I_ I S Nn fN OA fE~ 12 0 0 • , a • 0 12 0 Q

CYC~OI IEXANI : l o o e l SHRFNGAEE t 1 1 0 0 0 Nt 0 0 a 0 : tMO 0I . ?4-1 R IM ETHYUlIiNlENE IOOOISHI l FNOREE I ttot 0 • • 0 0 0 0 4 1 1K 0AMMONI• •• I 0 0 6 1 S NRFNO f! E E t .)()O 0 • " 0 1 0 ')00 C .

PROPYLENE I I IOe 18Nf l FNOnEE I »000 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 U300 CETH'I1 .. EN E 11I0616NnFNOHEE~ < M O O C I 0 • 0 0 1 0 ~ooo 0Zl~C <XlMPOt.mOS 1_ , SNRI 'NORE f,1 0 1\ %70 U.,7 0 0 0 710 UUTMETH.t .NOl

1006 I SNRFNQRee~ 1700 m l21 1 1 0 0 ltoof. 0 • 0 1 : tOO ~ ~ 1 I 2 1XY l ENE {MIXED I ~ERS , ' _ I SHRfNGREH 2tOOa aS1~ 1100 lS010 0 • 0 )0100 1121"E lH \ 1 .BENlENE 1_ , SHA r nOREH - Ute•• 220 , _ 0 II '0 Ul'Q 6/0e0.

TOlUENE l l IOe l SHAFHOAEE I 1.000 27.1 , .1 ! ' W O O "\u. 0 0 0 SHOO U1HDtCHROMIUMCOMPOUNDS 1000 , 6HA r nOAEH 1 0 1)00 ••at1., 0 0 0 D 1)00 4l lHJ 't IS

"NT IMONY ca . l POUNOS IQOOISNRFNORI : I : ' • 0 40 0 1n:ret4 I • 0 0 0 40 0 In :ftt4tMETHYLTERT -BUTYL£TuE r l 1 0001 8WlHfOREE J 4100 17D207" 1400 lUl:ntO 0 '0 • 0 14200 HUlOn

BENZENE l0 0 6 I6 'NAFNOne a "000 ,.,12$7'" HOO 2OOS2S~ • 0 0 0 14000 . n : n r tHOE fII" l~ NE O )(IO e 1 0 0 1 51SNRFM lAEE I 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 If711111SUO tOO 10154"2 • 0 • 0 "0400 tmoUOn2 3eem 1113046103 :1

~~ J!.i#pao li °



CIIES. .RISK PROJECT~~~ ------- ---._-

·TABLE 4..28 TRJ RELEASES:

18QalRI fOR REGIO" UI Ir Nonpolnl All Hon Po ln l A Jr Po ln l Ai; olnl W.tw W.t., Unci llnd On.I•• Tot.! 0".1 •• 1ol . / ' o" , I i .• rOl.l OntH. Tol .1DELAWARE CO., PA R ••••• • • Ch,o"l" R••••••••• Chtoolc R••_ Clvonlc R•••••••• Ctvonlc R • • • •• • • • C h ro n lG I R•• • • • • • Chlo"lo Ind••

Ch.mlq.! Hlmt / d i

)\(lENt; (MIXED ISOI .AERS) • I • I) 2. .,110 ur.zntOlUENE • • • 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 I 17"151'1 ••1000 2 0 2 : 1 4 3 0

E tH Y LE N E I II Y CO t HIOJ :2WADWI3OC • 0 • a • 0 • 0 • 0

DIETHANou.u lNE H IO J :2W I lO l I e : lOC f1 • • • • 0 • 0 J7 0

DIE nm . SULFATE l00J2WROl l l l3OC U4 0 • a • 0 • 0 n4 0

C l I . Y C O L ETHEA6 1OOJ2WRO-Il eecc Z2 ItOC!t • 0 • It • • D ~_ .

CHWAOMEHIA I o jE tPO.UI . IZAOl I83OC • )tll m 4Ut5T • • • 0 IN 4Stflll

e EN ZY l O • .. OA JOe I I IO J7 I .1ZAOl t a JOC 111 . :tlklO • 0 • 0 • 0 III U.,~ H01 6107056

DI :CA8A01.1OOINtE J.I ' r' L OXlDE 11I013Tfl&~f • • • III*2 t 0 • • • 0 M!)t

u · ~ 1: J O O O &:)1l11l l

XY l ENE {U IXEO I SOUERS ) l~ues300Ea II'I7t 1t441' *1 »It • 0 • 0 :t22tt Ilflfl

TOlUENE II1Of>OJL.e&300E8 . " . . , HTOl7t 1»11 INIH7 • • • 0 IUoQ rl7ttlll 10N08 714~310

HYDROCHl OR IC f lCID IQO.X2tt l lU.. l & 40 0 1M 0 2M • • 0 2M 0 1M 0

HYOAOOEN f \.VQR I()£ I 00 J2 THElli I1140 ( ) 2M • 2M \I • • 1M 0 no 0

Pl -i O S PHOR IC AC ID III03<1T111lU1&400 • • • 0 ~ 0 • 0 • • • 0 7 :10 0

Q. lYCOt. ETHERS II I032T1IDl l l&400 1M 4.U4" 2M 4U2 ••• • 0 HO U12W 710 UHUS4i I )000 13281468

1 ,1. 1 · TAlca.OAO€TlW o IE IOOl8TlDYNHHTO J mt t .~12 • • • • ns.nl)o • 0 • 0 1tlnt 2••• :lul 111255 218171&2

DIETHANou.u lNE 1li 'Oelllf'lCMPOST • 0 • 0 • • II • 0 1NICKel 11lO618PLQ ,4POST • 0 • • • II 0 • 0," H OS P HO R IC A C ID UIO t lI I l l' l CUPOST • 0 • a • II II 0

: 1U lf UA IC A CI D 111081BPl .Cl,II>OST • II • II • 0 0 •.2 .<4-mI I .lETHYl.llENlENE . 11 I 061 f:IPLCMP08T • 0 • 0 • 0 0 I

CYClOl~E :XANE 1 1 1 0 01 8 P l CMPOG f )t'2 II U Q • II II 411 0 1HYDROGEN FLUOR IOE 111 061BP\ . CMPOST "'1 0 • 0 • 0 0 •.•1

: 1TH'r 'LENE 1O() ( j 'BPlCMPOST 11 4 0 IIU 0 • 0 0 12$7

I 'AOf 'YlENE 111061Bf 'l CM POST 1 I J7 0 XlM 0 • • f . J 44ai°1

IJ ..IMONlII 1110 61BPlCI .APOST 1'1 0 11••• 0 Mf71 0 0 HUI

M.~IET l-IA Io jC t. 1 1 I 0618P l C I . A 1 ' 0&T I • 0 2M linn • II 0 M

XYLENE (U IXEO I $O I. IE R S } 111 061BI't C I . A l 'O&f - Jto~. 4Q un • 0 0 • • • • " « I ITH'r'L .BENZENE 1 1 1 0 6I6I'l C I . A P0 6'T NI 10 ) 1 ( ) 1 1 t2 21 " • II 0 au lO$U.

TETAACHI.OOOETHYlENE 11 I 061BP lC I . A PO ll T 45 ""74 • 0 • 0 0 • • "U14

10 l..UENE t o o e I BP lCMPOST - IIIOSilI 4*l . , . . . • 0 0 - 4)) .4"

1 .2 ·Dt <.. 'H lOROeTHAIo jE 1 1 I0 6I8PlCJ .\P0 61F ,)3 14:r7Tl:1 • 0 • • 0 III 14mn

NAPHTH.oLE" 'E 111068P lCI .APOS T •• • - • 0 • 0 0 •• • ~UC!HYL TEA f·BUTY \. EHlER t 1 1 0 6 I l P l CMPOST )t u'aw ~ 104414 • • • 0 0 2M2 IU14,,.,

OENZENE 100& tBP l C l . A P O S T • • • • • 1~ t 04 41 . 21 ~ I 0 0 - U11S,., I 1oeat3 3151115e s

ISU l.Fl JAIC ·AC I.O tl lOt~GH.. INOUS • • 0 • • • 0 • • • 0 ~ 0

/ \A ETHYL ETHYL KETONE 1 1 1 0 1ISlOHllNOVG 210 7ur 2.aDO 709'" • 0 • 0 ' . ~ $ G 71nal

TOlUENE 1 0 0 1 3 £ f.I O ~I N [ )U S , . . ~ nOOl IOS)o)J • 0 • 0 MOOt 114 , " '

p o o oe a



CIIESTER RISI( PROJECT

TABLE 4-281 '1 '1 2 TR I FO R R EG IO N III ~I r Noopolnl A lr NonPolnl , \ Ir Point Air Polnl Waler Waler l a n d L A n d On; 'l I. TOlal Oneita Tof.1 Onall. ToI" On.it. TolalD ELA WA RE C O., PA R • • •• • •• Chronic Rd••••• Chroni c Re i ••• •• Chron ic Ril l • • • • • Cnron lc R•••••.•• Chroni c R • • • • • • • • C hr on ic I nd .x

Ch_ ~I • • • 1N.me r:.dlilv In nhNr\ In d • • IIM,,\ Ind••" IIhN,l Ind •• IIbJv. \ I n d • • Il b o I Y ! l IudI'll Sum. Sum.C H R O I .4 IUU IOOl3PNN6YlCOOE 0 II • II • 0 • II • 0HICKEL l QO I3 PN NS Y 1 00 0E • II • II • II • II II C 0 0

~ lJt runic ACIO lOOI JNf1T1l1J l2OOW D (I"

II • 0 ,0 (I II

MlI . IOWA ll IOl3NR1I1Ul?QOW • II nw 0 , 0 • II 11W II 1700 0

rtiO SP Ho nlC A CI O 1 0 1 3 1 C NCROC ONO • 0 • 0 ,II • II

•0

MlI . IONIAI I I J lI C NClm ro .lO ~ II

•II ,

.0 • (I M4.5 0 6~6 0

EH m .EN !: IDOCI IP&LNPBlUEO 1700 0 2~ II • II 0 II . , 0 0 II

PRO rY L~HE ID OCI IPS \ .NPHLU£Q $»Of 0 .100 II • 0 • 0 11100 0 70200 0

C HR OM IU M C OMP O UN D S I 00 Ill -JPOCFROf f i ,II • 1" ! I I I • II • II • In !lll 6 11730

FOAMN .OEHYDE I ~YORl~OCQ 71 .,,' a4 1 (78" • II • 0 II. SoUr. • 11111 54874

tiAr',1 m • •• .EN E lDOC 11~GL " ' n I OOE a nuz • 221U • 0 , 0 1 O luaOU IY L UENlY L t'lm'A lAH 1 00 6 I CMlI.I.I'II00 e ~ nl2 2iO 22112 ,

••3 II 0 : 1 0 $ HI" SHi allOIlJ

FR EO N II I lOOI4I .ACClNOQC~) ' 71 1 0 0 ~fl 0 0 II 0 0 0 160 ~4l

I . 1 ,1 ' TRICHI . O ~OE 'l HmE l00l~ t .ACaNOQCllO 760 un so 25 0 ••'50 • 0 • 0 ,.!OC> 19U9to 1750 1070143

CQI 'P ER C () IJ PC X lN O S IOO l3 1 1RC 6T e6 1E e • 0 I e l l )U2J7 • 0 • II 'Ill 1d$ZJ7 t03 3115:l31

1.1. ·lRICHlOllOETI~mE lOOIu \ I JNOS2AACE 1100 2 1 " " • 0 ,0 • 0 • • • • 21""

AG E lONE lOO I5RBNO S :!RA Cf 1700 )o1~ot • 0 • 0 a II 1 7 0 0 \.,14" 2800 518108

X Y LE NE ( MIX ED ISOMER S ) l0 0 23SNTRV231 1 .11 0 0 .100 )8)4C 0 0 • 0 .,00 ,;aua

TO lUENE I 00 '1 3 S N T RY 2 l lM I D II 1100 $401&1 ,Q

•Q 1100 ~~O7',) 10200 577110

METtfANCt lOOI~c sTMcacno a34 ~S14 latH ~K!o01 0 0 0 0 Its2t S~OtI 141528 5 1 6 0 8 1

OIiI\Jty~ t ' 1 1 1H~ATE lOOZOS6CHI .H8PO'o 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 01.1" I II YL ME r f l A Cn ) 'l A rE l 0 0 2 I 1 S SCHM. 8PO~ 1'N4 UfOOI • \lot 0 4) 0 a ~ UTI" 2"6 857116

TOlUENE IOO l4NTRN l 1 1COO 11171 I~)H 0 0 • 0 0 0 lin 10263" 11578 1026386

1.1.1· Tn lCHLOf lOETHANI ! I 0 01 a . T lNSMARP l : n £ O ••nu UOt .nu. 0 0 • 0 U$O IIb)U, 5850 1 1 5 2 4 , ( 8

tilCl(EL UIOleoC l1NNPENN II 0 • 0 • 0

"0 0 G

1 0 0UE l J E l 0 0 I 0 0CHNHPENN 0 0 1002 ' ' '21 0 0 0 0 1002 ••••1 .1 ,1 ' HlICHLOf lOETHoVlE l00lf IBCHNNPENN .. • 0 Gt4 1I2tOOJ 0 a 0 0 Gt4 1f','IOOJ nee 11168'0

N,8UTYLA lCOHO l 1 0 0 I 4 ZN r H 1'2(00) • 0 • a ' . 0 0 D, ,

TRJ RELEASES'

~~'\9

' " Plloe 7



CHESj,1 ~ISK PROJECT

TABLE 4·28 TOXlCITYDATA:

1 ~1 l2 T R I F OR R EG IO N I II R.f.,eoo. Conf\deoa. Re(., et)(l. Cane.,. W.III~I RI O CPF

OeLAWARE CO., PA 00" 6\awm.n1 00•• PotlMC;Y' of Ind•• I rld••

Cb,m!91! NtIJ!!T fl lC HlO O OE TH Yl E NE 1110t3EtlGll . INDUS 0 0.011 c·b2 0 1.2477125

ACE10NE '1 IO ,~O t" INOUS 0 ,1 lOw Ir. 0 7 0

M ET HY l I SO O UT Yl K ET ON E 11 I013ON0It .J NOUG c.os ~fE " / JT 0 U 0

S UlfU RI C A CI D I I )( ) 1 3 6C T f l.4 11 iOOE 0 0 0 0

T Ol UE NE O nS O CY A NA T !, , Ll IX E D I S C1 1 I0 1 3S C TF UJ 60 0 £ 0 0 0 0

OIOf. .OA a .AETfWfE ,1 11 0 U6 CT F U I I iO O E O.Derr«Ium if. 0.0 076 B2 .2 1 .10303 :S 6

HVOROCH.OA JC ACID I I IO I3SCTTPfAONT 0 0 0 0

S UlfU RI C " ClO I OO I38 Cn P fA O Nl 0 0 0 0

B UT Y L o .E Nl Yl P HT HA lA Te lOOI38CT lPFAONT n .2 low II_ a c I~ 0

CHLOROFORM IOOI36CnPfAONT 0 ,01 I1\«lkJm It. D.OOI!II a :z 0 . 7 1 .7 12HIl<l

S UlfU RI C A CI D l00 , 3WTCCR 0 0 0 0

1,Il,THNn I 0 0 I 3 WTCC fI 0.5~ k. 0 ss 0

2 ·METHOXYETHANOl l00 t3WTCCR 0.00 1 na HEAS I 0 0,07 0

CI I. ·OONE tooe l lONRFNGREE 0 0 ' 0 a

C ~E &O l (M IX E D I SC IA EA SI 1 1 1 011 1 6NRFNOAEE 0 0 0 0

E 1 H Y l E N E OL YCO l I o o e1 6 N il F NO RE 2 t oI gt I ~. 0 140 0

PHENOL l l IO<Il~RFNOAEE o ,e low ~. 0 47 a

SUlrUA'C ACID tooe l6NRfNOflEE 0 0 0 0

'1 ,3 t J l J IAOIENE tooe l6NRFFroAEE 0 0 0 0

CYCLOUE .XANE looe I6HRFNOf\E 0 0 a a1 ,2,4 :TAIUETHYlOENlENE IIIO<I , SIo IHrNOREE 0 0 Q aN.\MOtllA I 1 lO616NAFl i ( 3REE 0 0 0 0

PflOf>YLENE l o o e l6NAFNOREE 0 a 0 0

ETHYlENE! ··' _ ' 8NnFNOnEE 0 a 0 0

U'C CQ I.IPC\JNOS 1 IlO616NRFl iOREE 0.3 modlun ~lo 0 21 0

ME1H~O l 1 1 1 0 0 1 SNRFNo nE E a .e m fd um ~iI 0 36 0

X Y LE NE ( MI XE D I S~ ER S) l l I06 lSNRfNOREf 2 m0d4um ~. 0 14 0 0

ETHYlBEHZENE 1 9 00 1 GNR FNOR E 0 ,1 lOw 1 1 1 1 a 7 0TO I.UI :NE 19Qe19NAFNOREE 0 .2 medI",n loll 0 14 0

CHA(» .A iUI .I C OMP O UN O S l00616NRFl iORE 0 .0 06 IcMo Ir. a O.3~ 0

m l I LI O NY C O UP O. JN O G 111061 i lNRFNOREE 0,(01)4 boo ~. 0 OO?lI 0

l,AEHIYL TEnT·BUTY l ETt- lF .R I 1 1 0 I I 1 SNAFNOREE 0 ,006, . . 0 0.16 0

aWLENE 1IIOCI16NnfloKlnEE 0 0.020 A 0 a~ 41 31 ~

ETHYlENE onos 1 00 61 S NR F NO Il E E 0 1 .0 2 a l 0 o .oo e1 f~

P fi Ot •




1:4BLE 4-28 TOXICITY DATA!

1 QQ 2T Al F OR R EG IO N I II R . I . , e nce Confi e l e nce Re l e , e nce e . ne e { W.!ghl RID ----Pf

DELAWARE CO. , PA 00•• Su t em e n ! Do'. Po te ncy of Index Ind . xF cl

X Y LE NE ( MI XE D 1 60 M E AS ) 1\X )I -4ZN1HP200 c 0 2 m«llum k " 0 14 0 0TO lUENE lQO I 4ZN lIIP2<lOCO Q ,2 m o dl un l III , 0 H 0

E1HYlENF . O LVC OL IOO l 2 I,1ZRa-I 1 8: lO C 2 k lQ I. kla

°1-40 0

'D I E l t iANO lAMINE l0 0 32 MZ AO i I 63 0C 0 0

°0

OIETHYI . SULFATE 1I I<n IMlACHia30C 0 0 0 0GLVCOlP t l£RS lOO32MlRCHIG3OC 0 .0 0 1 n a HEAST 0 0 ,07 0

CHLOAOMF.l I ~E I I IOl : I I , I lRDI I83OC 0 0 0 1 ' C 0 1 .683" '~B EN ZY L CH lO R I D e loo32MlRCHI6JQC

° 0 1 7 B2 0 IH lI I 14674

OECNlROMOOIPHENYI . OX lDE l oo l: n R J )C 06 O <1 H F e tOI I o o o t .1 . 0 0,7 0

X YLENE (MIX ED ISO 'AERS ) 1 0 0 l'oQJ tNBS300EB 2 m ld lu m ~ " 0 140 010lUENE I g ( J 5O JLNBS3 00EB 0 ,2 m ., lu m ~It 0 H 0

H VO nO CH lO RIC A CID 100321 H61116400 0 0 0 0H YO /lO OE N n .UORIDE 1 9O 1 2 T ttB ll I & 40 0 0 0 0 0P HO SP HO fil C A CI D I o o . : r i THBLL l6 4 00 0 0 I) 0GLYCOl . EHtEI lS I O O 1 2T II BL lI & 40 0 Il -OOlr - . HEAST 0 0.01 0

1. 1 .1 ' IA ICHL Ono E1 ~ IANE lo o I6TlD 'l'N4THTO 0 .00 / III " ,hJ f rom "• • • nd 1• •• •• .•1 0 03 0

DleTHANOlAMINt ; . l 0 06 la 1 ' lCMPOS l 0 0 0 0NICKEL 1006IDP lOAPO$H 0.02 mdJtIl ~. 0 1 .4 0P HO S I'I \O R IC A CI D 1006 1 i 3 f' lOAPOS l 0 0 0 0SV t. fUR IC ACID 100 6I8PLCMI>OS H 0 0 0 0I,2 .4 .TAIME1HYlDJ :NlENE I G OCII8Pl Cl.4PO $ I 0 0 0 0CVCLOHE)WIE lOOGll lP lCUPOSl 0 0 0 0H ~ DR O <l EN F LU O RI DE 10001I JPLCMPOST 0 a 0 0

ETHYlENE l006IOPLCMPOSI 0 0 0 0PfIO I 'Y lENE IllilC IlaPlCt.lPOST 0 0 0 0AMMOO lA 1 0 0 6 I Bf 'L CM P OS T 0 a

°0

MEtHANCt . I e oe I BPl C M PO ST 0.6 mea4um ~" 0 3S 0xn EN E [M IX ED I SO ME RS ) I o o e I D PLCMPO S T 2 m e di um III . 0 I~ O aErHYI .E!ENZENE I 0 06 I BPlCM PO ST 0 .1 I o o o t ult

°7 0

IE . U \ACH\.OOOE !I 'IY l.EN E I l lq6 lDP lCUPOSl 0.01 mlldl"" , kl1 0,052 c-b2 0,1 D.26J051~TO I.U tNE .e oe I ilPL CM PO S II 0.2 mlld lum ~/o 0 1 . 0

Un l lOI tOETHANt : I l I 0618P lCUPOST 0 O J)QI B .2 0 0 .1 1 4 6 1 0 0NAPHHf.ALENE lOOOl0P1 .CMP06T 0.004 na ECAO: ~U t .• • • • • • • • _11t rsa 0 0 ,28 0~ tE TH Vl T ER r -eu m . E ' I (E~ I 0 0 0 1O Pl CMPOS l O .C lO4 rIA 0 O.3S 0BENZENE I go o I B P1 -CMPOSl 0 0,010 A Q O .24 131U~

S U lf UR IC A C ID I 0 0 1 9 1 0l t.INOVG 0 0 0 0I o IE lH Y l E T HY l KHON!! lOOt3eN0t i.1NOU6 0.8 kM 1 1 1 1 0 42 0

lOlUENE 10( 1)BN( )HlINOUS 0.2mdlnl II. 0 I~ 0

(j - p a o e o S' . , ."~

,-1",1'

'I.



CIlES"'~'.RISK PROJECT

TABLE 4·28 TOXIC ITY DATA :

18;2 ml FOR REGION III RIIf.,enoe Conlldeno. R.I.,.nc:e Canc;., W.!ghl RI O CP FDELAWARE CO. , PA 00•• 8t.t.m.nl Do•• Pot.ncy 0 1 Ind•• Ind••

I Hew ~I·'yt (CPfl Eyld,OSI ' 00" OIU!CHln(llAA ! 90I JPNN6'! ' tOOOE 0 0 0 0

NICKEL 1901lPNN6YIOO( tE 0 ,0 2 n .O <I Iu rn I t loa 0 ,,~ 0

sururuc ACID IOOl:IN n U " - A I i 1 0 0W 0 0 0 0

,," .0.4001.0 . 1 0 ( 1 1 3 1 - 1 TH lA I : IOOY I 0 0 0 0

P HO SP HO RI C A CI D '. .'~~ 0 0 0 Q

AMMONIA 11133.CI'lCAO~CI 0 0 0 0

EltI 'i1.EN E. 1 o o e 1PS lNPBlUEB 0 0 0 0

P f lOpnENE 19OG1 P ll lNPBlUe6 0 0 0 0

C HA OM IU U C OI.tPOUNOS .9013THPOCf 0 ,0 0& b oo .It 0 0,35 0

FORI,l~YOe I ~Nt lA tA2OCO 0 ,( m - edIurn kill 0 14 0

NAPffT WI•.£HE I o o e . c ; N O l .. M R 1 00 E O ,Q O . I /III ECAO: 1 \1&1I•••_ .menl 2m 0 028 0

B UtY l ~ I:N lY l PH Ttw .AT E l~ tCNOU.lRIOOE 0,2 Ia9f ~lt OC 1 4 o..

!'A EO N 1 13 IOOl4UCQNOQCRQ 3 0 l ow kill 0 2 1 0 0 0

1. '.1 .1RICHlO~ETI ;mE \ 1lO14MCQNOI tCOO 0.09 •.•• wrld rlMl kll a n d " ,. .. .. 0 6.3 0

COPPEn CC l.(PCUt.tlS i9013HACSTe6IEQ I 0 ,0 06 " ' t dI um Jrll 0 0.35 0

l.l ,1 -TAtD« .OROETHANE 1I IOI6Aat .oS2RAC O .O G 1 1 1 I w id Itom Ir lI a nd r -I 0 8,' 0

ACETONE ' I IOI6R~2I \AC 0 .1 " "" ~. 0 1 0

X Y LE NE ( MI XE D I SO !.I EA S ) I I IO ' 2 3 6HT AY237 10 11 2 medium 810 o 1 0 \0 o

TOlUEHJ; t Q 0 2 9 6N T RY 2 31M I 0,2 ",edum ~III 0 14

°UETHANO. . 0.6 mdum ~I I 0 ~ 0

DiIllJ'Y~ PHTHA lATE IGO?9SSCHM48~ 0 .1 I o o ¥ Ir" 0 7 0

ME lHY L I ,I E THAC Rv tME l11C129IiSCHl.«1I 0,06 /III I tE"S I 0 5.6 0

T<X .UENE 19014~ rflNTI 'CRe 0 ,2 rM<ium , , ' " 0 I. 0

1, 1 . '·I I~Ir.HlOl 'lOETHANE 1901 a,TTHSM.o .AP l 0 .01 1 011 wI d \rom *11 . n d _1 0 6,3 0

NICI<EL IlIOtll9CtHlPENN Q,0 2 m e di um kill 0 • • • 0

T<X .UI)IE 190 IIl8C~ ffiPf~ 0,2 med ll.ll1l kit 0 '4 0

1 ,I ,I .TRICHlOOOETlv-NE t Q O I /lBcti'lNP~ 0,00 1\& wi d from Ir ll a nd t oN al 0 113 0

NaJTYL N.COHO l 1 I I0 1 4 lN t H P 2OOC O 0" I o o ¥ ~" 0 1 0

pIQ<I.





CHE~ "a RISK JPRO}ECT

. TABLE 4-:2$1 992 TR I F O R R EG IO N I II

OELAW '-R E CO., PA SlC

Ch ,m i • • • 1 N t! !D ! F ty ll ll x I O f EKlllbXYLENE i"UXEO ISOMEnS} 1IlO14lNTHP?OOCO ZENIHt PAOOUCla CORP. 200 ~"'Ef\CE OR 1Q()14 A5TCN oaAVlAflE 30S:/ 16 ·7600,62614

TOlUENE 11lO14.lNTHP2OOCO ZOHIH PAOOUCIS CORP. r oo CQ,I".ERCE 00. lllO14 ASTON OEl..AWhIlE JQbll6 ·l 50 0IS 26 14

ETHYLENE GlYCOl "'Ol 2U lAOHa3OC PPO I~. INC. 1&30 COlUU81A AVE. 19O12 R.:llcnon oa •••W•••AE )oS'11l ·7611137 21143

DIEHIIINOl.AMtlE· ' IlOl 2MZA~l a3OC PPO I~. INC. 1&30COlUMelA A~. IQ032 R.:llCOOFT DaAW ••••s : )05310 ·161637 2843

DIEIHYl SULFATE I ~MlR~ I&3OC PPO INC. INC.. 1a30 COllJUIllA, AVE.. '\1032 fOlCROFT DElAW•••RE J\ l!>3HI ·1611531 2843

OLYea. ETHERS' IlIO:W.IlACHla3OC PPO IND. INC. 1&30 COlUUBIA AVE. lQ032 FO..CI¥)fl oaAWARE )05.:)I~ ·75I 531 26 0Cl

~LOAOMETHANE IIlOl2MIA~III.3OC PPO I~. INC, I&XlCOlUUBIA AVE. lQ032 FOlCAOf 'T o El..AWAJIE 306 . 110 ·7 51 al l 2 84 3

8ENZYl Oi.,OHIDE l1lOl2MlROWI3OC PPO It~.INC. 11130COlUU81 .•••.•••E. ID032 FOlCAOFT oa, •••W•• •RE )0&;110 ·161eJ721143

oECABFlOMOOIPHEN'I'l. OXIDE IIlOIJTA&COtlOOWF TRIi AO:lU1BrrlON COIlP. 6OOW. fRONT 6T. IQ()I3 CHESTER DEl.AW•••RE !lO!.X() .757230 10&2

XYLENE (1.41)(100I>Ol.lER9) 1Q()5OJlN9S300EB JUlIAN B. 8l.EVlN CO. INC. 300 E. BAl Tlt.AOAEAve. 10050 LANSDOWNE DElAWARE 3\l~ ,161000 WOQ

TOlUENE l1lO5OJLNB03OOEB JUlWol8. 81.EVlN CO. l/lle. 300 E. 8All1l.1OR E AIlE. 111060 u.NSOOWNE O=. •••WARE 305000 ·7511lOO 26Q8

HYDROOLORIC •••CID IlI032nal16400 ~ COUPANIE8 I~OEl"'AAOR. 111032 FOlcoon 08.AWARE 3Q&l43 ·761&40 2& o C2

HYORCXlEN ~LlIOfHOE IlKI32lHBU 16400 BUllEN COUP~IES 1&40 OELMAR OR. liI032 fQChOfl 08.AWAAE 3Q~3 .1616402&42

PHOSPHORIC ACID IOOlUHeU.!64<lO auLlEN COUPANIE8 I~OELMAROR. 111032 FO..COOfl Ol'.lAWARE 3Q5:}43 ·1611>40 2&-12

01.YCXlI;ETHERS IIlOl2 TI-S.L 111..00 DULlE.N COUPANIE9 1840 DEU.IAA OR. 1\1032 fQ.CAOFI DElAWARE. 3O!>.lU ·761640 2&42

I. I. 1·1RICH..OAOETlIAHE. 1Q()I61LDY)HTIITO TELEDYNE. PACIWlINO 4TH• •TOWNS~O ST8. 111014 QiE6TER OfL'WIIRE 30!030 ·76.2160 ).IW

OIETH.t.NOl.AMIHE 1\lO!IIBP\.CUPOSTRBP EXPLORATION ••OL l/lle. POST RO. 10081 TRAINER DElAWARE ~1lOO ·162400 2111I

NICXE.L I\lO!IlePlC:UPOSTRBP EXPlORATION ••Of.. INC. POBT ro . 11ilO81 Tfl~NEn OEL•••W•••RE 3Q41lOO ·71>2400 291I

PtlOSP'IOAIC ACIO 1000IBPlC:UPOSTABP EXPLOIlAtION , OL l/lle. POST FIO. IIilO8I lRAlNEIl oa, •••WARE 3Q41lOO ·76 24 00 2 II t I

SULrURIC ACID IOOOlBPlCUP06TRBP EXPlOR .•••ION" os. INC. POST RO. 10061 TAAINER ou •••W•••E ~I<OO .1&2400 2911

1.2.4· TRIr.AE1HYl8ENZENE 1008IBPLDoIP09TRBP E.XPLORATION•• Ol. INC. P06f RO. IIlOI5I TRAINER oa, •••W.4I1E 3IH1lOO ·762400 :xiII

CYClOtJr:XANE 11lOO1BPlCUPOSTRSP EXPlORATION" OL INC. POST 00. 10061 lRAlNER DB.AWAnE moo o ·762400 10II

f'YnRCXlEN FlUORIOE IIlOI5,BPLCMPOstnop E)(PLOAAlION' Ol.IHC. 1'06T AD. I\lO!II TnAlHEA DELAW,o.AE ~1lOO ·7524(\() 291 I

ETHYlENE lllOl5lBP1.o.tPOSrnop EXPLORATION I OL INC. POST no. 1\lOOI TR.~NfR Or1.Aw .••RE :w .. roo ·162400 21111

PROPYLENE IIlOCIBPlC:UPOliTRBP EXPLORATION' at. INC. 1'0Sl RO. IIlOOI TFtAlNER DElAWARE ~QOO · /62400 :xi II

MAI.400IA l II06I BPl CM~TROP EXPlOOAr lON' at. l/lle. POST no, IQO&I T~~NeR OBJ,WAAE 31 1 - 1 1 l O O ·752~ 1011UETfl.t.NCl. IIl()jllBPlCMPOGrnsp EXPLOAATION ••Ol. INC. P OS T R O. 10081 TRAINER OEl•••WARE ~r oo .762400 101 I

XYLENEI~I)(ED ISQI,IERSI fllOOlBPLCUPOSJRBP EXPLOfIATION • ot. INC. POST RO. 19061 TRAINER DELAW•••RE 3~1'OO ·162400 71111

ElIlYlBENlENE 100018PlCMPOSTABP EXPLon •••TION' OL INC. POST RO. lllOOI Tf,AlNER oa •••WAAF. »41lOO ·n?400 1011

TETRACHl..OAOEfHYlENE 1\lO!IIBPLCMPOStRBP EXPLORA,TION' 0" INC. POST RD. 10001 TRAINER DB AW"RE »-COO O ·7£a400 1011

10lUE.NE l006IBPLo.t POSTROP EXPLORATION' os, INC. POST RD. lllO15l HI AINt;n DEL•••w . ••Re JIHQOO ·762400 :xl••

1 .< -01 0 ttOHOE 1tIlINE 11ilO81!lPlOolPOSTR8P EXP\.OR• • •T ION' OL INC. POST no, IIlO6I HIAINER oa •••WARE 311 -I\100 ·7&24«1 2g11

NAPHIHAlENE I 006 I BPlC:UP06TA8r EXPLORATION' OL INC. POBTRD. 1\1061 TRAINER OElAWARE JIH IlOO ·7&2400 2111\

METHYL TEAT-8UT'I'l. E1HER IIlOOIBPLCMP06TRBP EXPlORAtION" OL l/lle. post RO. I\lOCi. TA~NER OElAWME 3~1lOO ·7~ 400 2911

BENlENE 11lOI519PtQ,lPOS1AOP £') (P lOAATlON' 01. INC., POST no. 10001 H\AJNER ca..•.MI E ;)Oo4QOO .7624(() 21111

suuuruc ACID 11I01:DlOH..IHOUB BOEING DEFENSE ' 6PACE GROUP 6TEWi\RT AVE.., INOUSHIiAl HWY. IglO3 RIDLEY PARK OHAWARE 30~'61 ·1611lJ2 :3121

"'E1HYL ETHVl KETONE IllOlltlNOI-L lNOUtl OOEINOOEFENSE ••6PACEOAOUr 8TEWMH Ave. t.lNQuSTRIAt, I-fWY. '11103 RIDLEY PAIl/( OI:J.AWA.RE lOS26t ·1610)2 3771

TOlUEN!: IlIOllIV'tGH..INDUS 90£100 DEFENSE l 6PACE OAOlJP 6TEWART A\lE. , INCUSTAIAl fMlY. 111103 RIDI EY "AlII( D8.Aw .••nE 311s"SI ·1510)2 :1121

1 ' 1' 0' 2



CHESTER RISX PROJECT

TABLE 4-32

HAXlHUH CARCINOGENIC RISJ:S IN AIR

CHEMICAL MAXIMUM RISK-BASED CARCINOGENICPREDICTED LEVEL RISK·CONCENTRATION" (ug/mJ)(ug/m3)

chromium VI 0.0047 0.00015 3E-05

benzene 2.8 0.22 lE-OS

gasoline 0.19 S~10E-OS 9E-06(uq/m3)-t ••

1,3-butadiene 0.044 0.0064 7E-06

cadmium 0.0067 0.00099 7E-06

arsenic 0.0022 0.00041 5E-06

diesel 0.24 1.70E-05 4E-06(ug/nxl) " ••

crotonaldehyde 0.012 0.0033 3E-06

acrylonitrile 0.042 0.026 2E-06

formaldehyde 0.3-0 0.14 2E-06

vinyl chloride 0.025 0.021 lE-06

*Value represents the maximum carcinogenic risk posed-by anindividual chemical at a specific location.

*.Value represents the unit risk for this compound.



·'

•'AB~ 4-33

D%IXTnIl.ow-cureD 'I'Bll.n'.r' IIIJ.n

CHEKICAL KAXDlUM RISK-BASED HAZARDPRl!:DI CTED LEVEL QUOTIENT·CONCEN'l'RATIOH (uq/~)(uq/,r)

byd ro qan chl o rid e 17 7.3 2 . '

acrolain 0.33 0.021 ,1.6

2-••tboxyethanol 19 21 0.9

.er~ (inorqanic) 0.061 0.31 0.2

.Val u e re pre . e nt. the •• xiau a no n-cance r thraat, •• pre d ie te d by

the Hazard . Q u otie nt, po .e d by, an ind ivid u al ch_ical at a. paciti e l oca tio n.



~iTxa RI8X PROJZ~

'tUz.. '4-3.

JQ.XDWI( llA!'IO 07 P~IC1'XD COJICJDi"1'U'l'IO ••

OJ'aITDU POLLt1TUTa !'O

D'l'IOnL ~IDlT AIll QtTJ.LIn ITUDARDB

CHEKlCAL KAXIKt1M NATIONAL . RATIO··PREDICTED AMBIENT AIR

CONCENTRATION QUALITY(uq/r)· STANDARD

(u q/r) *

carbon .onoxide (1 hour) 1960 40,000 0.05

carbon .onoxide· (8 hour.) 675 10,000 0.07

l e ad (qu arter) 0.11*** l.~ '0.08

nitroqen d io xid e (annu al ) 32 100 0.3

ozone (1.hour) **** 235 -PH-IO ( : iZ" hour.) 70 150 0.5

PM-IO (annual) 14 50 0.3

. ul fu r d io xid e (3 ho ur. ) 372 1300 0.3

. u lt ur dioxide (24 hour.s) 170 365 0.5

.u l fu r d ioxid e (annu al) 41 SO O.S

.Pl e a.e retar to Tabl e 4-31 tor a d etail ed ' explanation ot eachstandard.

**Val u e re pre .e nt. the ratio betwe e n the zaxiau a pre d icte dco ncentration and the National Ambie nt Air Q u al ity .Standard.

**.The .o de le d co nce ntratio n tor l e ad represe nt. an annu alaveraqe l e ve l , rather than A q ua rte rl y co nce ntr ati on . Althouqhthe annu al ' avarage l aval was co mpare d to the qu arterly .tandardtor lead, inaccu racia. ral ate d to .u ch a co m-p ar is on a rein.iqnltl e ant in tha contaxt ot this .tudy •

••• *Ozona va. not eval u ate d in tha air m o d al inq .xe rci.a.

J"



CHESTER COUNTY RISK PROJECT

TABLE 4-29

SUMMARY RANKING FOR.

TOTAL ONSITE RELEASES •I Facility Name City " ~ : : ~ ~ ~ t ~ j ~ : ! !; ~ . , ~ : ! ~ 7 : ~ ': :

....l . .. . 1 . . . . : .. . -. . : : :. S u : : : ;m . I = _ _ . . . . . : . : . R : : . I! . :. : . :I ; : .v• H e a r dZ8 PENliSYl VANI); I.A"'C~INEWO;;1AST~ 0 0

?100C(,'lP r:~E~E~ 5 1'7731)

25 HYOI\OL O1E,",IC"J..::O. y~ 818 S04814

25 c::lN~ .EUl.Aco;;P. ",,,RCUS 1-10O( 416 9GOt3

?4 )"(CGE£I<ousrRIES NC. AST~ 1710 lD7443

ZJ HAACASTCO. !He. o-tESTER ,~ 36~2'31

Z2ORe tIO.INC. UPLA'40 2100 5181~

2' £.EtfTRYP4.WTTE01. OAABY 10200 S77110

20 OJSTOoI CQl.lPOU"-IOING INe. ...sT~ '8521 5.88081

11. ESSCHBJ 00. ESSJw.3T~ 2965 657111

Ie ~TH AAlEfUCASI.ICA OiESTSl 1700 0

17 IP<TEHNAT:cNAl. ENV". . l.OPE co AST~ '167' 102S38tl

16 Q.lnON PRECISION. N. ClJnON HEIOH7S sa.so 1152 •.••

15 BUCHI'IN IN D . Q.lnON HElQI-{lS n1Ie 1718~

,. 2:E.N1" n- l PRCOUcrs CORP. ASTON

II CONCO'lO 8EYEJ1AOE 00. CONCOROIll.l...E

12 PPG IND.•• c. FOL.C~11 iRSACOJlSmON CQAP. OiESTB'\

10 sVUAN 6. SlEVlN CO.INC. ~5DOMIIE

118UJ. EN CX)t,4PA.'"llES FOlCROfT

a T8..EDYNE PACKAGNG OiESTEA

7 BP E.X?LO~ TlON .'. ()I~ . , c . T.~.ER

5 EPSLON PROOS. CO. ~RCUS 1-10O(

S BO£ING DEFENSE 6 SPACE GA( R1Cl.£Y PARI(

4 I ' OAMEXLP . EDDYSTONE

3 SCOTT PI' J>ER co. ~STE!I

2 W1TCO CORP. TRAlHEA

I SUN REFINING & MARI<FriN<: ex UAACUS HOO(

Teta' On,ite

Chr~'jic ;ilge. and' H•• iau.i M •••

R.lal;v. H.ur1o

1773"1)

5-UH

elHl~l

li1«3

35 5 23 7

518108

snn(l58&081

s51ne~~1 "102&388

1152«8

171&830

46000 20234JO

50 0 4£ 0

1107 51070&$3000 ~31na2

108801 7889310

3000 13257~

",256 211117182

'OatD3 31S70~5. 70200" ·········_···················0··· .. ············ ..............••...

la4400 38"308155

:n8N .31l1i61n

243&00 "1!~'

141046 8701448812

3&80&8 17'~'03:3

2023430

2568245

5107115553'~2

76&8310

, :12il74~

21017182

31S70U5

lSneS27

3~81SS

3071J51n

.'5~'B708UU82

171304t 1Q.3:3

KEY

•



·APPENDIX II

REFERENCES



REFERENCES V. 0.2

Amdur, M.O., Doull, J. and Klaassen, C.D., Edi~ors, 1993.

Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, The Basic Science of Poisons.Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., NY.

SP oil Groundwater Quality Data. February 1994.

Calabrese, E.J.t Gilbert, C.E., and H. Pastides, (Edi~ors),1989. Safe Drinking Water Act! Amendments, Regulations andStandards. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea.

Doull,'J., C.D. Klaassen, and H.O. Amdur, 1986. Casarett andDoull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Third Edition.MacMillan Publishing Company, New York. '

Energy and Natural Resources (ERR), 1988. A To~al Exposure andRisk Assessment for Drinking Water Contaminated with VolatileOrganic Compounds. ILElffi/RE-AQ-87/22. November.

Foster, S.A. and P.C. Chrostowski, 1987. Inhalation Exposures to

Volatile Organic Contaminants in the Shower. rCF ClementAssociates, Washington, ,D~_C..!.._or Presentation at the 80th_Annual __Meeting of APCA (The Association Dedicated to Air PollutionControl and Hazardous Waste Management), New York, June 21-26.

Gross, 1994. Personal Communication: June 1994. Carol AnnGross. U.S. EPA. Region 3. Water Division.

Hall, G.M, 1934. 3rd printing, 1973. Ground Water inSoutheastern Pennsylvania. 255p., 7 pIs., geol. map, scale

1:380,160.

Hawley, Gessner G. 1981. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary.Tenth Edition. Van Nos~rand Reinhold Co., New York.

Howard, P.H., 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposu~eData for Organic Chemicals. Volume 1. Lewis Publishers,

Chelsea.

Layton, D.W., et aL, 1987. Deriv1ng aIlo",,'ableaily intakes forsy~temic toxic~nt~ lacking chronic toxicity dat~. Regula~ory

Toxicology and Pharmacology 7:96-112.

~ewis, Richard J., Sr., 1992. Sax's Dang2rous Propertien ofIndustrial Materials. Eighth Edition. Van Nos~rand Reinhold

":0., Ne•••.ork.

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report ITR-267.

Olson, E.D., 1993. Natural Resources Defense Council. Think

Before You Drink. The Failure of the Nation's Drinking Watersystem to Pro~ect Public Health. september.



Pennsylvania :JepartlDent of Environmental Resources (PADER), April_

1994. Commor ..ealth of Pennsylvania 1994 Water Quality

Assessment; J05{b) Report. Bureau of Water 'Quality Management . ...

PECO RCRA Facility lnvestigation Wo~~ Plan. April 1994.

Rice, 1993. Personal cOl!llllunication:March 1993. Eugene Rice,

Ph.D. USEPA Headquarters. Microbiological Treatment Branch.

Rundell, 1994. Personal Communication: october 1994. Bruce

Rundell. U.S. EPA. Region 3. Hydrogeologist, Superfund Branch,Technical Support Section.

Sax, N.L and R.J. Lewis, Sr., 1989. Dangerous Properties of

Industrial Materials. Seventh Edition. Van Nostrand 'Reinholdcc., New York.

Sittig, M., 1985. Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and

Carcinogens. Second Edition. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge,New Jersey.

Sittig, Marshall, 1991. Handbook or Toxic and Hazardous

Chemicals and Carcinogens. !'hird Edition. Noy~s Publications,,Park Ridge, New Jersey.

States 305(b) Water Quality Reports. 1989-1991. Delaware,

District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West

Virginia.

Sun Oil Refinery Work Plan. September 1993.

United states Department of Commerce (USOOC), 1990. Economic and

Statistics Administration. Bureau ot the Census. Summary Tape

File J on CD-ROM. '

united .·tates Drinking Water Standards Division (USDWD), 1991-Final Dra-tt for the Drinking Water Criteria Docwnent on Radon.

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Oftice of water.

ICAIR Program No. 1524. June 14, 1991.

United states, Environmental Protactien Agency (USEPA), 1986a.

Supurtund Public Health Evaluation Manual. EP'\ 540/ 1-B6/060.

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

USEPA, 19860. Pesticides in Ground Water: Background Docu:ne:1t.

EPA 440/6-86-002. May.

USEPA, 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I:

Human Health Evaluation Manual. Interim Final. Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. December.

USEPA, 1989b. Exposure Factors Handbook.

Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.

May.

Office of Health and

EPA/600/8-89/04J.



U5EPA, 1989c. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

USEPA, 1989d. Surface Water Treatment Rule. 54 Federal

Register. June 29.

USEPA; 1990a. Health Effect AsseS5m~nt S11~~ary Tables {E~ST}.

Office of Dergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

USEPA, 1990b. Drinking Water Quantification of

Effects for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether· (MTBE) .

Criteria and Assess~ent Office, cincinnati, OH,

Office of Drinking Water, ECJ..O-CIN-D023..

USEPA, 1990c. RCRA Orientation Manual. EPA 530-SW-90-036.

Toxicologic

Environmental

prepared for

USEPA, 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supple~ental

Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors. ottice of Emergency

and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. OSWER Directive 9285.6-

03. March.

USEPA, 1991b. Lead and Copper Rule. 56 Federal Register 26460-26564. June 7.

USEPA, 1991c. National Pri~ary Drinking Water Regulations;

Radionuclides; Proposed Rule. Part II. 56 Federal Register

33050-33127. July lB.

<"

USEPA, 1991d. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission

Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors ot Ozone. Volume

I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources. EPA 450/4-91-016.

May 1991.

USEPA, 1991e. RCRA Prioritization System Scoring Summary. July.

US EPA , 1992 a.

Applications.

Enviromnental,

January.

Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and

Interim Report. Office of Health and

Assesment, washington, D.C. EPA/600/B-91/011/B.

USEPA, 1992b. National Study of Che~ical Residues in Fish.

Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. EPA 82J-R-92-

008. Sep~em.ber.

DSEPA, 1993a. Tctal Coliform Rule. Learner's Guide for Public

Water -Supply System Regulatory and Health Officials.

USEPA, 1993b. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST),

Annual Update. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,

Washington, D.C. EPA/540-9-93/0S8. March.

USEPA, 199Jc. Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study. EPA 420-

R-93-00S. Ap~il.





February.

We stingho use El ectric Co rpo ratio n, 1993. D el a~a re Co u ntyResource Recovery Facili~y, Noise Report Summary. October.



APPENDIX III

EPIDEMIOLOGIC' INF0RMJt.TION



Aqe -ad jyste d incid e nce and po rtal ;ty rate s fo r ' ChesterCity. D e la~are Co unty and ad Jace nt co yntie s. '

~hp e ncl ose d tabl ss d escribe the cance r e xpe rie nce to r

re sl d e nts o t Che ste r City, D e l aware Co u n~y and ad jace ntc=~ntie s. Tha ~ivc canc&r sites l iste d to r m al e s and te m al e sre pre se nt abo u t 62 and 58 pe rce nt o f the to tal cance r risk,~espectively. '

, The e l e vate d cance r riSK am o ng m al e s to r IIal l sitescombined" in Che ste r City is characte ristic o t rate s se e nam o ng bl ack m al as ~549.), C~e ste r City co m pare d to 523.2 pe r100,000 Pe nnsyl vanl a bl aCk m al e s). The rate was 2S percentgre ate r than to r al l m al e s in the state (549.3 co m pare d to439.3 pe r '100,000).

A s ign iti ca nt pr opo rti o n ot the m al . cance rs we re lung

and pro state . To ge the r the y re pre se nte d 49 pe rce nt o f theto tal cance r riSK in the co m m u nity. Th. m o st significantcaus. ot l u ng cance r cance r is cigare tte sm o king whichacco u nts fo r abo u t 90 pe rce nt o f al l case s. The re is nokno wn e nviro nm e ntal cau se o f pro state cance r.

Sim il arl y, the cance r risk to r "al l site s co m bine d "am o ng te m al e s in Che ste r City is characte ristic o t rate sse e n am o ng bl ack te m al e . (JSJ.o, Che .te r City co mpare d to

360.3 pe r 100,000 Pe nnsyl vania bl ack te m al •• ) . The rate was5 pe rce n~ l o we r than to r al l te m al e s· in the .tate (353.0

co m pare d to 372.6 pe r 100,000). Lung and bre ast cance rsacco unt to r 44 pe rce nt o f the to tal cance r risk am o ngfe mal .s. The r. i. no kno wn e nviro nm e ntal cau se o f bre ast

canc.r.

The d e ath rat •• re fl e ct the incid e nce rate ' and thesurvival by i nd ivi du al ca nce r. ,. Th. to tal cance r d e ath ratein the state fo r bl ack m al e . was 344 pe r 100,000 sim il ar tothe rate fo r Che .te r City =a1e . (348 pe r 100,000). Whilethe d . ath rat. to r fe m al e s was 198.1 and 187.1 pe r 100,000

to r Ch ••te r City te m al e . and Pe nnayl vania bl ack fe m al •• ,resp.ctively. '



Age-adjusled cancer morlality r ates for Che sl.erCity. Delaware and adjacent counties. and

Pennsylvania by sex. 1989-93

-Che.ler CIl, Del ••• .ra Co. "outcomer, Co. Cheater Co. Pt,n.delphl. c.

.,AUS

A ll Silu 3"&.0 131.0 201.6 2".0 29~.O

Lun,_ lracbe •• etc 127.8 79.8 62.7 M.J 10 I. 9 n.6

Colon-raclum 27.4 21.0 2~.7 2J.0 3Z.0 Z6.&

Pro.lele 47.7 2~.~ 23.7 Z9 .6 30.7 2~.7

Noo- JlodC1dn'. L.1m. D . " 7 . 0 7 . 7 6 . 6 1 . 9 7.9

Lc"kemla 12.2 7.ft 8 . 3 8 . 0 6.6 6.J

n;u ,u.£s

AUSitu 19'U 1~7.0 UI.9 153.0 117.0 147.7

Luo . _ u.cbGO 48.6 3~.6 Z8.~ ZI 'I.Z 39.9 Z9.2

Colon-rectum 16.3 Ift.l 17.8 HI.1 20.6 zs .e

Bre •• t 42.7 JJ.Z 3 0 . 7 30.1 J4.1 29.6

'Hoo- nod,kin'. t." m . U) " . 7 " . 8 6 . 6 ~ .e ~.J

Leukemia " . ft ~.1 " .1 4 . 9 ~.O ~.l

- -

~

6~e-adjusled to lhe 1970 US st an dur d p op ,-s per 100,000 p op ul at ion , . Source; ItA DCj)lil.. o r Ileu8w\



Age-adjusled cancer incidence ratcs for Chesler

City, Delaware and adjacent .counties, and. Pennsylvania by se x. 1907-91

-Cbe.le. en, Del •••• o Co. Wonl,ome'1, Co. Che.ler Co. Phll.dtdpt,l. C, l'e nil---

w.tJ..£S

A n Situ 'M9.2 .lJ.ft 432.2 ~9 .• ~IJ.9 ~

Luna. lI.c:h •• , clo '~.7 86.1 7 2 . " 79 .• I ( 1.6

ColonlJleCJluro ~~.~ M.J M.6 67.6 n.•

P,o.hle lU.1 99.9 106.0 97.J HiG.O

IUdne,/BI.dder • a .s 4 2 . 2 0' 37.• 42.e

l.Jm,honul • • • • rs.z 1$.6 '2.~ 16 .•

•.••k.ml •• .2.7 6 . 8 10.l 7 . S 6.9

. '

RWALES

1 . 1 1 Sll.I J~l.O 366.6 372.7 J70.3 J8~.7 J

LUD4.1I"'~". ala ~.2.&.~ 36.7

J3.'~C.~

Co'~olu •• 4 •. ' • • • • • .7.e 51.J ' 1.0

Br ••• l 'OJ.' '24.2 IJI.9 125.J 1(9.1 II

kJ•••• 'IBI ••••••. '0 .6 I J . B 12.6 • Z . • I~• I

~pbo •••• J.9 '.7 IO.J 9. 8 9.9

lAuk.mhe • • • 9 . 1 6.3 5 . 2 5.J I

lIyl".hl.

J9.J

~.7

ss .•

9~.1

"'.5

~.I

0.1

l . 6

:'> .J

7.J

7 . ' l .

.•.1

6 . 5

0.8

age-adjusled to the 1970 US at an dur d pop.

r ales per J 00,000 popul at ion

f~

Source; PA [kpl. o r IIcollh.



Distribulion of selecled cancers diagnosed amongresidenls of Chesler Cily Irorn 1987-1991

MALES

prostate ---123

Ieu ke mi ua+: •..i2

lytnpb.Oluas- -14

bladder & kidney--4,2

colon & reclum--49

Cesea > 376

72.6~ ol the ·lolal·

. ~21 tot al c ancer s among male r e aide n taSource; PA Depl. o r tt '~h



-t~.~\~l~'~ •

• • •

Dist.r ib ut.io n of se lec te d cancers diagnosed arnong

re stde nt s of Chesler City f'rorn 1987-1991

FEMALES

breasl--I J 1_

lung- -69

leu ke m iaa-r+c

Iymphomes-: -6

bladder &. khJn~J- - t 6

Cases ::: 292

60,1~ ol lhe tolal·

• 466 lolal c eucer s amoDI Iem e le r e stde n t s. Source. I'A Dq ," ,It: uIlh



Ratio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selecled

Populations lo Pennsylvania. 19B7-199J

A LL CA NCERS COMUINED

RaLio I_ Cheater City0 I

2~ ~ Delaw er e Co.

~ Philadelphia Co.

~ trfonlgonlery Co.

E 2 J Chesler Co.

2 5

20

l~

lO

5

o .-. ,- -

(~)I L

(10) I (7) J

Wales Females

Sour cc: PA Ilep al. ot Ilet'\.,



@)" '\ ;;:•...~.•.:r;~",:#t

Ratio of Cancer Incidence Rales for SelecledPopulalions to Pennsylvania. 190"1-1991

LUNG, THACHEA. BRONCHUS

Ratio , • Che at e r City00 f

~ De l awar e Co.

~ r'hileldelphia Co.

~ woulgoluery Co.

E 2 J Cb e at e r Co.

80

60

40

20

78

, (1 ~) .

~~-1---

48

(6)

(20) I I

Males Fe m ales

Source; PA Ilepal. 11)( lIealth.



' ~' : :;;.:;

Ratio of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selecled

Populations to Pennsylvania. 19,07-1991COLON-HECTUM

• Che st er City

~ Delaware CO .

I. • 'KJ( 4K Ir!t Philadelphia Co.

c . s J MnnlgOlnery Co.

E 2 J " C l ~ e ! J l e t Co.

Ratio10

5

0

(5)

(t 0)

( 15)

(.20) f (20)

(25)

8

~

(I)

(11 )

Males Females

. - Source; PA Ilc p t. of 11(", \.





,~~

Ralio of Cancer Incidence Rate s for SelecledPopulations Lo Pennsylvania, 19~7-1991

K I D N E Y / B L A D D E R

2atio5

0

(5) ..

(10)

. (15) ..

(20)

(25)

(30)Males

"

(25)

Females

• Che ate r CU :y

~ Delaware Co.

( ! 1 Philadelphia Co,

I ; : s ] Montloluery Co.

E 2 ] Chesler Co.

. Source; PA Depl. o r I,feat.)



Ratio of Cancer Incidence Rates (or Selecled

Populations to Pennsylvania. 19.87-1991

PROSTATE

Ralio , • Chesler City0 j

~ Delaware Co .

t!] Philadelphia C~.

~ Montgomery Co.,

E 2 l C h e ! l l t e r Co.

25

20

15

10

5

26

OL,-----

Males

Source; J lA Depl. o( Ile e lt h.



Ratio of Cancer Incidence Rates for SelectedPopulations to Pennsylvania, 1967-1991

NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMAS

Ralio I• Cheol~r City0 I

~ lkl.ware Co.

!!hiladelphia Co.

~ LContgorncry C ~ :

C 2 l C h c 9 l e r Co.

o J 01

(20)

(40) .-

60

40

20

58

(40)

(60) I J

}dales Fen) ale a

:-:llurc. . Ilep t , of lie.".



• {t""'~;,I~., :,~- {r

Rat.io of Cancer Incidence Rates (or SeJcc led

Populations to Pennsylvania. 1987-1991LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I• Cbesler City0 I

~ Deillware Co.

~ Philadelphia Co.

I~ I C S l Montgomery Co:

f 2 J Chc5iler Co.

20

o .-1---

(20)

(40)

26

12)

: it, . J 1 ;

t _ ~' f l i tH ! ~ J

(51)(60) I I

Males Females

(3J)

(~2)

S o u r c e ; J J A D e p t , o r H e e l t h .



These ratios ~ere calculated to provide an epidemiologic picture o~the disease burden ot the City ot Cheste.r compared to otherPennsylvania cities. The actual number of deaths L~ thes. selectedcities' populations •••.re cozspa red ••••en a calculated nWllber ordeaths ~or each city. These calculated deaths are the number or

deaths expec~ed from each city's population it ~~at ?opulation h~dt. .l- te same mortality rate as some s~andard population. For thiseX~l'cise/~ purpose, me mortality rates ot the IJh.oleCotnmom.ealth~ere used as the standard. By multiplyinq each city's popula~ionby the Commonwe~th's rates tor each cause of death, the expectednumbe~ tor each cause at death ••.s obtained. This expe.cted n~erwas then divided into the actual number tor each cause ot death percity and ~ultiplied by loot. A number greater than 100% retlec~san excess in·actual deaths over expected deaths. A number less

than loot reflects less actual than expected deaths. And a ratioequal to 100% retlects no ditterence betveen the actual andexpected deaths. For example, the 170t ratio tor deaths .tromhypertension in the city ot Che.ter means that there vere 70t moredeaths from hypert.nsion in Ch••t.: than in the Commonwealth as a

whole. These ratios ar8 only estimates that cannot account for themuiltitude ot tactors that contribute to a particular population's.mortality rate. Thus, caution should be used in interpreting theseratios. Speci!ically, on. cannot determine a cause and e:ftectrelationship trom any ·ot these ratios. However, they do provide.avaluable way ot relatively quickly as.essing and comparing diseas~burdens. For example, the ratio ot 244% tor deaths trom live·disease in the city ot! Chaster Ls red warning tlaq stronglyindicating turther investiqation into this cause ot death in thismunicipality.



Mortality Ratios (1992 Mortali~y Rates)

Bl oo d Pre ssu re

Heart Attack

Stroke

Emphysema

Live r D ise ase

Pnu emonia-Flu

Kidney Disease

r"...

C.hstr

170t

8Jt

149~

129%-

244%

l S 9 - l

Lncstr

109t

86\

96l;

145l;

175\

89'-

122t

sSt

113t

124'

loot'

163t

87'

119t

Phila.

179\

86\

105\

91t

108t

94\

123\

Pbrgh

149\

111\

116l;

136\

108\

134\

lJJt



Rat.io of Cancer Incidence Rates for Selecled

Pop ul al ion s lo Pennsylvaniu. 1987-19·9 t

LEUKEMIAS

Ratio I_ Chester Cily

40 I 26 e l § ! Delaware Co.

~ Philadelphia Co.

a < = "$! 11 I f : \ l Uonlgomery Co:'U r F ,

f 2 j " C h es t • . Co.

(60) J I

MalesFem ales

.20

o 1-----'

(20) ...

(40)

12)

(33)

(~2) (')2)

Sour c e ; PA Dcpt. ot 1l~'L



These ratios ~ere calculated to provide an epidemi~logic picture o!the disease bu:den of the City of Chester compared to ot-~erPenJ'lsylania cities. The actual nl..Ll:.bert deaths in these selectedcities I populations lJere compared with a calculated nUl:l.berrdeaL~s for each city. These calc~lated dea~~s ar~ the number o!

d~a~~s expec~ed from each city's pop~lati~n i~ that popUlation hadthe same !lottality rata as some ~t:.andardpO;l1lL'\tion.Fo!" ':~sexercise's purpose, the i!lortalityrates ot the whole Commonwealt...1-t•••re used as the standard. By multiplying each city's popUlationby t..~eCOlIlJIlonweath'sates tor each cause ot death, t...~expec~ednumber tor each cause ot death •••s obtained .. This expected numbervas then divided into the actual nu.m..beror each causa ot dea.th percity and multiplied by loot. A number greater than lOO~ reflectsan excess in actual deaths over expected deaths. A numbar lessthan lOOt retlects less actual than expected deaths. And a ratioequal to 100' retlects no di!!erence betlJeen tha actual andexpected deaths. for example, ~e 170~ ratio tor deaths fromhypertension in the city ot Chester means that there •••.•. 70% moradeaths trom hypartension in Chester than in the Cocmon•••alth as a

•••ole. These ratios are only esti~ates that cannot account tor themuiltitude ot tac~ors that contribute to a particular population'smortality rate. Thus, caution should be used in interpreting theseratios. Specifically, one cannot datennine a causa and ettectrelationship trom any ot ~~esa ratios. H01Jever,they do provide avaluable way ot relatively quickly assessing and comparing diseaseburdens. for example, the ratio ot 244% for deaths trom liverdisease in the city ot Chester is red warning flag stronglyindicating tu~her investigation into this cause ot death in this

municipality.



Mort:ality Ratios (1992 Mcrtality Rates)

B l o o d Pre ssu ra.

Beart Attack

Stroke

Emphysema

Diabetes

Liver Disease

Pnue:monia-Flu

Kidney Di5.a5e

Chstr

170%

83\

149\

129%

84%

244t

159%

Lncstr

109\

96\

161t

175t

S9t

79%

N r r s t ' W ' n

122\ .

88%

113t

124%

l o o t

163t

87%

119%

Phila'

179\

86%

105t

91\

108t

157%

94\

123\

, . .

•Pbrgh

149\

111\ .

116\'

1J6\

108

134%

1JJ:t

135%

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wangzhicong
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Chester Environmental Risk Study EPA DER 1995

Documents